This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick-D (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 22 May 2011 (→Neutrality review request: Japanese nuclear weapon program: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:32, 22 May 2011 by Nick-D (talk | contribs) (→Neutrality review request: Japanese nuclear weapon program: done)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open
The peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
Peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition now open
The peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
Peer review for Thomas the Slav now open
The peer review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) now open
The A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk)
Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)
Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
FAC "urgents"
FACs on the "urgent" list can be closed at any time. RAF Northolt needs an image review and maybe spotchecks for close paraphrasing. In Sack of Amorium and Charles Holden, the essential reviews have been done, but the nominators are struggling a bit with questions they've been asked, if anyone wants to have a look.
Notability of the Battle off Diamond Shoals
I've started a discussion at Talk:Battle off Diamond Shoals about whether this 'battle' (which comprised a submarine shooting up and sinking an almost unarmed patrol boat) is really notable. Comments from interested editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Specific comment on this article made on its talk page. But on a wider topic, is every single engagement between two warships notable? I'm seeing a lot of articles like this one appear - mostly about the US Navy but I suspect that is the easier availability of records - and I do find myself wondering if they are all notable? The example quoted here could easily be included in a wider article about German submarine activity off the US coast and articles like Action of 24 July 1945 could be wrapped up in the article on kaitens or the article on the USS Underhill (DE-682). I really am not convinced that these types of articles stand on their own two feet. NtheP (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Single ship actions and the like can be quite notable, but the 'battles' these articles cover aren't very notable and the topic would be better covered in the article on the ship for which this was most important (Underhill in this case - the action is covered in books, but doesn't seem to warrant its own article). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are more modern examples (Action of 30 March 2010 Action of 6 May 2010 November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia) and earlier (Action of 21 May 1918) Though a MoH was awarded to a participant of the latter it the action still does read as notable of itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also came across Baralong Incidents while reveiwing the Campaignbox Atlantic 1914 - 1918 template which has a few "Action of" articles GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, it seems to me unless the action in question is worthy of a book in itself, it fails notability. Otherwise, we're going to see pages on I-boats shelling Los Angeles. (Oh, wait, there are already "battle" pages for I-boats shelling Midway... Part of the "Hawaiian Islands Campaign". :/) TREKphiler 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Graeme: I'm pretty sure the Baralong Incident was notable; was that your concern there? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, it seems to me unless the action in question is worthy of a book in itself, it fails notability. Otherwise, we're going to see pages on I-boats shelling Los Angeles. (Oh, wait, there are already "battle" pages for I-boats shelling Midway... Part of the "Hawaiian Islands Campaign". :/) TREKphiler 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Single ship actions and the like can be quite notable, but the 'battles' these articles cover aren't very notable and the topic would be better covered in the article on the ship for which this was most important (Underhill in this case - the action is covered in books, but doesn't seem to warrant its own article). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to Action of 30 March 2010 (which i helped write) it is notable as it is the first naval battle fought by forces of the Seychelles. I generally only write such articles now a days only when a signifigant number of people die, when something unique happens, or when it gets signifigant media coverege. As for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, it is a B-class article, a DYK, and already passed notability tests. I think a good rule of thumb is that if there isnt enough material to at least write a B-class article on a subject than it should be combined into another article wherever possible.XavierGreen (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned that these articles (along with many other articles on recent battles) don't pass WP:NOT#NEWS. Do any references highlight the 'Action of 30 March 2010' as being notable on these grounds? Have the battles had any lasting significance? The naming of these articles also seems problematic to me - while there often isn't a good name to pick for articles like these, I really doubt that anyone is going to search for a 'Action of 30 March 2010' (disclaimer: I gave Action of 28 January 1945 its name as most of the references called this an unnamed 'action', though one called it the 'Action off Bergen' but this wasn't repeated elsewhere). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the actions are unamed then there really is nothing else to do but follow the precident of Action of (insert date here). Most naval battles throughout history dont have names, if you look at sources like O'Hare's The US Navy Against the Axis, he simply makes up his own names for many minor actions since they dont exist elsewhere. Usually he uses Action off (insert place) but for many battles these names arnt used in any other source. When there is an action in the open sea that naming convention is rather worthless, though it would make sense if the action is closer to land. As for references on recent actions, you wont find any book that talkes about events that happened a year ago. It takes time for things to get published.