Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
I need help with a military biography
Hello! I am requesting some help with a draft article I am writing about a military man. He is a retired Navy pilot who is credited with “the longest dogfight in U.S. Navy history,” and there is a campaign to have him awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I’d like your opinions on the article, including whether he even deserves to have an article (I have only three Reliable Sources; two additional sources I did not use are a press release[1] and an article from Task and Purpose[2]; feel free to add those references if you believe they meet WP criteria). In any case, I need your help with the military aspects of the article - infobox, medal table, more detail about his Navy career, etc. Right now I have the draft in my userspace - User:MelanieN/E. Royce Williams. I would very much appreciate any comments (you can use the talk page) or editing assistance. Thank you! MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- From what I was able to find with a quick Google Books search, Williams definitely meets GNG. If the Medal of Honor award is approved, he will certainly receive a lot more coverage that will establish his notability even more. Since honoring him is not a politically controversial element of the NDAA, I'm sure that he'll receive the Medal of Honor after the NDAA gets signed into law within the next several months. Kges1901 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's helpful. I am also hoping that some people here will do the necessary editing to add what is needed for a military biography - such as more detail about his actual military service (some of you know how to access that, and I don't), an infobox, and the medals. I have only written a couple of military biographies up to now, and I am in way over my head on this one! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I have launched the article into mainspace as Royce Williams. I think it is ready, although it does still need work. I encourage anyone here to fill in the gaps. Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The current state of rank articles
A recent move discussion brought to light the somewhat scattered state of articles about military ranks. I figured this would be as good a place as any to gauge whether the community thinks this is worth doing something about. In general (no pun intended) we seem to have a few standard types of article sets:
Type 1:
- A high-level article about the rank in general, without much ties to any specific country: Lieutenant general
- Individual articles for various contries that use the English language term: Lieutenant general (Australia), Lieutenant general (Bangladesh), Lieutenant general (United States)
- One article driven by the German rank (e.g. has {{German military ranks}} at bottom, is in Category:Military ranks of Germany, majority of content is about Germany) but also almost always includes Austria and some other countries with a rank that is spelled nearly the same: Generalleutnant
- Individual articles for countries that have an equivalent rank but do not use the English language term: Kenraaliluutnantti, Generallöjtnant
- Articles for non-English ranks that are entitled as "English Term (Country)": General (Estonia), General (Finland)
Type 2:
- No equivalent English-language term
- One article driven by the German rank (e.g. has {{German military ranks}} at bottom, is in Category:Military ranks of Germany, majority of content is about Germany) but also almost always includes Austria and some other countries with a rank that is spelled nearly the same: Oberst
- Individual country articles: Eversti, Överste (nb: Swedish has both a dedicated article and is covered by Oberst#Sweden)
Type 3:
- English language rank, which has a massive per-country list of vaguely similar ranks: Corporal
- German-driven equivalent, again with some individual countries as sections, with overlap to the English term: Korporal
- Some non-English rank articles about individual countries: Korpral (Korpraali redirects to Finnish military ranks)
Infuriatingly, these things appear to not employ any kind of standard structure even within countries, e.g. Finnish officer ranks use {{Scandinavian military rank sidebar}} which gives neat "higher rank" and "lower rank" navigation as a side bar, which is then broken because Yliluutnantti redirects to Senior lieutenant#Finland.
On suggestion raised elsewhere was to rename the non-English ranks that have a clear English-language equivalent to use "English Term (Country)" titles, e.g. Kenraaliluutnantti Lieutenant General (Finland), but this gets complicated with cases where the rank structures and terms don't quite align, e.g. English corporal (OR-4) vs Finnish alikersantti (official translation "corporal," OR-4, NCO) vs Finnish korpraali (official translation "private 1st class," OR-3, rank and file).
So with that massive recap of the present states of affairs out of the way: does this strike you as something that should be organized better, and if so, how? Personally, I think the current status is rather difficult to navigate and has tons of overlap between articles, but it's not at all clear to me what direction things should be taken in. Ljleppan (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the biggest issue is going to be where the ranks differ. Even the UK/US ranks don't line up perfectly (consider Staff Sergeant, for instance). I think that trying to force every country's translations as if they're the same - how official are those Finnish translations really, or is that just an attempt by non-Finnish army forces to make them fit the US OR-4 names, for example? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 19:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least sufficiently official that they are used in FDF publications (p. 225 here, p. 71 here). But the misalignment is indeed problematic. Another example of misalignment is between countries with two lieutenant ranks and three. Guidelines say that we are supposed to WP:USEENGLISH, but then go on to describe that
It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. [..] If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.).
