This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the last days I tried to edit the page about Malcolm David Wanklyn because of a few incorrections that appeared there, namely:
1) that Upholder torpedoed and damaged an "Avieri-class" destroyer (which would be a Soldati-class destroyer) on the same day it sank the Italian destroyer Libeccio. Actually only Libeccio was hit (and sunk), and no other ships. Sources: Uboat.net; Aldo Cocchia, La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 67-68; Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare. La Marina tra vittoria e sconfitta 1940-1943, p. 483 to 489.
2) that Upholder sank Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. Actually, she was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers on 8 October 1942. Sources: Uboat.net; Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 141.
3) that Upholder sank an unnamed Italian submarine on 8 November 1941. Actually, this was Italian submarine Settembrini, that was not hit. Sources: Uboat.net; Luigi Castagna, Navi militari perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 55; Naval History and Heritage Command list
4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was sunk by Upholder in May 1941; actually, Bainsizza was not hit at all. She was sunk by aircraft on 14 October 1941. Sources: Uboat.net; Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 72; Aldo Cocchia,La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 16 to 19.
5) that Upholder (and Wanklyn) sank 128,353 tons of Axis shipping; actually, she sank 93,031 tons and damaged 33,644.
I and user Dapi89 have been discussing, or more properly, fighting on this issue since yesterday (including an edit war that got the page temporarily protected), without any result. Could someone intervene in the talk page and provide other opinions?--Olonia (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If sources disagree then the correct method of introducing the information is to contrast the sources, including both aspects that are covered in reliable sources. Changing cited information without contrasting the sources creates inconsistencies and confuses readers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree with Rupert. Compare and contrast sources that disagree. That is what we do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to keep description and explanation separate but sometimes a discrepancy needs to be mentioned straight away, rather than held back until the Aftermath section. I find that having a "Notes {{notelist}} section" and {{efn|Mention of inconsistent sources + {{sfn}}}} in the text can help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
But what should be done in this specific case? I make an example, Bainsizza.
"According to Gray, [ref to page], the steamer Bainsizza was also hit and sunk [on 1 May 1941, together with German steamers Arcturus and Leverkusen]. According to Uboat.net, however, Bainsizza was not present and was not involved in the action. The official history written by the Italian navy mention several voyages by Bainsizza after this date [ref to "La difesa del traffico etc"] and states that the ship was sunk by British torpedo bombers on 14 October 1941 [ref to "La difesa del traffico", ref to "Navi mercantili perdute"]." --Olonia (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that I would write about Arcturus and Leverkusen in the text and put Bainsizza and the dissenting source/s in a note.
<nowrap>...the German steamers Arcturus and Leverkusen were sunk on 1 May.efn|Grey wrote in [year] that the steamer Bainsizza was also sunk but in 1961, the Italian naval official historians described several voyages by Bainsizza after 1 May and its sinking by British torpedo bombers on 14 October 1941.[1][2] In 2017, Helgason wrote that Bainsizza was not present.[3]</nowrap>
something like this. Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, thanks. Now, could Dapi89 intervene here, or could somebody intervene on the Wanklyn talk page, so that an agreement could be reached. It would also be useful if anybody who has applied for a Wikipedia:Miramar account could check that Index about the fates of Dandolo and Bainsizza. --Olonia (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This way? @Dapi89: see above. Olonia (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Kenneth Poolman's book on 830 Squadron, the unit alleged to have sunk this already sunken ship, I am sure talks about a night attack on 14 October. The ship they were briefed to attack was already sunk and they strafed a flak or tug escort instead - might have even been a sailing ship. The other op' histories do not mention this ship at all. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Please describe these supposed events in detail. I can describe in detail the sinking of Bainsizza, and in fact, I will do just that.
Bainsizza (loaded with German matériel, vehicles, ammunition and troops) left Trapani at 17:00 on 12 October 1941, together with the steamer Nirvo and the German tug Max Barendt, escorted by the destroyers Sebenico and Nicoloso Da Recco (escort leader, Captain Salvatore Esposito). The ships were also escorted by aircraft (overall, ten FIAT CR. 42, four FIAT CR. 25 and six Savoia Marchetti S. 79) until the sunset of October 13. As a submarine had been reported sighted in the area the convoy was due to cross in the following night, Supermarina ordered a substansial change of course early in the evening. As the ships did not change course in a timely manner, the convoy ended up being divided in two groups (that had previously been the two columns of the convoy); one group composed of Bainsizza, Sebenico, and Max Barendt, and the other composed of Nirvo and Da Recco. The distance between the two groups gradually grew to 4-5 kms. The escort leader, upon realizing what had happened, ordered Sebenico to move closer to Da Recco together with his group. This manoeuvre had not yet begun, when at 1:20 (A.M.) on 14 October Bainsizza was hit in the bow by a torpedo dropped by a plane, about 90 miles off Tripoli. Da Recco was informed of this only after two hours, and was unable to turn back, as this would leave Nirvo alone and unescorted. Sebenico's commanding officer was inexperienced, at his first escort mission on the routes to Libya, and lost times before intervening; Max Barendt, instead of attempting to take the ship in tow, started picking up the many soldiers and crewmen who had jumped overboard. Bainsizza thus remained unattended for several hours, afloat but down by the bow. The Tripoli Naval Command, finally informed by Da Recco, sent the tug Ciclope and the torpedo boat Polluce in an attempt to rescue the ship, and ordered Max Barendt to stay in the area; before the ships from Tripoli arrived, however, Bainsizza was hit by a bomb during another air strike and finally sank in 34°15' N, 12°12' E, about 24 hours after the initial torpedo hit.
This comes from La difesa del traffico etc.
Navi mercantili perdute mentions the 830 Squadron, whereas La difesa del traffico does not specify what planes were the ones that carried out the attacks that sank Bainsizza on 14/15 October. --Olonia (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Discussion @ Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
A discussion that is relevant to this project has been opened at WP:NPOVN. The thread is:
I started Drone strike because no article covers exactly what it is and how it works. I am out of my depth. Please help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you reconsider the title (Drone bombing, Drone terrorism, Drone murder) or put it in italics to avoid the impression that the article implicitly endorses the claims of the aggressor as per naming conventions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history: [1]. Are there any published sources (i.e. not from state forces, the corporate press, corporate think tanks [propaganda factories] or state broadcasters) ? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the title "Drone strike", which is the most common term used to refer to sucn an event (WP:MILNAME); it's neutral, widely used in many contexts, and certainly has no implication of "endorsing the claims of the aggressor". And it's widely used in Wikipedia already: see Category:Drone strikes and the category tree below it, and the articles in those categories. — Stanning (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
What effect does a strike have? A drone is a device used by the US and its allies to destroy people in other countries with explosives. The word strike is clearly a euphemism and not a description. Keith-264 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've added a few {{cn}} tags to this article. The statements need to be backed up by reliable sourcing - take my advice and start adding the references now before the article gets too big. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Period Task Forces missing
Dear wikipedians, just noticed that for some historical periods (e.g.: Victorian Era, Interwar Era, Post-Cold War) there is no task force set up. Hence articles in scope of them can't be tagged. What is the process to establish these? Thanks,DPdH (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ask if anyone is interested (which you've near enough done. Task forces aren't made pro eo as it were, usually they are only made if at least a few people show interest in it. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day, if there aren't relevant period task forces, generally there will be a regional or national one that will be applicable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that TF types can overlap, however is not the same asfocus on historic periods. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
While I would not object to the creation of new taskforces, I am not certain if the three mentioned above would be ideal candidates:
The Interwar period covers the years from 1918 to 1939, between the World Wars. Part of the warfare in the period was based on the demise and splintering of the Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire due to World War I. Leading to the creation of new states, governments, and regimes which were vying for power. World War I spin-offs.
The Post–Cold War era covers the years from 1991 to the present. The beginning of the period is clear. When and if it has ended is ill-defined.
The period of the 20th century not covered by the proposal are the years 1901 from 1914, from the end of the Victorian era to the beginning of World War I. Should there be a task force about the 20th century, or just the Edwardian era? Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TFs covering these periods would suffice. I think we're still in post-Cold War, unless historians say otherwise. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a policy regarding capitalization of US Navy rating titles, such as Navy Diver (ND) on Wikipedia? There seems to be inconsistency between articles. List of United States Navy ratings consistently uses title case , but the linked articles appear to have been changed to sentence case. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the naming convention dictates they should be lower case when used in a sentence - IE John Smith was an rear admiral in the Navy. Whereas, if they list the name and rank it would be thus: Rear Admiral John Smith was the first officer from Fooville to reach the rank of rear admiral, because his name attaches to that rank in the sentence structure. I am in the process (slowly) of correcting the ranks of the Royal Air Force, however, if there is some policy that trumps MOS:MILTERMS, I'd be interested to hear about it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
See also MOS:JOBTITLES. List of United States Navy ratings appears to over cap. Lower case should be used in sentences or sentence case in tables and like when referring to the job. Some jobs are used as titles and caps should be used when referring directly to a person - "the gunner was Gunner Brown" or "Boatswain Smith" but "the boatswain, Chief Petty Officer Smith". As I understand things. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Once upon a time, long ago in the mists of time when I first started editing Wikipedia, we did capitalise ranks and rates. However, it was decided many years ago that we should not do so and we have used lower case ever since (except, as stated above, before the names of individuals, or with unique job titles, such as Adjutant-General to the Forces or Surgeon General of the United States). The only instance of us not doing so is with German-language terms; I don't personally agree with this (this being English Wikipedia, whether they are foreign terms or not) but have been shouted down by the German military history fraternity who insist that German-language rules must apply everywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed this, since I prefer to use a term in its native language followed by a translation. I find that unless it is a loanword like blitzkrieg they capitalise it if I don't (Vernichtungsgedanke). I quite like it since I'm the same with the mad commas that English Lit grads strew everywhere. I do the same as Cinders, where the rank is used as someone's title it's in capitals and where the rank is being described, it's a term and isn't. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If I follow the reasoning, the ratings listed in List of United States Navy ratings should then also all be changed to sentence case? This seems logical and compliant with WP:MOSCAPS, but thought I would check with the project in case I has missed something obscure. You never know. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they probably should. Some already are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That was me getting started. Still busy. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 16:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I finished up the reviews but I don't know how to actually "close" the contest and update the chart. And I don't think you want me doing math....:) auntieruth(talk) 14:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I will do this tonight. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
RfD notification: Blade weapon, Bladed weapon, and Edged weapon
I started Joint Airborne Troop Board because it was red-linked on Robert Sink. It took off in a completely different direction than I had anticipated. I thought the board would have been involved in airborne (parachute) doctrine; it turned out to be more involved in air mobility (air cav/air assault). Along the line I red-linked one Army and two Air Force generals; I was more surprised that the two from the Air Force don't have pages. I can't find a category that fits the page (other than the estab/disestab ones); I was thinking of creating [[Category:USDoD joint boards]] and subbing it to Category:Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't know whether the other boards (or even this one!) are worthy of pages.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you experts at MILHIST give us some guidance at Second Sino-Indian War -> Nathu La and Cho La incidents, please? Is this a likely search termm or would it go to another war? If MILHIST says fine, it is fine, you are the experts. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Stolen draft
Hey guys,
I have a draft article in my sandbox which is far from finished but also very involved, Battle record of Napoleon Bonaparte, which is in need of much work and verification -- in fact I was going to submit it for A, GA or FA review upon completion. Sometime during my 3-year block some sock-puppet account had the bloody nerve to steal the entire content of my draft and paste it to Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte with this edit. It seems the user had been poking about the draft with another sock previously as User:Hong Tray and pasted the content using another sock some 7-months later as User:Frenditor. Both are blocked and linked to a repeat offender of socking. Can't explain the time difference, but there it is.
To say I am annoyed would be an under-statement. I am 'effing fuming... there is no way in hell I'm going to review all the scrappy changes to the live article, potentially by other socks, often without re-referencing the changes to match the data. I put a lot of effort in the draft and need to put a lot more time and effort into it to complete it, perhaps months. I cannot work on a draft with a stolen copy live sine I will have to replace the content of that and that may upset all those making edits in the meantime. I imagine my right to complete the article outweights their right to retain it, since I have not invited their input and will continue the draft without considering their changes.
I wish to have the article reverted right back to its former state back before the cheeky bugger with a history of socking stole my draft. I would like for MilHist members, particularly admins, to support this motion and perhaps for someone with good standing to process the revert it on the grounds that: a) the draft was stolen or used without permission, b) the draft has not been peer-reviewed, c) the draft was pasted by a mass-sock user and WP:REVERTBAN should apply. Having it live also prevents me from concentrating on the draft, I don't particularly care if almost a year has passed since then, this is my work, my draft and my responsiblity to complete, not for some sock to snatch and grab. The accuracy of the work is not guaranteed but I use my own sources and will not be "correcting" my draft to match edits made in the past 11 months by other editors pre-review.
The last thing I need is to return to Wiki and start a fresh fight... but this is unacceptable behaviour, with regards the sock. He had no right to uncover a hidden draft and post it live. No right at all.
Please advise.
