Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Military/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category standardization

Just a note so everyone is aware: the category structure and naming conventions have been the subject of much discussion (most recently here, but there are a number of earlier discussions in the archives), and WP:MILHIST will probably attempt a comprehensive standardization of names in the near future. The expected structure is, broadly:

• Category:People associated with war
  • Category:People by war
    • Categories of the form "People of the X War"
  • Category:Military personnel
    • Category:Military personnel by country
      • Categories of the form "Military personnel of X"
    • Category:Military personnel by type
    • Category:Military personnel by rank

There will then be a large number of intersecting sub-categories, primarily of the form "Military personnel of X in the Y War".

This scheme is, however, open to further discussion; anyone who has some ideas is encouraged to start up a comprehensive discussion at WT:MILHIST. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1.0 assessments and this work group

Thanks to kingboyk, we now have the assessments split into work groups to make things easier to digest! What does this mean? Well, now we have a nice work list that shows not only the quality scale, but also any comments left in the project banner template. Also, you'll notice we now have stats for this workgroup displayed on the workgroup page, and you also now have your own log of changes to quality and importance... plange 05:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How come only 1 FA is listed in the work list when there are six more on the main work-group page? And where are the GAs? --Laserbeamcrossfire 06:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because no one's tagged those yet :-) plange 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

.....that explains everything! --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to {{WPBiography}}

Dear workgroup, After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography the importance= field has been changed on the Project template. The changes and how they affect this workgroup are as follows:

• importance= has been deprecated in favour of priority=.
• priority= is the same as importance, it's just a friendlier word. The meanings of the grades haven't changed.
• Importance params should be removed (not an urgent task, just don't use importance= from now and on change any you see to priority= if you feel like it)
• importance/priority is no longer assessed on a Project scale, except for the ~200 top core articles which use a new parameter core=yes
• this means that the priority= ratings are now for the exclusive use of the workgroups
• The workgroups are free to work out their own "importance" (priority) ratings. priority=Top is no longer off limits. So, for example, I've upgraded John Lennon to priority=Top. He's not on the core bios list but that doesn't matter, as the priority is only for the workgroups and Lennon is no doubt top priority/importance in the arts & entertainment field.

Hope that helps. Any questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography please. --kingboyk 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

May I point out that the Military person infobox is an excellent idea, but only for formal military organizations and particularly those in the West? Aside from a lack of data, it is very common in my area of expertise (China) to have no clear answers to just about every one of the items in the infobox. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Hbdragon88 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

MRE-related Userboxes

The editors here might be interested in several new userboxes devoted to the glories of the U.S. military's finest culinary achievement, the MRE:

• This user has eaten MREs and lived to tell the tale.
  (Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and lived to tell the tale.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE Survivor}}
• This user has eaten MREs and earned a Purple Heart as a consequence.
  (Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and earned a Purple Heart as a consequence.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE Survivor2}}
• This user will dine on MREs as soon as they offer varieties such as "Foie gras de canard aux truffes".
  (Caption reads: This user will dine on MREs as soon as they offer varieties such as "Foie gras de canard aux truffes".) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE French}}
• This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.
  (Caption reads: This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.) Code: {{User:EReference/Userbox MRE}}

Articles for deletion

Hiya, an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject, Antoni Dunin, has been nominated for deletion. Is there a location that this should be listed, to draw the attention of the WikiProject participants to the debate? --Elonka 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New Project

I have just started up WikiProject Colditz to cover articles regarding Colditz Castle and, in particular, it's role as a Prisoner of War camp in WWII. This project aims to cover the castle and all the notable prisoners, such as Michael Sinclair and Pat Reid, who were imprisoned there. Feel free to check it out and if you want to help out, I will be most grateful! -- Qarnos 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about infobox information

I posted in the Biography" Politics an government workgroup but received no responses to my question so I am positn here as the historical figure in question does have a military background. In the biography article, Lester B. Pearson, there are flag icons placed in the infobox. In the WikiAircraft Project Group, wherein I have made the majority of my contributions, there was a consensus that the infobox was not to include the flag symbols to portray country status/origins.

