Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Peer review request for 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia

There's a new peer review request for 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

An arcane terminological question

...should Militia regiments be categorised as regiments of the British Army or not? (I'm leaning towards "yes" for simplicity, even if they're not technically so) Shimgray | talk | 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Albuera

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Albuera that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: United States visiting forces

United States visiting forces (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Italian War of 1542–1546

There's a new peer review request for Italian War of 1542–1546 that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 05:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Addiscombe Military Academy

I've created another new article as per requests for creation in the request box. I welcome any to help expand/improve. Thanks. LordHarris (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Francis Harvey now open

The peer review for Francis Harvey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France and Battle of Britain Good Article Reassessment

These two articles has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the articles currently don't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the articles are well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the articles at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the articles can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Le Paradis massacre now open

The peer review for Le Paradis massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for CVA-01 now open

The peer review for CVA-01 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Years of service for field marshals

The years of service field in John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort was recently changed on the basis that "as a field marshal his service ended with his death". I have no comment on this other than that it doesn't appear to be consistent across our articles (e.g. Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts gives it as 1851-1904, ten years before his death). Which should we be using? Leithp 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not give this enough thought, confusing "retirement from service" with "retaining field marshal rank until death". The article infobox is clearly the former, so I will revert Gort's date of service. Apologies to all. GrahamBould (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It gave me pause when I initially filled in the field, as I've read in a number of places that a field marshal is never off the active list. No apologies required anyway, I was just looking for what date I should be using in future. Leithp 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Anglo-Japanese Alliance now open

The peer review for Anglo-Japanese Alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland?

I recognize that the very asking of the question may offend some people, and I apologize for that, but does the "British" task force, which in theory I'd imagine ought to cover all the British Isles, cover events involving Ireland which take place before or after the period of Ireland's inclusion in the British Empire? LordAmeth (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The original thought, if I recall correctly, was that this would cover only the military history of parts of the current UK; so independent Ireland wouldn't be included. (Granted, a lot of the articles would still be tagged, since much of Ireland's military history involves England as well; and obviously Ireland under British control would still qualify.) I don't see any particular reason to change things at this point; trying to include Ireland here will probably needlessly ruffle some feathers, and we can set up a separate task force for Ireland easily enough if there's any actual interest in that area. Kirill 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured; just thought I should double-check. Every now and then one comes across a semi-legendary battle involving the High Kings of Tara or whatnot, which has nothing to do with UK/England/Wales and yet which also doesn't concern the ancient Romans or Greeks, and thus doesn't really fall into any task force. I guess that's just how it is, though. No big deal. LordAmeth (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Glorious First of June now open

The peer review for Glorious First of June is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Þingalið