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is that "Action of..." in chapter/section titles or just in the text and in the case of the text is it capitalized mid-sentence? (as in "the effects of the Action of 20th May....") GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the actions are unamed then there really is nothing else to do but follow the precident of Action of (insert date here). Most naval battles throughout history dont have names, if you look at sources like O'Hare's The US Navy Against the Axis, he simply makes up his own names for many minor actions since they dont exist elsewhere. Usually he uses Action off (insert place) but for many battles these names arnt used in any other source. When there is an action in the open sea that naming convention is rather worthless, though it would make sense if the action is closer to land. As for references on recent actions, you wont find any book that talkes about events that happened a year ago. It takes time for things to get published.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned that these articles (along with many other articles on recent battles) don't pass WP:NOT#NEWS. Do any references highlight the 'Action of 30 March 2010' as being notable on these grounds? Have the battles had any lasting significance? The naming of these articles also seems problematic to me - while there often isn't a good name to pick for articles like these, I really doubt that anyone is going to search for a 'Action of 30 March 2010' (disclaimer: I gave Action of 28 January 1945 its name as most of the references called this an unnamed 'action', though one called it the 'Action off Bergen' but this wasn't repeated elsewhere). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
"Artifical" navboxes
(Subsectioned to avoid thread confusion) Intrigued, I found the First Bombardment of Midway through a search for the "Hawaiian Islands Campaign" which turned up the navbox but there is no corresponding article for Hawaiian Islands Campaign which makes me wonder if the grouping of the articles is an artificial one. Anyone in the position to clarify? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've never heard of any such campaign. I've just notified the editor who created the navbox (and many, though not all) of the articles in question here of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It would be part of Operation Z as it was part of the initial attack against the Hawaiian island chain and by the same forces that were withdrawing after the attack on pearl harbor.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "campaign" appears to be purely notional on the part of the creator of the bombardment of Midway pages. I've never seen so much as a passing mention anywhere else. (I also think a bit of passing shelling & Operation K hardly qualify as a "campaign" anyhow.) TREKphiler 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well The bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation, but your right that operation K has nothing to do with it. I think the campaign box should be renamed to Opeartion Z and the operation K article removed from it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "...bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation" No, they weren't. They were incidentally connected, not a campaign by any stretch of imagination. Campaign implies concerted effort, planning, & intent, none of which pertain. The shelling of Midway was a trivial event of opportunity in passing, no more part of a "campaign" than the shelling of Los Angeles was part of a "campaign" against the U.S. mainland. The Ni'ihau Incident was equally trivial. Anecdotes do not make a campaign. TREKphiler 04:31 & 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read the reasoning at Talk:First Bombardment of Midway as to why it's a US victory. The Niihau Incident does seem to be the subject of several books and in the wider context of treatment of Americans of Japanese descent I can see why it's significant. But the concept of a Hawaiian Islands Campaign does look to me like WP:SYNTHESIS. NtheP (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never said they were part of a campaign, i said they were all part of Operation Z.XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read the reasoning at Talk:First Bombardment of Midway as to why it's a US victory. The Niihau Incident does seem to be the subject of several books and in the wider context of treatment of Americans of Japanese descent I can see why it's significant. But the concept of a Hawaiian Islands Campaign does look to me like WP:SYNTHESIS. NtheP (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "...bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation" No, they weren't. They were incidentally connected, not a campaign by any stretch of imagination. Campaign implies concerted effort, planning, & intent, none of which pertain. The shelling of Midway was a trivial event of opportunity in passing, no more part of a "campaign" than the shelling of Los Angeles was part of a "campaign" against the U.S. mainland. The Ni'ihau Incident was equally trivial. Anecdotes do not make a campaign. TREKphiler 04:31 & 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well The bombardment of Midway, nihau incident, and Attack on Pearl Harbor were all part of the same military operation, but your right that operation K has nothing to do with it. I think the campaign box should be renamed to Opeartion Z and the operation K article removed from it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "campaign" appears to be purely notional on the part of the creator of the bombardment of Midway pages. I've never seen so much as a passing mention anywhere else. (I also think a bit of passing shelling & Operation K hardly qualify as a "campaign" anyhow.) TREKphiler 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It would be part of Operation Z as it was part of the initial attack against the Hawaiian island chain and by the same forces that were withdrawing after the attack on pearl harbor.XavierGreen (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just merged the article in question here into the article on the ship which was sunk. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Other brief actions
