Lineagegeek (talk | contribs) →Why no article?: new section |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 132) (bot |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Blue-water navies again == |
|||
I may be mistaken, but I believe there was a consensus either here or at WT:SHIPS that we would not use blue-, green- or brown-water navy in the type field of infboxes on navy articles. [[User:Deepanshu DEL]] has been adding these to several navy articles, anlog with an IP that is presumably also this user, even after I've reverted additions. Does anyone know what the guideline or discussion on this is? Thanks. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_44#.22Multi-water.22_navy.3F|Here's the thread]] you're looking for. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you very much! - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== AfC submissions 05/10/15 == |
== AfC submissions 05/10/15 == |
||
Line 114: | Line 106: | ||
:::Thanks to {{u|Davidships}}, we now have a fuller description. Turns out she was misnamed in Lloyd's Register. {{u|Cla68}}, those books certainly sound interesting. Will see what I can do to get my hands on a copy. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::Thanks to {{u|Davidships}}, we now have a fuller description. Turns out she was misnamed in Lloyd's Register. {{u|Cla68}}, those books certainly sound interesting. Will see what I can do to get my hands on a copy. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::I bagged a copy of Jordan's book on a well-known internet auction site for a very reasonable price. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 17:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::I bagged a copy of Jordan's book on a well-known internet auction site for a very reasonable price. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 17:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Disambiguation links for MILHIST == |
|||
Hi! We have a contest over at [[WP:DPL]] to fix disambiguation links. These are links asking you whether the [[Battle of Farmington]] was in Mississippi (1862) or Tennessee (1863). We have a tool ([http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Dab_solver Dab solver]) that makes it simple to update these links, accessible from the FIX links. The Military History project has 2,800 articles in this month's challenge. |
|||
* [http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Military_history WP:DPL points for Military History], updates hourly |
|||
* [http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/watchlist_points.py Disambiguation links, pages, and points from your watchlist], requires OAuth |
|||
Don't be afraid to create redirects or make redlinks for notable subjects, Wikipedia is far from being comprehensive. [[WP:The Daily Disambig]] shows the overall project's progress. Cheers, — [[User:Dispenser|Dispenser]] 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Total Confederate forces at Malvern Hill == |
== Total Confederate forces at Malvern Hill == |
||
Line 127: | Line 112: | ||
:That IP that I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Malvern_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=684521669 reversed] the outcome before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Malvern_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=684521713 changing] the numbers. Are you the IP?<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
:That IP that I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Malvern_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=684521669 reversed] the outcome before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Malvern_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=684521713 changing] the numbers. Are you the IP?<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Nope, not me. If other facts were disturbed, then it might be vandalism, but it would be odd if a vandal accidentally hit precisely on a gray area. Anyhow, I'll keep thinking about this. [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]] ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
::Nope, not me. If other facts were disturbed, then it might be vandalism, but it would be odd if a vandal accidentally hit precisely on a gray area. Anyhow, I'll keep thinking about this. [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]] ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Military history Showcase == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase|Military history Showcase]] is an outdated list that was manually updated by the person who created it. It hasn't been updated since 2012, and GAs have a section but no individual listings. Is there a chance this could be revamped and automated with bots? [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 12:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== 978th Military Police Company == |
== 978th Military Police Company == |
||
Line 145: | Line 126: | ||
::::As per [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/722nd_Ordnance_Company_(United_States)]] and later discussions, including regarding 575th Sigs Company, separate non-combat companies are not considered notable. They should actually all be listed for deletion. The 507th Maint Company due to all its mentions meets GNG though. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::As per [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/722nd_Ordnance_Company_(United_States)]] and later discussions, including regarding 575th Sigs Company, separate non-combat companies are not considered notable. They should actually all be listed for deletion. The 507th Maint Company due to all its mentions meets GNG though. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Discussion of merging recently created content fork == |
|||
[[France in the American Revolutionary War]] has been the subject of two recent move requests ([[Talk:France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#Requested_move_29_January_2015|Requested move 29 January 2015]], [[Talk:France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#Requested_move_20_August_2015|Requested move 20 August 2015]]), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new [[User:AdjectivesAreBad]] chose to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-French_War_%281778%E2%80%9383%29&type=revision&diff=677580638&oldid=643560820 build the created redirect into its own article]. [[France in the American Revolutionary War|France in the ARW]] is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created [[Anglo-French War (1778–83)]] is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the [[France in the American Revolutionary War]] pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion [[Talk:American_Revolutionary_War#Merger_proposal|here]]. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==[[ANZAC War Memorial]]== |
==[[ANZAC War Memorial]]== |
Revision as of 00:18, 15 October 2015
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
ANZAC War Memorial move discussion
Recently ANZAC War Memorial was cut & pasted here to the Anzac Memorial by a new editor A Martin (talk · contribs), who appears to have some connection with the memorial. This was reverted, and a discussion on the issue has been started here.
