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. |
The "current statistics" link under Assessment Department in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation shows a user subpage of User:WP 1.0 bot. The table shows two rows and one column. Both numbers are 0. I'm using Firefox 7 on Windows 7, if it is a browser problem. W i k i C o p t e r 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Military history pages by quality | |
---|---|
Quality | Total pages |
Assessed | 0 |
Total | 0 |
With both Firefox 7, and 10 (Nightly). Looks fine to me. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question (possibly the talk page of an article or two might have been better), but I was watching the end of a program tonight ('Regimental Stories', BBC4, for those in the UK) about the Royal Tank Regiment and it said that this regiment was one of only two regiments to carry out a separate remembrance service at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. The Royal Tank Regiment hold a service on the Sunday closest to Cambrai Day (20 November, signifying their role at the Battle of Cambrai). I then tried to confirm this fact by searching on the internet, but was unable to find anything about this. I was also unable to find out which other regiment is being referred to here. Would anyone here be able to help? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Two regiments. Could they mean 1RTR and 2RTR? http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/1rtr.aspx and http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/2rtr.aspx? Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for William F. Dean is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Albert Ball is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've created {{ wepscontent}}, based off the aircontent template, for use on missile (especially) and other weapons pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: Battle of Dahlen,
I've cleaned up the article. I would like someone to take a look at it to see if deserves to be assessed any higher from a "Stub" (possibly to a "Start"?) also would the "Dutch" template be also included since the Spanish have theirs on the dicussion page? Feedback here would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: Battle of Oak Grove,
I've cleaned up the Infobox and article. Would like to know if deserves a higher rating or stay the same or any other "attributes" for the talkpage templates. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently the above article is seven sentences long, but off the top of my head I can't think of what it could consist of that wouldn't fit in the fortification article. Is stronghold just another word for fortification or is there merit in having separate articles? I'm tempted to turn stronghold into a redirect to fortification, while at least has more information. Nev1 ( talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If no one's agaisnt it, I'll start work on natural stronghold in my userspace. Buggie111 ( talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Arms control treaties#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ucucha has created a script at User:Ucucha/duplinks that highlights duplicate links in the text of an article (not counting links in the lead, infoboxes and navboxes, and soon, not counting links anywhere outside the main text). The next step is for us to use the tool and point out any exceptions we want to make, that is, any duplicate links we think it's important to retain, at User talk:Ucucha/duplinks. After we've played around with it a while to get a feeling for the unintended consequences, I'm hoping the tool will be further enhanced to pull up a list of suggested links to delete in an edit-changes screen, so that you can remove them all with one click if you like. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you have time, could you see Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War#Malouines ? Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 08:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone please confirm that Lord Angus Fairchild is not a hoax?
Googling "Angus Fairchild" doesn't turn up much, which is surprising for one of the "great Fighter Aces of his era". Same is the case with "Singdum, Walter and "That shatty sky" (cited as reference). Can't find any mention of the Distinguished Flying Cross at nationalarchives.gov.uk. utcursch | talk 12:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Napoleonic Wars is still currently up for Featured Portal review at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars. WikiProject MilHist members are invited to comment. For those unfamiliar with FP criteria, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria.
Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
End of World War II in Asia (EWW2A) was until today a redirect to Pacific War#Final stages. I moved a little known article stub called End of World War II in the Pacific to that location. It consisted of nothing but a list of bullet points.
I have sectioned it off into three parts given it a brief lead and added a couple of sections at the end. What I envisage would make it a much better article is if it were laid out something like the " End of World War II in Europe" (EWW2E), which has grown over the years into quite a useful article.
The two paragraphs I added at the end of EWW2A are the lead sections from the Occupation of Japan and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. I think that a lot more can be done like that to improve the article quite quickly. Anyone want to have a go and adding text from other articles and/or improving what is there already? -- PBS ( talk) 08:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahoy there mates! I have been around since '06 but am new to the history project. Just signed up about a week ago. I have been writing/contributing to articles relating to Naval Commanders/Commodores in Early American history, mostly from the
Barbary Wars and
War of 1812 periods. I have rewritten the
Stephen Decatur,
Thomas Macdonough and
John Rodgers pages to near completion and have started on several others as well. Today on my user page I was pinged by an IP user regarding the italicization of ship's names.
Here is the message. I prefer to italicize the entire ship's name rather than have the name spelled with two types of lettering, e.g.
...as the former usage seems more eye appealing, at least to me. Soon I will be nominating the Stephen Decatur page for FA, but before I do I would like to get feed back on this and any other issue these pages might have. I suppose it would be more appropriate to continue the thread here, than on my user page. Input is welcomed.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Is he notable enough for an article, Kevin Thilgman?
He died during a training mission with special forces FSK of Norway in 2010 (and the accident might not not increase his notability, but Norway's payment to his relatives and insurance companies after his death, might contribute to his notability.
References about the accident are at Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#Safety_violations.-- 155.55.60.112 ( talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I recently published this article in the mainspace. Yet, the work is far from complete. It probably needs a lot of copy-editing love from a native speaker.
Also, there is an apparent problem with references. Most importantly, I don't have access to English language reputable sources discussing the battle in detail and I don't even know if such sources exist. It's a common problem for articles related to history of Poland: although we've been around for a thousand years, from British or American perspective our history is a relatively uncharted land.
Finally, Hawkeye7 assessed it as C-class (the article apparently failed to meet the B1 criterion). I would really appreciate it if someone helped me fix that. // Halibu tt 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of Milhist Featured Article Candidates more than two weeks old with fewer than 4 supports. Any substantive reviews will be helpful, particularly if you've reviewed the article before. It's easier to attract reviewers at FAC if there's been a recent A-class review, and it's also more efficient for the reviewers if they're not reviewing two completely different articles at A-class and at FAC, so if you want to bring your A-class articles to FAC, please do it sooner rather than later, and feel free to ask for help. Most FACs need "spotchecks" (checking for close paraphrasing and accuracy in the text, for any references you can get or can find online), although some nominators (like Ian) have passed so many spotchecks that it's not really necessary. All FACs need image reviews.
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Especially an image reviewer.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist ( talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::::::Certain shoot-downs could merit an article of their own. Bader's shooting down, for example, was controversial and there is a theory it was a friendly fire incident, so it could be worthy of a break out article from a main article to consider in more depth. Likewise Richthofen. In both cases, notable participants and subject of detailed analysis. Some might be notable for rarity (the shooting down of a MIG 15 by Fleet Air Arm Sea Furies in Korea for example), others for controversy (shooting down of civilian airliners by armed forces). But the downing of every aircraft during a long war? No. Monstrelet ( talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I was alerted to this from a similar discussion started at WT:GAN, and drew many of the same conclusions as expressed here. I just wasn't sure if things like this actually have notability. The red flag for me was he same as Bushranger - there is very little discussion on the actual shootdown. Most of it appears to be related to the overall aspect of the conflict. It occurs to me that this article, and any similar, would probably make a decent list, but otherwise is pretty trivial independently. It strikes me as being akin to writing an article each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle. Reso lute 18:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for putting my contributions on the spotlight again. As usual, I will follow majority consensus on issues, so if there are problems I am willing to rectify them accordingly. However, if one individual has issues with my contributions, that's not my problem. Canpark ( talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
in the book
article text
of course this is only a limited view of the page and other editors may wish to search deeper but with no evidence I think we should AGF. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone identify and share the ~1950 unit decal history on this USAF P-1A helmet. thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber ( talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a number of high-resolution scans of F-82 Twin Mustang photographs and have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Also have expanded the gallery considerably. Also have expanded the captions of several other photographs and replaced them with high-resolution scans as well. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil © • © 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Battle_of_Omdurman#Mahdist_flag, thanks, Spinning Spark 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a note to highlight the rather intractable backlog of unactioned requests for GA Reviews at the moment. If you're interested in helping out please have a look at: [3]. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: .25 ACP
There's been a couple of lines on the Discussion page about this weapon (or bullet) and it's possibility it may not fit the WikiProject Military History. It is assessed as a "C Class". 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this topic up again here. I was involved in the GA review of the heavy cruiser Lützow. What I normally do when committing myself to reviewing an article is to visit my own sources and verifying the key statements of the article. In context of Lützow and Deutschland class cruiser I came across the following book which I bought.
Prager, a former crew member of Deutschland/Lützow, wrote his book after the Russians opened up their archives. The entire fate section of Lützow differs significantly from the older books published prior to opening the archives. According to Prager (pages 317 to 320), and this is documented with pictures detailing the types of explosives used, etc. Lüzow was sunk by Soviet bomb tests on 22 July 1947. Our articles here state she was scraped in the late 1940ties "Raised by the Soviet Navy in 1947, she was broken up for scrap over the next two years".
Even though this alternative/true fate is based on a German book (I know that some editors here have strong concerns when it comes to non-English literature here on Wiki) I feel it needs to be incorporated into the article. I can’t get myself to pass the Deutschland cruiser class GA-review without it. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Could I ask some knowledge members of Military history to comment in Talk:Contact fuse please. The article is currently being held at the name Contact fuse by editors claiming that the correct British English spelling is fuse per WP:ENGVAR. We know it should be fuze but they aren't listening. Other than obstructing what should have been an uncontroversial move they have not contributed to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Came across Template:Infobox US Infantry, as it lists the regiment before and after that which is the subject of the article in which it is used surely it is a navbox (or succession box). Should it be renamed? If so, how? There is also a matching artillery and cavalry template. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Have organized, expanded and updated the F-89 Scorpion gallery on Wikimedia commons. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable about the subject verify if these are two articles about one and the same gun or if indeed two separate articles are justifiable? Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of hours ago (from this writing) I have created the page USS Concord (1828). After a little building, citing, linking, etc I attempted to italicize the article's name, but when I made the move the name simply showed the apostrophes, while the title remained the same with no italicization. If anyone can do this would they please make the move and if they would, tell me how it's done on my user talk page? This is how I would like the move to look USS Concord (1828). -- Thanx, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note for anyone interested, the A-Class review for Albert Ball is now looking for further eyes after completion of additions based on an early in-depth review. The article is now stable again and ready for further review, so please stop by and give us your input! Thanks!-- Ian Rose ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (co-nom with Georgejdorner)
There is an A-Class review open for the article May Revolution (an event that took place in Buenos Aires in 1810, one of the starting points of the Spanish American wars of independence, and closely related with the ongoing Napoleonic wars), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution. Any comments are welcomed. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Skimming around a bit, I found Battle of Soissons (486), which has some comments on the talkpage suggesting it's spurious. Gibbon seems to confirm it ( eg) but this is many centuries from my area. Anyone with expertise care to take a look? Shimgray | talk | 11:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. It may interest members of this project that the Imperial War Museum has recently beta-launched a new website at beta.iwm.org.uk. The website includes a new collections catalogue, beta.iwm.org - Collections search. If you have the time, the museum's web team would be grateful for any feedback on this new search interface; you'll find a welcome banner and a link to the museum's online feedback form at the top of all the pages of the beta site. (Alternatively, of course, simply post your comments here) -- IxK85 ( talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.
One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites related to the Civil War to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).
Any and all contributions appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a possible hoax, and has been prod'ed by one of our valiant Polish contributors. Further opinions would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been mooting for a little while the possibility of creating a Good Topic on air-launched ballistic missiles. Bold Orion is already at GA, and I might be able to work on High Virgo to bring it to GA status as well. That leaves GAM-87 Skybolt and the title article itself - the latter of which is merely a stub! Is there anyone out there who'd be interested in working on those two articles? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've been poking around at WP:Contributor copyright investigations, and there are several over there that fall within MILHIST's scope. It's easier to find the copyvio when you're at least somewhat acquainted with the material, so I think that this project could be a great help in clearing up some or all of these investigations:
Some of these are fairly small investigations, but others (such as Dawkeye, Razzsic, etc) are quite large. It's a little scary that we have so many potential copyright violations within our project's scope, so I'm hoping that by posting here we can have many hands make light work of at least some of the above. WP:CCI is overburdened, with just a few editors doing the majority of the work - hopefully we can change that at least a little bit on MILHIST-related investigations. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I passed an ACR for Battle of Nam River October 2 which was my third for an eighth ACR medal. I haven't seen anything about it, though, and the Awards page seems rather inactive, of late. Do we no longer award those? Also, on a related note, I've had two ACRs with 3 supports and no activity for a few days ( Kenneth R. Shadrick and William F. Dean) is there something holding them up I don't see? — Ed! (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
While rewriting the John Rodgers page and noting in the article that his son, John Rodgers, Jr., served aboard the USS Concord of 1828, I came to find out that there was no page for this vessel when I attempted to link to it, so I ended up creating the page just so it wouldn't appear as a red link in the JR article. One thing led to another and now I'm pretty involved with expanding the page. However, I have only been able to find information in an indirect manner, as there doesn't seem to be a dedicated book about the ship, or any book that covers it well for that matter, leastwise an image for it. The Concord is a Sloop of war, of 700 tons so I used an image from another (sister) sloop of war with a note in the caption saying so, but was informed by another user that the image of the SOW I used was of a vessel with almost twice the tonnage as that of the Concord built in 1828. So I looked to other articles of SOW's and came across a couple whose tonnage, length, beam and draft are identical to that of Concord's. I have made a comparison chart of the vessel's characteristics on the Concord's talk page, inquiring as to which vessel's image would be best suited for this new article. If anyone with knowledge in this area can help, would you please leave input on the talk page there? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has been up for FLC review for 6 weeks now. Maybe someone here not yet bored to death by this topic could pay the article a visit an leave some comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If anyone's interested in a bit of article (re-)assessment, I've run some reports to identify stub-rated articles which are probably needing up-rated - mostly through having been expanded and improved substantially since they were initially assessed, which might have been four or five years ago. They fall into three groups:
A static, wikified list of all three groups as of Saturday 15th is here, or you can generate updated versions of an individual report using the links (scroll down to the bottom of the page and press "do it" - I've not included direct links to avoid excess toolserver loads).
Hope they're of some use... Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Recently discovered, by myself at least, is perhaps 100's of sailing ship's articles that were cut and pasted, to one degree or another, many of them entirely, from a PD source. Every one of them are lacking inline citations, most of them with zero inline citations. The links to these articles have been placed in a list/nav-box here. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
... is at the coordinators' talk page, and I'd rather do it there every week (generally right after the Signpost comes out). - Dank ( push to talk) 03:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone here see any reason that Category:UAVs and drones by country should not be renamed to the spelled out and combined Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by country, and all subcategories renamed similarly? The article is at Unmanned aerial vehicle and the parent category is Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles. Comment at the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_21#Category:UAVs_and_drones_by_country if you like.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Peer review for Le souper de Beaucaire (a pamphlet written by Napoleon Bonaparte), is now open. I'm aiming it for GAN. Members are invited to comment.
I have rated the article as Start-class, because it's short and concise, though in all modesty it is probably C- or B-class, given the references. If anyone feels up to quickly running through the B-class checklist in the talk page {{ MILHIST}} template, it would be appreciated.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone please sort out this edit request, Please remove that William Clark was the second governor of the Missouri territory because he was not. - here. Thanks, Chzz ► 08:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Now done (thanks, The ed17) Chzz ► 08:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Hobey Baker is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
there is a discussion on Reliability of a source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bharat-rakshak.com_vs_pakdef.info interested editors can give their views.-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Project A119 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If someone has time, everything in here screams POV and advocacy, e.g. the massive use of negative quotes by opposition politicians, the non-neutral wording of several passages, the presentation (successive quotes to make a point), to the factual inaccuracies (selective sourcing) and etc. Very painful to read and obviously written by a partisan writer (mostly one or two IPs). Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no mention of support for the mission. I thought I'd drop this here in case someone with time on their hand would be interested in dealing with this issue. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 02:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems there is conflicting opinions on how to move forward. I don't want to write an article if it's unnecessary to do so; should we move forward with adding a comprehensive section on Canada's role in Afgh page and go ahead with an AfD (TomPointTwo's position), or should we just fix the existing page because an article on the subject is warranted (Trekphiler's position). At least everyone agree something should be done. Can we get more opinions on how to move forward? Thanks — CharlieEchoTango — 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Again thank you all for your input on this matter. — CharlieEchoTango — 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks page, under 'Articles to be created' the link Battle of Xinfeng occurs three times. Looks like there's thousands of links there (blur). Be nice if they were alphabetized and perhaps put into categories i.e.'Civil War', 'This War', 'That War', 'People from Here', 'People from There', so this sort of thing is easier to catch. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who are moved by the minutiae of capitalisation of military ranks and titles, there's a discussion going on at Talk:General of the Armies that could use some neutral editors. Shem ( talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a merger of Counter-insurgency into Insurgency. Interested editors should comment on Talk:Insurgency.-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am currently trying to spruce up Battle off Noordhinder Bank and need to use a couple of citations from The Times History of the War. Unfortunately i am rather unsure of how to do that seeing as it doesnt have an author or editor listed and is a 21 volume narrative lol. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Some extra eyes on this article might be good - an IP editor is attempting to add information (including some that might be BLPish) using WikiLeaks as a source, and is claiming that this justifies treating WL as a reliable source despite it saying that only applies for WL itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Please can we ensure that all ships that are lost, through accident or enemy action, are added to the relevant year's list of shipwrecks and the relevant year category for maritime incidents. Thus a ship lost in 2011 would have an entry in the List of shipwrecks in 2011 and be categorised in Category:Maritime incidents in 2011. If there is no list, the ship should be categorised, to allow easier creation of the list in future. Mjroots ( talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a pointer to WT:MHC#Milhist FAC update, 26 Oct. These updates will generally show up after the Signpost comes out each week. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use an expert review (for what's done so far). Thanks guys. Res Mar 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KV-4 (tank). Looks a bit sketchy to me, so I'm not promoting it myself to mainspace, but perhaps someone here would like to work on it? Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that an article titled Battle of the Bering Sea was recently created. At first i thought it might be a hoax article, but it seems awefly similar to the Battle of the Komandorski Islands given that the dates and force compositions are nearly identicle. I think a deletion is in order. XavierGreen ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just had a message from my good friend Mr W.B. Wilson regarding WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_October_26#File:14th_Zouaves.jpg. This is a ridiculous policy that appears to be being taken - can anyone give advice? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Spanish coup of July 1936 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Bhagat Singh is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Military history of Canada during World War II makes the following puzzling statement:
As noted in the article on World War II, the official name of this conflict varies from country to country. In Canada, official historians refer to the conflict as "the Second World War". Wikipedia, as an international website, uses both terms, with a consensus to use "World War II" in the title of all articles, categories, etc.
Can someone elaborate on the origins, scope and context of this consensus? I would expect to find the Canadian English Second World War in this and all similar articles as per MOS:TIES, and the systematic move of Canadian Second World War topics seems to violate MOS:RETAIN pretty flagrantly. Albrecht ( talk) 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 and User talk:Hamish59. I need to go offline now. Uʔ ( talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic has been promoted. I have been working on this since March and would just like to say THANK YOU to all those who helped. Be it supporting the promotion, copy editing articles or just offering advice. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are A-class symbols supposed to be added to articles that've passed A-class reviews? DCI talk 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an "On this day.." or similar submission ready for 11 Nov? Farawayman ( talk) 12:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We've had a persistent problem with POV pushing and edit warring at Operation Corridor for months now, and it looks like there's a general confusion regarding the timeline of the operation. The Serbian POV edits have limited the time of the operation to around two months, but still mentioned Bosanski Brod three months later, and used Croatian POV sources to reference that (d'oh). The Croatian POV edits have pointed to the preceding invasion of Bosanski Šamac and largely ignored the stated length. I've tried to make some sense of it, and enforced WP:ARBMAC against the most egregious POV pusher, but I fear it's still incoherent and no less prone to dispute, so I would appreciate it if someone else could examine it and try to fix it properly. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for George Andrew Davis, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In this article's latest FAC, Dank has raised some concerns about the content and narrative. Further input would be useful. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a larger context here ... I'm not copyediting at A-class at the moment, and I was hoping that wouldn't create problems at FAC, but it already has. This is one of 3 Milhist FACs I've opposed recently on prose, and there was another one that piled up 6 supports and no opposes when the prose was not up to FAC standards. It annoys the crap out of delegates when everyone is supporting a FAC that the delegates really don't want to promote. I realize that FAC prose standards are tough and not entirely in line with standards elsewhere. What's changed is, I'm watching the clock now ... after my initial questions and the nom's initial responses, I'm doing the best I can in two or at most 3 hours (and most articles take less time), and if that doesn't work or looks like it can't work, I'm going to have to go ahead and get my oppose in, or risk losing the trust of the other reviewers (and then we're really screwed). I still want all our FACs to pass, but our win/loss percentage is probably going to drop a little compared with the last year or so, unless someone else develops a burning desire to read style and usage guides. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently, forward operating base articles in Category:Military bases of the United States in Afghanistan and Category:Military bases of the United States in Iraq are chaotically named. Some use the abbreviation "FOB" in their titles, some use the full "Forward Operating Base." Would anyone object to me changing the abbreviated articles so that all use the full "Forward Operating Base"? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Masan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone of this project could have a look at this (apparent) autobiography of an author of (mainly) books about the US Civil War. It's not my field, but I don't think the bio is neutral enough. Thanks! -- Crusio ( talk) 08:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars has been open for a month but has only received one person's feedback so far. Further support is required if the portal is to be promoted to Featured Portal, otherwise the review is likely to be closed due to lack of interest and no consensus. Please could a few members take 5 minutes to further support or comment on the nomination asap. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 12:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've got a question over at the talk page for our Operation Normandy task force. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of heavy cruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks, I've started a discussion at WT:MHNEWS#The future on how The Bugle, our project's newsletter, with some ideas on how it can continue to improve and grow. I'd like some comments on them if you have an extra minute to spare, and please don't hesitate to add your own ideas. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I was looking through the list of featured articles with cleanup tags, and realized that most of the articles tagged as needing coordinates were within MILHIST's scope. Here's the list; hopefully those of you with better knowledge of the subject than I can either provide the coordinates or remove the "needed" tag:
Any help that anyone could give on these would be awesome! I don't have enough knowledge of the subjects to know exactly what the coordinates should be (or how to go about finding that information), but when you do have that knowledge, adding coordinates is a pretty easy way to reduce the number of tagged featured articles! Thanks in advance everyone, Dana boomer ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I maybe blowing my own trumpet here, the Category for the "Military History articles with no associated task force" is empty! Not sure how long this will stay the way it is currently at "0". We should be happy that a Category is empty. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! The disambiguation page, Battle of Jackson, has a large number of incoming links, the repair of which requires expertise in the area. Please help. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Thomas Blamey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Łódź insurrection (1905) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the recent discussions, we've now begun to implement a distinct assessment scheme for lists. The initial changes include the introduction of a top-level "list" parameter in {{ WPMILHIST}} and the availability of "List-Class" as an assessment result; more details on the specific template changes can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class.
Anyone interested in helping to test the new features, or seeing any errors in the assessment templates, is invited to join the discussion at the coordinators' talk page. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a debate going on about the reliability of bharat-rakshak & pak-def info web sites at Reliable sources noticeboard. Interested editors may please comment. Imho this is important to ensure only reliable sources are used in WikiProject Military History. Please dont avoid this just because its an India-Pakistan issue. AshLin ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a rather rough draft, but technically we could have an article on that instead of just Rocket-powered aircraft. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Eastern Theater of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Polish Underground State is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all there is a Good Article backlog elimination drive planned for December. Anyone interested in participating may wish to add the page to their watchlist. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Article: 47th Army.
I was wondering if the above article could be renamed to 47 Army (Soviet Union)? It's currently in the Category with "Military history articles with no associated task force" in our WikiProject. I'll be able to fix up the article and maybe the assessment. I don't how to rename a page. Adamdaley ( talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
The following DYK nomination needs to be reviewed:
He carried messages for the resistance, according to the Michigan Daily (1986). The medal, the Order of Unknown Heroes, was awarded by His Holiness, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Article: Prisoner functionary.
Has this "Merge" been forgotten about since May 2010? What is the end result of this? While it has been about 18 months since it was tagged. Feedback is appreciated. I have left the same questions on it's Discussion page. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
While peer reviewing Eastern Theater of the American Civil War, I came to the realization that there is at least some amount of copyvio in the article (the first paragraph of the first section is copied wholesale from the first ref). See also my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastern Theater of the American Civil War/archive1. All of the other refs are print books, which I don't have access to at the moment. Does anyone else have access to any of these books, that they could check them for further copyright violations in this article? Thank you! Dana boomer ( talk) 16:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sturmvogel and I had a plan to get Arizona to FA for the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but even though he finished his part, I let him down due to school and other commitments. I put off asking for help for too long because I believed I could get back and finish it, but that never happened. Much of the article is complete (only 1929–1941 remain), but if one or two interested editors could adopt the article, finish it, and nominate it for FA, maybe we can still get it on the main page. I'll be around in on-and-off doses to help as well. Thanks everyone, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are several differant ways for ACW regiment article titles (like "23rd Tennessee Infantry Regiment", "2nd Regiment Alabama Volunteer Cavalry", and "10th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment".) Would it be simplier if the articles had standarized titles like Number/State/Branch of Service? Wild Wolf ( talk) 02:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I'd like to ask to an administrator to close Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I lost the interest on trying an A-class nomination and no editor seems interested on reviewing the article. Thank you very much, -- Lecen ( talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/ Viipuri during World War II. This will affect quite a few articles on the Finnish/Soviet conflict, including Winter War, Continuation War, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others. If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Armed Forces Special Weapons Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of the Bismarck Sea is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States military history task force of Military history might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, its a rough start and it takes a while, usefully I've been tagging around with the {{ WikiProject United States}} banner myself, along with Kumioko which uses with an AWB. The assessment can be done by bot. BTW, is it possible to support American Civil War and Revolutionary War task forces on the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States as well? JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that it has been 5 years now that I am contributing to Wiki. Thanks for all the help and positive feedback I received since. Have a nice day everyone. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
A Featured Portal related to this WikiProject, Portal:Biological warfare, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Several times I've added articles from the "Category:Unassessed military history articles" to be assessed. They seem to be deleted or ignored from the assessment list. I realise I am new to being a Military History Coordinator and have encouraged some users to improve articles they've made edits too. Which they have kindly taken the time to do improve these articles. However, I am disgusted how some articles I've put on get taken off for no good reason without being assessed.
Personally, I am trying to help as a Coordinator and get the unassessed, assessed. I've resorted to trying my best to try and get the assessment correct as I see fit. Sometimes I expect something to be low assessed while it turns out to be assessed higher, while the same goes for the opposite I might feel it could be something higher, but it is assessed lower. Really it's a "gamble" to let someone assess it for you. It still needs to be done in the end.
Yes I feel honoured that people that have voted for me (into this position) as a Military History Coordinator, this is the first big role I've had since I opened my account in 5 years of being on the English Wikipedia. While I have tried my best at all times, even contributing some image to Commons.
Over the fourteen days or so, I was going to ask every Coordinator how is my "contributions" to WikiProject Military History?
Being a Coordinator isn't easy when someone doesn't know all the shortcuts to improve articles or various coding for articles. I do my best and stick with what I know, I am willing to learn, but not to the point of being overwhelmed. In the end, I could basically be a full time Coordinator 24/7. Over the years I've learnt alot from Wikipedia and when someone comes down hard on me it doesn't feel very good. My knowledge of Battles to people, through to personally getting books ordered and reading them to simply improve an article, I will tell you now, I hated reading out loud at Primary School and High School.
As some of you are probably aware, my english isn't perfect. Failed English in Year 10, went onto Year 11 and did two courses of English even though I am born and raised in an English-speaking country. Then after Year 11, just passing being absent for most of the time due to anxiety and other issues since it was a brand new High School, double the amount of students that I came from the High School prior only had 550 students in 4 years then to go to 1,150 students in 2 years. Went back the following year to do Year 11 again to improve my marks and do Year 12. Unfortunately the same thing happened the year before. Dropped out and went to TAFE to do computers, until then I had done computers in High School since Year 9 through to Year 11. Hated it though, wasn't really interested.
Then I decided what would I do since I'm not at School anymore, I should go to TAFE. What did I end up doing between 1998 and 2003? Computers. While I was at School in 1995 and 1996, I a decision to make for three subjects to do for those two years. I chose, the German language, Computers and History. Of course the German language back then, didn't get enough students for 1 class, so I was basically forced to choose again and it ended up being "Cooking" for two years. In that time I took to "History" especially World War II and Cooking was alright, because you got to eat before other students in the other classes for lunch or we'd pass food through the window for other students.
So basically I'm doubting myself being a Coordinator and I thought that I could help relief the "Backlogs" on the Assessment page of WikiProject Military History. Guess I was wrong in a way, at the same time I'm proud (to be a WikiProject Military History Coordinator) and to be doing this and I'm willing to learn. Just don't come down hard on me, I am fragile. Adamdaley ( talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a cover term for the "revolutionary wave" that spanned from the 1750s to the 1830s: basically, the end of the Age of Enlightenment. The current article is listed as start-class and does not have a great deal of information. I know that the articles on the individual revolutions give plenty of information, but have started working on an expansion to the article. The expansion includes summaries of the revolutions (more than one paragraph). I am wondering if anyone else is interested in contributing to this. DCI talk 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Revolutions, we have a page. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We are having difficulty finding consensus regarding the name of this article. Some think 'battle' most appropriate but the sources don't describe a battle - more an action, although the naming authority for the war assigned 'affair'. In the Sinai and Palestine campaign there were engagements which were significant but which were really too small to be called battles; if they were all called battles the campaign would look a bit out of proportion. Would it be possible to add to the 'Article structure' another sub-section to cover 'actions' along the same lines as for 'battle' –
I'd really appreciate some advice regarding this problem. Thanks, -- Rskp ( talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The following two articles have sections () hidden from the actual article. The Panzerlehrebrigade 9 seems to have also German among the article is it really necessary? What could be done with this information? Or could be done to these two articles to improve them?
I'm asking help from fellow Coordinators. I do not know what is done in this situation. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, if possible could a few editors please take a look at Battle of Abu Tellul (also known as the Affair of Abu Tellul)? There is a debate on the talk page about whether it should be named a "battle" or an "affair". All opinions are welcome and of course I'm happy with whatever decision the majority comes up with. I just want to establish a consensus so we can move on with improving the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Another point to consider is whether adopting the name used by Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee is neutral POV. Surely the Turkish and the Germans had there own name for the engagement? Why then should we use one official name over another? Use of a generic naming format, per WP:MILMOS/C such as "Battle of X", "Seige of Y" or even "Action of Date" is less POV in my opinion. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's really interesting MarcusBritish about '"combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive.' In the case of Abu Tellul no territory was won or lost and the fighting mainly between 2 regiments and 2 and a half battalions was over in a few hours. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
For those with an interest in, or sources related to, naval battles in the age of sail, I've raised some questions at Talk:Battle of the Saintes#Shifting commanders, if anyone would like to comment. Benea ( talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for May Revolution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Composite Squadron if anybody is interested in taking a look. Safiel ( talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to this article, which seems to be an OR essay. I've tagged it and explained the need to improve it on the talk page.
I could improve this article, though not in the next few days. What I would like, though, is for someone knowledgeable in these matters to have a look and see if they can find a published source which would support what is an arguable but non-standard view of the subject. Alternative academic interpretations could then be given to balance the article. Thanks. Monstrelet ( talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I want to share a little bit of what is going for a while now on the German Wiki. I follow the evolution of some of the articles there because of personal interest and occasionally I am pointed to a new book or story. I want to put this in the most neutral way possible without jumping to any conclusions prematurely, for a while now a very heated debate is raging between the inclusionists and exclusionsts. The debate is very much centered around the biographies of various recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. You can find examples of what I am referring to on the talk page of Joachim Helbig or talk page Erich Hartmann. What I find so astonishing is how personally offensive this debate is slugged out. The core of the dispute is centered around whether these personalities are noteworthy or not. The inclusionists argue that these men have earned Germany's highest award for military valor or have led a major unit as commanders. The exclusionists argue that most of these stories are "brown propaganda", alluding to the color of the Nazi uniforms. The line of reasoning then tries to discredit sources used leading to the inclusionists calling it censorship or comparing it to the Nazi book burnings. Edit wars rage and information originating from the "questionable" sources gets deleted. In some cases the article gets castrated to the point that indeed the noteworthiness is questionable. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Could we please have some additional views here about whether this article should be merged or reduced to a redirect in its current state? Briefly the pro argument goes that it was only an administrative formation, never engaged in combat, and the article is currently a short, unreferenced, stub. The con argument is that the formation existed and was of corps size thus the article should remain unmerged despite it's undeveloped state. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. I've been creating (by translation) basic articles on German divisions and brigades in the Bundeswehr, and generated a suitable template: Template:Bundeswehr divisions. However, this has identified a potential confusion. Currently divisional and brigade names are disambiguated using "(Germany)" ie. "1st Armoured Division (Germany)". However, when Bundeswehr division has the same name as a historic (e.g. Wehrmacht) division, we have a problem. e.g. both the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht had a "1st Mountain Division". Currently the existing article, 1st Mountain Division (Germany) is the historic one, but I wish to create its Bundeswehr counterpart. Usually German names are retained for the Wehrmacht (e.g. "1st Panzer Division" as opposed to "1st Armoured Division") but this is not the case for mountain divisions. An easy solution for now would be to use "(Bundeswehr)" and "(Wehrmacht)" for the articles affected. In the longer term that poses the question as to whether all German divisions should be disambiguated this way or not. Views? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that handling both divisions in one article would affect a huge scandal through the media in Germany, asking wether Wikipedia is reliable or even infiltrated by Neo-Nazism. Together with the fact that the divisions have nothing in common except their number and that they are a military unit of a german state, I would ask everyone please to seperate all divisions of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr with the same numer/name. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
How do we, ought we, deal with 9. Panzerdivision of the Landstreitkräfte of the NVA? Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(East Germany) is fine, I think - it's inconsistent with the other Germanies, but consistent with everything else. One caveat - for consistency and retroactive compatability - would be that we should make sure that any article with a (German Empire), (Wehrmacht), (Bundeswehr), or (East Germany) suffix has a corresponding redirect (or disambiguation page) at the (Germany) suffix. Likewise, it might be a good idea to make sure that any (Bundeswehr) suffix has a corresponding redirect from (West Germany). Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
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. |
The "current statistics" link under Assessment Department in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation shows a user subpage of User:WP 1.0 bot. The table shows two rows and one column. Both numbers are 0. I'm using Firefox 7 on Windows 7, if it is a browser problem. W i k i C o p t e r 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Military history pages by quality | |
---|---|
Quality | Total pages |
Assessed | 0 |
Total | 0 |
With both Firefox 7, and 10 (Nightly). Looks fine to me. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question (possibly the talk page of an article or two might have been better), but I was watching the end of a program tonight ('Regimental Stories', BBC4, for those in the UK) about the Royal Tank Regiment and it said that this regiment was one of only two regiments to carry out a separate remembrance service at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. The Royal Tank Regiment hold a service on the Sunday closest to Cambrai Day (20 November, signifying their role at the Battle of Cambrai). I then tried to confirm this fact by searching on the internet, but was unable to find anything about this. I was also unable to find out which other regiment is being referred to here. Would anyone here be able to help? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Two regiments. Could they mean 1RTR and 2RTR? http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/1rtr.aspx and http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/2rtr.aspx? Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for William F. Dean is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Albert Ball is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've created {{ wepscontent}}, based off the aircontent template, for use on missile (especially) and other weapons pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: Battle of Dahlen,
I've cleaned up the article. I would like someone to take a look at it to see if deserves to be assessed any higher from a "Stub" (possibly to a "Start"?) also would the "Dutch" template be also included since the Spanish have theirs on the dicussion page? Feedback here would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: Battle of Oak Grove,
I've cleaned up the Infobox and article. Would like to know if deserves a higher rating or stay the same or any other "attributes" for the talkpage templates. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently the above article is seven sentences long, but off the top of my head I can't think of what it could consist of that wouldn't fit in the fortification article. Is stronghold just another word for fortification or is there merit in having separate articles? I'm tempted to turn stronghold into a redirect to fortification, while at least has more information. Nev1 ( talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If no one's agaisnt it, I'll start work on natural stronghold in my userspace. Buggie111 ( talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Arms control treaties#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ucucha has created a script at User:Ucucha/duplinks that highlights duplicate links in the text of an article (not counting links in the lead, infoboxes and navboxes, and soon, not counting links anywhere outside the main text). The next step is for us to use the tool and point out any exceptions we want to make, that is, any duplicate links we think it's important to retain, at User talk:Ucucha/duplinks. After we've played around with it a while to get a feeling for the unintended consequences, I'm hoping the tool will be further enhanced to pull up a list of suggested links to delete in an edit-changes screen, so that you can remove them all with one click if you like. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you have time, could you see Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War#Malouines ? Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 08:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone please confirm that Lord Angus Fairchild is not a hoax?
Googling "Angus Fairchild" doesn't turn up much, which is surprising for one of the "great Fighter Aces of his era". Same is the case with "Singdum, Walter and "That shatty sky" (cited as reference). Can't find any mention of the Distinguished Flying Cross at nationalarchives.gov.uk. utcursch | talk 12:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Napoleonic Wars is still currently up for Featured Portal review at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars. WikiProject MilHist members are invited to comment. For those unfamiliar with FP criteria, please see Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria.
Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
End of World War II in Asia (EWW2A) was until today a redirect to Pacific War#Final stages. I moved a little known article stub called End of World War II in the Pacific to that location. It consisted of nothing but a list of bullet points.
I have sectioned it off into three parts given it a brief lead and added a couple of sections at the end. What I envisage would make it a much better article is if it were laid out something like the " End of World War II in Europe" (EWW2E), which has grown over the years into quite a useful article.
The two paragraphs I added at the end of EWW2A are the lead sections from the Occupation of Japan and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. I think that a lot more can be done like that to improve the article quite quickly. Anyone want to have a go and adding text from other articles and/or improving what is there already? -- PBS ( talk) 08:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahoy there mates! I have been around since '06 but am new to the history project. Just signed up about a week ago. I have been writing/contributing to articles relating to Naval Commanders/Commodores in Early American history, mostly from the
Barbary Wars and
War of 1812 periods. I have rewritten the
Stephen Decatur,
Thomas Macdonough and
John Rodgers pages to near completion and have started on several others as well. Today on my user page I was pinged by an IP user regarding the italicization of ship's names.
Here is the message. I prefer to italicize the entire ship's name rather than have the name spelled with two types of lettering, e.g.
...as the former usage seems more eye appealing, at least to me. Soon I will be nominating the Stephen Decatur page for FA, but before I do I would like to get feed back on this and any other issue these pages might have. I suppose it would be more appropriate to continue the thread here, than on my user page. Input is welcomed.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Is he notable enough for an article, Kevin Thilgman?
He died during a training mission with special forces FSK of Norway in 2010 (and the accident might not not increase his notability, but Norway's payment to his relatives and insurance companies after his death, might contribute to his notability.
References about the accident are at Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#Safety_violations.-- 155.55.60.112 ( talk) 09:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I recently published this article in the mainspace. Yet, the work is far from complete. It probably needs a lot of copy-editing love from a native speaker.
Also, there is an apparent problem with references. Most importantly, I don't have access to English language reputable sources discussing the battle in detail and I don't even know if such sources exist. It's a common problem for articles related to history of Poland: although we've been around for a thousand years, from British or American perspective our history is a relatively uncharted land.
Finally, Hawkeye7 assessed it as C-class (the article apparently failed to meet the B1 criterion). I would really appreciate it if someone helped me fix that. // Halibu tt 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of Milhist Featured Article Candidates more than two weeks old with fewer than 4 supports. Any substantive reviews will be helpful, particularly if you've reviewed the article before. It's easier to attract reviewers at FAC if there's been a recent A-class review, and it's also more efficient for the reviewers if they're not reviewing two completely different articles at A-class and at FAC, so if you want to bring your A-class articles to FAC, please do it sooner rather than later, and feel free to ask for help. Most FACs need "spotchecks" (checking for close paraphrasing and accuracy in the text, for any references you can get or can find online), although some nominators (like Ian) have passed so many spotchecks that it's not really necessary. All FACs need image reviews.
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Especially an image reviewer.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist ( talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::::::Certain shoot-downs could merit an article of their own. Bader's shooting down, for example, was controversial and there is a theory it was a friendly fire incident, so it could be worthy of a break out article from a main article to consider in more depth. Likewise Richthofen. In both cases, notable participants and subject of detailed analysis. Some might be notable for rarity (the shooting down of a MIG 15 by Fleet Air Arm Sea Furies in Korea for example), others for controversy (shooting down of civilian airliners by armed forces). But the downing of every aircraft during a long war? No. Monstrelet ( talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I was alerted to this from a similar discussion started at WT:GAN, and drew many of the same conclusions as expressed here. I just wasn't sure if things like this actually have notability. The red flag for me was he same as Bushranger - there is very little discussion on the actual shootdown. Most of it appears to be related to the overall aspect of the conflict. It occurs to me that this article, and any similar, would probably make a decent list, but otherwise is pretty trivial independently. It strikes me as being akin to writing an article each time an insurgent fires an RPG at a military vehicle. Reso lute 18:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for putting my contributions on the spotlight again. As usual, I will follow majority consensus on issues, so if there are problems I am willing to rectify them accordingly. However, if one individual has issues with my contributions, that's not my problem. Canpark ( talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
in the book
article text
of course this is only a limited view of the page and other editors may wish to search deeper but with no evidence I think we should AGF. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone identify and share the ~1950 unit decal history on this USAF P-1A helmet. thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber ( talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a number of high-resolution scans of F-82 Twin Mustang photographs and have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Also have expanded the gallery considerably. Also have expanded the captions of several other photographs and replaced them with high-resolution scans as well. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Hawker Siddeley P.1154 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil © • © 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Battle_of_Omdurman#Mahdist_flag, thanks, Spinning Spark 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a note to highlight the rather intractable backlog of unactioned requests for GA Reviews at the moment. If you're interested in helping out please have a look at: [3]. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Article: .25 ACP
There's been a couple of lines on the Discussion page about this weapon (or bullet) and it's possibility it may not fit the WikiProject Military History. It is assessed as a "C Class". 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this topic up again here. I was involved in the GA review of the heavy cruiser Lützow. What I normally do when committing myself to reviewing an article is to visit my own sources and verifying the key statements of the article. In context of Lützow and Deutschland class cruiser I came across the following book which I bought.
Prager, a former crew member of Deutschland/Lützow, wrote his book after the Russians opened up their archives. The entire fate section of Lützow differs significantly from the older books published prior to opening the archives. According to Prager (pages 317 to 320), and this is documented with pictures detailing the types of explosives used, etc. Lüzow was sunk by Soviet bomb tests on 22 July 1947. Our articles here state she was scraped in the late 1940ties "Raised by the Soviet Navy in 1947, she was broken up for scrap over the next two years".
Even though this alternative/true fate is based on a German book (I know that some editors here have strong concerns when it comes to non-English literature here on Wiki) I feel it needs to be incorporated into the article. I can’t get myself to pass the Deutschland cruiser class GA-review without it. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Could I ask some knowledge members of Military history to comment in Talk:Contact fuse please. The article is currently being held at the name Contact fuse by editors claiming that the correct British English spelling is fuse per WP:ENGVAR. We know it should be fuze but they aren't listening. Other than obstructing what should have been an uncontroversial move they have not contributed to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Came across Template:Infobox US Infantry, as it lists the regiment before and after that which is the subject of the article in which it is used surely it is a navbox (or succession box). Should it be renamed? If so, how? There is also a matching artillery and cavalry template. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Have organized, expanded and updated the F-89 Scorpion gallery on Wikimedia commons. Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable about the subject verify if these are two articles about one and the same gun or if indeed two separate articles are justifiable? Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of hours ago (from this writing) I have created the page USS Concord (1828). After a little building, citing, linking, etc I attempted to italicize the article's name, but when I made the move the name simply showed the apostrophes, while the title remained the same with no italicization. If anyone can do this would they please make the move and if they would, tell me how it's done on my user talk page? This is how I would like the move to look USS Concord (1828). -- Thanx, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note for anyone interested, the A-Class review for Albert Ball is now looking for further eyes after completion of additions based on an early in-depth review. The article is now stable again and ready for further review, so please stop by and give us your input! Thanks!-- Ian Rose ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (co-nom with Georgejdorner)
There is an A-Class review open for the article May Revolution (an event that took place in Buenos Aires in 1810, one of the starting points of the Spanish American wars of independence, and closely related with the ongoing Napoleonic wars), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution. Any comments are welcomed. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Skimming around a bit, I found Battle of Soissons (486), which has some comments on the talkpage suggesting it's spurious. Gibbon seems to confirm it ( eg) but this is many centuries from my area. Anyone with expertise care to take a look? Shimgray | talk | 11:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. It may interest members of this project that the Imperial War Museum has recently beta-launched a new website at beta.iwm.org.uk. The website includes a new collections catalogue, beta.iwm.org - Collections search. If you have the time, the museum's web team would be grateful for any feedback on this new search interface; you'll find a welcome banner and a link to the museum's online feedback form at the top of all the pages of the beta site. (Alternatively, of course, simply post your comments here) -- IxK85 ( talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.
One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites related to the Civil War to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).
Any and all contributions appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a possible hoax, and has been prod'ed by one of our valiant Polish contributors. Further opinions would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been mooting for a little while the possibility of creating a Good Topic on air-launched ballistic missiles. Bold Orion is already at GA, and I might be able to work on High Virgo to bring it to GA status as well. That leaves GAM-87 Skybolt and the title article itself - the latter of which is merely a stub! Is there anyone out there who'd be interested in working on those two articles? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've been poking around at WP:Contributor copyright investigations, and there are several over there that fall within MILHIST's scope. It's easier to find the copyvio when you're at least somewhat acquainted with the material, so I think that this project could be a great help in clearing up some or all of these investigations:
Some of these are fairly small investigations, but others (such as Dawkeye, Razzsic, etc) are quite large. It's a little scary that we have so many potential copyright violations within our project's scope, so I'm hoping that by posting here we can have many hands make light work of at least some of the above. WP:CCI is overburdened, with just a few editors doing the majority of the work - hopefully we can change that at least a little bit on MILHIST-related investigations. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I passed an ACR for Battle of Nam River October 2 which was my third for an eighth ACR medal. I haven't seen anything about it, though, and the Awards page seems rather inactive, of late. Do we no longer award those? Also, on a related note, I've had two ACRs with 3 supports and no activity for a few days ( Kenneth R. Shadrick and William F. Dean) is there something holding them up I don't see? — Ed! (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
While rewriting the John Rodgers page and noting in the article that his son, John Rodgers, Jr., served aboard the USS Concord of 1828, I came to find out that there was no page for this vessel when I attempted to link to it, so I ended up creating the page just so it wouldn't appear as a red link in the JR article. One thing led to another and now I'm pretty involved with expanding the page. However, I have only been able to find information in an indirect manner, as there doesn't seem to be a dedicated book about the ship, or any book that covers it well for that matter, leastwise an image for it. The Concord is a Sloop of war, of 700 tons so I used an image from another (sister) sloop of war with a note in the caption saying so, but was informed by another user that the image of the SOW I used was of a vessel with almost twice the tonnage as that of the Concord built in 1828. So I looked to other articles of SOW's and came across a couple whose tonnage, length, beam and draft are identical to that of Concord's. I have made a comparison chart of the vessel's characteristics on the Concord's talk page, inquiring as to which vessel's image would be best suited for this new article. If anyone with knowledge in this area can help, would you please leave input on the talk page there? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has been up for FLC review for 6 weeks now. Maybe someone here not yet bored to death by this topic could pay the article a visit an leave some comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If anyone's interested in a bit of article (re-)assessment, I've run some reports to identify stub-rated articles which are probably needing up-rated - mostly through having been expanded and improved substantially since they were initially assessed, which might have been four or five years ago. They fall into three groups:
A static, wikified list of all three groups as of Saturday 15th is here, or you can generate updated versions of an individual report using the links (scroll down to the bottom of the page and press "do it" - I've not included direct links to avoid excess toolserver loads).
Hope they're of some use... Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Recently discovered, by myself at least, is perhaps 100's of sailing ship's articles that were cut and pasted, to one degree or another, many of them entirely, from a PD source. Every one of them are lacking inline citations, most of them with zero inline citations. The links to these articles have been placed in a list/nav-box here. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
... is at the coordinators' talk page, and I'd rather do it there every week (generally right after the Signpost comes out). - Dank ( push to talk) 03:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone here see any reason that Category:UAVs and drones by country should not be renamed to the spelled out and combined Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by country, and all subcategories renamed similarly? The article is at Unmanned aerial vehicle and the parent category is Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles. Comment at the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_21#Category:UAVs_and_drones_by_country if you like.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Peer review for Le souper de Beaucaire (a pamphlet written by Napoleon Bonaparte), is now open. I'm aiming it for GAN. Members are invited to comment.
I have rated the article as Start-class, because it's short and concise, though in all modesty it is probably C- or B-class, given the references. If anyone feels up to quickly running through the B-class checklist in the talk page {{ MILHIST}} template, it would be appreciated.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone please sort out this edit request, Please remove that William Clark was the second governor of the Missouri territory because he was not. - here. Thanks, Chzz ► 08:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Now done (thanks, The ed17) Chzz ► 08:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Hobey Baker is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
there is a discussion on Reliability of a source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bharat-rakshak.com_vs_pakdef.info interested editors can give their views.-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Project A119 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If someone has time, everything in here screams POV and advocacy, e.g. the massive use of negative quotes by opposition politicians, the non-neutral wording of several passages, the presentation (successive quotes to make a point), to the factual inaccuracies (selective sourcing) and etc. Very painful to read and obviously written by a partisan writer (mostly one or two IPs). Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no mention of support for the mission. I thought I'd drop this here in case someone with time on their hand would be interested in dealing with this issue. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 02:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems there is conflicting opinions on how to move forward. I don't want to write an article if it's unnecessary to do so; should we move forward with adding a comprehensive section on Canada's role in Afgh page and go ahead with an AfD (TomPointTwo's position), or should we just fix the existing page because an article on the subject is warranted (Trekphiler's position). At least everyone agree something should be done. Can we get more opinions on how to move forward? Thanks — CharlieEchoTango — 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Again thank you all for your input on this matter. — CharlieEchoTango — 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks page, under 'Articles to be created' the link Battle of Xinfeng occurs three times. Looks like there's thousands of links there (blur). Be nice if they were alphabetized and perhaps put into categories i.e.'Civil War', 'This War', 'That War', 'People from Here', 'People from There', so this sort of thing is easier to catch. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who are moved by the minutiae of capitalisation of military ranks and titles, there's a discussion going on at Talk:General of the Armies that could use some neutral editors. Shem ( talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a merger of Counter-insurgency into Insurgency. Interested editors should comment on Talk:Insurgency.-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am currently trying to spruce up Battle off Noordhinder Bank and need to use a couple of citations from The Times History of the War. Unfortunately i am rather unsure of how to do that seeing as it doesnt have an author or editor listed and is a 21 volume narrative lol. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Some extra eyes on this article might be good - an IP editor is attempting to add information (including some that might be BLPish) using WikiLeaks as a source, and is claiming that this justifies treating WL as a reliable source despite it saying that only applies for WL itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Please can we ensure that all ships that are lost, through accident or enemy action, are added to the relevant year's list of shipwrecks and the relevant year category for maritime incidents. Thus a ship lost in 2011 would have an entry in the List of shipwrecks in 2011 and be categorised in Category:Maritime incidents in 2011. If there is no list, the ship should be categorised, to allow easier creation of the list in future. Mjroots ( talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a pointer to WT:MHC#Milhist FAC update, 26 Oct. These updates will generally show up after the Signpost comes out each week. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use an expert review (for what's done so far). Thanks guys. Res Mar 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KV-4 (tank). Looks a bit sketchy to me, so I'm not promoting it myself to mainspace, but perhaps someone here would like to work on it? Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that an article titled Battle of the Bering Sea was recently created. At first i thought it might be a hoax article, but it seems awefly similar to the Battle of the Komandorski Islands given that the dates and force compositions are nearly identicle. I think a deletion is in order. XavierGreen ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just had a message from my good friend Mr W.B. Wilson regarding WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_October_26#File:14th_Zouaves.jpg. This is a ridiculous policy that appears to be being taken - can anyone give advice? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Spanish coup of July 1936 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Bhagat Singh is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Military history of Canada during World War II makes the following puzzling statement:
As noted in the article on World War II, the official name of this conflict varies from country to country. In Canada, official historians refer to the conflict as "the Second World War". Wikipedia, as an international website, uses both terms, with a consensus to use "World War II" in the title of all articles, categories, etc.
Can someone elaborate on the origins, scope and context of this consensus? I would expect to find the Canadian English Second World War in this and all similar articles as per MOS:TIES, and the systematic move of Canadian Second World War topics seems to violate MOS:RETAIN pretty flagrantly. Albrecht ( talk) 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 and User talk:Hamish59. I need to go offline now. Uʔ ( talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic has been promoted. I have been working on this since March and would just like to say THANK YOU to all those who helped. Be it supporting the promotion, copy editing articles or just offering advice. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are A-class symbols supposed to be added to articles that've passed A-class reviews? DCI talk 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an "On this day.." or similar submission ready for 11 Nov? Farawayman ( talk) 12:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We've had a persistent problem with POV pushing and edit warring at Operation Corridor for months now, and it looks like there's a general confusion regarding the timeline of the operation. The Serbian POV edits have limited the time of the operation to around two months, but still mentioned Bosanski Brod three months later, and used Croatian POV sources to reference that (d'oh). The Croatian POV edits have pointed to the preceding invasion of Bosanski Šamac and largely ignored the stated length. I've tried to make some sense of it, and enforced WP:ARBMAC against the most egregious POV pusher, but I fear it's still incoherent and no less prone to dispute, so I would appreciate it if someone else could examine it and try to fix it properly. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for George Andrew Davis, Jr. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In this article's latest FAC, Dank has raised some concerns about the content and narrative. Further input would be useful. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a larger context here ... I'm not copyediting at A-class at the moment, and I was hoping that wouldn't create problems at FAC, but it already has. This is one of 3 Milhist FACs I've opposed recently on prose, and there was another one that piled up 6 supports and no opposes when the prose was not up to FAC standards. It annoys the crap out of delegates when everyone is supporting a FAC that the delegates really don't want to promote. I realize that FAC prose standards are tough and not entirely in line with standards elsewhere. What's changed is, I'm watching the clock now ... after my initial questions and the nom's initial responses, I'm doing the best I can in two or at most 3 hours (and most articles take less time), and if that doesn't work or looks like it can't work, I'm going to have to go ahead and get my oppose in, or risk losing the trust of the other reviewers (and then we're really screwed). I still want all our FACs to pass, but our win/loss percentage is probably going to drop a little compared with the last year or so, unless someone else develops a burning desire to read style and usage guides. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently, forward operating base articles in Category:Military bases of the United States in Afghanistan and Category:Military bases of the United States in Iraq are chaotically named. Some use the abbreviation "FOB" in their titles, some use the full "Forward Operating Base." Would anyone object to me changing the abbreviated articles so that all use the full "Forward Operating Base"? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Masan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone of this project could have a look at this (apparent) autobiography of an author of (mainly) books about the US Civil War. It's not my field, but I don't think the bio is neutral enough. Thanks! -- Crusio ( talk) 08:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Napoleonic Wars has been open for a month but has only received one person's feedback so far. Further support is required if the portal is to be promoted to Featured Portal, otherwise the review is likely to be closed due to lack of interest and no consensus. Please could a few members take 5 minutes to further support or comment on the nomination asap. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 12:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've got a question over at the talk page for our Operation Normandy task force. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of heavy cruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks, I've started a discussion at WT:MHNEWS#The future on how The Bugle, our project's newsletter, with some ideas on how it can continue to improve and grow. I'd like some comments on them if you have an extra minute to spare, and please don't hesitate to add your own ideas. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I was looking through the list of featured articles with cleanup tags, and realized that most of the articles tagged as needing coordinates were within MILHIST's scope. Here's the list; hopefully those of you with better knowledge of the subject than I can either provide the coordinates or remove the "needed" tag:
Any help that anyone could give on these would be awesome! I don't have enough knowledge of the subjects to know exactly what the coordinates should be (or how to go about finding that information), but when you do have that knowledge, adding coordinates is a pretty easy way to reduce the number of tagged featured articles! Thanks in advance everyone, Dana boomer ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I maybe blowing my own trumpet here, the Category for the "Military History articles with no associated task force" is empty! Not sure how long this will stay the way it is currently at "0". We should be happy that a Category is empty. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! The disambiguation page, Battle of Jackson, has a large number of incoming links, the repair of which requires expertise in the area. Please help. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Thomas Blamey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Łódź insurrection (1905) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the recent discussions, we've now begun to implement a distinct assessment scheme for lists. The initial changes include the introduction of a top-level "list" parameter in {{ WPMILHIST}} and the availability of "List-Class" as an assessment result; more details on the specific template changes can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class.
Anyone interested in helping to test the new features, or seeing any errors in the assessment templates, is invited to join the discussion at the coordinators' talk page. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a debate going on about the reliability of bharat-rakshak & pak-def info web sites at Reliable sources noticeboard. Interested editors may please comment. Imho this is important to ensure only reliable sources are used in WikiProject Military History. Please dont avoid this just because its an India-Pakistan issue. AshLin ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a rather rough draft, but technically we could have an article on that instead of just Rocket-powered aircraft. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Per this discussion here, should all Confederate regiments categories be renamed "(State) Confederate Civil War regiments"? Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Eastern Theater of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bautzen (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Polish Underground State is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all there is a Good Article backlog elimination drive planned for December. Anyone interested in participating may wish to add the page to their watchlist. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Article: 47th Army.
I was wondering if the above article could be renamed to 47 Army (Soviet Union)? It's currently in the Category with "Military history articles with no associated task force" in our WikiProject. I'll be able to fix up the article and maybe the assessment. I don't how to rename a page. Adamdaley ( talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
The following DYK nomination needs to be reviewed:
He carried messages for the resistance, according to the Michigan Daily (1986). The medal, the Order of Unknown Heroes, was awarded by His Holiness, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Article: Prisoner functionary.
Has this "Merge" been forgotten about since May 2010? What is the end result of this? While it has been about 18 months since it was tagged. Feedback is appreciated. I have left the same questions on it's Discussion page. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
While peer reviewing Eastern Theater of the American Civil War, I came to the realization that there is at least some amount of copyvio in the article (the first paragraph of the first section is copied wholesale from the first ref). See also my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastern Theater of the American Civil War/archive1. All of the other refs are print books, which I don't have access to at the moment. Does anyone else have access to any of these books, that they could check them for further copyright violations in this article? Thank you! Dana boomer ( talk) 16:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sturmvogel and I had a plan to get Arizona to FA for the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but even though he finished his part, I let him down due to school and other commitments. I put off asking for help for too long because I believed I could get back and finish it, but that never happened. Much of the article is complete (only 1929–1941 remain), but if one or two interested editors could adopt the article, finish it, and nominate it for FA, maybe we can still get it on the main page. I'll be around in on-and-off doses to help as well. Thanks everyone, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are several differant ways for ACW regiment article titles (like "23rd Tennessee Infantry Regiment", "2nd Regiment Alabama Volunteer Cavalry", and "10th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment".) Would it be simplier if the articles had standarized titles like Number/State/Branch of Service? Wild Wolf ( talk) 02:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I'd like to ask to an administrator to close Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I lost the interest on trying an A-class nomination and no editor seems interested on reviewing the article. Thank you very much, -- Lecen ( talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/ Viipuri during World War II. This will affect quite a few articles on the Finnish/Soviet conflict, including Winter War, Continuation War, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others. If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Armed Forces Special Weapons Project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Relief of General Douglas MacArthur is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of the Bismarck Sea is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Oswald Watt is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose ( talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States military history task force of Military history might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, its a rough start and it takes a while, usefully I've been tagging around with the {{ WikiProject United States}} banner myself, along with Kumioko which uses with an AWB. The assessment can be done by bot. BTW, is it possible to support American Civil War and Revolutionary War task forces on the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States as well? JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that it has been 5 years now that I am contributing to Wiki. Thanks for all the help and positive feedback I received since. Have a nice day everyone. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
A Featured Portal related to this WikiProject, Portal:Biological warfare, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Several times I've added articles from the "Category:Unassessed military history articles" to be assessed. They seem to be deleted or ignored from the assessment list. I realise I am new to being a Military History Coordinator and have encouraged some users to improve articles they've made edits too. Which they have kindly taken the time to do improve these articles. However, I am disgusted how some articles I've put on get taken off for no good reason without being assessed.