Action of 5 September 1918 - in which a U-boat torpedoed a US troopship but did not sink her, after which the escorts depth-charged the submarine but did not sink her. Opinions? GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- If that's the standard, there should be over a dozen individual pages for every typical U-boat & U.S. sub in WW2 service. IDK about anybody else, but that sounds pretty crazy to me. TREKphiler 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a 'no-score draw', an event like this would best be summarised in the involved vessels' articles: maybe a para for the troopship and u-boat, but a line or two max for the destroyers. -- saberwyn 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- What about Action of 10 March 1917 and Action of 16 January 1916 - these strike me as part of SMS Möwe rather than spin-offs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Individual attacks by raider ships on lightly armed merchant vessels generally aren't notable, and I don't see why these should be considered exceptions. Action of 10 March 1917 had some importance in that it forced the raider to return to port, but this would be better covered in the article on the raider. Action of 15 October 1917 seems about as non-notable as Action of 5 September 1918. These kind of engagements were the small change of a major naval war, and don't seem particularly important in isolation - thousands of ships were sunk by submarines and raiders during World War I, and we don't need separate articles on each of these engagements when we've got (or should have) an article on the warship(s) involved. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll flag them up as "merge to"s initially. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Individual attacks by raider ships on lightly armed merchant vessels generally aren't notable, and I don't see why these should be considered exceptions. Action of 10 March 1917 had some importance in that it forced the raider to return to port, but this would be better covered in the article on the raider. Action of 15 October 1917 seems about as non-notable as Action of 5 September 1918. These kind of engagements were the small change of a major naval war, and don't seem particularly important in isolation - thousands of ships were sunk by submarines and raiders during World War I, and we don't need separate articles on each of these engagements when we've got (or should have) an article on the warship(s) involved. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
New Article: Combined Maritime Forces
I have created a new web page for Combined Maritime Forces, to act as the main page for the Combined Task Forces 150, 151 and 152. There are pages for CTF-150 and CTF-151, but does someone want to take a crack at CTF-152? Also, all of these pages could use more information and expansion. --Petercorless (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Petercorless, thank you for collecting the info on the CMF. However it's my strong opinion that we would represent reality much more exactly if we merged the page into Naval Forces Central Command. The CMF is merely a 'concept' linking together a few non-Brit, non-US officers in the NAVCENT headquarters with some additional duties that the Brit Commodore and U.S. vice-admiral head of NAVCENT with a number of task forces all of which are controlled from the Bahrain headquarters. You'll note that the last line of the NAVCENT article specifically refers to CMF being established as a headquarters sub-cell in 2002 after 9/11 occurred. It's my strong opinion that Misplaced Pages has too many small disparate articles whose contents would have much greater context imparted to them if they were upmerged into other articles of wider scope (and extensively referenced, which, thanks to your efforts, is definitely not a problem in this case.) Additional data on CTF 152 can easily be added to the NAVCENT page until it's ready to split off. What do others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- All three task forces I believe meet notability for units, correct?
- I can understand the want to have all start as one article then spin out the others are they grow in size; that being said, like how every regiment should have an article (even if stubs), I can't see why these task forces can't start out as stubs and be grown into better articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you're missing the point of what I wrote. All three TFs are notable, but the Combined Maritime Forces article, I believe, should be merged into the NAVCENT article. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a subordinate orginization under NAVCENT, I don't see why a summary and wikilink can't be included in the NAVCENT article. Of course an alternate, as you had suggested, is a full merger of the former article into the latter. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you're missing the point of what I wrote. All three TFs are notable, but the Combined Maritime Forces article, I believe, should be merged into the NAVCENT article. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the naming convention for cartridges
Is the generally accepted naming convention to use "x" or "×" when naming articles? For example- we have 9x18mm Makarov which was recently moved to 9×18mm Makarov , or 9x19mm Parabellum which redirects to 9×19mm Parabellum, even though the disambiguation page reflects the name of the former. I for one find it more coumbersome to deal with the "×" character, especially when a quick Google search begs the question "Did you mean 9x18mm?" -Deathsythe (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Short of copying and pasting, how do you even type a "×"? I totally agree with you by the way (if that wasn't obvious).Sabre ball (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am unsure of the ASCII code for it, so I have been c&p'ing it each time. The point that drove me here though was the fact that I could not find it in any of the manual's of style regarding naming conventions. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no, is this another hyphen/endash battlefield? NtheP (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that pretty much every ballistics table I've seen uses "x" in this instance (including the Shooting Times tables found online), I can't see this being a real debate. If the literature of the field uses "x", who are we to overrule that?