Prior to the move, A Martin (among other modifications) changed all mentions of "ANZAC" to "Anzac" here. With the summary:
- "ANZAC corrected to Anzac", the previous summary was:
- "Correction of errors based on consultation with Brad Manera, Anzac Memorial Head Curator. Addition of information about upcoming Anzac Memorial Centenary Project."
Back in February another new editor Aliakhim (talk · contribs) changed all mentions of "ANZAC War Memorial" to "ANZAC Memorial" i.e. removed all appearances of "War" from the name text, here. With the summary:
- "The official name of this building is the ANZAC Memorial, not ANZAC War Memorial. It is a memorial to the men, or 'Anzacs' of the first AIF, not the war more generally."
Thus the text has changed from "ANZAC War Memorial" to "Anzac Memorial", just this year, while the page name has been "ANZAC War Memorial" since 07:30, 31 August 2004 when the page was created, over 11 years.
♦ Just mentioning this here for input from interested parties. For my part, I think It has always been commonly referred to as the "ANZAC War Memorial", ANZAC being an acronym. The Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) seems to agree with me, at least on one page.[1]. 220 of Borg 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
♦ Using lower case for New Zealand, i.e., "Anzac" seems to belittle New Zealand's contribution. It should defintiely be all upper case, i.e., "ANZAC" Sliven2000 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
wikibabble: Person data is deprecated (translation: the person data template is no longer to be used)
Ok, so an editor and I have been going back and forth on the person data for Alexander Henning von Kleist (the nephew, not the field marshal). He keeps deleting it, saying it's deprecated, which means nothing to me. Apparently there was a massive discussion about this, and the template of person data is no longer needed or wanted. Would have been nice to know. Mr. B, did you know this? You write a lot of biographies too. Anyway, I waded through the the argument from last May in the Village Pump, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is part way through implementing it, but obviously not all the notifications telling us NOT to use it have gone out. Anyway, apparently we are to stop. So those of us writing/editing bios should take not. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. I stopped when they started deleting them off my bios. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The decision can be found here. I should have cross-posted a notice about it. The bottom line is that it has been superseded by WikiData. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should the Wikidata link be in place before deleting person data?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- The decision can be found here. I should have cross-posted a notice about it. The bottom line is that it has been superseded by WikiData. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
infobox service record
Operations | V Corps Observation Group Western Front, France: 12 June-11 November 1918[1]
|
---|---|
Victories |
Service record | |
---|---|
Operations: |
|
Victories: | |
References
- ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Gorrell
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, Series M, Volume 38, Compilation of Confirmed Victories and Losses of the AEF Air Service as of May 26, 1919
- ^ Series "H", Section "O", Volume 29, Weekly Statistical Reports of Air Service Activities, October 1918-May 1919. Gorrell's History of the American Expeditionary Forces Air Service, 1917–1919, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
{{Infobox service record}}
has a ship mode and a non-ship mode. The parameter |is_ship=yes
forces the template to use <td>...</td>
instead of <th>...</th>
for the line-item headings. I have just implemented a change to ship infoboxen that allows generic unordered lists to render without the bullet points. The reasons for this are described at WT:SHIPS.