— Marcus(talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought, though I'm not certain how at the moment, that it should be possible to fix the attribution claim back to your original. I'm thinking of HistoryMerge and related activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know what that is or means. — Marcus(talk) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's technically a breach of copyright as there has been no attribution back to your version (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). In practical terms of how to fix it, I'm not sure, except to work on "your" sandbox version and then C&P the whole new work into the live space (along with a link to the sandbox version). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but before I C&P I still have a lot of writing to do and I'll have made a lot of changes. I want the stolen content removed, because I don't want a clone of my draft running parallel and live. It should never have been made live because it is far from complete. Better to revert it back to its pre-theft state and hide all edits made since to prevent it being reverted. That would fix it for me. I don't intend to paste the draft and work on a live version until its ready, too many other editors would get in the way. — Marcus(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You could try and put it back to where it was (I suggest leaving a very good explanation on the talk page to cover yourself), but I'd be prepared for someone to revert you. The alternative is to ignore the live article altogether and simply write the new full version in your sandbox, then drop it over the top of the existing article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've followed this advice after reading Wiki policy on the matter of copyright. Seems the best solution. I prefer not to ignore the live article then dump over it later as that might cause conficts with people saying they had previously edited the same work. Better to stop them making pointless edits now then they can't quibble later. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
if you haven't done so. Use template:copied on the talk page to provide an attribution from your draft to the edit that placed it in the article (and mark your "territory" in the page history). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've already reverted it back to a previous version without my draft material. I don't want it used at all yet, it's far from ready and needs a lot of work. — Marcus(talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have been copied across with out attribution with this diff: [2] It would probably be possible to revdel that revision and subsequent other ones as being copyright violations. I'm happy to do this, but would like to ping a couple of other admins for advice first. @Nick-D, Parsecboy, and TomStar81: Thoughts, gentlemen? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the admin revdel function. If that could be done it would be even better, to prevent disputes arising over my reverting all those edits made in good faith since the copy. Clearly they were unaware of the copyright issue, but they'll get their chances again at a later date. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well this is certainly one massive cluster@$%#. I admit that I am out of my depth here, I'd need to research this to make sure that revdel was put to use correctly here, but I think that there are extenuating circumstances here. I'd feel better hearing from someone familiar with copyright as it relates to Wikipedia (Moonriddengirl is usually my go to person for this sort of thing). Its late here, and I've been dealing with government paperwork all day long and its all I can do to think straight in front of my monitor at the moment, so I'll look into this in depth tomorrow if I get the chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks, Tom. @Nikkimaria: What are your thoughts on revdel in this instance? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Usually it wouldn't be done, per WP:RIA. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for that, Nikki. Should anything be done to fix the attribution, or is the current situation sufficient? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine that attribution has to be voluntarily given by the owner of the material, because they'e surrendering their copyright and accepting the CC/GFDL licences. I would suggest that WP:RIA only appies when copying text between two live articles, when an editor has already made live edits. In my case its a draft to live copy and I'm not yet willing to surrender the copyright to Wiki. Someone can't steal a person's work then a third-party come along and slap an atrribut on behalf of the owner. It still amounts to a copyright violation until I copy of move the article into livespace of my own accord. I cannot be forced to accept attribution on any other terms. Furthermore, attribution to a draft page would require me to maintain that draft - I would normally expect to have a draft deleted once it goes live, no point in having two copies. And I don't approve of history merge since that also is like a third-party accpeting that the material is stolen and then attributing without my expressed permission. I do not think WP:RIA covers this particular situation, only violations in making livespace copies. In this case I dfer to WP:COPY which states "If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request the page be immediately removed from Wikipedia". Since removingt he page would be overkill, revdel might be more prudent. I also found WP:User pages#COPIES which states "The same rules for copyright apply on userpages as in article space. Text must either be freely licensed or out of copyright; otherwise only a short quote can be used." Since the entire content was copy/pasted without permission copyvio applies, another reason for reverting and possibly revdel. — Marcus(talk) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Per the terms of use, all of your contributions, regardless of namespace are released under a suitably free license (see [3]). It was rude to move the text, but it wasn't a copyright violation that requires revdel. Since the text was added, many other editors have contributed to it, meaning that revdel would remove attribution for their edits, which is now allowed per Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction. The [4] changes made since the text was added are relatively minor, with the exception of a debate over if Napoleon actually was present at two of the battles in the article, which can be hashed out on the talk page. It's frustrating, but I would recommend just editing the live version, and adding the proper attribution to your draft page with a dummy edit. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As I stated in my opening post, the draft is still being worked on. I'm unwilling to engage in discussions with other editors regarding their edits, since most of them were made without new references so I'm ignoring them completely since they were unsourced and are therefore invalid (and would cause the article to fail a review). My responsibility is to my draft and making sure IT alone is right, I have no obligations towards a stolen version or anyone who edited it. Those other editors will just have to lose out, because their edits will be scrubbed anyway when my draft is complete and transferred. I'm not making attributions to the draft, the fact that the material was stolen and applied by a mass-socker means WP:REVERTBAN should still apply here, I don't give credit for thieving scumbags. He's the one who deceived the other editors with his activity, I'm not going to be the one to pay for it. I won't be working to maintain anything on a live version, a draft is what I was working on, not a live article, I won't be forced to work in a livespace environment with other editors medding with the article while I'm trying to focus on writing it alone -- that would be completely unacceptable and disruptive to its development and would harm its progress. — Marcus(talk) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Marcus, I could possibly do a history merge if you want, so that the history of your draft becomes the history of the article. It might not be possible without making a huge mess but I can try. As for the future, there's no really much you can do I'm afraid. You can either work on the live version piecemeal or continue working on your draft and copy it over when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Nah, let's just leave it in its "reverted to a previous version" state. I've just being looking at the edits made since the copy/paste in terms of quality. There have been 38 edits in 11 months: 2 by the copy-thief himself, 4 by bots, 15 by Anon IPs, 8 by new "redlink" accounts with little other wiki-activity, and the rest by 6 regular editors with 5 of those being minor copyedits -- only 1 regular editor has made any substatial edits and those were unsourced – the way I see it, there's hardly any relevant interest in the article at the moment to warrant having it live. I very much doubt any of these editors are going to challenge the revert I made since they don't contribute to it in any major way. What do you think, based on that analysis? — Marcus(talk) 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you experts at MILHIST give us some guidance at Second Sino-Indian War -> Nathu La and Cho La incidents, please? Is this a likely search termm or would it go to another war? If MILHIST says fine, it is fine, you are the experts. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Stolen draft
Hey guys,
I have a draft article in my sandbox which is far from finished but also very involved, Battle record of Napoleon Bonaparte, which is in need of much work and verification -- in fact I was going to submit it for A, GA or FA review upon completion. Sometime during my 3-year block some sock-puppet account had the bloody nerve to steal the entire content of my draft and paste it to Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte with this edit. It seems the user had been poking about the draft with another sock previously as User:Hong Tray and pasted the content using another sock some 7-months later as User:Frenditor. Both are blocked and linked to a repeat offender of socking. Can't explain the time difference, but there it is.
To say I am annoyed would be an under-statement. I am 'effing fuming... there is no way in hell I'm going to review all the scrappy changes to the live article, potentially by other socks, often without re-referencing the changes to match the data. I put a lot of effort in the draft and need to put a lot more time and effort into it to complete it, perhaps months. I cannot work on a draft with a stolen copy live sine I will have to replace the content of that and that may upset all those making edits in the meantime. I imagine my right to complete the article outweights their right to retain it, since I have not invited their input and will continue the draft without considering their changes.
I wish to have the article reverted right back to its former state back before the cheeky bugger with a history of socking stole my draft. I would like for MilHist members, particularly admins, to support this motion and perhaps for someone with good standing to process the revert it on the grounds that: a) the draft was stolen or used without permission, b) the draft has not been peer-reviewed, c) the draft was pasted by a mass-sock user and WP:REVERTBAN should apply. Having it live also prevents me from concentrating on the draft, I don't particularly care if almost a year has passed since then, this is my work, my draft and my responsiblity to complete, not for some sock to snatch and grab. The accuracy of the work is not guaranteed but I use my own sources and will not be "correcting" my draft to match edits made in the past 11 months by other editors pre-review.
The last thing I need is to return to Wiki and start a fresh fight... but this is unacceptable behaviour, with regards the sock. He had no right to uncover a hidden draft and post it live. No right at all.
Please advise.
— Marcus(talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought, though I'm not certain how at the moment, that it should be possible to fix the attribution claim back to your original. I'm thinking of HistoryMerge and related activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know what that is or means. — Marcus(talk) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's technically a breach of copyright as there has been no attribution back to your version (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). In practical terms of how to fix it, I'm not sure, except to work on "your" sandbox version and then C&P the whole new work into the live space (along with a link to the sandbox version). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but before I C&P I still have a lot of writing to do and I'll have made a lot of changes. I want the stolen content removed, because I don't want a clone of my draft running parallel and live. It should never have been made live because it is far from complete. Better to revert it back to its pre-theft state and hide all edits made since to prevent it being reverted. That would fix it for me. I don't intend to paste the draft and work on a live version until its ready, too many other editors would get in the way. — Marcus(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You could try and put it back to where it was (I suggest leaving a very good explanation on the talk page to cover yourself), but I'd be prepared for someone to revert you. The alternative is to ignore the live article altogether and simply write the new full version in your sandbox, then drop it over the top of the existing article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've followed this advice after reading Wiki policy on the matter of copyright. Seems the best solution. I prefer not to ignore the live article then dump over it later as that might cause conficts with people saying they had previously edited the same work. Better to stop them making pointless edits now then they can't quibble later. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
if you haven't done so. Use template:copied on the talk page to provide an attribution from your draft to the edit that placed it in the article (and mark your "territory" in the page history). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've already reverted it back to a previous version without my draft material. I don't want it used at all yet, it's far from ready and needs a lot of work. — Marcus(talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have been copied across with out attribution with this diff: [5] It would probably be possible to revdel that revision and subsequent other ones as being copyright violations. I'm happy to do this, but would like to ping a couple of other admins for advice first. @Nick-D, Parsecboy, and TomStar81: Thoughts, gentlemen? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the admin revdel function. If that could be done it would be even better, to prevent disputes arising over my reverting all those edits made in good faith since the copy. Clearly they were unaware of the copyright issue, but they'll get their chances again at a later date. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well this is certainly one massive cluster@$%#. I admit that I am out of my depth here, I'd need to research this to make sure that revdel was put to use correctly here, but I think that there are extenuating circumstances here. I'd feel better hearing from someone familiar with copyright as it relates to Wikipedia (Moonriddengirl is usually my go to person for this sort of thing). Its late here, and I've been dealing with government paperwork all day long and its all I can do to think straight in front of my monitor at the moment, so I'll look into this in depth tomorrow if I get the chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks, Tom. @Nikkimaria: What are your thoughts on revdel in this instance? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Usually it wouldn't be done, per WP:RIA. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for that, Nikki. Should anything be done to fix the attribution, or is the current situation sufficient? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine that attribution has to be voluntarily given by the owner of the material, because they'e surrendering their copyright and accepting the CC/GFDL licences. I would suggest that WP:RIA only appies when copying text between two live articles, when an editor has already made live edits. In my case its a draft to live copy and I'm not yet willing to surrender the copyright to Wiki. Someone can't steal a person's work then a third-party come along and slap an atrribut on behalf of the owner. It still amounts to a copyright violation until I copy of move the article into livespace of my own accord. I cannot be forced to accept attribution on any other terms. Furthermore, attribution to a draft page would require me to maintain that draft - I would normally expect to have a draft deleted once it goes live, no point in having two copies. And I don't approve of history merge since that also is like a third-party accpeting that the material is stolen and then attributing without my expressed permission. I do not think WP:RIA covers this particular situation, only violations in making livespace copies. In this case I dfer to WP:COPY which states "If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request the page be immediately removed from Wikipedia". Since removingt he page would be overkill, revdel might be more prudent. I also found WP:User pages#COPIES which states "The same rules for copyright apply on userpages as in article space. Text must either be freely licensed or out of copyright; otherwise only a short quote can be used." Since the entire content was copy/pasted without permission copyvio applies, another reason for reverting and possibly revdel. — Marcus(talk) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Per the terms of use, all of your contributions, regardless of namespace are released under a suitably free license (see [6]). It was rude to move the text, but it wasn't a copyright violation that requires revdel. Since the text was added, many other editors have contributed to it, meaning that revdel would remove attribution for their edits, which is now allowed per Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction. The [7] changes made since the text was added are relatively minor, with the exception of a debate over if Napoleon actually was present at two of the battles in the article, which can be hashed out on the talk page. It's frustrating, but I would recommend just editing the live version, and adding the proper attribution to your draft page with a dummy edit. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As I stated in my opening post, the draft is still being worked on. I'm unwilling to engage in discussions with other editors regarding their edits, since most of them were made without new references so I'm ignoring them completely since they were unsourced and are therefore invalid (and would cause the article to fail a review). My responsibility is to my draft and making sure IT alone is right, I have no obligations towards a stolen version or anyone who edited it. Those other editors will just have to lose out, because their edits will be scrubbed anyway when my draft is complete and transferred. I'm not making attributions to the draft, the fact that the material was stolen and applied by a mass-socker means WP:REVERTBAN should still apply here, I don't give credit for thieving scumbags. He's the one who deceived the other editors with his activity, I'm not going to be the one to pay for it. I won't be working to maintain anything on a live version, a draft is what I was working on, not a live article, I won't be forced to work in a livespace environment with other editors medding with the article while I'm trying to focus on writing it alone -- that would be completely unacceptable and disruptive to its development and would harm its progress. — Marcus(talk) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Marcus, I could possibly do a history merge if you want, so that the history of your draft becomes the history of the article. It might not be possible without making a huge mess but I can try. As for the future, there's no really much you can do I'm afraid. You can either work on the live version piecemeal or continue working on your draft and copy it over when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Nah, let's just leave it in its "reverted to a previous version" state. I've just being looking at the edits made since the copy/paste in terms of quality. There have been 38 edits in 11 months: 2 by the copy-thief himself, 4 by bots, 15 by Anon IPs, 8 by new "redlink" accounts with little other wiki-activity, and the rest by 6 regular editors with 5 of those being minor copyedits -- only 1 regular editor has made any substatial edits and those were unsourced – the way I see it, there's hardly any relevant interest in the article at the moment to warrant having it live. I very much doubt any of these editors are going to challenge the revert I made since they don't contribute to it in any major way. What do you think, based on that analysis? — Marcus(talk) 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It probably ought to be merged into semi-submersible, though chunks of it are nonsense, particularly the bit about submarines with large deck guns. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Surface-underwater ship isn't really the right term. Semi-submersible maybe right but is dominated by a certain type of modern ship. Is there a better term? Monstrelet (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Monstrelet - no reason the semi-submersible article can't be expanded to include the military applications. Note that the see also section includes many of the vessels mentioned in the Surface-underwater ship article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
it did have several of those, until I cleaned the See also up. Nothing semi-submersible about a pre-nuclear powered submarine -all subs used surface running for speed and endurance - so I stripped them off. And SWATH aren't semi-subs either.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In general, at first the article was about the intermediate type of ships that wage war as surface ships, but at the same time they can submerge as submarines. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that there is a move request at Talk:Battle of Nur Shams. Interested editors are invited to participate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Categorization question
No names, no pack drill as it's a useful generic question. (you could look through my contributions if you want to root out specifics that drive my question).