When the flags were removed in the Pearson article, it triggered the following exchange: WP:FLAGCRUFT Just thought you'd like to know...--Boffob 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy, so it doesn't carry much weight, if any. dcandeto 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an argument it carries much more weight than simply putting flag icons for the heck of it. It's worth a read for sure.--Boffob 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's putting flag icons in for the heck of it. dcandeto 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment: "Removed flag icons as per WP:FLAGCRUFT; please do not revert, adding flagcruft is considered vandalism" probably should have been succinctly written as "may be considered vandalism". Moreover, since this is not the first time that you have been informed of flagcruft and your insistence on providing decoration in an infobox where discussion by other users and editors have concluded that it is inappropriate, you are acting in contravention of the group's wishes. As you have already concluded, Wikipedia does not have "hard-and-fast" rules but it does have a standard of conduct. If you noted that flagcruft was an issue already from other edits, why add it again? IMHO Bzuk 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Why add it again? Probably because people are removing it based on a nonexistent policy. Removing flags because you think they're cruft is akin to moving article names to the British or American spelling because you like it better. dcandeto 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:Flagcruft:"Not intended for birth/date places"

"It may be tempting to use flag icons in the birth/death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, but this is strongly deprecated." "Not intended" is pretty clear as policy. Bzuk 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

That's a quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is not a quote from Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is are flags part of the infobox or not? In the category of Canadian Prime Ministers, I went through all of the Prime Ministers of Canada and there are no other flags in any of the infoboxes, except in the Pearson article. The aforementioned editor has now reverted the changes in the infobox a number of times so he may be trying to make a point, but I would like to hear some comments from other editors versed in the biography format. IMHOBzuk 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Heinrich Severloh

Can you guys please take a look at Heinrich Severloh. There is some serious problem with some IPs trying to vandalize the articles as they say it is all fiction. I have placed references on the talkpage that were previously deleted by the same IPs elsewhere. The article appears notable and can be sourced with these articles but you might have access to other sources shedding more light on the issue. Agathoclea 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags in Info Boxes

I wish to support Bzuk comments about flags in the info boxes. In particular they add little to military (and other) biographies and are often misleading, historically inaccurate, or even ideologically motivated. For example, most RN officers have had these national flags added to the extent that anglo-irish have the Republic's flag. Similarly colonial officers sometimes will have the US flag, and British officerds the wrong union flag.

For example, why should there be flags in the info box for Nelson? I would like to see a consensus on this Sic Transit 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Burbeck

Is it possible for one of this project's leaders to visit Henry Burbeck's page. That is the first Wikipedia page I have done or should say carried the torch on. I added substantial information there and references. Also, can someone tell me how to properly cite a letter and also a pension file so that I could add the info from these sources to the Burbeck page. I do have an image of his signature from the web and I don't think signatures are copywritten, but I am unsure. I would like to add it to the page. Could someone advise me? Also, I would like to make this an A class article can someone tell me what changes I could make to get it to that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talk • contribs) 17:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Searching for an officer's awards and decorations

Is there a military web site where I can search for an officer's awards and decorations? Sbowers3 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

There is a proposal at Wikiproject stub sorting about the best way to split Category:United Kingdom military personnel stubs here any views would be grateful. Waacstats 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the London Gazette

Members of this project may find {{LondonGazette}} useful if they have need of making a reference to the London Gazette. It will help to present such references in a uniform style, and consitent use will also make it easier to maintain these references in future (we currently have the situation where a website upgrade a couple of months ago broke all older references to individual gazettes. (originally posted by David Underdown on the main page. Thought it should be here as well. Woodym555 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward C. Kuhn

Greetings. A great-great-nephew has posted a long biographical essay on Edward C. Kuhn, a prolific designer of flags, heraldry and insignia for the US military. I call attention to it here so that he can get some help getting it more into line with the MOS. He's a first-time editor, so be gentle. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article review of Ali

Ali is nominated as a good article. all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Seyyed(t-c) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom military personnel stubs

If Category:United Kingdom military personnel stubs is for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland , what about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain? I would not bother to make this distinction but has it been made?