I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you found it! Unless one is specifically looking for an entry on Þingalið (and knows how to type it), the article can hardly be found. It should really be retitled to a transliteration. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't 100% on how to transliterate it: Tingalith? I only 'found' it because it was on the GA Review list. 4u1e (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no: Thingalith. With different pronunciations of 'th' at each end. Hmmm. Possibly more likely that someone would type that in, I suppose... 4u1e (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is th? O.o. Man. Diacritics are damn confusing for the uninitiated. I think you are going to have a bugger of a time finding common English usage, 4u1e. I'll put the kettle on for you. Narson (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they're different 'th's. The first one is Thorn, which is apparently 'Th' as in 'Thick'. The last one is Eth, as in, well, 'Eth', I suppose. They do sound slightly different. No point worrying too much about that though until someone convinces me that this is really a Scandanavian standing army employed in England. I have no problems with the Scandanavian presence, it's the standing army that doesn't quite ring true. Shrug. Any takers? 4u1e (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Scandanavian army in the UK? Damn it. I distinctly asked someone to wake me up if we were invaded again. To Stamford Bridge! On a more serious note, I have to admit I've never heard of this group when I studied Anglo Saxon history. Frankly much of that looks to be confused with the huscarl (housecarls) of Anglo Saxon England (Who were taught from childhood how to fight). Certainly there was nothing distinctive about the Danish Axe in England. The huscarl used them with their shield upon their back, wielding in a figure of eight. I can see Godwin and Harold Godwinson making use of scandanavians, however, considering their ties to the viking rulers (Who elevated Godwin). Though I am suprised that they remained during the period of Edward the Confessor's rule, a man who certainly took after his mother's heritage (Norman) rather than his step fathers (Viking). I will try and find some of my history books and see if I can confirm any of this, though everything is in boxes while plaster work and decorating is done in the house. Narson (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha - I know the feeling. I've currently got the floorboards up in one room and am busy digging downwards to try and alleviate a damp problem. With the flat, obviously, not with me! re the Thingylith, my feeling (based on bugger all) is that the article sounds like a bit like an over-interpretation of various facts, like the presence of Scandanavian warriors (on all sides) in England and the story about Cnut's housecarls. I'd be grateful for your advice. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like a mis-interpretation of British huscarls to me...some of it just doesn't ring true, but, without my books I can't say definitivly. For a start, the idea of all the land owners getting together and paying for something is damn near laughable. If we take the three 'main' kingdoms, they never really agreed. Especially once Tostig was ousted and Northumbria and Mercia were under the brothers Edwin and Morcar. I believe Northampton was also a relative of them (Leofricson would indicate it). Then they had issues with Herefordshire, IIRC. The idea of there being some big financial drain when most of the places were damn sick of scandanavians....3000 huscarl is also more Huscarl than they had at Hastings. I don't believe they lost many huscarl in the fighting up north. I really can't see where this lot fit into all this. Did he have thousands of men at arms he just decided not to use? When he was already so desperate over troops (And juggling the fyrd and their limited service)? (I obviously paid more attention to Anglo Ssaxon history than I thought, rereading this) Narson (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[←]I just checked reference#3, the only one of the sources I own, and it says:

An alien and therefore rather insecure king, Cnut kept a regiment of household troops, or 'housecarls' who were a considerable burden on the country. After thirty years of paying to keep the Danes away, landowners now had to pay to support a Danish standing army.

(Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, p. 93). This seems to agree with the opinion that the article is on about housecarls. Carre (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That covers Cnut, but was it known by the name used, and was this only for Cnut? 4u1e (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking further into this single source now (bearing in mind that Anglo-Saxon history isn't my period at all – ask me one on the Peninsular War ;) )... There's no mention of the thorny name in OIHB, just "housecarl". It does, however, go on to say (p. 95) that "Between 1012 and 1051 it [the Danegeld] was levied yearly by the successive kings, though now for maintaining their standing armies."

Unfortunately, OIHB isn't a comprehensive enough source for any further detail in that period (the book does, after call, cover the period from c. 55 BC to AD 1991). There's no specific mention of the standing armies beyond 1051 and running up to Hastings. Hmm... I'm pretty sure Charles Oman wrote about this period, and the book is available on-line somewhere. I'll have a look for it, see what comes up. Carre (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now, Oman. You can see it here, or can download the PDF from http://www.archive.org/details/englandbeforenor00omanuoft. Page 588: Cnut paid off most of his host and sent them home, keeping only 40 ships and their crews as a standing navy. Probably amounted to 3,200 men. Page 589: the crews of the 40 ships, the thingmen (need to download the pdf to be sure of that - it's a little unclear, but approaches the thorny name) or housecarls who formed the king's standing bodyguard. Moving on to page 607, there's further reference to thingmen under Harthaenut in 1042, but now up to 62 ship's worth, above Cnut's 40.

That's about the limit of what I've found, but that Oman work may help out a bit. Carre (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when dealing with Cnut and Harthacanute it becomes difficult due to their overseas (and natural) empires. England was the gold basket to fund the coffers due to the high taxes, its mints etc. This sounds alot like annother name for the specific group of huscarls (who were all paid in gold as I recall, hence why the Anglo-Saxon armies relied on their levied fyrd for bulk) that served the viking Kings of England. Unfortunatly I'll be buggered if I can find where I've put my copy of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles or I could check there for a reference to the kept men of Cnut. Narson (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks chaps. Sounds more hopeful for the Thingylith, then? 4u1e (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That Oman work cites the Chronicles often, and says these housecarls were paid in gold - 8 Marks a year(?) I think - it's on a couple of the pages I note above. I think we're pretty clear now that this article is about housecarls/huscarls, anyway. Carre (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the accepted meaning of thingmen in this context (apologies for my ignorance on this topic!) 4u1e (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[← again] Here's my take on this, thus far:

• The article is about a group of housecarls who served various Scandinavian kings of England prior to the Norman conquest.
• Thingmen is Oman's attempt to translate Þingalið, much as your Thingylith is. There are probably linguistic wikipedians around who can help on a decent translation.
• Should the article exist at all? Would it be better of merging into the Housecarl article? There's already a small mention of these Thingies in there, but it may be worth suggesting a merge.
• If the article remains, it should probably be moved to the agreed upon translation of the name.