I read WP:Subcategory as saying if there's a chain of categories eg History of X -> History of X in country Y -> History of X in country Y in Z century, then if an article is in the bottom category it wouldn't normally also be in the top category as well? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an article should be categorized in the lower level (most specific) category/categories that apply. The higher level categories list the lower levels categories, which can be followed to find the article in question. Hopefully this makes sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks, now could you conceive of a good reason exception for putting something higher up as well, aside from ignore all rules. Ie that the article in question is so important to the topic. Eg Apollo project appearing in the root of Manned spaceflight and not under subcat callled manned spaceflight of USA GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of a good reason, but I rarely add categories. Somebody else here should be able to help you though. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Very much my thinking, I can't conceive of a reason either. Now I need to see if my argument holds weight with another editor.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:SUBCAT is clear about this: "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." Non-diffusing subcategories are explained at WP:DUPCAT. — Stanning (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
North-east vs. northeast
Can anyone remember the WP where the use of the hyphen is discussed? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it tends to be deprecated. wp:hyphen provides little guidance. I think I was told not to use. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I found one a few years ago which favoured the hyphen but I can't find it. I'm trying national variations now.Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
MOS:COMPASS may help - it notes there are national variations. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, by coincidence I just found it too [8] it's a national variation "Notice that compound compass points are usually joined in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Overhaul of Avro Lancaster
Hello WP:MilHist. While it has taken four years for me to get around to it, I am finally able to say that I have worked hard on the overhaul of the famous wartime bomber, the Avro Lancaster. I was a little reluctant to take on this task due to the level of historical significance involved, but at the same time I felt the previous state of the article to be pretty inadequate in its level of detail and especially in terms of citation for what was there already. There are many tags in places where citations are still lacking, particularly in the Design and Variants section. If there are any motivated editors here, I'd encourage your review of this article, and if you see flaws, to help address them. Thank you in advance. Kyteto (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, how about: Category:Military historians specialising in armoured warfare; I realize this is the British spelling. However, I believe it would include development, warfare and tactics of AFV's. And certainly, Steven J. Zaloga, should be included in the cat. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I was bold and went with category:historians of armoured warfare. Fitted 'historians of fool pattern I found in other cats. And any historian of armoured warfare is going to be a historian of military. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
will do for moment, I'm sure. Added R. P. Hunnicutt as another definite member of cat.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Help needed with badly translated article
Dear colleagues, earlier today assessed 13th General Field Marshal Count Lacy's Belozersk Infantry Regiment and is really badly translated from Polish (I think). Need help from an experienced editor with knowledge of the Imperial Russian Army to improve it. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
(Slightly edited version from what I wrote on its talk page): It feels like there could be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues with this article. Could it please receive expert review with that in mind? This indicates Clausewitz as originator, and a gsearch indicates that the Germans were implementing what is termed "flexible defense" during WW1 (using pillboxes vs trenches). Doctrine may have developed, and/or there may be a different term for this article's topic in English. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Some thought needs to be given to the title. A Google search seems to turn up items related to Flexible response, a different doctrine altogether.Monstrelet (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant to Defence in depth, and probably ought to be merged there. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It will need quite a bit of work, as that is a pretty poor offering. I've been back to the article and removed some non-encyclopedic language (drowning in a sea of blood indeed) but could do with a native English speaker giving it a once over for grammar. I would suggest the Arpad line section may be a bit POV because of the sources used and would benefit from a look from an Eastern front specialist Monstrelet (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
looking at the duplication of text between the article and Arpad line, it seems to be tackling subject from largely Hungarian viewpoint, possibly with a bit too much enthusiasm for its effectiveness. I suspect the Arpad line article needs similar treatment to iron out the grammatical and idiomatic issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"420 Collaboration" to improve cannabis/marijuana articles, including MILHIST topics
In particular, we could use MILHIST help expanding the new topic Cannabis and the United States military (maybe DYK eligible with some expansion? I'll post ideas on the talk page). I also suggest a couple possible redlinks:
Cannabis and the Afghan military: noted for cannabis abuse issues during NATO mentoring, and probably RSs that cover cannabis abuse by troops during the Soviet occuption.
Cannabis and the Israeli military: Israel is known for cannabis therapies for certain conditions with veterans (PTSD, etc) and very recently was mentioned in the news for loosening their military policies on cannabis (less punitive?)
Cannabis and the Mexican military: arguably one of the vectors that expanded the spread of the marijuana popularity in Mexico and the US.
In particular, combing through this source could be really enlightening: "The Marijuana Addict in the Army," War Medicine 6 (December 1944): 382- 91 Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Created a template to help lay out the fledgling subject:
Vijay rath is adding troop numbers to infoboxes without citation, despite requests that he desist unless he can show that the divisions were at full strength so that the troop number can be adduced by multiplying the number of divisions by the establishment. Perhaps interested editors can take a look Battle of Messines (1917) (here for example) and form a view as to the propriety of his edits? I have a conflict of interest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I have left a warning on the editor's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I get the impression that he's in enough trouble already, which is a pity. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at this user's talkpage. He has received numerous warnings for disrupting editing patterns before and his user page that states "I am the best".--Catlemur (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that this user perceives himself/herself to be a bit of a gnome, but the ratio of positive gnoming activity to disruptive activity isn't particularly in their favour. With only just over 300 edits at this juncture, and no attempts to communicate with other editors, it's telling. There's something about the declaration on the user page and the calibre of editing that has long since made me suspect that the user is (very) young. Whatever the circumstances, WP:COMPETENCE appears to be the central issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Maneuver warfare article
I've just stumbled across this Maneuver warfare article. I initially noticed how extremely poorly referenced it is, and that @Sasuke Sarutobi: tagged it back in 2013 for reading more like an essay than an encylopaedic article, but there has been little development since then. IMO, however, I get the feeling that there might be a whole lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH going on and that the article is just a raggedy collection of examples of military manoeuvers that were used in various wars rather than a description of what "manoeuver warfare" might actually involve. I was almost tempted to flag it for AfD, mainly to generate some opinions than actually delete it, but I see it has been around for about 12 years and has a few hundred links to other articles, despite its very poor state. As I have no books on the subject of "manoeuver warfare" I'm just dropping this link here for anyone who might be interested in taking a look and prepared to clean-up or reference the content. I would have thought that based on what this links to that it would be a more important topic and central to the theoretical aspects behind military history, such as engagements and campaigns. — Marcus(talk) 08:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed some nonsense claiming that the Western Allies favoured attritional warfare rather than Maneuver warfare in the Second World War (the exact opposite was the case, though it obviously didn't always work out) and that the concept was not adopted by the US military until John Boyd invented it - the range of stuff he gets credited with on the internet is always startling. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I suspect Attrition warfare is a problematic article also, since whole sections and most paragraphs are completely unreferenced. Seems a lot of MilHist articles that deal with warfare theory rather than actual events are under-developed and tend to go a bit wild due to lack of interest from the project. All this OR/SYNTH comes from passing armchair historians adding their 2c, methinks. — Marcus(talk) 04:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There's another substantial chunk of text putting Boyd into AirLand Battle but really nothing to mark whether it actually had influence or not. And Patterns of Conflict is very much self-referenced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
harvnb vs sfn
Could an aficionado of the harvnb system explain its advantages over sfn and when it matters? Recent edits in some Normandy 1944 articles have been done as harvnb but seem to have been more trouble than they're worth. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
A strictly personal opinion as a non-aficionado of either (!)...
Sfn advantages: automatically dedupes (I find it really handy for articles in an early stage of development, when multiple editors are playing with text etc.) But... if you have multiple references to different works supporting sentences (e.g. a sentence referenced by a combination of Smith 1990, p.8, James 2009, p.12, JoeBloggs.com etc.), sfn will give you multiple, separate in-line citation footnotes, which rapidly starts to read in a rather unwieldy, awkward way.
Harvnb advantages and disadvantages: pretty much the reverse. More of a pain in the early stages of an article's evolution, but I find it a more effective template when dealing with complex sets of citations in well developed articles, where it allows you to combine them easily into a single in-line footnote. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You're a lot more aficion than me. ;o) The harvnbs in the Battle of Villers-Bocage article also live inside ref /ref citations which seems unnecessarily complicated and the worst of all worlds. With help from a kind editor I found {{sfnm|1a1=Playfair|1y=2004|1pp=299, 253–298, 331–340|2a1=Greene|2a2=Massignani|2y=2002|2pp=230–231}} quite helpful in combining sfns, which I've been experimenting with. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean bundled citations? Personally I don't like those, as they make the sourcing harder to follow in the text (it's common to realise that "citation [23]" is that old classic text, Melly on Concertinas in the RN and thus eyeball it whenever it's used, without having to study the floating balloon text or following the links). You can bundle with either set of templates, but whether one ought to is another question. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
For the last few years I've been moving Great War articles etc to B class only, since there are so many to do. I'm looking forward and recondite matters like this seem more worth thinking about than hitherto. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not know harvnb but I find Template:Sfnm works fine for multiple references. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Keith-264, in Battle of Buna–Gona, you will see that sfn has been used for the most part but there are some uses of the harvnb. This was a case of situations where the former didn't work. Do a search to find instances. These are largely attributing a source that has been quoted in another source - with much thanks to AustralianRupert for finding this work-around. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was working with you on that article that gave me the idea that there was a way to limit the number of citations at the end of a composite sentence, so thanks for that. I take Dud's point but I don't envisage doing to to every multiple reference, just having it in my bag of tricks. It's something I wish on myself, because I'd rather not put citations within sentences; I think that there is an optimum but not a perfect solution for such contradictory preferences. This discussion has been most helpful, thank you. (I had that George Melly in the back of me cab once....)Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take this as a request to join Wikiquote as a regular contributor as well. Solomon7968 13:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Advice on writing an article
Can anyone here who has created an article before – from scratch – about a land battle (just a single one-day engagement, not a full campaign) explain how they went about writing it, in terms of describing the chronological events regarding its participants, the engagement, outcome, etc? I'm thinking of writing about one soon, just a minor engagement, but I can't seem to wrap my head around how to actually construct it in such a way that it would not come across like an essay. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 09:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I start in a sandbox with an infobox, put the big headers in (Background, Prelude, Battle, Aftermath), something in the bibliography so it's like a giant template and them fill it in. Here's User:Keith-264/sandbox5 one I've been procrastinating over. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed various land battles. Like Keith, I'd recommend Background (why the battle occurred, what the wider war was, what sort of technology was involved, who the commanders were); Prelude (something to explain how the forces actually got to where they were, possibly a bit on the geography of the battle site etc.); the battle (the day or days itself); aftermath (the "so-what", what happened next in the campaign); and sometimes a bit on Historiography or Legacy (how have historians argued about it, has it appeared in films, etc. etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the replies. — Marcus(talk) 09:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest a monkey see, monkey do approach. Take a look at a well written article and try to emulate it.--Catlemur (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't work. It's not how it looks on completion, but how it was built that interests me. I'm looking for ways to approach the writing process; the means that lead to the end result. — Marcus(talk) 09:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously? What was the geography of the battlefield?
The prelude. What forces were involved and who were the commanders? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
A description of the battle. What tactics were used? Which units moved where?
The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?"
