Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles

Everything is currently in Category:Soviet-German War, with two subcategories, Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War. I suggest getting rid of everything except Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, and making that the top level category. If needed we could make a Category:Military units and formations of the USSR during World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Germany during World War II instead of that other one.--Phoenix-wiki 13:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history by Kirill 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm. The "Battles and operations" wording is somewhat clunky, and complicates the category nesting considerably; I'd suggest applying the standard breakdown here to produce:
There are a couple of non-operational articles in Category:Soviet-German War as well, so it might make sense to create a top-level Category:Eastern Front of World War II to hold those; or, alternatively, those could be pushed up to Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II and/or Category:Military history of Germany during World War II.
(We already have Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union in World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Germany in World War II, incidentally.) Kirill 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear we can get rid of everything related to a Soviet-German war, that never happened. Maybe this:
Any opinions?--Phoenix-wiki 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd change the first two sub-categories to Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front of World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Germany on the Eastern Front of World War II, to simplify the grammar; but, other than that, it looks fine to me. Some input from editors more familiar with these articles would be good, though; it could be that I'm missing something obvious. Kirill 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
yeah, I suppose that would be easier to type, anyway, any other input?--Phoenix-wiki 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


In terms of military hierarchy the structure is:

  • Category:World War II Eastern European Theatre
  • Category:Eastern Front of World War II (this is redundant since the Thatre describes the "Front") Note that in general "Eastern Front" is not used in either German or Russian sources.

Category:Military units and formations of...are needed for unit histories, but I don't see a need for separate categories for each participant country since we use the syntax of the country in the unit article creation e.g. XXX regiment (Lithuania), so the category only duplicates this. I'd say that all unit histories need to go to a single Category:Ground formations and units of WWII (formations first because they are the larger entities made up of units), and have similar categories for Naval, Air and Combined Arms formations and units (i.e. Army Groups or commandos).

There is some confusion on the use of the word 'operation' in categories under Military operations
The current available hierarchy is:

Category:Military operations by war
Category:Military operations of World War II
Category:Battles and operations of World War II
Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War II
Category:World War II European theatre
Category:World War II Eastern European Theatre
Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Front of World War II
Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II
Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II
Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II

The first misunderstanding is with 'operations'

  • 1. An Operation is a specific event or course of events, usually named and defined in time and place.
  • 2. Military operations is simply a general term for expressing the functioning of the military as an organisation.

Given the Category Military operations is within the Military, its really not adding much because Military is already an all-encompassing category that by definition excludes all non-military subjects. I encountered this in the recent Siege of Leningrad edit by another editor who mostly described impact of the siege on civilians which were Civilian operations (i.e. the administrative operations by the civilian organisations that had to cope with provision of food and services).
However when the term is again repeated in Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, it refers to the first kind of Operation, and not the second.

The second misunderstanding is with the Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War II
A Theatre is a much larger geographic area that can have several campaigns and Operations going on in it at the same time (example: Western Front 1940 (Theatre), Northern France (Ground Campaign 1940), Battle of Britain (Air Campaign 1940), Evacuation at Dunkirk (Naval Operation 1940)). This makes the above Category redundant because of the specific Category:World War II European theatre (and other Theatres) in the hierarchy. In fact this is duplicated twice by the Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Front of World War II. Needless to say this has potential for confusion. The best example is the largest one. Operation Barbarossa, was a named Operation, but in fact covered an entire Theatre (some would argue more if Scandinavian region is considered North Eastern Theatre, and the Balkan region a South Eastern Theatre), and consisted of three separate and interdependent Campaigns, those of Heersgruppen Sud, Mitte and Nord. This is reflected in their Soviet counterpart Strategic Directions. Consequently Barbarossa is listed as an Operation, and as such would ordinarily require fairly detailed description because the perception is that the need to describe is of military operations (No.2), and several editors in past and present were naturally drawn to enter into greater detail because of the need to describe the Campaigns and the individual Operations or even Battles within the Theatre as a whole. Essentially the attempt will eventually lead to an extremely large and unwieldy (and unreadable) article, with potential for edit wars as is exemplified by the current swag of Categories (below).

Categories: Articles needing additional references from August 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since June 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since December 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since August 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | Battles and operations of World War II | Conflicts in 1941 | Invasions | Military operations of World War II | Soviet-German War
(Note: I find the category Invasions a particularly funny one use in Military History since it is not a Military term. Militaries conduct Offensives, landings, amphibious assaults, airborne assaults, but never "invasions")

I would like to suggest that the scheme adopted for units can be expanded to the articles also by adding a classification in brackets that identifies the level of detail in authoring and editing required. For example Operation Barbarossa would be Operation Barbarossa (Eastern European Theatre). This would immediately tell the editors that this is a very general article covering a large number of factors such as political, economic and social, and of course military, but that they need to seek the lower hierarchy articles to describe for example Axis part of the Operation that targeted the Ukraine and Caucasus as objectives in Operation Barbarossa (Southern USSR Campaigns). A still further level of treatment would be represented by Operation Barbarossa (Kiev Operations) (encircling from Wehrmacht POV), and a lower level still would be Operation Barbarossa (Battle of Kharkov 1941).
From the Battle article one can then go to articles on the participating formations and units since the Battle article will (presumably) have an OOB.
Adopting this scheme would firstly reduce the size of 'mother' articles, and secondly increase the number of better quality articles in the Project since editors would be compelled to offer more relevant sources and greater referencing. It would also offer the reader a greater sense of context.

I would therefore suggest that the Categories be cropped as follows:

Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War II
Category:World War II European theatre
Category:World War II Eastern European Theatre
Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Front of World War II
Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II
Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II covered by other cats; anything non military history goes to general history, economic history, social history, political history, etc.
Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II

Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the existing "military operations" categories are currently used to include all military activity, not merely sub-campaign-level operations; you're proposing to change that, as far as I can tell. It's not necessarily infeasible, but would require (a) a change across the board, to retain consistency across different countries and wars, and (b) a set of replacement categories for all military activities. But that's a wider discussion, and one somewhat unrelated to the local organizational matter; we can always switch category names later, should we wish to.
(Alternatively, we could use the current setup and have the operations category wind up higher in the chain:
but I suspect that's not really what you're after.)
As far as "military history" is concerned, these categories are intended to sit above the more specific categories. The idea is that we'll wind up with something like this:
Category:Military history of the Soviet Union
(Keep in mind, finally, that the operational categories were meant to be is-a relationships. Battles are not campaigns; rather, campaigns consist of battles—but that is not what would be expressed if we simply nest the overall categories. The proper scheme is slightly more complex, and is best outlined in a place like WP:ACW; essentially, we create a sub-category for each campaign [e.g. Category:Battles of the X campaign ], which is then placed in Category:Battles of the Eastern Front of World War II by campaign. But the main "Campaigns" and "Battles" categories stay at the same level.) Kirill 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought on "operations"

