I would like to nominate Yuri Gagarin for A-class but have a question before I do. Are redlinks a failing criteria for A-class on this project? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. I have had plenty of redlinks in A-Class articles, I'm sure I'm not alone. You don't want a sea of red, but the occasional one isn't going to be an obstacle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick response! I have nominated the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would still remove them, they look bad.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not if it is not required. The three medals in particular would be easy for an editor in this project to create if not easy for me. I am hoping the ugliness will inspire someone to create them. When this gets main page exposure a Russian editor might take care of the other two. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have I never had any issues with redlinks in A-Class reviews, I also have numerous FAs (including my first one, which is nearly seven years old) which still have redlinks. The encyclopedia is not finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some FA reviewers are funny about red links, but they're definitely fine at ACR. The guideline WP:REDLINK strongly encourages their inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

True, maybe start one?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Way outside my area of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:German-occupied Europe#Requested move 24 June 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:United States Army aviators
• Category:American Master Army Aviators
• Category:American Senior Army Aviators

Three new categories created today and populated into a number of articles, they dont appear to add anything to the articles or naviagtion, one of the main problems is I have no idea what the terms mean or if they are of any use. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the three grades of the United States Aviator Badge. I don't think it is useful to split out the articles like this. For one thing are the articles in "United States Army aviators" all those with the just basic badge or a catch-all for those we don't know the grade of? - Dumelow (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following categories are proposed to be merged or deleted.

• Category:History of the Royal Australian Navy
• Category:Battle honours of the Royal Australian Navy
• Category:Military awards and decorations of Australia

The discussion is being had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just created an article on the Oxford University first-class cricketer Denis Oswald, who it turns out was a senior linguist and cryptographer in the Testery section at Bletchley in the war. His activities might make for an interesting article, so I'm posting him here to see if anyone fancies doing his codebreaking activities more justice in the article than I ever could. Also, feel free to rename the page – not sure the current article name is exactly accurate! Many thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYSA, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "army" and "navy" that the community should be aware of. Any input on possible changes would be appreciated. Garuda28 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last year my dog died. She was a truly magnificent animal. I miss her still, and probably will forever. I could regale you with tales of her intelligence, courage, and strength for hours on end, but I’m feeling charitable to you lesser tribes without who did not have the honor of her acquaintance.

You know what I miss about her most right now? Watching her wag her tail. Haven’t seen that for a while around here, nope.

Other way ‘round, here, yessir. Qwirkle (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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):

• Talk:Bougainville_campaign#Requested_move_24_June_2019
• Talk:Burma_campaign#Requested_move_26_June_2019
• Talk:Italian campaign#Requested move 25 June 2019
• Talk:Balkans campaign#Requested move 25 June 2019
• Talk:Crécy_campaign#Requested_move_23_June_2019
• Talk:Tunisian_campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles

Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the discussion here. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Did you forget a link? Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles regarsa Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+1 to downcasing "campaign" per our project's manual of style. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey

Support

1. Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cadar (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Qwirkle (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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)[reply]

Oppose

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. A new local consensus contrary to the MOS will not help resolve anything. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All of those which you have moved. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given it was published in a peer reviewed academic journal yes, but with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]