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- What you have there is a discription of the cartridge by it's width and length (in millimeters). "Parabellum" and "Luger" are simply different naming conventions for the same round (one being it's designation as a round used in war by NATO - "Parabellum" being Latin for "Prepare for war", the other after it's inventer Georg Luger). The 9x19 9mm is the standard western 9mm round, the 9x18 is used in Russian weapons, and the others are different measurements of the rounds that are used in seperate weapons. The "x" can simply be designated as an x, the same way you would do if you were talking about a wooden 2"x4" (two by four). SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the potential redirects regarding the naming convention have been handled already. There is also a whole category devoted to the 9mm size iirc. What's in question here is the use of a non-standard character in the naming of the main article surrounding these varying calibers. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't even realised we could use a multiplication-sign character! This does seem to be one of those cases where sticking with plain ASCII is simple and helpful without causing a significant problem for the reader, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen the multiplication sign, but didn't realize there was code for it. I also think it's really unnecessary. I've always seen the plain "x" used (perhaps because keyboards don't have the multiplication...?), so... TREKphiler 21:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- As SeanNovack indicated above, it has more to do with the fact that the 'x' in this case represents 'by' as in a dimension not a factor of multiplication. I've looked at some older ballistics tables and the like, and have never seen the multiplication symbol used in preference to 'x'.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone needs to have a talk with User:Chowbok - they're the editor making most of these moves. NtheP (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Done I've left a message on his talk page. Hopefully he can come in here and participate in this discussion. -Deathsythe (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi folks. The multiplication symbol should be used when referring to dimensions, as in the 2×4 example above. That's standard typographic practice, as it's much easier to read than the "x" character (particularly with serif fonts: 9×19 vs. 9x19). It's true that web pages generally don't do that, but that's just because web page creators generally aren't familiar with typographic practice. Web pages also don't use proper dashes or vulgar fractions, for the most part. In books and professional magazines, you'll see that the × symbol is indeed used.—Chowbok ☠ 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- For instance, see .—Chowbok ☠ 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I'll agree completely with the fact that standard typographic practice in printed material do use that kind of notation, Misplaced Pages is a web-based encyclopedia and must work within the accepted practices of that medium. Whether or not something is "easier to read" is completely subjective, and (as the OP and yourself both admit) the × is unfamiliar to many users and interferes with searches. I stand by the assertion that we should stay with the "x" notation, and if anything have the "×" redirect there. SeanNovack (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily talking about web pages. Most of the reloading and gunsmithing references I've looked at do not use the multiplication sign...they use 'x'.Example is hereon p 237 and again here in a different book.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The appropriate guideline on the use of characters in titles is Misplaced Pages:TITLEFORMAT#Special_characters. It specifically mentions what you shouldn't use but multiplication sign is not in the list. Personally speaking, I don't see the point as for most the multiplication sign is typographically little different from a lower case x, and it only needs to be "×" when x would appear obviously incorrect. As an example, in so far as I can tell, B&Q don't bother with it on their website ("Sawn Treated Timber (L)1800 x (W)38 x (T)19mm")GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily talking about web pages. Most of the reloading and gunsmithing references I've looked at do not use the multiplication sign...they use 'x'.Example is hereon p 237 and again here in a different book.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming in to clarify the reasoning behind the changes Chowbok. After reading through the reasoning and relevant wikipedia style things, I'm still not fond of the multiplication symbol. I still didn't even know how to properly type it without copying it from an existing article, as it is not one of the widely used Alt+ASCII codes, until rereading the official MOS in full. (its × for those interested)
- While I'll agree completely with the fact that standard typographic practice in printed material do use that kind of notation, Misplaced Pages is a web-based encyclopedia and must work within the accepted practices of that medium. Whether or not something is "easier to read" is completely subjective, and (as the OP and yourself both admit) the × is unfamiliar to many users and interferes with searches. I stand by the assertion that we should stay with the "x" notation, and if anything have the "×" redirect there. SeanNovack (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone needs to have a talk with User:Chowbok - they're the editor making most of these moves. NtheP (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- As SeanNovack indicated above, it has more to do with the fact that the 'x' in this case represents 'by' as in a dimension not a factor of multiplication. I've looked at some older ballistics tables and the like, and have never seen the multiplication symbol used in preference to 'x'.