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. |
An IP is working on the article Alfa (rocket); and while most of their work appears constructive, they keep re-inserting the claim that 40 examples of the missile were built. This fails both WP:V and WP:COMMONSENSE to my eye, can anyone check this and/or zap it since I'm at 3RR? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion on Wikipedia as to whether the major republican rising of 1835 in southern Brazil should be designated as the Farroupilha Revolution or as the Ragamuffin War. Ragamuffin is a loose English translation of a Portuguese term which could also be worded as "ragged people" or "tattered ones". The issue was debated in detail in September 2012 and the majority consensus then was that the original Portuguese "Farroupilha" was most appropriate for the English WP article (see the archived discussion under Farroupilha Revolution. The issue has now been raised again with a formal request that the article be redesignated as "Ragamuffin War". To me "ragamuffins" with its usually accepted meaning of unkempt urchins in 19th century London reads very oddly as a description of adult revolutionary fighters but perhaps I have read too much Dickens. Any views? Buistr ( talk) 21:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there anyone here with easy access to the University of California? I'm looking for a book that is there. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I've put up The Sinking of the Lusitania (the film, not the event) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sinking of the Lusitania/archive1. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, File:Grand Fleet sails.jpg is currently being considered at possibly unfree files because it is lacking source information. Given that it is used in several high profile maritime articles (including Battle of Jutland), I wonder if one of the many esteemed editors we have working in this area might be able to find a source for the image? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I would like to have some input on Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95, specifically should it be considered a list or a "regular" article. I recently posted the article at the WP:GAN and an editor was kind enough to post on my talk page and point out that the article might be more of a list than not.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (1929) is a short article but the number of categories at the bottom is huge because many counties in existence at that time signed up for it. The article on the Fourth Geneva Convention has many more, but it is not so obvious because the article is longer and the categories will probably not appear without scrolling the page. Has anyone given any thought to how to handle category bloat? -- PBS ( talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to join RFC Audie Murphy v. Matt Urban medal count. The discussion is to determine the correct medal count of both. — Maile ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello good mil-hist folks. Just a quick note to suggest that those who assess list articles for A-class here might like to re-appraise themselves with what we're expecting to see at WP:FLC, just in case that's the next step for some editors. I recently checked out Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia which, while a nice article, was nowhere near ready for FLC, and would have benefitted from a peer review with a list-article bias. Don't forget, FLC isn't a replacement for PR. I was surprised to see that the A-class review here missed so many fundamental issues that we'd expect as normal at FLC, not "nice-to-haves", literally failures to comply with the criteria.
I suppose I'm just saying that I'm so used to excellent quality content from this project that I was surprised that you guys and girls haven't tried to align your A-class review criteria with FLC, that'd make life a lot better for the various nominations. Simple things like compliance with WP:ACCESS, compliance with WP:DASH, WP:HASH, WP:MOSBOLD etc.
Having said all that, keep up the great work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on my experience lists are for most parts written using wiki tables. These tables cover a wide range of functionality, challenging the editors on a technical level. When creating high class lists one has to consider aspects such as enabling these tables for screen readers for the visually impaired or for readability on mobile devices. These are additional requirements which pose a more "technical", or call it behind the scenes, challenge then the traditional more content rated articles. I believe we as a project have to acknowledge this. I would very much encourage the project to embrace these aspects more heavily and to help guide our editors through the process of creating high quality articles. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, when we're dealing with lists, we can change this criterion to remove the references to prose, copyediting, etc. and instead talk about the corresponding elements of a list (e.g. table layout, etc.)? Kirill [talk] 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
Does this project have a template to invite potential new members? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/I|~~~~}}
or {{subst:User:The ed17/MILHIST|signed=~~~~}}
.
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 18:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Compare dates and content of Naval Battle of Vella Lavella vs http://www.combinedfleet.com/vlavella.htm Hcobb ( talk) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As an fyi, several Milhist-related featured topic nominations are awaiting comments at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the use of flags in ship infoboxes at WT:SHIPS#Ship registry flags. Members of this WP are invited to comment. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I having trouble with the layout of the info box on this article. It seems to be bunched together on the Axis side of the table. Any suggestions for solving this problem? Dapi89 ( talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Got another one for you, albeit not sure if it's relevant to this Project, but it's close. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MK-VI 'Wright Class' Coastal Patrol Boat. Thank you as always, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Veterans Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Veterans Day (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and {la|Veterans Day (United States)}} is under discussion, see talk:Veterans Day (United States) -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
How can I find the volume, issue and page numbers of Flight International editions post-2004? Those that were released before 2004 have been archived and the process of finding those numbers are easy. However, for those articles that were released from 2005, such as this, I have difficulties finding volume, issue and page numbers; does anyone have any ways to obtain them?
Anyway, for anybody interested or anyone who uses FI as a source, the following is the reference formatting that I use:
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure of naming conventions, but I don't recall seeing the pounding of Eilean Donan referred to as a "battle" before. Comments welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 16:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just found these "articles" and "some" help would be appreciated:
Gavbadger ( talk) 17:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it OR to use a non-English source? Keith-264 ( talk) 23:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This is what I have in mind as it's the only source I've found which deals in any detail with facts and figures. The English sources Nivelle Offensive Second Battle of the Aisne don't delve very deeply. Obviously if anyone can suggest sources in English I'll be grateful. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 06:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This site has Der Weltkrieg but it's in German and in fraktur. Does anyone know how to change the type face and to make a translator like Google translate work? I assume that it isn't copiable for a reason but not knowing much about computers I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
While I'm about it, I tried to rip this off the French wiki but it didn't work. Does anyone know if this was a failure of technique or that it isn't allowed? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Next-Generation_Bomber&curid=13118834&diff=577020680&oldid=573922955
I've seen strategypage.com as more of a blog, but it doesn't seem to be blocked. Hcobb ( talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This article's currently undergoing FA review and it would be greatly appreciated if some users could offer their in-put on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)/archive1. Thanks, 23 editor ( talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I find myself in a bit of dispute with an editor who finds the word hypocoristic too challenging for our readers (among other things). He has suggested overwriting the word with "shortened" which I oppose because it neglects the element of endearment, which is quite vital to the subtleties of the German language and the context in which it is used. The editor also argues that "'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know". I am not fully convinced that this line of reasoning upholds the standards of an encyclopedia. What do other editors think? I appreciate some feedback. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell whether this thread indicates dissatisfaction with WP:Checklist#clarity, which (as far as I have been able to tell) describes pretty accurately how these questions usually get resolved. Does anything there need to be tweaked or expanded on? - Dank ( push to talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the term, and don't think it gets used enough. It's a tough call on Wikipedia. In a GA review, I was told that "serendipity" and "serendipitous" were too uncommon for the average reader. We compromised with a link to Wiki-article on Serendipity. Perhaps you can link to a Wiktionary entry. Good luck. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Does the term "Bubi" need to be explained at at all? Why not not just say "nicknamed "Bubi" by his comrades" and leave it at that? Not everything needs to be translated/explained. - BilCat ( talk) 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Braatz, Kurt (2010). Walter Krupinski - Jagdflieger, Geheimagent, General (in German). Moosburg, Germany: NeunundzwanzigSechs Verlag. ISBN 978-3-9811615-5-7.
I've seen multiple references to a chain being placed underwater to prevent wooden warships from entering an area, similar to an Anti-submarine net. These include Hudson River Chain, Raid on the Medway and Fall of Constantinople. Does anyone know what these are called, and might anyone have further information to put in a possible article on the subject? - Oreo Priest talk 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would call it a harbour chain; a quick search turned up this, for example. I too think of a boom as a floating barrier, whether tethered, towed, or drifting, but I picture this as submerged, being suspended from both ends. (And I haven‘t read any George R.R. Martin that I can recall.)— Odysseus 147 9 02:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) Ok, so I've created the article in my sandbox: User:Oreo Priest/boom (navigational barrier). I'll move it to the namespace once a suitable title's been chosen. It's far from perfect, and it could use some more content (especially regarding booms) and references. It also completely lacks categories at the moment. Feel free to take a look or add on to it! Oreo Priest talk 04:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in input on this issue that deals with significantly improving the quality of the user experience in the "current structure" or "order of battle" sections of US military unit pages. The static org chart images typically do not display units below the battalion-equivalent org level. As the majority of US military personnel are actually assigned to these lowest company- and detachment-equivalent org units, I would posit that the user experience on WP could be much improved here. Military personnel tend to be most strongly bonded to their immediate org at these lowest level. Also, as the US DoD is one singular, giant org, I would posit that WP users would benefit from being able to interactively explore not just their immediate org, but more informatively where every DoD unit fits into the overall DoD org puzzle.
Please consider the example of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division's current structure section. To substantiate my hypothesis here about user experience, follow the evolution of this unit's org chart below and evaluate your own user experience and edification:
I am interested in hearing about your user experience while comparing your options for personal edification using the current WP org structure content, and whether your experience was improved by being made interactive, more detailed, and significantly more holistic. Thank you.
RallyPoint Military Project (
talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How do we reduce these to {{xxxx}}? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 10:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
Paris Peace Conference|style=narrow}}
.
Kirill
[talk] 12:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Had occassion to stop by this article and was saddened by its incomplete nature. Not a complete disaster - there is cited content - but could be so much better. I looked on the talk page and there, forgotten, were some suggestions written by me over two years ago, most unacted upon. Rarely for a article on strategy and tactics, this one lacks modern (i.e. 20th and 21st century) material. The Air-landed section is lamentable. Given the availability of the Osprey raid series as a start point, there should be no difficulty in adding pertinent examples. Also, more on the strategic and tactical aspects of raiding would not go amiss. Anyone up for adding a little around their favourite topics? Thanks in anticipation. Monstrelet ( talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, so apologies for not knowing how you operate. However, I was reading the FDC funding requests, and see that the Nederland chapter plans a major initiative regarding World War II and the Serbian chapter plans a major initiative related to World War I, so there might be some value in coordination:
I chose to nominate List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) for FLC a second time. The first time the review went stale due to lack of interest in the topic. Hopefully it draws some more attention this time around. Regards MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. This article has been at ACR since 24 Aug 13 - its in fairly good shape in my opinion and a large amount of work has clearly gone into it by the nominator so it would be shame if it doesn't make it through purely due to a lack of reviewers. Currently has two supports so just needs one more. If there is anyone out there interested in assisting with the review pls have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gamal Abdel Nasser. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to track our progress. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Click on [show] for progress bar
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Managed to push it back below 11%. How long it will stay that way is anyone's guess. 65.64.177.103 ( talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Continuing on to 11.5%. Unfortunately, this category continues to grow while I'm away. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You have? Excellent, glad to hear it. Pop along to WP:TFAR, and tell us what it is. Perhaps " Goodbyeee" or Southern Rhodesia in World War I? Or perhaps a WWI VC winner in Thomas Crisp or Edgar Towner? Or perhaps something even better? Look forward to seeing your bright ideas. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear military experts: This submission at Afc has been waiting for a review for some time. Would anyone like to help? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to nominate Melbourne Hall for A-class, and I seem to have broken the process. I'd be grateful if someone could fix my mis-nom, I'm likely to make things worse (it all started when the nom template failed to appear...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles ( Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:05, 23 October 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) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Knsn57 has made a series of unexplained and unreferenced modifications to a wide range of battle articles relating to the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) and Second Sino-Japanese War, including the modification of total strength and casualty numbers. Often, these changes appear as an attempt to make Japan look more favourable, by making the Korean fatality figures higher, and the Japanese total strength figures lower. This editor does not use edit summaries, and has only started editing since 14 October 2013, with less than 60 total edits so far. Is someone able to verify these changes? -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
ÄDA - DÄP ( talk · contribs) has indicated and deleted sources from articles by declaring them as unreliable. Previously the general consensus was to allow the usage, but if other sources prove them wrong, make the discrepancy evident. Some editors had even expressed that removal of sources constitutes censorship. I am open-minded and the consensus here can go either way. However I find that his approach (deletion of sources) should be backed up by a community decision. How do other editors feel? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
In this light, I would like to ask what exactly is the point of having these sources in the bibliography section, especially if they are not used as to reference information. I can think of a but a few reasons, none of which I like. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the issue may be that the term unreliable may be interpreted as deliberately falsifying the facts. If you consider Scherzer's work as the pinnacle of Knight's Cross related research you have to acknowledge that Scherzer himself derives and references the works of Von Seemen, Range, Krätschmer, Thomas, Wegmann, among others. In many instances you can see the historic convergence of the facts if you read all of these books. Quoting from Scherzer’s book, "I do not want to take away anyone’s Knight's Cross". Scherzer is very direct and claims that for all those listed in his book, there is verifiable evidence to substantiate the presentation of Knight's Cross. In roughly 200 instances Scherzer has found lack of evidence in the archives that Fellgiebel's claim may be wrong. Lack of evidence itself does not make it wrong or right. I therefore feel that making these discrepancies obvious to the reader is the fundamentally better approach. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across Operation Grenada, which is a short article detailing (essentially) an arrest in Iraq in 2007. I proposed it for deletion - there's little or no indication of any historic notability - and started having a look at some others. The first two 2007 operations I opened are if anything even less notable - Operation Four Brothers and Operation Geronimo Strike III, which detained two suspects (it doesn't tell us what happened to them), a couple of guns "and a ski mask".
It looks like there's going to be many more like this - should I continue to prod them, or (as has happened in some cases) just redirect to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which has a brief summary? Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently proposed deletion of a new article Norwegian Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan as it was clearly a list of those killed and serves no-purpose other than a memorial. I have recently discovered that we have a whole batch of these memorial pages like British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 (which has managed to get to B class). Just checking that the project stance appears to be that recentism has taken over from not memorial. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we have some eyes on Audie Murphy, please!
The same editor, whose name has been raised here countless times before, is currently engaged in an effort to remove the "of World War II" part from the lead – this is nothing more than POV-bias, as not having Murphy mentioned as one of the most decorated of that period leaves the sentence open to ambiguity, suggesting he's the most decorated of what?? All U.S. history? All world history? All of time? His notability results from his WWII career and subsequently his many decorations, one can't exist without the other.
It really is very frustrating that over the last year a few editors took a lot of time to overhaul this article from low-quality to A-Class and GA, but this editor single-handedly continues to rewrite content to pre-review quality, ignoring consensus and the efforts of those who improved and reviewed it. The article is supposed to be heading for FA, but edits such as this are simply doing more harm than good, they are often sub-standard or fail to meet Wiki MOS or other policies. There are well over 100 watchers of this article, yet only one or two of us are dealing with the disruptions to progress. It makes us look like we're war editing or have some kind of hold on it, when there is genuine need to maintain a stable article and add/improve the content, rather that see it get picked at daily and condensed into "personal preference" type edits, before FA will even accept it. The WP:IDHT attitude of said editor is enough to drive anyone mad. More eyes, please... Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 07:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to lift maps from https://archive.org/details/historywartimes14londuoft whIch is (I think) out of copyright?
The maps on pp 42, 50, 56, 61, 68, diagram on p. 74 and map on pp.76-77 are what I'm after but pdf viewer and Open Office don't want to co-operate. Suggestions from a computer aficionado would be appreciated. Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
For about a week now there has been an ongoing Wiki-skirmish (not really a war) spluttering along over a somewhat neglected aspect of the catastrophic British retreat from Kabul during the 1st Afghan War of 1842. The issue is the fate of the 12,000 odd Indian camp followers accompanying Elphinstone's British and Indian soldiers. Contemporary British writers were concerned mainly with British prisoners (a number were later released), to a much lesser extent with the Indian sepoys (a few made it back) and scarcely at all with the unfortunate camp-followers (most of whom it is assumed died in the retreat or were enslaved). Editor Fareed30 has been aggressively pursuing the premise that the Indians were taken prisoner, released "on a case by case basis" and then either returned to India or stayed on Afghanistan as the originators of the present Hindu minority there. Well fine but he repeatedly challenges the source cited of the "mostly froze, starved, died of disease, were killed or enslaved" case (a 2010 book by the British historian Linda Colley), on the grounds that she was not there in 1842 and that a book which cannot be accessed online is not a verifiable reliable source. His counter-argument repeatedly cites a BBC News article (which is available online) dealing with the difficulties faced by the modern Sikh community in Afghanistan. It makes a passing reference to this minority (plus a few Hindus) having been brought in by the British during the 19th century but in no way links them to the hapless refugees of 1842. As is often the case on Wikipedia when differing historical and nationalistic views collide the argument goes round and round. Could anyone having an interest in the period, plus access to reliable reference sources, look at the lede section of 1842 Retreat from Kabul and attempt to resolve the dispute one way or the other. Thanks. Buistr (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The image above shows two Crimea War medals, and the corresponding miniature versions. What is the correct term for the latter? What are the criteria determining which are worn on a given occasion? Our articles on medals, and on military decorations, don't mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently ran across stubs 105th Air Refueling Squadron and 709th Air Refueling Squadron. I have doubts that either squadron existed and have marked the single sentence in the articles as dubious and started a discussion on the talk page. If anyone would like to support the existence of these units (the only evidence I find is on patch sites) and their notability if they existed, feel free to comment. I'll wait a while before nominating them for deletion. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
News articles often refer to the beginning or end of the "fighting season" and I've noticed that there is no article on the concept. Is it something that might be worthy of an article and is there someone here who knows enough to write one? Ryan Vesey 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The twice a year "rasputitsa" seasons certainly didn't help Hitler's Barbarossa plans, coupled with his failure to equip his armies with winter clothing and supplies. The Russians were familiar with the problems of the rasputitsa and the severe winters on the steppes and used it to every advantage. The rasputitsa kept Hitler's generals from supplying the forward elements of the German advance with food, ammunition and fuel because the roads that were to be used were quagmires twice a year. To me, that reads significant. While it is true the German Army managed to recover ground during the dry summer months in many places, they developed no plan to use the two seasons to advantage. Hitler pushed his generals on the Eastern Front unmercifully and fired those generals that wouldn't or couldn't capture ground; von Rundstedt was an example. He would accept no excuses, even impassable mud...but then Hitler was a has-been corporal from another war. Cuprum17 ( talk) 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one for you guys! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 11:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a third opinion as I don't want an edit war. D2306 ( talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Access to books in this field would be helpful, especially to clear content, as this contributor has heavily taken from book sources, but there are also articles that draw from online sources.)
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the appropriate place for a request like this, but there is currently some discussion over the content of the No Gun Ri Massacre article. I'd appreciate anyone with an interest in military history to take a look. Thanks. WeldNeck ( talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|
See Sanji Iwabuchi and Naomasa Sakonju - both are WW2 Japanese war criminals, and the infobox photograph on both articles look awfully similar, pretty much the same dare I say. The photographs are separate files hosted on Commons with different file descriptions. Could it be that these two people are identical twins manufactured from some super secret Japanese laboratory that nobody's heard about? Or, has something gone wrong, and completely unnoticed since 2012? Is anyone able to confirm exactly who is who? -- benlisquare T• C• E 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Your input at Talk:Military occupations#Requested move would be appreciated. You may also be interested in the discussion at Talk:Soviet occupations#Requested move. -- BDD ( talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
To my surprise, John Treloar (museum administrator) was selected to appear on the main page as the today's featured article on 11 November. However, I'm going to be travelling at this time, and probably won't be able to keep an eye on the article. I'd appreciate it if other editors could watchlist it, and help with reverting the inevitable vandalism. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bijeljina massacre; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Asahi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon a newly-created article, Public opinion of the military. I'm not sure what to think of it, nor do I know if we have other articles that already cover the subject. - BilCat ( talk) 10:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Can some of you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ProudIrishAspie_and_Infobox_flags? The issue is the addition of (problematic) flags to infoboxes of military biographies. Your input is greatly appreciated--and at some point a clarification at WP:INFOBOXFLAG should be considered. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I created a version of Template:Infobox military unit that is built on the Infobox module; from the testcases the output seems identical.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I was pottering about with B-2 Escort Group (Royal Navy) and I was struck by a couple of thoughts
I was able to find a few books in google (eg The Defeat of the German U-boats: The Battle of the Atlantic), and an item on the RN website, that use "Escort Group B2" for this unit. One of the authors of a source for the article uses "Escort Group B.2" in their other works [7]. I have found hyphen form in "Escort Group B-2" [8] Anyone have any thoughts or sources on the matter? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
And another one. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a question on the main WP:MOS talk page here about the use of caps or small caps for codenames. From what I have read it is quite common for caps to be used for codnames in most military history books. Should we follow that example? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've just posted Spanish conquest of Petén as a Featured Article Candidate and invite any comments on its review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell ( talk) 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Camp des Garrigues related to Quartier Captaine Danjou? Hcobb ( talk) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please help disambiguate the term echelon in the context of: December 1941- His echelon is destroyed by enemy aircraft ( Anatoly_Yakovlevich_Taranetz#Notable_dates.5B1.5D). Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Going through the "Stub" articles. Came across Battle of Canton (March 1841) and Battle of Canton (May 1841). Should both articles be merged together as one? Adamdaley ( talk) 10:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. This is my second attempt to draw editors to this review. This is also my second attempt at getting this list up to FLC. The first review went stale because of lack of reviewers. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just found this article: D Battery Royal Horse Artillery, it hasn't been edited by a human since 14 November 2012. It's quite unique. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi looking for help returning an article to a correct form of name. It was the 11th Hussars which was moved, to create a disamb page, to 11th Hussar Regiment (United Kingdom) a form of title never used by this regiment. 11th Hussars was a diminutive name the correct full name being 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) but when I tried to revert to this version I unnoticed had a typo missed the S off hussars. So its now called 11th Hussar (Prince Albert's Own). I tried the technical move page but for some reason it would not accept the name used by the article now, with the typo. Brought this here as being a military problem, may be easier for and Admin member to understand. Hope this all makes sense. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The London Gazette has recently launched a new beta website, using the new url http://www.thegazette.co.uk/ - this will also incorporate the Belfast and Edinburgh publications. As many of you will know this is a vital resource for tracking commissions and promotions in the British armed forces, and also honours and decorations for those serving with British Empire/Commonwealth forces in both world wars, so it is a widely cited resource within MILHIST supported articles. The intention is that the old sites will be shut down. Hopefully, most references to these publications use the specific template:London Gazette (and the Belfast and Edinburgh equivalents), so we will be able to maintain those easily by simply updating the url stem that the templates use to build the full url, but some article may simply incorporate straight links within the standard cite news or cite web templates and the like. Those lilnks will be broken once the old site shuts down. David Underdown ( talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to those who helped move Military occupations to Military careers. I'll work on incoming links to the former so it can be redirected to Military occupation as a usual {{ R from plural}}. There will still be category-space cleanup to be done, so please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7#Category:Military occupation. -- BDD ( talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.
Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Created disambig for Targeted killing:
Can someone more knowledgeable and experienced with disambig pages help with the formatting and classification?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll create Glenn Defense Marine Asia seven hours from now, unless somebody else jumps in first. I've added links to the talk page. Hcobb ( talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new article on Economic history of World War I and have begun with a working bibliography and a few entries. I plan to add a lot more in the next few days -- some excerpts from existing articles and some new material. I got started by reading up on John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who handled financing for Britain & most of its allies. Comments and advice is most welcome! Rjensen ( talk) 13:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through a few thousand articles and have placed a few here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment. Anyone can have a go at assessing them. Adamdaley ( talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Just as a note - much of what I've seen myself is close paraphrasing.)
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if somebody has already made one of these for the Red Arrows but I have just made one, add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}} to your talkpage to get this:
This user is a fan of the Red Arrows. |
Nathan121212 ( talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
New article on an American Civil War nurse who was made an honorary member of the Grand Army of the Republic – needs clean up and better referencing. Plenty of sources are listed but there are very few inline citations, and most of those are bare URLS. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
[Copied from my talk page. Milhist will be participating. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)]
Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Per the above, #No Gun Ri Massacre, it has now bubbled up onto Wikipedia:ANI#Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. Looks like it's mainly a content dispute badly needing input from an impartial, interested editor with a good grasp of WP:V and WP:RS. Any takers? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004
Is the H-18 bomber solid enough to support a page yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Infobox has recently been changed a few times by an IP without discussion. This issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page in the past and the current pattern of edits is similar to previous instances. Current version of the infobox reflects the fact that there is no consensus at this time for the addition of this material and as such I have reverted and requested discussion as part of BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. This has now happened a couple of times with the edit being made without any discussion. I have now asked the IP on his/her talk page to discuss first so will see if that works. Would appreciate other editors having a look though because I've had my three. Although in the past I have stated that I don't think the material should be included (and said as much in several discussions) I personally don't care as long as the edits are reflective of community consensus. At the moment they just seem to be disruptive. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I could use a few more eyes on the talk page. I think I am on the right track, but I would really appreciate others' thoughts [9]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Good Afternoon
There is a proposal on the Talk:List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan page to change the structure of the article from alphabetically based on installation type and name to an idea where there are different tables for each regional command then alphabetically on installation type and name. Gavbadger ( talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't 7 days a rather short period of inactivity after which to archive a discussion on this page? I wanted to respond to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Small caps for codenames and found it was moved here. What's the procedure to resurrect such a discussion? Just create a new section or copy/move the old discussion from the archive back to the current page? Any thoughts on lengthening the archive time to 14 or 30 days for those of us that tend to get busy? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that there is a Wikipedia GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, and Museums) project for Military History? The Pritzker Military Museum & Library recently joined Wikipedia as a GLAM institution. For details, see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker
What does this mean for military history editors? It means that there are now additional resources to improve the articles that you are editing or writing. If you have questions, post to my talk page. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The title for Marine (military) is being discussed at Talk:Marine (military)#Requested move. Comments are welcome. - BilCat ( talk) 07:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one and another one which need attention. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. Last year, I introduced myself here and asked for the help of independent editors to discuss inaccuracies in the information about WWII in the SNCF article. I would like to revisit this information to focus on two particular statements that remain, but which I feel are inaccurate and have been disputed.
Per my messages last year, this is a very complicated and sensitive subject, but due to this I feel that it deserves to be treated carefully and accurately. The section was much improved last year and there are just two statements that I now seek to address. On the Talk:SNCF page, I have explained these and offered a suggestion to add an alternative view, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF#Suggestion. I am interested to hear the feedback of editors from this project. Is there anyone who can assist? Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Which HMS Barracouta was lost with all hands on Madagascar in 1826? Mjroots ( talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion here. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Any chance of getting another backlog reduction drive started along these lines? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Are lists/bullet points etc OK in leads? Keith-264 ( talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RFC at Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)#Requested move wanting to move the article title to 13th Airborne Division on the ground it does not need disambiguating as there are no other 13th Airborne Division articles. Does the project have any guideline or consensus on such cases? There are other divisions in this situation, for example 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom). Spinning Spark 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Doe anyone look at these? It would be nice to get some feedback. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.
The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.
What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:
On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.
Thanks! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all can any interested editors comment on a dispute at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. It started by using the term Turkish, as per all the sources used, for the forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. An explanatory note is included in the article explaining why Turkish is used. However one editor changed the words from Turkish to Ottoman, then acknowledged there was a consensus, if only a small one, for Turkish. Since then they have decided that using Turkish is against W:POV policy. Even when the Ottoman Empire article uses the same terminology. To stop a potential edit war and content dispute can more editors contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I routinely see "Turkish" and "Ottoman" used interchangeably in books on World War I. The thing is, the Ottomans were Turks, and English-speakers at the time routinely called them Turks. Were all subjects of the Ottoman Empire Turkish? No. Does it matter? No. "Turk/Turkish/etc." is a convenient shorthand that everyone understands to refer to the state that existed from 1299 to 1923. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
PS I suggest editors click on the link to Ottoman Empire to find out what this discussion is all about. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, Roslyn can't hold an article hostage indefinitely with "POV" tags, when clearly a great number of sources use "Turkish" terms. At the end of the day we're a bunch of amateur historians editing some freebee website, many of the sources are by paid historians who do years of dedicated research all round the world and then have it scrutinised by publishers taking a risk that it will sell. I know who my money is on. I'm also surprised to see Roslyn cherry-picking their responses here. They keep on insisting that "Turkish Army" is POV because the army drew from other nations, yet repeatedly fail to answer why the "British Army" is in the same position most of the time yet does not need revising. I think this is just a bitter argument between Jim and Roslyn, with Roslyn refusing to drop the stick despite the over-whelming evidence against them. I motion that this is clearly Tendentious editing and Roslyn's fixation on maintaining circular arguments by repeating the same nonsense like a parrot is intentionally hampering productivity. I'll follow with a break and a !vote, as it's time to conclude this matter, this thread is almost 2 weeks old and going nowhere. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a support/oppose vote to a) remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division b) continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term.
The Turkish Fourth Army was equipped and deployed with a potential Aegean war with Greece in mindand John Malcolm Wagstaff (2002). Greece, ethnicity and sovereignty, 1820-1994: atlas and documents. Archive Editions. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-85207-895-9.
the creation in1 975 of a new Turkish Fourth Army) so this unnecessary inconsistent and imprecise terminology could only mislead the readers.
McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has been nominated for FAC. All comments are welcomed. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to participate in the discussion. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Fighting machine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and fighting-machine is under discussion, see talk:Tripod (The War of the Worlds). "fighting machine" is currently used for a real world military topic. "Tripod" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 ( talk) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vitalian (general); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if all vessels lost in the Battle of Navarino were added to the List of shipwrecks in 1827. Mjroots ( talk) 21:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Intelligence articles is getting mixed up with WikiProject Espionage articles. For example there are several articles that have WikiProject Intelligence on it's talkpage, yet when in editing, it comes up as WikiProject Intelligence. This has me confused. I realized that WikiProject Intelligence is part of the WikiProject Military History, how could someone differentiate between "Intelligence" gathering such as people, and agencies ... and people and agencies who are into "Espionage"? That is my question. In some cases there is both WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence, therefore listing the article as having two WikiProject Espionage and not having "Intelligence" in the WikiProject Military History. That is the only outcome I could see is adding WikiProject MILHIST to the talkpage and leaving articles that are related to espionage and/or intelligence having "Intel" selected for the WP:MILHIST and having WikiProject Espionage as a separate one. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
A question on the correct disambiguation for biographical articles on Marine officers and other ranks who sailed with the First Fleet to Australia in 1787-88. They were members of what later became known as the Royal Marines, but it was only styled as that name from 1802. Per the article on History of the Royal Marines between 1755 and 1802 (the relevant period of service for First Fleet Marines) it was known as "Her Majesty's Marine Forces." So should the disambiguation for these articles be:
Any of them is fine by me, but as there will likely be about 15 of these articles I'd like to get some views on a standard name. Euryalus ( talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Two AfDs which are relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne. They raise wider issues. Essentially, should we be keeping articles on air aces who are only notable for being air aces? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:32, 27 November 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. |
An IP is working on the article Alfa (rocket); and while most of their work appears constructive, they keep re-inserting the claim that 40 examples of the missile were built. This fails both WP:V and WP:COMMONSENSE to my eye, can anyone check this and/or zap it since I'm at 3RR? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion on Wikipedia as to whether the major republican rising of 1835 in southern Brazil should be designated as the Farroupilha Revolution or as the Ragamuffin War. Ragamuffin is a loose English translation of a Portuguese term which could also be worded as "ragged people" or "tattered ones". The issue was debated in detail in September 2012 and the majority consensus then was that the original Portuguese "Farroupilha" was most appropriate for the English WP article (see the archived discussion under Farroupilha Revolution. The issue has now been raised again with a formal request that the article be redesignated as "Ragamuffin War". To me "ragamuffins" with its usually accepted meaning of unkempt urchins in 19th century London reads very oddly as a description of adult revolutionary fighters but perhaps I have read too much Dickens. Any views? Buistr ( talk) 21:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is there anyone here with easy access to the University of California? I'm looking for a book that is there. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I've put up The Sinking of the Lusitania (the film, not the event) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sinking of the Lusitania/archive1. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day all, File:Grand Fleet sails.jpg is currently being considered at possibly unfree files because it is lacking source information. Given that it is used in several high profile maritime articles (including Battle of Jutland), I wonder if one of the many esteemed editors we have working in this area might be able to find a source for the image? Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I would like to have some input on Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95, specifically should it be considered a list or a "regular" article. I recently posted the article at the WP:GAN and an editor was kind enough to post on my talk page and point out that the article might be more of a list than not.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (1929) is a short article but the number of categories at the bottom is huge because many counties in existence at that time signed up for it. The article on the Fourth Geneva Convention has many more, but it is not so obvious because the article is longer and the categories will probably not appear without scrolling the page. Has anyone given any thought to how to handle category bloat? -- PBS ( talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to join RFC Audie Murphy v. Matt Urban medal count. The discussion is to determine the correct medal count of both. — Maile ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello good mil-hist folks. Just a quick note to suggest that those who assess list articles for A-class here might like to re-appraise themselves with what we're expecting to see at WP:FLC, just in case that's the next step for some editors. I recently checked out Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia which, while a nice article, was nowhere near ready for FLC, and would have benefitted from a peer review with a list-article bias. Don't forget, FLC isn't a replacement for PR. I was surprised to see that the A-class review here missed so many fundamental issues that we'd expect as normal at FLC, not "nice-to-haves", literally failures to comply with the criteria.
I suppose I'm just saying that I'm so used to excellent quality content from this project that I was surprised that you guys and girls haven't tried to align your A-class review criteria with FLC, that'd make life a lot better for the various nominations. Simple things like compliance with WP:ACCESS, compliance with WP:DASH, WP:HASH, WP:MOSBOLD etc.
Having said all that, keep up the great work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on my experience lists are for most parts written using wiki tables. These tables cover a wide range of functionality, challenging the editors on a technical level. When creating high class lists one has to consider aspects such as enabling these tables for screen readers for the visually impaired or for readability on mobile devices. These are additional requirements which pose a more "technical", or call it behind the scenes, challenge then the traditional more content rated articles. I believe we as a project have to acknowledge this. I would very much encourage the project to embrace these aspects more heavily and to help guide our editors through the process of creating high quality articles. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, when we're dealing with lists, we can change this criterion to remove the references to prose, copyediting, etc. and instead talk about the corresponding elements of a list (e.g. table layout, etc.)? Kirill [talk] 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
Does this project have a template to invite potential new members? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:Wikipedia:MILHIST/I|~~~~}}
or {{subst:User:The ed17/MILHIST|signed=~~~~}}
.
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 18:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Compare dates and content of Naval Battle of Vella Lavella vs http://www.combinedfleet.com/vlavella.htm Hcobb ( talk) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As an fyi, several Milhist-related featured topic nominations are awaiting comments at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the use of flags in ship infoboxes at WT:SHIPS#Ship registry flags. Members of this WP are invited to comment. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I having trouble with the layout of the info box on this article. It seems to be bunched together on the Axis side of the table. Any suggestions for solving this problem? Dapi89 ( talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Got another one for you, albeit not sure if it's relevant to this Project, but it's close. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MK-VI 'Wright Class' Coastal Patrol Boat. Thank you as always, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Veterans Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Veterans Day (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and {la|Veterans Day (United States)}} is under discussion, see talk:Veterans Day (United States) -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
How can I find the volume, issue and page numbers of Flight International editions post-2004? Those that were released before 2004 have been archived and the process of finding those numbers are easy. However, for those articles that were released from 2005, such as this, I have difficulties finding volume, issue and page numbers; does anyone have any ways to obtain them?
Anyway, for anybody interested or anyone who uses FI as a source, the following is the reference formatting that I use:
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure of naming conventions, but I don't recall seeing the pounding of Eilean Donan referred to as a "battle" before. Comments welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 16:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just found these "articles" and "some" help would be appreciated:
Gavbadger ( talk) 17:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it OR to use a non-English source? Keith-264 ( talk) 23:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This is what I have in mind as it's the only source I've found which deals in any detail with facts and figures. The English sources Nivelle Offensive Second Battle of the Aisne don't delve very deeply. Obviously if anyone can suggest sources in English I'll be grateful. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 06:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This site has Der Weltkrieg but it's in German and in fraktur. Does anyone know how to change the type face and to make a translator like Google translate work? I assume that it isn't copiable for a reason but not knowing much about computers I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
While I'm about it, I tried to rip this off the French wiki but it didn't work. Does anyone know if this was a failure of technique or that it isn't allowed? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Next-Generation_Bomber&curid=13118834&diff=577020680&oldid=573922955
I've seen strategypage.com as more of a blog, but it doesn't seem to be blocked. Hcobb ( talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This article's currently undergoing FA review and it would be greatly appreciated if some users could offer their in-put on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)/archive1. Thanks, 23 editor ( talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I find myself in a bit of dispute with an editor who finds the word hypocoristic too challenging for our readers (among other things). He has suggested overwriting the word with "shortened" which I oppose because it neglects the element of endearment, which is quite vital to the subtleties of the German language and the context in which it is used. The editor also argues that "'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know". I am not fully convinced that this line of reasoning upholds the standards of an encyclopedia. What do other editors think? I appreciate some feedback. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell whether this thread indicates dissatisfaction with WP:Checklist#clarity, which (as far as I have been able to tell) describes pretty accurately how these questions usually get resolved. Does anything there need to be tweaked or expanded on? - Dank ( push to talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the term, and don't think it gets used enough. It's a tough call on Wikipedia. In a GA review, I was told that "serendipity" and "serendipitous" were too uncommon for the average reader. We compromised with a link to Wiki-article on Serendipity. Perhaps you can link to a Wiktionary entry. Good luck. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Does the term "Bubi" need to be explained at at all? Why not not just say "nicknamed "Bubi" by his comrades" and leave it at that? Not everything needs to be translated/explained. - BilCat ( talk) 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Braatz, Kurt (2010). Walter Krupinski - Jagdflieger, Geheimagent, General (in German). Moosburg, Germany: NeunundzwanzigSechs Verlag. ISBN 978-3-9811615-5-7.
I've seen multiple references to a chain being placed underwater to prevent wooden warships from entering an area, similar to an Anti-submarine net. These include Hudson River Chain, Raid on the Medway and Fall of Constantinople. Does anyone know what these are called, and might anyone have further information to put in a possible article on the subject? - Oreo Priest talk 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would call it a harbour chain; a quick search turned up this, for example. I too think of a boom as a floating barrier, whether tethered, towed, or drifting, but I picture this as submerged, being suspended from both ends. (And I haven‘t read any George R.R. Martin that I can recall.)— Odysseus 147 9 02:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) Ok, so I've created the article in my sandbox: User:Oreo Priest/boom (navigational barrier). I'll move it to the namespace once a suitable title's been chosen. It's far from perfect, and it could use some more content (especially regarding booms) and references. It also completely lacks categories at the moment. Feel free to take a look or add on to it! Oreo Priest talk 04:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in input on this issue that deals with significantly improving the quality of the user experience in the "current structure" or "order of battle" sections of US military unit pages. The static org chart images typically do not display units below the battalion-equivalent org level. As the majority of US military personnel are actually assigned to these lowest company- and detachment-equivalent org units, I would posit that the user experience on WP could be much improved here. Military personnel tend to be most strongly bonded to their immediate org at these lowest level. Also, as the US DoD is one singular, giant org, I would posit that WP users would benefit from being able to interactively explore not just their immediate org, but more informatively where every DoD unit fits into the overall DoD org puzzle.
Please consider the example of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division's current structure section. To substantiate my hypothesis here about user experience, follow the evolution of this unit's org chart below and evaluate your own user experience and edification:
I am interested in hearing about your user experience while comparing your options for personal edification using the current WP org structure content, and whether your experience was improved by being made interactive, more detailed, and significantly more holistic. Thank you.
RallyPoint Military Project (
talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How do we reduce these to {{xxxx}}? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 10:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
Paris Peace Conference|style=narrow}}
.
Kirill
[talk] 12:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Had occassion to stop by this article and was saddened by its incomplete nature. Not a complete disaster - there is cited content - but could be so much better. I looked on the talk page and there, forgotten, were some suggestions written by me over two years ago, most unacted upon. Rarely for a article on strategy and tactics, this one lacks modern (i.e. 20th and 21st century) material. The Air-landed section is lamentable. Given the availability of the Osprey raid series as a start point, there should be no difficulty in adding pertinent examples. Also, more on the strategic and tactical aspects of raiding would not go amiss. Anyone up for adding a little around their favourite topics? Thanks in anticipation. Monstrelet ( talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, so apologies for not knowing how you operate. However, I was reading the FDC funding requests, and see that the Nederland chapter plans a major initiative regarding World War II and the Serbian chapter plans a major initiative related to World War I, so there might be some value in coordination:
I chose to nominate List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) for FLC a second time. The first time the review went stale due to lack of interest in the topic. Hopefully it draws some more attention this time around. Regards MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. This article has been at ACR since 24 Aug 13 - its in fairly good shape in my opinion and a large amount of work has clearly gone into it by the nominator so it would be shame if it doesn't make it through purely due to a lack of reviewers. Currently has two supports so just needs one more. If there is anyone out there interested in assisting with the review pls have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gamal Abdel Nasser. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to track our progress. 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Click on [show] for progress bar
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Managed to push it back below 11%. How long it will stay that way is anyone's guess. 65.64.177.103 ( talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Continuing on to 11.5%. Unfortunately, this category continues to grow while I'm away. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You have? Excellent, glad to hear it. Pop along to WP:TFAR, and tell us what it is. Perhaps " Goodbyeee" or Southern Rhodesia in World War I? Or perhaps a WWI VC winner in Thomas Crisp or Edgar Towner? Or perhaps something even better? Look forward to seeing your bright ideas. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear military experts: This submission at Afc has been waiting for a review for some time. Would anyone like to help? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to nominate Melbourne Hall for A-class, and I seem to have broken the process. I'd be grateful if someone could fix my mis-nom, I'm likely to make things worse (it all started when the nom template failed to appear...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles ( Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:05, 23 October 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) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Knsn57 has made a series of unexplained and unreferenced modifications to a wide range of battle articles relating to the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) and Second Sino-Japanese War, including the modification of total strength and casualty numbers. Often, these changes appear as an attempt to make Japan look more favourable, by making the Korean fatality figures higher, and the Japanese total strength figures lower. This editor does not use edit summaries, and has only started editing since 14 October 2013, with less than 60 total edits so far. Is someone able to verify these changes? -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
ÄDA - DÄP ( talk · contribs) has indicated and deleted sources from articles by declaring them as unreliable. Previously the general consensus was to allow the usage, but if other sources prove them wrong, make the discrepancy evident. Some editors had even expressed that removal of sources constitutes censorship. I am open-minded and the consensus here can go either way. However I find that his approach (deletion of sources) should be backed up by a community decision. How do other editors feel? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
In this light, I would like to ask what exactly is the point of having these sources in the bibliography section, especially if they are not used as to reference information. I can think of a but a few reasons, none of which I like. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the issue may be that the term unreliable may be interpreted as deliberately falsifying the facts. If you consider Scherzer's work as the pinnacle of Knight's Cross related research you have to acknowledge that Scherzer himself derives and references the works of Von Seemen, Range, Krätschmer, Thomas, Wegmann, among others. In many instances you can see the historic convergence of the facts if you read all of these books. Quoting from Scherzer’s book, "I do not want to take away anyone’s Knight's Cross". Scherzer is very direct and claims that for all those listed in his book, there is verifiable evidence to substantiate the presentation of Knight's Cross. In roughly 200 instances Scherzer has found lack of evidence in the archives that Fellgiebel's claim may be wrong. Lack of evidence itself does not make it wrong or right. I therefore feel that making these discrepancies obvious to the reader is the fundamentally better approach. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across Operation Grenada, which is a short article detailing (essentially) an arrest in Iraq in 2007. I proposed it for deletion - there's little or no indication of any historic notability - and started having a look at some others. The first two 2007 operations I opened are if anything even less notable - Operation Four Brothers and Operation Geronimo Strike III, which detained two suspects (it doesn't tell us what happened to them), a couple of guns "and a ski mask".
It looks like there's going to be many more like this - should I continue to prod them, or (as has happened in some cases) just redirect to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which has a brief summary? Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently proposed deletion of a new article Norwegian Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan as it was clearly a list of those killed and serves no-purpose other than a memorial. I have recently discovered that we have a whole batch of these memorial pages like British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 (which has managed to get to B class). Just checking that the project stance appears to be that recentism has taken over from not memorial. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we have some eyes on Audie Murphy, please!
The same editor, whose name has been raised here countless times before, is currently engaged in an effort to remove the "of World War II" part from the lead – this is nothing more than POV-bias, as not having Murphy mentioned as one of the most decorated of that period leaves the sentence open to ambiguity, suggesting he's the most decorated of what?? All U.S. history? All world history? All of time? His notability results from his WWII career and subsequently his many decorations, one can't exist without the other.
It really is very frustrating that over the last year a few editors took a lot of time to overhaul this article from low-quality to A-Class and GA, but this editor single-handedly continues to rewrite content to pre-review quality, ignoring consensus and the efforts of those who improved and reviewed it. The article is supposed to be heading for FA, but edits such as this are simply doing more harm than good, they are often sub-standard or fail to meet Wiki MOS or other policies. There are well over 100 watchers of this article, yet only one or two of us are dealing with the disruptions to progress. It makes us look like we're war editing or have some kind of hold on it, when there is genuine need to maintain a stable article and add/improve the content, rather that see it get picked at daily and condensed into "personal preference" type edits, before FA will even accept it. The WP:IDHT attitude of said editor is enough to drive anyone mad. More eyes, please... Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 07:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to lift maps from https://archive.org/details/historywartimes14londuoft whIch is (I think) out of copyright?
The maps on pp 42, 50, 56, 61, 68, diagram on p. 74 and map on pp.76-77 are what I'm after but pdf viewer and Open Office don't want to co-operate. Suggestions from a computer aficionado would be appreciated. Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
For about a week now there has been an ongoing Wiki-skirmish (not really a war) spluttering along over a somewhat neglected aspect of the catastrophic British retreat from Kabul during the 1st Afghan War of 1842. The issue is the fate of the 12,000 odd Indian camp followers accompanying Elphinstone's British and Indian soldiers. Contemporary British writers were concerned mainly with British prisoners (a number were later released), to a much lesser extent with the Indian sepoys (a few made it back) and scarcely at all with the unfortunate camp-followers (most of whom it is assumed died in the retreat or were enslaved). Editor Fareed30 has been aggressively pursuing the premise that the Indians were taken prisoner, released "on a case by case basis" and then either returned to India or stayed on Afghanistan as the originators of the present Hindu minority there. Well fine but he repeatedly challenges the source cited of the "mostly froze, starved, died of disease, were killed or enslaved" case (a 2010 book by the British historian Linda Colley), on the grounds that she was not there in 1842 and that a book which cannot be accessed online is not a verifiable reliable source. His counter-argument repeatedly cites a BBC News article (which is available online) dealing with the difficulties faced by the modern Sikh community in Afghanistan. It makes a passing reference to this minority (plus a few Hindus) having been brought in by the British during the 19th century but in no way links them to the hapless refugees of 1842. As is often the case on Wikipedia when differing historical and nationalistic views collide the argument goes round and round. Could anyone having an interest in the period, plus access to reliable reference sources, look at the lede section of 1842 Retreat from Kabul and attempt to resolve the dispute one way or the other. Thanks. Buistr (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The image above shows two Crimea War medals, and the corresponding miniature versions. What is the correct term for the latter? What are the criteria determining which are worn on a given occasion? Our articles on medals, and on military decorations, don't mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently ran across stubs 105th Air Refueling Squadron and 709th Air Refueling Squadron. I have doubts that either squadron existed and have marked the single sentence in the articles as dubious and started a discussion on the talk page. If anyone would like to support the existence of these units (the only evidence I find is on patch sites) and their notability if they existed, feel free to comment. I'll wait a while before nominating them for deletion. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
News articles often refer to the beginning or end of the "fighting season" and I've noticed that there is no article on the concept. Is it something that might be worthy of an article and is there someone here who knows enough to write one? Ryan Vesey 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The twice a year "rasputitsa" seasons certainly didn't help Hitler's Barbarossa plans, coupled with his failure to equip his armies with winter clothing and supplies. The Russians were familiar with the problems of the rasputitsa and the severe winters on the steppes and used it to every advantage. The rasputitsa kept Hitler's generals from supplying the forward elements of the German advance with food, ammunition and fuel because the roads that were to be used were quagmires twice a year. To me, that reads significant. While it is true the German Army managed to recover ground during the dry summer months in many places, they developed no plan to use the two seasons to advantage. Hitler pushed his generals on the Eastern Front unmercifully and fired those generals that wouldn't or couldn't capture ground; von Rundstedt was an example. He would accept no excuses, even impassable mud...but then Hitler was a has-been corporal from another war. Cuprum17 ( talk) 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one for you guys! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 11:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a third opinion as I don't want an edit war. D2306 ( talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Access to books in this field would be helpful, especially to clear content, as this contributor has heavily taken from book sources, but there are also articles that draw from online sources.)
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the appropriate place for a request like this, but there is currently some discussion over the content of the No Gun Ri Massacre article. I'd appreciate anyone with an interest in military history to take a look. Thanks. WeldNeck ( talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|
See Sanji Iwabuchi and Naomasa Sakonju - both are WW2 Japanese war criminals, and the infobox photograph on both articles look awfully similar, pretty much the same dare I say. The photographs are separate files hosted on Commons with different file descriptions. Could it be that these two people are identical twins manufactured from some super secret Japanese laboratory that nobody's heard about? Or, has something gone wrong, and completely unnoticed since 2012? Is anyone able to confirm exactly who is who? -- benlisquare T• C• E 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Your input at Talk:Military occupations#Requested move would be appreciated. You may also be interested in the discussion at Talk:Soviet occupations#Requested move. -- BDD ( talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
To my surprise, John Treloar (museum administrator) was selected to appear on the main page as the today's featured article on 11 November. However, I'm going to be travelling at this time, and probably won't be able to keep an eye on the article. I'd appreciate it if other editors could watchlist it, and help with reverting the inevitable vandalism. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bijeljina massacre; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Asahi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 02:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon a newly-created article, Public opinion of the military. I'm not sure what to think of it, nor do I know if we have other articles that already cover the subject. - BilCat ( talk) 10:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Can some of you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ProudIrishAspie_and_Infobox_flags? The issue is the addition of (problematic) flags to infoboxes of military biographies. Your input is greatly appreciated--and at some point a clarification at WP:INFOBOXFLAG should be considered. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I created a version of Template:Infobox military unit that is built on the Infobox module; from the testcases the output seems identical.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I was pottering about with B-2 Escort Group (Royal Navy) and I was struck by a couple of thoughts
I was able to find a few books in google (eg The Defeat of the German U-boats: The Battle of the Atlantic), and an item on the RN website, that use "Escort Group B2" for this unit. One of the authors of a source for the article uses "Escort Group B.2" in their other works [7]. I have found hyphen form in "Escort Group B-2" [8] Anyone have any thoughts or sources on the matter? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
And another one. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a question on the main WP:MOS talk page here about the use of caps or small caps for codenames. From what I have read it is quite common for caps to be used for codnames in most military history books. Should we follow that example? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've just posted Spanish conquest of Petén as a Featured Article Candidate and invite any comments on its review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell ( talk) 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Camp des Garrigues related to Quartier Captaine Danjou? Hcobb ( talk) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please help disambiguate the term echelon in the context of: December 1941- His echelon is destroyed by enemy aircraft ( Anatoly_Yakovlevich_Taranetz#Notable_dates.5B1.5D). Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Going through the "Stub" articles. Came across Battle of Canton (March 1841) and Battle of Canton (May 1841). Should both articles be merged together as one? Adamdaley ( talk) 10:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. This is my second attempt to draw editors to this review. This is also my second attempt at getting this list up to FLC. The first review went stale because of lack of reviewers. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just found this article: D Battery Royal Horse Artillery, it hasn't been edited by a human since 14 November 2012. It's quite unique. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi looking for help returning an article to a correct form of name. It was the 11th Hussars which was moved, to create a disamb page, to 11th Hussar Regiment (United Kingdom) a form of title never used by this regiment. 11th Hussars was a diminutive name the correct full name being 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) but when I tried to revert to this version I unnoticed had a typo missed the S off hussars. So its now called 11th Hussar (Prince Albert's Own). I tried the technical move page but for some reason it would not accept the name used by the article now, with the typo. Brought this here as being a military problem, may be easier for and Admin member to understand. Hope this all makes sense. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The London Gazette has recently launched a new beta website, using the new url http://www.thegazette.co.uk/ - this will also incorporate the Belfast and Edinburgh publications. As many of you will know this is a vital resource for tracking commissions and promotions in the British armed forces, and also honours and decorations for those serving with British Empire/Commonwealth forces in both world wars, so it is a widely cited resource within MILHIST supported articles. The intention is that the old sites will be shut down. Hopefully, most references to these publications use the specific template:London Gazette (and the Belfast and Edinburgh equivalents), so we will be able to maintain those easily by simply updating the url stem that the templates use to build the full url, but some article may simply incorporate straight links within the standard cite news or cite web templates and the like. Those lilnks will be broken once the old site shuts down. David Underdown ( talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to those who helped move Military occupations to Military careers. I'll work on incoming links to the former so it can be redirected to Military occupation as a usual {{ R from plural}}. There will still be category-space cleanup to be done, so please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7#Category:Military occupation. -- BDD ( talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.
Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Created disambig for Targeted killing:
Can someone more knowledgeable and experienced with disambig pages help with the formatting and classification?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll create Glenn Defense Marine Asia seven hours from now, unless somebody else jumps in first. I've added links to the talk page. Hcobb ( talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new article on Economic history of World War I and have begun with a working bibliography and a few entries. I plan to add a lot more in the next few days -- some excerpts from existing articles and some new material. I got started by reading up on John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who handled financing for Britain & most of its allies. Comments and advice is most welcome! Rjensen ( talk) 13:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through a few thousand articles and have placed a few here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment. Anyone can have a go at assessing them. Adamdaley ( talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Just as a note - much of what I've seen myself is close paraphrasing.)
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if somebody has already made one of these for the Red Arrows but I have just made one, add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}} to your talkpage to get this:
This user is a fan of the Red Arrows. |
Nathan121212 ( talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
New article on an American Civil War nurse who was made an honorary member of the Grand Army of the Republic – needs clean up and better referencing. Plenty of sources are listed but there are very few inline citations, and most of those are bare URLS. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
[Copied from my talk page. Milhist will be participating. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)]
Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Per the above, #No Gun Ri Massacre, it has now bubbled up onto Wikipedia:ANI#Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. Looks like it's mainly a content dispute badly needing input from an impartial, interested editor with a good grasp of WP:V and WP:RS. Any takers? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004
Is the H-18 bomber solid enough to support a page yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Infobox has recently been changed a few times by an IP without discussion. This issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page in the past and the current pattern of edits is similar to previous instances. Current version of the infobox reflects the fact that there is no consensus at this time for the addition of this material and as such I have reverted and requested discussion as part of BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. This has now happened a couple of times with the edit being made without any discussion. I have now asked the IP on his/her talk page to discuss first so will see if that works. Would appreciate other editors having a look though because I've had my three. Although in the past I have stated that I don't think the material should be included (and said as much in several discussions) I personally don't care as long as the edits are reflective of community consensus. At the moment they just seem to be disruptive. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I could use a few more eyes on the talk page. I think I am on the right track, but I would really appreciate others' thoughts [9]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Good Afternoon
There is a proposal on the Talk:List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan page to change the structure of the article from alphabetically based on installation type and name to an idea where there are different tables for each regional command then alphabetically on installation type and name. Gavbadger ( talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't 7 days a rather short period of inactivity after which to archive a discussion on this page? I wanted to respond to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Small caps for codenames and found it was moved here. What's the procedure to resurrect such a discussion? Just create a new section or copy/move the old discussion from the archive back to the current page? Any thoughts on lengthening the archive time to 14 or 30 days for those of us that tend to get busy? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that there is a Wikipedia GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, and Museums) project for Military History? The Pritzker Military Museum & Library recently joined Wikipedia as a GLAM institution. For details, see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker
What does this mean for military history editors? It means that there are now additional resources to improve the articles that you are editing or writing. If you have questions, post to my talk page. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The title for Marine (military) is being discussed at Talk:Marine (military)#Requested move. Comments are welcome. - BilCat ( talk) 07:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one and another one which need attention. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. Last year, I introduced myself here and asked for the help of independent editors to discuss inaccuracies in the information about WWII in the SNCF article. I would like to revisit this information to focus on two particular statements that remain, but which I feel are inaccurate and have been disputed.
Per my messages last year, this is a very complicated and sensitive subject, but due to this I feel that it deserves to be treated carefully and accurately. The section was much improved last year and there are just two statements that I now seek to address. On the Talk:SNCF page, I have explained these and offered a suggestion to add an alternative view, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF#Suggestion. I am interested to hear the feedback of editors from this project. Is there anyone who can assist? Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Which HMS Barracouta was lost with all hands on Madagascar in 1826? Mjroots ( talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion here. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Any chance of getting another backlog reduction drive started along these lines? 64.6.124.31 ( talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Are lists/bullet points etc OK in leads? Keith-264 ( talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RFC at Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)#Requested move wanting to move the article title to 13th Airborne Division on the ground it does not need disambiguating as there are no other 13th Airborne Division articles. Does the project have any guideline or consensus on such cases? There are other divisions in this situation, for example 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom). Spinning Spark 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Doe anyone look at these? It would be nice to get some feedback. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.
The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.
What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:
On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.
Thanks! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all can any interested editors comment on a dispute at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. It started by using the term Turkish, as per all the sources used, for the forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. An explanatory note is included in the article explaining why Turkish is used. However one editor changed the words from Turkish to Ottoman, then acknowledged there was a consensus, if only a small one, for Turkish. Since then they have decided that using Turkish is against W:POV policy. Even when the Ottoman Empire article uses the same terminology. To stop a potential edit war and content dispute can more editors contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I routinely see "Turkish" and "Ottoman" used interchangeably in books on World War I. The thing is, the Ottomans were Turks, and English-speakers at the time routinely called them Turks. Were all subjects of the Ottoman Empire Turkish? No. Does it matter? No. "Turk/Turkish/etc." is a convenient shorthand that everyone understands to refer to the state that existed from 1299 to 1923. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
PS I suggest editors click on the link to Ottoman Empire to find out what this discussion is all about. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, Roslyn can't hold an article hostage indefinitely with "POV" tags, when clearly a great number of sources use "Turkish" terms. At the end of the day we're a bunch of amateur historians editing some freebee website, many of the sources are by paid historians who do years of dedicated research all round the world and then have it scrutinised by publishers taking a risk that it will sell. I know who my money is on. I'm also surprised to see Roslyn cherry-picking their responses here. They keep on insisting that "Turkish Army" is POV because the army drew from other nations, yet repeatedly fail to answer why the "British Army" is in the same position most of the time yet does not need revising. I think this is just a bitter argument between Jim and Roslyn, with Roslyn refusing to drop the stick despite the over-whelming evidence against them. I motion that this is clearly Tendentious editing and Roslyn's fixation on maintaining circular arguments by repeating the same nonsense like a parrot is intentionally hampering productivity. I'll follow with a break and a !vote, as it's time to conclude this matter, this thread is almost 2 weeks old and going nowhere. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a support/oppose vote to a) remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division b) continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term.
The Turkish Fourth Army was equipped and deployed with a potential Aegean war with Greece in mindand John Malcolm Wagstaff (2002). Greece, ethnicity and sovereignty, 1820-1994: atlas and documents. Archive Editions. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-85207-895-9.
the creation in1 975 of a new Turkish Fourth Army) so this unnecessary inconsistent and imprecise terminology could only mislead the readers.
McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has been nominated for FAC. All comments are welcomed. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to participate in the discussion. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Fighting machine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and fighting-machine is under discussion, see talk:Tripod (The War of the Worlds). "fighting machine" is currently used for a real world military topic. "Tripod" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 ( talk) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vitalian (general); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if all vessels lost in the Battle of Navarino were added to the List of shipwrecks in 1827. Mjroots ( talk) 21:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Intelligence articles is getting mixed up with WikiProject Espionage articles. For example there are several articles that have WikiProject Intelligence on it's talkpage, yet when in editing, it comes up as WikiProject Intelligence. This has me confused. I realized that WikiProject Intelligence is part of the WikiProject Military History, how could someone differentiate between "Intelligence" gathering such as people, and agencies ... and people and agencies who are into "Espionage"? That is my question. In some cases there is both WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence, therefore listing the article as having two WikiProject Espionage and not having "Intelligence" in the WikiProject Military History. That is the only outcome I could see is adding WikiProject MILHIST to the talkpage and leaving articles that are related to espionage and/or intelligence having "Intel" selected for the WP:MILHIST and having WikiProject Espionage as a separate one. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
A question on the correct disambiguation for biographical articles on Marine officers and other ranks who sailed with the First Fleet to Australia in 1787-88. They were members of what later became known as the Royal Marines, but it was only styled as that name from 1802. Per the article on History of the Royal Marines between 1755 and 1802 (the relevant period of service for First Fleet Marines) it was known as "Her Majesty's Marine Forces." So should the disambiguation for these articles be:
Any of them is fine by me, but as there will likely be about 15 of these articles I'd like to get some views on a standard name. Euryalus ( talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Two AfDs which are relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne. They raise wider issues. Essentially, should we be keeping articles on air aces who are only notable for being air aces? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)