You could start by copying a short article into a sandbox then taking out the text, maps and photos so all that's left are the headers and an empty infobox. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
G'day, Marcus, I agree with the advice above regarding the sections. My process for writing a battle article from scratch (as opposed to expanding an article that is already start class or so), is possibly a bit different to others. I work offline using a Word processor and I tend to write the Battle part first, with a tactical (boots on the ground) focus (I usually sketch the battlefield in some way on paper first), then I work the Aftermath, focusing on casualties and what happened next. After that, I work on the Background, trying to clarify the terrain based on what I wrote in the Battle section, who the main actors were, and then trying to clarify what had happened previously in the campaign with a bit more of a strategic view. Finally, I work on the images, lead and the infobox. After the article has sat for a while (so that my mind has cleared a bit), I try to find some historiography or analysis. That's my process anyway. Probably a bit of a weird way of writing, to be honest. Anyway, good luck with your article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've mainly created or drafted biographical articles for Wiki to-date or written about very short snippets of events, which are as simple as detailing the chronological events in order. But with battles I'm finding it trickier to consider because most battles involve several focal points, actions going on in several different places at once but all of equal importance. Trying to structure an article to cover the full ground with equal measure sounds awkward to put onto paper. If a battle were a simple sequence of events it would be easy enough, but since many are a muddle of affairs I find it's a bit trickier to write as linear text. — Marcus(talk) 10:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I do it like you except backwards, leaving the Battle section till last.... The best thing I ever did was decide to keep description and explanation separate, which (mostly) keeps anything controversial (historically or among editors) in the Analysis section of the Aftermath. Other peoples' edits in the rest of the article then tend to be typographical, grammatical, wikilinks and expansions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it is important to get your head around the source material. The more sources, the more important and difficult this can be. I like to make notes of quotes, important events, critical issues and like with notation to page and source. This reference is dynamic. It can be further added to as the draft grows and you revisit material. I also cross off material as it is used so that I can review what material has or has not been used. I then like to outline a structure and establish a timeline of events to give a loose structure to the article and work out what is going to go where. Good articles will give a general guide to structure and most simple battles (but not all) will adapt to the format most generally used. It is like writing an essay but for section headings. Because of this, sections can often be written discretely. A good source might have a general outline that you might wish to follow or adapt. It is then a case of filling in the blanks - writing sections/sub-sections. Every article will be different and I work on sections in an order that becomes apparent - not necessarily chronologically or the order of the headings. It is then a case of linking all the headings so there is continuity and checking that all the points I found significant in research have been included (or are no longer as significant as I first thought). It is then about final proofing and polishing. A good break between drafting and review is always a good idea - otherwise you have preconceptions about what you think you wrote and not what you actually wrote. It is good to workout about referencing format and other templates early. Ref tags are ok for a short article with 10 or 20 citations but the sfn template with a bibliography is superior for a larger article and where multiple references are cited multiple times. It saves a lot of re-work if these things are done in progress. If you work in a sandbox, you can add references as you go but it can slow down the process. If you draft in word, I suggest parenthetic footnotes in the word draft as these can be easily edited to sfn format when pasted to a sandbox. I also insert double question marks in text as a note to self when I don't want to break the flow but I need to get an actual date or the like or do a fact check. ?? is easy to search for and is not used for anything else. Doing a search for ?? then becomes part of my proofing process. Everyone is different. Hope this helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Keith-264's "skeleton" is a good start. IMO, you need to be guided by what the sources say. That is, how much info do you have to play with? You need to beware throwing in the kitchen sink, just because you can; that's a sure sign of somebody who doesn't really understand the subject... You need the journo's "5 Ws", obviously: where are they, who are they, why are they doing it (& why there), when is it, what happens (&, IMO, why it didn't go differently, if it could have), & what follows from it. IMO, tho, the thing that makes a great page is, it tells me why: not just that Monty fought Rommel at el-Alamein, but why there, why then, & why the outcome was how it was (including why Monty didn't pursue more aggressively). It also means looking pretty far afield at consequences, tho, everything from fuel supplies to limits on truck or rail transport to intel (& its use in interdiction) to command failures (disagreements between air & ground commanders, frex, or between ground COs): the tale of the breakout from Normandy would be incomplete without the sniping between Patton & Monty; the story of North Africa, without British use of Ultra to interdict supplies & Rommel's reading Black to balance inferior numbers & the German-Italian friction (or outright conflict). Best advice I can offer is this: when you're done, read it as if you know nothing about it; does it explain who's who, what's what, so forth? Then consider as an expert: does it insult you for being simplistic or shallow? If you can satisfy both (& it's no mean feat, to be sure), you've got a good page. (OK, stepping down off the soapbox, now. ;p ) Metatronwho you callin' a douchebag? 12:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Than you both for your thoughts on the matter. — Marcus(talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is good, except that it's opinion so open to question. I wouldn't want to be associated with journalism either, I aspire to reportage but your list of whys reminds me of the Model Coherency Spider, a heuristic for organisation design and analysis. Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
One to think carefully on is "legacy". This is the continuing impact of the battle beyond the campaign or perhaps war in which it was fought. Not all battles really have anything to go into the category but some continue to resonate through time. These battles can see mythologising and they can see revisionism which should be at least mentioned in the coverage. Sometimes this long shadow means it is worth mentioning the appearance of the battle in popular culture (the modern English perception of Agincourt is heavily influenced by Shakespeare's play Henry V and the films made of it, for example) but proceed with caution to avoid a long list of trivial appearances in console games or popular literature Monstrelet (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Battles like Gettysburg, Waterloo, or Rorke's Drift spring to mind. The battle I've chosen has no lasting legacy as a whole like any of those, but does have a notable or unique feature about it which may hold a legacy of its own accord. We'll have to see. Thanks. — Marcus(talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, go on, give us a clue....;o)Keith-264 (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264: Was that request aimed at me? — Marcus(talk) 05:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Russian ship Liman
Assistance is requested from Milhist editors familiar with Russian Navy ships in expanding the Russian ship Liman article, particularly with the info contained in the "Special Systems" section of this source. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I've also dropped a message over at Wikiproject Russia to hopefully find someone who can translate the Russian version of your source, which also happens to have more details on the ship. Google Translate does suggest that these "special systems" are radio intelligence (SIGINT) equipment. Alcherin (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I did find that version later, and used it to expand the shipwreck details. SIGINT is not within my area of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Biographical articles question
Noting the discussion of flying aces, I wondered why writing biographical articles is so popular; would anyone mind indulging my curiosity? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Popular history often focuses on personal interest stories, detailing individual soldiers - in particular those notable for some particular action, volume of action, and/or infamous for some reason. This isn't a new phenomena - mass market books (and magazine articles, newspaper coverage) - appeal to the masses. Telling the life story of some pilot - e.g. [9][10] - has more mass market appeal than discussing aircraft logistics or detailing operations in RAF Fighter Command (which has some popular coverage. parallel units in other periods / countries... less so).Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see the point of that in general but why so many wiki article writers? I was wondering about individual motivation. Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
For me, part of it is the human interest of writing on an individual, and because I don't think one can discount the impact that individuals can have on human history, but some of it is pure pragmatism: I've never felt I had the time or resources to write an article on an entire battle or campaign or war. Writing a biography (or a unit history, which I also do often) allows me a reasonably narrow focus that I find both interesting and manageable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with Ian - that's what started my interest for my personal collection of information. And when I found a dearth of detail on Wikipedia on some pilots that I had managed to find out more on, I thought it might be "a public good" to share what I had found out with others - so I think it taps into people's philanthropic nature to share knowledge and teach people. Which I guess is the key ingredient of Wikipedia which effectively has an authorship of thousands carrying the load when other publications only have scores of writers/researchers. I also think of the hundreds(+) of hours I've spent reading & collecting the information and that it would all get thrown out with my passing by my family who don't (surprisingly!) share this particular interest, haha. So why make someone else somewhere 'reinvent the wheel' if they were also interested in pursuing such a field Philby NZ (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much; perhaps I need to get out more. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedians are part of the general public, and share the same sentiments - as can be seen in the over abundance of actors and models, e.g. - List of Allure cover models, or Category:Female models who committed suicide.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"There is properly no history; only biography". I'm a technological military historian, but I produce a great deal of biographical material. I had always read military history books on the great commanders, and found prosopography interesting. I greatly regret that books on logistics do not have the market appeal as those on battles. My focus has always been on articles on specific subjects, but I have found it easy to spin off biographical articles. The articles on topics generally attract higher numbers of page views than the biographical ones, but that could be my choice of subjects. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It's an interesting question. I suppose the reason I write bio articles (among other things) is that I'm interested in the personal life stories, even of despicable war criminals. Often military history bio articles are a way of seeing war from a personal perspective, rather than the broad brush of battles and campaigns. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
For me personally, since I've authored a few ace articles, I tend to look for those I think are particularly notable yet still don't have Wiki pages. This is an inevitability given the number of aces produced during World War II and also the circumstances surrounding their service and their later lives. Some sought fame while others wanted a quieter retirement; some got their shoot-downs when the press corps. were pumping out propaganda, while others scored towards the tail end of the war—they were effectively passed over. There are quite a few aces who'll never have Wikipedia pages. Arthur Mollenhauer joined the selective fraternity of aces-in-a-day, but he was shot down not long thereafter. There's a road at the Santa Barbara Airport named after him and his name is on a memorial wall at the Intrepid Museum in NYC, but his trail is rather cold. Other aces don't have pages yet but ought: hopefully some time soon, somebody (maybe even me) will get Ira Kepford his own page. He's an outstanding figure as far as US WWII aces are concerned, and his omission from Wiki is a serious oversight on the part of our community. Anyway, hopefully that helps shed some light, at least from one person's perspective. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much everyone, most enlightening. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Herzlich willkommen; welcome aboard to the project. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising high profile articles (eg, [11], [12], [13]) and making obviously bad edits. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of days ago, this one treats Wiki like some kind of MySpace social account. Seems more interested in creating userboxes and being an admin without years of experience than learning how to contribute actual content. Definite WP:COMPETENCE issues. One to watch... can't see it lasting long before someone's patience snaps. — Marcus(talk) 10:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"World War I casualties" article
Hi!
New column needed: "Military deaths as % of the enlisted soldiers"
What do you think about that? Because there are only percentage about the total death per population ratio
--Blemse (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral deletions and massive changes of FA articles
Okay, this is getting out of hand. Recently the launch started at Werner Mölders, an FA article. I don't know what the problem is with these sources. Everything is checked and double checked. It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction. While I do agree that some of the German names for units, etc., could come out and that this would enhance readability, it's gone well beyond these kinds of edits. Please look at Talk:Werner Mölders and Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel it's beyond reasonable. I don't know how to proceed. auntieruth(talk) 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well judging from the talk pages, they should be delisted - either the sources are considered unreliable because they are too old or too Nazi, or if the unsupported information is removed, the articles will fail on coverage. The ongoing content dispute, which will only end when sufficient people are banned such that one side of the argument "wins" and the dispute about the appropriate degree of coverage would probably disqualify the articles from being featured (or even B-class) anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The article on Mölders is to a large degree based upon a bio by Ernst Obermaier and Werner Held, written with assistance of Mölder's widow Luise Petzoldt-Mölders (1982). This biography has been characterized by a historian from the MGFA as "one sided and completely overdrawn" and "hagiographic". The author of a more recent biography, Hermann Hagena, has been criticized for neglecting relevant archives. And you don't know what the problem is with these sources ? I don't get it. Although I certainly don't agree with it, I can at least see the rationale behind the attitude exhibited recently by Dapi89 stating It doesn't really matter what historians say about the image of the ace or aerial combat because that isn't relevant.[14] Is that the prevailing attitude of the MilHistProject? What historians say isn't relevant, only the writings of "aviation specialists" (whoever they may be) count? What about the specific direction these article are already pushed into by using such sources? I do not know how the problems of certain sources can be demonstrated any clearer.--Assayer (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
But why is a single historian's criticism dispositive? I doubt there is any reliable source out there that has not been criticised in some aspect by a reputable historian. The existence of criticism of Obermaier and Held and of Hagena is hardly decisive. That said, I know nothing about Mölders or about these sources. I am watching this debate from the sidelines. There is an article, German Military Tradition and the Expert Opinion on Werner Mölders: Opening a Dialogue among Scholars, by Klaus Schmider in Globar War Studies, that alleges "that the expert opinion produced by [MGFA] has since been challenged so comprehensively by independent scholars that a stage has been reached where it is the Forschungsamt's reputation, rather than that of Werner Mölders, which is at stake." I do not have access to the whole article. Perhaps it is critical of Obermaier/Held and Hagena. Srnec (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You will find a more complete survey of the recent literatur at Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature. Klaus Schmider is critical of an expertise provided by Wolfgang Schmidt of the MGFA in 2004, but not because Schmidt is critical of Obermaier/Held. (Which he is. You can read Schmidt's expertise as PDF in German.) The main controversy is about whether Mölders deliberately bombed civilians during the Spanish Civil War, whether Mölders intervened in behalf of a French civilian in 1940/41, and whether Mölders supported Cardinal von Galen. Since 2004 new sources have surfaced. However, I quoted Heiner Möllers, also from the MGFA and also critical of Schmidt's expertise. The main criticism concerning reliability levelled against Obermaier/Kraft is that their work is based almost exclusively on testimonies and accounts by the Mölders family and the men with whom Mölders flew. Archival documents have not been used, due of course also to the fact, that most of their documents were destructed by the Luftwaffe themselves shortly before the war ended. But anyway I think, yes, even a single historian's criticism warrants a closer look at the sources being used, all the more when the criticism is so fundamental as "hagiography".--Assayer (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a campaign by two editors for mass removal and deletionist of content and sources on FA and GA articles of WWII German Luftwaffe aviators. These editors are: K.e.Coffman and Creuzbourg. See the tags added with no explication:
These articles requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria were throughly reviewed. There is no consensus for such at tag. These two editors are also accused of tag team on Rudel article for which they were reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Creuzbourg_and_User:K.e.coffman_Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
Instead of someone investigating the tag team charges the whole discussion degenerated into an attempt to block Dapi89 or block him from editing Luftwaffe articles. This whole things smacks as forcing their agenda, revert and delete thousands of contributions and abuse labrynthian policy for their own ends. And also attempt to remove anyone who opposes them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to drop by Albert Kesselring and remove the drive-by templates. It's a featured article, and so is comprehensive by definition, and it received nearly 100,000 page views when it was TFA, so it appeals to a wide audience. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was a very interesting article. .... auntieruth(talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I wrote about the process of writing it in a Bugle Op-ed back in 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I deal with "experts" all the time and one thing I have learned is many can look at the same evidence or facts and reach complete opposite opinions. In the end, it is still opinion stated; whether stated by "a historian" or not. That is why sources should be compared and cross-checked. I do believe there needs to be a general consensus reached by this project as to guidelines for inclusion and exclusion and RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It is important to take into account, among other things, the credentials of the person stating that "opinion". Historians are trained to follow a certain basic methodology in unearthing and presenting their evidence as well as arguing their thesis and they are evaluated by their peers against the standards of their profession. There already exists WP:HISTRS, referring to historical scholarship. I do not agree with the notion that, in the end, everything is only opinion, regardless of any qualifications and regardless of the venues of publication .--Assayer (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly credentials are taken into account, as are other factors, but my basic point was, it is still opinion to be weighted and balanced accordingly; and one cannot place all their eggs in one basket. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I found this on reddit: (link removed--I didn't realize it was problematic) Apparently some of us have "names" on this editor's pages. There apparently rewards for spiking the project, too. Just saying....auntieruth(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I've made a few suggestions on the talk page to improve the article, which is in a poor state. Anyone with an interest please drop by.
Also, if someone who can archive talk pages is listening, this would be a good cause. Huge talk page dating back nearly 12 years. Monstrelet (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sock reviews
Per Sockpuppets of BlueSalix, DarjeelingTea is a sock, and I see that name through the A-class reviews. I haven't looked through the other reviews. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ubersetzung
Can someone point me to a previous discussion of this issue, please? (I feel sure it must have come up in the past, and I'd like to review previous discussions before opining).
German uses the term Fall, which is literally translated case, as in Fall Gelb as Case Yellow. I am looking at more colloquial translations like operation, as in Operation Yellow or plan, as in Plan Yellow. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Notability criteria.
Could some members take a quick look at Napoleon's Crimes and help determine whether it meets WP:BOOKCRIT sufficiently enough not to need AfD'ing, regardless of how controversial the title itself is. Thanks. — Marcus(talk)
I don't know anything about the subject of the book, but it would seem to probably meet criteria 1 ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"). A Google Books search on the English title shows that "Melancholy Politics: Loss, Mourning, and Memory in Late Modern France" by Jean-Philippe Mathy discusses it for several pages, "The Last Gasp: The Rise and Fall of the American Gas Chamber" by Scott Christianson discusses it etc. I suspect that a search for the French original might give further examples. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure where the best place to put this is and it is a little self-promotional. But Andy Bullen and I recently wrote an article for Computers in Libraries that mentions WP:GLAM/PMML, WP:MILHIST, the WWI centennial, etc.
Citation: Embrey, Theresa A. R. and Andrew H. Bullen. "Music of World War I: Turning a Static Collection Into a Vibrant Resource." Computers in Libraries. Vol. 37 No. 4. May 2017
I hope you find it informative! TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting piece, Teri. Thanks for your ongoing contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@TeriEmbrey: Thank you for this article, and your work on this project - I'd noticed these impressive articles being created, but wasn't aware that they were part of a collaboration. The advice on the need to provide sourcing upfront is a particularly important point, and noting the way you did this through a standard set of comprehensive reference works will be useful to other people considering similar projects (and is a good practice for all editors! - I know that I've mined some sources for lots of articles). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
For those not following this article, I have embarked on a review of it - perhaps poignant because this year is the 75th anniversary. I am regularly posting my intent overall and progressively. I would appreciate any oversight or participation by way of revising or creating sections or contributing to the overall discussion. I am very mindful of articles where sections rehash materials in other sections. A great help would be is shoring up references. I have a pretty good grasp of the material but limited access to references. It would be nice to get this to a high standard this year - if not for the commencement, then at least for its conclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor is changing instances of ".50 cal" to ".5 in" (".30 cal" too) on many articles as part of a unit conversion campaign, for example at USS LST-393 (diff). Is this a good idea? I often hear this gun called a ".50 cal" but have never heard anyone call it a ".5 in". My suggestion would be to use something like ".50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun". @Snowdawg:Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't thought much of it. It's easy enough for me to change back to .50 cal (12.7 mm) and .30 cal (7.62 mm). Snowdawg (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
All done! 12 changes. Snowdawg (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Fighter flight?