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen the multiplication sign, but didn't realize there was code for it. I also think it's really unnecessary. I've always seen the plain "x" used (perhaps because keyboards don't have the multiplication...?), so... TREKphiler 21:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the important thing to note was brought up by Sean above; "× is unfamiliar to many users and interferes with searches". With respect to Misplaced Pages:TITLEFORMAT#Special_characters and Misplaced Pages:MOS#Article_titles we should "Avoid special characters", and while it does not explicitly list the multiplication symbol, it does list several other mathematical symbols and in no way says that list is explicit. (The text should probably read "such as but not limited to" to be honest). With all of this in mind, I move to have the main articles for the cartridges to use the "x" notation, not the "×". -Deathsythe (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it interferes with searches, as in every case the "x" article redirects to the "×" article. The fact is that "x" is just wrong. It's like a misspelling of an uncommon word; most people won't notice, but for those who know the difference, it looks amateurish. We use accented characters and en dashes in article titles all the time; this is no different. —Chowbok ☠ 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you're going to override convention in the field? Should this hit vote-type stuff I'd have to go with a "no" based on that alone. Not that my opinion matters much, though.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- An interesting analogy I spotted this afternoon is camera lenses; they're usually described as, for example, f/5.6. We use the stylised "f" in the article text, via a template which does text styling, but the titles invariably use plain "f" despite the existence of a usable Unicode ƒ character. Shimgray | talk | 15:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to move article titles to barely accessible versions for some typographic fetish. This is going to turn into a dash/hyphen war in short order. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- They're every bit as accessible as they ever were. In every case, the title with the x redirects to the current article.—Chowbok ☠ 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I agree, and since, generally speaking, the redirects are properly setup, it really isn't a huge issue, to conform with the MoS and standard naming conventions, technically the "×" should be the redirect, and the "x" should be where the actual article is. I think there is enough support and evidence to support this naming convention. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any compelling reason to override convention in the reloading and gunsmithing fields. They are the SMEs in this area, after all. I can't see it being Misplaced Pages's place to impose their own standards here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hugh Priestley
Hi, I'm going through a list of cricketers and came across Hugh Priestley. His Wisden obituary says he won an MC, but that's as much as I can find out about his military career and why he won an MC. If anyone here is able to expand the article with his military career, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a citation about his MC and some info from his Times obituary, he was a Captain then Major with the Post Office Rifles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Military tactic infobox
In January, there was an extended discussion regarding the (then newly-created) {{Infobox military tactic}} template and its usefulness. The discussion brought up some potential ideas for improving the template, but the general feeling was that military tactics were poorly suited for reduction into an infobox summary, and that the template might better be deleted.
Since then, the infobox hasn't really seen much use—it's transcluded on only five articles at the moment—nor has it been improved. I'm inclined to simply nominate it for deletion at this point; any thoughts on whether this is the best approach, or if there's something else we should do? Kirill 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nominating it for deletion on those grounds seems the best option. Even when most of the fields are filled in (as at Charge (warfare)) its effect is decidedly underwhelming. It's only being used as pretty modest eye candy at Reconnaissance. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion Kirill linked was overwhelmingly negative, with a number of cogent reasons for deleting presented. Delete. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've worked on a couple of the pages with this box and agree it doesn't add much. I think we need to be clear in deleting whether we are saying the current box isn't fit for purpose or whether it is the subject area is unsuited to the use of the inbox format Monstrelet (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion Kirill linked was overwhelmingly negative, with a number of cogent reasons for deleting presented. Delete. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and nominated the template for deletion; please feel free to comment at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20#Template:Infobox military tactic. Kirill 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
alternate American Civil War task force userbox?
- Would it be OK if I made an alternately-styled user box for the American Civil War task force, and placed it on the task force subpage? It would be the same as the current one, but with a different image:
This user is a member of the
American Civil War task force of the Military history WikiProject.
- I don't see any problem with it. Kirill 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same here. Feel free to go and do it. :-) Ed 06:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with it. Kirill 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
"Result" in the military conflict infobox
Is it just me or does anybody else feel listing things like "victory" to this and that as a "Result" in the military conflict infobox is a bit awkward? I've always seen "Result" for a place to list the relevant (peace) treaty(ies) ending the war. I mean, there was a conflict- a war, the war ended and the result was a treaty of some kind. And the treaty should say who exactly lost and/or won anything. Is anybody else with me on this or am I getting it completely wrong?
Thanks!