Also what about before the Acts of Union 1707 are there categories for England Scotland Wales and Ireland, it does not make sense to have civil war soldiers in the New Model Army as military stubs of the UK. Are there are such stub templates for the England, etc?

A further complication is that after James VII came to the throne AFAICT there would be a royal army for campaigns financed by the English Parliament, but did he and the rest of the Stuarts have Royal armies and navies or different ones for different nations? If they were not national based then what were they? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of references

Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

According to Footnotes An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on Robert Nivelle on GA hold: Needs expansion before it can become GA standard.

The article on Robert Nivelle is currently on GA hold. The article requires more information about Nivelle's life, especially concerning his legacy, and his pre-WW1 service, before it can become GA-class. I would like to request that people work on addressing this issue. Your help would be greatly appreciated, and you can credit yourself with 'This user helped promote the article -- to good article status' template if the article does go up to GA status. Please try to get this information down before 7 days from now, as that is when the GA review will probably be closed. Thank you in advance. More details can be found at Talk:Robert Nivelle. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Marquis de Lafayette

Just to let everyone here know, Wikipedia:Spotlight is going to be working on the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, which, per a talk page template, falls under this Wikiproject; while we will certainly not be the only ones editing the article during this time, if anyone here is interested in the article and would like to join our effort, we use the IRC room #wikipedia-spotlight. Thanks!--danielfolsom 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biography (military)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up the List of World War I flying aces

(Being an attempt to have our cake, eat it also, and maybe get a little extra icing.)

Site at present is 644 names loading as 96 kilobytes, with the present cutoff point being 10 or more victories (with a few listings for lower scores). This is approximately a third of the total 1861 World War I aces. It becomes apparent that Trevor MacInnis’s concept of listing all the aces in a single table is impossible, as site size will burgeon to about 250 KB. I have halted expansion of the list and previously discussed this with him, and he suggested breaking out the list by nationalities, or by listing them alphabetically by last name. (Details on my talk page.)

I believe the list as constituted has a very real value. Scanning it gives an idea of the contribution of each nation’s fighter pilots. It also gives an idea of the relative strengths or weaknesses of the air services of the various nations. Other concepts, such as the contributions of the Commonwealth to Britain’s cause, also become apparent.

I believe some version of the present list should be preserved, even if it is presently large enough to be slow loading on dialup connections and on older servers. However, I do think the list could be trimmed to a shorter, quicker loading version than the present one without damaging its value. I also believe the complete listing envisioned by Trevor is of historic value. We are on the brink of becoming the most complete archive extant on this subject; www.theaerodrome.com is presently pre-eminent, in my estimation.

I have been mulling this over for some time (obviously), and fiddling with figures. Here is what I have come up with thus far.

If the cutoff point is 20 victories or more, and the list is truncated, then the various nationalities of aces are represented thus:

Nationality Aces listed/total aces

Australia 8 aces out of 75 total

Austria-Hungary 4/49

Belgium 1/6

Canada 24/192

England 34/595

France 14/182

Germany 74/393

Ireland 2/33

Italy 5/45

New Zealand 2/13

Russia 1/15

Scotland 6/67

South Africa 7/46

USA 2/123

Wales 3/23

It can be seen that all the nationalities that had fighter aces are represented. Most list between 10% and 20% of their aces as scoring 20 or more victories. Those that don’t show the weakness of their air effort—the Russian and Austro-Hungarian air forces were mal-organized and the Americans were latecomers. The other exception, the English, still have a large listing.

At any rate, the 187 aces that scored 20 or more victories would thus comprise a list of about 28 KB.

If the entire list of 1861 aces was also broken down into separate national lists by the above nationalities, they would also be small, easily loadable pages with two possible exceptions: England and Germany.

England, with 595 aces, comprises a complete list near the size of the one we now have. However, without the Country column with its graphics, I intuit the site size would be tolerable. (Your opinion on this would be most welcome; you are probably more knowledgeable than I on this.)

Germany is a lesser version of the same problem, with 393 aces.