I would argue that, properly speaking, an operation may take place at any scale. A battle may be an operation, as may an offensive, or even an entire campaign or war. The distinction becomes more useful if we consider "strategic operations"—to borrow a term—versus "tactical operations". Battles would be examples of the latter, whereas campaigns would be examples of the former. We can then avoid the question of having a single "operations" category if we actually make this division explicit:

This structure would allow us to categorize operational articles at any necessary level; at the same time, it would be fully consistent with a wider usage of "operations" (without "strategic" or "tactical" attached) as a catch-all category for everything (as in, e.g. Category:Military operations involving Germany). Kirill 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on this a bit, we could stretch these new category schemes across countries (e.g. Category:Strategic operations involving the Soviet Union, Category:Tactical operations involving the United States, etc.) and wars (e.g. Category:Strategic operations of World War II) as well. The top-level "Military operations of ..." categories would then become only holding places for these new sub-categories, eliminating the need to use them as anything other than organizational tools. This would allow us to more explicitly categorize operations other than battles and campaigns across the board.
Any comments? Kirill 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask people to look at the semi-started article Military operations. The reason the first part is unreferenced is because in the US Military it is covered by about 1,000 separate Field Manuals, and I will have to find the right one. :o) The reason the last section is so short is because I fgace the daunting task of summarizing at least four or five fairly complex books such as Glantz's Soviet military operational art, which is no mean task. I would welcome discussion there of course, and needless to say editorial contribution. However I think that article will clarify what it is that I se as a problem in Category naming within the Military Project 'space'.
I would like to argue that Category names MUST be short. Category:Strategic operations involving the Soviet Union can be Category:Campaigns of USSR, and Category:Tactical operations involving the United States need not be longer then Category:Battles of USA, since all battles are by definition tactical.
I see this
as something more simpler.
My thinking is there is no need for country specific Categories within a single Theatre and period since it is defined in the articles and we know it took at least two participant so there will be two sides discussed in the article, right? ;O) The category need only refer to the War, and the Theatre. Within the Theatre article there would be links to the Campaigns but NOT Operations. This would have to become a part of peer review guidelines that for the sake of readability and editorialship the articles can only deal with the appropriate level of ambiguity for a given subject. If no lower level articles for an Operation within a Campaign (or Battle within the Operation) exist, they will have to be redlinked so some enterprising soul will take it upon themselves to write one if the original author had not.
To return to what Kirill was saying, firstly we need to realise that a reader may come from the entire scope of expert knowledge in the subject from complete ignorance to that of greater expertise then the original author (reason why we require sources). And it is here that I point out that Kirill is foiled by the English language; not his knowledge of it, but its application.
A military operation may take place at any command echelon, and it does because its the actual management of daily activities everywhee from the Ministry of Defence to the local recruiting office. A battle will rarely be an operation since there is so much less scope for coherent management in tactical engagements even in this day and age. Instead a 'battle' would be referred as a 'mission' or 'task' to allow some judgment on the degree of its success (coming soon: defining 'result'). An 'offensive' is someone who steals your car space ;O) A military offensive is a higher ranking NCO or officer who steals your car parking space ;O) An Offensive is on the other hand a description of a planned aggressive engagement with the enemy. Its true that all forms of conflicts at all levels can be described as Offensives, however within the historical schemes of planning (not military history) most such Operations are not purely Offensive but require some degree of Defensive planning also, and always include other forms of military operations such as Security, Logistics, Intelligence, etc. For example and Offensive use of Intelligence can be a part of a Defensive Campaign. Only at the Operation (read operational) level do they become mostly Offensive.[1] (how many people reference their talk ;O))
strategic and tactical operations simply mean daily management of military affairs at different echelons of responsibility. At tactical it includes with combat such mundanes as erecting latrines and delivering mail. On the other hand a Battle is an explicitly combat related term.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; but keep in mind that we are not limited to normal "battles" here. Is a bombing raid a "battle"? An insertion of intelligence operatives? A mine-clearing operation? And yet we have articles for all of these, and presumably they need to be categorized somewhere. So I do not think that we can constrain ourselves to only categorizing as "battles" and "campaigns"; at the very least, a catch-all category for the localized non-battle operations would be desirable.
Having said that, a neat—if not necessarily the easiest—way of setting this up would be to eliminate the use of "Operations" as a catch-all for everything, opening up those categories for other purposes. If the top-level naming were changed to, say, "Activities of the armed forces" (e.g. "Activities of the armed forces of France", "Activities of the armed forces in World War II"), we could then repurpose the operations categories for lower-level things:
The result is a scheme that's fairly simple (and shallow—no unnecessary sub-sub-sub-categories), but still pretty unambiguous in terms of where articles should be placed.
(A few minor technical points: the usage is "battles involving X" rather than "battles of X" because the equivalent for sieges ["sieges of X"] was felt to be too confusing, and consistency is a good thing. Category names used to be shorter; but the general Wikipedia-wide consensus was that clarity was more important than brevity, so they have gradually expanded in order to make their contents obvious to the reader. Not necessarily the best approach, in retrospect, but it's not specific to the project.) Kirill 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with this line of thinking. There is an underlying issue in the root categories that I'm sure is not your making. The Category:War essentially deals with events (and most of its sub-categories support this). On the other hand Category:Military is supposed to deal with concepts (also supported by the sub-categories). The two anomalies are that Warfare includes Warfare by type, these types being concepts, while Military includes Military history which deals with events. Military also includes Military operations which was undefined, and so due to English usage was misinterpreted as to include Operations as events also. In reality in the Category:Military History (for clarity) should have been titled Category:History of warfare, and within History of warfare there sould have been another sub-category:Conflict by magnitude
The Theatre, Campaign, Operation and Battle would then be sub-categories under Category:Conflict by magnitude.
Is a bombing raid a "battle"? - It depends. A 1,000 bomber bombing raid would be an operation within a bombing campaign to destroy enemy economy. The attempt to intercept a part of the formation by enemy fighters would be a tactical air battle.
An insertion of intelligence operatives? - This would be an operation in the management of military personnel sense. In the even sense it would be a 'battle' for information within a larger Intelligence Operation. However I would suggest that such Operations would need their own category since they are not strictly military given the inserted personnel do not wear a uniform in every case. There are as I suggested elsewhere finer gradations of military activity, and in this case a 'mission' would be more appropriate. In the case where the insertion is for the purpose of abduction or assassination, the term would be 'task' although it can have Theatre-wide effect such as the attempted assassination of Hitelr.
A mine-clearing operation? - Yes, if the Operation involves clearing the Hudson River, or La Manche, it would be an Op. Clearing mines in a tactical land sense would be a part of the battle plan unless its a Peacekeeping operation. Mine-sweeping the access to the Suez Canal would be a 'battle' to keep the Canal open to traffic.
And yet we have articles for all of these, and presumably they need to be categorized somewhere. Yes. they need to be categorised, but they need to be defined by the authors and editors first under a more stringent set of assessment guidelines. This is why I suggest that the categories be named in such a way that they can also provide these guidelines in themselves by asking the author to define what they are writing about before they assign a category. This would prevent the incidences such as the Category:Battle of Stalingrad, which elevates actual tactical urban combat to the level of Category:Soviet-German War. I'm not disputing the historical importance of the German defeat there, but the battle was only a result of a much larger German Campaign to reach the Caucasus, and while the 6th Army (Wehrmacht) fought in the city, other Armies of Army Group South were also active. Again, the issue is that of perspective.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes; the split between War and Military hasn't ever been cleaned up properly. There are some plans to rearrange things to a single root category with a well-defined split between concepts and events in its sub-categories, as you mention; but the actual implementation of that won't be ready for quite some time yet.
In any case, I've brought up the naming issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Renaming top-level "operations" categories. Kirill 07:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Warmongering Italians?!!

