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. |
Hiya all, this is a largely theoretical query, but seems worth raising. In the horror that is Farcebook, I follow the Imperial War Museum's First World War Centenary feed, which is a welcome change to the usual drivel that many of my friends seem intent on posting. One of their daily updates is Faces of the war, which quite often includes some notable individuals. These updates are posted on Flickr. Today, Private Jack Thomas Counter has come up and includes a bit of blurb on the flick page. In this instance, there's a bit of useful information that isn't on the wikipedia page (ie. that he was a postman). I know that in this instance, this is only a small bit of info and might easily be found elsewhere, but theoretically, given that it's come from the IWM, could we treat these flickr updates as a reliable source? Obviously as long as we stick to the IWM text and not comments from other individuals.
BTW, I do recommend following the Facebook page if you're interested in this sort of thing. It's quite enlightening. Ranger Steve Talk 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have an opportunity to visit Yongsan Garrison in S. Korea, but my potential host thinks that I may not be allowed to take any photos there. So, topic question: what are the rules for taking photos of such places? If anybody can link to a .gov website answering it, which I could sent to my potential host, double thanks (better to have official rules then hearsay)! PS. Found [1], which states: "Public access to Army installations is determined by local commands. Photographing historical buildings or areasof public interest for private use is generally permitted but also subject to approval by the local command." I guess that means that a special permission needs to be obtained? Any idea how to go around getting one? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put it, but the Teahouse adviced me to get help for this article here or in WikiProject Korea. It's much, much better than the November version, but it's only me ever since. I need someone (or ones) else to do this. 9,280 results in Google for Donghak Peasant Revolution. In Google Book, 210 results; just 135 in Google Scholar.-- Seonoo of Kim ( ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 06:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick heads-up...
There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.
The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be very useful to have those pics already categorized moved. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a picture to do so and found it already done.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
With the unusually heated and elevated rhetoric from and regarding North Korea, I believe we should have an article somehow discussing the present state of affairs. As the basis, perhaps thus article could be used to give it context: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/26/north-korea-provocations--us/2020711 Jmj713 ( talk) 07:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_25#File:CFIA-ACIA_heraldic_emblem.jpg where this is occurring -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The following sections seem to be coming up as errors and not the assessed articles table (on the assessment page):
Am I right about these? Because to me it doesn't seem like they are the right wiki-code. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear all: I know that many there are a wide range of good article nominations currently open which may be of interest (I'll certainly be taking one on) some of which have been open for a while. However, today I nominated Henry VIII of England. All thoughts welcome; it's going to be a two-way process because of the wide range of material available, balance, and so on. One of the defining people of English history. Talk here. Thanks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 22:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just reading this article and was a little shocked at the bullet point list of claims made in the the Vichy France section, that are presented a little too firmly and unquestioningly in my opinion. From the fact that he was cleared by the French, it seems unlikely that it can definitively be said that he did all of these things and I'm minded to delete it as there's absolutely no reference for it. However, I admit to not knowing a huge amount about the subject, so I was wondering if anyone knew whether there's any substance to it? Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve Somali Armed Forces, and have repeatedly tagged dates of armed forces chiefs of staff with citation needed tags. Now it's my understanding that if somebody inserts a citation needed tag a citation *must* be provided, in line with WP:CITE. Instead, User:Middayexpress simply reinstates the removed unreferenced section, without any cites. He's said things like 'cites are at the linked articles.' Would people kindly give third opinions, or, better still, an unambiguous interpretation of WP:CITE? I'm getting rather annoyed with his flagrant flouting of the rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not my area but perhaps United States Naval Air Station, Wexford, Ireland may be worth a look by project members, dont understand the big blocks of what appear to be non-notable medal citations, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never heard of an Engineer Branch (United States) as opposed to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. So I've put it up the article up for deletion. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Someone created an article on Kenneth Bowra, but included the absolute bare minimum of information about him, to the point that it doesn't assert any notability. The name seemed familiar, and some brief Googling indicates that Bowra probably does meet criteria for inclusion (some company made a Kenneth Bowra action figure? Why would they do that unless they felt he was notable? And he was a guest of honor at Dragoncon 2005?), but I don't feel up to distilling the raw data into a suitable form. Anyone want to take on the task? DS ( talk) 14:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A large number of Victoria's Cross holders' images are up for deletion, see WP:PUF for April 1 and April 2. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we are having a discussion about the deletion of a MILHIST article, and we came upon a List of United States Army Military Police Units. I have no objection to the list article, hoever there is an excess of redlinks, and quite honestly I don't see many of the units ever becoming notable enough for their own article. Some of the smaller units have article pages, but many are unreferenced and would not likely meet the standard for inclusion if they were prod'ed. The fact that a unit exists doen't make it notable, nor does it necessarily if the unit has received an award (in my mind). I am of the opinion that the unit would need to have a significant impact on military operations/history. For instance, USARCENT has a significant impact of military operations, has a notable history, ect. Compare that to 11th Military Police Brigade which has the notable claim of conducting detainee ops... Not saying it isn't important, but I think we need to be reasonable on standards for inclusion. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oak leaf cluster | |
---|---|
There is currently a mismatch in the images between the bronze oak leaf cluster and silver oak leaf cluster. The image for the bronze OLC is currently a rendered PNG image, while the image for the silver OLC is a photograph of an actual metal OLC device in SVG format. It's easy to miss if you're only looking at one of them, perhaps mounted on a ribbon bar on a biography article on Wikipedia, but on the oak leaf cluster article itself the disparity is immediately obvious (see comparison images at right).
If you look at the respective image file histories ( leaf cluster, bronze.svg bronze, silver), it appears some editors have flipped the images back and forth, and now there is a mismatch between the rendered drawing of the bronze and the photograph of the silver. I don't know it should be the rendered image or the photograph image, but they should match each other (both be rendered, or both be photographs). What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User:skinsmoke is creating lots of single member categories under the man Forts in Wales one, and mixing Roman and modern sites. I think this is a bad idea. Vicarage ( talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm on holiday and don't have the time to do that, but if he's doing so many category changes I suspect he's over categorizing all over the place and needs talking too. But look at "Forts in Wales" to see how many subcategories now appear. If it were me I'd treat them as vandalism and mass revert, but I'm not in the mood for argument Vicarage ( talk) 06:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well this is the quickest way of showing them all:
To display all subcategories click on the "►": |
---|
Hillforts in Anglesey (4 P)
Hillforts in Cardiff (2 P)
Hillforts in Carmarthenshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Ceredigion (5 P)
Hillforts in Denbighshire (9 P)
Hillforts in Flintshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Gwynedd (6 P)
Lists of hillforts of Wales (1 P)
Hillforts in Pembrokeshire (5 P)
Hillforts in Powys (15 P)
Hillforts in Snowdonia (3 P)
Hillforts in Swansea (2 P)
Hillforts in Anglesey (4 P)
Hillforts in Cardiff (2 P)
Hillforts in Ceredigion (5 P)
Hillforts in Denbighshire (9 P)
Hillforts in Flintshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Gwynedd (6 P)
Hillforts in Pembrokeshire (5 P)
Hillforts in Powys (15 P)
Hillforts in Snowdonia (3 P)
Hillforts in Swansea (2 P) |
So, it seems we have a LOT of sub-cats under "Forts in Wales", most with 1 or 2 pages. You feel they need to be rolled back into the main cat and not divided into counties.. is that right? Though this is not technically "vandalism", it is very over-categorised due to the fact that when creating new small categories it should first be considered whether the category will expand over time. In the case of historical forts and castles, the answer is clearly that this is not going to be the case. Best thing would be propose a merger of these at WP:CfD whereby someone might rollback all these creation en masse and save time, if the community agrees the creator has been over-zealous. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 06:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Perhaps by that example you'll see some of the problems with over-categorisation - i.e. micro-management at county level adds complications. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Typing on phone, so being brief. When I reorgamised uk fort categories 2 years ago I wanted the categories to be useful for map plotting, as location vital for understanding forts. So I set up categories around military targets like Medway, and putting outliers under their county. So for Wales Icd have Milford Haven and then Wales as a whole as there are few other patterns that are useful.
I also wanted Roman and hillforts seperate, as each interest group wouldn't want the maps cluttered with the othet periods. Maiden Castle has no bearing on the defence of Portlanf Harbour!
Historical categories are more useful defined by the boundaries of their period so you want to be careful defining forts of Port Talbot if it wasn't there at the time Vicarage ( talk) 07:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As a fort tourist, broad categories are more useful to me than local government locations. South Wales is a suitable size. And hillforts/Roman/castles/forts should be distinct as they have different audiences. Skinsmoke's changes muddy that. Vicarage ( talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there someone in here with easy access to the library of the University of California? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CV-22. Since you had some involvement with the CV-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 08:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
1st Reconnaissance Squadron, has been proposed for a move to 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (USAF). If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Sylheti Soldier has been adding copyrighted and very iffy images to Equipment of the Bangladesh Army and List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force following his block a number of IPs continued to add images and data to these two articles. I have now semi-protected both articles for a while but the IPs latest is to dump the article on to the talk page. Not an expert on Army stuff so would appreciate project members keeping an eye on these two articles particularly when protection ends. Also note User:Sylheti Soldier is now flikr washing images before uploading them to commons thinking we would not notice! Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)+
Relating to past discussions regarding the articles Salvatore Giunta, Leroy Petry, and unit citations as personal permanent wear items, the United States Army fulfilled my FOIA request and have emailed me redacted copies of documents that support certain unit citations. That being said, these documents are not posted online, and thus are not easily citable. Can I upload these scans to Wikisource, and if I did are they usable as reliable sources to verify content in the article? Also are there any identity theft or MOS:BLP issues that I should be aware of before such an upload?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A new Post-nominal template has recently surfaced on my journey through wikipedia. So far there is one for Australia and New Zealand found here respectively; Template:Post-nominals/AUS and Template:Post-nominals/NZL.
This template seems really simple and easy to use, I have already used it on Quentin Bryce's page. Your thought's everyone? Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently building an article at my sandbox here. I would appreciate any help, as i'm going to be busy today. There are some more articles with coverage on google. Really wish I had more time to devote to it, but I think she is a notable Soldier, who deserves an article. Also, an issue maybe someone could address, the first article states that Ft. Fort McClellan is in Georgia, but our article states it is in Alabama. Also, that article states that the city was given an award by Atlanta. WTF? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi-I started an article about Benjamin Purcell. He served in the United States Army and was a POW during the Vietnam War. After he retired from the Army Purcell owned a Christmas tree farm and served in the Georgia House of Representatives. I know nothing about military ranks/decorations, etc. I started the article because of his legislative career. I worked on articles about US state legislators. Any help with the article would greatly appreciated. Thank you- RFD ( talk) 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a FLC containing 53 people of which at least 20% were notable U.S. Military figures. If anyone has the inclination (and time) to review this list, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks-- Godot13 ( talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
What should I do with this article on the talkpage since this is taking up 1 of the incomplete B class. Put a redirect? Adamdaley ( talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes.
Comment from an involved party: This is relevant for MILHIST as many MILHIST articles include an NRHP infobox, often in a secondary role, such as for a building on battleground built before or after the battle. The bot as proposed could assert the NRHP item's construction date is the "start date" of the article topic. -- do ncr am 01:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this edit and other similar contributions by that account - they all seem to focus on altering the assessment of an event during the conflict where a number of civilians were reportedly killed by Portuguese troops. The account adds one source and removes all the neutral terms like alleged, reportedly, and so on, from one of the articles. I don't know too much about the topic any more - I wrote on it many years ago now - anyone have any concerns? S.G.(GH) ping! 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean War#Reversion of Reversion. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, if anybody has a little time on their hands to contribute a review at WP:MHACR, it would be greatly appreciated. The following:
have been open for three weeks or longer and have not received sufficient reviews for promotion. Any help would be appreciated—even just reading through it and asking any questions that pop into your mind is helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's surprisingly hard to find an image. I want one for List of hairstyles.
Nothing here or here. Can someone please help?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Done
Could anybody help with a query about tank armour over at the Science Refdesk please? Alansplodge ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Heer has been listed at Redirects for Discussion for a month and a half, with somewhat mixed input. The nomination came following activity by noclador, which was preceded by some brief commentary on this page, now found here. This move discussion is also relevant. A broader input would be most welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Details are at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Foundation statement regarding the situation in France. This is obviously highly relevant for members of this project. I've seen a few examples of what appear to be military personnel removing information sourced to publicly-available documents (including published books and websites) from articles on the grounds of 'operational security', but this awful behaviour by the French government goes well beyond this. Nick-D ( talk) 23:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:Groups_of_the_United_States regarding the proper naming of a particular category. Interested members are invited to join in. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A part in the "Minuteman" section reads "Just as important, the guidance system allowed for the inclusion of eight pre-selected targets. This allowed the force to ride out a first-strike, re-target on the remaining enemy targets, and launch." The wording used here is confusing, and it's not clear which nation's "first strike" is referred to. The term "ride out" suggests the Minuteman/ICBM fleet is enduring a Soviet first strike, but the phrasing "remaining enemy targets" implies some of the Soviet targets have already been destroyed, suggesting the US launched the first strike. The "eight pre-selected targets" feature would be useful in either case, so I can't decide which meaning is correct. Does anyone know enough to fix this? Some guy ( talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The info box contains different figures to what is given in the aftermath section. I would post this on the talk page but it was brought up in 2005 and seems to still be incorrect. Keted6 ( talk) 00:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't suppose someone could give Bronislaw Urbański a look? User:Youngbruno has put a lot of work into it and on the surface it looks pretty good, but on closer inspection it falls apart rather, for instance most of the references seem quite generic rather than relating specifically to Urbański. I suspect this is a biography of a not-particularly notable family member, but it's way out of my area so could I hand it over to you guys? Le Deluge ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Back in June 2012, a proposal was made to merge the following articles to the Manassas Campaign main article:
since these articles are about minor firefights between a few companies. Nothing was done with this suggestion. Any thoughts on this? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that few ADW articles have been upgraded past B-class recenly. There has also been little activity on the Brothers at War project. Any suggestions on how to increase participation in this project? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Planning has begun for an Australian leg of the popular Wiki Loves Monuments competition focused on war memorials. If you're interested in participating, please sign up on Commons here. I'm not sure how WLM works, but given that Australian war memorials are dotted around the globe there may be scope for non-Australian editors to participate in this leg of the competition (for instance, we don't have a genuinely good image of the Australian War Memorial, London). Nick-D ( talk) 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This could use some attention. Thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice this was called for as an article under open tasks (weaponry). Is it possible this is already addressed by the article Pesh-kabz ? I'm no knife expert, but the article suggests "Khyber Knife" was among the British terms for these weapons. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just seen this - to raise funds for the restoration of HMS Alliance (P417), an Amphion-class sub, on Saturday they're giving guided tours of the RN's Gosport facilities that are normally not open to the public including HMS Sultan (establishment) and the former HMS Dolphin (shore establishment). There's also a talk tonight at 7pm about Dolphin. Should be interesting in its own right, but also a good opportunity to take some photos for all things relating to submarines and naval engineering. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Info: I've boldly redirected History of Germany during World War II to Nazi Germany. Honestly, I don't see a purpose for that article, because all the information exists elsewhere, better written, better referenced and better summarized. The concerns were expressed back in 2005 AFD remain to this date, quote: "Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail.". Most activity on that article was just vandalism and its cleanup. No such user ( talk) 07:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar, as it has been waiting for a while to be reviewed. I'm planning to nominate it for GA status so it would be nice to get DYK out of the way first. Prioryman ( talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing a GAN review, and my belief is that the nominator relies too heavily on quotes for this to pass GAN ... but I'd like to hear more opinions. In Eastern European articles generally, and particularly for articles covering genocide in the Balkans, Wikipedians use more quotes than in other articles, but for a variety of reasons, I think this goes too far. For instance, in one section:
Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm told that, (as forecast/indicated in initial press releases for the Australian Operational Service Medal), the OSM for civilians is being awarded for service in Afghanistan. But I can't find any supporting evidence for this on the web. Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (Probably the most useful place to reply is Talk:Australian Operational Service Medal#Civilian variant.)
It seems I didn't state my question clearly enough.
I'm told that the
Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians for service in Afghanistan is currently being awarded. However, I can find no evidence anywhere that the OSM for civilians has been awarded to anyone for any service anywhere, (much less for service in Afghanistan).
Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Calling entrants in the March contest -- could use assistance verifying entries so awards can be handed out and the contest results section of the next issue of the Bugle updated. If you haven't done this before, remember you can verify anyone's entries but your own, checking that an article's assessment level has changed as indicated in the table during March (not before or after) and that the resultant points are correct. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Casimir_Pulaski#Ship_on_which_Pulaski_died. It is likely the disambig USS Wasp is missing an entry. Help from American naval history experts needed. Please direct all comments to Pulaski's article for a centralized discussion. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The article 470th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sephiroth storm (
talk) 22:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Totally disagree. All brigades and larger (and most battalions too) should be considered notable. This to me is no more than common sense. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Not sure if this has been posted here before but given the latest attempt to delete post 1945 Australian images from the encyclopedia I thought some of our editors might be interested in this link [17]. I contains a small collection of seemingly free images from the AWM as posed on Flickr. Its a bit limited (and most of the images are 'posey') but it covers a fairly wide period from WWI to the present and might prove useful to someone. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, we've just hit a remarkable 400 A-class articles! Obviously the number fluctuates as many of the articles are subsequently successful in attaining featured status, but I think this is a milestone worth celebrating. More importantly, it gives me an opportunity to say thank you to the nominators for trusting in our A-class review system, and of course our indefatigable reviewers, without whom there would be no A-class reviews, and the coordinator team who act as the guardians of the process and keep the wheels turning. So thank you to all who keep the process going, and here's to the next 400! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:WikiProject Martial arts about a proposal to merge all the Iga Ninja articles into the province article. -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Polish mine detector has been proposed to be renamed to mine detector, see talk:Polish mine detector -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I currently have some article drafts in my userspace that I was looking to expand some more before moving them to the mainspace and I was just wondering if anyone else would be interested in some collaboration on them. Here are the two articles: User:Dainomite/21st Special Tactics Squadron and User:Dainomite/720th Special Tactics Group if you want to take a gander at what I have so far. I'm also open to any questions, comments or any of the like regarding them. Thanks, — - dain omite 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is a wikilink to Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments a necessity on See also section in the article 185th Infantry Regiment (United States)? I have started a discussion regarding that question here. Interested editors are invited to join in the conversation.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am writing regarding inaccuracies of the content on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery. I have attempted to resolve them myself, but they have been changed back each time. I think it is important to note that all of the information below did not appear on this specific page until a couple weeks ago and are not accurate to the U.S. Navy’s mission.
The introduction – “Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) is a type of aircraft able to ferry personnel, mail, and high-priority cargo, such asreplacement parts, on and off a naval ship, generally an aircraft carrier,” is inaccurate per the U.S. Navy ( http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=100&ct=1). The mission page states, “…primary mission is the transport of high-priority cargo, mail and passengers between carriers and shore bases.” Furthermore, Northrop Grumman’s C-2 Greyhound is the only COD platform that has ever existed for the U.S. Navy. That point is not accurately reflected.
I'm proposing a more accurate statement that reads: “The U.S. Navy’s carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission is responsible for the delivery and transport of high-priority cargo, personnel and supplies from shore bases to aircraft carriers at sea. Northrop Grumman’s C-2A Greyhound has served as the Navy’s primary COD platform for 50 years.”
I understand that this may be viewed as a small, minute change, but it is significant in terms of accurately reflecting the mission requirements and what actually occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcdev12 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The recent activities and article creations of this active sockpuppeteer/hoaxster might need some attention from this project. I've tried looking at some of the "sources" he provides, but nothing really clicks. FallingGravity ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot more ship FACs up than usual, and all of them need reviews: Pennsylvania-class battleship, SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Kearsarge (BB-5), USS Saratoga (CV-3), and Zong massacre. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello I tryed to create a few articles about MOWAG vehicles but i runn into problems. I am not a native english speaking person and creating articels on the english wikipedia is differend to the german wiki. There exist a Main page about MOWAG and Sub pages about the MOWAG Piranha, Eagl Duro. I collectet informations about some other MOWAG vehicles, and i would be very happy if some one could help me creat this articels or even would like to use my prework to create a article. I have placed the informations (temporay9 on the talkpage of MOWAG and on my talk page (but this IPnr is used from differend persons and so maybie not safe). I have also some Infos ready about some swiss tanks and Saurer Military vehicles. and a, still very raw, article about the last swiss fighterjetproject ALR Piranha.
See here User:193.5.216.100/sandbox at the moment i have here prepared the Informations about MOWAG Tanks- —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
193.5.216.100 (
talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In recognition of ANZAC Day, Military history of Australia during World War II will be today's featured article for 25 April (starting in about half an hour). There's generally an upsurge in vandalism of Australian military history articles around ANZAC day, and this is obviously going to be a major target. I'll be checking in regularly today, and I'd appreciate it if other editors could also keep an eye on the article. Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sidney Smith (Royal Navy officer) is reported in the Morning Chronicle of 26 November 1805 to have invented the "double-boats" Cancer and Gemini, both of which foundered. Am I right in thinking that by "double-boat", a catamaran was meant? Mjroots ( talk) 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Any ideas about which task force this should be under? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 16:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This would probably be a good canidate of a collaboration. It is in need of an expansion, especially in regards of sources. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
For some time now I have issues loading this page. Page load takes up to a few minutes and not all the boxes get included correctly. Am I the only person with this issue? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Norman conquest of England; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a few very relevant WW1 maps relating to Battle of the Hohenzollern Redoubt and nearby that have come down to me from my grandfather, Geoffrey Vickers who fought there. Some are clearly marked as by Ordnance Survey, which I understand we are able to use because OS copyright lasts only 50 years, however others are not marked. If the maps are in his own work then we have legal copyright and can release them on a suitable licence, however they could have been produced by someone else unknown. Should I upload them on WP Commons, if so what should I say about copyright? Or would Flickr would be better if there are copyright doubts? I note that the map on the current article is flagged with a query (I have a copy of the same map but from an earlier data with the trenches shown in different ownership). PeterEastern ( talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, just a general note for those who don't have them installed, the following scripts are useful for detecting Harvard citation errors and duplicate links in your articles (and in those you're reviewing):
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dfvj ( talk · contribs) has recently been linking some German officers from this article, on which no article exists yet on the English wikipedia, to their equivalent articles on the German wikipedia. I reverted those edits to restore the redlinks on the basis of Wikipedia:Red link, including the section on interwikis which states that if such links that are to be made, they are to be done in a different way to how this user is doing it anyway. Yet he continually reverts. Perhaps other users could have a look and weigh in, just in case I have a wrong understanding of the linking policy here. If there are articles on other wikipedias on a subject the English wikipedia does not yet have, is it better to link to foreign language wikipedias rather than leaving a red link on the English one? Benea ( talk) 09:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Lusatian_operation.3F. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at these old historic images please. Amazing quality. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Pls. note http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Infoboxes_task_force#Phase_2_on_hold_f.C3.BCr_military.2Bweapons_templates Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention of the regular users of this board to the 'criticism' section of this article. I have filed an RfC regarding this section that aims to gain consensus on the validity of this section, particularly in the light of wikipedia policies concerning criticism sections. Generous commentary on that page is invited. Handyunits ( talk) 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed on the ACW task force page that any list articles above start class are lumped with the other articles instead of being in their own category, even though the list's talk page might have the disignation. (For example, Talk:Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 is listed as BL-class but is included in the regular B-class category.) Any way to change this? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
the existence of the article Uprising of the Iga Ninja is under discussion at WT:WikiProject Martial Arts -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Tactical Autonomous Combatant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ansh
666 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article about these (a sort of early Home Guard) and I thought I would have a crack at it - this page gives an overview. The Volunteer (disambiguation) page has a Volunteer Infantry redlink, although I believe that there was Volunteer artillery too. We already have Volunteer Force (Great Britain) for 1859-1908, and Loyal Volunteers redirects to an article about colonial Pennsylvania. Can anyone suggest a better name for the article? Alansplodge ( talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Found these when expanding the article on the Ups and Downs (69th Foot), in case anyone else wants to check them out. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone tell me if this is useful? Feel free to review the submission. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm such a dunce! Sorry about that, mate, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Military of the Sassanid Empire sidebar. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The Androcide article used to be a stub, I added some materials from Gendercide but it needs a full treatment. Help requested. Thanks!-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone else can look at the image located on this webpage. The image is published in a reliable source, but the photo is "Courtesy of Vance Peterson", who at the time that the image was taken was an active duty lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. It appears to be a personal photo, not taken in an official capacity. Therefore, the question is, as an active duty individual at the time which the photo was taken, is the image in the public domain, or is it not? I have looked at the WP:NFC, and if it isn't in the public domain (per Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works as other images produced by U.S. federal government personnel are, then it would not be usable per WP:NFC#UUI. So which is it?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Another version of the image can be found here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the template
Modern IFV and APC is in need of a major clean-up. I already took out prototypes, that have never gone into production, links to company sites, trucks, etc. but one fundamental problem remains: most people that added vehicles to the template did not know what actually an
IFV or an
APC is! Therefore there are a lot vehicles listed that do not belong there. If I were to be bold I would remove almost all the 4x4 vehicles, as most of them do not qualify as an APC; but I think it is better to establish first consensus about what belongs on the template and what not and then make a note at the template so that people don't keep adding
MRAPs or
LAPVs (as i.e. the
LAPV Enok).
The
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines APCs and IFV as follows:
A lot of the 4x4 vehicles in the template can only transport 3 or 4 people, which is not even half a squad (the drivers and gunners of the vehicle don't count). As a compromise all vehicles, which are armoured, can transport at least half a squad and carry a weapon could stay in the template. Anyone else has an opinion about this? noclador ( talk) 01:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I split the template into 4 templates to put the various vehicles into more fitting groups:
A further template was needed for Armoured Jeeps as i.e. the Ocelot. So I created a template provisionally named Modern light tactical vehicles, but I did not yet add this template to any article. Basically that last template groups armoured cars and Jeeps together. If anyone has suggestion on how to improve the templates, please feel free to do so. noclador ( talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been advised to ask here about a matter which may have a wider remit than just the single article in question. We have had a situation on Ian Fleming recently that has resulted in the inclusion of an article from a fanzine, largely at the insistence of the author, whose approach and attitude has ensured a rather toxic talk page for a while. Although the new information (which I inserted with this edit) is probably correct and replaced what was probably an incorrect and unsupported statement, it is still based on something from a fanzine, which makes a number of editors rather uncomfortable. Given the source to be a fanzine, published by the James Bond International Fan Club—and this edit to have been pushed by the author of the article—would people generally consider this information to pass muster as a reliable source in any article, much less an FA? - SchroCat ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
On a related point, I'm concerned about the difficulties we used to have with Audie Murphy and that we're apparently having with Ian Fleming now, and what that says about what direction Wikipedia is headed. More later. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
See my discussion of these controversies below at Operation Golden Eye; I think this is an open-ended dialogue (an argument, really) that is not situated towards finding a solution or reaching a consensus. I think discussions like this are sometimes healthy, but not when they're so predominated by two editors so as to discourage most potential participants from engaging in the discussion. Because of the treatises that have already been written, I, for instance, don't want to get involved, whereas I have an actual opinion. My suggestion is that this be taken to a place where a consensus can actually be reached, such as WP:RS/N, which would allow for broader participation by Wikipedia editors outside MILHIST (as this isn't really a MILHIST-specific question). Place a notice here when an RS/N discussion or an RfC is opened. Cdtew ( talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a ribbon picture to the article Awards and decorations of the United States military. An editor has questioned the validity of this image, although I have provided some on-line links and other references. Other editors are needed for comment, so we can build consensus. The discussion is at: Talk:Awards_and_decorations_of_the_United_States_military#Chaplain.27s_Medal. - OberRanks ( talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across it while updating BC communities listings.....it's in rough shape, and has no refs other than the post office one I just added. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On the Talk page for Operation Golden Eye I've been involved in a discussion with SchroCat, firstly about the name - consulting the primary sources, I think it should be changed to 'Goldeneye' as one word - and then in a separate section the title of the article itself, as again according to the primary sources this wasn't an operation, but was instead the codename given to a British intelligence unit that was based on Gibraltar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Golden_Eye#Was_this_a_plan_or_an_operation.3F
ShcroCat and I now have some history - see above! - and he's withdrawn from trying to reach consensus with me on this. I agree that it's not a tiny thing to change the title of an article, and I won't without discussing it with others first - but I can't reach consensus with SchroCat, clearly, as he's withdrawn. I think I've constructively addressed the various criteria suggested in WP:UCN, and my feeling is that even though most secondary sources do call this Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldeneye, the title and the body should be changed to reflect the primary sources, so we don't continue to perpetuate the error, leading to yet more sources getting it wrong in the future. One reason a lot of people still call it Operation Goldeneye will clearly be because of the Wikipedia entry.