Consider it an unsolicited staff study with recommendations for a solution. In other words, there may be some more improving ideas out there.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Flying Aces List

Thanks for including me amongst the recipients of your messages about changing the list a bit. I'm OK with all that you say, in terms of splitting the list up. It will (already has?) become quite unwieldy, so splitting by nationality is fine by me. The only thing is: it was split similar to that in a previous incarnation as a list. Somebody somewhere combined it and, IMO, created the types of problems that you have now identified. That's not to say that the list before being combined was perfect - I don't think it was. I have taken the liberty of copying messages which I left on the talk page of the previous WWI flying ace list. I had a helpful response from Panth at the time, so left things 'on hold' for a while. Not long after that, the whole thing got changed.

As you're doing such fantastic work on the list, its obviously in very good hands, and I'm happy with however you'd wish to proceed. I'm happy to help in whatever way you'd like. Meanwhile - here's the text of the messages referred to above. Scoop100 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"As part of a larger project on WW1 Aces, I am gradually populating the UK list with additional names. In terms of notability, not every ace will justify a future article of their own (discussed at WP Military History Talk Pages), so these additions will not always have a Wiki-Link. I propose also to break the Wiki-Links for existing names where it appears that the individual concerned MAY not merit a full article in their own right. The link can always easily be re-established and the effect on the table hopefully will be to tidy it up a bit. Happy to listen to any comments anybody wants to make on this. Scoop100 13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to comment as above, some of the Aces listed for other nations are also presently wikilinked but similarly may not eventually merit a full article, in terms of their notability. Again I'd propose to break the wikilinks as necessary and work towards tidying the whole list up. Still happy to listen to any comments from anybody. Scoop100 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the merger of these two lists, I’m wondering if in doing that, we could actually at the same time introduce some changes. Not all Aces, in truth, would justify a full WP article either from the point of view of notability or the availability of sufficient information.

I’d like to propose a re-categorisation as follows:

World War 1 Flying Aces – Principal Combatant or Otherwise Notable

World War 1 Flying Aces – Not Listed as Principal Combatant or Otherwise Notable

Under both categories, I’d propose then to list Aces by Nationality.

In the first category, every named Ace would have a wiki-link to their own article.

In the second category, there could be the facility to record a few details of the Ace, if these are available. But principally the purpose would be just to retain a list by nationality with the bare bones of name, Unit no., and number of victories. If ever the decision is made that there is sufficient information, and notability is established clearly enough, to transfer across to the first list, then that wouldn’t be a problem."

Any comments?Scoop100 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_World_War_I_flying_aces_by_nationality"

• Hi George

Thanks for your message. I'd advise as follows:

1.The cut-off point at 20 victories is good – at present. I think you're right about availability of documentary evidence being a problem for Aces below that number. Having said that, it seems to me that there is more and more documentation surfacing in this field. The UK publication 'Cross & Cockade', which specialises in WWI aviation, is continuously publishing new material as sources come to light. In that sense, the lack of available documentation for the 'lesser' Aces as of now doesn't mean that that will always be the case. Who knows, in years to come there could be resources coming available which may throw further light on any or all of these guys. But, its still sensible at this juncture to have the cut-off at 20, I think.

2.I agree with Trevor MacInnis, that in a sense all of the WWI Aces are notable. When one looks at all the (IMO) trivial other bios on WP, any recognised WWI Flying Ace, it seems to me, potentially justifies a WP article. OK, there may not be enough material at present, but I wouldn't like to see WP lose the opportunity, one day in the future, to have an article if and when the supporting documentation becomes available. That's just my particular hobby-horse; I realise that what you're suggesting doesn't mean any loss of what's already there. We just have to be practical at the moment and I think that's what your suggestions certainly are.

3.I'm afraid I wouldn't really have the skills or know-how to do the splitting of the lists. You could leave a message on the Talk page of the WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force; or maybe talk to one of the Administrators again who could put you in touch with an expert in that sort of thing.

4. Just on the role of the Adminstrators/Co-ordinaors, some time ago I asked a related question on the Talk Pages of the Miltary Aviation Project (I'm afraid I haven't been able to find it again, to show you); at that stage, the Project Co-ordinator thought that not all Aces would be notable and his opinion therefore was that it wasn't worth pursuing expansion of the list. Different people, different opinions – the best people really to make the judgements are those who are close to the action on the particular subject. None better than your good self, on this one. I'm therefore not proposing to leave messages for the other people you sent to – but it'll be good to see what they come up with.