Reading the Bong page, I got wondering: the outfits are described as Fighter Squadron/Group. I understood USAAF didn't re-rate Pusuit to FIghter until 1948. So, is this usage anachronistic? How much does it matter? Or am I just wrong? ( :( ) The Guardian of TimeYou're dead, Jim 11:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The US changed its unit designations from Pursuit to Fighter in May 1942 (in the case of numbered commands, it was actually a change from Interceptor to Fighter). See * Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II(PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN0-912799-02-1. LCCN61060979. Retrieved December 17, 2016. and Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II(PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN0-405-12194-6. LCCN70605402. OCLC72556. Retrieved December 17, 2016.. The ony exception was for units that had surrendered in the Philippines that were kept on the rolls until April 1946 as pursuit units. You are probably confused by the 1948 change in aircraft designations (A for Attack and P for Pursuit dropped as type designations and aircraft retitled to existing B for Bomber and new F for Fighter numbers.) --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There are reports in The Times that the Russian Navy lost 30 ships in a gale on the coast of Circassia on 10 June 1838. Some were wrecked, others were burnt by the Circassians. Unfortunately, only one vessel is named, the steamship Jason. Can any members of this Wikiproject add to the list of lost ships? Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Moving Kepford Article From Sandbox To Namespace
Can an admin or someone with sufficient authority/experience check out my sandbox to see if that's good enough to move the page into the namespace for Ira C. Kepford? Normally I'd just AfC this, but the previous iteration of Kepford's page was PRODded in 2011 and the user who did the deletion has since retired from Wiki. Thanks, Finktron (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Finktron: - it's not quite ready, I counted three unreferenced paragraphs. There are also two empty sections. Expand these and add the missing references and you've got a solid B class article. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages and the subpage /Popular pages of each task force with a list of relevant most-viewed pages over the previous month.
Here are the reports for the task forces that are currently subscribed:
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Hi historians! I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
You are invited to join the discussions taking place on these 5 themes here on Wikipedia (you can also use the Meta Strategy portal to locate and participate in discussions outside of English Wikipedia). This round of discussions will end on June 12th. You can discuss as many themes as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
Here are the five themes and links to their information/discussion pages here on English Wikipedia. Each also has a page on Meta-Wiki (follow the link in the previous paragraph!) with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, see the locations of discussions about them across numerous projects and languages, and learn how to participate.
Thanks for reading, and I hope to see you there! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Australian Light Horse infoboxes
Is there a "right way" to include an Australian Light Horse wikilink in the infobox and/or lead seaction of the brigades and regiments of light horsemen? I am not familiar enough with Australian Order of Battle to know whether it belongs as a second line in |command structure= (rendered as "Part of"), |type=, |branch= or somewhere else, nor what the right language is to put it in prose in the lead. Each of these articles includes a link as part of the navbox at the bottom, but it seems to me like it would also be helpful at the top somewhere. It's possible that if I looked at every article, I would find one that answers my question, but it's not in the sample I looked at. Thanks for your help. --Scott DavisTalk 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up: reviewers are needed at A class review. Probably also Featured article, but that's beyond my pay grade. Some of the A class reviews are long articles--Crusades, for example. Others have the merit of brevity. Just a nudge. :) auntieruth(talk) 21:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Confederate States of America monuments and memorials - inconsistent subcategories
The subcategories in Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials are not named consistently. I posted a note about this on the category's talk page, but figured this space gets much more traffic. Do editors have a preference re: naming? Some of these need to be moved/renamed so subcategories follow a similar convention. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Initially taking a look at Category:Military monuments and memorials by country would have suggested "Confederate" as the best label given the way demonyms are currently used there, which is also supported by unrelated examples such as Category:Confederate state governors and Category:Confederate war crimes. On the other hand there are a fair few other confederations in history, and given that the current parent category uses "Confederate States of America", then I would stick to that. Perhaps putting them up at CFD would also be worthwhile. Alcherin (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the notability of flying aces
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus, defaulting to no change. The arguments that becoming an ace seems a reasonable basis for presumption of notability seem matched by those that plenty of aces do not get more than hasty mentions in the news articles of the time, essentially primary sources. Apologies for making the close by modifying an archive, but that's where this RfC was at the time. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
In the past, we have kept articles on flying aces simply because they were flying aces. Category:British World War I flying aces illustrates perfectly how many articles exist simply for this reason; most of these 481 gentlemen would not qualify for articles for any reason other than their status as an ace. Recently two articles on German airmen have been nominated for deletion on the basis that the criteria on WP:SOLDIER do not include being an ace: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Broch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Handke. The latter is unusual in that he was not a pilot, but a radar operator, a member of a two-man crew of a night fighter. Instead of individual aces being nominated at AfD and separate discussions being had for each, it would obviously be more appropriate if we could have a more general discussion as to whether or not being a flying ace gives one inherent notability, as this has certainly been claimed in the past. So, I pose the question:
Should holding the status of flying ace (generally accepted as having five or more aerial victories) be generally considered to give a presumption of notability for the purposes of WP:SOLDIER? And if so, do the 'back-seat' crew (i.e. those not flying as pilots) in two-man fighter aircraft qualify as aces if they have shared in at least five victories? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Survey
Neutral for now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:SOLDIER isn't a "presumption of notability", it's a list of of circumstances in which it can reasonably be presumed that sufficient reliable sources will invariably exist so deletion discussions will serve no useful purpose. While most combat aces, at least in North America and Europe, will have sufficient coverage in the media to justify being kept, this isn't a hard-and-fast enough rule that one can presume the sources will always exist. ‑ Iridescent 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER: "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..." Meeting the criteria is, therefore, to all intents and purposes, entirely a presumption of notability and is usually taken as such in AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The key word there is presumed - a presumption is not the same as saying that someone who meets WP:SOLDIER will definitely get a Wikipedia entry. The GNG is the ultimate test. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
See my comment below about the difference between dogma and actual practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Support ace pilots (and Weapon systems officer backseaters as long as they have reliable tallies) - I would probably set a threshold of around 5 in the post-WWII age. in WWII and WWI I would set a threshold of around 10 (just because there are so many, wouldn't object to 5 as well). Flying aces meet SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign;", as they destroy significant material and personnel. A single kill of a modern fighter - is a 100 million dollar affair. Kill 5? Half a billion. In addition being a flying ace usually creates notable coverage - as several books on aerial warfare list aces and detail aerial encounters - as a simple google-book search shows - [15], in addition to TV / war films - even when we don't have access (or don't find) to all the sources a significant kill count usually means there are several sources. If one has reliable sources verifying a high enough kill count - that should be enough for a stub.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Leaning principled support but leaning pragmatic oppose - It is pretty easy with newspapers.com to find numerous articles about American flying aces during and after the wars in which they were involved. I don't find the Burnley collection to be as useful for British aces, but maybe there is a better UK newspapers.com equivalent. I'm not aware of an equivalent in German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian, Irani, Iraqi, Indian, Pakistani, etc. To me, if there is a reliable source that a pilot is an ace, that implies to me that there are multiple sources discussing the individual's exploits, and they can be presumed to pass GNG. I think this presumption only holds for pilots, but also might hold for senior officers of especially successful squadrons. Anyway, in my experience, I'd say that being an American ace implies an individual is very likely to be the subject of multiple independent newspaper articles. I think it is a reasonable generalization that this would be true for other nationalities. If the main concern is to preserve non-American articles where newspapers.com cannot be used to support notability, then I'd say this addition is reasonable on principle. However pragmatically, WP:SOLDIER is not always well received at AfD, and expanding inclusiveness in the essay could reduce how well regarded the essay is. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - If a flying ace has indeed "played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign", there is almost certainly going to be significant coverage in reliable sources discussing their actions. You can't presume notability for having destroyed x amount of enemy forces (see also WP:NRV), but if the ace has indeed done something to warrant notability then sources that support notability are always necessary. Also, WP:SOLDIER doesn't come ahead of WP:GNG. Alcherin (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose SNGs have limited traction across Wikipedia and I would prefer these flying aces qualify under GNG rather than stretch the credibility of this WikiProject to create a presumption of notability. I also worry that flying aces today will lead to tank aces tomorrow. I don't want to change how MILPEOPLE reads right now. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support. What does played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign mean? Is shooting down 10 not important? or 20? What about 50? This issue has been triggered by one editor, who has attacked German airmen specifically. Most of these articles go back over 10 years. K.e.Coffman nominated a German fighter pilot with 132 victories for deletion. A tally that surpasses pilots of all other nationalities and places that particular individual in the top 30 aviators of all time. We should not be discussing with a flying ace is notable under these circumstances. Broch had 81 or 82 victories - only one non-German pilot bettered this. Broch was a member of a unique fraternity. Dapi89 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Yes, it is the whole point of being an ace. I can just see the arguments when one ace gets deleted and another gets kept based on nothing more then he got a lot of coverage in (say) the American press.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the fact that he got a lot of coverage in reliable sources not exactly what we mean by WP:Notability? That would qualify said hypothetical ace per regular GNG, and disqualify the first ace along the same lines. Alcherin (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:SOLDIER is not policy and does not / could not elevate any topic to the status of "inherent notability". Whilst it talks of a presumption of notability, where this cannot be proven to exist the topic is not notable per WP:GNG. As such I see little reason to amend it when it holds no weight anyway. If an ace has "significant coverage" in reliable sources they will pass the notability test under the GNG and warrant an article, and if not then the reverse is the case. Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:Soldier is a starting point, a presumption towards notability based upon expected prominence in war. As an assumption that sources probably exist it is valid, and up to a point it's worth continuing with an article and accumulating those sources. Like the hardboiled policd detective asking his boss for another 24hours to close the case. But if the sources are not forthcoming, then GNG which is a core policy that cannot be locally over-ruled takes precedent and notability is not shown, then 'poufff' and the case crumbles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Flying aces invariably have significant sources, and attract interest from both readers and writers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support - means being a flying ace should be considered as sufficient for presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER. This doesn´t say that individual cases couldn´t be further screened in detail. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support I think by nature, they are celebrated, and as such tend to have more information about, which is a no bad thing. scope_creep (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support that aces should have a presumption of notability with regards to WP:SOLDIER. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support As already mentioned above, it provides a starting point and will often be a lead-in for further research. The fact is that, until recently in WW2 historical research, there has been far less reliable information available in English on German & Russian aces, as opposed to the Western Allies military. When there is that sufficient information to put together a reasonable article, it should not be censored out of Wikipedia on a technicality. I do acknowledge this shouldn't be reason to start creating vast numbers of stub articles, but if someone has the information they should feel welcome to share it. In looking through Wikipedia on other category biographies, I can fairly quickly find a number of articles on seemingly far more innocuous people. I don't understand why military personnel are being subjected to such rigorous editorializing. Philby NZ (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, a project page is a perfectly acceptable place for an RfC, as stated on WP:RFC. However, I have placed a note on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) which should entirely satisfy your concerns. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is! It means anyone watching that page who is interested will come here. You are making a complete non-argument. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my contention that this is the wrong venue. Wikipedia community does rely on SOLDIER (i.e. at AfD) and the discussion should not be held within one project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose First of all it should be kept in mind that the "ace" is merely an image, a myth. The term "flying ace" originated with French WW I propaganda, and was picked up and expanded particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) As historian Peter Fritzsche put it: "To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) To assume that the notion of an "ace" implies notability is an attempt to circumvent WP:GNG. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. But the articles on many "aces" are based almost exclusively on routine news reporting. To pick random examples: Michael Gonne is based almost exclusively the London Gazette from 1918. i.e. a primary source. The same is true with James Belgrave. Johann Lasi features virtually no source. It seems fair to assume that only a fraction of those hundreds of "aces" have received significant coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. It should be clear that by definition propaganda is not neutral and does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. It's actually closer to WP:SPIP. Sure, there is information collected by avid admirers of "flying aces", who recount every combat mission in minute detail. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not indiscriminate collections of details. It takes only few devoted Wikipedians to create hundreds of stub and start class articles. But it takes significant coverage outside Wikipedia to assume notability. And, yes, if you accept the myth of the "flying ace" as an indication of notability, there is no reason to discard the notion of a "tank ace", an "infantry ace", a "sniper ace", an "artillery ace", a "close combat ace" and so forth. There is a certain kind of literature, not of the reliable kind, to be sure, which endorses these "aces" and of course war time propaganda features these "heroes". --Assayer (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I think WP:SOLDIER is fine the way it stands. Changing it to support a specific agenda is the wrong path.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware that any agenda is in play here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - WikiProject Military history should not be allowed to override WP:GNG. If somebody wants to do that then this is the wrong venue, as K.e.coffman already pointed out. Carlotm (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Being an ace is notable. As for back seat and gunners, if the article is well sourced and not just a 2 line blurb, they should be kept. L3X1(distant write) 12:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Support — Wikipedia should be as inclusive as possible. Globally, there is a large interest in the subject of flying aces. Wikipedia provides a good platform for quality controlled information. Exclusion from Wikipedia would create a vacuum for other platforms and media with potentially less quality control. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966: I see that you came out of retirement (again) to participate in this discussion. I find the commentary about quality controlled information to be a bit ironic since you've been asked since 2013 to Please stop pushing this Nazi publication "Helden der Wehrmacht..." (See: Helden der Wehrmacht.) I suspect, and I hope others agree, that Nazi publications would not be "quality controlled" sources on the topic of the German war effort in 1939–1945. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm strongly against any sort of inclusion criteria that gives the impression that WP:GNG doesn't matter. If the ace in question meets the GNG, then they get an article. If they don't meet the GNG, they don't. WP:SOLDIER does not supersede or override the General Notability Guideline and anyone who thinks it does is simply incorrect. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Pray tell us why we have it then. Or indeed why we have any subject-specific guidelines. Or why it states right at the the top of WP:N that a topic is presumed to be notable if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline..." -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"Presumed to be notable" doesn't mean "is notable" - every article on Wikipedia needs to meet the General Notability Guideline or the bar will be set so low that an amoeba wouldn't be able to limbo under it. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NEXIST requires presumption in order to be effective. Alcherin (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And it also says "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." This proposal just creates another hurdle to the sifting out of non-notable people who haven't made an impact in reliable sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence the lengthy discussion below on whether these unspecified sources do in fact exist. Alcherin (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I know - but why is the idea of finding sources before writing an article such a horrible thing for people to contemplate? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Rubbish. None of the notability bars are set this low. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per my comments below. These kinds of guidance aren't helpful or necessary. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Support it seems a reasonable basis for a presumption of notability. Of course, ultimately, the GNG rules. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Support inherently notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Support. As an initial rebuttable presumption, with the next step over it being GNG. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. GNG should be the one and only self-sufficient criterion for notability of flying aces. As Assayer correctly noted, being an ace is a matter of western military mythology. Btw, what about the tank or riffle aces? And why 5 kills is that important? Is there an official definition of a flying ace?-Dipa1965 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Neutral, before I took my Wikibreak beginning with Comic-Con 2015, I was involved in the discussion on the notability of bilateral diplomatic office holders (ambassadors). I held the opinion then, and I can understand why my past opinion was such, that the position might be notable and is definitely something that should be included within a larger article about the relationship between two nations, but the individual themselves might not be. The idea of flying ace is definitely notable. Sub-articles about the history of flying aces of a nation in a specific conflict or over the course of its history might also be required given the amount of content one can create from reliable sources without plagarization. That said we have seen how WP:ANYBIO on awards do not always fit within our subject field. That while the Bronze Star Medal maybe notable, even though the award itself is "a well-known and significant award or honor", individuals who are recipients of the medal/award are not considered notable, even though a broad reading of that part of the guideline would argue otherwise (even if the recipient received it for valor). Therefore, keeping with the position I took on ambassadors, I am of the position the office or achievement are notable, but the individual themselves may not be notable. That the individual should be included in an embedded list of flying aces for a specific conflict or within an article about the combat history of a specific flying force (perhaps for a specific conflict) list per WP:NLIST, but a stand alone article of the individual themselves should still be held to the standards generally accepted in the guideline WP:BIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppposethis is not a sufficient distinction by itself. I even doubt the usefullness of the GNG is this field, because of the abundance of hagiography biographies. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Coverage is what counts -
- First, WP:Soldier says that coverage is the determinant and the list is things that are presumed to produce coverage, it does not claim they alone are sufficient basis to claim WP:N. If they did not in fact produce coverage, the implication is that regardless of medal or whatever on that list the person is factually demonstrated as not noted in the public eye.
