Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

Missing navyEdit

We do not appear to have an article on the Royal Sardinian Navy. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

True, maybe start one?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Way outside my area of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Pinging the usual suspects.... G'day, gentlemen, would either of you be interested in taking this on? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Same here, did a quick search to try and start one and found very little if anything usable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It's generally a bit early for me - I've written articles on the ironclads that were ordered by the Sardinian Navy on the eve of it becoming the Regia Marina, but I don't have the sources to do something more in-depth on the navy itself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
That was almost my problem, I could find the odd thing about thee Crimean war, but again nothing really in depth about the navy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860-1905 and it turns out that it had more background info on the Sardinian Navy than I remembered - I've started a sketch of the navy (currently up to Cavour's tenure as naval minister) if anyone wants to add to it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm done with the material from Conway's, but there's still work to be done. I'll probably continue to tinker with the article over the coming days, though Richelieu is calling my name. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice start, would the article benefit from {{infobox military unit}}? Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment needs attentionEdit

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This one has had a good going over by two reviewers already, and the image review is done, just needs a third review to get over the line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Campaign vs campaignEdit

@Dicklyon: Have we reached consensus about lower casing the word Campaign? Several articles have been moved again. Regard Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure we have. Four more RM discussions have closed in favor of using lowercase campaign, like the previous discussions. Exceptions are possible, of course, if there are campaigns that are mostly capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are some recent relevant discussions that I could find, where nobody presented a reason to cap any of these (except for the occasional unsupported assertion of "it's a proper name" from an editor or two):
Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussion here. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Where? Did you forget a link? Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see there was another section archived: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Capitalization_of_"Campaign"_in_articles. Maybe if you see someone there pointing out a reason to cap some of these, you can summarize or quote that here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You haven't managed to alter the consensus; I suggest you stop altering titles unless you do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What consensus do you refer to? The discussions I linked were closed with a consensus that we follow our capitalization guidelines. If you think any of my moves were contrary to that consensus, please point them out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles regarsa Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I already linked that. That's where an editor first pointed out the inconsistency, and we decided to work on it. Consensus was challenged, then tested and affirmed with multiple RM discussions. In the process, nobody provided a good reason to use caps on any of these – unless I missed it, in which case you should point it out here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You aren't a judge of what is a good reason, you are an advocate for a point of view. I suggest that you stop moving titles unless you have obtained consensus or be ready to be reverted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm always ready to be reverted and discuss. I asked if I missed any good reasons so that others could help judge. It's not up to me, but up to discussion, such as those I linked. If you find anything there that look like good reasons to leave some of those campaigns capped, let's talk; or bring up your own good reason. Otherwise, I see no challenge to the well-tested consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a list or RS on the East African Campaign (1914-18, 1940-43)? Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What with so much forum shopping going on with regards the capitalisation of "campaign", you'll be lucky to find a credible consensus. The whole situation is being manipulated by POV-pushing. Makes you wonder why we have a military history project when all the views of the military historian members have been ignored and changes/moves made regardless behind their backs. — Marcus(talk) 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Was the project not notified of all these discussions? What are you calling forum shopping? Was there some irregular procedure? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're the bureaucrat, professor, I'm sure you can find your own answers to those questions. When you can't find excuses for poor conduct, do what you do best – invent them. Little point in me answering, when we both know you'll apply your own spin to anything posted that challenges your almighty opinion. Speaking from my own experience, I always thought this project worked best when issues were resolved based on the consensus of proactive members, as opposed to meddlesome pedantic editors who bully their way in thinking they own the place, citing guidelines like they were law, yet contributing no obvious interest in historical content creation. But it seems more editors these days are only invested in their own self-importance than letting projects function effectively within their own remit. Little wonder many of the MilHist members I see active now are new faces, a lot of the veterans seem to have drifted off, probably sick of being dictated to by pompous editors who spend more time creating and editing guidelines then throwing their weight about on project boards. — Marcus(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll take that as no, you don't have any good reasons to capitalize campaign in any of those, nor any specific conduct complaint. Thanks for your feedback. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How you "take it" is of no interest to me. Quit acting like you have the final say on everything by imposing your own interpretations of guidelines and comments in order to undermine consensus – it's pretentious, arrogant and belittling to the long-term members here who actually study military history rather than number crunch a bunch of artificial statistics with google; what I'd like to see is a specific guideline that advocates the use of these N-grams you keep throwing up as "evidence" – in my mind they are little more than WP:SYNTHesised data. I believe Google_Ngram_Viewer#Criticism also details reasons why reliance on N-grams as a "source of usage" is not only over-rated, but questionable. [[1]] uses the specific example of the word "figure", which N-Grams reports as having more capitalised results than lower-case. Yet this is known to not be the case; OCR is flawed and "c" can easily be mis-scanned as "C". And that alone throws a spanner in the works and makes your entire singular argument and your "evidence" – since N-grams is the only thing you have offered to date – highly questionable. Google cannot account for the accuracy of its results, nor does it offer access to metadata, i.e. the titles evaluated, so that we can verify the results and determine some degree of accuracy. We are having to take the graphs on faith. And that is not a "reliable source", it's as bad as citing a text book with no bibliography. And FYI, WP:CIVPUSH describes the conduct I specifically take issue with. You've changed a ton of titles based on N-grams, which you revere like it's some higher authority than the combined expertise of the members here, but I'm beginning to suspect a conflict of interest, from a self-proclaimed Google employee/associate, and strongly oppose this continual pushing of a single "source" that is lacking in merit, per numerous sources. You asked for evidence, again and again. Well, evidence suggests N-grams is not a reliable source. Go figure, professor. — Marcus(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My employer in no way influences my Wikipedia editing, except that I avoid editing about them. I've been doing Wikipedia longer than I've worked there. I see the majority of your edits this year are about capitalization of Campaign; this discussion is a small part of my editing, which is wide ranging. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 to downcasing "campaign" per our project's manual of style. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we conduct a survey of Milhist members before proposing an addition to WP:MILMOS#NAME on this issue. Could project members please indicate whether they support or oppose the capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles? I suggest further discussion of this issue is done under the Discussion subsection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that capitalization "in article titles" is something different from capitalization in the text of the article? Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

SupportEdit

  • Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cadar (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Qwirkle (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A local consensus allows us to update WP:MILMOS specifically, since the primary MOS is generalised and open to interpretation in some cases, hence why we have MOS detail pages: for standardising formats to avoid disputes or continued use of unreliable sources. Since this matter is drawing significant attention, possibly due to its controversial nature, consensus is required to help resolve the matter and prevent further disruptions based on one POV. — Marcus(talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  • Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A new local consensus contrary to the MOS will not help resolve anything. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    That’ s begging the question. The MOS does not oppose capitalization of proper names; the question is whether the word campaign is being used as part of one. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • But this conversation should be happening over at WP:NCCAPS. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    More like WT:MOS or WT:MOSCAPS. NCCAPS had free watchers, and is just MOSCAPS adapted to title questions (the case rules originate in MoS, not in the naming-conventions pages). — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Use lower case. WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (esp. MOS:DOCTCAPS), and years of consistent consensus results at RM can't be defied by over-capitalization fandom in a topical wikiproject. WP:CONLEVEL and several ArbCom rulings are clear about that. Wikiprojects are not magical kingdoms subject to their own invented "rules", and do not WP:OWN any topics they claim are within their scopes. Wikiprojects' style preferences are essays, not guidelines.

    English capitalizes less and less, and WP follows (didn't invent) that shift in practice. If sources (reliable ones in the aggregate, not just specialized ones) don't capitalize something with near uniformity, then WP doesn't either – first rule of MOS:CAPS. See also WP:SSF and WP:CSF. We've been over this stuff many times before. The habit of people writing for a particular audience to excessively capitalize things important to that audience, and of governmentese/militarese in particular to over-cap for emphasis/signification, creates zero obligation on WP's part to mimic that clumsy style, doesn't make the over-stylized term a proper name, and it doesn't generate any expectation of capitalization in the mind of the typical reader.

    Someone mentioned tendentiousness above. Shopping such a question, already settled in favor of lower case by multiple guidelines and numerous RMs, to a "house organ" venue clustered with "gimme capitals just because it's military" thinkers is what's tendentious, by definition – it's anti-guideline (anti-WP:Consensus) advocacy of an off-site viewpoint about how to write English, putting military-history buffs' preferences above the broad-audience needs of the encyclopedia. While consensus can change, it doesn't do so via selectively localized votestacking. If you think MOS:CAPS should and would change on some point, then appropriate venues for a proposal are WT:MOSCAPS, WT:MOS, or WP:VPPOL, in order of increasing number of eyes and brains.
    — AReaderOutThatawayt/c (SMcCandlish via untrusted public WiFi) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe we should be using lower case in general, and I weighed in on a few of the move discussions linked above. I agree that this discussion really should be happening on WT:MOSCAPS. CThomas3 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I consider it should be in lower case, per North Africa campaign, unless the majority of reliable sources use an initial capital. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Upper case on the grounds of OR if lower case is used, unless the majority of RS use lower case, determined by a list of sources acceptable to editors, not a quantitative analysis. Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
See my comment on N-Grams above, and why we should not be considering it a "reliable source" to revise article titles. If Wiki requires verifiable sources, and it does, then N-grams fails to provide that basic requirement and this whole crusade to alter historical articles and rename every "Campaign" event on Wiki falls at the first hurdle, because the only evidence offered cannot be validated, but is supposed to be taken on trust, because "reasons" – aka, Google is holier than thou with dozens of hard-earned books on the shelf. The fact that numerous sources (https://www.google.com/search?q=google+n-grams+inaccurate) challenge the accuracy of N-grams should be a concern for everyone. Because if we allow one editor to go on a crusade aiming to rewrite dozens of articles simply based on what Google says, without any way to verify the data sources, we are opening a can of worms and giving other like-minded editors a free pass to manipulate the grammar of an indefinite number of articles based on what amounts to little more than digital polling. I believe that if this form of "editing" is to continue it needs to be cast in stone, i.e. approved by the wider community and added to guidelines, or we could see a widespread abuse of unorthodox evidence taken from Google software being thrown about without sufficent means to challenge its integrity. — Marcus(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've always advocated exactly the opposite of letting sources vote on our style. The point of the n-grams links is just to make it really clear that in those cases the sources are nowhere close to the "consistently capitalized in reliable sources" that we use to decide to capitalize, per MOS:CAPS. The n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story, but in these cases it appears to be enough; if you see some where you think seeing the other side in important (e.g. here), say so and we can talk. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, because I think that is missing: What are the positiosn within this survey? Support means supporting what exactly? Oppose means opposing what exactly? ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: Per the above, support of the proposal is supporting a move to formalise capitalisation of the word "campaign" in article titles where the proper names of military campaigns are (or should be, by English correct usage) capitalised. Eg. the WWII Burma Campaign. Cadar (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Let’s not exchange one straitjacket for another. Campaign paired with a place isn't always used as a proper noun, and the older and more classically educated the writer, the more likely they are to sometimes use campaign in its original sense, for the season of taking to the field, even if the same sort of fighting immediately followed on after breaking camp from winter quarters, and to see what another might describe as The Such-and-Such Campaign as a series of related campaigns.

That said, in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed, campaign was being used as part of a proper name by the article, if not by all the sources, and should be capitalized. Qwirkle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You say "in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed", but could you point out one or two explicitly that you think were "controversially renamed" and say how sources support what you are saying? Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
All of those which you have moved. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Many of those that I moved had RM discussions that closed with consensus to use lowercase, and the rest were similarly pretty well aligned with policies and guidelines that suggest lowercase unless sources support interpretation as a proper name. If you're not going to show one that is controversial, or wrong based on a reason that you can state, what do we have to discuss? And I was asking Qwirkle, since he claims such things exist but has so far declined to point one out. If you guys are just complaining about how much work I do, and won't point out errors or reasons to do differently, it comes across as nothing but personal attacks and whining. I get that you prefer caps usually, but that's not WP style when sources mostly use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I explained earlier why your moves are controversial, in detail, with links. Your "evidence", your so-called N-grams, are a load of crap because they cannot be verified. So get off your high horse and address the cocnerns I raised about your "sources". Given that you claim to follow "policies and guidelines" I consider your wilful ignorance of WP:V the elephant in the room here. Verifiable evidence is a core policy; MOS stylings are only guidelines. Therefore you're being a hypocrite, by refusing to comment on the fact that your evidence, for what it's worth, is potentially bogus. Sticking a couple of words in a Google N-gram search box hardly amounts to "hard work", in fact it's as lazy as you can get in terms of historical research, so don't push your luck claiming to put in more effort than the guys who wrote the articles you're subjecting to this crusade of yours, which now comes across as a vanity project than a sincere attempt to help build an encyclopedia. And for your information, not only can consensus change, so can guidelines. And as no one guideline sufficienly addresses this problem, it's open to discussion and potentially requires MOS clarification. Why do feel the need to constantly undermine attempts to discuss the matter on the project pages where people who create and edit these type of articles almost daily probably have more experience and understanding of the situation than you seem to appreciate or allow them? Don't become a diva with that "personal attacks and whining" rhetoric now you are overwhelmed with editors are genuinely concerned about the issue; to me it seems like you're just saying that as an idle threat to your detractors. Prove us wrong. Take a seat. Shut up. Let project members consider the options since they're the one mostly involved in maintaining these articles. Isn't that why such projects exist in the first place, or do you intend to argue that they're worth less than the sum of their parts? — Marcus(talk) 23:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Marcus, nobody is relying on n-grams as a "reliable source" nor as the only way to look at usage in sources. I've always encouraged clicking through to book sources to understand what's behind the stats. And a generalized "something might be wrong" complaint is no substitute for pointing out an article or two where I might have got it wrong. Arguing hypotheticals is useless. I don't mean to undermine discussion, I just can't get anyone to present any specific challenges to what I've done so we can discuss them. And whether people complain about my work being too much or too little is not relevant either way; let's talk specifics. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I neither support or oppose a blanket "capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles". It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo. Then again, I think lengthy discussions on it make a mountain out of a molehill, and are as useful as considering the numbers of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone here could be doing something productive instead of obsessing over needless "standardisation". (Hohum @) 16:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hohum: I'm afraid that rather misses the point irt THE MOS: it exists in order to provide those with only peripheral interest in writing the encyclopaedia a cover—albeit one as transparent as a birthday suit—in the guise of "maintaining" it. This results in the regular over-indulgence in peripatetic fucking trivia that we see before us on a regular basis.Shout out to Gog the Mild ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Notifications have been made at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hohum has crystallised my views on the various aspects of this almost perfectly. (Thank you.) I write as an editor whose last FAC was renamed four times during the review and then had a requested move discussion opened - still while it was being reviewed. It ended up, shortly after the FAC closed, as Crécy campaign and is mentioned by Dicklyon above; this discussion may result in another name change. Frankly I don't care. I made no comment nor contributions regarding the five name changes to date and have nothing to add to Hohum's summary, especially his second sentence. So I am returning to "doing something productive". If anyone would care to check my current FAC, or any of the others, for departures from the MoS and record their thoughts as a review, I am sure that it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Totally agreed on Hohum's second sentence: "It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo." Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be, why are you not doing that before making RMs? N-grams is not sources. N-grams does not list titles, and N-grams does not provide context - the search criteria simply pulls the term you search from a bunch of undisclosed titles that Google bothered to scan into its database. That is not. I repeat – NOT – how accurate and verifiable referencing works. It's randomised polling, without any form of control to guarantee the results are impartial; we don't know if N-grams results came from genuine history texts, because there is no proof to support their figures, and that's in addition to the OCR inaccuracy issue. So, on a case-by-case basis, using N-grams as evidence is spurious and should be challenged as such. Any suggestion that Google's results can be trusted on face value is paramount to trusting a brand, and that a form of bias, which wiki policy does not tolerate either. So, back at the guy who is always demanding evidence – where is yours, and where has it ever been, besides linking to that unconventional N-gram, in order to manipulate editors into supporting RMs based on a fallacy? I say that, based on something an editor linked earlier, that I read, and from it I'm lead the believe that N-grams, in some cases, can amount to original research (See WP:CSF#Trying_to_"prove"_style_by_search_hits_is_original_research), simply because N-grams determines "trends", but does not determine what actual sources say about campaigns, or whatever term is searched, to allow the data to be relevant to us. — Marcus(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming. Is there a case where you think I got it wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── It's your position, you defend it. As Marcus points out, n-grams are a blunt instrument which fail the test of relevance. Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Go back and look at your opening post for this entire discussion, Dicklyon, where you list several RMs. In some of those you linked to N-grams as your evidence. In each of those N-gram graphs, the difference between "Campaign" and "campaign" results is often something as insignificant as 0.00000001%, e.g. Borgainville Campaign: 0.0000000384% vs campaign 0.0000000976%. Seriously? You requested a move and claim a consensus based upon a 0.0000000592% difference? That's not just "getting it wrong", IMO, it's complete and utter bollocks! Can you translate 0.0000000592% into historically revelant terminology that does not amount to defering to a specialised or common style supposedly determined by N-grams and remains relevant to the general reader? When some passing Anon-IP/new editor says "why is this article using 'c' instead of 'C'?" and decides to move it can you explain in common terms why you moved it, and numerous other campaigns, based on RM consensus which only had N-grams thrown at them as evidence? I mean, seriously... I don't accuse people of false pretences without evidence, but these RMs were loaded with them. The only evidence you offered was N-grams or nothing at all. Can you explain that pattern, which you just claimed to look beyond, yet the RMs do not support your claim since no other evidence was presented? — Marcus(talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Pritzker Literature AwardEdit

The Pritzker Literature Award was announced today. John Morrow, Jr. is the 2019 recipient. See: [2], Military historian John H. Morrow wins $100000 award, and [3] for starters. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Wikipedia:CIVILWAREdit

It has been proposed that the redirect Wikipedia:CIVILWAR, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, either be deleted or repurposed for this WikiProject, perhaps for the American Civil War task force. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Wikipedia:CIVILWAR would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of ProkhorovkaEdit

Is Ben Wheatley a reliable source to be considered for the Battle of Prokhorovka (see A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka)? In his abstract Wheatley states "The battle of Prokhorovka was steeped in Soviet legend (and myth) for many decades. This remained the case until post-Soviet era research revealed the reality of a Soviet armoured disaster. Building on this knowledge this article explores Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle of Prokhorovka. The photographs provide visual confirmation across the battlefield of the demise of the 5th Guards Tank Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps'. The battle's most famous locations are visualized (many for thefirst time) in wartime photographs; these include the notorious anti-tank ditch, Hill 252.2, Oktiabrskiy statefarm, Storozhevoye Woods and the site of Tiger tank duels on and close to Hill 241.6." Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Given it was published in a peer reviewed academic journal yes, but with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ben Wheatley is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of History at the University of East Anglia The article itself looks good and is referenced by well-known and respected authors like Frieser, Zetterling, Glantz and Zamulin.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly, but given this brings into question long-held perspectives about the battle, I think the reference to Wheatley should introduce the sort of study it was: ie "The historian Ben Wheatley conducted an examination of Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle. His study found... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, of course.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima needs attentionEdit

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This one is done now, thanks AR! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship needs attentionEdit

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid questionEdit

This is absolutely a dumb question and I'm sorry to even have to ask it, but: WP:NSOLDIER criteria 2 says notability is presumed for anyone who held a rank of general, linking to general officer. Does that mean just what the article calls the "specific rank of general", or does it encompass any of the "general officer" ranks, like major general, brigadier general, etc? ♠PMC(talk) 22:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • All general officers, not just the specific rank. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) ♠PMC(talk) 22:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Just be aware that brigadier isn't always considered a general officer rank, whereas brigadier general is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019Edit

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

EngvarB questionEdit

Is there a WP on it? Hawkeye says that it's prohibited. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "prohibited", I use it, but you have to be careful with it, because it throws up inconsistencies, particularly with AustEng under the "supposed" Commonwealth spellings. AustEng is more flexible about spellings than the script is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the label had changed but I rarely move away from EvB articles so that doesn't really apply to me. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history".