Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 37

message: The war elephant article has just been listed for featured article review with a number of complaints about accuracy and referencing.  Anyone with knowledge of the topic—and I believe there are a number of people here with some experience in the area?—is encouraged to drop by! Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It badly needs some real work and sourcing. Will take some time to iron it out. Wandalstouring 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War elephant]] on FAR 

message: I recall there being an earlier debate about establishing a 'War on terrorism' task-force os something similar. If there are still editors looking for a way to collaborate on the topic, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism. enjoy!  Mike McGregor (Can) 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, it was created from the abortive task force, no? Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, there it is in the archives... oops! Anyhoo, it seems there is also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism as well. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It all looks a little GWOT-centric.  Terrorism didn't only start in 2001, also I'd suggest you're likely to have a systemic POV problem....... ALR 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all that surprising, given that it was originally proposed as a GWOT task force. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that'll be it then.  I keep forgetting that we haven't really lived with (modern) terrorism in the UK, and mainland Europe, since the 60s.ALR 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must deny for mainland Europe. We had some foreign bombers and our Red Army Faction in Germany. Fortunately since 2001 terrorists didn't do much damage here. Wandalstouring 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might have hit a language barrier.  I should have added an irony tag above :)  I was in a CONUS mil facility a year or so ago and had someone tell me I didn't understand terrorism......  Managed to avoid tearing them a new orifice and pointed out one or two instances of having first hand experience.  I had to point out that there hadn't been a single year since the end of WWII when UK forces hadn't been involved in either CRW or CT somewhere in the world.ALR 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism]] 

message: From my talk page:
:Please take a look into a huge text added by an anon into Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive. I wanted to wikify it then it occurred to me that such a well-rounded text may be a copyvio. Can you bring an attention of other WWII experts, whether you and they recognize the text? `'mikka (t) 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like copy-paste from Glantz's book (hardly surprising, it's one of the few sources on the subject). I'll try and check tonight. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very professional. Wandalstouring 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a good read, but looks like a copyvio. Hossen27 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Mars 

message: I wonder if anybody knows that this article DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A TALK PAGE!
It's not even listed in your project at all!
Mind telling me why, and is it possible to get anyone on over there? (I would do it myself, but I am not an expert. I tend to refrain from editing information I'm not familiar with). 
Colonel Marksman 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged it; thanks for bringing it to our attention.  For what it's worth, there are a lot of articles that haven't been tagged yet, mostly because we haven't done much systematic tagging outside of the military conflict categories; this is why bot-tagging is our friend! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[National Security Council]]

message: If a web site displays no copyright status, does this mean we are free to use certain images from that site eg: , specifically these images:. If I am allowed to download an image from a site like this, what licensing tag should I use? Thanks for your help. Raymond Palmer 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Under U.S. law, all creative works are automatically protected by copyright even if they do not display an explicit copyright notice.  Depending on the context, you might be able to make a fair-use claim for the images; but, as a general rule, images from the majority of websites can't be used. Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for clearing that up Raymond Palmer 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: Someone just created :Category:Battles of Belarus.  What's in there now appears to be misfiled—Belarus didn't exist as an independent entity during the Middle Ages—but I'm curious: does anyone know of any actual battles in which an independent Belarus was a participant?  Does this category have some potential, in other words, or is it going to be entirely empty?  Comments at Category talk:Battles of Belarus would be highly appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Belarus was part of the Commonwealth, but I think they dislike being integrated into the Polish history taskforce, while they have exactly the same scope for the Middle Ages + Great-Lithuvia history. Wandalstouring 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles of Belarus? 