--Termer (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- TBH, I never thought about it before, but you're right. For battles, "victory" is sensible; for a war, the treaty. OTOH, not saying who won might be a bit odd, too... TREKphiler 08:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on the particular war in question. For some wars, the treaties that ended them are more significant than who "won" (particularly if no side was the clear winner). For other wars, however, the treaty may have been of no real significance; or, indeed, there may have been no treaty at all (particularly for ancient and medieval wars). I don't think we can really take a one-size-fits-all approach to this. Kirill 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- This has come up before (maybe around March 09 on this talk page?). I agree with Kirill that we should take this on a case-by-case basis and follow what the sources say: sometimes the result needs to be qualified, sometimes it does not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense, it depends on the particular war in question and wars that didn't result a treaty, you obviously can't have a treaty as a result. I just wanted to make sure listing victory to this and that as the result was not considered the only right way to go about it.--Termer (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kirill took the words right outta ma mouth. Things tend to be in shades of grey (gray ;P) at the conclusion of a messy war, so a base-by-case approach makes more sense than forcing a standardization. bahamut0013deeds 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense, it depends on the particular war in question and wars that didn't result a treaty, you obviously can't have a treaty as a result. I just wanted to make sure listing victory to this and that as the result was not considered the only right way to go about it.--Termer (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- This has come up before (maybe around March 09 on this talk page?). I agree with Kirill that we should take this on a case-by-case basis and follow what the sources say: sometimes the result needs to be qualified, sometimes it does not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Scope of German task-force
I have been wondering whether Switzerland and Austria are supposed to be within the scope of the German task-force. I have come across a significant number of Austria-related articles (Austria-Hungary to be precise) and was not sure where to put them. Switzerland is not much of a problem, though. --FJS15 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
2 Military Police Unit (Canada) & 3 Military Police Unit
2 Military Police Unit (Canada) and 3 Military Police Unit have been requested to be renamed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Aufklärungsgruppe
Copied from User talk:Mjroots Hello, thank you for your edit at Saint-Inglevert Airfield. You may have noticed that I've been wikifying the links on this article for a while, would you mind having a look at Aufklärungsgruppe? I considered redirecting to Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)#Gruppe or Glossary of German military terms, however it also appears in the order of battle of Operation Albion and Order of battle at Jutland. In the end, most of what I found on the internet looked very much like this, which is filled up with so much military jargon that it ends up being unreadable, so I created the stub. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is outside my area of expertise. Any MILHIST members able to expand this one. Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would say its more or less identical to I Scouting Group. The other usages would be the German for Reconnaisance Wing in an Air Force context or reconnaisance squad in the Army. Both don't seem to be worth an article, I think. --92.225.136.71 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Wolfpack
The usage of wolfpack and wolf pack is under discussion, see Talk:Wolfpack. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
PROD FYI
The following articles have been PROD'd:
- Italian aircraft production 1935 to 1945
- US Army Infantry Battalion Organization 1943-45
- US Army Rifle Company Organization 1943-45
- List of artwork depicting warfare
FYI. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hi! The Military History list of unreferenced BLPs has been reduced from 238 down to less than 15. I've done two more just this morning so we should be down to 12. If everyone could grab an article or two, we could be done in a day or so.--v/r - TP 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone through the remaining articles and I don't feel I can contribute to reducing this list anymore either due to very little or no references available online or language barriers. I hope someone else can finish this.--v/r - TP 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've done a few but also found a few more at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs. There was some discrepancy between the two lists as a). some of the people weren't under the Milhist scope and were erroneously tagged so in the bio banners b). some had the bio-work-group=yes but not the milhist banner. Something to look out for when going through the articles. Thanks for your hard work. Woody (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I'll see what I can knock out there.--v/r - TP 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've done a few but also found a few more at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Military biography/Unreferenced BLPs. There was some discrepancy between the two lists as a). some of the people weren't under the Milhist scope and were erroneously tagged so in the bio banners b). some had the bio-work-group=yes but not the milhist banner. Something to look out for when going through the articles. Thanks for your hard work. Woody (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Peer review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) now open
The peer review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle now open
The A-Class review for Edinburgh Castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for Juno Beach now open
The A-Class review for Juno Beach is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for Vidkun Quisling needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vidkun Quisling; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! - Jarry1250 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed link on behalf of Jarry1250. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Scope: background of the Spanish Civil War
Is the (newly created) Backgroudn of the Spanish Civil War within scope for MILHIST? It's essentially an offshoot from the Spanish Civil War itself, but is primarly political (although the role of the military is discussed, I don't htink that alone would be enough). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Typo in link fixed: Background of the Spanish Civil War -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that it's in scope. We've historically taken a broad view of what's within the scope of the project, and an article which is focused on the causes of a war seems very relevant. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A request
Can somebody please reopen the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
F-16 Falcon
One of the better F-16 photos I've found.. 
Enjoy Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Editorial
If anyone is interested in writing an editorial for the project's newsletter we are currently in need of one for the June issue (we have one for May). You can see past editorial's and list any submissions here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/News and editorials. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Swedish allotment system FAR
I have nominated Swedish allotment system 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. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
French Frigate Casabianca
What would be the correct link for a French frigate named Casabianca which was in service in 1984? Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This was the T 47 class destroyer French destroyer Casabianca (D631). Benea (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I see you'd already added the link in the relevant palce. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Ismailia; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Zrínyi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality review request: Japanese nuclear weapon program
Hi. :) I wanted to see if any of the volunteers in this project can help evaluate the article Japanese nuclear weapon program for neutrality. Rather than take it to a noticeboard, I felt like you guys would stand a greater chance of doing it justice if any of you were interested. I talk you up as one of Misplaced Pages’s best projects. :D
Nutshell: The Rumored Japanese weapon test section needs checking to be sure that sources have not been cherry-picked to slant the perception of those rumors.