- Second, WP:Soldier is an essay, not a guideline such as WP:N and WP:BIO. The essay may help understand WP:N in military environment, but it is not a replacement for that.
- Third, 'Ace' is an informal item in many cases, and I'm thinking general usage would not apply it to the radar operator or WSO. I'd suggest that whether a person was known as one is worthy of mention in an article but not itself confer notability, and whether it is said for an individual needs to just follow the cites and show it from a WP:V quote and not WP:OR determination calculating 5 mission kills. Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose on substantive and procedural grounds, per DGG and K.E. Coffman. Summoned by bot. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Support, subject to the usual caveat that this only presumes that WP:GNG will be able to be met by WP:V x WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion in an article is governed by content policies, and does not establish notability (see WP:NNC and WP:NOTESAL). Alcherin (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"What does played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign mean? Is shooting down 10 not important? or 20? What about 50?" (Dapi89) What this means is that significant coverage in reliable sources is expected to exist simply because they have played an important role in a major battle/campaign (such as by shooting down high numbers of enemy aircraft), and therefore even if these reliable sources are not actually cited yet, they can be assumed to exist per WP:NEXIST. However, this RfC has set the bar at five kills (being an ace), which I would strongly oppose. You're right in that where the line should be drawn is pretty arbritary, so on this I think it's best to actually remove point 4 from WP:SOLDIER altogether, because it is too ambiguous, and anyone undeniably important to a major battle/campaign will almost certainly satisfy one of the other WP:SOLDIER criteria and/or have received enough coverage to justify notability under the regular notability guidelines. In the case of Hugo Broch, I would expect that given the significance of shooting down 82 enemy aircraft, then significant coverage in reliable sources of his exploits will exist, but given that reliable sources with significant coverage to support notability seem to not exist per K.e.coffman's attempts to find some, then WP:NEXIST no longer applies. As for Erich Handke, what is cited on the article now looks like enough significant coverage to justify an article per normal WP:GNG. The ultimate test is whether reliable sources (w/ significant coverage) to support notability can be shown to indeed exist to support an article on an ace, and if these can reasonably be shown to not exist then their notability cannot be proven. Alcherin (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alcherin - they do exist. Koffman is not familiar with the literature or the subject. And I am more than happy to assist in building the article. Dapi89 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dapi89: - please provide examples of these sources then. Bear in mind that this RfC applies to every and all flying aces, not just the ones in the deletion discussions, so for the purposes of this RfC then the sources will need to have reasonable coverage of a very high proportion of flying aces , even those with only 5 kills, which I doubt can be found. Alcherin (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Dapi89 - The significance is in the impact felt and recognized shift in events by historians, not a raw metric. Leefe Robinson only needed one kill to change the course of the war and become a name known a hundred years later. Jimmy Doolittle shot down zero enemy planes and did only a minor amount of direct damage, but his raid took many fighters out of offensive service and led justly to his winning his nations highest award. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm always sceptical of biographical guidelines which argue that because 'x' was 'y' they're notable: this leads to nonsense like WP:NACADEMIC (in which totally obscure academics are declared notable on totally subjective grounds, leading to endless puff piece articles and associated AfDs). In my experience, flying aces tend to be notable as there are good quality books which provide useful levels of biographic detail on pretty much all of them, often as smallish encyclopedia-style articles. But that's covered by WP:BIO. I'm sure that there are some aces who are not notable - for instance, significant numbers of US Navy pilots shot down five or more Kamikazes in 1945, but this hardly seems a great achievement given that the Japanese aircraft were crewed by barely trained pilots: is there really significant coverage of these USN pilots? Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I find the argument it's just a propaganda term problematic, so we should look for sources" and interesting one. By it's very nature a propaganda figure will get a lot of coverage in as given nations or sides press. Even if we ban (and there is no policy reason to do so) all press reporting at the time as "primary" we are still going to have a situation where (as was pointed out above) one of the most successful aces in history might not be notable based purely on the side he fought for. That raises real concerns for me as this then creates a very Americcentric encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven, couldn't agree more. In fact, one editor even tries (and fails spectacularly) to argue that there is no such thing as an "ace"! Dapi89 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I'm rather mystified by those saying that we should not amend WP:SOLDIER because WP:SOLDIER doesn't mean anything. If this is the case, then (a) why do we bother having it, and (b) why do those who meet its criteria invariably get kept at AfD? And yes, they do invariably get kept at AfD, despite protestations that meeting the criteria of WP:SOLDIER does not equal a presumption of notability. We have a clear conflict here between dogma (WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant because only GNG matters) and practice (WP:SOLDIER is the accepted standard for notability in this sphere and those who meet its criteria are almost always kept at AfD). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: A few responses have suggested that Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) are subordinate to GNG. Wikipedia:Notability, in its third paragraph, currently indicates that GNG and SNGs are parallel (and both are guidelines, as is WP:NOTABILITY itself, rather than policies). Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Military_personnel currently links to WP:SOLDIER for military personnel. If GNG is to trump SNGs, then WP:NOTABILITY needs amendment, and that would require an RFC there. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Meaning "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"? WP:Soldier is not in that list so it could be held that this subject specific guideline is subordinate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:MILNG itself states in the lead paragraph that "the key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guide". It subordinates itself to GNG, and limits itself to giving advice for when presumption that an article fits GNG is reasonable. Alcherin (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: what is significant is achieving multiple aerial victories in combat, not the term "ace" itself; with that said, it is concerning that some of these articles on Air Force pilots are sorely lacking as to RS cited detail; certainly there should be information which can be found and used for coverage on such pilots in order to provide readers with an article of substance. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
CommentWP:SOLDIER should be a corollary of WP:GNG in the field of military personnel. It should not supersede, circumvent or contradict WP:GNG. It should also be noted that the proposal has a large aim. It is designed to declare any fighter pilot with more than 5 "kills" notable, regardless of any coverage in any sources. That means several hundred of stand-alone articles of stub and start class standard, most likely based on unreliable sources like contemporary newspaper reporting, regardless of the extent of the coverage.
Propaganda itself has become subject of historiographical study. Therefore it is unlikely that there are no secondary sources on "the most successful aces". Not counting the wealth of special interest literature, there is in fact a vast deal of research upon German wartime propaganda,
I am concerned, however, that AfDs seem to inflate the number of "the most successful aces". As to my understanding "the most" implies a single person, whereas by using the phrase "one of the most" it has been watered down and become a weasel word par excellence.--Assayer (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
CommentI've been reading with interest. What worries me is that we are in danger of inconsistency of approach. We don't count as notable every gallantry medal winner but only those who won the highest levels. Being an ace didn't guarantee that one of the highest gallantry awards would be made - something more extraordinary/notable was required. For consistency it seems a similar approach to our guidelines should be made - has the recipient been considered especially noteworthy among aces by peers or later scholars, perhaps leading to extensive press/propaganda coverage or a higher gallantry award, do they go on to do other notable things (command, testpilot, astronaut, politician etc.).Monstrelet (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment A fair proportion of arguments have argued that flying aces receive significant coverage in sources simply because they are flying aces. Bearing in mind that an ace requires only 5 kills, can it actually be reasonably expected that the vast majority of aces will have significant coverage in a reliable source beyond a few biographical details and a short paragraph? I'm not acquainted with the literature, but sources that cover (most of) those aces with a relatively low number of kills has not yet been presented. For those aces with high killcounts, of course it is likely that there will be significant coverage in a reliable source, but where the line is drawn for WP:NEXIST is up for debate. Alcherin (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Coverage definitely exists for any jet-era (1950 onward) ace - as there simply aren't that many. It also likely exists for the vast majority of pre-jet aces (definitely for 10+ aces - double-aces). In my eyes - reaching flying ace status (which a very small fraction of pilots due) - leads to a presumption of notability (like WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE). For instance, referring to List of Israeli flying aces - not all of whom have English wiki articles (and I'm not inclined to create them - not my focus!) - I can say with 100% certainty that they all meet GNG - based on my knowledge of the Hebrew and English literature out there (there are several books that deal with Israeli air force in great-great detail - down to the level of descriptions of each and every aerial encounter with very in-depth discussion of pilot personnel). The same applies to other conflicts and areas - often there is English language literature, but not always... But almost always there is local language literature (be it Russian, Vietnamese, , Arabic, Persian, or whatever) - unless the pilot was "suppressed"/"purged" (successfully.... Not all purges are) for unrelated political reasons (or due to this being an "unofficial" action (e.g. Russian pilots serving in Egypt, Chinese pilots in Korea). In these conflicts I can't attest all on a list 100% meet GNG (which I can on the Israeli list - as I know the literature) - but from knowledge - it is a very-very-very high proportion. In short - most probably there are more sources regarding flying aces, even if we don't have them in the article. Some books aren't searchable easily. Newspaper archives aren't always easy to access. And searching in non-English languages has varying degrees of complexity (German is fairly easy, Russian harder, and Vietnamese much harder....)Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"It also likely exists for the vast majority of pre-jet aces" - could you give some examples of sources that contain significant coverage about pre-jet aces with below 10 victories? World War II American aces have been specifically called into question above by Nick-D. Alcherin (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
WWII (and before) is more difficult - because there is both a stupendous amount of reliable-sources, and a large amount of aces (particularly in relation to WWII - long war, large amount of aircraft => large amount of kills all together). In addition a high proportion of the sources is often less easily searchable on-line. From my personal knowledge of the literature - it is very highly probable that any pilot with more than 10 kills (and not (successfully) politically suppressed - mainly Soviet issue - and marginal) - has sources. Proving this point - is difficult - as it is based on experience. It is also difficult to prove on every named particular pilot with a cursory quick check (as there are often sources which are not googleable) - and with the more obscure, it can be a time consuming task to find the WP:RS - but they are, in my experience, there.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
if the sources exist in line with general wiki notability policy, why do we need an extra presumption of notability? Monstrelet (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
To avoid deleting an article which will probably improve sourcing on its own in due time (even if it years).Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It's in cases where the available sources aren't (yet) cited in an article on an ace. A presumption that the sources exist is necessary in order to use WP:NEXIST. Proving that available sources exist is however a difficult matter. Alcherin (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, when you say that (pre-jet) aces with more than 10 kills are likely to have sources, would coverage of them in said sources be actually significant coverage that would allow the article to be potentially fleshed out and include more than a paragraph? Alcherin (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Most probably yes - at least covering service history and from After action reports the description of the engagements. While post-service and pre-service life might be difficult, primary sources would exist covering much than a paragraph - the issue is finding the secondary sources who aggregated these (they most probably exist - but for WWII for instance, it is rather a matter of a huge amount (thousands, if not more, of full page books!) to go through). I'll note that I've seen less significant battles pass AFD - Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Pineberry Battery - the military value of the forces on each side was less than the equivalent of a warplane, the battle wasn't significant beyond occurring, and wasn't notable in the course of the civil war. It was sourced) - then a single 4 on 4 aerial engagement resulting in shoot-downs.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Note From the very top of the page people keep quoting (WP:SOLDIER) - "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guide, although the following is provided to give a general understanding of who, or what, is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand alone article." See the bit about the GNG there? It's the rule of thumb that should always be applied. A claim that "there might be sources out there somewhere" is something that should be immediately answered with "put up or shut up" (probably in gentler terms than mine) because I could quite easily write an article about a Lieutenant-General who doesn't exist, watch it get put up for AfD and then chuckle to myself as people mindlessly type "Keep - meets WP:SOLDIER" - everyone forgets the GNG part of WP:SOLDIER even though it's right there at the top. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As I have already quoted from WP:SOLDIER, "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they [meet the listed criteria]". That's fairly unambiguous. It clearly means there is a presumption that those who meet the criteria are almost always notable, even if sources are not available as yet. Your last sentence is completely irrelevant since cited proof of existence and of holding the claimed rank or status is obviously required in order to meet the criteria, so if you wrote said article it would be deleted as making an unverified claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I get where "put up or shut up" attitude comes from because it is routed in WP:VER which gives us WP:BURDEN/PROVEIT. That said it might not always be easy to provide an online source, and there might be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which exist, but exist WP:OFFLINE. Therefore presumptions of notability are useful in many of those cases where the significant coverage might not be readily available online but does exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately many on-line sources are considered unreliable by Wikipedia editors, as being merely fanboy sites or 'spam'. I have been criticised a number of times for using them as references and had large quantities of my work deleted accordingly. Its hard-print or nothing for this topic it seems Philby NZ (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability defines what sources, online or not, can be considered reliable. It's not that for this topic everything has to be exclusively in print; if the online sources on aces don't fit the criteria that is applied to all sources, then they aren't considered reliable. In particular, whether online sites have editorial oversight, and the qualifications and past publishing history of the writers (WP:SPS). Alcherin (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Comment -- the German air force of WWII had over 100 pilots who claimed 100+ aircraft shot down each. It had hundreds, if not thousands, of pilots who shot down 5+ aircraft each. It seems highly unlikely that WP:SIGCOV "most probably will" be available on these subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I will note that I believe 10+ (stated above) is appropriate for pre-jet - particularly WWII.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
While seeing the practical point, doesn't the concept of "ace" need to follow commonly-held definitions for this proposal to be meaningful? I'm aware of the traditional 5+ rule. Is this 10+ figure widespread in the aviation literature (I'm a medievalist with a bit of an interest in aeroplanes so I'm reaching out to our aviation experts here)Monstrelet (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
10 would be "double ace" (with 15 "triple ace") - which is a concept that is used (as well as "ace in a day" - which is 5 in one day) - see some uses here -[16], [17].Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Should we also have an RfC on what constitutes an "ace" for the purpose of modifying SOLDIER? :-)
Besides, it's impossible to compare the standing of aces among different militaries based solely on the number of victories. U.S. air force WWII aces may have been celebrated to a much higher degree vs the German aces (due to being so many of them) or the Soviet aces (due to the emphasis on the "collective" vs individual contributions to the war effort). I doubt that every 5, 10 or even 50+ victories German ace would pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Why do you doubt those German aces would pass GNG? On what basis do you make that assumption? Philby NZ (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Philby NZ: I came to this conclusion by looking for and evaluating sources on a number of German fighter aces & also as part of the overall discussion that resulted in the Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Those who "only" shot down 5 aircraft did not qualify for the Knigt's Cross, so sources on them would be even more sparse.