In looking at the excellent Franco-Prussian war article I discovered a Category I had not seen used in WWII area Category:Wars involving the states and peoples of Europe. Italians have two sub-cats in it, and Russia is unmentioned as are a few other notable peoples of Europe like Swedes, Scots, Poles, Ukranians, Hungarians, none of the Yugoslavian ethnics, Dutch, Romanians, and Prussians who had created Germany :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 08:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open

The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open

The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Normandy

This article has been rescoped to be just the assault phase (thought this was Operation Jupiter?) - I think this is incorrect. The actions to Sept 1944 are now in Normandy Campaign. I've added a comment at Talk:Battle of Normandy#Article Name. I'd appreciate more knowledgeable heads than mine. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Neptune, actually. I'm not sure what the best title combinations would be—frankly, I'd prefer geographic names over codenames, in general—but the fact that we now have two redundant articles on the D-Day invasion itself needs to be resolved somehow. Kirill 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And, just to make things more interesting, we have sub-articles for both the airborne assaults (American airborne landings in Normandy, Operation Tonga) and the amphibious ones (e.g. Omaha Beach), which aren't particularly consistent in what they use "Battle of Normandy" to refer to. :-) Kirill 13:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history by Kirill 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To make things even more complex, but possibly necessary, I think there has to be mention of Operation Overlord and its relation to Neptune, etc. Personally, I'd be very tempted to add a paragraph or two about strategic cover and deception by the London Controlling Section (nobody ever hears about US Joint Security Control), and how the deception operations -- one might or might not actually mention Fortitude North, Fortitude South, etc., kept the Germans looking at the Pas de Calais and not immediately committing their reserve against Normandy. Even there, I wonder if there is a point to mentioning that the Germans underestimated the effectiveness of Allied tactical air unleashed to interdict movement to the battlefield. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have crack at documenting the current situation. Should be fun. Point of fact - is "Battle of Normandy" as currently defined in the article, ie, the assault phase, or is it the campaign until the Seine crossing/ Eisenhower's assumption of field command/ September, 1944? I've quoted refs to support the latter - but .... Folks at 137 (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but does Battle of Normandy have an actual basis in military history? My understanding was always that the Second Front in the European Theatre was intended as the 'Campaign in Northern France' and its execution was the Operation Overlord as the strategic operation. In turn Overlord had an operational phase called Operation Neptune, which in turn had tactical phases named after the beaches, Gold, Juno, etc.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question, but while I doubt that the military authorities, at the time, used the label "Battle of Normandy", there are a number of military histories that do. Try these US, French and British websites: [1] (3rd para), [2], [3] and books:Defeat in the West (Milton Shulman), Six Armies in Normandy (John Keegan), The Battle of Normandy 1944 (Robin Neillands), Overlord (Max Hastings). all of these use "Battle of Normandy" to refer to the campaign until the Seine crossing; Overlord also uses "Normandy Campaign" synonymously. None of these limit "Battle of Normandy" to the assault or its immediate aftermath. Montgomery insisted that Overlord planning should cover the aftermath of the landings, so he must have considered that Overlord continued. "Second Front in the European Theatre was intended as the 'Campaign in Northern France'", probably true, but I'd not heard of 'Campaign in Northern France' before. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue of naming everything "battle" is just confusing. I don't have extensive knowledge of sources on Normandy, but I have studied it as an amphibious operation. The breakout from the beaches was a part of the planning from the start, and obviously it was going to be in Normandy. There was a planned consolidation that Montgomery didn't really have to argue about all that much, the argument being over the extent of the initial breakout after the establishment of the beach-heads (meaning Phase I landings, Phase II inland beach-heads, Phase III breakout inland, Phase IV inland consolidation). That was the whole point of the airborne landings at the edge of the inland consolidation AO. There followed several smaller battles by the divisions breaking out off the beach-heads and those of the airborne troops, so it seems to me that it would be far less confusing if the Battle of Normandy was not used.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd request to move