5.As regards the contributions I left at the Talk page for the 'old' list, I'm again not too sure how you get back to there. I can only suggest following the link at the bottom of the last message I sent to you – hopefully you'll get back to where the 'Redirect' comes from; then click the tab for the 'History' of the 'redirected' page & that should show the contributions I, and others, made.

Hope this helps, in some way. Scoop100 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs)

I think it is worth a try George creating the national index and changing this to a 20 or more it would not cause any problems (although I still have an issue with splitting out England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland when they are really one country!) . MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you not to change the cutoff to 20 victories. Yes the page is big but not intolerably so, even on a dialup. Besides, what list titled "List of World War I Flying Aces" would leave out Luke, Immelmann and Lufbery? :) Nibios (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting The Aces List (Reply to Nibios)

Please take the time to read my proposal thoroughly. You are missing several important points:

The article is already three times the Wikipedia recommended size, and it is only a third done. There are about 1150 names still to be listed to complete the list. If all the names are added, it will become largely inaccessible.

I do not propose to eliminate any possible biographies, regardless of an ace's victory total. Others are suggesting non-coverage of some aces because of non-notability; I am not.

Luke, Immelman, and Lufbery would still be listed; in fact, Lufbery would probably be listed twice, in both the French and American air services. And certainly all three are notable enough to rate a biography.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion post-Nibios

When I listed out the nationalities list above, I did not realize it would be taken as an attempt to break up the United Kingdom list. The purpose of the list was to insure that persons of certain ethnic backgrounds (Scots, Irish, Welsh, Canadian, South African, New Zealanders) could see that representation was still maintained even though the list was bobbed. I made nice, and it has backfired slightly.

And I am not breaking the list up. Even if I had the technical skill, I would still be here asking for suggestions. Seems to me Wikipedia works by the principle that a roomful of ordinary folks are collectively smarter than Einstein. I am honoring that principle. (And I do believe that Wikipedians are actually above ordinary.)

Let me see if I can clarify my proposed solution to this oversized list:

1) Keep the present list down to the 20 victory mark. Retitle it to reflect its new reality.

2) Have links on that retitled list to complete lists of aces of the various flying services: British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Australian Flying Corps, Italian, Belgian, French, and American.

3) We already have some national lists, such as the Canadian list, so any nationalities not yet covered should be split out for equity's sake. And I am not suggesting splitting out the Prussians or the Austrians or the Irish, for cripes sake. And again, links from the retitled root article to the national lists.

And, I am realizing in this process of thinking out loud, that the present list might have to be filled out and promptly split. However, some more technically advanced person probably has a better perspective on that than I.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with your proposal of a 20 limit and I think that lists by the flying services is good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WWI flying ace list complete

The above list is now populated with all 1,861 known aces from World War I.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm going to focus on systematically adding Military Person Infoboxes to bio articles that lack them. Would this work be eligible for the Contest Department? I'm unclear how that would be scored. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware, unless you picked an article that only needed an infobox. That is not to say that this work is not valuable, it is just not covered by the contest department which is about rewarding article development. You would probably get a barnstar off me for doing it though! ;) Regards. Woody (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

There's a backlog of nearly a hundred articles at Category:Unassessed military history articles, a great many of them within the scope of this task force. If you have a little free time, could help out please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All done, thanks to those who helped out. Woody (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

John Luttrell

I've tagged John Luttrell (soldier) for your workgroup, hope that's right! - PKM (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

BD and lifetime templates

I suspect that many of those who use this page are writing or editing biographical articles. Could I encourage peopel to look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 22? I have objected to destructive editing by a bot which is deleting all the BD templates and providing birthdate, and death date categories with defaultsort without any discussion. (Note I am not a member of this project). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP check