I have tweaked {{infobox service record/sandbox}}
so that it has two sections: a ships section and a non-ships section. I don't think that I've broken anything as can be seen in the sandbox rendering at top of this discussion. The second version of that (with tweaks) is rendered in a ship infobox with |is_ship=yes
(from 99th Aero Squadron).
It is my intention to update the live version of {{infobox service record}}
from the sandbox. Before I do so, are there questions? Comments?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have updated the live template from the sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
AfC submissions 05/10/15
Draft:SEEK IGLOO, Draft:436th Operations Support Squadron (436 OSS) and Draft:Francis C. Harrington. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have doubts whether any Operations Support Squadron has notability independent of the Operations Group it is assigned to. This article talks about the squadron "airlifting" lots of things, which were actually airlifted by the airlift squadrons of the 436th Operations Group and its reserve affiliate group. Footnote three, which supports almost all the narrative in the article, links to the accomplishment of the 436th Airlift Wing, not the squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Scottish Army In World War I: kicking around AFC for three years: valid topic or no?
This was first submitted in 2012, and the originator recently returned to AFC to resubmit it. Is this fundamentally a valid article, or is "Scottish" a non-definitive subcategory of the UK Army so far as WWI goes? Any help on either approving this article, or definitively stating that it's not a valid standalone topic, would be useful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I could see List of Scottish regiments participating in World War I being a viable list, but not the rest of it. Scottish units weren't like the Bavarian Army operating under a separate command, but integrated within the British Army; the prose section of this is basically "list of notable British army officers who served in the 1910s with connections to Scotland". ‑ iridescent 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not a separate Army. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely not a separate Army in WW1 or today, but I suspect we will need Scottish Army articles in the near future... Sliven2000 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Any Japanese or Chinese reading editors about?
I've created the SS Kuroshio Maru article, which is about a tanker with a rather colourful history. It's lacking in details of her construction, which I suspect that Japanese souces will be able to provide (I'm about ja-minus 3). Chinese sources will likely be able to provide further detail re her requisitoning by Hong Kong in 1951 and the fallout therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Cla68. You might want to contact him directly as I'm not sure how many people pay attention to pings any more. ‑ iridescent 18:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mjroots, there aren't very many sources in English that go into the details of Japanese logistics ships of WWII. Books like The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939: The Particulars and Wartime Fates of 6,000 Ships by Roger Jordan and The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo are hit-and-miss, especially since the latter book may not apply since Kuroshio was a militarized tanker. There are a number of Japanese sources, such as the periodical Maru Special, that give information like this on Japanese ships, but I don't think that journal has published any of its content online. There are two online forums where experts on Imperial Japan reside and may be able to help you out: Tully's Prop 'n' Turret, the discussion forum for CombinedFleet.com, which is already used as a source in the article, and J-Aircraft forum, which despite its name is a discussion board about anything related to the Imperial Japanese military. Finally, Pacific Wrecks might have some info or the regulars there might know where to steer you. They specialize in studying the movement of Japanese forces around the Pacific during the war. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to Davidships, we now have a fuller description. Turns out she was misnamed in Lloyd's Register. Cla68, those books certainly sound interesting. Will see what I can do to get my hands on a copy. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mjroots, there aren't very many sources in English that go into the details of Japanese logistics ships of WWII. Books like The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939: The Particulars and Wartime Fates of 6,000 Ships by Roger Jordan and The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II by Mark Parillo are hit-and-miss, especially since the latter book may not apply since Kuroshio was a militarized tanker. There are a number of Japanese sources, such as the periodical Maru Special, that give information like this on Japanese ships, but I don't think that journal has published any of its content online. There are two online forums where experts on Imperial Japan reside and may be able to help you out: Tully's Prop 'n' Turret, the discussion forum for CombinedFleet.com, which is already used as a source in the article, and J-Aircraft forum, which despite its name is a discussion board about anything related to the Imperial Japanese military. Finally, Pacific Wrecks might have some info or the regulars there might know where to steer you. They specialize in studying the movement of Japanese forces around the Pacific during the war. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Total Confederate forces at Malvern Hill