message: I have noticed that several Featured Articles have recently been sporting "in house" FA templates for there respective wikiprojects, such as the one below.
	is a selected article of the WikiProject Computer and video games.
Perhaps we should consider a similar template for articles within the scope of our project. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our portal has enough real FAs that there's no separate selection process, so an entirely new template would be pretty useless; but see :Category:Wikipedia featured articles used on the War Portal. Kirill Lokshin 05:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military History template

message: I have tried to put some photos that I have taken on some articles but it doesn't seem to work. How can I place those photos onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 
:See Wikipedia:Uploading images. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Images

message: As both the permanent parents have been renamed at CFD, and the root of the hierarchy renamed from  to  at SFD, I'm going to do likewise for the rest without bothering to tag them for a separate discussion, unless there any objections here.  (BTW, the  is also oversized, should anyone feel a fit of organisation coming on.)  Alai 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me.  While that category tree still has some naming issues to be considered, I think the use of "personnel" is going to stick, so converting all the stubs to it shouldn't run into any problems. Kirill Lokshin 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the likes of "Canadian" vs. "Canada"?  Or what?  There's not a lot of point in moving them in two goes if they can be got right in one (though admittedly it's not a vast number of edits either way).  Alai 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant the actual full :Category:Military personnel tree, not the (more limited) by-nationality stub tree; the naming of the stub categories isn't an issue either way, so please feel free to take whatever the standard approach is for those. Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a standard approach (and at times that's a big "if") it's to follow the naming of the permcats.  Given that  has been very recently renamed to that title, just how many issues remaining can there be?  Or more to the point, what are they?  (Or are we speaking about non "personnel" subcats, like , which on the face of it shouldn't be included there at all?)  Alai 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot more to categorizing military personnel than just the countries involved.  (If you're truly curious, there's some older discussion of how the overall structure should look here.)  Just follow the current names for by-country categories for the time being; I doubt there will be any changes to that branch considered in the forseeable future. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought not, since as far as (to be more precise)  is concerned, the issues raised in the earlier discussion appear to be precisely the "people" vs "personnel" and "<X>ish" vs "of <X>land" considered at the CFR, so I'd have thought that "time being" would mean at least "a decent interval".  (The latter consideration might or might not affect the name of the stub categories, depending on whom you ask.)  Since I doubt there's any real need for "by war" stub types (though you lot would know better than I), or at any rate, none that exist as present, if there's outstanding business for those that's indeed not a live issue, as you say.  Alai 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Unless there are some plans to create absurdly complicated stubs (e.g.  or things of that sort), there shouldn't be any issues with standardizing everything on the current (new) setup for . Kirill Lokshin 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not so much as a  at the momeny, and if there are plans on creating same, I don't recall having seen them mentioned anywhere.  (Though spookily enough, someone seems to have created a redlink to that about an hour ago at .)  Alai 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That page was never actually active, as far as I know; but Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Military (which is transcluded onto WP:MHREQ) has some relevant stuff. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both transcluded onto WP:PNA, which may not be getting regularly bot-updated at the moment, but is certainly fairly heavily linked to as a cleanup resource.  OTOH, since they're transcluded together (which I've only just noticed, despite editting both pages a while ago...), the "missing" wikiproject is probably be clear enough from context.  I might add a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography's military sub-page for cross-referencing purposes.  Alai 10:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|mil-bio-stub}} tree category names 