Backstory: the Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail from a reader who feels strongly that the article is unbalanced, particularly with view to the lengthy section on Rumored Japanese weapon test. Our correspondent, who is not able to edit the article himself, suggests in keeping with 2000’s The Nuclear Axis: Germany, Japan and the atom bomb race, 1939-1945 by Philip Henshall that there is a cultural drive to minimize Japan’s nuclear capacity in the era; Henshall writes that “The main theme of the story that Japan had progressed far enough to actually build and test a nuclear weapons, is not part of the official history of Japan in the Second World War…" (and, says our correspondent, some historians opposed it) "…but we shall assemble all the evidence in the final chapter." (p. 149)
Our correspondent feels that in particular the reception of 1985’s Japan’s Secret War has been slanted to discredit the notions of nuclear capacity. According to him, the book was not as poorly received as the article seems to suggest and enjoyed support from some prominent scientists, including (pre-publication) Derek J. de Solla Price, who wrote the foreward.
I have no idea. I'm way out of my field here. I do note that the 1985 book typically seems to have positive popular reviews (, ), as well as some professional reviews () although some are hidden behind paywalls and the lack of internet at the time of the book’s first release adds difficulties. :/
This is well out of my area, and I know I’m not alone—the letter languished for months before I kind of helplessly picked it up. :) I told him I would ask you guys to look into it. Whether you agree that the material needs balancing or not, I would be greatly appreciative if somebody could just give it a careful look so I can reassure our correspondent that the Misplaced Pages community takes neutrality concerns seriously, even if he is not himself able to edit the site. --Moonriddengirl 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The coverage of the supposed nuclear program looks grossly excessive, and seems a good case of WP:UNDUE. I've read quite a bit about the last months of the Pacific War (though as a caveat, I'm not familiar with the books in question here), and all the sources agree that while Japan did look into developing nuclear weapons, this was a small scale effort that never developed into anything resembling a serious attempt to develop weapons (which would have required a massive scientific and industrial effort to pull off and would have been all but impossible to cover up after the war - our Manhattan Project does a good job of detailing the huge amount of resources needed to develop the first American nuclear bombs). In short, Japan wasn't about to set off an atomic bomb a few days before the end of the war as that book seems to claim, and this seems to be a rather fringe opinion. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) Is the imbalance in the article something you'd be able to help address, one way or another? (By "one way or another", I mean that I don't necessarily expect that our correspondent would address it the same way, if he could. :)) --Moonriddengirl 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The state of Japan's economy in 1945 makes anything like an atomic bomb test extremely improbable. Moreover, the poor state of Japanese engineering makes a true program unlikely to begin with. This is a nation incapble of producing 2000hp aeroengines in quantity, let alone an atomic bomb. The electricity demand alone (which was enormous, as I understand it) seems to make it impossible. If you need more opinion on it, that is. ;p
- The attention being given to a single source also makes me wonder. There seems to be a sense of conspiracy theory in play: implications of coverup, of evidence conveniently lost due to Sov invasion... Is this designed to justify the U.S. use of the Bomb? Or is it just more of the appetite for conspiracy? TREKphiler 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot take the source seriously, given the inadequate industrial strength of Japan, often described as one-tenth that of the USA prior to WWII. They simply did not have enough resources to simultaneously wage war and develop the A-bomb. Only one enterprise could be undertaken. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem wasnt their industrial capacity, it was their lack of natural resources which was the entire reason the war (actually an entire series of wars starting from 1895) started. The japanese had a multitude of weapons programs running up to the end of the war. They were designing and building long range bombers, jet fighters, new heavy tanks, biological weapons, and even continuing to build aircraft carriers throughout 1945. Most of these projects were hampered by a nation wide lack of raw goods.XavierGreen (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also think that the atomic bomb test is a bit of a farce though.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot take the source seriously, given the inadequate industrial strength of Japan, often described as one-tenth that of the USA prior to WWII. They simply did not have enough resources to simultaneously wage war and develop the A-bomb. Only one enterprise could be undertaken. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) Is the imbalance in the article something you'd be able to help address, one way or another? (By "one way or another", I mean that I don't necessarily expect that our correspondent would address it the same way, if he could. :)) --Moonriddengirl 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's important to note that the Japanese economy was rapidly collapsing in 1945 due to the Allied blockade. Japan couldn't produce sufficient infantry weapons for its army, much less nuclear weapons. In response to Moonriddengirl's question, I'd say that this theory deserves about a paragraph in the article (as it seems to be a notable fringe theory), though this para should outline the criticisms which have been raised about the claims. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Any chance anybody can edit it? (she asked, hopefully) Again, I realize that it may not wind up looking like our correspondent would make it, but it would be nice to be able to point out our responsiveness as a community, especially when y'all seem to agree that there are balance issues in the article. Even if the section were truncated to an appropriate weight, that would help. I will give barnstars. :) Or reciprocate by cleaning up an article of your choice on any other subject than sports or computers. :D --Moonriddengirl 12:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposals to introduce C-Class and FL-Class assessment
Based on a preliminary discussion at the strategy department, I'd like to present two proposals to modify our current assessment scheme:
- C-Class
- The C-Class rating would automatically be assigned to Start-Class articles that met either of the first two B-Class criteria (references or coverage), as well as all of the remaining B-Class criteria (structure and grammar and supporting materials). The preliminary estimate for the number of articles meeting this set of conditions is approximately 11,500 articles, out of approximately 59,000 articles currently assessed as Start-Class. The primary objective of this change is to provide a bit more granularity within the large set of articles all currently assessed as Start-Class by identifying those closer to B-Class status.
- FL-Class
- The FL-Class rating would be assigned to featured lists, which are currently assessed as FA-Class. The primary objective of this change is to simplify the tracking of featured content statistics, which currently involves manually adding FA and FL numbers. Lists below featured quality would continue to be assessed using the regular (Stub-Class → A-Class) assessment scale.
Feedback for or against either proposal, or both, would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those suggests seem pretty straightforward. How much work would it take to implement? Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not very much. The C-Class assessment is fully automated; all that's needed is a template change and a set of category creations. The FL-Class change requires creating categories and then manually re-tagging ~100 featured lists. Kirill 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, this has my support. I had wondered why the template didn't cater for FLs and it seems sensible to change that; as for C-class the way it's been thought out looks like it would provide a useful differentiation between start- and B-class articles. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not very much. The C-Class assessment is fully automated; all that's needed is a template change and a set of category creations. The FL-Class change requires creating categories and then manually re-tagging ~100 featured lists. Kirill 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Makes sense to me too. Especially the FL one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Would this mean that the project template would switch over to the project meta template? It might make it easier to maintain. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the two issues are necessarily related; the reason we haven't switched to the meta template is not because we weren't using C-Class—the ratings used are fully configurable in the meta version—but because of the many automatic assessment/tracking/categorization features in our banner. Some of these are so specific to our structure that they probably can't be implemented using the (current) meta banner; and, even if they could be, I'm not convinced that switching to a new (and likely less intuitive, given the need to use "standard" features to implement very specialized functions) code form would actually be beneficial for us. Kirill 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I like the idea of both proposals a lot. --Sabre ball (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support. The FL-class is just housekeeping. C-class is not so routine, but almost every other wikiproject uses it and it is useful for articles which clearly exceed the requirements for Start-class (which also has something of a stigma attached to it as being only a little better than a stub) but aren't quite of B-class quality. From what Kirill says, it sounds like there's no significant human work involved for an obvious, though far from earth-shattering, benefit. Seems like common sense to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support - there's a small benefit to be gained by more detailed quality data, and the costs of doing so seem minimal. Shimgray | talk | 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support FL class but oppose C class. FL class seems highly sensible, but I still don't see the benefits of C class (as it seems to give comfort to poor quality articles; anything less than B class is an unsatisfactory article, and should be clearly labeled as such). Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment it's weird that while there's an FL class, there isn't a "poor list" class, or "good list" class, just the general list-class. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps there should be an AL-class? with an ACR for lists? (custom class for MILHIST) 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support I support both requests. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support I also support bothMonstrelet (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support on both. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Both. C Class articles are not B class obviously, however they are better articles than Start, and should be recognized as such. That doesn't mean however, that the articles shouldn't continue to be improved of course. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support FLC but oppose C-class. I think we've discussed C-class well enough that my opinion is well-known: essentially unnecessary. bahamut0013deeds 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support I'm not a huge participant in WP:MILHIST, but I have been involved somewhat and it's been kind of a pain not having a C-class for MILHIST articles. I also support the logistical rationale behind an FL-class.--v/r - TP 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support FL-Class -- a no-brainer IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose C-Class -- while I acknowledge the consideration that's gone into the proposal, the fundamental issue of it becoming a new, lower baseline to aim at, to the general degradation of article quality, remains. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support I helped to propose FL-Class so I guess that one is a no-brainer and I still oppose C-Class as nothing has changed since the last discussion in my opinion. Woody (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Gurkhas in WW2
Were the Gurkhas who served in Burma part of the Indian Army or the Royal Nepalese Army? A dispute has developed at World War II casualties, an expert on the Burma campaign my be able to clarify this issue.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) now open
The A-Class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Category: