This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could we have a few cool heads, good at evaluating sources, at George S. Patton and to a lesser extent at Battle of Cambrai (1917). It seems there are a few sources out there which state taht Patton was present at the battle in some capacity, but the major biogrpahy of him is clear that he wasn't. We seem to be getting close to biting going on. David Underdown ( talk) 22:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources that say he was there in some capacity are anecdotal, and some of them also make claims about the presence of U.S. or U.S.-operated tanks taking part, which is impossible. That must cast doubt on their credibility. Many of the claims about Patton's presence as an observer bear a strong family resemblance. That could be construed as weight of evidence or that they have simply been transferred from one book to another. Patton's principal biographers, using his own papers, can find no mention of such an event. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but one must wonder why a man whose business was tanks does not mention his being present at the biggest (although not the first) massed tank offensive of the War so far. That is evaluating the sources, not merely counting them.
Through mud and blood to the ole cotton fields back home.
Hengistmate ( talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As a novice editor I am seeking some specialist help. I have a source describing the Israeli army (IDF) using 120mm mortars in April 1956. I have checked Category:120 mm artillery for a description but none seems to fit. I could make a guess - USA, USSR, France are all possibilities - Any suggestions? Padres Hana ( talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all.
There's a slow-burning debate that's recently reignited at Talk:American Revolutionary War#Belligerents over who to list in the infobox for that article; specifically, whether or not the German states (Hesse, Hanover, etc) were "belligerents". The specific issue was certainly discussed a few times before, but has apparently remained in limbo for years! It seems to have bogged down into a bit of a two-way exchange of monologues, this time, so an outside perspective would be appreciated.
Generally speaking, this is a bit of a minor issue, but it has two broader implications which made me want to bring it up somewhere central -
Thoughts on either the specific case (over there) or the general case (here) appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself admits that infoboxes simplistically categorize states, which causes problems. I'm a great believer in the solution of making things less simplistic by adding extra columns or rows and footnotes to the infobox. The wildest infobox of this type I've ever seen is at Bosnian War, but there are plenty of other examples. Maybe your problematic mercenaries could go into a third column or a second row? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Would you see the note for "British Empire" at WW2 as an ecxeption, as it is defining the term? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:Manual of Style over whether it's "post-World War II" or post–World War II" and several war names with hyphenation or endashing. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 00:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Fishery Protection Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see this post, thank you! -- Bonty90 ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Dragon Quest, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! 陣 内 Jinnai 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The GA reviewer of Quebec Expedition is soliciting commentary on the inclusion of the fleet list in the article. Feel free to comment at Talk:Quebec Expedition/GA1. Magic ♪piano 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Singapore strategy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Iskra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a Peer Review for the F-111 started today. All editors are welcome to participate and I thought some of the members here might be interested. Thanks for comments and any help! -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I think a good map would be in order for the lead section of Military history of the Aleutian Islands to help it pass GA, but my image skills are really sub-par. Is anybody able to assist me with this, or, better still, find a free image to use? Thanks, Arctic Night 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I am working on the St Albans by-election, 1904, one of two by-elections which were triggered by the involvement of the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) in the purchase by the Admiralty of two warships which had been built for the Chilean Navy. The Chileans had not proceed with the purchase, and they were bought for the Royal Navy to prevent them from being purchased by a rival (see the vacancy section of the article).
There is a brief hint at this at Chilean_Navy#Civil_war_and_arms_race_.281885.E2.80.931915.29, but it would be nice to be able to include the names of the ships. Military history is not my territory, so I don't really know the sources ... so would anyone in this project be able to help me to identify the ships?
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Those would be the two Swiftsure-class battleships, HMS Swiftsure and HMS Triumph.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1943) featured list review; please stop by and help review the list! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all. A prod was placed on HMCS Fortune (MCB 151). I've contested it per WP:MILMOS/N and added a reference and a couple of external links. This is not a subject I'm familiar with, so I was wondering if some of our ships experts might be able to help add a few references. A couple of paper sources would be great to make it a decent stub. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Should French campaign against Korea (1866) be renamed French campaign against Korea? This is the only campaign France engaged in against Korea. I also think Spanish–Moroccan War (1859) should be renamed Spanish-Moroccan War because it started in 1859 and ended in 1860. B-Machine ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark E. Kelly is currently part of this project. Though he's a member of the military, he's been on loan to NASA for 15 years. I am not sure how he fits in to military history. Could he be removed, or could his ranking be upgraded from starter?-- Utahredrock ( talk) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on some brainstorming among the coordinators, we're considering holding a March drive to reduce our "articles needing attention" backlogs. The discussion to date, and some currently open questions, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. We'd like to invite all interested members of the project to give us some feedback on the idea; any comments should be made at the strategy page, and would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Air Defense Artillery is proposed for renaming at Categories for Discussion, here. Comments are requested and welcomed. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
HI all I am sure this must have come up before is Regiments.org a reliable site ? [1] -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at the contributions of this user in Yugoslavia-related military articles. This user seems to have a nationalistic view, violating NPOV. We need someone with expertise in this era and area to restore these articles to a good state.. -- Denniss ( talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been almost 70 years now since the Battle of the Denmark Strait (24 May 1941) and the final battle of the battleship Bismarck (27 May 1941). I was wondering if we could make a consolidated effort to place one of the associated top articles on the main page of Wiki as a featured article. What do you think? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - apologies for the long post ! I realise it is not entirely milhist related but as part of nomination for deletion I wanted to also try and get further advice.
I nominated an article for deletion, its nom page is here
The British military one seems to have nothing to support its claims although people were in armed service after being given a ticket of leave it does not appear that they were given the ticket to facilitate their enrolment as a way to serve less prison time. Indeed it is possible that the term is only used around the inter-war period and during the second world war to mean a transport pass for soldiers going on leave - in my opinion that may not pass notability for its own page and I will discuss this use in a moment. The Ticket of Leave system was abolished in 1949 in Britain [3] but as yet I cannot find any evidence to support military service being a condition of being granted a ticket of leave.
The Australian convicts one is factually inaccurate as it appears that the tickets were awarded to convicts from all corners of the British Empire. For example the Canadian Ticket of leave act was introduced in 1899 and abolished in 1956-58 [4] and a US system was also introduced p.365.
My reasoning was that the disambiguation page Ticket of leave would be cleared and the information from the Australian one would be inserted and made pan-global by adding information on the other areas the ticket was given. this would not solely be British as Canada, Ireland and the US also implemented systems of their own. The British military one would have been blanked and an addition made under the ==Britain== section for the term being used in the military (although it is as yet unsourced. This would definately be the "main" page and so would not be a db page any more.
I may have done the AfD in the wrong order - can a deletions-noob friendly admin give me some advice on this matter please?
In retrospect I think maybe I should have just been bold and merged them, then requested the delete notices of the blank pages. As the AfD is open, and as a non-admin, I assume that my hands are tied as there appears to be no way to withdraw, except speedy keep, which would not be appropriate if the page is then blanked and a prod added.
I realise that I could just wait another 5 days, and probably should to give more time for a more complete discussion, but as it seems clear to me that the merge should go ahead, I need someone to advise on which of the paths would be acceptable and correct (and indeed if there is another I have not spotted!). Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've marked new stub article Ottawa NATO Comcentre as needing some expert attention, as it seems to make some unusual claims with unclear referencing. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run, and I thought this might be of some interest to those in the Military History project. While normally a bank robbery wouldn't be of interest to this project, this robbery was conducted at the behest of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other high level Bolsheviks to fund revolutionary activities so I thought it might be of some interest to this project. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember ( talk) 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone take a look at this article and see if it might be salvagable? It smells of copyvio to me, but I can't confirm that to speedy it, and that given I'm hesitant to risk biting the newbie by slapping on a PROD... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
I have just been looking at a requested copyedit of Canopus class battleship.
The template {{Gundisp}} is causing a problem though. It could do with an additional field "calibre" as it automatically defaults to the American English spelling "caliber". Whilst not causing too many problems it is the only flaw in this British English article.
If this matter has arisen before, then apologies. Chaosdruid ( talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know, should you be interested to participate in the review, I have nominated the article about Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty for the B-class status. Best, -- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Special Relationship, concerning US-UK relations, is being turned into an anti-British diatribe by a new user. I have reverted more than once; it was outright vandalism the first time. More eyes would be helpful. Lachrie ( talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just popping over from WP:CRIN. I've been trawling through redlinked first-class cricketers who played for Devon and I came across Charles la Primaudaye Lewin, who played a single first-class match for the Royal Navy. A quick google search reveals he was a rear admiral, [7] so I thought I'd come here to see what anyone can dig up on him to expand his article. I've left out the cricketer infobox so a Military Person Infobox can be put in. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As an attempt at my first ever article, I'm drafting a slightly bloated stub biography of Francis A. Dales. I'm the only contributor to the article thus far, and I can easily write it to be in American English, or in British English.
The subject of the article was;
The article itself;
I'm tempted towards the conclusion that, based on all this, it doesn't really matter if it's in British English or American English (so long as it's consistent, of course). Is there anything that would sway the decision one way or the other? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments everyone. Still very borderline, but I have decided to go for American English. And yes, there's never been any doubt about his nationality :-) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Was going to ask this at the assessment department talk page but that diverts here, so everyone gets a look :) Do we have targets for how quickly we try to get a project article initially assessed? I'm fairly regular there looking for things I feel competent to help with but I notice that some articles in other subjects can be there for weeks. In practical mode, might it be possible to produce a bit of coding that identified items that had been there longer than a certain time e.g. moving them to a different "overdue list" or perhaps changing the colour of the entry? Monstrelet ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Kevin Benderman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.--
S. Rich (
talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A member of the project, The Bushranger, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The Bushranger's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Varma ati or marma ati is a part of kalaripayuttu. And southern kalaripayuttu is different from northern and central. Y delete the article SK because of vandalism. please reconsider.. [1] [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.160.12 ( talk) 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Military history of the Aleutian Islands is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for HMS King George V (41) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the Featured article review for Third Battle of Kharkov; please stop by and help determine whether the article should remain listed as a Featured Article. Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
Sorry to be a pain, but with the current discussions at ANI rephrasing_by_User:Hmains, and the old one delinking_by_User:Hmains, as well as on the MOS dates & numbers I thought I should first give you a heads up.
Secondly I would like to mention that the MilHist MoS only seems to have "World War I" in it, as I cannot see First world war anywhere.
If it is true that changing it from First world war to World war I is in fact an ENGVAR violation, then surely we should have it in the MoS as such? I could not find anything about it in either the MilHist or the main MoS. In fact I have let similar cjhanges go through without comment as, after reading the MoS I thought they were doing the right thing, and since then have avoided using "First world war".
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been chatting with Hmains on possible solutions and he asked about a more specific search using (or at least I think that is what he was asking) the standard Wikipedia searhch boxes at the top of the page. After some research it appears that the Wikipedia search engine is Lucene, which led me to this page [8] It seems as if this works quite well:
If you put that in the standard wikipedia search box it gives Eastern Front (World War II) as the second result, and, lo and behold it has a "the World War I" in it !! Woohoo ! so, to do world war two would be:
Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the term "army of observation" pop up in a bunch of places; ran a gBooks search and see it used often, but not really clear on what it actually means. My vague impression is that it's kind of like big LP/OP, placed somewhere to simply keep an eye on the landscape, and if an enemy force appears they engage them and slow them down until a larger force can come and relieve them. Is that about right? Is it worth having an article about the overall concept, and then maybe list out some times/places such units have existed? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Over at WP:AVIATION, we now have a resource page ( WP:AV/R). Some of the research sources there will be of interest to editors concerned with military aviation. Additions of more useful sources to the resource list welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 11:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a List of airfields in Kent at User:Mjroots/List of airports in Kent. The question of how to name RFC bases has arisen. Where it can be proven that a base was in operation after 1 April 1918, I am titling articles RAF Foo, but there were other bases in user prior to, and during WWI, which were RFC bases. These are titled RFC Foo. None of them currently have articles, so it's not that big an issue yet. I admit to having created a few redirects from RFC titles to relevant Wikipedia articles - RFC Marden, RFC Penshurst to name two. MilborneOne ( talk · contribs) is not sure that this naming convention is correct. My reasoning is that we have RNAS foo articles such as RNAS Lee-on-Solent, and RFC Foo fits with this. I have also found evidence off-wiki for such a naming convention being used. Is this a useful way to deal with the issue, or are there any better ways to deal with this? Mjroots ( talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Invasions of the British Isles could be restructured? The article, which I created under the name "Medieval invasions of Britain," has become rather long, yet some sections in it have no content. I think that finding information on this topic would be easier if the article would be transformed into a "parent" article, with links to various "sub-articles." The sub-articles could be expansions of the page's current sections. For example, the section "Invasions of England (793-1284)" could become a separate article, as could the as-of-now-small "Invasions of Ireland" section. This would also allow for greater attention to be paid to each topic: "Invasions of Ireland" could be treated as completely different from "Invasions of England and Wales (1284–1513)." DCI2026 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just learned that we should use the {{ lang}} template for foreign-language phrases (assists screen-reading technology, see WP:ACCESS for more details). I think this should be considered, at least at FA or A Class reviews. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
New article by a new editor, which I found tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (declined). No references but I think that there should be some out there after reading this . Anyone able to assist? Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Right now, the mention of Norwegian Cmdr. Kristian Østby is a redlink. I have almost nothing on him. Anyone have any ideas? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
Hello all,
I am writing this posting because I saw your project's header above the page Non-Commissioned Officer. While browsing Wikipedia I noticed there is a page called Sub-Officer. I think these pages should be merged for various reasons; but don't know how to do such a thing. Being the Military History Project and having that page in you scope, perhaps we can help each other?
Sincerely,
Korporaal1
Korporaal1 ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the article is a copyvio, and was on creation. Anybody wish to write a new article to replace it? Mjroots ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Musa Qala is on the mainpage; Marskell ( talk · contribs) wrote it before he left. Another editor reported to Raul654 ( talk · contribs)'s talk page that the article had cleanup tags, so I went and had a look and found that one IP had defaced the article with what appeared to me to be gratuitous tagging while on the mainpage, with little explanation on talk (in fact, one I can't decipher). I don't know where the vandal watchers were, or if they thought the edits to be legit. This is the state I found it in; it appears that the IP thinks every sentence needs citation, and some of the other tags appear gratuitous. I could be wrong, some of the edits could be good, but we can't have a defaced article on the mainpage with no decipherable commentary on talk explaining the issues. I restored it to the version before the IP started, and then compared to Marskell's last edit and the featured version, and did not find major article deterioration-- before the IP started what appeared to be gratuitous tagging, the article was largely Marskell's work with cosmetic changes (citations, date delinking, etc.). I need to go to sleep now, and I'm not able to determine if any of the IPs edits were justified. I would greatly appreciate it if any MilHist folk could get in there today and see if there are problems that need cleaning up, watch the article, and try to determine if any of the IPs concerns were legit. Marskell was a good FA writer, had almost a dozen FAs as I recall, and was the WP:FAR delegate for Raul; he didn't write bad articles, but he didn't typically write MilHist articles. The article did not go through MilHist A-class review, but the FAC received supports from Woody, Kirill and Roger Davies. A UK IP opposed the FAC; a UK IP did the tagging. User:Richard Harvey also worked on the FAC, and he is still active. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Seabees. This is a very informative article. Long, in depth and obviously created by someone well acquainted with the subject. It also has a grand total of 5 cites. There's an 'in popular culture' section now some years after they were supposed to be broadly excised. There's also some tone issues. It's written in the style of a military history book, not an encyclopedia. I dont mean anything extreme, or egregious, just a pervasive rah-rah that doesn't really jive with a neutral point of view. This should be one of our best articles, and its symptoms aren't unique to it, i followed it from a sapper article with similar sourcing and tone issues. I suspect I know why this problem develops, but this wikiproject seemed like the logical place to look into organizing some sort of general category cleanup effort. -- ۩ M ask 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
When is appropriate to use 'Category:Battles involving xxxCountry'? Is it appropriate to use it in the articles (battles) which happened on the territory of another state, but involved significant number of soldiers from xxxCountry? The question is same for the battles that happened in xxxCountry, but didn't involved any (or insignificant number of) soldiers from xxxCountry. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 12:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wondered if anyone had info on the author M. K. Barbier
Seems to have been co-author on a couple of books and has authored Kursk: The greatest tank battle, 1943 published by Ian Allan, first imprint 2002 ( ISBN 0 7110 2868 0) Books page on the publishers website and on Google books
The problem is this Kursk 1943: The Greatest Tank Battle Ever Fought as it appears to be the same cover picture yet is published by Zenith. It is listed as by Kathryn Barbier which one could assume is the K in MK.
Anyone know whether this would be a good source or not, are the publishers considered reliable and does the project have a list of "not reliable sources"/"reliable sources" anywhere?
I have recently acquired the book (Allan version) but cannot, for example, find anything out about the author and the book does not have any references listed in it, nor a bibliography, nor a foreword nor introduction!
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Could someone look over this and fix the infobox for 11th Airborne Division (United States)? I'm trying to, but can't figure out what is wrong with the mark-up after some ip vandalised the article. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The featured list review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944) has been open for a while; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Presently it is part of an essay, however, as with WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE, or other subject specific criteria, I would like to see either WP:SOLDIER, or a more concise version of it, supported with this essay as a wider net for those that don't fall in it, to be elevated to that of a guideline. Stating that, what do we need to do to get that done? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF ( talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Several Sharpe series characters have been nominated for deletion. As there is no current list of characters article for the Sharpe series, there's no obvioius merge target. See WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 22 . As Napoleonic Ficiton work group is under the Napoleonic Era task force of this wikiproject, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello good folks: Would anyone here be willing to "adopt" Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1? The nominator ( XavierGreen) has gone missing. Some progress has been made at the FAC, and I'd hate to simply archive the nomination because the nominator has disappeared. Obviously it would have to be someone with access to the sources since some substantive concerns have been raised about "mistakes" in the article. If not, I'll archive it and wait for XavierGreen to come back.