Someone got a minute, they could run through this BLP with a ultra fine tooth comb, add references, also, if possible. I don't know if he's living, just read part of the book at VA, but assume he is, and that it requires high level of check. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that you forgot to include a link to the article you're referring to - is it James Hawkins? (the most recent biography in your edit history). If he's only known for unproven allegations(?) of war crimes then he should probably be covered in an article on those war crimes rather than have an article - see: WP:ONEEVENT Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail. You read minds it seems, so why bother telling you what article.... Thanks for looking and figuring it out. Yes, merging the information into the article about Tiger Force would probably suffice. The article needed something done with it, but I don't mind what more experienced editors working in this area do with it. The information I added is sourced and directly related to him as the acting platoon leader, I cleared up his rank, and included the information the he was battlefield commissioned. This latter alone makes him unusual, and is probably connected to some major bravery in battle, of course. Also, because the war crimes were never tried, it makes knowledge of him even less of a notable event, as you point out, making merging into the main article seem more usable. However, as the acting task force leader and battlefield commissioned, he should be individually be mentioned in the Tiger Force article. --KP Botany (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with that. Merging would be the best option. It would be appropriate to mention Mr Hawkins by name in that article as he's mentioned in the book and provide any background on him which is appropriate, but he shouldn't have his own article. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Help Wanted: Moses Rawlings

I'm currently working on an article for COL Moses Rawlings who served during the American Revolutionary War. I've got a handful of sources that each provide a little bit of information, but I need some help fleshing it all out into something truly worth reading about. Any help is appreciated! Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeking help/sources

I'm working in my sandbox on a biography for Brigadier General Littleberry C. Mosby Jr. His American Civil War service seems reasonably-well documented (there's more that I haven't yet added), but all I can find for his War of 1812 service is that he attained the rank of brigadier general during that war; nothing about what campaigns or battles he was involved in, what units he commanded, etc. At that rank, it certainly seems like there should be something, but I don't normally deal that much with military history and I'm just not sure where to look. Can anyone recommend some possible sources for such information? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Honours & Awards at Australian War Memorial

Guys, this will primarily be of interest to those working on biographical articles of Australian service folk...

For those who haven't noticed, AWM has changed its search and presentation of honours and awards - see new search page. First off, you can do one search and net both recommendations and actual awards in one go, rather than search for awards in one spot and recommendations in another. I find this a time saver. In one way, however, the results aren't quite as friendly and may result in broken links in some articles. You used to be able to get on one page each award for a particular person and all the details associated with those awards. With this new search engine you can still get a list of all the awards but you then have to enter each record to see all the details that you used to get for all awards on the one page. For those of us who have included links to such pages in WP articles, the link will now simply take you to the search engine. I don't think this is a disaster by any means, as most people link to the London Gazette for each award citation, but it's as well to be aware. The good news is that links to AWM recommendation PDFs still appear to work as before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted: Tex Settle

I'm collecting sources for the biography of USN VADM Thomas G. W. Settle (better known as balloonist Tex Settle) and while there are tons of resources on his stunts of 1930s, and some on his command of USS Portland (CA-33) in WW2, little is known on his post-WW2 years - not even a reliable year of death. Please help with RS on the latter! NVO (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Panzer commanders and aces

Category:Panzer commanders and aces has been proposed to be split into Category:Panzer commanders and Category:Panzer aces. See Category talk:Panzer commanders and aces#Split.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Barney B. Rasor

The article for deletion discussion of Barney B. Rasor, who is a retired US Army Command Sergeant Major, is currently split down the middle. Editors who wish to comment can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney B. Rasor. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Llewellyn Glyn Hughes

Seeking help on Hugh Llewellyn Glyn Hughes, I've created the article, but I'm WikiProject Rugby Union, not military, so the article may need work. I'm looking for information on why he was awarded the Military Cross, and his second Bar on his DSO, when he took control of the tanks during the Battle of Arnhem. Thanks in advance. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker

I have completed a major re-write of Francis Amasa Walker and am soliciting other editors' input, edits, and corrections to the article. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with references

I am attempting to bring the article on James Temple up to good article standard. As part of this I need page numbers for references to a couple of publications to which I do not have ready access.

The first is the Appendix to the 7th Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. HMSO. 1879. Apparently, Elizabeth Willan had attempted to serve Temple with two writs in connection with a bond for £400. He "threw them on the ground and spurned them with his foot".

The second is Shaw's Kinghts of England which records the knighting of Temples father (Sir Alexander Temple) at Tower Hill in 1603/4.

Is there some kind soul who has ready access to either of these publications who can let me know the page numbers?

Many thanks, Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now done - thanks. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

FYI, the article Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher is under a rename discussion to pick the best article name for Admiral Jackie Fisher. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update to Template:WPBiography

Please note that priority assessments for this work group are now added by using the |military-priority= parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Please refer to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for full instructions on how to use the banner, or feel free to ask any questions on the banner's talk page. PC78 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where should "Lord Byron" redirect?

To the poet "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" alone? Or to "Baron Byron" (of which title each holder has been addressed as "Lord Byron" in his own turn)? Currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Lord Byron. Many of the other Lords Byron were military or naval officers and are also under this work-group's topic. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Have now "closed up the gap with our English (and Australian) dead"

And again mentioning assorted officers among these (Admiral, General, Lt.Col. with DSO, Captain, Lt.):

• John Byron, 1st Baron Byron (1599–1652) —[pre-existing]
• Richard Byron, 2nd Baron Byron (1606–1679) —NEW
• William Byron, 3rd Baron Byron (1636–1695) —NEW
• William Byron, 4th Baron Byron (1669–1736) —NEW
• William Byron, 5th Baron Byron (1722–1798) —[pre-existing]
• George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (1788–1824) —[pre-existing]
• George Anson Byron, 7th Baron Byron (1789–1868) —[pre-existing]
• George Anson Byron, 8th Baron Byron (1818–1870) —NEW
• George Frederick William Byron, 9th Baron Byron (1855–1917) —NEW
• Frederick Ernest Charles Byron, 10th Baron Byron (1861–1949) —NEW
• Rupert Frederick George Byron, 11th Baron Byron (1903–1983) —former stub
• Richard Geoffrey Gordon Byron, 12th Baron Byron (1899–1989) —NEW
• Robert James Byron, 13th Baron Byron (b. 1950) —[pre-existing]

Of the Barons Byron listed, most articles did not exist a couple of days ago, and one that did was a stub... so I've filled in the gaps, and tried to get everything at least past "stub" (to "start") class, expanding or enhancing or tidying up some of the rest along the way, for instance creating disambiguation pages for common names in the family, like "George Byron" and "John Byron". More eyes are always welcome. Please check my work, spot errors, find areas for improvement, etc. These are still woefully short articles. Can we find more details? Illustrations? Other features? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Earnshaw

Would someone take a quick look at this one please and in particular the question I posed on the talk page re the merchant navy? Thanks.

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 237 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David Tyacke - new article

Hi, I've just written a new article which may be of interest to members of this project. It is David Tyacke - last CO of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, also GOC Singapore District, and Controller of the Army Benevolent Fund. He was at Dunkirk, and in Burma with Orde Wingate and his Chindits. The article's a bit stubby (just what I could cull from a couple of obits), so any help expanding it would be very much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Church: UK artilery officer in the Russian Civil War

I have just finished shortish starter article on the British Labour Party MP Archibald Church, who turns out to have been decorated for his role with the Royal Garrison Artillery in the Russian Civil War. (He appears to have been a Lt acting as Major)

I noticed that Category:British Army personnel of the Russian Civil War is not heavily populated, and wondered whether someone with military history expertise might like to see if that section of the article could be expanded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hussein Shuqul

The article on Somali General Hussein Shuqul has been tagged as an "unreferenced BLP" since May 2008. I came across the article as May 2008 is the current focus for the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to come up with any reliable third party references to support the text. As a Chief of Staff in the Somali Army, I believe he should meet the Military History Notability Guidelines but this is not my area of expertise. I'm posting here in the hope that someone in this project might like to take an interest in the article.--Plad2 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This book appears to have a chapter on the subject, but unfortunately it is not available in preview view on Google books: [2]. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin Benderman

The article Kevin Benderman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oliver Cromwell has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy for William Brill now open

The FAC for William Brill is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)