Why do you believe that those German aces would pass GNG? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The level of success of the Knight's Cross winners is even higher than those of 5-victory fighters aces (making it a far smaller subset of pilots, yet you want to censor even that?) - a bar set so low to include a number of Western Allied pilots in WW2 when, as people have noted above, so many German pilots achieved western 'acedom' due to their extended tours of duty even in theatres where the quality of pilot was far more even (like the Desert & Western Front). I would warrant many American aces achieved their victories in 1944-1945 when the quality of average German pilot ability had plummeted to be as bad as, or worse than, the oft-derided Soviet pilots had been several years earlier. GNG is a good guideline (its in the name) to start a search for good information on a given pilot. The sheer arrogance to suggest that a German pilot with 30-60 victories is insignificant compared to a British or American pilot with 5-15 victories is incredible, just because there have been a lack of good sources written in English. I am disappointed that articles are being deleted retroactively when good information is presented in more than a stub-article because the article-subject supposedly failed to meet a nominal guideline to Wikipedia entry-points. I do agree that stub-articles should not be created & left untended, just for the sake of passing some criteria but if there is enough information for more than a stub, then let it stay Philby NZ (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Philby NZ: The discussion is not about which nation's aces were more / less significant, but whether or not significant RS coverage is likely to exist on these subjects. What evidence do you happen to have that 5-victory German aces would pass GNG? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have precious little in my personal library, given the vast number of pilots that includes. The three I know about off the top of my head are Felix-Maria Brandis (14v. zerstörer pilot and one of the original leaders of the Arctic fighter squadrons), Karl-August Schumacher (fought at Jutland in WW1 navy and then WW2 group-leader (2v.) who led one of the earliest major defeats on the British bombing raids on Germany in 1939 - the battle of Heligoland Bight) and Hannes Gentzen, the very first ace of WW2 with 7 victories over Poland but killed in France in 1940 (9v.) and an obvious propaganda tool for the regime. Actually, come to think of it, John Weal's Osprey book (Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces of World War 2) would likely have a number of details on those heavy-fighters pilots, who would have only scored a handful of victories in their combat careers. Do you believe the very first ace of that war is not a significant person, have you heard of him? It was too early in the war for him to be awarded the Knights Cross Philby NZ (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not about what editors personally think of the significance of individual aces - it's whether they (can be presumed to) satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Sure, personally I would consider the first ace of the war to be 'significant', but unless there is significant coverage of his exploits somewhere then it doesn't fit under GNG. Perhaps a better place for details on him, if significant coverage isn't expected to surface, would be articles such as Air warfare of World War II or an article dealing with German aces in aggregate (perhaps (nationality) aces in World War II, or smaller pages that split aces by nationality and victories. (see proposal below). Alcherin (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Would you say that only the 3rd Luftwaffe pilot awarded the Knight's Cross (Schumacher) is not significant either? Considered of equal standing to other pilots like Mölders, Balthasar, Galland & Ösau, awarded for his leadership abilities rather than his personal combat achievements. Philby NZ (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Considered by who to be of equal standing? If he is considered of equal standing to those pilots by sources, and those pilots already pass GNG, then significant coverage of him will probably exist somewhere. That still requires proof that he is considered of equal standing, even if sources that provide significant coverage of him aren't (yet) cited in an article about him (WP:NEXIST). Alcherin (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Note In his book Technology and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and Germany, 1890-1945 (Cambridge UP, 2005) historian Bernhard Rieger noted that the "cult of the miltary aviator in the Third Reich did not produce individual stars comparable to Richthofen or Bölcke during the Second World War. Apart from the potentially fostering envy among the ′community′ of pilots, this practice would have entailed having to inform the public of a hero's death, which would have subverted their morale if it happened too often. As a result, the military pilot of the Third Reich remained a largely anonymous, albeit heroic, figure that exemplified the new masculinity deemed necessary to enact the demands of Nazi ideology." (pp. 260-1.)--Assayer (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment; Greetings, it's been a while since I have posted here, and am looking to resuming more activity with y'all. It was not to long ago that SOLDIER was created, unfortunately, due to the reduction of favor-ability of addition to NOTABLE over the width of Wikipedia in more recent years, SOLDIER has remained an essay level item with wide support given the strength quality and vocalness of our Wikiproject. Unfortunately, this means that an individual who played a single game in the U.S. Major League Baseball game gets an article while someone who sacrificed and earned a second level national medal for valor (such as the U.S. Navy Cross) has to fight to keep an article and be subject to GNG. Therefore, we as a Wikiproject could not elevate SOLDIER to Guideline level status. One reason for why there has been a lack of favor for Notability to be expanded and include SOLDIER is the view that GNG should be the end all be all on notability. Other sub-categories of notability that are at guideline status have precedence and standing and should not be removed. And any attempt on our part to have SOLDIER elevated to the same level as WP:NBASE has been met with objection. Therefore, the question in front of us here is whether we should add to SOLDIER, and what I am going on about is related but not the primary subject of this discussion. This is why I leave my comment here in this section, and not in the survey above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
ai) What do editors think of having articles that provide overviews of flying aces by war, as in Flying aces of x war? The topics of "flying aces of x war", at least where the main belligerents are concerned, almost certainly have enough coverage in reliable sources to give the topic as a whole notability. The article could then contain sections on individual aces who do not have enough notability for standalone articles, as well as having summaries of aces that are considered notable enough.
aii) Where the articles would become too long, sorting aces by confirmed aerial victories could then be used to split them into subarticles along the lines of WP:SPINOFF (flying aces of y war credited with x aerial victories). What numbers are used is a little arbitrary, but it could for example be 10 (a "double ace"), 15 (a "triple ace"), and 50 aerial victories, with main page at flying aces of y war containing links to all of the subpages. (For World War I flying aces, where we already have lists like List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories, these could be turned into Flying aces of World War I credited with 5 victories).
For example:
Flying aces of World War II (main page giving overview of aces, discussing reasons for aces in World War II, the claim by some sources that the idea of aces is propaganda, etc.)
Why not just only have lists? As per WP:DETAIL, there is probably some interest in the specific details of individual aces, as evidenced by all the editors who have shown their interest in editing such topics. This detail wouldn't fit in a regular list (the Notes column is too limiting), but evidently is verifiable and is useful to some readers. It's also in the middle ground between the inclusionists and deletionists in this discussion. Alcherin (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There has been precedent for including details on topics on lists too (e.g. List_of_common_misconceptions), so alternatively the proposed articles could be lists instead. Alcherin (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
So you are proposing deleting all articles on flying aces then?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
No, because if articles on individual flying aces fit GNG then they can stay separate, with summary sections on the proposed pages (as with Pilot 2). Alcherin (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Which takes us back to the problem of Americanism. Either "ace" has a specific meaning "X number of kills" or this is just a "how much publicity they got for propaganda purpose" game. I find this worrying as it means (potentially) that minor aces get pages and major ones do not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Who defines whether an ace is "minor" or "major"? GNG quite clearly states that it is significant coverage that matters, not a raw metric of their number of victories. Americanism is a regrettable issue, but ultimately Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs of disproportionate coverage. The compromise articles above would allow a niche for less publicised aces with less but verifiable coverage to be described in detail, since article content is not governed by notability but by content policies. Alcherin (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia does consider over concentration on America an issue, which is why (in this case) we should use what the military uses to determine notability. The number of kills. Also GNG (well actually notability) links to the essay on solders, thus it is not "exclusive", just because you do not meet GNG doers not mean you are non notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia considers it an issue of systemic bias, but if the sources that exist are biased (towards coverage of Americans) then we can only reflect that bias as a tertiary source. This is as opposed to where systemic bias exists because non-English language sources are not used; it does seem that many German WWII aces will not have the significant coverage necessary to support notability. As for WP:NOTABILITY linking to WP:SOLDIER, in the lead of SOLDIER it defers ultimately to regular GNG, and says that it's role is to provide recommendations as a guide for who "is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand-alone article." WP:SOLDIER is by no means a hard set of criteria, upon which passing it grants notability, it is a set of recommendations for when notability can be presumed. I've addressed this above in the threaded discussion as well. Alcherin (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Having better lists should help to reduce systemic bias, as it will at least ensure that there is some coverage of the les popular areas. It is, however dependent on proper sourcing (and agreeing what proper sourcing for inclusion in a list is). The lists at present are not well sourced, even for just basic lists. If we expand the information in them then sourcing needs to be much better. It won't be helpful to expand the lists as an attempt to fix the current problem if entries or even whole lists are then vulnerable to deletion because of sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:LISTCRITERIA lies in a grey area between notability and content policies/guidelines, but "proper sourcing" is really only dependent on WP:V. As it says under WP:CSC, "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Ultimately I'd think that inclusion in the proposed articles (as opposed to being purely on existing lists) would have to require source coverage of details of an ace's aerial engagements in addition to biographical/basic details, enough to write several sentences that would support a section in the proposed articles. Where details about an ace cannot be found (e.g. reliable sources with coverage of details aren't found and cited), then they would be removed from the proposed articles but remain on the existing lists (List of World War II flying aces). Alcherin (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
As an example of potential problems with sourcing, look at List of World War II flying aces from Romania - this is completely unreferenced and of the six bluelinks, two point to unrelated people - one (Ion Panait) to a wrestler born in 1981, and another (George Pomutz) to a 19th century soldier.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment;Just noticed this in wandering past, and while I'd generally favour coverage, and arguments like this are the reason I limit my wiki activities to fixing errors in passing, I'm surprised to see no mention of the issues regarding which kills counted towards ace. This becomes problematic with the 8th AF allowing claims for aircraft destroyed on the ground (possibly not the only occurrence of this, but the most well known). This requires a second level of checking for certain pilots, to determine whether references refer to air to air kills, or to other aircraft destroyed as well.
Equally, as mentioned to some degree above, the significance of number of kills varies with with whether the air force in question rotated pilots out of the line or not. No RAF ace comes near the highest German scores, but the high kill numbers of many German aces reflect a considerably extended time in combat (with exceptions such as Hans-Joachim Marseille), while the RAF pilots would do a tour and then be rotated to training or other postings, seeing far fewer opportunities to score. Having national-specific targets for whether an ace's score is significant probably isn't a good idea, but it would be essential to avoid excluding nationally significant pilots for nations which simply didn't see as much combat - for the Thais, for example, there might even be grounds to consider every pilot who scored a kill to be significant.
There may also be grounds for considering type specific limits on significance. 5 kills may seem like an unexceptional total, but when you're a reconnaissance pilot and got them in a Martin Maryland, as Adrian Warburton did, then that is something truly exceptional and noteworthy. Similarly nightfighter aces generally had lower totals, it being difficult to find a target, never mind shoot one down, so their scores become significant at lower levels than for day fighters - and the role of the radar-operator in this was fundamental to the kills, so the backseaters definitely deserve their place, the kill simply wouldn't have happened without them (never mind that covering Gruppenkommandeur Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, but not Unteroffizier Kummeritz and Feldwebel Ostheimer, the two guys in back who actually set up his kills for him, looks rather classist).
In the end there are just too many places you would need to argue 'no, this actually is significant' for any hard and fast rule to work.
82.11.64.250 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
And then, problems of establishing significance aside, there's also whether significance translates into them having significant coverage in reliable sources that is sufficient to support a standalone article. Alcherin (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Support proposal, I would not be opposed the the above proposal by Alcherin (talk·contribs). Per WP:LISTVERIFY, lists must meet the same verification requirements of other content. Therefore, for an individual to be listed, even if the individual isn't individually notable according to WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:SOLDIER, the individual should be listed due to the verification that the subject of aerial aces is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good topic candidate - Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy
G'day all, this has been a good topic candidate for a while now, and has undergone significant improvements since being nominated. I know not all members of the project monitor featured/good topic noms, so it may be flying under the radar a bit. Any additional uninvolved eyes/comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Liberty Place Monument -- does this belong under WP:MILHIST umbrella?