message: I was interested in starting some articles on British naval guns, so took a quick inventory of what is already out there. So far we have;
* 15 inch (381 mm) /42 calibre Mark I naval gun
* 13.5 inch (343 mm) /45 calibre naval gun
* 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun
* 2-pounder gun
Obviously, there seems to be no systematic method for naming articles. The official designation of these guns is;
* BL 15 inch Mark I
* BL 13.5 inch (various marks)
* QF 4.5 inch (various marks), until 1950s, when surviving guns became simply 4.5 inch Mark 5, Mark 6, Mark 8.
* QF 2 pounder (various marks)
I would like to propose some agreed method to name the articles. There is already a fairly systematic naming system for (British) Army guns, e.g Ordnance QF 2 pounder and Ordnance QF 6 pounder, this simply follows the official designation (but drops the gun weight in hundredweights). The Royal Navy designation system is unique as far as I know, I therefore do not think that titles need disambiguated with the word "British".  I also think including the mark is over-specific, as apart from the 15 inch and 16 inch guns, most guns went through a large number of marks. For this reason, and the fact that the Royal Navy does not include it in the official designation, I also do not think the calibre should be included; there are, for instance, L/55 and L/45 guns on the page 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun, which should we use? I personally amn't keen either on including millimetres in the title. These guns were never reported with a metric equivalent, or known by such (the sole exception being the foreign Oerlikon 20 mm (QF 20 mm) and Bofors 40 mm (QF 40 mm)). We do not have a page Oerlikon 20 mm (0.79 inch) cannon, likewise we do not include millimetre and inches in the title of the 2 pounder gun article. It also just makes the title that bit more complicated than it really needs to be. 
My preferred choice for a titling system would therefore be designation, calibre in inches / shell weight in pounds, naval gun, e.g. <nowikiBL 15 inch naval gun</nowiki>. The only shortcoming I can see with this system is where we have a case where a modern, unrelated weapon, is added into a page for historic guns due to a shared calibre - this is the case with the 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun page. However it would be my intention to move this to a page of it's own anyway.
Your thoughts would be appreciated, please do pick holes in my case as there is probably a lot I have missed. I know this is probably an obscure subject for many project members, but I think it is best just to have as many fine wikipedians that are part of this project as possible add their 2 cents. Emoscopes Talk 12:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Weaponry task force might be a better place to work out the details of this; I recall there was another naming discussion there not too long ago. Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: righto, thanks, I'll pose that over there too. Emoscopes Talk 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, great.  If anyone else has comments, please make them here so that we can keep the discussion in one place. Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature for British naval guns

message: Can anyone recommend any good online resources for researching articles?  I am interested in contributing, but I find that most of my knowledge is just floating around in my head but I don't have any actual citations.  I have access to some online library resources like LexisNexis but those are mostly just news and journal articles. --Undead1 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on your interests, you can check the various task force pages. Several of them have online resources and recommended reading listed on their pages - Vedexent 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You probably know this, but also keep in mind that for many military history topics (particularly old topics rather than recent history), most online sources don't really qualify as reliable sources for our purposes. Alas, we have to drag ourselves away from the computer and go to the library to do the bulk of serious research. Although Dr. Egon Spengler would disagree, print is not quite dead yet. —Kevin 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. That's where the "reading list" part comes in though :) I tend to concentrate on "classical era" military history, so I do have a lot of good online sources as most classical authors are online. No, they're not the only sources I need/use - but it is an advantage that ancient/classical articles have over more modern military history articles. - Vedexent 09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Not quite sure where to put the following anecdote, but I believe it's worth use somewhere in the creation of an encyclopedia.
In reading Anthony Mockler's Haile Selassie's War, which details the military maneuvers in East Africa between the Allies & the Italians between 1935-1942, I encountered a description of what Mockler described as what "must have been the last great European-led cavalry charge in Africa." During an engagement Mockler entitles "The Battle of the Lowlands", which happened as British forces invaded what is modern Eritrea from the west on or shortly after 19 January 1941, the advancing British were attacked by a detachment of men on horses, part of a larger group of African cavalry, firing from their saddles & throwing grenades, who nearly overran the British units as they set up their artillery pieces. As might be expected, the entire group of cavalry suffered horrendous losses: out of a unit of 500 men, Mockler states 179 horsemen were killed & 260 wounded, & 89 horses killed & 68 wounded. (Mockler, p.321)
Frankly, I think Mockler is understating the significance of this event. Although I have heard of Turkish cavalry being used successfully to repulse a Chinese infantry attack in the Korean War (sorry, although I trust my source, this is clearly a case of information coming from "a friend of a friend", so I can't add it to any article), I think this is the last time cavalry -- in the strict definition of men fighting on horseback -- were used in a major combat engagement. Can anyone confirm or deny my supposition? (Or even better, can someone use this in an article?) -- llywrch 04:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This definitely isn't the case, as cavalry units were widely used on the Eastern Front.  The last "cavalry charge" I could find in a half-hour's searching was on August 24, 1942, when elements of the 3a Reggimento "Savoia Cavalleria" attached to the Italian 8th Army successfuly attacked entrenched Soviet infantry with sabres and grenades (Fowler, Axis Cavalry in World War II, 45), but I wouldn't be surprised if units like the 37th SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Lützow continued to fight on horseback all the way to the end of the war. Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently five years ago! - [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/571498/posts], but it's not entirely conventional so it probably doesn't count. --Loopy e 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. I'm a traditionalist, and it warms my heart to know that such things are never fully eliminated... even in today's world of modern warfare, tactics and weapons that have served man well for thousands of years continue to serve a purpose. LordAmeth 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will always have someone riding on a horse into battle. Reasons can be for example no money for a car or the terrain/supplies feature only animal transport. If you have a fast moving vehicle/animal there are always cases when it is logical to reach an enemy with ranged weapons a.s.a.p. -> charge. A better approach would be to distinguish between the weapons used in a charge. lances and sabres are likely to fall out of use as main weapons. Let's find the last charges with them. Wandalstouring 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm almost sure I read somewhere about cavelry being used during the Bush War by the Rodesians. I think it was used in more of a mounted infantry role though. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last ''ever'' cavalry charge? 