I would like to request that the article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive be moved to Rumanian Wikipedia since I can not access it without remapping my keyboard.
Alternatively the Military History Project should adopt current city spellings for all articles where these names appear in events other then those describing events in English-speaking regions.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... no. First of all, it is not up to the Military History project to determine the style (i.e. use of diacritics, which name to use to refer to places) of the wider Wikipedia. For the most part, all projects and fields of research work from the same Manual of Style. Secondly, if the article about the Offensive is written in English, then it does not belong in the Romanian Wikipedia. This is what redirects are for - search for "Iasi-Chisinau Offensive" and you should be able to find it no problem. Third, I apologize to be severe, but your proposal about using anachronistic (modern) names for historic places is simply not appropriate. I'm sorry if it's more difficult for you to recognize the historic names of places, but our goal here is not to alter history to make it easier to read, but rather simply to describe and report it as it happened.
The Romans never controlled Istanbul; they controlled Constantinople, and Byzantium prior to that. The Normans never attacked the United Kingdom; they attacked England, which bore that name after the Angles who settled there, prior to which it was not known by that name either. Of course, there are anomalies in historical writing, like the notion that anyone "discovered" America, when in fact it was not known to be "America" until some time after its "discovery", and the use of the term "Kyoto" to refer to the capital cities of Heian-kyô and Keishi which were as far as I am aware never called Kyoto by the Japanese until the late 19th century at the earliest.
In any case, I've set up the redirect for you, so that Romanian article should be easier to find now. I'm sorry you were having difficulties. LordAmeth (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
LordAmeth, you are mistaken. I am not the one using anachronistic names. the article was originally titled Iassy-Kishinev Offensive. This is a less widely used name for the operation in English then Yassy-Kishinev Offensive. The article was then summarily renamed into Rumanian with redirects from the Englsih names based on the argument that the Rumanian spelling is the official spelling of the Rumanian cities (and was since 1865), and therefore the operation (a by Russian speaking Red Army) must be renamed to comply withthe Rumanian government's policy, and now the EU.
The consequences of the renaming of this article has far-reaching consequences for me as I am plannign about 250 articles to cover operations of the Eastern Front, of which about 100 took place on territorias not exclusively or not at all Russian speaking. This means that every time I either author or edit an article I need redirects set up from the English names in my sources to the current (anachronistic) usage. Quite frankly I think this is not in the letter or the spirity of the Manual of Style or en-Wiki policies. "Iasi-Chisinau Offensive" is not used in any of my sources.--mrg3105mrg3105 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down Mrg. As you're aware, there are redirects to the Iassy-Kishinev Operation all over the place - and there's no requirement to link to other names. All the work you're planning can be done with links to Iassy-Kisinev without worrying what name appears at the top of the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Its not right--mrg3105mrg3105 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) now open

The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity test 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 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. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and 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 that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. 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 you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelled out Armies

Does anyone have a particular reason for spelling out the numeration of the Armies in the titles? --mrg3105mrg3105 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we follow official usage - British, Americans, Germans, Italians - 'Tenth Army' - Soviets : '10th Army'. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Each country has their own method of naming articles, and we follow these. Corps and divisions also differ. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) now open

The peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Minelayers (ship)

Would someone be kind enough to write an article for these?--mrg3105mrg3105 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's some material at Minelayer#Naval minelayers that could probably serve as a decent starting point. Kirill 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My own knowledge is fairly shallow on the subject :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Koli Point action now open

The A-Class review for Koli Point action is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The peer review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Overlord

Hi all,

Looking for advice and opinions here, there are currently 3 articles which deal with the Western Allied invasion of Northern France in June 1944.

Battle of Normandy, Normandy Campaign and Operation Neptune

All of which appear to be treading on each others toes in places, covering the same information: i.e. preparation and plans, the initial invasion etc etc

I guess the question is, should all this be cleared up into more appropriately headed articles or leave it the way it was.

I.E: Operation Neptune, Normandy Landings, Overlord Landings etc etc to cover the initial landings, preparations, the Atlantic wall etc, explanation on what Overlord and Neptune was and with either a link to a new article or also including the current information on the armada.

Battle of Normandy, Normandy campaign etc etc to cover the following fighting (June 7th onwards?) up to the Seine and Paris (in brief, linking off to the other articles such as Battle of Caen etc)

There has been some discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Normandy#Article_Name about the issue but only some.

Looking for advice --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think someone wanted to break it up, but it quickly lost steam. I would advice the following structure:
  • Operation Overlord (Parent article)
    • Operation Neptune Allied invasion of Normandy (The assault and establishment phase)
    • Breakout from Normandy (From Operation Goodwood / Cobra until the Liberation of Paris)
The advantage here being no ambiguity ("Battle of Normandy" could refer to any of those three, "Normandy Campaign" is an American specific term which doesn't cover Commonwealth / German actions) Oberiko (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An Operation Neptune article linking to articles on the relevnt battles, i.e. St Lo, Caratean, Caen etc as well as the landings and the admarda? Sounds good to me--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the other names presented are abmigious:
  • Normandy Campaign - Official ETO name for American military actions from 6 June -24 July 1944 (see here), not acceptable if Commonwealth and German activities are also to be covered.
  • Battle of Normandy - Ambigious: could refer to the invasion, breakout, or Overlord in its entirety
  • Operation Neptune - Although I suggested it earlier, our conventions are to avoid operational code names where possible, plus I've seen several conflicting definitions of exactly what Neptune entailed. By calling it "invasion" we can also include things like the deception plans, logisitical planning, German defense plans etc. Oberiko (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history by Kirill 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found this stuff. I think the best combination is:

  • "Invasion of Normandy" for the landings and immediate postlandings;
  • "Normandy Campaign" for the longer term fighting; "Battle of Normandy" would work too;
  • "Operation Overlord" redirects to "Normandy Campaign"
  • "Operation Neptune" disambiguates (there is another which seems to have got lost) with a reference to "Invasion of Normandy"

There are also some glitches in the terminology which I intend to fix. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we also need to make Operation Neptune a redirect to Battle of Normandy (or whatever) since it currently only talks about naval operations. Since it's actual content is probably too detailed for the Battle of Normandy article it probably needs to become "Naval Operations during the Invasion of Normandy" or something. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to slightly disagree with you DJ Clayworth. The Normandy Campaign is officially defined by the U.S. Military to only cover (American) actions from 6 June-24 July 1944. I think it'd be preferrable to have the following:
  • Operation Overlord: Overview of the everything (to do with Overlord) up until the liberation of Paris (June 6 - Aug 25)
  • Invasion of Normandy: Invasion and establishment (June 6 - mid-July (Goodwood / Cobra))
  • Breakout from Normandy: The breakout and chase up to the liberation of Paris (Mid-July - Aug 25)
  • Battle of Normandy: Disambiguation linking to the three mentioned above
  • Normandy Campaign: Same as Battle of Normandy, but with additional description of it being an official campaign in the American ETO
  • Operation Neptune: Disambig (you're right, I vaguely remember another one happening somewhere) pointing to the invasion article and explaining the different definitions of Neptune (just naval aspect vs. naval and landings) Oberiko (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a big disagreement with any of those changes in principle. My only thought is that the current article Battle of Normandy covers only D-Day to mid-June, with heavy emphasis on Day 1. I think that's enough for an article, and extending it to cover up to mid-July might make it too big. Could we find another title for an article to cover that period? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Would you be oppossed to Normandy landings as a sub-article of "Invasion of Normandy"? It seems to be a fairly prevelant way to refer to them. Failing that, we could always call it Operation Neptune with a "For other uses..." tag on the top pointing to a disambig page. Oberiko (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with either of those. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Great. I'll go and request feedback from the other pages / significant editors. Oberiko (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed framework

Main pages

  • Operation Overlord: Overview of the everything (sans things like Dragoon) up until the liberation of Paris (June 6 - Aug 25)
    • Invasion of Normandy: Invasion and establishment (June 6 - mid-July (Goodwood / Cobra))
      • Normandy Landings: Sub-page focusing on the naval and amphibious portion. A.K.A. Operation Neptune
    • Breakout from Normandy: The breakout and chase up to the liberation of Paris (Mid-July - Aug 25)

Disambiguation pages

  • Battle of Normandy: Disambiguation linking to all of the above, plus other battles in Normandy (such as during the Hundred Years' War)
  • Normandy Campaign: Same as Battle of Normandy, but with additional note of it being an official campaign in the American European Theater of Operations
  • Operation Neptune: Disambiguation, takes over the current disambig page. The comperable scope of the Soviet Operation Neptune alone makes this rather needed.

Comments
Any thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just had a slight thought after reading one of Philip Baird Shearer's comments. What about also having an Allied invasion of France which would cover all actions (from June 6) up to the liberation of Paris? Essentially, a parent of both Overlord and Dragoon, as the two operations were quite heavily linked; even so much as being called "Hammer" and "Anvil" originally. Oberiko (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Currently there is a Battle of Caen article, which gives a general outline of all Anglo-Canadian operations to capture Caen from Neptune to Spring, in this proposed restructure would this page survive? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? This wouldn't touch the Battle for Caen article, the proposed articles would likely simply mention and wiki-link to it. Oberiko (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would just check :)

I like the sounds of the new proposal, it covers everything while at the same time braking it up into more appropriate articles unlike now. I guess the question is, if this sounds good to everyone else how soon until we can implement it? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with this one too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We could probably start as soon as most people are good with it (any key editors we should contact?), the pace I can't say, depends how motivated each individual writer is. Oberiko (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure there needs to be a disambig for Soviet Operation Neptune since it never happened. It will be covered in the Planning section of the Operation Mars (Rzhev-Sychevka operation)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but we also have the other problem of Neptune's definition being somewhat ambiguous (changes from source to source) and that we're to avoid code-names where possible. While I'll be the first to cast doubt on Google search results being an accurate indicator of commonness, the two terms are comparable, with the "invasion" part not requiring as much explanation off the bat for the reader. That said, I'm hardly married to it, and if general preference is to use Neptune, I'll acquiesce. Oberiko (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have done a first class job Oberiko, but I have redirected Operation Neptune back to the Normandy Landings and put a line at the top of the article "Operation Neptune redirects here. For other meanings see Operation Neptune (disambiguation)" because the other operations are not well known and the Normandy landings is by far the most common usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Well done, Oberiko. Now we have the huge task of moving most of the information about the landings from Invasion of Normandy to Normandy landings. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Philip and DJ. It will be pretty big, but at least now it should remain (and in one place... mostly) once we do it. Oberiko (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Should anything be done with American airborne landings in Normandy and Operation Tonga? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're good. They're already mentioned in the Normandy Landings article, I just changed the top part of each to reflect that. Oberiko (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War defines the Battle of Normandy as covering the period 6 June to 1 September. It is clear that the US Army defines it differently than the British and Canadians. Why? Obviously, they were fighting in Normandy for less time! After COBRA the Americans had moved on to Brittany, but the Anglo-Canadians were still in Normandy for another month! What's worse is that the "invasion of Normandy" is not an academic term, but "Battle of Normandy' clearly is. The changes to the structure of the Battle of Normandy article are extremely poor and were obviously done without even glancing at the official histories of two of the three major participants on the Allied side. What's even worse than that is that there is no easy way to reference any information post July 25 in the Invasion of Normandy article without putzing around through infoboxes or having to know operational code words. What a mess.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) now open

The A-Class review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:21, 31 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)

Could use some help

I'm working on the Army Group South in my sandbox User:Mrg3105/sandbox for Army Group South and could use some outside input. Thank you ion advance--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Map for 1931, requesting feedback

Hello,

I've just created a map of the major powers in Sep. 1931, just prior to the Invasion of Manchuria. The colourations and border alterations are based on the list here. I'm looking for any feedback or corrections. Oberiko (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It would proabably be a good idea to put a color key in with the map to id the major powers. Otherwise, it looks good to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this would be appropriate to show or not, but China was in the middle of a civil war and carved up between several different factions at this point was it not? Anyhoo, map looks good.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but the mapping the territories of the various factions, not to mention the predominant territories of communist guerrillas forces, is out of the scope for WWII, especially since, on Japanese invasion, the hostilities were basically suspended and it was basically reduced to Japan (and factions in China which followed them) and a United Front of other Chinese forces.
Regarding the legend, I'm intentionally leaving that off. Since I'm hoping to use this as a "master map" of sorts, it could be zoomed in to show specific places in greater detail. The legend would then have to be added locally on doing so; likely in the image caption. Oberiko (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert help needed

Hi i'm one of the editors at Waterboarding and we need sources about the Gestapo using or not using Waterboarding durring its interrogations. Does anyone have any goos sources in this area or know where to look. (Hypnosadist) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of World War II

It's been proposed that Timeline of World War II, which is currently one of the largest articles on Wikipedia, be split into a series of articles on each year of the war. Comments there are welcomed! --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Air Force!

Please, when writing or editing land or naval operations articles, don;t forget to include the air force participations that were often, even usually there. ;o) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) now open

The A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) now open

The A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Allies of World War II

It has been suggested elsewhere that this article needs to be somehow linked to the Second World War histories of the participants to illustrate the interaction/cooperation between Allies, or Axis for that matter. For example there is nothing in the US Army history of the Second World War article that says how it interacted with forces of Allied nations.