No, there was no "battle" and no military forces were engaged. For that matter, the page should be named "Liberty Place Monument."--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Spandau Prison
Does anyone know of a solid history of Spandau Prison? Inn Band of Brothers, Ambrose wrote that Ronald Speirs became a governor of Spandau. I've been unable to find separate confirmation and the more Ambrose I read the less impressed I become.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I concur with the latter sentiment. After Ambrose wrote this, his credibility as an author of serious works was deeply questionable, despite his military experience. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, that's a different Ambrose. Zawed (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
[18] If this analysis of his military records by an SPS website about Speirs is correct, then he was indeed Spandau's commandant. This website's quoting of Speirs' records indicates that the NPRC might have them. Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Ambrose was a very good writer, IMO, but was in the habit of listening to acecdotes and accounts from veterans and not verifying their claims carefully enough – he treated many of the stories he was told as factual and published them as such. Several of those claims which turned out to be wrong would come back to bite him on the arse and lead to the impression that he was a bad historian. Whilst it's not possible to verify everything he was ever told, particularly personal combat experiences, when he was told things like X person is dead, Y person became a governor, Z person went on to become famous, etc. he really should have checked official records or contacted relatives for confirmation before putting it in his books. It's a shame that a few incorrect details should tarnish his otherwise impressive array of books. I also believe that the HBO Band of Brothers series is one of the greatest recreations of a real unit of men at war – without Ambrose's original research it may never have been made, despite a few inaccuracies which don't harm it enough to spoil it completely. — Marcus(talk) 04:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
At the top of the list of soldiers he spoke to was Dwight Eisenhower, who had a very adaptable memory. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I had been giving the Speirs site a wide berth because of its SPS nature and wonder if the documents toward the bottom of the Spandau page are recently added. Anyway, I feel more comfortable using that site now. The people who run the site may have more.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The document on that page lists him as the prison director. There were four of these, one from each of the occupying powers. When I visited the prison 30 years later, there was only one prisoner left. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Anti-frogman techniques
This article looks like it is within the scope of WPMILHIST, so I have tagged it. Please check if this is correct, and if so, the article could use a bit of cleanup. I have made a start, but there is a long way to go still. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
User privileges question
I've had a look round but can't find anything and wonder if anyone here knows how to resign from user privileges? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If you no longer want one or more on any privileges you have then they can be removed by any admin on request via an {{Admin-help}} request on your own talk page. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it's being dealt with. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I have started a RfC [19] on a certain contentious statement in this article, please help resolve the dispute. I should say that the article is under discretionary sanctions - edit carefully! Banedon (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A-Class review for 15th Tank Corps needs attention
15th Tank Corps needs just a few more editors to complete its A-Class review. Please help review the article. Thanks in advance, Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"North Africa was an integral part of Vichy France" (Yad Vashem)
It is a real pleasure to read the comments by so many knowledgeable editors!
I checked "Europe" in Wiki (I don't remember if it was French or English Wiki), and it was correctly written, that Europe extended in the 19th century by acquiring new possessions in North Africa - there is a distinction between Africa and Europe being continents, thus geographical entities (and North Africa being also a geographical concept) and Europe in a political sense, is made of the European nations and their overseas territories.
I read that
1. "France, the French Republic" was the only imperial nation to implement its legislation in its overseas territories and extensively spread French civilization there. A French Article IV (I think) of 1943: North African common land of Europe."
2. "France is a transcontinental country." - even today.
De Gaulle used "continental France" to distinguish it from "France d'Outre-Mer" (overseas), and when the Nazi regime occupied all of France in November 1942, Alger in Algeria became the French capital. EHRI in its Holocaust website writes: Europe (and its colonies).
French Algeria, until 1961, was divided into departments, and the numbers there followed the ones in the Metropole or mainland France: 91, 92, 93, 94.
In the Tunisian archives for 1939-1945, it's written: "Vichy-Tunisia".
French Holocaust historian Renée Poznanski used "Vichy metropolitan" to distinguish it from Vichy North Africa.
That's the way do it, when one is narrating political history of Europe, and the Holocaust was a political process evolving in imperial Europe - "Europe including the colonies". Vichy implemented all its anti-Jewish measured in Vichy North Africa, which was under its rule as per the Franco-German armistice of June 1940.
French North African was called "extension de la France" and "prolongement de l'Europe" - in political term, and not geographical/continental one
I just woke up and reading your intelligent comments made my day!
Henia, thanks. Certainly there are transcontinental countries, including France of course. Turkey and Russia are obvious examples; the Netherlands is transcontinental in much the same way as France, having some islands in the Caribbean; and there are many other examples, depending on how you define a continent. And as Nick-D correctly said, you can't neatly separate geography from politics when discussing history.
The point that I want to make is a semantic one. Words are often used carelessly. As Bismarck said, Europe is a geographical expression. The EU is not equivalent to Europe (ask the Swiss). It's possible to speak of "European colonies" collectively, but they're colonies of European countries, not of Europe itself. The continent of Europe cannot have colonies and cannot extend outside its geographical area. The 1848 constitution that incorporated Algeria into metropolitan France didn't extend Europe into Africa – it extended France into Africa. Réunion is within transcontinental France, and consequently within the transcontinental EU, but IMHO it's not within Europe in any meaningful way. — Stanning (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if anyone could help me clean up Soviet Middle Eastern Foreign Policy during the Cold War and Political movements in China and America during the Cold War, or more specifically help me figure out if these articles need to have their own independent articles. Offhand I think that they very well could, however at the moment they're kind of more essay than Wikipedia article. I'm personally more familiar with Civil War history than I am Cold War, so any help with this would be incredibly appreciated! I'd notified one of the students that they needed to work on the article, but I don't see where they made any big progress on this and since the class is now over, it's sort of my responsibility to figure out what to do with it. I'm debating moving it into my userspace for the time being, but I'm afraid of losing track of it, hence why I wanted to ask here for help. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Political movements in China and America during the Cold War, I'm going to propose it for deletion as an essay since it seems to be more of a comparative essay than an encyclopedia article. That will give anyone here a week to look at it and see if there's anything that can be done. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Soviet Middle Eastern Foreign Policy during the Cold War seems like an anti-Soviet essay trying to pin the current fiasco that is the Middle East on them. I'm trying to do what I can to help it (any work in the article mainspace that's POV gives Wikipedia a bad name) but WP:TNT might be a better option. Topic seems notable enough. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the same person above (Shalor) under my main account. Indy beetle or Alcherin, if you think that TNT is a better option, can either of you write out the AfD nomination? I would, but I'm not as savvy with this particular topic and it would be more effective of an AfD rationale if it was written by someone who knew more about what they're talking about. I nominated the other article for AfD since the student contested it, as it was more of an obvious student essay as far as appearances go, so I was more comfortable doing that one. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A Request for comment has been made on the Battle for Caen talk page
Editorial POV-pushing, despite attempts by to persuade an editor to acknowledge the difference between an article conforming to the title and a Montgomery-bashing exercise.
Other recent editors being notified. Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to put some work into the Formosa Air Battle page, but before I get started I noticed that there's a redirect to the page called Aerial Battle of Taiwan-Okinawa. Is there a way to propose removing this redirect? That title is rarely (if ever) given in credible English language sources and such a title only leads to confusion, since this action has almost nothing to do with Okinawa. The page should focus on 12–16 October and the battle's relation to the Battle of Leyte Gulf. It needs a lot of TLC but this would be a good first step. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Good luck in the course of your research ! Sagecandor (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:RFD is where redirects are discussed. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This article has been seriously poor for a very long time. I made a number of improvementa, only to be stonewalled by a few editors who resist change and are exercising ownership. Have a look. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:2C88:F1C:B1C0:1CB1 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@2605:6000:EF43:8500:2C88:F1C:B1C0:1CB1: Hi, thanks so much for contributing! Because you had made multiple edits and there had been multiple reversions, both by yourself and other editors, I went through yours starting with the first edit you made after my last one.
Revision as of 06:47 7 June 2017: I reverted this edit. Your phrase "Museveni believed that his defeat in the 1979 elections was caused by fraud." as opposed to "After his defeat in what he called fradulent elections..." describes Museveni's beliefs, as opposed to his actions/words.
I then took some time to look at your further edits and incorporated all of them into this edit. You then reverted it with the comment "you cannot be serious in thinking this is a better version of the article". I'd like to point out that this version included all of your changes except the above. Later, you called it "pathetic".
While I appreciate your passion, I, and I think most editors, respond better to constructive comments regarding their edits as opposed to mean ones. :-)
Regards WP:OWN, I visited this article for the first time by clicking the Random Page link. Prior to my edits in the last 24 hours, I have never visited or contributed here. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
May be of interest to WikiProject members for reference work on the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Naming ships after living people
There is an incorrect but correctly sourced claim on USS Gabrielle Giffords: that it is the 13th US ship since the 1850s named after a living person. In fact it is the 13th US ship named after a living person since the 1969 policy against naming ships after living people, and the 15th or 16th since 1850. I explained this on the talk page with additional details but as the article has no traffic I thought I'd bring it up here where someone is more likely to see it. I'm not sure how best to correct the article. (If there is a more appropriate WikiProject, please direct me.) - CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This falls into our special project Operation Majestic Titan. I've updated the article's talk page and added the proper category to the article itself. These editors might be able to help further. @Iazyges:@Parsecboy:@TomStar81:auntieruth(talk) 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Translated pages
I'm interested in creating a page based on the subject coverage in French wikipedia. This seems common enough technique but is there a particular process I should be using or guidelines I should be reading? Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:RFT for guidance perhaps? — Marcus(talk) 17:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. After a little research, I see there is a beta translation bot. However, it is either not working or has been disabled (it only seems to be able to translate categories at the moment). Looks like I'll have to do it manually. Monstrelet (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Copy-edited it for you. There are some phrases in the wording that don't make sense though.
"stating his intention to re-establish in all their rigor his temporal rights as" – what does "in all their rigor" mean?
"was confirmed on 21 April 1263 the complete independence of the Council" – should "the complete independence" be "independently"?
Probably needs a few tweaks to make the wording flow a bit better in places, but generally makes sense. — Marcus(talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've tweaked to try to improve sense. BTW, does anyone know if wikimarkup has a search-and-replace. I'd like to standardise the spelling of Strasbourg. Monstrelet (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Find and replace? Do you mean to change all the "Strasburg"s to "Strasbourg" in one go? wikEd can do that. — Marcus(talk) 15:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
And done. Thanks all round. Monstrelet (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Monstrelet: Perhaps just create a redirect page for Strasburg to direct to Strasbourg? Otherwise, you'll have to run the bot every month to pick up the stuff that is made in the meantime. Strasburg may be spelled Strasbourg now, but it wasn't always, and most of us will use the source's spelling, or the contemporary, but possibly not current, spelling. If I'm using a German source, and writing about Strasburg in 1880, I'm going to spell it Strasburg, becasuse it's a source thing. I might remember but probably not. auntieruth(talk) 19:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree, that standardising place names isn't always best. When I write Napoleonic articles I tend to stick with names contemporary to the era, as do a lot of historians in the books I read. I also use some of the popular foreign terms and put the English translation on the first use. I think it helps readers get a "feel" for the period, rather than dragging everything into the modern age and Anglicising, because I see that as an unnecessary cultural bias, which historical articles should try to avoid. However, it is the choice of the article creator what they prefer, but it might not stick since it isn't a MOS requirement that I'm aware of. — Marcus(talk) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yup—English has no consistency in whether place names are given in their modern English, historic English, current local or historic local names, and we shouldn't make any attempt to try. (I guarantee you that to 99% of readers, a mention of Oświęcim, Volgograd or Slavkov u Brna will just get a blank stare but they'll be immediately familiar with Auschwitz, Stalingrad and Austerlitz.) Likewise, it would look ridiculous to say that "in 324 AD the capital of the Roman Empire moved from Rome to Istanbul", but one could easily say "Constantine was born in York" even though Eboracum didn't receive that name until about a thousand years later. ‑ Iridescent 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been impressed by your support on this MILHIST members, so thanks. When editing the article I just wanted consistency of all the spellings. I stuck with the current name on a common usage rationale. The German is Straßburg so Strasburg is in between modern usages anyway. Likewise, I went with the French Alsace rather than the German Elsass, because it is the normal English usage.Monstrelet (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)\
It is important to be consistent within the article, first. So if you're editing an article that uses British English, spells it Elsass instead of Alsace, etc., be consistent. English-Australian-US-Canadian usages should be preserved unless you are completely overhauling the article. But within the article, Alsace/Elsass should be consistent, Strasburg/Strasbourg should be consistent. Etc. To make this consistent wiki-wide would be a fool's errand. auntieruth(talk) 15:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Can't disagree with you there, as this is what I have set out to do. I have no intention to try to make anything consistent wikiwide but consistency of spelling within a single article is a style basic.Monstrelet (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I've added a few citations where I could find them, but my library is pretty sparse when it comes to general World War I stuff. Still quite a few citation needed tags if anyone else has time and the resources, anything would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was only to get one at this stage. There are still about 13 cn tags left if anyone else is able to help. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The deletion discussion has since been closed. Sagecandor (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The African parts of Europe
There´s an article called German-occupied Europe, and it has a map with some bits I think of as south of Europe, and an editor recently added a bit about Tunisia [21]. My question is, is this ok because duh, France, or does sources generally discuss German-occupied Europe without Africa? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Given the existence of colonial empires at the time, it seems a bit artificial to entirely ignore the status of France's north African holdings here. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Algeria was legally part of metropolitan France.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Metropolitan France? Anyway, fair enough, I guess. Thanks for your replies! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven and Parsecboy: Yes, the French Constitution of 1848 declared Algeria and the colonies to be French territory (article 109). It didn't name the colonies, but ... if Algeria comes within Europe for this purpose, how far does "Europe" extend? French Guiana? Réunion? — Stanning (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Certainly as far as official usage goes, "Europe" includes all those outliers like St Pierre & Miquelon and Tahiti. (Look closely at the map on a Euro banknote; those apparently-random blobs in the lower left corner of the map of Europe are actually Reunion, Guadeloupe etc). Where the "Metropolitan France is part of Europe" legal fiction is important in a military context is that from 1942 onwards, the allied presence in North Africa meant that De Gaulle could claim that France was a disputed territory with some parts under the control of Vichy and some parts under the control of Free France, as opposed to an Axis-aligned country which happened to have some of its more distant colonies under rebel control. ‑ Iridescent 22:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! Historical context understood, but let's not confuse the EU with Europe! Europe is a geographical entity. Those French colonies are on the euro banknotes because they're within the EU (the French continue to insist that they're France d'outre-mer, not only because of that historical context but also for modern geopolitical reasons), not because they're geographically in Europe! Similarly, the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are within the EU (also for historical and geopolitical reasons), but they're in Africa, not Europe. — Stanning (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You can't neatly separate geography from politics in this context IMO. It seems appropriate for this article's focus to be on Europe, but the fact that the Nazis were also occupying bits of France in Africa is clearly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Also the "European plate" does contain a small sliver of (what would have been) french North Africa. So how do we define "Europe"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I've always understood la Métropole to be equivalent to l'Hexagone (plus Corsica). Algeria was a part of France, but not part of the Métropole. It was administered like Metropolitan France (in departments), however, and not like a colony. Also, I don't think it is correct to say that Germany ever occupied any part of Africa. For one, all German troops in Africa were under Italian command. And even in the case of Tunisia, the Axis left the French and beylical administration in place. That there were German and Italian troops in Tunisia does not equal occupation. Srnec (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am watching this page re: adding a sentence, perhaps a note or footnote, about this to the article. There are sources re: six month Tunisia occupation in this query.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Not looking at sources here, but wasn't only part of Algeria organized into departments and, therefore, part of Metropolitan France? (the coastal portions, but not the interior), Regardless, if the subject is Europe, the fact that politically, part of Africa was an element of a state mostly located in Europe, seems not relevant. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Amerasian#Not Amerasians. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
.
.png){kind=link}