I've tried to apply common sense to come up with a constructive solution for those searching on Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldene Eye - a redirect for both, plus a short parenthetical statement in the lede saying that the unit is sometimes referred to in those terms. Could someone please come and have a read of the discussion and help me reach a consensus on this? It seems a shame to leave this entire article as inaccurate simply because others have got it wrong, when we can apply common sense, be bold, and make it right. Jeremy Duns ( talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Guys, this really is out of hand. Jeremy, the proper avenue for this discussion is via WP:RM/CM, and you can invite others from MILHIST to that discussion once it's started for comment on the article's talk page. Once a consensus is reached, you'll have your (relatively) final answer on the matter. This and the above discussion have occurred in several places, including already book-length comments on the respective articles' talk pages, and on SchroCat's talk page. There are procedures to resolve disputes like this -- RfC's for instance -- and moving these disputes to MILHIST's talk page just presents another fora for grievances, not a possible avenue to a solution. Cdtew ( talk) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to create a category for Union support in the South during the American Civil War (for articles like State of Scott), and a subcategory for Southerners who supported the Union (for biographical articles like John Netherland), but I'm not sure what to name them. There is an article entitled Southern Unionists. Any suggestions? Bms4880 ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this person meet the notability guidlines? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, During the current ACR of Artur Phleps and GAN review of Helmuth Raithel we've had a couple of discussions about the use of initial capitals for German ranks (in these cases Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS ones). WP:JOBTITLES says that ranks are common nouns and as such they are not capitalised, but if the rank is followed by the person's name it is capitalised. Per "Captain James Bloggs" but "James Bloggs was promoted to captain". However, in many articles about Germany and Germans editors use the German rank rather than the (sometimes rough) equivalent in English, but may follow it with the English equivalent in parentheses. In the German language all nouns have initial capitals, thus Hauptmann (captain) and Leutnant (lieutenant), not hauptmann or leutnant. Complicating this further is the fact that all Waffen-SS and Allgemeine-SS ranks include an initialisation (SS) and a hyphen, and many senior ranks include the proper noun "Waffen-SS". An example would be SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS. If we applied WP:JOBTITLES strictly to this rank it would be per "SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS Artur Phleps", but "Phleps was then promoted to ss-obergruppenfuhrer und general der waffen-ss" or something similar. Of course, this strict application of JOBTITLES doesn't reflect what the sources use when referring to Waffen-SS ranks. For example, [21], [22], and [23]. I propose that we adopt the guideline that all German ranks have initial capitals whenever mentioned, or alternatively that this exception to JOBTITLES be applied only to Waffen-SS ranks. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Robert Bacher; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Artur Phleps; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of sieges of Gibraltar; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
My basic question is: Is there a difference between "Order of precedence" and "Order of wearing"? If so, what is the difference?
I have sufficient reliable data to support that in Australia and Canada they are the same thing. (See my talk page for details.)
However, the contents of the field at the bottom of infoboxes on medals pages (titled "Precedence") continue to contain statements either explicitly stating, or implying, things like "GC is the same order of precedence as VC", when quite clearly they are not the same in the order of wearing. (See VC, OzVC, CV, GC, etc.) Where is this "order of precedence" defined? Nowhere can I find a document specifying an order of precedence that is different from the order of wearing.
Can anyone attempt to enlighten me? (Or failing that, inform me?) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(BTW: If they are the same thing, that seems to me like a reason to change the contents of the infoboxes. Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I've been trying to keep the Announcements page up to date, and yesterday I discovered that Crusades was nominated for a peer review on 17 April per [29], but it doesn't come up on the article alerts page here [30]. It is a Core Contest article, could that be the reason? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It is proposed renaming Australian Honours Order of Precedence to Australian Honours Order of Wearing. If this proposal is successful the former title would be linked to the new title. The Governor General of Australia from time to time notifies for general information the positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals. The most recent notification was in Commonwealth on Australia Gazette No. S192, Friday, 28 September 2007 and the title of the document is THE ORDER OF WEARING AUSTRALIAN HONOURS AND AWARDS. In the context of positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals the phrases order of precedence and order of wearing are interchangeable. However, the change in article title is being proposed because order of precedence has not been used in the title of the Australian document since 1991 and does not appear anywhere in the current document. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement about whether Korea should be listed as a location in the lead of Japanese war crimes. Please provide your opinion in the existing discussion on its talk page if you think you can help. ( Hohum @) 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have an article I'm trying to get FAC-ready, so please drop by Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1 and give me your thoughts, if any. If I don't have other comments within the next day or two, I'll go ahead and close the Peer Review and nominate for FAC. Thanks Cdtew ( talk) 19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages ( WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on [[User talk:WhatamIdoing|my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Just discovered this article today. I don't know if anyone here is more familiar with Castner's Cutthroats than I am (and my familiarity doesn't really run all that deep), but it should be obvious that Castner was not best known for competing in the 1924 Olympics. In fact, the first biography I consulted doesn't even mention it. Anyone feel like rescuing this article? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
An intriguing daily double for y'all. An article of interest to both the French task force and the American Civil War task force. I started it because I came across its end while I was working to improve USS Stars and Stripes (1861), so its end is reasonably well covered but could probably use some improvement, but there's currently nothing there about its construction or career. Carolina wren ( talk) 03:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
In recent days, there has been editing done by another user, which I do not object too. I left a message on this users talkpage as well as on Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher talkpage. Honestly, I feel he is only semantic, while his reply on the article talkpage stating that the changes he made are "preferable". Preferable to who? This particular user? Basically, I'm asking the Coordinators of WikiProject Military History and the one's who assessed it (for GA and A class assessments) to state their case why wasn't any of this changed back then? If this was "preferable"? Please reply to this on the article talkpage and to address this particular user and his changes. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created and populated Category:Tombs of Unknown Soldiers. Please feel free to add or remove articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Gday all. A few editors have been working on adding citations to the Gallipoli Campaign article. Unfortunately there are a few intractable ones that we don't seem to have any sources on. In particular there are a few IRT Winston Churchill's fortunes after the battle that I was hoping someone here might be able to dig up. A few others scattered through out the article too. If we can get these it will probably be B class. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help), I would think it would have the needed reference. --
Lineagegeek (
talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All done now. Thanks to those who dug these up. Much appreciated. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This article contains the line "Its history begins as a munitions-testing site for the Imperial Russian Army in 1916". There is no further reference to this in the text.
Either this line is spurious or it is not. I feel that obviously if it is then it should be removed from the article. However, if it is not then the events that led this to occur merit more than this passing mention. Thoughts? Britmax ( talk) 10:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but it said military firearms should be discussed here. The Rotary Cannon page and other pages relating to weapons of a similar type all refer to "Gatling-type" weapons. I feel this is inaccurate since Gatling Guns were hand-cranked, rather than gas-powered or electric. It would be better to change all instances of "Gatling-type" to "Rotary-type". -- Trifler ( talk) 06:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for:
For some reason they show for me as in JSTOR but not online (weird as I can assess many other JSTOR stuff). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If the Iveco Superav is typed in, it redirects to the Marine Personnel Carrier page. The Superav is an entry in the MPC program. Does anyone know why it redirects there? Also, is there a Superav page or does it need to be made? America789 ( talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm uncertain what would be an appropriate title for the Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia that took place from 20 September 1991 till 3 January 1992. Since the offensive consisted of numerous engagements, and aiming to have a short (or not as long) article title, I was thinking about "JNA campaign in Croatia". Would that be fine or is use of the acronym problematic? (note: there already is a GA titled "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan" using an acronym, although NATO is far more common term than JNA) Sources refer to the campaign in descriptive terms i.e. "Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against/in Croatia" or as the "JNA strategic offensive in Croatia". As far as I can tell from sources discussing the offensive, there is no proper name or codename for the campaign - at least not in the secondary sources. Any suggestions?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefix the title with 1991 - the few days of 1992 turned out to be inconsequential, it's overwhelmingly known as "1991" locally anyway. Also, the notion that the juxtaposition of JNA and Croatia is POV is flawed - JNA did indeed lead a campaign against the legitimate government of the Yugoslav constituent country known as "Croatia" under its own interpretation of federal laws (that was ultimately rendered illegitimate by the Badinter Commission, but regardless). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A general comment: "campaign" is OK inasmuch as it does not imply "attack", "offensive" or anything like that, so it is reasonably neutral. I don't think that calling this topic "JNA campaign in Croatia" is POV as in biased, but it arguably might be construed as POV as in one-sided, as it singles out JNA in the role of principal agent. There is a counter-argument to that, though: in the wider context of Yugoslav Wars, JNA was a principal agent, taking part in all conflicts, and pursuing essentially the same goals. GregorB ( talk) 20:33, 10 May 2013 (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. |
Hiya all, this is a largely theoretical query, but seems worth raising. In the horror that is Farcebook, I follow the Imperial War Museum's First World War Centenary feed, which is a welcome change to the usual drivel that many of my friends seem intent on posting. One of their daily updates is Faces of the war, which quite often includes some notable individuals. These updates are posted on Flickr. Today, Private Jack Thomas Counter has come up and includes a bit of blurb on the flick page. In this instance, there's a bit of useful information that isn't on the wikipedia page (ie. that he was a postman). I know that in this instance, this is only a small bit of info and might easily be found elsewhere, but theoretically, given that it's come from the IWM, could we treat these flickr updates as a reliable source? Obviously as long as we stick to the IWM text and not comments from other individuals.
BTW, I do recommend following the Facebook page if you're interested in this sort of thing. It's quite enlightening. Ranger Steve Talk 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have an opportunity to visit Yongsan Garrison in S. Korea, but my potential host thinks that I may not be allowed to take any photos there. So, topic question: what are the rules for taking photos of such places? If anybody can link to a .gov website answering it, which I could sent to my potential host, double thanks (better to have official rules then hearsay)! PS. Found [1], which states: "Public access to Army installations is determined by local commands. Photographing historical buildings or areasof public interest for private use is generally permitted but also subject to approval by the local command." I guess that means that a special permission needs to be obtained? Any idea how to go around getting one? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put it, but the Teahouse adviced me to get help for this article here or in WikiProject Korea. It's much, much better than the November version, but it's only me ever since. I need someone (or ones) else to do this. 9,280 results in Google for Donghak Peasant Revolution. In Google Book, 210 results; just 135 in Google Scholar.-- Seonoo of Kim ( ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 06:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick heads-up...
There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.
The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be very useful to have those pics already categorized moved. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a picture to do so and found it already done.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
With the unusually heated and elevated rhetoric from and regarding North Korea, I believe we should have an article somehow discussing the present state of affairs. As the basis, perhaps thus article could be used to give it context: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/26/north-korea-provocations--us/2020711 Jmj713 ( talk) 07:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_25#File:CFIA-ACIA_heraldic_emblem.jpg where this is occurring -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The following sections seem to be coming up as errors and not the assessed articles table (on the assessment page):
Am I right about these? Because to me it doesn't seem like they are the right wiki-code. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear all: I know that many there are a wide range of good article nominations currently open which may be of interest (I'll certainly be taking one on) some of which have been open for a while. However, today I nominated Henry VIII of England. All thoughts welcome; it's going to be a two-way process because of the wide range of material available, balance, and so on. One of the defining people of English history. Talk here. Thanks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 22:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just reading this article and was a little shocked at the bullet point list of claims made in the the Vichy France section, that are presented a little too firmly and unquestioningly in my opinion. From the fact that he was cleared by the French, it seems unlikely that it can definitively be said that he did all of these things and I'm minded to delete it as there's absolutely no reference for it. However, I admit to not knowing a huge amount about the subject, so I was wondering if anyone knew whether there's any substance to it? Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve Somali Armed Forces, and have repeatedly tagged dates of armed forces chiefs of staff with citation needed tags. Now it's my understanding that if somebody inserts a citation needed tag a citation *must* be provided, in line with WP:CITE. Instead, User:Middayexpress simply reinstates the removed unreferenced section, without any cites. He's said things like 'cites are at the linked articles.' Would people kindly give third opinions, or, better still, an unambiguous interpretation of WP:CITE? I'm getting rather annoyed with his flagrant flouting of the rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not my area but perhaps United States Naval Air Station, Wexford, Ireland may be worth a look by project members, dont understand the big blocks of what appear to be non-notable medal citations, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never heard of an Engineer Branch (United States) as opposed to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. So I've put it up the article up for deletion. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Someone created an article on Kenneth Bowra, but included the absolute bare minimum of information about him, to the point that it doesn't assert any notability. The name seemed familiar, and some brief Googling indicates that Bowra probably does meet criteria for inclusion (some company made a Kenneth Bowra action figure? Why would they do that unless they felt he was notable? And he was a guest of honor at Dragoncon 2005?), but I don't feel up to distilling the raw data into a suitable form. Anyone want to take on the task? DS ( talk) 14:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A large number of Victoria's Cross holders' images are up for deletion, see WP:PUF for April 1 and April 2. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we are having a discussion about the deletion of a MILHIST article, and we came upon a List of United States Army Military Police Units. I have no objection to the list article, hoever there is an excess of redlinks, and quite honestly I don't see many of the units ever becoming notable enough for their own article. Some of the smaller units have article pages, but many are unreferenced and would not likely meet the standard for inclusion if they were prod'ed. The fact that a unit exists doen't make it notable, nor does it necessarily if the unit has received an award (in my mind). I am of the opinion that the unit would need to have a significant impact on military operations/history. For instance, USARCENT has a significant impact of military operations, has a notable history, ect. Compare that to 11th Military Police Brigade which has the notable claim of conducting detainee ops... Not saying it isn't important, but I think we need to be reasonable on standards for inclusion. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oak leaf cluster | |
---|---|
There is currently a mismatch in the images between the bronze oak leaf cluster and silver oak leaf cluster. The image for the bronze OLC is currently a rendered PNG image, while the image for the silver OLC is a photograph of an actual metal OLC device in SVG format. It's easy to miss if you're only looking at one of them, perhaps mounted on a ribbon bar on a biography article on Wikipedia, but on the oak leaf cluster article itself the disparity is immediately obvious (see comparison images at right).
If you look at the respective image file histories ( leaf cluster, bronze.svg bronze, silver), it appears some editors have flipped the images back and forth, and now there is a mismatch between the rendered drawing of the bronze and the photograph of the silver. I don't know it should be the rendered image or the photograph image, but they should match each other (both be rendered, or both be photographs). What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User:skinsmoke is creating lots of single member categories under the man Forts in Wales one, and mixing Roman and modern sites. I think this is a bad idea. Vicarage ( talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm on holiday and don't have the time to do that, but if he's doing so many category changes I suspect he's over categorizing all over the place and needs talking too. But look at "Forts in Wales" to see how many subcategories now appear. If it were me I'd treat them as vandalism and mass revert, but I'm not in the mood for argument Vicarage ( talk) 06:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well this is the quickest way of showing them all:
To display all subcategories click on the "►": |
---|
Hillforts in Anglesey (4 P)
Hillforts in Cardiff (2 P)
Hillforts in Carmarthenshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Ceredigion (5 P)
Hillforts in Denbighshire (9 P)
Hillforts in Flintshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Gwynedd (6 P)
Lists of hillforts of Wales (1 P)
Hillforts in Pembrokeshire (5 P)
Hillforts in Powys (15 P)
Hillforts in Snowdonia (3 P)
Hillforts in Swansea (2 P)
Hillforts in Anglesey (4 P)
Hillforts in Cardiff (2 P)
Hillforts in Ceredigion (5 P)
Hillforts in Denbighshire (9 P)
Hillforts in Flintshire (3 P)
Hillforts in Gwynedd (6 P)
Hillforts in Pembrokeshire (5 P)
Hillforts in Powys (15 P)
Hillforts in Snowdonia (3 P)
Hillforts in Swansea (2 P) |
So, it seems we have a LOT of sub-cats under "Forts in Wales", most with 1 or 2 pages. You feel they need to be rolled back into the main cat and not divided into counties.. is that right? Though this is not technically "vandalism", it is very over-categorised due to the fact that when creating new small categories it should first be considered whether the category will expand over time. In the case of historical forts and castles, the answer is clearly that this is not going to be the case. Best thing would be propose a merger of these at WP:CfD whereby someone might rollback all these creation en masse and save time, if the community agrees the creator has been over-zealous. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 06:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Perhaps by that example you'll see some of the problems with over-categorisation - i.e. micro-management at county level adds complications. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Typing on phone, so being brief. When I reorgamised uk fort categories 2 years ago I wanted the categories to be useful for map plotting, as location vital for understanding forts. So I set up categories around military targets like Medway, and putting outliers under their county. So for Wales Icd have Milford Haven and then Wales as a whole as there are few other patterns that are useful.
I also wanted Roman and hillforts seperate, as each interest group wouldn't want the maps cluttered with the othet periods. Maiden Castle has no bearing on the defence of Portlanf Harbour!
Historical categories are more useful defined by the boundaries of their period so you want to be careful defining forts of Port Talbot if it wasn't there at the time Vicarage ( talk) 07:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As a fort tourist, broad categories are more useful to me than local government locations. South Wales is a suitable size. And hillforts/Roman/castles/forts should be distinct as they have different audiences. Skinsmoke's changes muddy that. Vicarage ( talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there someone in here with easy access to the library of the University of California? -- Lecen ( talk) 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CV-22. Since you had some involvement with the CV-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 08:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
1st Reconnaissance Squadron, has been proposed for a move to 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (USAF). If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Sylheti Soldier has been adding copyrighted and very iffy images to Equipment of the Bangladesh Army and List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force following his block a number of IPs continued to add images and data to these two articles. I have now semi-protected both articles for a while but the IPs latest is to dump the article on to the talk page. Not an expert on Army stuff so would appreciate project members keeping an eye on these two articles particularly when protection ends. Also note User:Sylheti Soldier is now flikr washing images before uploading them to commons thinking we would not notice! Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)+
Relating to past discussions regarding the articles Salvatore Giunta, Leroy Petry, and unit citations as personal permanent wear items, the United States Army fulfilled my FOIA request and have emailed me redacted copies of documents that support certain unit citations. That being said, these documents are not posted online, and thus are not easily citable. Can I upload these scans to Wikisource, and if I did are they usable as reliable sources to verify content in the article? Also are there any identity theft or MOS:BLP issues that I should be aware of before such an upload?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A new Post-nominal template has recently surfaced on my journey through wikipedia. So far there is one for Australia and New Zealand found here respectively; Template:Post-nominals/AUS and Template:Post-nominals/NZL.
This template seems really simple and easy to use, I have already used it on Quentin Bryce's page. Your thought's everyone? Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently building an article at my sandbox here. I would appreciate any help, as i'm going to be busy today. There are some more articles with coverage on google. Really wish I had more time to devote to it, but I think she is a notable Soldier, who deserves an article. Also, an issue maybe someone could address, the first article states that Ft. Fort McClellan is in Georgia, but our article states it is in Alabama. Also, that article states that the city was given an award by Atlanta. WTF? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been extensively revised and expanded. It would be appreciated if some interested editors could have a go reviewing and making corrective edits please. Thank you :) Bwmoll3 ( talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi-I started an article about Benjamin Purcell. He served in the United States Army and was a POW during the Vietnam War. After he retired from the Army Purcell owned a Christmas tree farm and served in the Georgia House of Representatives. I know nothing about military ranks/decorations, etc. I started the article because of his legislative career. I worked on articles about US state legislators. Any help with the article would greatly appreciated. Thank you- RFD ( talk) 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a FLC containing 53 people of which at least 20% were notable U.S. Military figures. If anyone has the inclination (and time) to review this list, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks-- Godot13 ( talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
What should I do with this article on the talkpage since this is taking up 1 of the incomplete B class. Put a redirect? Adamdaley ( talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes.
Comment from an involved party: This is relevant for MILHIST as many MILHIST articles include an NRHP infobox, often in a secondary role, such as for a building on battleground built before or after the battle. The bot as proposed could assert the NRHP item's construction date is the "start date" of the article topic. -- do ncr am 01:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this edit and other similar contributions by that account - they all seem to focus on altering the assessment of an event during the conflict where a number of civilians were reportedly killed by Portuguese troops. The account adds one source and removes all the neutral terms like alleged, reportedly, and so on, from one of the articles. I don't know too much about the topic any more - I wrote on it many years ago now - anyone have any concerns? S.G.(GH) ping! 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean War#Reversion of Reversion. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, if anybody has a little time on their hands to contribute a review at WP:MHACR, it would be greatly appreciated. The following:
have been open for three weeks or longer and have not received sufficient reviews for promotion. Any help would be appreciated—even just reading through it and asking any questions that pop into your mind is helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's surprisingly hard to find an image. I want one for List of hairstyles.
Nothing here or here. Can someone please help?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Done
Could anybody help with a query about tank armour over at the Science Refdesk please? Alansplodge ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Heer has been listed at Redirects for Discussion for a month and a half, with somewhat mixed input. The nomination came following activity by noclador, which was preceded by some brief commentary on this page, now found here. This move discussion is also relevant. A broader input would be most welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Details are at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Foundation statement regarding the situation in France. This is obviously highly relevant for members of this project. I've seen a few examples of what appear to be military personnel removing information sourced to publicly-available documents (including published books and websites) from articles on the grounds of 'operational security', but this awful behaviour by the French government goes well beyond this. Nick-D ( talk) 23:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:Groups_of_the_United_States regarding the proper naming of a particular category. Interested members are invited to join in. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A part in the "Minuteman" section reads "Just as important, the guidance system allowed for the inclusion of eight pre-selected targets. This allowed the force to ride out a first-strike, re-target on the remaining enemy targets, and launch." The wording used here is confusing, and it's not clear which nation's "first strike" is referred to. The term "ride out" suggests the Minuteman/ICBM fleet is enduring a Soviet first strike, but the phrasing "remaining enemy targets" implies some of the Soviet targets have already been destroyed, suggesting the US launched the first strike. The "eight pre-selected targets" feature would be useful in either case, so I can't decide which meaning is correct. Does anyone know enough to fix this? Some guy ( talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The info box contains different figures to what is given in the aftermath section. I would post this on the talk page but it was brought up in 2005 and seems to still be incorrect. Keted6 ( talk) 00:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't suppose someone could give Bronislaw Urbański a look? User:Youngbruno has put a lot of work into it and on the surface it looks pretty good, but on closer inspection it falls apart rather, for instance most of the references seem quite generic rather than relating specifically to Urbański. I suspect this is a biography of a not-particularly notable family member, but it's way out of my area so could I hand it over to you guys? Le Deluge ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Back in June 2012, a proposal was made to merge the following articles to the Manassas Campaign main article:
since these articles are about minor firefights between a few companies. Nothing was done with this suggestion. Any thoughts on this? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that few ADW articles have been upgraded past B-class recenly. There has also been little activity on the Brothers at War project. Any suggestions on how to increase participation in this project? Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Planning has begun for an Australian leg of the popular Wiki Loves Monuments competition focused on war memorials. If you're interested in participating, please sign up on Commons here. I'm not sure how WLM works, but given that Australian war memorials are dotted around the globe there may be scope for non-Australian editors to participate in this leg of the competition (for instance, we don't have a genuinely good image of the Australian War Memorial, London). Nick-D ( talk) 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This could use some attention. Thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice this was called for as an article under open tasks (weaponry). Is it possible this is already addressed by the article Pesh-kabz ? I'm no knife expert, but the article suggests "Khyber Knife" was among the British terms for these weapons. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just seen this - to raise funds for the restoration of HMS Alliance (P417), an Amphion-class sub, on Saturday they're giving guided tours of the RN's Gosport facilities that are normally not open to the public including HMS Sultan (establishment) and the former HMS Dolphin (shore establishment). There's also a talk tonight at 7pm about Dolphin. Should be interesting in its own right, but also a good opportunity to take some photos for all things relating to submarines and naval engineering. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Info: I've boldly redirected History of Germany during World War II to Nazi Germany. Honestly, I don't see a purpose for that article, because all the information exists elsewhere, better written, better referenced and better summarized. The concerns were expressed back in 2005 AFD remain to this date, quote: "Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail.". Most activity on that article was just vandalism and its cleanup. No such user ( talk) 07:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar, as it has been waiting for a while to be reviewed. I'm planning to nominate it for GA status so it would be nice to get DYK out of the way first. Prioryman ( talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing a GAN review, and my belief is that the nominator relies too heavily on quotes for this to pass GAN ... but I'd like to hear more opinions. In Eastern European articles generally, and particularly for articles covering genocide in the Balkans, Wikipedians use more quotes than in other articles, but for a variety of reasons, I think this goes too far. For instance, in one section:
Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm told that, (as forecast/indicated in initial press releases for the Australian Operational Service Medal), the OSM for civilians is being awarded for service in Afghanistan. But I can't find any supporting evidence for this on the web. Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (Probably the most useful place to reply is Talk:Australian Operational Service Medal#Civilian variant.)
It seems I didn't state my question clearly enough.
I'm told that the
Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians for service in Afghanistan is currently being awarded. However, I can find no evidence anywhere that the OSM for civilians has been awarded to anyone for any service anywhere, (much less for service in Afghanistan).
Can anyone throw any light on the issue? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Calling entrants in the March contest -- could use assistance verifying entries so awards can be handed out and the contest results section of the next issue of the Bugle updated. If you haven't done this before, remember you can verify anyone's entries but your own, checking that an article's assessment level has changed as indicated in the table during March (not before or after) and that the resultant points are correct. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Casimir_Pulaski#Ship_on_which_Pulaski_died. It is likely the disambig USS Wasp is missing an entry. Help from American naval history experts needed. Please direct all comments to Pulaski's article for a centralized discussion. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The article 470th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sephiroth storm (
talk) 22:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Totally disagree. All brigades and larger (and most battalions too) should be considered notable. This to me is no more than common sense. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Not sure if this has been posted here before but given the latest attempt to delete post 1945 Australian images from the encyclopedia I thought some of our editors might be interested in this link [17]. I contains a small collection of seemingly free images from the AWM as posed on Flickr. Its a bit limited (and most of the images are 'posey') but it covers a fairly wide period from WWI to the present and might prove useful to someone. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, we've just hit a remarkable 400 A-class articles! Obviously the number fluctuates as many of the articles are subsequently successful in attaining featured status, but I think this is a milestone worth celebrating. More importantly, it gives me an opportunity to say thank you to the nominators for trusting in our A-class review system, and of course our indefatigable reviewers, without whom there would be no A-class reviews, and the coordinator team who act as the guardians of the process and keep the wheels turning. So thank you to all who keep the process going, and here's to the next 400! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:WikiProject Martial arts about a proposal to merge all the Iga Ninja articles into the province article. -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Polish mine detector has been proposed to be renamed to mine detector, see talk:Polish mine detector -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I currently have some article drafts in my userspace that I was looking to expand some more before moving them to the mainspace and I was just wondering if anyone else would be interested in some collaboration on them. Here are the two articles: User:Dainomite/21st Special Tactics Squadron and User:Dainomite/720th Special Tactics Group if you want to take a gander at what I have so far. I'm also open to any questions, comments or any of the like regarding them. Thanks, — - dain omite 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is a wikilink to Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments a necessity on See also section in the article 185th Infantry Regiment (United States)? I have started a discussion regarding that question here. Interested editors are invited to join in the conversation.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am writing regarding inaccuracies of the content on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery. I have attempted to resolve them myself, but they have been changed back each time. I think it is important to note that all of the information below did not appear on this specific page until a couple weeks ago and are not accurate to the U.S. Navy’s mission.
The introduction – “Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) is a type of aircraft able to ferry personnel, mail, and high-priority cargo, such asreplacement parts, on and off a naval ship, generally an aircraft carrier,” is inaccurate per the U.S. Navy ( http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=100&ct=1). The mission page states, “…primary mission is the transport of high-priority cargo, mail and passengers between carriers and shore bases.” Furthermore, Northrop Grumman’s C-2 Greyhound is the only COD platform that has ever existed for the U.S. Navy. That point is not accurately reflected.
I'm proposing a more accurate statement that reads: “The U.S. Navy’s carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission is responsible for the delivery and transport of high-priority cargo, personnel and supplies from shore bases to aircraft carriers at sea. Northrop Grumman’s C-2A Greyhound has served as the Navy’s primary COD platform for 50 years.”
I understand that this may be viewed as a small, minute change, but it is significant in terms of accurately reflecting the mission requirements and what actually occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcdev12 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The recent activities and article creations of this active sockpuppeteer/hoaxster might need some attention from this project. I've tried looking at some of the "sources" he provides, but nothing really clicks. FallingGravity ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot more ship FACs up than usual, and all of them need reviews: Pennsylvania-class battleship, SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Kearsarge (BB-5), USS Saratoga (CV-3), and Zong massacre. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello I tryed to create a few articles about MOWAG vehicles but i runn into problems. I am not a native english speaking person and creating articels on the english wikipedia is differend to the german wiki. There exist a Main page about MOWAG and Sub pages about the MOWAG Piranha, Eagl Duro. I collectet informations about some other MOWAG vehicles, and i would be very happy if some one could help me creat this articels or even would like to use my prework to create a article. I have placed the informations (temporay9 on the talkpage of MOWAG and on my talk page (but this IPnr is used from differend persons and so maybie not safe). I have also some Infos ready about some swiss tanks and Saurer Military vehicles. and a, still very raw, article about the last swiss fighterjetproject ALR Piranha.
See here User:193.5.216.100/sandbox at the moment i have here prepared the Informations about MOWAG Tanks- —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
193.5.216.100 (
talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In recognition of ANZAC Day, Military history of Australia during World War II will be today's featured article for 25 April (starting in about half an hour). There's generally an upsurge in vandalism of Australian military history articles around ANZAC day, and this is obviously going to be a major target. I'll be checking in regularly today, and I'd appreciate it if other editors could also keep an eye on the article. Thanks! Nick-D ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sidney Smith (Royal Navy officer) is reported in the Morning Chronicle of 26 November 1805 to have invented the "double-boats" Cancer and Gemini, both of which foundered. Am I right in thinking that by "double-boat", a catamaran was meant? Mjroots ( talk) 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What would be the appropriate task force for this article? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Any ideas about which task force this should be under? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 16:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This would probably be a good canidate of a collaboration. It is in need of an expansion, especially in regards of sources. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
For some time now I have issues loading this page. Page load takes up to a few minutes and not all the boxes get included correctly. Am I the only person with this issue? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Norman conquest of England; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a few very relevant WW1 maps relating to Battle of the Hohenzollern Redoubt and nearby that have come down to me from my grandfather, Geoffrey Vickers who fought there. Some are clearly marked as by Ordnance Survey, which I understand we are able to use because OS copyright lasts only 50 years, however others are not marked. If the maps are in his own work then we have legal copyright and can release them on a suitable licence, however they could have been produced by someone else unknown. Should I upload them on WP Commons, if so what should I say about copyright? Or would Flickr would be better if there are copyright doubts? I note that the map on the current article is flagged with a query (I have a copy of the same map but from an earlier data with the trenches shown in different ownership). PeterEastern ( talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, just a general note for those who don't have them installed, the following scripts are useful for detecting Harvard citation errors and duplicate links in your articles (and in those you're reviewing):
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dfvj ( talk · contribs) has recently been linking some German officers from this article, on which no article exists yet on the English wikipedia, to their equivalent articles on the German wikipedia. I reverted those edits to restore the redlinks on the basis of Wikipedia:Red link, including the section on interwikis which states that if such links that are to be made, they are to be done in a different way to how this user is doing it anyway. Yet he continually reverts. Perhaps other users could have a look and weigh in, just in case I have a wrong understanding of the linking policy here. If there are articles on other wikipedias on a subject the English wikipedia does not yet have, is it better to link to foreign language wikipedias rather than leaving a red link on the English one? Benea ( talk) 09:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Lusatian_operation.3F. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at these old historic images please. Amazing quality. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Pls. note http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Infoboxes_task_force#Phase_2_on_hold_f.C3.BCr_military.2Bweapons_templates Regards -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention of the regular users of this board to the 'criticism' section of this article. I have filed an RfC regarding this section that aims to gain consensus on the validity of this section, particularly in the light of wikipedia policies concerning criticism sections. Generous commentary on that page is invited. Handyunits ( talk) 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed on the ACW task force page that any list articles above start class are lumped with the other articles instead of being in their own category, even though the list's talk page might have the disignation. (For example, Talk:Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 is listed as BL-class but is included in the regular B-class category.) Any way to change this? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
the existence of the article Uprising of the Iga Ninja is under discussion at WT:WikiProject Martial Arts -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Tactical Autonomous Combatant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ansh
666 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article about these (a sort of early Home Guard) and I thought I would have a crack at it - this page gives an overview. The Volunteer (disambiguation) page has a Volunteer Infantry redlink, although I believe that there was Volunteer artillery too. We already have Volunteer Force (Great Britain) for 1859-1908, and Loyal Volunteers redirects to an article about colonial Pennsylvania. Can anyone suggest a better name for the article? Alansplodge ( talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Found these when expanding the article on the Ups and Downs (69th Foot), in case anyone else wants to check them out. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone tell me if this is useful? Feel free to review the submission. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm such a dunce! Sorry about that, mate, here it is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Military of the Sassanid Empire sidebar. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The Androcide article used to be a stub, I added some materials from Gendercide but it needs a full treatment. Help requested. Thanks!-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone else can look at the image located on this webpage. The image is published in a reliable source, but the photo is "Courtesy of Vance Peterson", who at the time that the image was taken was an active duty lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. It appears to be a personal photo, not taken in an official capacity. Therefore, the question is, as an active duty individual at the time which the photo was taken, is the image in the public domain, or is it not? I have looked at the WP:NFC, and if it isn't in the public domain (per Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works as other images produced by U.S. federal government personnel are, then it would not be usable per WP:NFC#UUI. So which is it?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Another version of the image can be found here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the template
Modern IFV and APC is in need of a major clean-up. I already took out prototypes, that have never gone into production, links to company sites, trucks, etc. but one fundamental problem remains: most people that added vehicles to the template did not know what actually an
IFV or an
APC is! Therefore there are a lot vehicles listed that do not belong there. If I were to be bold I would remove almost all the 4x4 vehicles, as most of them do not qualify as an APC; but I think it is better to establish first consensus about what belongs on the template and what not and then make a note at the template so that people don't keep adding
MRAPs or
LAPVs (as i.e. the
LAPV Enok).
The
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines APCs and IFV as follows:
A lot of the 4x4 vehicles in the template can only transport 3 or 4 people, which is not even half a squad (the drivers and gunners of the vehicle don't count). As a compromise all vehicles, which are armoured, can transport at least half a squad and carry a weapon could stay in the template. Anyone else has an opinion about this? noclador ( talk) 01:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I split the template into 4 templates to put the various vehicles into more fitting groups:
A further template was needed for Armoured Jeeps as i.e. the Ocelot. So I created a template provisionally named Modern light tactical vehicles, but I did not yet add this template to any article. Basically that last template groups armoured cars and Jeeps together. If anyone has suggestion on how to improve the templates, please feel free to do so. noclador ( talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been advised to ask here about a matter which may have a wider remit than just the single article in question. We have had a situation on Ian Fleming recently that has resulted in the inclusion of an article from a fanzine, largely at the insistence of the author, whose approach and attitude has ensured a rather toxic talk page for a while. Although the new information (which I inserted with this edit) is probably correct and replaced what was probably an incorrect and unsupported statement, it is still based on something from a fanzine, which makes a number of editors rather uncomfortable. Given the source to be a fanzine, published by the James Bond International Fan Club—and this edit to have been pushed by the author of the article—would people generally consider this information to pass muster as a reliable source in any article, much less an FA? - SchroCat ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
On a related point, I'm concerned about the difficulties we used to have with Audie Murphy and that we're apparently having with Ian Fleming now, and what that says about what direction Wikipedia is headed. More later. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
See my discussion of these controversies below at Operation Golden Eye; I think this is an open-ended dialogue (an argument, really) that is not situated towards finding a solution or reaching a consensus. I think discussions like this are sometimes healthy, but not when they're so predominated by two editors so as to discourage most potential participants from engaging in the discussion. Because of the treatises that have already been written, I, for instance, don't want to get involved, whereas I have an actual opinion. My suggestion is that this be taken to a place where a consensus can actually be reached, such as WP:RS/N, which would allow for broader participation by Wikipedia editors outside MILHIST (as this isn't really a MILHIST-specific question). Place a notice here when an RS/N discussion or an RfC is opened. Cdtew ( talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a ribbon picture to the article Awards and decorations of the United States military. An editor has questioned the validity of this image, although I have provided some on-line links and other references. Other editors are needed for comment, so we can build consensus. The discussion is at: Talk:Awards_and_decorations_of_the_United_States_military#Chaplain.27s_Medal. - OberRanks ( talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across it while updating BC communities listings.....it's in rough shape, and has no refs other than the post office one I just added. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On the Talk page for Operation Golden Eye I've been involved in a discussion with SchroCat, firstly about the name - consulting the primary sources, I think it should be changed to 'Goldeneye' as one word - and then in a separate section the title of the article itself, as again according to the primary sources this wasn't an operation, but was instead the codename given to a British intelligence unit that was based on Gibraltar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Golden_Eye#Was_this_a_plan_or_an_operation.3F
ShcroCat and I now have some history - see above! - and he's withdrawn from trying to reach consensus with me on this. I agree that it's not a tiny thing to change the title of an article, and I won't without discussing it with others first - but I can't reach consensus with SchroCat, clearly, as he's withdrawn. I think I've constructively addressed the various criteria suggested in WP:UCN, and my feeling is that even though most secondary sources do call this Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldeneye, the title and the body should be changed to reflect the primary sources, so we don't continue to perpetuate the error, leading to yet more sources getting it wrong in the future. One reason a lot of people still call it Operation Goldeneye will clearly be because of the Wikipedia entry.
I've tried to apply common sense to come up with a constructive solution for those searching on Operation Goldeneye or Operation Goldene Eye - a redirect for both, plus a short parenthetical statement in the lede saying that the unit is sometimes referred to in those terms. Could someone please come and have a read of the discussion and help me reach a consensus on this? It seems a shame to leave this entire article as inaccurate simply because others have got it wrong, when we can apply common sense, be bold, and make it right. Jeremy Duns ( talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Guys, this really is out of hand. Jeremy, the proper avenue for this discussion is via WP:RM/CM, and you can invite others from MILHIST to that discussion once it's started for comment on the article's talk page. Once a consensus is reached, you'll have your (relatively) final answer on the matter. This and the above discussion have occurred in several places, including already book-length comments on the respective articles' talk pages, and on SchroCat's talk page. There are procedures to resolve disputes like this -- RfC's for instance -- and moving these disputes to MILHIST's talk page just presents another fora for grievances, not a possible avenue to a solution. Cdtew ( talk) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to create a category for Union support in the South during the American Civil War (for articles like State of Scott), and a subcategory for Southerners who supported the Union (for biographical articles like John Netherland), but I'm not sure what to name them. There is an article entitled Southern Unionists. Any suggestions? Bms4880 ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this person meet the notability guidlines? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, During the current ACR of Artur Phleps and GAN review of Helmuth Raithel we've had a couple of discussions about the use of initial capitals for German ranks (in these cases Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS ones). WP:JOBTITLES says that ranks are common nouns and as such they are not capitalised, but if the rank is followed by the person's name it is capitalised. Per "Captain James Bloggs" but "James Bloggs was promoted to captain". However, in many articles about Germany and Germans editors use the German rank rather than the (sometimes rough) equivalent in English, but may follow it with the English equivalent in parentheses. In the German language all nouns have initial capitals, thus Hauptmann (captain) and Leutnant (lieutenant), not hauptmann or leutnant. Complicating this further is the fact that all Waffen-SS and Allgemeine-SS ranks include an initialisation (SS) and a hyphen, and many senior ranks include the proper noun "Waffen-SS". An example would be SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS. If we applied WP:JOBTITLES strictly to this rank it would be per "SS-Obergruppenfuhrer und General der Waffen-SS Artur Phleps", but "Phleps was then promoted to ss-obergruppenfuhrer und general der waffen-ss" or something similar. Of course, this strict application of JOBTITLES doesn't reflect what the sources use when referring to Waffen-SS ranks. For example, [21], [22], and [23]. I propose that we adopt the guideline that all German ranks have initial capitals whenever mentioned, or alternatively that this exception to JOBTITLES be applied only to Waffen-SS ranks. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Robert Bacher; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Artur Phleps; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of sieges of Gibraltar; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
My basic question is: Is there a difference between "Order of precedence" and "Order of wearing"? If so, what is the difference?
I have sufficient reliable data to support that in Australia and Canada they are the same thing. (See my talk page for details.)
However, the contents of the field at the bottom of infoboxes on medals pages (titled "Precedence") continue to contain statements either explicitly stating, or implying, things like "GC is the same order of precedence as VC", when quite clearly they are not the same in the order of wearing. (See VC, OzVC, CV, GC, etc.) Where is this "order of precedence" defined? Nowhere can I find a document specifying an order of precedence that is different from the order of wearing.
Can anyone attempt to enlighten me? (Or failing that, inform me?) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(BTW: If they are the same thing, that seems to me like a reason to change the contents of the infoboxes. Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, I've been trying to keep the Announcements page up to date, and yesterday I discovered that Crusades was nominated for a peer review on 17 April per [29], but it doesn't come up on the article alerts page here [30]. It is a Core Contest article, could that be the reason? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It is proposed renaming Australian Honours Order of Precedence to Australian Honours Order of Wearing. If this proposal is successful the former title would be linked to the new title. The Governor General of Australia from time to time notifies for general information the positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals. The most recent notification was in Commonwealth on Australia Gazette No. S192, Friday, 28 September 2007 and the title of the document is THE ORDER OF WEARING AUSTRALIAN HONOURS AND AWARDS. In the context of positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals the phrases order of precedence and order of wearing are interchangeable. However, the change in article title is being proposed because order of precedence has not been used in the title of the Australian document since 1991 and does not appear anywhere in the current document. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement about whether Korea should be listed as a location in the lead of Japanese war crimes. Please provide your opinion in the existing discussion on its talk page if you think you can help. ( Hohum @) 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have an article I'm trying to get FAC-ready, so please drop by Wikipedia:Peer review/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1 and give me your thoughts, if any. If I don't have other comments within the next day or two, I'll go ahead and close the Peer Review and nominate for FAC. Thanks Cdtew ( talk) 19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages ( WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on [[User talk:WhatamIdoing|my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Just discovered this article today. I don't know if anyone here is more familiar with Castner's Cutthroats than I am (and my familiarity doesn't really run all that deep), but it should be obvious that Castner was not best known for competing in the 1924 Olympics. In fact, the first biography I consulted doesn't even mention it. Anyone feel like rescuing this article? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
An intriguing daily double for y'all. An article of interest to both the French task force and the American Civil War task force. I started it because I came across its end while I was working to improve USS Stars and Stripes (1861), so its end is reasonably well covered but could probably use some improvement, but there's currently nothing there about its construction or career. Carolina wren ( talk) 03:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
In recent days, there has been editing done by another user, which I do not object too. I left a message on this users talkpage as well as on Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher talkpage. Honestly, I feel he is only semantic, while his reply on the article talkpage stating that the changes he made are "preferable". Preferable to who? This particular user? Basically, I'm asking the Coordinators of WikiProject Military History and the one's who assessed it (for GA and A class assessments) to state their case why wasn't any of this changed back then? If this was "preferable"? Please reply to this on the article talkpage and to address this particular user and his changes. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created and populated Category:Tombs of Unknown Soldiers. Please feel free to add or remove articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Gday all. A few editors have been working on adding citations to the Gallipoli Campaign article. Unfortunately there are a few intractable ones that we don't seem to have any sources on. In particular there are a few IRT Winston Churchill's fortunes after the battle that I was hoping someone here might be able to dig up. A few others scattered through out the article too. If we can get these it will probably be B class. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help), I would think it would have the needed reference. --
Lineagegeek (
talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All done now. Thanks to those who dug these up. Much appreciated. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This article contains the line "Its history begins as a munitions-testing site for the Imperial Russian Army in 1916". There is no further reference to this in the text.
Either this line is spurious or it is not. I feel that obviously if it is then it should be removed from the article. However, if it is not then the events that led this to occur merit more than this passing mention. Thoughts? Britmax ( talk) 10:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but it said military firearms should be discussed here. The Rotary Cannon page and other pages relating to weapons of a similar type all refer to "Gatling-type" weapons. I feel this is inaccurate since Gatling Guns were hand-cranked, rather than gas-powered or electric. It would be better to change all instances of "Gatling-type" to "Rotary-type". -- Trifler ( talk) 06:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for:
For some reason they show for me as in JSTOR but not online (weird as I can assess many other JSTOR stuff). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If the Iveco Superav is typed in, it redirects to the Marine Personnel Carrier page. The Superav is an entry in the MPC program. Does anyone know why it redirects there? Also, is there a Superav page or does it need to be made? America789 ( talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm uncertain what would be an appropriate title for the Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia that took place from 20 September 1991 till 3 January 1992. Since the offensive consisted of numerous engagements, and aiming to have a short (or not as long) article title, I was thinking about "JNA campaign in Croatia". Would that be fine or is use of the acronym problematic? (note: there already is a GA titled "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan" using an acronym, although NATO is far more common term than JNA) Sources refer to the campaign in descriptive terms i.e. "Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against/in Croatia" or as the "JNA strategic offensive in Croatia". As far as I can tell from sources discussing the offensive, there is no proper name or codename for the campaign - at least not in the secondary sources. Any suggestions?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefix the title with 1991 - the few days of 1992 turned out to be inconsequential, it's overwhelmingly known as "1991" locally anyway. Also, the notion that the juxtaposition of JNA and Croatia is POV is flawed - JNA did indeed lead a campaign against the legitimate government of the Yugoslav constituent country known as "Croatia" under its own interpretation of federal laws (that was ultimately rendered illegitimate by the Badinter Commission, but regardless). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A general comment: "campaign" is OK inasmuch as it does not imply "attack", "offensive" or anything like that, so it is reasonably neutral. I don't think that calling this topic "JNA campaign in Croatia" is POV as in biased, but it arguably might be construed as POV as in one-sided, as it singles out JNA in the role of principal agent. There is a counter-argument to that, though: in the wider context of Yugoslav Wars, JNA was a principal agent, taking part in all conflicts, and pursuing essentially the same goals. GregorB ( talk) 20:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)