Do you think your OR concerns are addressed? Seems to me all we've done here is confirm this lot existed, the name is sorta right, and the period's about right. Carre (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. I'm still a bit dubious about promoting as a GA if the content ought to live elsewhere. I guess I'll withdraw my object on that point (I've a couple of other, more minor, concerns), suggest a name change to a suitable transliteration (Thingalith, or possibly Tinglith) that would be more easily found, and suggest a merge. GA status would be dependent on a consensus decision on the merge. Ta again for the help. 4u1e (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history by Kirill 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Should probably be merged, I think the sources indicated pretty much say they are Huscarls (They seem to fit all the descriptions) but I wonder if we can find a source that says it explicitly, otherwise the merge then becomes the 'OR'. Narson (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 now open

The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cold War now open

The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland FAR

Battle of Jutland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Woody (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for South Atlantic Medal now open

The peer review for South Atlantic Medal is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Le Paradis massacre now open

The A-Class review for Le Paradis massacre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Messines now open

The peer review for Battle of Messines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment in the British Army

Recruitment in the British Army - I just wanted to flag this up as needing some major attention. I'd tackle it myself but a large part of the problem is content and I really don't know anything about it (hence me looking at it in the first place - suffice to say it didn't answer my question!) Hopefully someone here might want to do something about it because it seems to be an abandoned work in progress. Thanks a lot Sassf (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other task forces/WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

803 Naval Air Squadron

Could I have a bit of a hand with this squadron's pre- and post- World War Two history? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Trades in the British Forces

There must be over 600 trades in all the British Forces. Would it not be a suitable topic for /List_of_trades_in_the_British_Army // /List_of_trades_in_the_Royal_Navy // /List_of_trades_in_the_Royal_Air_Force // /List_of_trades_in_the_Royal_Marines. Then under each Unit or Sub Unit page, you can link to these trades of what each unit has. It shouldn't effect Operational Security, as this information is all in the Public Domain...
I do not want it to sound like Advertisements, as the page will contain info to what Soldiers / Sailors / Airmen / Marines do as part of there rank and responsibilities. --Jezarnold (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Eyes wanted at Portal:British Army

Jhfireboy has been working on this portal and would appreciate comments to help improve it on the portal's talk page. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put this portal up for a portal peer review and would require any comments to be placed there. Thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) now open

The peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Brian Horrocks now open

The peer review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Varsity now open

The peer review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Roberts

If anyone has some and time could they have a look at this guy Abraham Roberts , I have just tagged him for the BRITISH MILHIST & BIOGRAPHY projects and the article could do with some input. JS1 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brian Horrocks now open

The A-Class review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to the UK MOD website

Cross posted from WT:MILHIST#Links to the UK MOD website

The MOD website is being revamped any old links may not work to solve the problem add a 2 to the www i.e http://www2.army.mod.uk Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". I will cross post this to the British Military history taskforce. Thanks for the heads up. Woody (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) now open

The peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Brevity now open

The A-Class review for Operation Brevity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Times archive

The Times currently has 200 years of archives available gratis on their website. I believe this is only for a short period, until they start charging. I've been trying a few subjects so far and the search function and OCR is quite effective. Well worth a look for anyone who needs contemporary sources, or an obituary for a biography. Leithp 14:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

List of former Parachute Regiment soldiers

Hi folks I have just come across this (short) list does anyone think its worth keeping all the persons on the list have there own article page Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone on there does have their own article - some have external links. However, from what I've seen this type of list is deprecated to a large extent as it just begs people to add their favourites on their, and should be redundant to Category:British Parachute Regiment officers and Category:British Parachute Regiment soldiers. David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly worth being conscious of the background, it was created at the same time as the rather crufty List of former Special Air Service soldiers was created to move it out of the main article on the regiment. Personally I think these are probably best dealt with as categories, rather than lists, but I can see some value in being able to gain access to a consolidated list like this in some way. The main issue I have with these, as when I cleared out the SAS list, is the criteria for inclusion and the existence of a unique article on the individual in person.