Comments?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

World War II Western Front Template Box

I would like to draw attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Western_Front_%28World_War_II%29, the Template for the Western Front during the Second World War. A number of the battles featured seem unimportant when compared to others, and many vital battles are not even mentioned. I don't think I'm quite up to editing it and choosing new battles considering how new I am to this, but I would like to open a discussion up at the talk page for the Template to consider removing/adding battles. Skinny87 (talk) 11:38, 21 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) 12:52, 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) 12:52, 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) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Bols

I have begun writing an article on General Eric Bols, one-time commander of the British 6th Airborne Division. Anyone with any sources/pictures on General Bols would be more than welcome to contribute. Skinny87 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Erich Hartmann now open

The A-Class review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Normandy

Following the successful reorganization a few months ago, this article now covers the period from 6 June to mid-July. However many of the figures, such as casualties, are for the 6th June, and information on the fighting after 6th June is still very sketchy. A concentrated effort could get this article back up to the standard it was before the split. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Which article then follows this one on to take the reader from mid July to Falise?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) now open

The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi 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)

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)

A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RAF Tempsford

Could established editors please step in for some help in arbirtrating this dispute? - User talk:Neddyseagoon#RAF Tempsford. For background, I edited the sentence "This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women) who were flown from the airfield, many of them to meet terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans." (italics my own, to indicate areas of concern) as I felt it showed possible bias, which has since been disputed and reverted by User:Mark126 and User:Deben Dave. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted, as a neutral editor, in both the article ralk page and your own talk page Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

Battle of the Bulge is indicated as being a Featured Article, but to be honest I wouldn't even put it at GA Status. Entire sections are completely without references, there is a large Popular Culture section, and it needs a good copyedit. I hope I'm not being too presumptious by asking how the article could be downgraded? I certainly want to work on it and get it back up to FA status, but in its present condition to label it as so is just not right. Skinny87 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Violette Szabo

As the inspiration for an upcoming video game (Velvet Assassin), I would expect her article to get a good many views in the coming months. It's currently rated as "Start" class. If it could be expanded somewhat, that would be great. cheers, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do as far as expansion, but that will have to wait a little becuase I have prior commiments. In the interm you may wish to file a peer review request for the article to get feedback for where it and what whould be improved. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing Question

Do we need to state that we are going to edit an article or is it just edit then chose another to edit? Also, just for people in this Taskforce to know, i'm expanding the Race to Berlin article.

--L3eater 10:20, 17 May 2008 UTC

In most cases, you're encouraged to be bold and edit away. If you plan on adding something controversial or contradictory to what's already contained though, it'd probably be best to run it through the discussion page first to get some feedback. Oberiko (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:MHSP Special Projects is looking into this

The Sneaky Beaky Troops at WP:MHSP are currently preparing to look into World War II. Comments and further involvement is welcome at WT:MHSP. Buckshot06(prof) 00:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


A-Class review for Montana class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Montana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Radical restructuring of Category:World War II

  • Comment/Question - Upon reviewing the category structure for Category:World War II, it was startling to encounter a completely unrecognizable array of categories. I see that over the last few days it has undergone a radical, single-handed restructuring by User:mrg3105. I would like to inquire as to whether this was done in consultation with other editors, as there's no sign of that on the category's talk page.

I'm not suggesting that the previous arrangement of sub-categories could not be improved upon. But whatever the possible merits, I feel that it is not appropriate for any single editor to make such sweeping changes to such a major, heavily-used category entirely on his own accord. Unlike articles, there is no way to compare the new category structure with the former structure, and it is virtually impossible to recreate the former structure if that is desired in whole or in part.

I would be interested to know what other editors think about all of this. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm new to all of this still, and I've had run-ins with mrg before on matters, but such a radical restructuring does concern me. I thought anything that large had to be done with community consensus, and not just by one person whatever their opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)a
Actually there is overwhelming community consensus because Category:World War II is a root category, and was not supposed to receive any and all articles. All I have done is recategorise them as appropriate and create four broad discipline areas to guide users when they look for appropriate category (if they look)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering when someone noticed.
Actually the restructuring is not radical, but the category was better described as misused. Articles and categories were deposited into it at random, and it took me two days just to sort that out. No one seems to be taking care of categorisation and the entire thing is a mess. In any case, at least one editor is aware of my effort to put some sense into the categories, at least in how they concern the Second World War, and since he has said nothing despite his usually antagonistic behaviour towards almost anything I do, I left it to others to discover. You will find that I am fully compliant in my changes with the naming conventions, the interwiki use, and I am also adding description of the categories from the relevant Wikipedia articles, so its not my POV alone that determines what goes there. In some cases World War II will be first of any projects to link categories with other projects allowing inter-project collaboration. In nay case, would be most interested in comments--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please direct all further comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Radical restructuring of Category:World War II. Woody (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Now has its own glorious subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. Comments still greatly appreciated. Woody (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Mediterranean, African and Middle East articles proposal

I have just been scanning through several articles and noticed three, which I would propose be merged together. The articles: Mediterranean theatre of World War II, African campaigns of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II.

I don’t know how other official histories refer to all of these, but the British official history labels all fighting in Africa (east, west and north – unsure if Madagascar is included), the Middle East and any of the countries on the shores of the med (not to mention the air war and the naval fighting) as the “Mediterranean and Middle East”.

Now i know the article on the Middle East theatre states that only the actions in the Eastern Med basin came under the command of the Middle East Command. However the 6 volumes of the British Official History for the fighting around the med basin, in the far reaches of the Middle East and all over Africa is lumped under the title of the Mediterranean and Middle East series, which i feel rather accurately describes the theatre (maybe the inclusion of the word Africa) and would supersede all the different articles covering this subject (listed above).

My feeling is that it would be easier for readers to then navigate through the various campaigns etc. In addition to the article, I would also propose creating a ‘Mediterranean and Middle East Campaign’ campaign box. Here is a quick one i've thrown together (template stolen from the Western Desert one).

I have tried not to miss out too much in the box, so apologies if I have. I have also thrown Operation Dragoon in there, mainly as it mostly troops out of this theatre taking part, it may not be strictly part of this theatre and can possibly go.

Thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. As you point out, while the US Army considers these seperate theatres, the British (who were actually involved in all of the fighting) consider them to be the one theatre. The merged article should discuss the different categorisation, however, so that it's clear. I think that Madagascar and Operation Dragoon should be excluded though - these are generally considered to have been part of the Pacific War and Western European Theatre respectively. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They were the two i was most jubious about, but through them in just in case.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree in general, especially with regard to Mediterranean & Middle East - the linkage was clear with forces (like 2 NZ Div) being shunted back and forth to cover first the GErman approaches to Egypt and then the Germans maybe coming down from the north. I believe however that Madagascar should be mentioned in some way, with an offhand link maybe, as it was just south of the theatre in East Africa. Buckshot06(prof) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, maybe unsurprisingly to some, but the three articles are general, and have wider application then either British or US sources. For a start the Mediterranean theatre of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II are theatres that include at one end the Atlantic approaches and at the other the operations in Iraq and entry of British and Soviet troops into Iran, and consequently represent campaigns that are quite unrelated to Africa. The African campaigns of World War II also include the East African campaigns, the campaigns by Italians and Germans, and the participation by the French. In fact the RN, which had a significant participation in all three, does not label everything “Mediterranean and Middle East”. The RN Med Command was in Malta HQ, but answerable to Cairo HQ along with Habbanya and Basra in Iraq. However the approaches to the western Med were a part of the South Atlantic Command in Freetown, and the North Atlantic Command was coordinated from Gibraltar HQ with the assigned 200 Group RAF. The RN did have a Mediterranean Fleet in Alexandria, but not a Middle Eastern Fleet. So, all in all it seems to me a good idea to leave these three be even from the British perspective, which does not reflect that of the other belligerents in the theatres.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
GHQ Middle East was in command of practically everything going on over there. But am not talking about commands, i stated that in my opening. As for the "British perspective" its only in name only - the 6 voloumes of books covering the fighting the British Army and CW forces, along with who ever fought along side them (so it includes the Greeks, Americans etc) labels all the fighting as such.
An article called 'Mediterranean and Middle East theater' or 'Mediterranean, African and Middle East theater' would not simply say it was the British agaisnt everyone else, it would be like any other article - one which states all beligeriants so there shouldnt be any onesided article.
The idea is just to get rid of several articles which are overlapping in places and too distint from one another and place them all one article which then links down to all other articles - and those articles can link back to one only.
At the moment articles such as the Western Desert Campaign does not have links to these various campaigns, which is understandable, however if it linked back to one article which then had links to all the other campaigns which was on going at the same time - it would encourage further reading.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you EnigmaMcmxc and I believe we have a developing consensus in favour of what you're proposing. Buckshot06(prof) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since it seems to be in vogue to do summary articles that encompass large periods of areas, I see no problem. However, if someone had created these three before, they are likely do another three articles again. In fact there was one on the African campaign created this week title Kingdom of Italy (North Africa).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Mediterranean theatre of World War II" article to African, Mediterranean and Middle East theater. How do we go about deleting the other two articles?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete them, just redirect them, if some text has been merged then you need to put {{R from merge}} after the redirect. Why is it African, Mediterranean and Middle East theater and not African, Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II? (notice the British English spelling of theatre as it was originally started in Britsh English and the addition of the disambiguator World War II.) Woody (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This would be a fun question - where was the first combat of the Second World War in these three theatres, the Med, North Africa or Middle East? From memory I think it was actually skirmishes between French and Italian troops during 1940--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
One would image the fight in the Western Desert, with war declared on the 10th units were moved up to the border and crossed the wire within the next few days with combat taking place by the 14th.
At the same time, i believe fighting was also from the get go in East Africa. I havent really followed the French military during the war so actions along the Tunisian border would be new to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you redirect an article? What should one do with the article one is redirecting?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking that they should be merged for quite some time. I'd still include Dragoon and Madagascar, as they can fall into multiple theatres. My suggestion though would be to call it Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II. While they overlap trenedously, things like Iran and Dakar are pretty far apart to be considered the same theatre; hence the plural. I also argue for the ordering to be Med, ME and Africa since they are roughly the order of importance. Oberiko (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sence to me, ive renamed the article accordingly.

To do:

  • move information over to the new article
  • re-direct older articles to this one

Ive been doing bits and bobs on the first point but have no idea on how to do the second.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When you edit an article, you should see a top tool-bar. One of the options is called #R. Pressing that button will create a redirect link. Just replace the contents of the page with that link. Oberiko (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Verdeja now open

The peer review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Verdeja now open

The A-Class review for Verdeja is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What's a good title for an article on the submarine war against Japan?

I'm itching to start an article on the Allied (mainly US, but with some significant British involvement towards the end) submarine campaign against Japan, but can't settle on a good title. Can anyone think of something better than Allied submarine campaign against Japan? Nick Dowling (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but was it really a campaign? Would seem like "Allied submarine usage in the Pacific War" might more suitable. Oberiko (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point: the Allied submarine effort was fairly fragmented. I've started the article at Allied submarine usage in the Pacific War. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick, I am far from an expert, but even the USN had several submarine offensives in the Pacific as part of the Fleet campaigns, which is what I seem to recall they were called by the Navy. However, I have seen "submarine campaign" term used I think in Rasor's southwest Pacific Campaign if I'm not mistaken (I know its dated). If you include the Commonwealth, then maybe Allied submarine offensives in the Pacific since you will be covering a LOT of ocean. Can also use it for the main article of the eponymous category given the rather stark differences between submarine and surface operations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) now open

The peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

American mutilation of Japanese war dead article

Could other editors please have a look at the American mutilation of Japanese war dead article? The editor who's mainly been working on it has stated that they are motivated by a desire to increase awareness of this topic which few historians have covered in detail (see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Undue Weight Criteria), and has some fringe views on WW2 in the Pacific (eg, that large numbers of Japanese troops wanted to surrender to the Allies prior to August 1945). I and other editors are concerned that the entire article is a violation of WP:UNDUE given that there's no evidence that it was commonplace or particularly important and the authors of specialist books on the experiances of Allied troops in the Pacific devote only a few pages to this topic. There has been an ongoing running battle about this article on it's talk page, and some additional eyes on the article would be beneficial. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented. I think the article itself is on a notable enough topic, though it does at times read as a soapbox. Oberiko (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A cleaner way to request additional editors opinion would be by not trying to bias them beforehand, Nick. Accusing me of having fringe views without giving me the chance to defend myself is not nice, however I think my edit on undue weight speak for themselves. Also only providing your POV is not nice either. As for other wikipedians, you rely on support given from an editor who added nothing constructive and with a history of stalking me. See for example this example. I've noticed you've been going around trying to engage people wherever there would seem to be people inclined to support your POV. May I please ask you that in the future you notify on the talk page of the mutilation article whenever you try to recruit support. Would save both of us the time to keep checking the others contributions.
for those interested, some info on the topic.
--Stor stark7 Speak 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Responded on the article's talk page. For the record, I regret that the above post wasn't a bit more neutral given that this is a public talk page of a Wiki project. I stand by more comments though as this article's focus and intemperate wording (which is far better than it was originally as I and other editors have removed the more outrageous claims) appears to be related to your views on the Pacific War, and given that my views are clear on the article's talk page there isn't much point in pretending that I'm neutral on this article anyway. Also for the record, the only other place where I posted a notification was on Buckshot's talk page, which hardly seems like "going around trying to engage people wherever there would seem to be people inclined to support your POV". Nick Dowling (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Outrageous" claims that probably should be restored since if I remember correctly they were, or can be, cited. I'm glad that you openly acknowledge your non-neutrality. I on the other hand am Swedish, so by weight of history I should be considered neutral ;-). As to your last sentence, your statement does not fit with my memory of events. As I recall you tagged along to at least 2, possibly more, additional talk pages to recruit support.[4],[5] in a way that quite frankly annoyed me somewhat.--Stor stark7 Speak 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that you were adding very similar material on this topic to several articles at the same time and were provoking similar responses back then, it seems sensible to have used the main article on the topic to host a centralised discussion rather than having had several seperate discussions going on at the same time. This is a standard way of dealing with discussions of contentious material which appears in multiple articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not quite accurate on two counts. 1. It did in my view comprise an invitation to people who had shown hostility to this type of topic to come to the mutilations article. 2. You are right about the similar issue in the marine article, but wrong about the Okinawa article. The main topic in Okinawa was rape[6],[7], something that seemed very difficult to get introduced in that article. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that I provided evidence of rape in the mutilations article talk page. But that was only in response to your claim that cite: "What is your source for the claim that "rape was general practice by U.S. soldiers against Japanese women"? Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well.".Since "Everything you'd read" suggested there were few or no rapes, I had to collect a bunch of evidence to disprove the material that formed your image of the Pacific conflict. As far as I can tell we still do not mention the rapes in the context section of the mutilation article, but perhaps we should.--Stor stark7 Speak 11:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this argument while (ironically) attempting to find the Life Magazine "Skull Picture" from 1944. Just to throw in my two cents, without getting into the particulars of corpse mutilation, wouldn't it make more sense to split the difference and take the subsection Allied war crimes during World War II#Pacific War and turn that into its own article, then merge American mutilation of Japanese war dead into it? While I think that the mutilation of Japanese corpses is worth talking about, I think that it needs to be seen at the very least in the context of other Allied war crimes -- a good chunk of the arguments back and forth on the article's Talk page seem to be about things way outside the scope of corpse mutilation, like rape and racism which could be properly addressed in a specific article on Allied war crimes during the Pacific War. Anyways, good luck to both of you. Palm_Dogg (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just glancing the article and discussion page there seems to be a very one sided POV being used and the article does not seem to be balanced at all. The citations used - internet articles and the New York Times i dont think should be excellent sources of unbais information etc
On top of that i dont understand why this is deserving of its own article, i think it should merged with other simlar articles i.e. another war crimes article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:World War II

I nominated the portal at Featured portal candidates. Bewareofdog 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Round up a few Med, ME and African articles

Howdy,

I think the following articles should be absorbed into the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II article.

Oberiko (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry, the West African Campaign did happen :) Its however only a couple of engagements if memory serves agaisnt the Vichy French, Dakar etc Although am not sure if it was actually given such a title.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The two battles happened, but applying the term 'West African campaign' is OR; they weren't particularly connected. Agree with Oberiko that all three should probably be rolled up into one. Buckshot06(prof) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
We have already established agreement in pervious discussion that the articles should be rolled into this newly named Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II. However i just didnt get around to placing redirect thingies (the technical term) on those pages.
If i recall correctly, when looking at some of the other articles there wasnt that much information which was useful etc which could be pulled from the articles to summerise events in the new main one.
As for the "West African Campaign", do any sources (i will check the British official history to see what they say about these two battles) call the fighting that took place in west Africa this?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the Greek Civil War, an entire Corps (at least 2 divisions off the top of my head and am thinking at least a 3rd was sent, along with RAF support) of soldiers was taken from 8th Army and dispatched to Greece. This was in late 1944, this was deff a part of the Med and Middle East theater and i was under the impression part of the civil war.
However the article has now been changed to reflect that the civil war started in 1946 as opposed to 1942 which it clearly states within the article and the "second round" taking place during which British and Indian troops were dispatched to the country. Of course the Civil war itself has nothing to do with WW2, however it surely is part of the Med and ME theater due to the diversion of tens of thousands of allied troops.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I never got around to checking out the British Official History last night to see if they call the fighting in west Africa, the West African Campaign (will do tonight thought) but a google search turns up nothing other then the article here on the wiki. Sadley, it appears it is OR.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
PS, Playfair v.I, p. 216 calls the entire situation revoling around Dakar the "Dakar operation" and i cannot see any mention within the index nor the contents for the other battle, there is no mention of a "West African Campaign" therefore it is deffo OR.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 17 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) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

General categorisation question

It seems to me that currently there are two syntaxes used for the World War II categories, those that start with Category:World War II of Subject area (past use) and those that end with Category:Subject area of World War II (current use).

Would there be task force consensus for all categories to be converted to the current use of Category:Subject area of World War II to ensure consistency?

Note: In some categories the form Subject area of World War II may not be applicable--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Approach to Pearl Harbor

Copied from Milhist talk page

Trying to resolve grammatical issues here raised the prospect of a split to address planning & doctrine issues surrounding the attack. Comment is invited here. Trekphiler (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a tangle, isn't it? Probably best if editors comment on the article's talk page to keep the discussion centralised. I've copied this to the US, Japanese and WWII task forces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Glantz, Soviet military operational art, pp.46-49
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/World_War_II_task_force/Archive_3&oldid=1144316926"