Can I have some fresh eyes on Operation Banner. MFIreland has added some POV commentary to the last paragraph in section 'Reception by the Catholic Community'. MFIreland has removed the OR section tag I've added. He has a long history of POV editing and edit warring and would like a fresh look by another editor to prevent edit warring on the article Kernel Saunters ( talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Manhattan Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to note the GAN backlog elimination drive set to begin in March. I don't usually spam project pages, but since Milhist is both one of the larger backlogs in terms of articles and has many of the more active reviewers, I figured you guys might be interested in helping out, even if it's only to tackle what's nommed in the military section. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships for use on Wikipedia projects. If anyone's interested please have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM and ask any questions/sign up. Regards, The Land ( talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for No. 79 Squadron RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just prodded that as a hoax. Could somebody take a second glance over it and either come and tell me I'm an idiot or just confirm it is a hoax. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The FAR for Third Battle of Kharkov (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Third Battle of Kharkov/archive1) has been open for a while. However, there have been no comments made in the FARC section regarding keeping or delisting, despite that section having been open for comments for over a month. This will most likely be delisted, unless someone steps up soon to work on the article, as no work has been completed on the article during the review phase; however, a few editors need to actually make this explicit for the review to be closed. If a few of you could step over there and give your opinions, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS New Ironsides is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just done the initial assessment on this article and was surprised to discover it only covered a short period in Imperial Russian history. Obviously, military settlements are a much more widespread phenomenon. It would be clearer if this was disambiguated but, in the absence of a wider article, this would be pre-emptive and not allowed. How could this be resolved? Monstrelet ( talk) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This has popped up again at Contact fuse. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Please note that the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive starts TOMORROW!! For those of you who don't already know about it, this is a month-long effort to reduce the number of articles marked as needing attention to referencing, structure, coverage, supporting materials, etc. in the B-class template. The goal for this drive is to reduce the number of articles tagged as needing attention while simultaneously increasing the number of B-class articles in the project. Barnstars will be awarded for your efforts (unfortunately, the coordinators' expense account does not allow the awarding of a new car at this time...). Please sign up in the Participants section of the drive page, and as of 00:00 tonight, start working! Good luck to everyone, and please just ask if you have questions! Dana boomer ( talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
On this page/section, Maratha#Military_service, there are several medal names which appear to have no article. Are any of these redirectable to other existing articles? I'm particularly unclear as to what an "ACCL" is. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I jumped on this FAC to try to avoid a repeat of the 1st FAC. Benea, who did most of the work, hasn't edited in 6 months, or responded to my email. I've ordered one of the sources (Henderson); it should be here shortly. If anyone has any other relevant sources and wants to take a stab at some of the reviewers' questions, I'd be much obliged. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Mike Jackson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ernst Lindemann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manhattan Project; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
USS SC-42 has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion rationale seems to indicate this is a test case for a wider ranging deletion of most non-capital-ship articles. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl recently posted this at the Village pump. Probably it's not something that should cause us huge concern, but it may be worth keeping half an eye out for unusual/promotional edits to US Army-related articles. EyeSerene talk 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion going at WT:MOS#ENGVAR and internal consistency concerning the use of "World War I" and "World War II" in titles of articles on the World Wars concerning the UK and other Commonwealth nations.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Armoured fighting vehicle has been requested to be renamed. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In Category:Conflicts in 2011, the Libyan insurrection battles are being directly categorized there. Should a subcategory be created for those rebellion clashes? Category:2011 Libyan uprising is the main category for this political brouhaha. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 09:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Submarine
Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect to Submarine doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. (FYI, also posed here.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
HI all
I just wanted to give this as a point for thought, rather than a point for discussion, about whether it is notable enough as a reference point. [10]
I do realise that discussion is inevitable though :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started to edit the article Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) to discuss the use of the name Twelfth Army for military deception. Any MILHIST members willing to have a look over the article and suggest improvements or other data sources. Graham1973 ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has recently contributed articles on these two German officers who served in World War I. I'm not sure that either of them meet the MILHIST notability threshold; maybe someone here could take a look and provide some guidance? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no parent article for defense university, but there is a difference of opinion as to how these articles relate to either military academy or staff college, as a quick look seems to show that some are one and some are the other and maybe some are both. We could use some knowledgeable input. Mangoe ( talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A new book by Boyne:
Could be interesting. Binksternet ( talk) 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on RAF Lympne (ok, it's not the article title but I needed to get your attention!) is currently at GAN, and has been identified as needing a copyedit. The nomination has been placed on hold. Any MILHIST members willing to have a go at this please? Mjroots ( talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There's currently a large backlog of articles for which editors have requested B class assessments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Any assistance there would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 11:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This one has had less review than most of our FACs, but it would be nice to get it on the main page on the 150th anniversary coming up in April. I'll be happy to help with the copyediting, after more people have had a chance to review it and make changes. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...it appears somebody has started a WikiProject Intelligence. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I nominated WikiProject Intelligence, the redirect page in articlespace, for deletion, so if it should disappear, the link you need to get to the wikiproject would be WP:WikiProject Intelligence. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be getting myself into an unknown position! I am with the WikiProject Military History due to World War II and have made me go into other wars and battles to fix up articles or assess them. In December 2010, I signed up for WikiProject Espionage, the founder hasn't been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. Where has this founder gone? Over the last few days, I've been suggested a new WikiProject, which is of course WikiProject Intelligence. Now my concern is, the articles I've tagged for WikiProject Espionage and there have been at least two, I have been reading the discussion going on about the various WikiProjects, should this WikiProject merge with that one etc, etc? I'm in no position to decide what WikiProject goes where because I am only normal user who's recently started to learn "Twinkle" with help from Chzz. The only thing I can recommend is the Administrators and/or Coordinators the people who have the right to ultimately decide what stays and goes. What stays, stays. What is decided to shut down or close, will need to be re-tagged with the appropriate WikiProject template that has been closed. Hope this helps! Adamdaley ( talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I happened to find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy today while stomping around with AWB. Just FYI. Brad ( talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Only to tell you about this new article. Just in case it needs some copyediting-Bye- Pierpao ( talk) 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
An unknown IP editor has introduced general Otto von Colinburg in various articles giving the impression that this person existed. To my knowledge this is pure fiction. Can someone please help verify my assumption. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we compile a list of articles in this Project that have failed GA? I'd love to contribute to this project, but I generally like contributing to articles close to GA.
If we can't do that can we make a list where users can post articles that they feel are close to GA?
Thanks
-- Iankap99 ( talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion here got me thinking there may be a wider issue of conflict between two reliable sources. We seem to have a tendency to choose one stat with a source & lock out any others, when, in fact, there may be equally reliable sources saying different. I'm not looking to create opportunities for edit wars (!), but if this is as widespread a problem as I suspect (& serious historiographers have mentioned it in their own research), I'd say it needs to be addressed. My first thought was to mention in the footnote, "Other sources disagree", or "Source foo says number foo", without getting strings of opposing notes. (Let's hope not. :( )
The same discussion also suggests new tabular markup able to translate changes across pages, which strikes me as potentially very useful here, if it could be made to work.
For your consideration. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss this proposal at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy.
184.144.160.156 ( talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We've got a question about what to call a "model" or "mark" of the Arado over at this FAC. "Baureihe" and "Marke" are words sometimes used to mean "model" or "mark" in German, but I don't know if these words were applied to the Arado, or what the best English translation would be if they were. Anyone know? - Dank ( push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could I enlist a bit of help with SS Zealandic which appears on todays DYK. I looked over the article and while making a few minor tweaks I noticed that a source clashed with what was written. I believe someone has conflated two ships: the original Zealandic which was renamed Mamari before serving as decoy for HMS Hermes and then sunk by E-boat(s) off Cromer according to this and a later Zealandic sunk by U-106 somewhere near Rockall. uboat.net. As a highish-profile (for 24hours) article, it could do with rectifying. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have recently completed going through the Infotrac Gale Cengage General OneFile to review the periodicals listed which directly relate to nations and regions of the world. In the process, I found a number of periodicals directly relating to the US Military specifically. Would the individuals participating in this group be interested in having a list of periodicals available from that newsbank, like some of the national and regional projects are now getting, or not? As I am rather less involved in this project, I thought it better to ask first. John Carter ( talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Treloar (museum administrator) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Could other editors please review the Battle for Australia article? I'm a bit worried that an editor with a conflict of interest concerning the topic (the existance of this battle is disputed, and the editor was a proponent in having it recognised by the Australian Government) is turning it into a content fork by adding overly detailed accounts of actions which come under this 'battle' as well as, at times, pushing an interpretation of events. Comments on my edits and talk page posts would, of course, also be very welcome. Nick-D ( talk) 04:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the medal is that is around his neck in this picture. Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a suggestion to merge WP:ROCKETRY to WP:Spaceflight at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight. As most rockets do not have anything to do with space, and most notable rockets are weaponry, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 08:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Battle of Agincourt to try to tidy up the article to see if it can get to B class. This is an important medieval battle article and really should reach basic standards. If you feel like helping, there is a suggestion to break that task into do-able chunks. If HYW battles are your thing, you might be interested to help out at English longbow. In the course of routine editing, I found that it doesn't meet the modern B1 criterion and it has to be downgraded to Start. Again, there are some suggestions about the worst section (tactics) here. Monstrelet ( talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the icons in these templates are not required and should be removed per WP:MOSICON Gnevin ( talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
alligiance
and branch
fields, which is where the motivation for your request comes from if I may be so bold to guess. However, that is not the sole usage of these templates, so your suggestion would also affect appropriate flag icon usage in other instances. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The HMS Constance (1880) AfD was snow kept this morning. I managed to find quite a bit of info on the ship from The Times and piece together her short career. I think that this source will prove valuable in expanding many naval vessel articles for ships serving between 1785 and 1985. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is very late of me but RAF Northolt has an open peer review. All comments are welcome. Thank you. Harrison49 ( talk) 20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the American military rank articles are widely differing in their organization. I understand that many of the ranks share with other countries and so the Scope of their articles will change. However at least the American portion of the articles should be consistent. Some list America and then have bullet points for the different branches. Some list each branch of the American military as a different section with America prepending the section title. Some list the title of the branch, and list countries with similar branches as bullet points. It would serve the site well if a standard could be agreed upon for articles. I personally believe that a section for each country, a sub-section for each branch, would be the best method of organization the rank pages. -- Cflare ( talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just officially announced...
"This summer, we hope to strengthen our institutional relationship with the Wikipedian community by hosting a Wikipedian in Residence. We are currently seeking applications for this student position for the 2011 summer. The Wikipedian will gain an insider’s look into the National Archives and develop an appreciation for the records and resources we have available." — US Archivist David Ferriero
This is a summer intern position, with stipend, for a student to work at NARA 2 in College Park, Maryland. This person does need to be a US citizen and a student.
Given the awesome work of the Military history WikiProject, I especially encourage WikiProject folks to apply. NARA has quite extensive holdings pertaining to military history, as well as other areas of government and history.
Full blog post and
Please spread the word and encourage all good candidates to apply. Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Chaps
A bit of a recurring theme is the naming of articles on Intelligence, the most recent being the name of the article Intelligence Assessment. The whole corpus needs quite a bit of work, as most of the articles are quite opaque, and I'm not entirely sure that any one of them actually acts as a capping piece to discuss Intelligence in the round.
I'd be grateful for views on what a capping piece could be called. It should be just "Intelligence" but that's inappropriate given that the term applies to more than just the discipline of informing government and military leadership. There is a suggestion that it should be "Intelligence (Information Gathering)", personally I take issue with that as collection is only one part of the discipline.
My preference remains Intelligence Assessment, but it appears that this could lead to mild conflict with the psychologists.
Grateful for any views.
ALR ( talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, shouldn't there be an assessment talk page? This really belongs here.
Second of all I always thought that this project should be doing B-Class and A-Class sweeps. Because a lot of the articles there aren't of the adequate quality, especially the old ones. For example .30-40_Krag. Doesn't really seem like B-Class quality. Would it be too difficult to have B-Class sweeps? Even if we wouldn't have sweeps, there should be a reassessment department.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
And all the other Lockheed articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lockheed_Martin -- Iankap99 ( talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say many of them do but not sure that all of them would! -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A link to this recently created article about an alledged Female Lutwaffe test pilot was just been added to the
Junkers Ju 390 article. It claims that the subject was flew Junkers Ju 52s over Stalingrad, was co-pilot of the Ju 390 when it overflew New York, personally saved Hirohito's life in 1945 and was captured by American ground troops when test flying a prototype
Horten Ho 229 jet fighter. The article seems to be a complete hoax however - For example the New York flight almost certainly never happened, and only two Ho 229s ever flew, one of which was an unpowered glider, and the other crashed fatally in February 1945. The article seems to be a complete fantasy to me. Opinions?