Personally, I am trying to help as a Coordinator and get the unassessed, assessed. I've resorted to trying my best to try and get the assessment correct as I see fit. Sometimes I expect something to be low assessed while it turns out to be assessed higher, while the same goes for the opposite I might feel it could be something higher, but it is assessed lower. Really it's a "gamble" to let someone assess it for you. It still needs to be done in the end.
Yes I feel honoured that people that have voted for me (into this position) as a Military History Coordinator, this is the first big role I've had since I opened my account in 5 years of being on the English Wikipedia. While I have tried my best at all times, even contributing some image to Commons.
Over the fourteen days or so, I was going to ask every Coordinator how is my "contributions" to WikiProject Military History?
Being a Coordinator isn't easy when someone doesn't know all the shortcuts to improve articles or various coding for articles. I do my best and stick with what I know, I am willing to learn, but not to the point of being overwhelmed. In the end, I could basically be a full time Coordinator 24/7. Over the years I've learnt alot from Wikipedia and when someone comes down hard on me it doesn't feel very good. My knowledge of Battles to people, through to personally getting books ordered and reading them to simply improve an article, I will tell you now, I hated reading out loud at Primary School and High School.
As some of you are probably aware, my english isn't perfect. Failed English in Year 10, went onto Year 11 and did two courses of English even though I am born and raised in an English-speaking country. Then after Year 11, just passing being absent for most of the time due to anxiety and other issues since it was a brand new High School, double the amount of students that I came from the High School prior only had 550 students in 4 years then to go to 1,150 students in 2 years. Went back the following year to do Year 11 again to improve my marks and do Year 12. Unfortunately the same thing happened the year before. Dropped out and went to TAFE to do computers, until then I had done computers in High School since Year 9 through to Year 11. Hated it though, wasn't really interested.
Then I decided what would I do since I'm not at School anymore, I should go to TAFE. What did I end up doing between 1998 and 2003? Computers. While I was at School in 1995 and 1996, I a decision to make for three subjects to do for those two years. I chose, the German language, Computers and History. Of course the German language back then, didn't get enough students for 1 class, so I was basically forced to choose again and it ended up being "Cooking" for two years. In that time I took to "History" especially World War II and Cooking was alright, because you got to eat before other students in the other classes for lunch or we'd pass food through the window for other students.
So basically I'm doubting myself being a Coordinator and I thought that I could help relief the "Backlogs" on the Assessment page of WikiProject Military History. Guess I was wrong in a way, at the same time I'm proud (to be a WikiProject Military History Coordinator) and to be doing this and I'm willing to learn. Just don't come down hard on me, I am fragile. Adamdaley ( talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a cover term for the "revolutionary wave" that spanned from the 1750s to the 1830s: basically, the end of the Age of Enlightenment. The current article is listed as start-class and does not have a great deal of information. I know that the articles on the individual revolutions give plenty of information, but have started working on an expansion to the article. The expansion includes summaries of the revolutions (more than one paragraph). I am wondering if anyone else is interested in contributing to this. DCI talk 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Revolutions, we have a page. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We are having difficulty finding consensus regarding the name of this article. Some think 'battle' most appropriate but the sources don't describe a battle - more an action, although the naming authority for the war assigned 'affair'. In the Sinai and Palestine campaign there were engagements which were significant but which were really too small to be called battles; if they were all called battles the campaign would look a bit out of proportion. Would it be possible to add to the 'Article structure' another sub-section to cover 'actions' along the same lines as for 'battle' –
I'd really appreciate some advice regarding this problem. Thanks, -- Rskp ( talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The following two articles have sections () hidden from the actual article. The Panzerlehrebrigade 9 seems to have also German among the article is it really necessary? What could be done with this information? Or could be done to these two articles to improve them?
I'm asking help from fellow Coordinators. I do not know what is done in this situation. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, if possible could a few editors please take a look at Battle of Abu Tellul (also known as the Affair of Abu Tellul)? There is a debate on the talk page about whether it should be named a "battle" or an "affair". All opinions are welcome and of course I'm happy with whatever decision the majority comes up with. I just want to establish a consensus so we can move on with improving the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Another point to consider is whether adopting the name used by Imperial Battles Nomenclature Committee is neutral POV. Surely the Turkish and the Germans had there own name for the engagement? Why then should we use one official name over another? Use of a generic naming format, per WP:MILMOS/C such as "Battle of X", "Seige of Y" or even "Action of Date" is less POV in my opinion. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's really interesting MarcusBritish about '"combat of..." is often relatively light fighting and rarely conclusive.' In the case of Abu Tellul no territory was won or lost and the fighting mainly between 2 regiments and 2 and a half battalions was over in a few hours. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
For those with an interest in, or sources related to, naval battles in the age of sail, I've raised some questions at Talk:Battle of the Saintes#Shifting commanders, if anyone would like to comment. Benea ( talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The peer review for May Revolution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Composite Squadron if anybody is interested in taking a look. Safiel ( talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to this article, which seems to be an OR essay. I've tagged it and explained the need to improve it on the talk page.
I could improve this article, though not in the next few days. What I would like, though, is for someone knowledgeable in these matters to have a look and see if they can find a published source which would support what is an arguable but non-standard view of the subject. Alternative academic interpretations could then be given to balance the article. Thanks. Monstrelet ( talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I want to share a little bit of what is going for a while now on the German Wiki. I follow the evolution of some of the articles there because of personal interest and occasionally I am pointed to a new book or story. I want to put this in the most neutral way possible without jumping to any conclusions prematurely, for a while now a very heated debate is raging between the inclusionists and exclusionsts. The debate is very much centered around the biographies of various recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. You can find examples of what I am referring to on the talk page of Joachim Helbig or talk page Erich Hartmann. What I find so astonishing is how personally offensive this debate is slugged out. The core of the dispute is centered around whether these personalities are noteworthy or not. The inclusionists argue that these men have earned Germany's highest award for military valor or have led a major unit as commanders. The exclusionists argue that most of these stories are "brown propaganda", alluding to the color of the Nazi uniforms. The line of reasoning then tries to discredit sources used leading to the inclusionists calling it censorship or comparing it to the Nazi book burnings. Edit wars rage and information originating from the "questionable" sources gets deleted. In some cases the article gets castrated to the point that indeed the noteworthiness is questionable. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Could we please have some additional views here about whether this article should be merged or reduced to a redirect in its current state? Briefly the pro argument goes that it was only an administrative formation, never engaged in combat, and the article is currently a short, unreferenced, stub. The con argument is that the formation existed and was of corps size thus the article should remain unmerged despite it's undeveloped state. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. I've been creating (by translation) basic articles on German divisions and brigades in the Bundeswehr, and generated a suitable template: Template:Bundeswehr divisions. However, this has identified a potential confusion. Currently divisional and brigade names are disambiguated using "(Germany)" ie. "1st Armoured Division (Germany)". However, when Bundeswehr division has the same name as a historic (e.g. Wehrmacht) division, we have a problem. e.g. both the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht had a "1st Mountain Division". Currently the existing article, 1st Mountain Division (Germany) is the historic one, but I wish to create its Bundeswehr counterpart. Usually German names are retained for the Wehrmacht (e.g. "1st Panzer Division" as opposed to "1st Armoured Division") but this is not the case for mountain divisions. An easy solution for now would be to use "(Bundeswehr)" and "(Wehrmacht)" for the articles affected. In the longer term that poses the question as to whether all German divisions should be disambiguated this way or not. Views? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that handling both divisions in one article would affect a huge scandal through the media in Germany, asking wether Wikipedia is reliable or even infiltrated by Neo-Nazism. Together with the fact that the divisions have nothing in common except their number and that they are a military unit of a german state, I would ask everyone please to seperate all divisions of the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr with the same numer/name. -- Bomzibar ( talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
How do we, ought we, deal with 9. Panzerdivision of the Landstreitkräfte of the NVA? Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(East Germany) is fine, I think - it's inconsistent with the other Germanies, but consistent with everything else. One caveat - for consistency and retroactive compatability - would be that we should make sure that any article with a (German Empire), (Wehrmacht), (Bundeswehr), or (East Germany) suffix has a corresponding redirect (or disambiguation page) at the (Germany) suffix. Likewise, it might be a good idea to make sure that any (Bundeswehr) suffix has a corresponding redirect from (West Germany). Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)