Some sources list the actively engaged Confederate troops, which may have been around 35,000 (I need to research whether sources agree); on the other hand, other sources list the troops at hand, which was a number closer to 55,000. Question to MilHist experts: which figure goes in the infobox, in the summary paragraphs, etc.? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That IP that I reverted reversed the outcome before changing the numbers. Are you the IP?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
978th Military Police Company
I've just seen this article crop up 978th Military Police Company
Are military companies notable enough for individual articles? Gavbadger (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) - Edited again for spelling Gavbadger (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- If and only if they receive coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:GNG has more. In this case I don't see any sources at all, so I doubt this particular case is notable enough for its own article. It should probably be nominated for deletion (not speedy deletion though). Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, an article for a company-sized sub-unit would be rare due to the GNG need to have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject with enough detail. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/722nd_Ordnance_Company_(United_States) and later discussions, including regarding 575th Sigs Company, separate non-combat companies are not considered notable. They should actually all be listed for deletion. The 507th Maint Company due to all its mentions meets GNG though. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone has been changing "ANZAC" to "Anzac" and did a cut and paste move to "Anzac" (since reverted). See talk:ANZAC War Memorial and the request for text reversion to ANZAC -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a subject matter-expert, but I looked around for some sources and I'm inclined to agree with users Angusmclellan and Pyutk that the operation is, at a minimum, inaccurately described, and more likely entirely fictional - I can't find any other references, and the article includes information from the linked alternate history timeline which is clearly inconsistent with other articles about what Kesselring and Kleist were doing at this time - and yet it's linked from the main Battle of Moscow, WW2 articles all over the place, and has been translated into Russian and Chinese. Can someone confirm and AfD? Willhsmit (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II appears to be speculative.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Chanced to see this in passing, curious enough to look at it. Don't know anything about the subject, not sure about the article, but I do note that it was created by User:Brandmeister (old) which will automatically have received an afd notice but which hasn't been active since 2010, so this post pings Brandmeister which I take it is the current instance. Apologies if Brandmeister already knows by other means. Stanning (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt this article is anything more than a hoax. Despite there cant be found anything about it besides a book of one of this What if... authors its highly doubtful that anybody within the german military thought it possible to deploy a whole army group over hundreds of kilometers within weeks to attack Moscow, especially as the army group was bound with Crimea. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
As you may have heard, an U.S. AC-130 bombed an MSF hospital recently. An editor assumed that that implied the USAF was responsible for the attack. Could somebody confirm whether the USAF is the only branch of the U.S. military which flies AC-130s, at least in Afghanistan? Even if you do know, is it WP:OR to make the inference? FourViolas (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: The only operators of the AC-130 and its variants are the US Air Force, so if it was an AC-130 on a US directed airstrike, it would've been an Air Force bird. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! And this is obvious enough (to knowledgeable people) that it isn't OR? My search for "kunduz hospital "air force"" only pulls up WP so far. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas:Wouldn't be OR since the only operators are the USAF, so in the absence of proof to the contrary it can be reasonably inferred that this is a USAF flub-up. If that article had a rating at or above B then it could be an issue, but I don't see that as an issue at present since the article is still developing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! And this is obvious enough (to knowledgeable people) that it isn't OR? My search for "kunduz hospital "air force"" only pulls up WP so far. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Audie Murphy plane crash article should be renamed
Discussion has been moved to Talk:Audie Murphy plane crash — Maile (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
---|
Audie Murphy plane crash was just created by Samf4u. It was not Murphy's plane, and he wasn't the only passenger who died. I suggest a renaming of the article, but I don't know what. Any suggestions? — Maile (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)
Greetings. I am curious whether the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) article is eligible for GA status since the battle is ongoing.--Catlemur (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- The GAC review is happening at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)/GA1, and Catlemur is asking this question as the reviewer.
- Yeah, I can see how one might think that, but I think it is theoretically possible as long as it is up-to-date on the main aspects at the time it is reviewed (and meets all the other criteria, obviously). Whether it is a good idea (given the scope for a current event article to deteriorate quickly if it isn't updated other criteria aren't maintained) is another thing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
A-Class review for Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sir Thomas Grey of Heton notability
Can any military history people comment on the notability of the soldier/feudal baron Sir Thomas Grey of Heaton who was in the thick of the Scottish Wars of Independance? He is unusual for a number of things:
- He had an unusually long career despite being in "the thick of it" holding commands such as Norham Castle for much of his career
- His experiences were documented by his son Thomas Grey (chronicler) whose Scalacronica provides a rare and one of the most important sources for our knowledge of the wars
- He had an extraordinary escape at the Siege of Stirling Castle where he first rescued Henry de Beaumont from being catapulted by a siege engine only to be shot in the head by a bolt fired from a Springald, being proclaimed dead and then re-awakening at his own funeral!
- Being one of the cavalry leaders on the first day of the Battle of Bannockburn who rose to a challenge of his manhood/chaivalry and launched into a suicidal charge on the Scottish, i.e. he was one of the hot-headed leaders who are often held responsible for the disastrous English defeat
- He was a central figure in the story of the Chivalric Knight of Norham Castle which provided inspiration for the "Marmion" poem of Sir Walter Scott and Bishop Percy's Hermit of Warkworth story
- He is ancestor to a long line of Baronets, Members of Parliament, etc
The current advice on Notability of Military Personnel seems very geared to modern people, i.e. How can you compare bravery awards like V.C.s to medieval feudal rewards of knighthoods and land or modern ranks such as "Flag-Officer" to Knights or Castle Keepers?
What do people think? Is he worth his own article? Thanks Sliven2000 (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- The notability guideline is a good rule of thumb, but fundamentally, if the sources are there, go for it. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sir Thomas was of fairly minor rank but did hold significant border commands - Norham was one of the key castles on the border. The "Marmion incident" adds to his notability in the lore of arms. His career is documented. Clifford Roger's book Soldiers Lives through History: the Middle Ages (2007) devotes an entire chapter to his career as a case study of the professional soldier of the Middle Ages. So, yes, compared with some people who have wikipages, I think he is eminently noteable. Go for it seconded Monstrelet (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Andrew & Monstrelet. I just don't want to spend time creating something only for it to be deleted! Some of the notability guidelines are straightforward, e.g. National Politicians, Army Heads, etc but there are a whole load more that are very "fuzzy". I think Sir Thomas Grey falls under several fuzzy ones as well as there being quite a lot of info on him which has "general" historical interest as well. I think overall though there is one thing he is most noteable for, although it probably wouldn't be what he wanted to be remembered for, i.e. he was one of the hot-headed leaders that cost the English the Battle of Bannockburn. Sliven2000 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- He would have said he was one of the cautious ones,only launching his mad charge when taunted by his commander for cowardice. However, I look forward to the new page (and I'll vote against deletion if needs be) Monstrelet (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Remember that SOLDIER is an essay (not a policy or a guideline) and is only intended as a yardstick of when a subject may be notable, by listing cases or criteria where a subject is likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject". Failing to meet any of the listed cases is completely irrelevant if you have sufficient information about the subject drawn from multiple reliable published sources for an article (as appears to be the case here), because you meet WP:N. Equally, if there are no sources discussing the subject, it doesn't matter how many of the examples at SOLDIER are met, it doesn't belong here. -- saberwyn 07:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks Monstrelet & Saberwyn. One Tho Grey article coming up... Sliven2000 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Remember that SOLDIER is an essay (not a policy or a guideline) and is only intended as a yardstick of when a subject may be notable, by listing cases or criteria where a subject is likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject". Failing to meet any of the listed cases is completely irrelevant if you have sufficient information about the subject drawn from multiple reliable published sources for an article (as appears to be the case here), because you meet WP:N. Equally, if there are no sources discussing the subject, it doesn't matter how many of the examples at SOLDIER are met, it doesn't belong here. -- saberwyn 07:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
English carrack Holigost
I've created the English carrack Holigost article. A bit outside my area of comfort so corrections, expansion etc is appreciated as always. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Further to the above, we need an article on the gad. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, the ship was actually named Holy Ghost of the Tower. This is confirmed by 1, 2, and 3. It's also sometimes referred to as just Holy Ghost, as in here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've no objection to a move to a better title. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't know that you'll find much on "gad",, Friel in Henry V's Navy: The Sea-Road to Agincourt and Conquest 1413-1422 describes it as "long sharpened iron spear". And it's usage is covered in a single paragraph of about 9 lines. More a dictionary definition? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Could be worth an entry at Glossary of nautical terms, at least as a start until someone can put together something more substantive. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've no objection to a move to a better title. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, the ship was actually named Holy Ghost of the Tower. This is confirmed by 1, 2, and 3. It's also sometimes referred to as just Holy Ghost, as in here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
AfC submission 12/10/15
Draft:Sam Shephard GC. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The move of this article to the main space was declined on the grounds of notability but I would have thought that a GC winner was inherently notable? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also Draft:Matt Konop. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sign up now for the October-November backlog reduction drive!
It's BAAAAACK! This time round, the coordinators have decided on a general backlog reduction drive over a six-week period to reduce the backlog of military history articles needing attention and military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Every player wins a prize, and by reducing the backlog, you'll be simultaneously helping our WikiProject achieve its 15% B-Class milestone target! It all kicks off on 15 October, and runs to the end of November. Do a little or do a lot, it all helps! Sign up here! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) for the WikiProject Military history coordinator team
- I've been dabbling while I'm laid up but am running out of obvious candidates suitable for my sources (Great War, Western Front 1914-1945, North Africa etc) as there aren't many left on the list under Battle of... but if anyone notices likely articles under other titles like ... offensive, ... of or Great War air and naval operations, please let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Will do! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear military history experts: This draft article will soon be deleted as stale unless someone decides to improve it. It has the feel of pre-published text, but I haven't found any copyvio. The references need to be fixed up by someone who understands what this draft is about.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hotcat has deleted an article!
I added a category to the USS Thatcher (DD-514) article using Hotcat and it had the effect of reducing the articl to a title only. Reverted the edit and it's still the same. HELP!!!! Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:VPT#Why do all pages look blank?, coincidence your edit was concurrent with a database error most likely. Nthep (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Why no article?
I have also posted this on WP:BIOGRAPHY
I don't do biographical articles (nowhere close to being up to speed on the conventions), but while editing 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing, I looked to add a Wikilink to a notable commander, Gerald W. Johnson, and was amazed to find there was no Wikipedia Article on him. I'd argue he is more notable than any of the Gerald W. Johnsons who have articles about them, and Gerald W. Johnson (military officer) would be superflouous. I'd suggest that someone who works in the area of military bios might give this a shot. His official USAF biography [2] would be a good place to start. Reasons:
- First ace of the noted 56th Fighter Group
- Second American ace in the European Theater of Operations
- First ace in the Army Air Forces to exceed Eddie Rickenbacker's World War I record of 26 enemy aircraft destroyed (although the rules were different)
- First commander of the 4080th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing, first USAF unit to fly the U-2
- Commanded Eighth Air Force during the Vietnam War, controlling all heavy bomber and tanker assets in the Pacific.
- Was a Lieutenant General, which creates at least a presumption of notabilty by itself.