There's at least an argument that many if not most of these ranks would fall under that exception. I guess my biggest annoyance is that there isn't even agreement what to do within languages (e.g. Finnish has mostly dedicated articles under the Finnish terms, but then Yliluutnantti redirects to Senior lieutenant#Finland and Kenraali redirects to General (Finland)). Ljleppan (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Probably also going to hit a secondary problem with that mismatch: while that may be the translation convention now, historically, especially before attempts to have worldwide rank codes, I suspect the translations won't be as convenient. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 14:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least sufficiently official that they are used in FDF publications (p. 225 here, p. 71 here). But the misalignment is indeed problematic. Another example of misalignment is between countries with two lieutenant ranks and three. Guidelines say that we are supposed to WP:USEENGLISH, but then go on to describe that
Toledo War Featured article review
I have nominated Toledo War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Campaignbox Western Front (World War II)
I'm wondering if a campaign box like Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II) is appropriate at an article like Liberation of France, which, while covering plenty of battles and military operations, isn't solely about the military effort, and also covers a lot of politics, diplomacy, Resistance, and other non-military subtopics.
I'm only a very occasional contributor at this TP, although I do contribute to a bunch of military articles. Although I've noticed campaign boxes all over, I have only a vague understanding of what counts as a "campaign" and consequently, what belongs in a campaign nav box. I happened to notice Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II) at Liberation of France, and it contains neither Operation Overlord nor Operation Dragoon under the "France" heading. These were two immense seaborne landings that surely must be among the largest of WWII (or ever) and was astonished that they weren't listed in the campaign box. Or, if a battle or operation is not part of some larger grouping, whatever defines a "campaign", does that mean that even decisive operations like these two don't get mentioned? If that's the case, then maybe that particular campaign box belongs more at articles like Western Front of World War II, but not at Liberation of France, where articles links in the "France" section of that campaign box seem more mysterious than helpful.
The article military campaign says that a "a military campaign is [a] large-scale long-duration significant military strategy plan incorporating a series of interrelated military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war." If FDR's instructions to Eisenhower to invade France, drive the Germans out, and defeat them wasn't that, then I don't know what is. Please advise. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Field marshal rank for the SS...
Apparently there was a proppsed rank of "SS-Volksmarschall" at one point. Anyone aware of this? And more to the point, anyone know of a reliable source that supports this? Cheers - wolf 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a clear hoax. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Never heard of it myself. Intothatdarkness 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything that would support the existence of such a rank. Ljleppan (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just came across this book on Google: "The German Army on the Eastern Front: An Inner View of the Ostheer's Experiences of War" by Adrian Wettstein and Jeff Rutherford, as a possible source. It lists this rank as "planned". Anyone familiar with this book or its authors? - wolf 15:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This book seems to say that in December 1944 Hitler was going to make Sepp Dietrich a "Volksmarschall" when Germany won the war, but I am neither that good at reading French nor sure about the provenance of the source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have access to a version that would show what fn 134 on that page says? In terms of a timeline, both of the book sources post-date this un-referenced stub on nl.wiki: [3]. Ljleppan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure I can find a more complete version in the usual places. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have access to a version that would show what fn 134 on that page says? In terms of a timeline, both of the book sources post-date this un-referenced stub on nl.wiki: [3]. Ljleppan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This book seems to say that in December 1944 Hitler was going to make Sepp Dietrich a "Volksmarschall" when Germany won the war, but I am neither that good at reading French nor sure about the provenance of the source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just came across this book on Google: "The German Army on the Eastern Front: An Inner View of the Ostheer's Experiences of War" by Adrian Wettstein and Jeff Rutherford, as a possible source. It lists this rank as "planned". Anyone familiar with this book or its authors? - wolf 15:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can find no RS for this, I can find a few uncited fan sites about it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have read some discussion about this supposed rank before. WP:RS sources do not list it at all and the fact is there was no official recognition, nor implementing of such rank prior to the disbanding of the SS or the end of Nazi Germany. It’s really just speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven and Kierzek: (et.al) is this book not considered RS? Thanks - wolf 17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- MAybe, certainly one of the authors appears to be a subject expert. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This feels like WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory to me, especially since the timeline would match a WP:CITOGENESIS situation. Ljleppan (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's also not possible from the Google excerpt to tell how that particular rank table was sourced. Intothatdarkness 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not aware of this book, there’s always one out there that one doesn’t know about. It appears that it probably is an RS book, however, as to this specific issue, it’s still not clear. We would have to see what source they were using for that point. Further, it must be remember that again, it was never an official rank prior to the demise of the SS. I still believe it’s a matter of speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's also not possible from the Google excerpt to tell how that particular rank table was sourced. Intothatdarkness 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This feels like WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory to me, especially since the timeline would match a WP:CITOGENESIS situation. Ljleppan (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- MAybe, certainly one of the authors appears to be a subject expert. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven and Kierzek: (et.al) is this book not considered RS? Thanks - wolf 17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have read some discussion about this supposed rank before. WP:RS sources do not list it at all and the fact is there was no official recognition, nor implementing of such rank prior to the disbanding of the SS or the end of Nazi Germany. It’s really just speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, the book denotes it as a "planned rank", so when searching out sourcing, it is likely more of a matter of finding refs that state the Nazis intended to implement the rank at some point, rather than finding refs that states the rank was ever actually used. But I suppose if that turns out to be the case, then the rank would likely just be a note somewhere, as opposed to inclusion on any rank tables. Anyway, thanks for all the relplies so far, guys. - wolf 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed CCI
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. You can find more information on this CCI casepage. This CCI mainly concerned images of Civil War-era ships; blockade runners it seems. Some images may be deleted on Commons, and suitable and properly licensed images may need to be found to replace them. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Indy - I was involved in the cleanup and have found it frustrating how long the Commons deletion process can take. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they take forever. Commons is probably a safer place to store a probable copyright violation than Fort Knox. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't my first rodeo with dealing with Commons deletion, and it's probably the most frustrating part, I agree. However, most of the DRs (except for my last few, which were mostly done out of "This is a waste of my time, DR") are very sound, so it's just the fact that they have less than 200 admins overall and less than 100 that had 1 or more admin actions in the last 30 days that causes it to take so long. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Indy - I was involved in the cleanup and have found it frustrating how long the Commons deletion process can take. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Dispute at Invasions of the British Isles
A dispute between two editors is taking place here
Talk:Invasions_of_the_British_Isles#RfC_-_Should_the_section_"In_contemporary_culture"_be_included_in_this_article The issue is the use of the term invasion as a metaphor for immigration.--Monstrelet (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
GA reassessment for First Macedonian War
First Macedonian War has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Kentish Artillery
I have stubbed a draft for Kentish Artillery, since I came across the name in an article on a member of the outfit. I suspect this is related to either the Armory of the Kentish Guards or the Artillery Company of Newport, but I do not have the wherewithal to determine which. BD2412 T 04:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Query Rickfive, he's our expert on this sort of thing.Buckshot06 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)- Whoops, North America, not British Isles!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Bradford C. Freeman
Bradford C. Freeman's page has been nominated for deletion. Comments have been thin. I'm the nominator. Please comment, regardless of your opinion. Thanks.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfriendly Countries List
I'm proud to be from a country on the Unfriendly Countries List. Who are our userbox experts here? Can I get a UCL userbox? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- San Marino? Not sure this meets WP:CRITERIA's Recognizability. Although Russia seems to be unique in having this it seems odd not to have Russia mentioned in the title. I don't know that most readers would get it without reading some of the article. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Throwing together userboxes with {{userbox}} is pretty easy: User:Ljleppan/Sandbox/UB UCL Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any good open-access sources for military bios?
I'm working on a draft from a soldier for WWI, but I'm currently stuck right now with sources and don't have access to the Wikipedia Library yet. Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- https://archive.org/details/inlibrary is really good Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Pacific Clipper
I did a substantial edit of Pacific Clipper in June. There's room to argue that the page is not military history, but it is part of World War II history. My comments are at Talk:Pacific Clipper#Fixes. I'd appreciate some additional review. Thanks. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hull numbers in military ship articles and titles
A discussion is underway on a MOS issue which affects this project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Broader issue. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)