ALR (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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

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

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

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Parachute Regiment Battalions

Can I raise this here instead of the article talk pages as there are four of them. User:Archangel1 has created articles for 1 PARA, 2 PARA , 3 PARA , 4 PARA. I would consider 1 PARA to be a nickname for 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment etc. and would suggest the articles are moved to their full names. The Indian Army also has a Parachute Regiment (10 Battalions) so they could have a 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 PARA any thoughts Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, it's more in keeping with the rest of the coverage.

ALR (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello guys. Thanks for taking an intrest in the articles. The British Parachute Regiment battalions are known throughout the world by their shortened name 1 PARA, 2 PARA, etc and so their titles are fitting for the piece. Should anybody put the full name into a search, they will be re-directed onto the article page. Sure the Indian Army does have a number of units which may be titled in the same way but as they are specified as being the British version the point seems redundant (Archangel1 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)).

Well, that isn't entirely true: First Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, Second Battalion, The Parachute Regiment Third Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, Fourth Battalion, The Parachute Regiment are still redlinks. I do think that 1 PARA is not a very distinguishable name and is in effect a nickname. I think 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment would be the more appropriate title given/the more official title in keeping with the naming of other similar sized battalions/regiments etc on Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have renamed the section header from New Articles Created to the more accurate Naming of Parachute Regiment Battalions. Woody (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the 1PARA, etc, names are abbreviations, and these are not used to name articles on similar units. For instance, the battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment are normally called xRAR (eg, 1RAR, 5/7RAR) but the abbreviation is expanded fully in the articles on each battalion. Given that the Indian Army uses the same naming conventions, the British units names should be expanded fully. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've adjusted the pages as requested (Archangel1 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)).

Help request

I am working on a Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom which requires references to the Conscription of young people, and am in need of some source references about changes in practice in the periods before and after the wars. Could anyone possibly point me in the right direction, please ? SJB (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 now open

The peer review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Freeland

Just a note to bring to your attention the fact that I have created the article on Lieutenant-General Sir Ian Freeland. Anyone with any knowledge on the man feel free to expand the article and tag its talk page appropriately. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. Anyone know if he is still living? --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get round to checking yesterday, but I've now found his obit in The Times archives, he died 2 July 1979. I'll update accordingly - there's a few other things which could usefully be worked in. David Underdown (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Really impressed with you guys so far - nice one. I've another wee task then, relating to Harry Tuzo: I've included information about his successor as GOC, Frank King. As you can see, it links to a disambig page, and I was wondering if the red-linked Frank Douglas King "(b. 1919), a British Army general" is one and the same. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be, the Gazette entry which covers the changeover only refers to him as Frank King also, but doing a search on the service number that's also given there pulls up results from Frank Douglas King [1]. The dates of birth look about right too. I've tweaked the dab page you found to list him as Frank King (British Army officer) since he doesn't seem to have used his middle name, judging by the evidence of the Gazette, once the article's created, there ought to be a redirect from the full name too. David Underdown (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I've done what I can with it, given my inferior knowledge and experience with using the information as it's presented from the Gazette! Next up, Creasley (which I'll leave to another time, unless someone else beats me to it). --Setanta747 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Douglas King is indeed the same chap - I redlinked him just after doing Erskine-Crum. I was going to create a new article, but had to go look after a kitten instead :-). If I get the chance I'll churn through some more of these guys at the weekend - the Gazette and the Times obit make for quite a good pairing, it seems. Obit gives us overall details, whilst the Gazette gives us dates and positions. (There's a full list of GOC-NI's here, by the way) Shimgray | talk | 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Anglo-Zanzibar War now open

The peer review for Anglo-Zanzibar War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

British military appointments

Whilst editing the article on Sir Timothy Creasey, I noted that he had been Director of Infantry for which I couldn't find a relevant article.