Nigel Ish (
talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, the article has now been deleted and salted against being recreated. It's possible that it may reappear at some point at a slightly different title, but we now have community consensus to shoot it on sight if it does. Thanks Nigel Ish for spotting it and to everyone who contributed here and at the AfD :) EyeSerene talk 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#HMS_prefix_in_old_English_warships. The Land ( talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't have time to do the research today, but this guy seems to be a serial vandalizer of Milhist pages, he just did it again 10 mins ago. Any admins wanna check his contribs for signs of usefulness? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
May I ask the community to participate in reviewing List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)? The article has been up for review since 8 February and not drawing much attention so far. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok i am sure you guys have noticed the new portal -- Portal:Canadian Armed Forces - hope its to your liking (its in the style of the other Canadian portals. I have also started a Bibliography at Bibliography of Canadian military history (that at some point we can make a stand alone list). Anywas y i am here i i am having trouble finding pic for Portal:Canadian Armed Forces/Selected panoramic picture if anyone knows of some pls let me know here or add them at will. All the best guys and thanks for all the great FA and GA articles you guys have made - made my job of filling portal easy. Moxy ( talk) 02:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Portal:Canadian Forces using common name. I applaud your initiative, but we usually discuss this before we create Portals. If you look in the deletion logs, there have been several CF portals that have been deleted. Ng.j ( talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Massacre of the Ninth Legion - this doesn't seem to be real. Is this real? I can across this after reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497 - Apparently the Ninth Legion was mysteriously lost. Also, we have an article describing exactly what happened to them... Wha? I guess someone saw a "What if...?" program made by HISTORIANS and made an article describing it. There was an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of the Ninth Legion, but I still can't tell if the article is fiction or not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be transcluded. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is proposed move here Talk:Myanmar_Armed_Forces#Move_request GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Um, I'm afraid you may have missed some things in the latest Bugle: Several military bugle calls have been promoted to Featured sound this month, including Taps, Reville, and To the Colors. More will likely follow. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
Hi! there is a problem with "Template:Russian and Soviet missiles".-- MaxDel ( talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The Frank Buckles article is currently under peer review and the reviewer, User:Wehwalt, is wondering when talking about the ship "the Carpathia" if the "the" is necessary or as he put it "advisable". Hence I am asking you all here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Generalfeldmarschall has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Generalfeldmarschall . -- 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of PROC maritime warcraft have been prodded for deletion. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 20 March 2011 . 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 07:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've raised some questions at Template talk:Infobox military structure over the future of this template. I anticipate you'd be against a merger but if it is to be kept then it should be used more consistentally. I've witnessed at least three different infobox types used in articles on castles.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the correct name for these? Mjroots ( talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the use of hyphens and non-breaking spaces as specified in WP:MOSNUM. However, I see many, many instances in military and naval articles where I think there should be a hyphen, but there is just a blank. I haven't been able to find anything in this guideline or its subsidiary style guideline that discourages the use of hyphens, but I wonder why hyphens don't seem to be used as much as in articles on civilian topics. The article "6 inch 26 cwt howitzer" seems to cry out for a hyphen before "inch" and a non-breaking space before "cwt" (as it is an abbreviated unit), although it does contain a mention a 5.5-inch gun. Have I missed something in the guidelines? Would an editor encounter flak if he or she tried to add hyphens or move an article to a hyphenated version of its title? Chris the speller ( talk) 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff article is currently on the Main Page as part of OTD. Unfortunately, virtually all the article is unreferenced, which I've raise at WT:OTD. It shouldn't be too hard to get some refs for the various claims, including the Hitler assassination attempt. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1- In a document from WWI, it refers to "Cas. Det. Dem. Group". I have figured the "Cas. Det." part (Casual Detachment) but the "Dem." part confuses me. Does anyone know?
2- I am trying to figure out how someone was discharged in 1918, but promoted to Corporal in 1919.
3- On this discharge paper, it refers to a "W.D. letter". What is a "W.D. letter"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"Dem" could stand for "Demobilization", as the U.S. Army was basically "shedding" people at this time. It wouldn't be unusual for a Casual Detachment to be formed at Fort Riley, as that was a major mobilization/demobilization center at that time. I would speculate that the 122nd PWE was formed as an ad-hoc detachment, and he may have been shifted from it to the Casual Det. for demobilization purposes. There was a pretty exhaustive study of the U.S. Army in WWI done by the Army itself. It's discussed here but without the title. Intothatdarkness ( talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of armored cruisers of Germany; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
I found several dozen of our A-Class articles are not of GA status, This is a problem as A-Class articles are only recognized by our project where GAs are recognized throughout the community. This would also help us with our goal of 1,500 GA. Another reason is to help out WP:GA with their lists of GA in recognizing quality articles.
I propose that we start a task of bringing all of our A-Class articles to GA status. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Both of those work for me as well. I don't think anyone will really object to the idea that we should encourage people to go through all the available reviews, since that gives us the best shot at a successful FAC in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a large stack of new articles on actions being fought in Libya at the moment. I'll leave it to recentism devotees to decide whether this is appropriate but I have noticed what seems be DAB issues. Articles First Battle of Brega and Second Battle of Brega imply no previous battles in that place, though there was action there in WWII. Likewise Battle of Benghazi - should this be disambiguated because of the action there in WWII, even though wikipedia doesn't have a discrete article on it? Monstrelet ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been a long-running issue with articles on recent battles. The group of editors most active in these articles tend to make up grand names that aren't used in the references such as 'Battle of X' for ground battles and 'Action of YY Date Year' for naval battles. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for copyvios from news stories as well, as this is also a long running problem with these types of articles. Nick-D ( talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On a related article naming issue. The Canadian contribution is at Operation MOBILE. Is this a case of incorrect use of caps or are Canadian ops acronyms? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an attempt at a complete list, as of today, per Kirril's suggestion above. I thought it best to make a new section, given how quick new topics appear here.
This is an attempt to list all Military-related sound files. As some of them are judgement calls, I've cast the net a bit wide, but divided it into categories so you can just select the ones you feel are sufficiently connected to the project.
N.B. "It's a Long Way to Tipperary", in your current list, has been delisted from Featured sounds due to excessive editing. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Things which few would question as being military and/or military-history related.
Sound files, with a strong, but not direct connection to Military history, e.g. songs popular in the U.S. Civil War.
Speeches by U.S. Presidents that probably have some Military connection, but which are long.
Weak connections or dramatizations of highly fictionalised military accounts.
Things I don't know the subject well enough to judge.
Not sure if this is considered part of this project. Probably not?
...But otherwise not particularly military-related. (See also: National anthems)
Suite No. 1 from Ottorino Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances (1917). It is based on Renaissance lute pieces by Simone Molinaro, Vincenzo Galilei, and various anonymous composers.
Off the top of my head, I would suggest the following approach for each category above:
Comments? Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a request at WP:BOTREQ to hyphenate ship class articles and categories, you may be interested in commenting on the naval ones. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has just created the Northern Thais Campaign, which appears to cover intense fighting between the Allies and Thailand in November 1944 and is entirely unreferenced (it's also written in very broken English). I'm pretty sure that no such fighting actually took place as the Allies focused on driving south to take Rangoon and didn't bother with the Thai/Burmese border area. Can anyone confirm that this did or didn't take place? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it, does anyone know anything about the supposed Thai invasion of northern Malaya on 8 December 1941 which is another new article? I've also never seen a reference to Thai forces participating in the invasion of Malaya before (the Japanese invaded Thailand on 6/7 December so it seems unlikely that the Thais were rushing across the border with Malaya the next day). The Japanese invasion of Thailand article states that Thailand and Japan didn't reach an agreement until 14 December and Thailand actually declared war on Britain (which was Malaya's colonial power) on 25 January 1942. This really looks like a hoax. Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Battles of the Mexican–American War has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War.
65.93.12.101 ( talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone want to provide a third opinion for this? Talk:Main battle tank#Replacing the duplicate Abrams. Marcus Qwertyus 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Want me to try to do with pictures what I did with sounds? I may miss some, but I suspect I'll miss less than are missed already. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The notability guide says that anyone awarded their country's highest award for valour is by default notable. I generally agree with this. However, I have seen people quote this to justify, for instance, the retention of articles on anyone awarded the French Légion d'Honneur. It needs to be noted that many awards are awarded in several grades and only the highest grades could be considered the highest award of their country. The lower grades are extremely common and to claim that they are equivalent to, say, the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor is ludicrous (and somewhat insulting to the recipients of the latter awards). The lowest levels are equivalent to no more than an MBE or Mention in Despatches in British terms. A Bronze Star maybe in American terms. Although in fact they are probably even more common than these. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Note - I just wanted to mention that all Medal of Honor recipients after the American Indian Wars has an article now. The only recipients of the Medal of Honor that still do not have articles are in the American Civil War and the Indian Wars but these are being addressed battle by battle. Articles should exist for most of these by the end of the summer. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I may have missed this but I noticed that a few articles have been categorized in the "Article Feedback Pilot" category. Does anyone know what the selection process was? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just interested in some opinions on the current stat of the article. I'm interested to know if people think the themes currently applied to it are sufficient, if its missing anything, or if what is already there (relating to Popular Imagery and Propaganda) is too much. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The book-based war films series seems to be getting out of hand. Aside from the multi-intersection issues, there doesn't seem to be any standard for a war film to be "based on" a book, what ever that means, and whether the war was fictional or non-fiction. You would think that a film about a war primarily would be based on the war itself and it would be an odd lot for a film about a war to primarily be based on a book about the war rather than the war itself. Below is a list of articles in this area and others that might provide perspective:
Would someone please look over the book-based war films articles and come up with a comprehensive approach to get this back on track, perhaps even including renaming the articles (see Can't think of a good name to move these to). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The peer review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could we have a few cool heads, good at evaluating sources, at George S. Patton and to a lesser extent at Battle of Cambrai (1917). It seems there are a few sources out there which state taht Patton was present at the battle in some capacity, but the major biogrpahy of him is clear that he wasn't. We seem to be getting close to biting going on. David Underdown ( talk) 22:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources that say he was there in some capacity are anecdotal, and some of them also make claims about the presence of U.S. or U.S.-operated tanks taking part, which is impossible. That must cast doubt on their credibility. Many of the claims about Patton's presence as an observer bear a strong family resemblance. That could be construed as weight of evidence or that they have simply been transferred from one book to another. Patton's principal biographers, using his own papers, can find no mention of such an event. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but one must wonder why a man whose business was tanks does not mention his being present at the biggest (although not the first) massed tank offensive of the War so far. That is evaluating the sources, not merely counting them.