message: Given that we seem to have a lot of 2-to-1 and 3-to-1 splits in the A-Class reviews, I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to tighten the passing criteria a bit, from the current: Articles will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) they have garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there is at most one substantive objection. Please note that, in particularly egregious cases, even a single objection may cause a nomination to fail if it points out a critical flaw in the article. to An article will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there are no substantive objections.  Please note, however, that a nomination with a single isolated objection may pass if the objection does not point out a major flaw in the article.  This would avoid basing the pass-or-fail decision on the third reviewer, and perhaps make the process a bit more rigorous (which might prove of value, as there are some discussions about giving A-Class status greater prominence within Wikipedia as a whole).  Thoughs?  Does anyone have problems with making such a change? Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here. Hossen27 14:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As we are not currently limiting good-faith renominations, I see no reason not to tighten the criteria. Carom 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, could be good to have more people in the assesment, for exemple some have gotten no opposition and two supports and fail.--Dryzen 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've updated the instructions on the assessment page. Kirill Lokshin 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class reviews 

message: What exactly is the convention for naming a category of wars of a nonstate? I would appreciate if someone could let me know. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as that for a state: "Wars of [the] X", where X is a common (ideally the most common) name of the group in question. Is there some particular case you have in mind? Kirill Lokshin 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well :Category:Wars of Hezbollah seemed a bit odd next to "Wars of Lebanon" and "Wars of Israel," and so I considered renaming, but if this is the convention in use with other militant groups, then so be it. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems the most practical solution (as I don't think creating a "Wars by not-quite-country" category is a good idea).  There's plenty of groups that aren't countries under :Category:Battles by country that follow this scheme (e.g. "Battles of the Normans", "Battles of the Vikings", etc.); I'm not sure if we have any other categories for "militant groups" per se, but following the existing convention across the board seems best here. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category naming 

message: I thought about asking this at the reference desk, but figured this would be a better place to pose this question: I have been working on a rewrite of Fort Bliss that I recently transfered into my sandbox from its previously offline page. I am still working on some of the history details, but I have hit a road block with regards to Fort Bliss and the 1988 BRAC round. According to this website (scroll about 3/4ths of the way down the page; Fort Bliss is listed under the section "United States - South Central Region") Fort Bliss was realigned, or slated to be relaingned in 1988. Subsequent checks of the Government Accountability Office website turn up references to Fort Bliss in the 1988 BRAC round, but I can not find any information on what left or what came in (I am assuming that the base was unable to get around the realignment). Any ideas on where I should go from here? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's numbers given here of around a few hundred people moving in or out of Fort Bliss for the 1988 realignment; but I'm not sure if these are actual numbers or just plans. Kirill Lokshin 06:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably actual numbers; it does say final at the top and is dated December ’88. The numbers seem low, but then BRAC in the begining was influenced alot at the top by guys whose political lives were intertwined with the health and status of the bases in their region, or so my research says. Although its low it may be enough to have warrented an article either in the El Paso Herald Post or the El Paso Times. Thanks for the help, with this I can go back to the lab again with some idea of where to go from here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a little help (please)