The same for Deputy Commander-in-Chief.

Also, he was Commander-in-Chief, UK Land Forces in 1980-81, which I piped to Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) as it seemed the most appropriate article. However, it doesn't list him in this position (Edwin Bramall, Baron Bramall is listed as being "Chief of the General Staff" during that period).

Help!

One more thing - what was the British Army operation in Northern Ireland during the IRA's border campaign of the 1950s called, if anything? --Setanta747 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Director of Infantry is a sufficiently specialised administrative post I wouldn't bother linking it.

Deputy C-in-C presumably is just literally that - deputy to the Commander in Chief - who in the case of Oman is probably the Sultan. Might be a senior military advisor? Again, probably not worth linking.

UKLF is/was a specific command in the Army. Chief of the General Staff is a substantially higher post - essentially most senior officer in the military. Shimgray | talk | 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

UK Land Forces is now (essentially) known as Land Command, though the article unfortunately doesn't include mush history. David Underdown (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I was looking at that article, but I couldn't quite remember what UKLF covered - was it all ground forces, or all ground forces in the UK & BAOR, or just all in the UK? Shimgray | talk | 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another of our string of GOC-NI's, Richard Lawson, has produced an interesting problem - he seems to have been promoted to Brigadier twice, per the Gazette. Any idea for the discrepancy? Shimgray | talk | 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just mis-rad the first one - it was his promotion to lieut-col. David Underdown (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it is! I must have read that two or three times and not noticed the second heading - I thought it was still the Brigadier list continued from the previous page. Apologies. Shimgray | talk | 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's easily done when you're working your way through several - I've made all sorts of mistakes with them. David Underdown (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Murray Maxwell now open

The peer review for Murray Maxwell is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Epsom now open

The A-Class review for Operation Epsom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for British military history

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

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

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

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two queries re Harold Challenor

Hi, I've just been knocking up the above article. I just want advice on a couple of points.

1. His citation in the gazette lists him as a member of the Army air corps which lacks an article. Is that just anther name for the SAS? SHould it be redirect? His obituary says he reached the rank of Company quartermaster sergeant. Do I just link that as sergeant or what? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Army Air Corps and Company Quartermaster Sergeant ought to work - I assume it's capitalisation. I'll put redirects in. Shimgray | talk | 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Constitution now open

The A-Class review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of sig corps badge Image:sigbadge.jpg

Hi, the above image has recently been added to an article I watch. Whilst verifying what the image was, I noticed that the poster of the image to Commons was claiming copyright of the badge. I'm rather dubious of this. But does anyone know whether the badge design is old enough to be in the public domain? Alternatively you might be able to use fair use rationale to maintain it in some limited number of Wikipedia articles but would have to delete the image from Commons.

The same individual seems to have loaded many other badge images, so I suspect that this may be a general issue with a lot of your articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Cerberus class battleship

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template {{Cerberus class battleship}}

Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.

If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

I'm seeking the raising dates for this formation in the late 1930s. It was active by 1938 when Richard O'Connor took command, but exactly when? Can anyone say? And when exactly was it disbanded in 1918-1919? Buckshot06(prof) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Times reports O'Connor being assigned to command it as of 4th October 1938 - he'd previously been marked to command the 43rd Division in the TA. The critical line in the article: "The 7th Division as such is not yet a formation". In the same article, H. E. de R. Weatherall was appointed to command "the new 19th Brigade" of that division. The full staff was announced on 18th October, in an article which noted that "There will be enough infantry to give ... two divisions. Already on duty are the 14th, 16th, 17th and 19th Brigades, the brigade from India, and one made up from home and Malta. Soon there will be added units of a mounted brigade."

Looks like "early October" - formed on paper by the 4th, and definitely active by later that month... Shimgray | talk | 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shimgray; that was amazingly quick work. Can you please give the full citation refs for the two articles so I can cite them in the article? Thanks Buckshot06(prof) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First article - The Times, p.8, 5 October 1938.

Second article - The Times, p.18, 19 October 1938.

Hope that helps... it might also be worth checking the London Gazette for this sort of thing. Shimgray | talk | 12:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shimgray. Could I get the author of the articles and the names of the articles too, for the full cite? Thanks. Buckshot06(prof) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No names of authors are cited - these are normal news articles! Both are buried in a page of official announcements, and the section heads are respectively "7th Division Commander" and "7th Division Staff". Personally, I never bother quoting the article headlines for announcements like this, as opposed to actual news stories, but YMMV. Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My milage does indeed vary - I'm a complete citations nazi! I like everything as detailed as possible, especially when people are going to have problems looking it up. Thanks for your assistance. Buckshot06(prof) 12:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Either or both of Raising Churchill's army by David French (ISBN 0198206410) and And we shall shock them : the British Army in the Second World War by David Fraser (ISBN 0340270853) has a useful list of the raising and disbandment dates of British divisions active in WWII. I don't have a copy of either book though, I'm afraid, but most large libraries in Australia have them both, so they should be easy to obtain in the UK (I suspect that And we shall shock them is the book I'm thinking of). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom intelligence community

United Kingdom intelligence community has been sent to WP:PROD by someone. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

I've just put an article together, Patrick Gibbs. I'm not a member of any military project, I'm WikiProject Wales and Rugby Union, and this Wing Commander was the son of an international Wales rugby player. I've added a photo, but it's been put up for speedy deletion. Do you have any guys who are dab hands at coming up with fair use permission for WWII mug shots of British personnel, it's not really my bag. Thanks in advance for any help. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 Work Group

May God Bless You Always!

I am looking to form a work group to focused on the War of 1812. A lot of the articles dealing with the War of 1812 are lack citations and references, some need some serious editing, and many need to be expanded. I would like for the articles dealing with the War of 1812 to be "A"-Level or better. The War of 1812 is one of the most neglected American wars, but this need not be the case here. I have been working HLGallon on the Battle of Chippawa, but much work is left to do. I was told to place this work group under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force, but the United Kingdom has a big stake in these articles as well. Anyone interested in helping? (Steve (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Peer review for Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 now open

The peer review for Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

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

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

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Locations of Scottish clan battles

I've been having a play with some of the Scottish clan battles - and finding it quite hard work. OK, so you don't expect them to be as well-documented as Waterloo, but a lack of dates and force sizes is pretty fundamental! So I'd be interested in comments on Battle of Tuiteam Tarbhach - it's about as good as I think I'm going to get it without delving into the not-for-loan bits of copyright libraries, but I'm still not that happy with it. I started on that because I happened to see the name on an OS map and went and had a look. It seems that most of Category:Scottish clan battles can't be located from the descriptions in the articles; I'd be happy to go take some photos next time I'm in the area but in most cases it's almost impossible to know where to go. Obviously in some cases noone really knows - there are extreme examples like Battle of Bealach nam Broig where even the date isn't known to within 150 years (!!) - but if someone somewhere could track some of them down, that would be great. Le Deluge (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Over on the Clans of Scotland project I've posted some useful links that give WP:RS locations for battle sites and the like, certainly useful for stuff in Scotland but I've not investigated how well the Aberdeen site covers south of the border. Le Deluge (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

James Scott Hilk - possible hoax

Would someone familiar with the Battle of Waterloo care to comment on the talk page of this suspected hoax article about the claim that its subject's "famous command of the 5th Welsh Light Infantry Division helped the British hold their center during Napoleons last Imperial charges" at Waterloo? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, no factual basis for this. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for help (re. Cavaliers, Royalists, Parliamentarians and Roundheads)

It's not my area of expertise, but I (think I) know a problem when I see one, so I thought I'd forward this one to you knowledgeable folk.

Now, we have Roundhead and Cavalier, which are both pretty messed up. Then we have Parliamentarian and Royalist, which are disambiguations, directing British civil war enthusiasts to the aforementioned articles. Now, as I understand it, Cavalier is not really a fit term to describe everyone who supported the king; it (as the article notes) a piece of propaganda and stereotyping. Much the same can be said for Roundhead. How did we end up in this mess and what can be done about it?

I'm prepared to help out where I can, in terms of heavy lifting at least. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not my thing either, but I'd guess WP:COMMONNAME would have some bearing, the terms that ordinary Wikipedians would most commonly use to find such articles. At least for R/P - WP:COMMONNAME would possibly lead to Royalist and Roundhead? Tricky. Le Deluge (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)