Through mud and blood to the ole cotton fields back home.
Hengistmate ( talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As a novice editor I am seeking some specialist help. I have a source describing the Israeli army (IDF) using 120mm mortars in April 1956. I have checked Category:120 mm artillery for a description but none seems to fit. I could make a guess - USA, USSR, France are all possibilities - Any suggestions? Padres Hana ( talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all.
There's a slow-burning debate that's recently reignited at Talk:American Revolutionary War#Belligerents over who to list in the infobox for that article; specifically, whether or not the German states (Hesse, Hanover, etc) were "belligerents". The specific issue was certainly discussed a few times before, but has apparently remained in limbo for years! It seems to have bogged down into a bit of a two-way exchange of monologues, this time, so an outside perspective would be appreciated.
Generally speaking, this is a bit of a minor issue, but it has two broader implications which made me want to bring it up somewhere central -
Thoughts on either the specific case (over there) or the general case (here) appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself admits that infoboxes simplistically categorize states, which causes problems. I'm a great believer in the solution of making things less simplistic by adding extra columns or rows and footnotes to the infobox. The wildest infobox of this type I've ever seen is at Bosnian War, but there are plenty of other examples. Maybe your problematic mercenaries could go into a third column or a second row? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Would you see the note for "British Empire" at WW2 as an ecxeption, as it is defining the term? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:Manual of Style over whether it's "post-World War II" or post–World War II" and several war names with hyphenation or endashing. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 00:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Fishery Protection Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see this post, thank you! -- Bonty90 ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Dragon Quest, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! 陣 内 Jinnai 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The GA reviewer of Quebec Expedition is soliciting commentary on the inclusion of the fleet list in the article. Feel free to comment at Talk:Quebec Expedition/GA1. Magic ♪piano 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Singapore strategy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Iskra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a Peer Review for the F-111 started today. All editors are welcome to participate and I thought some of the members here might be interested. Thanks for comments and any help! -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I think a good map would be in order for the lead section of Military history of the Aleutian Islands to help it pass GA, but my image skills are really sub-par. Is anybody able to assist me with this, or, better still, find a free image to use? Thanks, Arctic Night 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I am working on the St Albans by-election, 1904, one of two by-elections which were triggered by the involvement of the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) in the purchase by the Admiralty of two warships which had been built for the Chilean Navy. The Chileans had not proceed with the purchase, and they were bought for the Royal Navy to prevent them from being purchased by a rival (see the vacancy section of the article).
There is a brief hint at this at Chilean_Navy#Civil_war_and_arms_race_.281885.E2.80.931915.29, but it would be nice to be able to include the names of the ships. Military history is not my territory, so I don't really know the sources ... so would anyone in this project be able to help me to identify the ships?
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Those would be the two Swiftsure-class battleships, HMS Swiftsure and HMS Triumph.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1943) featured list review; please stop by and help review the list! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all. A prod was placed on HMCS Fortune (MCB 151). I've contested it per WP:MILMOS/N and added a reference and a couple of external links. This is not a subject I'm familiar with, so I was wondering if some of our ships experts might be able to help add a few references. A couple of paper sources would be great to make it a decent stub. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Should French campaign against Korea (1866) be renamed French campaign against Korea? This is the only campaign France engaged in against Korea. I also think Spanish–Moroccan War (1859) should be renamed Spanish-Moroccan War because it started in 1859 and ended in 1860. B-Machine ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark E. Kelly is currently part of this project. Though he's a member of the military, he's been on loan to NASA for 15 years. I am not sure how he fits in to military history. Could he be removed, or could his ranking be upgraded from starter?-- Utahredrock ( talk) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on some brainstorming among the coordinators, we're considering holding a March drive to reduce our "articles needing attention" backlogs. The discussion to date, and some currently open questions, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Backlog reduction drive. We'd like to invite all interested members of the project to give us some feedback on the idea; any comments should be made at the strategy page, and would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Air Defense Artillery is proposed for renaming at Categories for Discussion, here. Comments are requested and welcomed. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
HI all I am sure this must have come up before is Regiments.org a reliable site ? [1] -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at the contributions of this user in Yugoslavia-related military articles. This user seems to have a nationalistic view, violating NPOV. We need someone with expertise in this era and area to restore these articles to a good state.. -- Denniss ( talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been almost 70 years now since the Battle of the Denmark Strait (24 May 1941) and the final battle of the battleship Bismarck (27 May 1941). I was wondering if we could make a consolidated effort to place one of the associated top articles on the main page of Wiki as a featured article. What do you think? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - apologies for the long post ! I realise it is not entirely milhist related but as part of nomination for deletion I wanted to also try and get further advice.
I nominated an article for deletion, its nom page is here
The British military one seems to have nothing to support its claims although people were in armed service after being given a ticket of leave it does not appear that they were given the ticket to facilitate their enrolment as a way to serve less prison time. Indeed it is possible that the term is only used around the inter-war period and during the second world war to mean a transport pass for soldiers going on leave - in my opinion that may not pass notability for its own page and I will discuss this use in a moment. The Ticket of Leave system was abolished in 1949 in Britain [3] but as yet I cannot find any evidence to support military service being a condition of being granted a ticket of leave.
The Australian convicts one is factually inaccurate as it appears that the tickets were awarded to convicts from all corners of the British Empire. For example the Canadian Ticket of leave act was introduced in 1899 and abolished in 1956-58 [4] and a US system was also introduced p.365.
My reasoning was that the disambiguation page Ticket of leave would be cleared and the information from the Australian one would be inserted and made pan-global by adding information on the other areas the ticket was given. this would not solely be British as Canada, Ireland and the US also implemented systems of their own. The British military one would have been blanked and an addition made under the ==Britain== section for the term being used in the military (although it is as yet unsourced. This would definately be the "main" page and so would not be a db page any more.
I may have done the AfD in the wrong order - can a deletions-noob friendly admin give me some advice on this matter please?
In retrospect I think maybe I should have just been bold and merged them, then requested the delete notices of the blank pages. As the AfD is open, and as a non-admin, I assume that my hands are tied as there appears to be no way to withdraw, except speedy keep, which would not be appropriate if the page is then blanked and a prod added.
I realise that I could just wait another 5 days, and probably should to give more time for a more complete discussion, but as it seems clear to me that the merge should go ahead, I need someone to advise on which of the paths would be acceptable and correct (and indeed if there is another I have not spotted!). Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've marked new stub article Ottawa NATO Comcentre as needing some expert attention, as it seems to make some unusual claims with unclear referencing. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run, and I thought this might be of some interest to those in the Military History project. While normally a bank robbery wouldn't be of interest to this project, this robbery was conducted at the behest of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and other high level Bolsheviks to fund revolutionary activities so I thought it might be of some interest to this project. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember ( talk) 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone take a look at this article and see if it might be salvagable? It smells of copyvio to me, but I can't confirm that to speedy it, and that given I'm hesitant to risk biting the newbie by slapping on a PROD... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
I have just been looking at a requested copyedit of Canopus class battleship.
The template {{Gundisp}} is causing a problem though. It could do with an additional field "calibre" as it automatically defaults to the American English spelling "caliber". Whilst not causing too many problems it is the only flaw in this British English article.
If this matter has arisen before, then apologies. Chaosdruid ( talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know, should you be interested to participate in the review, I have nominated the article about Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty for the B-class status. Best, -- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Special Relationship, concerning US-UK relations, is being turned into an anti-British diatribe by a new user. I have reverted more than once; it was outright vandalism the first time. More eyes would be helpful. Lachrie ( talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just popping over from WP:CRIN. I've been trawling through redlinked first-class cricketers who played for Devon and I came across Charles la Primaudaye Lewin, who played a single first-class match for the Royal Navy. A quick google search reveals he was a rear admiral, [7] so I thought I'd come here to see what anyone can dig up on him to expand his article. I've left out the cricketer infobox so a Military Person Infobox can be put in. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As an attempt at my first ever article, I'm drafting a slightly bloated stub biography of Francis A. Dales. I'm the only contributor to the article thus far, and I can easily write it to be in American English, or in British English.
The subject of the article was;
The article itself;
I'm tempted towards the conclusion that, based on all this, it doesn't really matter if it's in British English or American English (so long as it's consistent, of course). Is there anything that would sway the decision one way or the other? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments everyone. Still very borderline, but I have decided to go for American English. And yes, there's never been any doubt about his nationality :-) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Was going to ask this at the assessment department talk page but that diverts here, so everyone gets a look :) Do we have targets for how quickly we try to get a project article initially assessed? I'm fairly regular there looking for things I feel competent to help with but I notice that some articles in other subjects can be there for weeks. In practical mode, might it be possible to produce a bit of coding that identified items that had been there longer than a certain time e.g. moving them to a different "overdue list" or perhaps changing the colour of the entry? Monstrelet ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Kevin Benderman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.--
S. Rich (
talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A member of the project, The Bushranger, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of The Bushranger's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Varma ati or marma ati is a part of kalaripayuttu. And southern kalaripayuttu is different from northern and central. Y delete the article SK because of vandalism. please reconsider.. [1] [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.160.12 ( talk) 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Military history of the Aleutian Islands is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for HMS King George V (41) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the Featured article review for Third Battle of Kharkov; please stop by and help determine whether the article should remain listed as a Featured Article. Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all
Sorry to be a pain, but with the current discussions at ANI rephrasing_by_User:Hmains, and the old one delinking_by_User:Hmains, as well as on the MOS dates & numbers I thought I should first give you a heads up.
Secondly I would like to mention that the MilHist MoS only seems to have "World War I" in it, as I cannot see First world war anywhere.
If it is true that changing it from First world war to World war I is in fact an ENGVAR violation, then surely we should have it in the MoS as such? I could not find anything about it in either the MilHist or the main MoS. In fact I have let similar cjhanges go through without comment as, after reading the MoS I thought they were doing the right thing, and since then have avoided using "First world war".
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been chatting with Hmains on possible solutions and he asked about a more specific search using (or at least I think that is what he was asking) the standard Wikipedia searhch boxes at the top of the page. After some research it appears that the Wikipedia search engine is Lucene, which led me to this page [8] It seems as if this works quite well:
If you put that in the standard wikipedia search box it gives Eastern Front (World War II) as the second result, and, lo and behold it has a "the World War I" in it !! Woohoo ! so, to do world war two would be:
Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the term "army of observation" pop up in a bunch of places; ran a gBooks search and see it used often, but not really clear on what it actually means. My vague impression is that it's kind of like big LP/OP, placed somewhere to simply keep an eye on the landscape, and if an enemy force appears they engage them and slow them down until a larger force can come and relieve them. Is that about right? Is it worth having an article about the overall concept, and then maybe list out some times/places such units have existed? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Over at WP:AVIATION, we now have a resource page ( WP:AV/R). Some of the research sources there will be of interest to editors concerned with military aviation. Additions of more useful sources to the resource list welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 11:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a List of airfields in Kent at User:Mjroots/List of airports in Kent. The question of how to name RFC bases has arisen. Where it can be proven that a base was in operation after 1 April 1918, I am titling articles RAF Foo, but there were other bases in user prior to, and during WWI, which were RFC bases. These are titled RFC Foo. None of them currently have articles, so it's not that big an issue yet. I admit to having created a few redirects from RFC titles to relevant Wikipedia articles - RFC Marden, RFC Penshurst to name two. MilborneOne ( talk · contribs) is not sure that this naming convention is correct. My reasoning is that we have RNAS foo articles such as RNAS Lee-on-Solent, and RFC Foo fits with this. I have also found evidence off-wiki for such a naming convention being used. Is this a useful way to deal with the issue, or are there any better ways to deal with this? Mjroots ( talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Invasions of the British Isles could be restructured? The article, which I created under the name "Medieval invasions of Britain," has become rather long, yet some sections in it have no content. I think that finding information on this topic would be easier if the article would be transformed into a "parent" article, with links to various "sub-articles." The sub-articles could be expansions of the page's current sections. For example, the section "Invasions of England (793-1284)" could become a separate article, as could the as-of-now-small "Invasions of Ireland" section. This would also allow for greater attention to be paid to each topic: "Invasions of Ireland" could be treated as completely different from "Invasions of England and Wales (1284–1513)." DCI2026 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just learned that we should use the {{ lang}} template for foreign-language phrases (assists screen-reading technology, see WP:ACCESS for more details). I think this should be considered, at least at FA or A Class reviews. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
New article by a new editor, which I found tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (declined). No references but I think that there should be some out there after reading this . Anyone able to assist? Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Right now, the mention of Norwegian Cmdr. Kristian Østby is a redlink. I have almost nothing on him. Anyone have any ideas? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
Hello all,
I am writing this posting because I saw your project's header above the page Non-Commissioned Officer. While browsing Wikipedia I noticed there is a page called Sub-Officer. I think these pages should be merged for various reasons; but don't know how to do such a thing. Being the Military History Project and having that page in you scope, perhaps we can help each other?
Sincerely,
Korporaal1
Korporaal1 ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the article is a copyvio, and was on creation. Anybody wish to write a new article to replace it? Mjroots ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Musa Qala is on the mainpage; Marskell ( talk · contribs) wrote it before he left. Another editor reported to Raul654 ( talk · contribs)'s talk page that the article had cleanup tags, so I went and had a look and found that one IP had defaced the article with what appeared to me to be gratuitous tagging while on the mainpage, with little explanation on talk (in fact, one I can't decipher). I don't know where the vandal watchers were, or if they thought the edits to be legit. This is the state I found it in; it appears that the IP thinks every sentence needs citation, and some of the other tags appear gratuitous. I could be wrong, some of the edits could be good, but we can't have a defaced article on the mainpage with no decipherable commentary on talk explaining the issues. I restored it to the version before the IP started, and then compared to Marskell's last edit and the featured version, and did not find major article deterioration-- before the IP started what appeared to be gratuitous tagging, the article was largely Marskell's work with cosmetic changes (citations, date delinking, etc.). I need to go to sleep now, and I'm not able to determine if any of the IPs edits were justified. I would greatly appreciate it if any MilHist folk could get in there today and see if there are problems that need cleaning up, watch the article, and try to determine if any of the IPs concerns were legit. Marskell was a good FA writer, had almost a dozen FAs as I recall, and was the WP:FAR delegate for Raul; he didn't write bad articles, but he didn't typically write MilHist articles. The article did not go through MilHist A-class review, but the FAC received supports from Woody, Kirill and Roger Davies. A UK IP opposed the FAC; a UK IP did the tagging. User:Richard Harvey also worked on the FAC, and he is still active. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Seabees. This is a very informative article. Long, in depth and obviously created by someone well acquainted with the subject. It also has a grand total of 5 cites. There's an 'in popular culture' section now some years after they were supposed to be broadly excised. There's also some tone issues. It's written in the style of a military history book, not an encyclopedia. I dont mean anything extreme, or egregious, just a pervasive rah-rah that doesn't really jive with a neutral point of view. This should be one of our best articles, and its symptoms aren't unique to it, i followed it from a sapper article with similar sourcing and tone issues. I suspect I know why this problem develops, but this wikiproject seemed like the logical place to look into organizing some sort of general category cleanup effort. -- ۩ M ask 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
When is appropriate to use 'Category:Battles involving xxxCountry'? Is it appropriate to use it in the articles (battles) which happened on the territory of another state, but involved significant number of soldiers from xxxCountry? The question is same for the battles that happened in xxxCountry, but didn't involved any (or insignificant number of) soldiers from xxxCountry. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 12:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wondered if anyone had info on the author M. K. Barbier
Seems to have been co-author on a couple of books and has authored Kursk: The greatest tank battle, 1943 published by Ian Allan, first imprint 2002 ( ISBN 0 7110 2868 0) Books page on the publishers website and on Google books
The problem is this Kursk 1943: The Greatest Tank Battle Ever Fought as it appears to be the same cover picture yet is published by Zenith. It is listed as by Kathryn Barbier which one could assume is the K in MK.
Anyone know whether this would be a good source or not, are the publishers considered reliable and does the project have a list of "not reliable sources"/"reliable sources" anywhere?
I have recently acquired the book (Allan version) but cannot, for example, find anything out about the author and the book does not have any references listed in it, nor a bibliography, nor a foreword nor introduction!
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Could someone look over this and fix the infobox for 11th Airborne Division (United States)? I'm trying to, but can't figure out what is wrong with the mark-up after some ip vandalised the article. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The featured list review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944) has been open for a while; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Presently it is part of an essay, however, as with WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE, or other subject specific criteria, I would like to see either WP:SOLDIER, or a more concise version of it, supported with this essay as a wider net for those that don't fall in it, to be elevated to that of a guideline. Stating that, what do we need to do to get that done? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF ( talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Several Sharpe series characters have been nominated for deletion. As there is no current list of characters article for the Sharpe series, there's no obvioius merge target. See WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 22 . As Napoleonic Ficiton work group is under the Napoleonic Era task force of this wikiproject, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello good folks: Would anyone here be willing to "adopt" Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1? The nominator ( XavierGreen) has gone missing. Some progress has been made at the FAC, and I'd hate to simply archive the nomination because the nominator has disappeared. Obviously it would have to be someone with access to the sources since some substantive concerns have been raised about "mistakes" in the article. If not, I'll archive it and wait for XavierGreen to come back.
Can I have some fresh eyes on Operation Banner. MFIreland has added some POV commentary to the last paragraph in section 'Reception by the Catholic Community'. MFIreland has removed the OR section tag I've added. He has a long history of POV editing and edit warring and would like a fresh look by another editor to prevent edit warring on the article Kernel Saunters ( talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Manhattan Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to note the GAN backlog elimination drive set to begin in March. I don't usually spam project pages, but since Milhist is both one of the larger backlogs in terms of articles and has many of the more active reviewers, I figured you guys might be interested in helping out, even if it's only to tackle what's nommed in the military section. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships for use on Wikipedia projects. If anyone's interested please have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM and ask any questions/sign up. Regards, The Land ( talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for No. 79 Squadron RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just prodded that as a hoax. Could somebody take a second glance over it and either come and tell me I'm an idiot or just confirm it is a hoax. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The FAR for Third Battle of Kharkov (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Third Battle of Kharkov/archive1) has been open for a while. However, there have been no comments made in the FARC section regarding keeping or delisting, despite that section having been open for comments for over a month. This will most likely be delisted, unless someone steps up soon to work on the article, as no work has been completed on the article during the review phase; however, a few editors need to actually make this explicit for the review to be closed. If a few of you could step over there and give your opinions, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS New Ironsides is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just done the initial assessment on this article and was surprised to discover it only covered a short period in Imperial Russian history. Obviously, military settlements are a much more widespread phenomenon. It would be clearer if this was disambiguated but, in the absence of a wider article, this would be pre-emptive and not allowed. How could this be resolved? Monstrelet ( talk) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This has popped up again at Contact fuse. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Please note that the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive starts TOMORROW!! For those of you who don't already know about it, this is a month-long effort to reduce the number of articles marked as needing attention to referencing, structure, coverage, supporting materials, etc. in the B-class template. The goal for this drive is to reduce the number of articles tagged as needing attention while simultaneously increasing the number of B-class articles in the project. Barnstars will be awarded for your efforts (unfortunately, the coordinators' expense account does not allow the awarding of a new car at this time...). Please sign up in the Participants section of the drive page, and as of 00:00 tonight, start working! Good luck to everyone, and please just ask if you have questions! Dana boomer ( talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
On this page/section, Maratha#Military_service, there are several medal names which appear to have no article. Are any of these redirectable to other existing articles? I'm particularly unclear as to what an "ACCL" is. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I jumped on this FAC to try to avoid a repeat of the 1st FAC. Benea, who did most of the work, hasn't edited in 6 months, or responded to my email. I've ordered one of the sources (Henderson); it should be here shortly. If anyone has any other relevant sources and wants to take a stab at some of the reviewers' questions, I'd be much obliged. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Mike Jackson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Ernst Lindemann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Atlanta; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manhattan Project; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
USS SC-42 has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion rationale seems to indicate this is a test case for a wider ranging deletion of most non-capital-ship articles. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl recently posted this at the Village pump. Probably it's not something that should cause us huge concern, but it may be worth keeping half an eye out for unusual/promotional edits to US Army-related articles. EyeSerene talk 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion going at WT:MOS#ENGVAR and internal consistency concerning the use of "World War I" and "World War II" in titles of articles on the World Wars concerning the UK and other Commonwealth nations.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Armoured fighting vehicle has been requested to be renamed. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In Category:Conflicts in 2011, the Libyan insurrection battles are being directly categorized there. Should a subcategory be created for those rebellion clashes? Category:2011 Libyan uprising is the main category for this political brouhaha. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 09:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Submarine
Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect to Submarine doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. (FYI, also posed here.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
HI all
I just wanted to give this as a point for thought, rather than a point for discussion, about whether it is notable enough as a reference point. [10]
I do realise that discussion is inevitable though :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started to edit the article Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) to discuss the use of the name Twelfth Army for military deception. Any MILHIST members willing to have a look over the article and suggest improvements or other data sources. Graham1973 ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has recently contributed articles on these two German officers who served in World War I. I'm not sure that either of them meet the MILHIST notability threshold; maybe someone here could take a look and provide some guidance? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no parent article for defense university, but there is a difference of opinion as to how these articles relate to either military academy or staff college, as a quick look seems to show that some are one and some are the other and maybe some are both. We could use some knowledgeable input. Mangoe ( talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A new book by Boyne:
Could be interesting. Binksternet ( talk) 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on RAF Lympne (ok, it's not the article title but I needed to get your attention!) is currently at GAN, and has been identified as needing a copyedit. The nomination has been placed on hold. Any MILHIST members willing to have a go at this please? Mjroots ( talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There's currently a large backlog of articles for which editors have requested B class assessments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Any assistance there would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 11:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This one has had less review than most of our FACs, but it would be nice to get it on the main page on the 150th anniversary coming up in April. I'll be happy to help with the copyediting, after more people have had a chance to review it and make changes. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...it appears somebody has started a WikiProject Intelligence. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I nominated WikiProject Intelligence, the redirect page in articlespace, for deletion, so if it should disappear, the link you need to get to the wikiproject would be WP:WikiProject Intelligence. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be getting myself into an unknown position! I am with the WikiProject Military History due to World War II and have made me go into other wars and battles to fix up articles or assess them. In December 2010, I signed up for WikiProject Espionage, the founder hasn't been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. Where has this founder gone? Over the last few days, I've been suggested a new WikiProject, which is of course WikiProject Intelligence. Now my concern is, the articles I've tagged for WikiProject Espionage and there have been at least two, I have been reading the discussion going on about the various WikiProjects, should this WikiProject merge with that one etc, etc? I'm in no position to decide what WikiProject goes where because I am only normal user who's recently started to learn "Twinkle" with help from Chzz. The only thing I can recommend is the Administrators and/or Coordinators the people who have the right to ultimately decide what stays and goes. What stays, stays. What is decided to shut down or close, will need to be re-tagged with the appropriate WikiProject template that has been closed. Hope this helps! Adamdaley ( talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I happened to find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy today while stomping around with AWB. Just FYI. Brad ( talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Only to tell you about this new article. Just in case it needs some copyediting-Bye- Pierpao ( talk) 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
An unknown IP editor has introduced general Otto von Colinburg in various articles giving the impression that this person existed. To my knowledge this is pure fiction. Can someone please help verify my assumption. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we compile a list of articles in this Project that have failed GA? I'd love to contribute to this project, but I generally like contributing to articles close to GA.
If we can't do that can we make a list where users can post articles that they feel are close to GA?
Thanks
-- Iankap99 ( talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion here got me thinking there may be a wider issue of conflict between two reliable sources. We seem to have a tendency to choose one stat with a source & lock out any others, when, in fact, there may be equally reliable sources saying different. I'm not looking to create opportunities for edit wars (!), but if this is as widespread a problem as I suspect (& serious historiographers have mentioned it in their own research), I'd say it needs to be addressed. My first thought was to mention in the footnote, "Other sources disagree", or "Source foo says number foo", without getting strings of opposing notes. (Let's hope not. :( )
The same discussion also suggests new tabular markup able to translate changes across pages, which strikes me as potentially very useful here, if it could be made to work.
For your consideration. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss this proposal at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh Navy.
184.144.160.156 ( talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We've got a question about what to call a "model" or "mark" of the Arado over at this FAC. "Baureihe" and "Marke" are words sometimes used to mean "model" or "mark" in German, but I don't know if these words were applied to the Arado, or what the best English translation would be if they were. Anyone know? - Dank ( push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could I enlist a bit of help with SS Zealandic which appears on todays DYK. I looked over the article and while making a few minor tweaks I noticed that a source clashed with what was written. I believe someone has conflated two ships: the original Zealandic which was renamed Mamari before serving as decoy for HMS Hermes and then sunk by E-boat(s) off Cromer according to this and a later Zealandic sunk by U-106 somewhere near Rockall. uboat.net. As a highish-profile (for 24hours) article, it could do with rectifying. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have recently completed going through the Infotrac Gale Cengage General OneFile to review the periodicals listed which directly relate to nations and regions of the world. In the process, I found a number of periodicals directly relating to the US Military specifically. Would the individuals participating in this group be interested in having a list of periodicals available from that newsbank, like some of the national and regional projects are now getting, or not? As I am rather less involved in this project, I thought it better to ask first. John Carter ( talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Treloar (museum administrator) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Could other editors please review the Battle for Australia article? I'm a bit worried that an editor with a conflict of interest concerning the topic (the existance of this battle is disputed, and the editor was a proponent in having it recognised by the Australian Government) is turning it into a content fork by adding overly detailed accounts of actions which come under this 'battle' as well as, at times, pushing an interpretation of events. Comments on my edits and talk page posts would, of course, also be very welcome. Nick-D ( talk) 04:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the medal is that is around his neck in this picture. Thanks... Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a suggestion to merge WP:ROCKETRY to WP:Spaceflight at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight. As most rockets do not have anything to do with space, and most notable rockets are weaponry, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 08:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Battle of Agincourt to try to tidy up the article to see if it can get to B class. This is an important medieval battle article and really should reach basic standards. If you feel like helping, there is a suggestion to break that task into do-able chunks. If HYW battles are your thing, you might be interested to help out at English longbow. In the course of routine editing, I found that it doesn't meet the modern B1 criterion and it has to be downgraded to Start. Again, there are some suggestions about the worst section (tactics) here. Monstrelet ( talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the icons in these templates are not required and should be removed per WP:MOSICON Gnevin ( talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
alligiance
and branch
fields, which is where the motivation for your request comes from if I may be so bold to guess. However, that is not the sole usage of these templates, so your suggestion would also affect appropriate flag icon usage in other instances. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The HMS Constance (1880) AfD was snow kept this morning. I managed to find quite a bit of info on the ship from The Times and piece together her short career. I think that this source will prove valuable in expanding many naval vessel articles for ships serving between 1785 and 1985. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is very late of me but RAF Northolt has an open peer review. All comments are welcome. Thank you. Harrison49 ( talk) 20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the American military rank articles are widely differing in their organization. I understand that many of the ranks share with other countries and so the Scope of their articles will change. However at least the American portion of the articles should be consistent. Some list America and then have bullet points for the different branches. Some list each branch of the American military as a different section with America prepending the section title. Some list the title of the branch, and list countries with similar branches as bullet points. It would serve the site well if a standard could be agreed upon for articles. I personally believe that a section for each country, a sub-section for each branch, would be the best method of organization the rank pages. -- Cflare ( talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just officially announced...
"This summer, we hope to strengthen our institutional relationship with the Wikipedian community by hosting a Wikipedian in Residence. We are currently seeking applications for this student position for the 2011 summer. The Wikipedian will gain an insider’s look into the National Archives and develop an appreciation for the records and resources we have available." — US Archivist David Ferriero
This is a summer intern position, with stipend, for a student to work at NARA 2 in College Park, Maryland. This person does need to be a US citizen and a student.
Given the awesome work of the Military history WikiProject, I especially encourage WikiProject folks to apply. NARA has quite extensive holdings pertaining to military history, as well as other areas of government and history.
Full blog post and
Please spread the word and encourage all good candidates to apply. Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Chaps
A bit of a recurring theme is the naming of articles on Intelligence, the most recent being the name of the article Intelligence Assessment. The whole corpus needs quite a bit of work, as most of the articles are quite opaque, and I'm not entirely sure that any one of them actually acts as a capping piece to discuss Intelligence in the round.
I'd be grateful for views on what a capping piece could be called. It should be just "Intelligence" but that's inappropriate given that the term applies to more than just the discipline of informing government and military leadership. There is a suggestion that it should be "Intelligence (Information Gathering)", personally I take issue with that as collection is only one part of the discipline.
My preference remains Intelligence Assessment, but it appears that this could lead to mild conflict with the psychologists.
Grateful for any views.
ALR ( talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, shouldn't there be an assessment talk page? This really belongs here.
Second of all I always thought that this project should be doing B-Class and A-Class sweeps. Because a lot of the articles there aren't of the adequate quality, especially the old ones. For example .30-40_Krag. Doesn't really seem like B-Class quality. Would it be too difficult to have B-Class sweeps? Even if we wouldn't have sweeps, there should be a reassessment department.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
And all the other Lockheed articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lockheed_Martin -- Iankap99 ( talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say many of them do but not sure that all of them would! -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A link to this recently created article about an alledged Female Lutwaffe test pilot was just been added to the
Junkers Ju 390 article. It claims that the subject was flew Junkers Ju 52s over Stalingrad, was co-pilot of the Ju 390 when it overflew New York, personally saved Hirohito's life in 1945 and was captured by American ground troops when test flying a prototype
Horten Ho 229 jet fighter. The article seems to be a complete hoax however - For example the New York flight almost certainly never happened, and only two Ho 229s ever flew, one of which was an unpowered glider, and the other crashed fatally in February 1945. The article seems to be a complete fantasy to me. Opinions?
Nigel Ish (
talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, the article has now been deleted and salted against being recreated. It's possible that it may reappear at some point at a slightly different title, but we now have community consensus to shoot it on sight if it does. Thanks Nigel Ish for spotting it and to everyone who contributed here and at the AfD :) EyeSerene talk 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#HMS_prefix_in_old_English_warships. The Land ( talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I don't have time to do the research today, but this guy seems to be a serial vandalizer of Milhist pages, he just did it again 10 mins ago. Any admins wanna check his contribs for signs of usefulness? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
May I ask the community to participate in reviewing List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)? The article has been up for review since 8 February and not drawing much attention so far. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok i am sure you guys have noticed the new portal -- Portal:Canadian Armed Forces - hope its to your liking (its in the style of the other Canadian portals. I have also started a Bibliography at Bibliography of Canadian military history (that at some point we can make a stand alone list). Anywas y i am here i i am having trouble finding pic for Portal:Canadian Armed Forces/Selected panoramic picture if anyone knows of some pls let me know here or add them at will. All the best guys and thanks for all the great FA and GA articles you guys have made - made my job of filling portal easy. Moxy ( talk) 02:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Portal:Canadian Forces using common name. I applaud your initiative, but we usually discuss this before we create Portals. If you look in the deletion logs, there have been several CF portals that have been deleted. Ng.j ( talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Massacre of the Ninth Legion - this doesn't seem to be real. Is this real? I can across this after reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497 - Apparently the Ninth Legion was mysteriously lost. Also, we have an article describing exactly what happened to them... Wha? I guess someone saw a "What if...?" program made by HISTORIANS and made an article describing it. There was an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of the Ninth Legion, but I still can't tell if the article is fiction or not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be transcluded. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is proposed move here Talk:Myanmar_Armed_Forces#Move_request GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Um, I'm afraid you may have missed some things in the latest Bugle: Several military bugle calls have been promoted to Featured sound this month, including Taps, Reville, and To the Colors. More will likely follow. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
Hi! there is a problem with "Template:Russian and Soviet missiles".-- MaxDel ( talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The Frank Buckles article is currently under peer review and the reviewer, User:Wehwalt, is wondering when talking about the ship "the Carpathia" if the "the" is necessary or as he put it "advisable". Hence I am asking you all here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Generalfeldmarschall has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Generalfeldmarschall . -- 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of PROC maritime warcraft have been prodded for deletion. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 20 March 2011 . 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 07:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've raised some questions at Template talk:Infobox military structure over the future of this template. I anticipate you'd be against a merger but if it is to be kept then it should be used more consistentally. I've witnessed at least three different infobox types used in articles on castles.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the correct name for these? Mjroots ( talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the use of hyphens and non-breaking spaces as specified in WP:MOSNUM. However, I see many, many instances in military and naval articles where I think there should be a hyphen, but there is just a blank. I haven't been able to find anything in this guideline or its subsidiary style guideline that discourages the use of hyphens, but I wonder why hyphens don't seem to be used as much as in articles on civilian topics. The article "6 inch 26 cwt howitzer" seems to cry out for a hyphen before "inch" and a non-breaking space before "cwt" (as it is an abbreviated unit), although it does contain a mention a 5.5-inch gun. Have I missed something in the guidelines? Would an editor encounter flak if he or she tried to add hyphens or move an article to a hyphenated version of its title? Chris the speller ( talk) 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff article is currently on the Main Page as part of OTD. Unfortunately, virtually all the article is unreferenced, which I've raise at WT:OTD. It shouldn't be too hard to get some refs for the various claims, including the Hitler assassination attempt. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1- In a document from WWI, it refers to "Cas. Det. Dem. Group". I have figured the "Cas. Det." part (Casual Detachment) but the "Dem." part confuses me. Does anyone know?
2- I am trying to figure out how someone was discharged in 1918, but promoted to Corporal in 1919.
3- On this discharge paper, it refers to a "W.D. letter". What is a "W.D. letter"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"Dem" could stand for "Demobilization", as the U.S. Army was basically "shedding" people at this time. It wouldn't be unusual for a Casual Detachment to be formed at Fort Riley, as that was a major mobilization/demobilization center at that time. I would speculate that the 122nd PWE was formed as an ad-hoc detachment, and he may have been shifted from it to the Casual Det. for demobilization purposes. There was a pretty exhaustive study of the U.S. Army in WWI done by the Army itself. It's discussed here but without the title. Intothatdarkness ( talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of armored cruisers of Germany; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
I found several dozen of our A-Class articles are not of GA status, This is a problem as A-Class articles are only recognized by our project where GAs are recognized throughout the community. This would also help us with our goal of 1,500 GA. Another reason is to help out WP:GA with their lists of GA in recognizing quality articles.
I propose that we start a task of bringing all of our A-Class articles to GA status. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Both of those work for me as well. I don't think anyone will really object to the idea that we should encourage people to go through all the available reviews, since that gives us the best shot at a successful FAC in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a large stack of new articles on actions being fought in Libya at the moment. I'll leave it to recentism devotees to decide whether this is appropriate but I have noticed what seems be DAB issues. Articles First Battle of Brega and Second Battle of Brega imply no previous battles in that place, though there was action there in WWII. Likewise Battle of Benghazi - should this be disambiguated because of the action there in WWII, even though wikipedia doesn't have a discrete article on it? Monstrelet ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been a long-running issue with articles on recent battles. The group of editors most active in these articles tend to make up grand names that aren't used in the references such as 'Battle of X' for ground battles and 'Action of YY Date Year' for naval battles. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for copyvios from news stories as well, as this is also a long running problem with these types of articles. Nick-D ( talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On a related article naming issue. The Canadian contribution is at Operation MOBILE. Is this a case of incorrect use of caps or are Canadian ops acronyms? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an attempt at a complete list, as of today, per Kirril's suggestion above. I thought it best to make a new section, given how quick new topics appear here.
This is an attempt to list all Military-related sound files. As some of them are judgement calls, I've cast the net a bit wide, but divided it into categories so you can just select the ones you feel are sufficiently connected to the project.
N.B. "It's a Long Way to Tipperary", in your current list, has been delisted from Featured sounds due to excessive editing. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Things which few would question as being military and/or military-history related.
Sound files, with a strong, but not direct connection to Military history, e.g. songs popular in the U.S. Civil War.
Speeches by U.S. Presidents that probably have some Military connection, but which are long.
Weak connections or dramatizations of highly fictionalised military accounts.
Things I don't know the subject well enough to judge.
Not sure if this is considered part of this project. Probably not?
...But otherwise not particularly military-related. (See also: National anthems)
Suite No. 1 from Ottorino Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances (1917). It is based on Renaissance lute pieces by Simone Molinaro, Vincenzo Galilei, and various anonymous composers.
Off the top of my head, I would suggest the following approach for each category above:
Comments? Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a request at WP:BOTREQ to hyphenate ship class articles and categories, you may be interested in commenting on the naval ones. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has just created the Northern Thais Campaign, which appears to cover intense fighting between the Allies and Thailand in November 1944 and is entirely unreferenced (it's also written in very broken English). I'm pretty sure that no such fighting actually took place as the Allies focused on driving south to take Rangoon and didn't bother with the Thai/Burmese border area. Can anyone confirm that this did or didn't take place? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it, does anyone know anything about the supposed Thai invasion of northern Malaya on 8 December 1941 which is another new article? I've also never seen a reference to Thai forces participating in the invasion of Malaya before (the Japanese invaded Thailand on 6/7 December so it seems unlikely that the Thais were rushing across the border with Malaya the next day). The Japanese invasion of Thailand article states that Thailand and Japan didn't reach an agreement until 14 December and Thailand actually declared war on Britain (which was Malaya's colonial power) on 25 January 1942. This really looks like a hoax. Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Battles of the Mexican–American War has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War.
65.93.12.101 ( talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone want to provide a third opinion for this? Talk:Main battle tank#Replacing the duplicate Abrams. Marcus Qwertyus 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Want me to try to do with pictures what I did with sounds? I may miss some, but I suspect I'll miss less than are missed already. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The notability guide says that anyone awarded their country's highest award for valour is by default notable. I generally agree with this. However, I have seen people quote this to justify, for instance, the retention of articles on anyone awarded the French Légion d'Honneur. It needs to be noted that many awards are awarded in several grades and only the highest grades could be considered the highest award of their country. The lower grades are extremely common and to claim that they are equivalent to, say, the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor is ludicrous (and somewhat insulting to the recipients of the latter awards). The lowest levels are equivalent to no more than an MBE or Mention in Despatches in British terms. A Bronze Star maybe in American terms. Although in fact they are probably even more common than these. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Note - I just wanted to mention that all Medal of Honor recipients after the American Indian Wars has an article now. The only recipients of the Medal of Honor that still do not have articles are in the American Civil War and the Indian Wars but these are being addressed battle by battle. Articles should exist for most of these by the end of the summer. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I may have missed this but I noticed that a few articles have been categorized in the "Article Feedback Pilot" category. Does anyone know what the selection process was? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just interested in some opinions on the current stat of the article. I'm interested to know if people think the themes currently applied to it are sufficient, if its missing anything, or if what is already there (relating to Popular Imagery and Propaganda) is too much. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The book-based war films series seems to be getting out of hand. Aside from the multi-intersection issues, there doesn't seem to be any standard for a war film to be "based on" a book, what ever that means, and whether the war was fictional or non-fiction. You would think that a film about a war primarily would be based on the war itself and it would be an odd lot for a film about a war to primarily be based on a book about the war rather than the war itself. Below is a list of articles in this area and others that might provide perspective:
Would someone please look over the book-based war films articles and come up with a comprehensive approach to get this back on track, perhaps even including renaming the articles (see Can't think of a good name to move these to). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The peer review for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The peer review for Thomas the Slav is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!
The A-Class review for SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk)