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. |
Just to track our progress. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Click on [show] for progress bar
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Got below the 14% mark. Having the do this myself is getting tiring. It would be a heck of a lot easier of multiple people did this. As Anotherclown said, even five articles per week. 65.64.177.103 ( talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Remember, this is a voluntary effort. You should really try to stop nagging. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would take your begging a tad more seriously if you would register on Wikipedia. To me, it is the mark of a good editor to have some sort of personality so that the rest of the Project can relate. IP accounts, IMHO, should not be allowed to edit; just an opinion, of course. There are many things that I hope to accomplish on the MILHIST Project and filling out checklists is not the highest on my list. My time is limited by other worldly responsibilities and even if I filled out even one checklist a day, it would seriously cut into the content I hope to improve in articles which I have an interest in. Occasionally, when my mind is in a fog, I MIGHT tear through some checklists, but I really don't see that it accomplishes much. The key to Wikipedia is good, well written, accurate, referenced content on a wide range of subjects. Checklists don't really do anything for the reader of Wikipedia articles. Editors will tend to work on what interests them. If you are interested in filling out assessments then, by all means do so. When I submit an article for assessment, as a courtesy, I try to assess one or two or three on the same list if I can spare the time. I figure this is only fair and it assuages my guilt. Cheers... Cuprum17 ( talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the category continues to grow. It was down to 14,515 earlier. Now it is up to 14,567. Unfortunately I need to take a break from this for a couple days. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
more name calling
|
---|
|
Actually, we are different people: I am merely desperately trying to get anyone to help out with this category and pointing out the obvious that this category will not go down unless people add checklists to the talk pages. Blocking both IP addresses will do nothing to cut down on this category. Marcus, instead of trying to block accounts, you could always use the time to add a few checklists, it is truly not that hard and will not take that much time. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 04:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been "hopping to it", which is what started this whole discussion. I was trying get anyone else connected with this project to do a few articles as well. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 05:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Off topic nonsense
|
---|
Since I'm the person responsible for creating this category in the first place, perhaps I can offer a slightly different perspective? The reason why we've been reluctant to have another assessment drive—and particularly an assessment drive focused on clearing out this category—is simply that this particular backlog isn't very important, in the grand scheme of things. To be clear, my intent in saying this is not to belittle the efforts of those editors who have worked on reducing this backlog; every contribution is welcome and appreciated, regardless of what form it takes. The checklist backlog, however, was always intended primarily as a statistical tracking tool to help us determine how accurate our overall assessment ratings are, not as a high-priority backlog that actually needed to be cleared. That's not to say that editors can't choose to work on whatever they like, of course; if someone finds filling out the checklists enjoyable or rewarding in some way, then I don't think anyone will stand in the way of their doing so. But the reality of it is that the overall pool of labor in the project is limited, and it's difficult to justify spending a significant amount of it on a backlog that isn't critical and that doesn't correlate to any actual improvements to the articles involved. Kirill [talk] 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
IP 138.162.8.58: If you are on a Navy Network Information Center (NNIC) computer, then I know for a fact that you have to be logged in with your CAC card. I also know that personal use of a Navy computer is frowned on and possibly illegal. Please use you valuable time solving NNIC's problems and not making problems for editors on Wikipedia that only want to improve the work. Your IP (138.162.8.58) has a history of troublesome edits going back as far as 16 May 2008. Someone has too much time on their hands...I wouldn't want to be associated with them if I were you.
Cuprum17 (
talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Wow, this discussion has gone on far longer than I would have expected. This is bizarre, and all started by a nagging IP editor with momentum added by his contentious IP champion. I suggest we decline further discussion here. We can pick up any more discussion on the improvement of the WP:Mil Hist banner and assessment in a new section. I also suggest that any further complaints and pleas for contributions to assessment pages be deleted as contentious and disruptive, at least for a short time. As suggested earlier, monthly updates on progress would be acceptable. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 06:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a place to list AfD submissions for this project. Fro example, I wanted to add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprising of the Iga Ninja. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing citations from a website called " War is Boring" being added to articles, such as this one. As far as I can tell, medium.com is a blog-style site without any editorial oversight, and the articles on War is Boring basically appear to be commentaries/opinion pieces. Should we be using it as a source? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The book by Messenger, Charles, ed. (original edition 2001; Kindle ed. 2013). Reader's Guide to Military History has 900+ pages of historiography. That is, it evaluates thousands of books in all areas of military history. Large portions are available on books.google.com For example, has multiple articles on the Napoleonic wars that run to 36 pages of highly informative text. There are 587 signed articles by established experts. Rjensen ( talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear all, apologies if this should not be the correct place for my question. I am the creator of Karlslust dance hall fire, which occurred in the British sector of Berlin in 1947. So far, I did not succeed in finding English language sources covering the event, which would give the article another perspective. I'm quite sure they exist, because British soldiers were killed (the German sources are not coherent here, putting their number to three or six). Can you help me with this task? Any remarks and comments will be greatly appreciated. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to bring to someone's attention that the ADF.jpg in the WikiProject Australia banner is not valid. It comes up as 25px and is redlinked. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a photo of a SPAD XVI, probably of the US Air Service the First Army Observation Group. However, I can't identify the unit emblem shown on the fuselage. Can anyone assist, please? Thank you in advance Bwmoll3 ( talk) 00:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Shortly after this article completed its time as the main page, I reviewed all of the changes made since my last check and found that Pol098 had made a large number of edits. Some of these were genuine improvements to the wording, but others were not and I returned them to their original state. He then reverted my changes, which included dealing with problematic edits by Magus732, to his preferred version without explanation. I've reverted him, which puts me at 2RR, so I'm bringing the problem here to avoid. This is an FA-class article so its prose has been extensively reviewed, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect. Nonetheless, I'm leery of making extensive changes in the wording and reverted many Pol098's changes that did not offer a clear improvement. He seems insistent on the superiority of his rewording, so I would like the community to render judgement on them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I've commented in detail on these rather small changes on the article's talk page. Pol098 ( talk) 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I was going through this category and was wondering if Category:Military organizational structures should be renamed. It seems that all obs can be considered "organizational structures". Also, I was wondering about Category:Structure of contemporary armies. To me, "contemporary" should covern present day, but this category includes Formations of the Soviet Army, which disbanded over 20 years ago and doesn't exist anymore. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Does a Wikipedia article for either the event or for any of the individuals being discussed at [5] exist? I could not find anything at Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. It Is Me Here t / c 00:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Another submission for your consideration. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I am facing a bit of a communication challenge on the review of the list mentioned above. The review process seems to have worn down the nominator Georgejdorner ( talk · contribs) that he considers resigning from Wikipedia (check his final comment). This was not my intention and I feel bad with myself that I failed to communicate properly that my review comments were meant with the best intensions for the article. Clearly I failed to achieve this. I am therefore stepping back from further reviewing this article and ask the community here to help mend the situation. Sorry for the hiccup. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
When doing work on the article for Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture I noticed there was another book reviewed with that title (the article review I was looking at ended and this one began).
Is anyone interested in doing a search at the University of Houston libraries for book reviews of this book, then going to Wikipedia:RX and obtaining the said book reviews, and then writing an article on this book based on the book reviews? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the list of requested articles here: Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history so if any of our Australian or Kiwi editors are looking for something to do there are a surprisingly large number of articles still waiting to be written. Likewise if anyone can think of any other missing articles pls add them to the list. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday. For anyone interested I found an electronic copy of this online now here: [6] (previously very hard to find in hard copy). A good source for Australian Boer War units etc. Anotherclown ( talk) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
About the incomplete checklists category above: Would it be possible to split it by task force? I would be glad to do any articles, but I would probably have an easier time determining the B2 fulfillment of ACW articles than those of other subjects. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know why British 31st Independent Brigade Group redirects to 6th Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom)? It isn't explained in the article, or on the talk page of the redirect as far as I can see. I'm sure there's a logical answer. Alansplodge ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there any notability guideline for these ships? If so, please tell us about it on the AfC talk page. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "military space program" is under debate, see the discussion concerning the name of Category:Military space program of the United States, where this has come up. -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 08:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Following a rather emotive question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk, I have posted a query at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and would be very grateful for any knowledgeable input. Alansplodge ( talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it o.k. to utilize images that include text from another language? I am finding it hard to find diagrams on Japanese firearms in English and this diagram explains the Type 94 malfunction perfectly. My Japanese is poor but I could possibly alter the image to include English text. WIKIPEDIA COMMONS LINK TO IMAGE IN QUESTION-- Molestash ( talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all looking for some help. I am doing an article of Major-General Guy Archibald Hastings Beatty and according to the Western Front Association [8] he saw active service in Persia (1919), in the Kyhber Pass (1919) and in Mesopotamia (1920–1). The Kyhber Pass will be the Third Afghan War but can anyone shed a light on what the other two conflicts were? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "Mulan" is under discussion, see talk:Mulan (disambiguation) -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just so younz know, there be chatter on the talk page about the title and whether or not it should be changed since at the moment this is shaping up to be more of a civil war than a coup d ta. Input over there may prove useful, all the more so since the article be linked from the main page at the moment. 24.92.109.251 ( talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the preferred procedure if I would like to simultaneously list an article for WP:PR and MILHIST A-Class review? Also what is policy regarding two simultaneous A-Class reviews?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am working on the World War I reparations article. I am currently expanding the information on the Bulgarian reparation demands and payments. Thus far, I have established the following:
1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion
Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid (
1)
4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.(
2)
Can anyone provide additional information (including sources)? Such as:
1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what was it?
2 - Did an event, such as the
Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?
Thanks for any help provided. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A colleague has brought to my attention this collection of 1M free use images taken from old books
http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary
They may be well known to some editors - others like me may not have seen them before.
They are tagged but not it seems indexed. A quick look showed there are military images in there, including useful maps. If anyone has the time, it might reveal some hidden treasures. Monstrelet ( talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).
Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 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.
As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. This year, in addition to the annual " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).
Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 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.
Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.
For this page, one of the most active and complex WikiProjects around, the Flow team has decided that it makes more sense to hold off for a few more development sprints (2-week time chunks), until certain features have been further developed (such as a more condensed view for navigating many long conversations) and new features (such as closing and summarizing topics) added. We'll be starting off with the other 3 smaller WikiProjects that volunteered - Video games, Hampshire, and Breakfast - and aiming to launch in mid-January if you'd like to follow the progress of Flow there.
Please continue to test out the mw:Talk:Sandbox, and leave feedback and suggestions at mw:Talk:Flow (or here at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) - the more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 23:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday all. Bit of a backlog building up at GA at the moment, currently up to 45 articles. If anyone is looking for a way to contribute doing a review would be quite helpful. Pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Been some progress here with the backlog now down to 40 GA reviews (of which) 27 are still awaiting a reviewer. That said still plenty of scope for people to pitch in if you are interested. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:54, 26 December 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.
Could the MILHIST discussion revisit its decision [9] on the basis that –
a) the common name which is relevant to the choice of article name Wikipedia:Article name#Use commonly recognizable names, should not be used when naming an historical state, country or government, and
b) there is nothing in the original quote relied on to change the name of an empire, to sustain such action. The exact wording reads:
"[m]any 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings." [Fewster, Basarin, Basarin pp. xi-ii] -- Rskp ( talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the loss of HMS Cabinet in 1827/8? Mjroots ( talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Per this discussion on the coordinators' discussion board, the deadline for voting in the military historian of the year and military history newcomer of the year awards has been extended for a week to encourage additional participation. Voting will now close at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. For the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Despite my reduced man-hours on Wikipedia, I'm attempting to get the fifth and final article in the series on NC's American Revolutionary War generals to featured status. I would sincerely appreciate any reviews, positive or negative, that you may be willing to contribute. Cdtew ( talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It's in German but it can be used to improve articles on here. WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Some articles that have been completely revised or created as a small contribution to the World War I centenary
Am planning on writing articles about the observation balloon squadrons in 2014.
Regards, Bwmoll3 ( talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The Milhist new articles list has not been working for some time. Can anyone fix it? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, my friends, we face our old adversary - a rising tide of disambiguation links. Any help would be appreciated in wiping out this backlog of heavily linked disambiguation pages under the ambit of military history:
Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There is debate at Arthur Currie relating to the employment of "British Empire" (and associated flag) vs. Canada (and associated flag) for topics that relate to individuals from the dominions prior to the Treaty of Westminster. Looking for verification that the general consensus is to leave dominion flags and allegiance where it's clearly determinable. I know it's a long-standing approach but looking for confirmation.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
a different situation in Canada perhaps? While Quebec may not have identified with France or Britain and the army was probably unwelcoming to Francophones, the Canadian Corps had a high percentage of British-born volunteers. A source says that it is not until the end of the war that Canadian-born make up over 50%. That may interpreted two ways: as Canadian-born not wanting to volunteer, or that Canada had a very large number of British-born citizens. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We're into the last 12 hours of 2013 down under so if I can't check in again before 2014, Happy New Year all, great working with you, and look forward to seeing you again after we all recover from our respective parties... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Some expertise needed please for this question "Military quotation" on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. A big thank you to all the editors from this project who have helped with various Refdesk queries in the past and Happy New Year to you all. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If an article passes A-class review, can it be put up for review again if it changes enough or if the review was far enough in the past.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
I think you'll be proud of the results, we are! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are these articles covering the exact same topic? bd2412 T 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class military history articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to say that the Fortifications task force has reached a milestone, finally having 100 Good Articles under its wing as of today. This follows a strong year of work by the community on topics ranging from North American blockhouses, to Portuguese colonial forts and strangely named artillery towers in Norwich. Thanks to everyone on their work on this aspect of military history in 2013, and I look forward to another good year in 2014! Hchc2009 ( talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 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.
Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 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.
From WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." So, it would be proper to shorten the closing year in the following page titles, right?
Then they would be consistent with Siege of Acre (1189–91) and Siege of Algeciras (1342–44), or are those the ones that are wrong (if this project has decided to use the longer format)? My guess is that these articles got this way because the page creators were used to seeing the longer format in birth/death year ranges, where the closing year is not shortened (see WP:BORN). Chris the speller yack 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the years should be written in full we are not short of space as they were some paper based encyclopaedias. The full date has been used for may years, at first because all years were linked, and I see no reason to change from four digits. This seems to me to be yet another example of where changes are decided in a guideline by a few editors and then treated as gospel afterwards. For example I went back 1000 edits to this version of the guideline with is from 13 August 2010. It said:
Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.
I doubt there was an RfC over the removal (24 September 2010) of "The full closing year is acceptable" and if there was I be it involved less than 20 editors.
At a practical level it is a bad idea to shorten years in date because it make it less likely that an internet search will return the Wikipedia page as the first hit if all that is known by the person searching is the end of the siege and the town name. -- PBS ( talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_04_belgium1914_%281600%29.jpg is this map avilable on Wiki? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Over at Category:World War II prisoners of war two new subcategories have recently appeared. These are Category:British World War II prisoners of war and Category:French prisoners of war in World War II. Now, I think having national subcategories for the prisoners is a very good idea, but I also think that a decision should be made as to how these categories should be named. Right now there are two different systems, "Nationality World War II prisoners of war" and "Nationality prisoners of war in World War II". Are either of these preferable? Manxruler ( talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) is a painting series that has passed your A-Class review. I was about to nominate one of the paintings in the series, Freedom of Speech (painting), when I noticed this edit by Climie.ca to remove it from the project. There were similar edits ( [10], [11] & [12]) for Freedom from Fear (painting), Freedom from Want (painting) & Freedom of Worship (painting). Does the removal of these works from the project represent the consensus of WP:MILHIST editors?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is what FDR said about these paintings (From the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)): Roosevelt wrote to Rockwell "I think you have done a superb job in bringing home to the plain, everyday citizen the plain, everyday truths behind the Four Freedoms...I congratulate you not alone on the execution but also for the spirit which impelled you to make this contribution to the common cause of a freer, happier world". Roosevelt wrote to the Post "This is the first pictorial representation I have seen of the staunchly American values contained in the rights of free speech and free worship and our goals of freedom from fear and want." Roosevelt also wrote of the corresponding essays, "Their words should inspire all who read them with a deeper appreciation of the way of life we are striving to preserve."-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The two songs in question are in scope because their extensive use by the militaries of the period means that the articles about them can (and do) include a substantive amount of actual military historiography. This is not the case for Rockwell's individual paintings; Freedom of Speech (painting), for example, contains no information on military history, beyond the simple statement that the painting was used for a war bond drive. Consequently, there is no reason for us as a project to be involved with assessing or reviewing that article; there is, quite simply, no material in it that is relevant to our particular area of expertise. Kirill [talk] 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@ TonyTheTiger: I think my answer to your question is in what you just wrote. Contrary to what you said, Guernica also presents a specific concern about a specific battle (the aerial bombardment of Guernica). It says "this particular event was emotionally taxing" to the same extent that FfF does. Just because one is a realist and the other a more abstract cubist depiction doesn't make them any more or less related to a particular battle. Both paintings could have substituted any battle in any war and been the same - for instance, the paper could read "GERMANS INVADE BELGIUM, 1914" and, apart from minor anachronisms, it would be the same (contrast with The Surrender of Breda, which depicts an un-substitutable historic event). Regardless, they're not MILHIST paintings because they exist on a broader, societal plane. They talk about issues larger than military ones - they discuss human morality, fear, grief, all in the context of particular military events. All I'm saying is if you look at it from that perspective, Guernica, Freedom from Fear, The English Patient, Triumphal Arch, and Chagall's U.N. stained glass windows would be MILHIST subjects. All I'm saying is, based on the guidelines, there needs to be a very common-sense, unattenuated rationale, and I don't think FfF fits. So, I think the test should be like this:
In my opinion, because of its only slight and loose affiliation with a military event, which, in reality, could be any military event, Freedom from Fear would not pass this test. Cdtew ( talk) 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a large number of historical battle articles which use File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg as the "flag" of the Mongol Empire within infoboxes. It is not a flag. Not only that, it has never been used as a "flag" in the sense of how Europeans used flags in antiquity, and how flags are used in the modern era. Why is this allowed? -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Turns out this image was a copyright violation to begin with. See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg. -- benlisquare T• C• E 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated T-26 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone interested in the Gallipoli Campaign, may be interested in this external site. The Gallipoli Association has links to several free on line books. Some books also cover the Western Front and other campaigns. [13] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Two of our top heavily linked pages for this month's disambiguation contest are:
These require some expert attention, and any help would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed a split of the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Discussion is on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Could I ask an editor or two to look at this edit? The edit seems to take a media allegation as fact. -- IxK85 ( talk) 09:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29
I placed this proposal here because the talk page of the "United States military history task force" redirects to the main talk page. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another one. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm preparing this for transfer to main space. Does he meet requisite notability requirements? Viet Nam War POW, Silver Star, DFC, Oak cluster in lieu of 2nd DFC. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 20:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
G'day. This review needs more reviewers or will need to be closed fairly shortly. If you can assist pls have a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Glina massacres. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This single-sourced article needs some work, appropriate cleanup tags, or something... as is, it could easily be deleted. I found it in the Copyedit backlog, but the content is not suitable for c/e now. Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 03:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"Awards for bravery". The Nautical Magazine (1905). The Board of Trade have received from H.M. the Emperor of Russia, through the Foreign Office, two gold cigarette cases for Captain H. E. Batt, master, and Mr. Keen, surgeon, of the British steamship Ajax, of Liverpool, which have been awarded to them in recognition of their services to the Russian officers and men wounded at the battle of Chemulpo in February last year.
Same but shorter mentioned by Lewis Bayly at his "Pull together!: The memoirs of Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly", P. 112
The captains of Varyag, the Pascal, and the Elba were decorated by the Tsar, who also gave cigar-cases with his monogram in diamonds to the captain and doctor of the Ajax.
From Russia I twisted the Web around but found only a short Australian cargo record from 1904: "Ajax, steamer, 4,477 tons. H. Batt"
Does anyone know anything about their full names and other details? -- NeoLexx ( talk) 16:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Madison Bodge. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Two established and competent editors are involved in a protracted dispute over referencing in a GA review. I tried to mediate the argument as best I could, but I am neither familiar enough with the GA criteria nor referencing on Wikipedia to be able to give a definitive opinion on the matter. I ask that any long-term GA reviewers, as well as anyone familiar with referencing on Wikipedia, to comment on the GAN page and help us reach consensus. I am sad that this dispute has so soured the relationship between these two editors, and I think we need several members of the community to step in and help resolve this dispute. This is an urgent matter, and the sooner other editors step in, the better. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give us in the matter. Thank you. AmericanLemming ( talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Thanks kindly for the feedback guys. It is not the "pass" in itself which is annoying, but the fact that it was made without any actual reassessment ever taking place. It is my belief that GregJackP was purposefully being troublesome and this has simply led to a protractive debate over the matter, which GregJackP fails to see any wrong in provoking. It would have made more sense for him to either open a GA2 and perform a bona fide second review of the article, by properly taking all the criteria into account, or as MisterBee suggests, seeking broader consensus. My close was made on the grounds that it would be impossible for myself and the nominee to continue working on the review after the debate, and so GregJackP had no right to "pass" the article within the space of my review. His strict adherence to GACR without looking to question other faults within articles appears to allow poor standards by treating GANs as rubber-stamp "sufficient" rather than "always room for improvement" which is detrimental towards the GA process IMO. The nominee was far to defensive in arguing against consistent referencing, and failed to own up to the fact that it was he who implemented the changes to short form in the first place. As a result I was in a position that forced me to request that he convert all refs in tune with WP:REF guidelines. GregJackP clearly does not accept that this is the case and is either happy with the poor referencing, poor prose, biased tone, and unreliable sourcing, or more likely, never reviewed the article in the first place to realise that these issues were and still are present. His argument now becomes a WP:COI, in that he performed the "pass" therefore he "must be right". Nice to see that other members of MilHist don't share his blinked understanding of GACR and would have challenged the poor referencing. Regardless, this incident has forced be to conclude that GAN can easily become a nasty process if nominees are not prepared to go the extra mile to improving an article (bearing in mind that converting refs to a uniform standard is not difficult) and would rather argue about it and aim to disgrace the reviewer with false assertions and malicious remarks in the name of self-interest as Poeticbent did to me. I will not be taking on a GAN again anytime soon, and if it suffers from the indignity of bad editors such as GregJackP, so be it. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the situation escalated. Marcus was blocked and GregJackP retired. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Still trying to drum up reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. If anyone would like to pitch in, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this poem in scope of our project? The poet Joyce Kilmer served in the military. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Eyes needed. An editor is pushing a POV that runs counter to the standard histories of post -WW I Europe and the caused of WW II. BMK: Grouchy Realist ( talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There's now a discussion of this at Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth which other editors are most welcome to participate in. Input from people with knowledge of the air raids on the UK in World War II or the geography of the Liverpool area would also be valuable at Talk:Liverpool Blitz. Nick-D ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by the section a little bit above, based on a news source, I was wondering what the views are of people here on news sources in general relating to WWI news (which will be increasing in volume over the coming year)? Putting to one side the issue of new books coming out at a rate of knots and how to manage the information in those, there will be a lot of coverage in news sources as well. Some will be soundbite headline-type, others will be more thoughtful and considered. Some will be features written for newspaper by various historians and writers. Is it worth discussing how to handle such sources in general? One site I'm going to be following a lot (being from the UK) is the BBC one here. There will obviously be lots of others as well. The level of news coverage of war as a historical topic will be unprecedented, so it might be worth discussing how to reconcile and manage an influx of such sources. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
if interested persons would like to have a look at Lae_War_Cemetery you will see I have updated with some photos. The page also needs a few fact checks and prose redesign. Was hoping someone with knowledge of military history can add links to the different regiments in the "panels" list at the bottom of the page..
The Lae page has also been updated. I am at this location for a few months if anyone wants specific photos taken. Phenss ( talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Phenss ( talk) 12:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Phenss ( talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
For days now, I've been seeing the articles that have been added to the "Requests for assessment". They have been deleted since they have been assessed, but I'm still seeing them as they are still there, yet I know that they are not. I've cleaned my internet history so many times, they still appear. Adamdaley ( talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has a stance on the topic, we have a novice trying to get a draft through AFC. If anyone has any input, you can type and sign it directly at the top of the page, or use the {{afc comment|1=WRITE COMMENT HERE}}
template to add any suggestions or comments for reviewers or the originator. Thanks!
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Military history. I don't really edit here at Wikipedia but I am Reguyla and I have been building up the Military Wiki over at Wikia. I recently found out that some of the aricles for your project exceed 300, 000 template parser calls and wanted to reach out and let you know in case you wanted to reduce that and make them more accessible. The list of articles I am aware of is below.
Please let me know if you have any questions. If you don't wish me to post things like this here let me know that too. I'm not sure what the procedure is for this sort of crosswiki contact. Reguyla ( talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
For all those not aware, the administrators in the commons are taking a rather hard line with regards to WWI and WWII memorials in France being considered subject to French freedom of panorama. As a consequence, images for a number of war memorials has already been deleted. Although I disagree with the general conclusion, I've begun putting forward a number of memorials for deletion from the commons and then moving images that are used in the main subject article, or a couple of articles, to wikipedia en.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, thought I'd post a couple of links that might be of interest to members of this project. The UK National Archives have published the British Army's war diaries of the First World War, and are hoping for crowdsourced help to tag the data on each page. Links are National Archive blog post and Operation War Diary project page. -- IxK85 ( talk) 09:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a limit to how many books we accept in a further reading section? An editor Defalbe ( talk · contribs) has just added a couple to Gallipoli Campaign, one with a worrying note thats its available to buy on E Bay. While a list of further reading can be usefull, for something like a war or campaign it could be never ending. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Want to gain free access to a top research university's library so you can improve Wikipedia articles? Apply to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar!. George Mason University's position is now open: Application. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a paragraph in the article Battle of Berlin which was put together after extensive exchanges on the talk page back in the middle of 2010.
The wording is
|
---|
|
Against the current consensus this text has been replaced with
|
---|
|
It would be helpful if other informed editors were contribute to the discussion at Talk:Battle of Berlin#Goebbels's fevered prophecies as we have a situation at the moment were one editor has reverted reverts by three other editors and seems willing to continue to edit war in their preferred version. Perhaps others will support their point of view, perhaps they will agree with the current consensus either way more eyes and comments would be appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ranger program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about a space probe program. This strikes me as odd, as Rangers are specialized types of troops (and other things, such as forestry and law enforcement), and there should be many ranger programs, many more prominent than the space missions. Any opinions? -- 70.50.148.122 ( talk) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday. Wondering if anybody would be able to assist with addressing some of the points raised in the reviews for these articles? The nominator and principle author of these two articles is topic banned at the moment and cannot address the cmts that have come up. I've done a little but don't really have the sources (or the time) to work through most of these (but have done one or two and may be able to chip in for a few more). These articles are not in bad shape in my opinion and with a few editors working on it may be possible to get one or both of these over the line. The reviews are here - Talk:Battle of Rafa/GA1 and here - Talk:Third Battle of Gaza/GA1 if anyone is interested. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been following some of this and I've made this post at RoslynSKP's talk page to summarise the status of those nominations, plus advice to seek clarification from ArbCom if that is needed (the admin who imposed the block that triggered the topic ban said at the time that he thought it only covered article space - I'm not sure, but that may have caused some of the confusion here). The timing of the topic ban and the start of the reviews of these GA nominations (nominated in September, October and November) is unfortunate. I'm not sure of the etiquette here. Might it be worth asking at WT:GAN what the best approach is, or is it normal for others to step in and help out with the reviews in such cases (I would have thought withdrawing the nominations and having someone else nominate them with a joint credit might be better)? Also, does anyone know whether it is possible to stop Legobot leaving messages on behalf of the reviewers asking RoslynSKP to take part in the reviews? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please try to deal with the complete lack of appropriate referencing in the BLP Malcolm B. Frost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 ( talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again fellows! Could you have a look at this one? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That last one is very good. -- S.G.(GH) ping! 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday. For anyone interested Enfield revolver is up for GA reassessment - Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Enfield_revolver/1. Looks like it could use some attention from some of our firearms editors. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else receive an image error with the Southeast Asian military history task force? I receive the pixel dimension on all related articles. -- Molestash ( talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
While doing Battle of Nghĩa Lộ the Southeast-Asian template image has become invalid. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This submission is relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a category tree for foreign civilians interned in the UK during WWII? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday - this article has been nominated for deletion and may be a hoax - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sikandarabad. Purported to be part of the Mughal Civil War (1752-1754). Personally I've got no idea but would be good if any our editors with an interest / some knowledge in this area checked it out. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:41, 27 January 2014 (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. |
Just to track our progress. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Click on [show] for progress bar
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Got below the 14% mark. Having the do this myself is getting tiring. It would be a heck of a lot easier of multiple people did this. As Anotherclown said, even five articles per week. 65.64.177.103 ( talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Remember, this is a voluntary effort. You should really try to stop nagging. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would take your begging a tad more seriously if you would register on Wikipedia. To me, it is the mark of a good editor to have some sort of personality so that the rest of the Project can relate. IP accounts, IMHO, should not be allowed to edit; just an opinion, of course. There are many things that I hope to accomplish on the MILHIST Project and filling out checklists is not the highest on my list. My time is limited by other worldly responsibilities and even if I filled out even one checklist a day, it would seriously cut into the content I hope to improve in articles which I have an interest in. Occasionally, when my mind is in a fog, I MIGHT tear through some checklists, but I really don't see that it accomplishes much. The key to Wikipedia is good, well written, accurate, referenced content on a wide range of subjects. Checklists don't really do anything for the reader of Wikipedia articles. Editors will tend to work on what interests them. If you are interested in filling out assessments then, by all means do so. When I submit an article for assessment, as a courtesy, I try to assess one or two or three on the same list if I can spare the time. I figure this is only fair and it assuages my guilt. Cheers... Cuprum17 ( talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the category continues to grow. It was down to 14,515 earlier. Now it is up to 14,567. Unfortunately I need to take a break from this for a couple days. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
more name calling
|
---|
|
Actually, we are different people: I am merely desperately trying to get anyone to help out with this category and pointing out the obvious that this category will not go down unless people add checklists to the talk pages. Blocking both IP addresses will do nothing to cut down on this category. Marcus, instead of trying to block accounts, you could always use the time to add a few checklists, it is truly not that hard and will not take that much time. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 04:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been "hopping to it", which is what started this whole discussion. I was trying get anyone else connected with this project to do a few articles as well. 76.7.227.224 ( talk) 05:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Off topic nonsense
|
---|
Since I'm the person responsible for creating this category in the first place, perhaps I can offer a slightly different perspective? The reason why we've been reluctant to have another assessment drive—and particularly an assessment drive focused on clearing out this category—is simply that this particular backlog isn't very important, in the grand scheme of things. To be clear, my intent in saying this is not to belittle the efforts of those editors who have worked on reducing this backlog; every contribution is welcome and appreciated, regardless of what form it takes. The checklist backlog, however, was always intended primarily as a statistical tracking tool to help us determine how accurate our overall assessment ratings are, not as a high-priority backlog that actually needed to be cleared. That's not to say that editors can't choose to work on whatever they like, of course; if someone finds filling out the checklists enjoyable or rewarding in some way, then I don't think anyone will stand in the way of their doing so. But the reality of it is that the overall pool of labor in the project is limited, and it's difficult to justify spending a significant amount of it on a backlog that isn't critical and that doesn't correlate to any actual improvements to the articles involved. Kirill [talk] 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
IP 138.162.8.58: If you are on a Navy Network Information Center (NNIC) computer, then I know for a fact that you have to be logged in with your CAC card. I also know that personal use of a Navy computer is frowned on and possibly illegal. Please use you valuable time solving NNIC's problems and not making problems for editors on Wikipedia that only want to improve the work. Your IP (138.162.8.58) has a history of troublesome edits going back as far as 16 May 2008. Someone has too much time on their hands...I wouldn't want to be associated with them if I were you.
Cuprum17 (
talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Wow, this discussion has gone on far longer than I would have expected. This is bizarre, and all started by a nagging IP editor with momentum added by his contentious IP champion. I suggest we decline further discussion here. We can pick up any more discussion on the improvement of the WP:Mil Hist banner and assessment in a new section. I also suggest that any further complaints and pleas for contributions to assessment pages be deleted as contentious and disruptive, at least for a short time. As suggested earlier, monthly updates on progress would be acceptable. - Boneyard90 ( talk) 06:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a place to list AfD submissions for this project. Fro example, I wanted to add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprising of the Iga Ninja. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing citations from a website called " War is Boring" being added to articles, such as this one. As far as I can tell, medium.com is a blog-style site without any editorial oversight, and the articles on War is Boring basically appear to be commentaries/opinion pieces. Should we be using it as a source? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The book by Messenger, Charles, ed. (original edition 2001; Kindle ed. 2013). Reader's Guide to Military History has 900+ pages of historiography. That is, it evaluates thousands of books in all areas of military history. Large portions are available on books.google.com For example, has multiple articles on the Napoleonic wars that run to 36 pages of highly informative text. There are 587 signed articles by established experts. Rjensen ( talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear all, apologies if this should not be the correct place for my question. I am the creator of Karlslust dance hall fire, which occurred in the British sector of Berlin in 1947. So far, I did not succeed in finding English language sources covering the event, which would give the article another perspective. I'm quite sure they exist, because British soldiers were killed (the German sources are not coherent here, putting their number to three or six). Can you help me with this task? Any remarks and comments will be greatly appreciated. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to bring to someone's attention that the ADF.jpg in the WikiProject Australia banner is not valid. It comes up as 25px and is redlinked. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a photo of a SPAD XVI, probably of the US Air Service the First Army Observation Group. However, I can't identify the unit emblem shown on the fuselage. Can anyone assist, please? Thank you in advance Bwmoll3 ( talk) 00:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Shortly after this article completed its time as the main page, I reviewed all of the changes made since my last check and found that Pol098 had made a large number of edits. Some of these were genuine improvements to the wording, but others were not and I returned them to their original state. He then reverted my changes, which included dealing with problematic edits by Magus732, to his preferred version without explanation. I've reverted him, which puts me at 2RR, so I'm bringing the problem here to avoid. This is an FA-class article so its prose has been extensively reviewed, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect. Nonetheless, I'm leery of making extensive changes in the wording and reverted many Pol098's changes that did not offer a clear improvement. He seems insistent on the superiority of his rewording, so I would like the community to render judgement on them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I've commented in detail on these rather small changes on the article's talk page. Pol098 ( talk) 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I was going through this category and was wondering if Category:Military organizational structures should be renamed. It seems that all obs can be considered "organizational structures". Also, I was wondering about Category:Structure of contemporary armies. To me, "contemporary" should covern present day, but this category includes Formations of the Soviet Army, which disbanded over 20 years ago and doesn't exist anymore. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Does a Wikipedia article for either the event or for any of the individuals being discussed at [5] exist? I could not find anything at Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. It Is Me Here t / c 00:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Another submission for your consideration. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I am facing a bit of a communication challenge on the review of the list mentioned above. The review process seems to have worn down the nominator Georgejdorner ( talk · contribs) that he considers resigning from Wikipedia (check his final comment). This was not my intention and I feel bad with myself that I failed to communicate properly that my review comments were meant with the best intensions for the article. Clearly I failed to achieve this. I am therefore stepping back from further reviewing this article and ask the community here to help mend the situation. Sorry for the hiccup. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
When doing work on the article for Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture I noticed there was another book reviewed with that title (the article review I was looking at ended and this one began).
Is anyone interested in doing a search at the University of Houston libraries for book reviews of this book, then going to Wikipedia:RX and obtaining the said book reviews, and then writing an article on this book based on the book reviews? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the list of requested articles here: Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history so if any of our Australian or Kiwi editors are looking for something to do there are a surprisingly large number of articles still waiting to be written. Likewise if anyone can think of any other missing articles pls add them to the list. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday. For anyone interested I found an electronic copy of this online now here: [6] (previously very hard to find in hard copy). A good source for Australian Boer War units etc. Anotherclown ( talk) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
About the incomplete checklists category above: Would it be possible to split it by task force? I would be glad to do any articles, but I would probably have an easier time determining the B2 fulfillment of ACW articles than those of other subjects. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know why British 31st Independent Brigade Group redirects to 6th Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom)? It isn't explained in the article, or on the talk page of the redirect as far as I can see. I'm sure there's a logical answer. Alansplodge ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there any notability guideline for these ships? If so, please tell us about it on the AfC talk page. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "military space program" is under debate, see the discussion concerning the name of Category:Military space program of the United States, where this has come up. -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 08:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Following a rather emotive question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk, I have posted a query at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and would be very grateful for any knowledgeable input. Alansplodge ( talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it o.k. to utilize images that include text from another language? I am finding it hard to find diagrams on Japanese firearms in English and this diagram explains the Type 94 malfunction perfectly. My Japanese is poor but I could possibly alter the image to include English text. WIKIPEDIA COMMONS LINK TO IMAGE IN QUESTION-- Molestash ( talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all looking for some help. I am doing an article of Major-General Guy Archibald Hastings Beatty and according to the Western Front Association [8] he saw active service in Persia (1919), in the Kyhber Pass (1919) and in Mesopotamia (1920–1). The Kyhber Pass will be the Third Afghan War but can anyone shed a light on what the other two conflicts were? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "Mulan" is under discussion, see talk:Mulan (disambiguation) -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just so younz know, there be chatter on the talk page about the title and whether or not it should be changed since at the moment this is shaping up to be more of a civil war than a coup d ta. Input over there may prove useful, all the more so since the article be linked from the main page at the moment. 24.92.109.251 ( talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the preferred procedure if I would like to simultaneously list an article for WP:PR and MILHIST A-Class review? Also what is policy regarding two simultaneous A-Class reviews?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am working on the World War I reparations article. I am currently expanding the information on the Bulgarian reparation demands and payments. Thus far, I have established the following:
1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion
Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid (
1)
4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.(
2)
Can anyone provide additional information (including sources)? Such as:
1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what was it?
2 - Did an event, such as the
Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?
Thanks for any help provided. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A colleague has brought to my attention this collection of 1M free use images taken from old books
http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary
They may be well known to some editors - others like me may not have seen them before.
They are tagged but not it seems indexed. A quick look showed there are military images in there, including useful maps. If anyone has the time, it might reveal some hidden treasures. Monstrelet ( talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).
Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 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.
As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. This year, in addition to the annual " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).
Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 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.
Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.
For this page, one of the most active and complex WikiProjects around, the Flow team has decided that it makes more sense to hold off for a few more development sprints (2-week time chunks), until certain features have been further developed (such as a more condensed view for navigating many long conversations) and new features (such as closing and summarizing topics) added. We'll be starting off with the other 3 smaller WikiProjects that volunteered - Video games, Hampshire, and Breakfast - and aiming to launch in mid-January if you'd like to follow the progress of Flow there.
Please continue to test out the mw:Talk:Sandbox, and leave feedback and suggestions at mw:Talk:Flow (or here at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) - the more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 23:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Gday all. Bit of a backlog building up at GA at the moment, currently up to 45 articles. If anyone is looking for a way to contribute doing a review would be quite helpful. Pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare. All the best. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Been some progress here with the backlog now down to 40 GA reviews (of which) 27 are still awaiting a reviewer. That said still plenty of scope for people to pitch in if you are interested. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:54, 26 December 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.
Could the MILHIST discussion revisit its decision [9] on the basis that –
a) the common name which is relevant to the choice of article name Wikipedia:Article name#Use commonly recognizable names, should not be used when naming an historical state, country or government, and
b) there is nothing in the original quote relied on to change the name of an empire, to sustain such action. The exact wording reads:
"[m]any 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings." [Fewster, Basarin, Basarin pp. xi-ii] -- Rskp ( talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the loss of HMS Cabinet in 1827/8? Mjroots ( talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Per this discussion on the coordinators' discussion board, the deadline for voting in the military historian of the year and military history newcomer of the year awards has been extended for a week to encourage additional participation. Voting will now close at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. For the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Despite my reduced man-hours on Wikipedia, I'm attempting to get the fifth and final article in the series on NC's American Revolutionary War generals to featured status. I would sincerely appreciate any reviews, positive or negative, that you may be willing to contribute. Cdtew ( talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It's in German but it can be used to improve articles on here. WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Some articles that have been completely revised or created as a small contribution to the World War I centenary
Am planning on writing articles about the observation balloon squadrons in 2014.
Regards, Bwmoll3 ( talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The Milhist new articles list has not been working for some time. Can anyone fix it? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, my friends, we face our old adversary - a rising tide of disambiguation links. Any help would be appreciated in wiping out this backlog of heavily linked disambiguation pages under the ambit of military history:
Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There is debate at Arthur Currie relating to the employment of "British Empire" (and associated flag) vs. Canada (and associated flag) for topics that relate to individuals from the dominions prior to the Treaty of Westminster. Looking for verification that the general consensus is to leave dominion flags and allegiance where it's clearly determinable. I know it's a long-standing approach but looking for confirmation.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
a different situation in Canada perhaps? While Quebec may not have identified with France or Britain and the army was probably unwelcoming to Francophones, the Canadian Corps had a high percentage of British-born volunteers. A source says that it is not until the end of the war that Canadian-born make up over 50%. That may interpreted two ways: as Canadian-born not wanting to volunteer, or that Canada had a very large number of British-born citizens. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We're into the last 12 hours of 2013 down under so if I can't check in again before 2014, Happy New Year all, great working with you, and look forward to seeing you again after we all recover from our respective parties... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Some expertise needed please for this question "Military quotation" on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. A big thank you to all the editors from this project who have helped with various Refdesk queries in the past and Happy New Year to you all. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If an article passes A-class review, can it be put up for review again if it changes enough or if the review was far enough in the past.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
I think you'll be proud of the results, we are! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are these articles covering the exact same topic? bd2412 T 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class military history articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to say that the Fortifications task force has reached a milestone, finally having 100 Good Articles under its wing as of today. This follows a strong year of work by the community on topics ranging from North American blockhouses, to Portuguese colonial forts and strangely named artillery towers in Norwich. Thanks to everyone on their work on this aspect of military history in 2013, and I look forward to another good year in 2014! Hchc2009 ( talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 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.
Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 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.
From WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." So, it would be proper to shorten the closing year in the following page titles, right?
Then they would be consistent with Siege of Acre (1189–91) and Siege of Algeciras (1342–44), or are those the ones that are wrong (if this project has decided to use the longer format)? My guess is that these articles got this way because the page creators were used to seeing the longer format in birth/death year ranges, where the closing year is not shortened (see WP:BORN). Chris the speller yack 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the years should be written in full we are not short of space as they were some paper based encyclopaedias. The full date has been used for may years, at first because all years were linked, and I see no reason to change from four digits. This seems to me to be yet another example of where changes are decided in a guideline by a few editors and then treated as gospel afterwards. For example I went back 1000 edits to this version of the guideline with is from 13 August 2010. It said:
Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.
I doubt there was an RfC over the removal (24 September 2010) of "The full closing year is acceptable" and if there was I be it involved less than 20 editors.
At a practical level it is a bad idea to shorten years in date because it make it less likely that an internet search will return the Wikipedia page as the first hit if all that is known by the person searching is the end of the siege and the town name. -- PBS ( talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_04_belgium1914_%281600%29.jpg is this map avilable on Wiki? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Over at Category:World War II prisoners of war two new subcategories have recently appeared. These are Category:British World War II prisoners of war and Category:French prisoners of war in World War II. Now, I think having national subcategories for the prisoners is a very good idea, but I also think that a decision should be made as to how these categories should be named. Right now there are two different systems, "Nationality World War II prisoners of war" and "Nationality prisoners of war in World War II". Are either of these preferable? Manxruler ( talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) is a painting series that has passed your A-Class review. I was about to nominate one of the paintings in the series, Freedom of Speech (painting), when I noticed this edit by Climie.ca to remove it from the project. There were similar edits ( [10], [11] & [12]) for Freedom from Fear (painting), Freedom from Want (painting) & Freedom of Worship (painting). Does the removal of these works from the project represent the consensus of WP:MILHIST editors?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is what FDR said about these paintings (From the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)): Roosevelt wrote to Rockwell "I think you have done a superb job in bringing home to the plain, everyday citizen the plain, everyday truths behind the Four Freedoms...I congratulate you not alone on the execution but also for the spirit which impelled you to make this contribution to the common cause of a freer, happier world". Roosevelt wrote to the Post "This is the first pictorial representation I have seen of the staunchly American values contained in the rights of free speech and free worship and our goals of freedom from fear and want." Roosevelt also wrote of the corresponding essays, "Their words should inspire all who read them with a deeper appreciation of the way of life we are striving to preserve."-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The two songs in question are in scope because their extensive use by the militaries of the period means that the articles about them can (and do) include a substantive amount of actual military historiography. This is not the case for Rockwell's individual paintings; Freedom of Speech (painting), for example, contains no information on military history, beyond the simple statement that the painting was used for a war bond drive. Consequently, there is no reason for us as a project to be involved with assessing or reviewing that article; there is, quite simply, no material in it that is relevant to our particular area of expertise. Kirill [talk] 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@ TonyTheTiger: I think my answer to your question is in what you just wrote. Contrary to what you said, Guernica also presents a specific concern about a specific battle (the aerial bombardment of Guernica). It says "this particular event was emotionally taxing" to the same extent that FfF does. Just because one is a realist and the other a more abstract cubist depiction doesn't make them any more or less related to a particular battle. Both paintings could have substituted any battle in any war and been the same - for instance, the paper could read "GERMANS INVADE BELGIUM, 1914" and, apart from minor anachronisms, it would be the same (contrast with The Surrender of Breda, which depicts an un-substitutable historic event). Regardless, they're not MILHIST paintings because they exist on a broader, societal plane. They talk about issues larger than military ones - they discuss human morality, fear, grief, all in the context of particular military events. All I'm saying is if you look at it from that perspective, Guernica, Freedom from Fear, The English Patient, Triumphal Arch, and Chagall's U.N. stained glass windows would be MILHIST subjects. All I'm saying is, based on the guidelines, there needs to be a very common-sense, unattenuated rationale, and I don't think FfF fits. So, I think the test should be like this:
In my opinion, because of its only slight and loose affiliation with a military event, which, in reality, could be any military event, Freedom from Fear would not pass this test. Cdtew ( talk) 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a large number of historical battle articles which use File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg as the "flag" of the Mongol Empire within infoboxes. It is not a flag. Not only that, it has never been used as a "flag" in the sense of how Europeans used flags in antiquity, and how flags are used in the modern era. Why is this allowed? -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Turns out this image was a copyright violation to begin with. See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg. -- benlisquare T• C• E 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated T-26 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone interested in the Gallipoli Campaign, may be interested in this external site. The Gallipoli Association has links to several free on line books. Some books also cover the Western Front and other campaigns. [13] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Two of our top heavily linked pages for this month's disambiguation contest are:
These require some expert attention, and any help would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed a split of the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Discussion is on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Could I ask an editor or two to look at this edit? The edit seems to take a media allegation as fact. -- IxK85 ( talk) 09:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29
I placed this proposal here because the talk page of the "United States military history task force" redirects to the main talk page. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another one. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm preparing this for transfer to main space. Does he meet requisite notability requirements? Viet Nam War POW, Silver Star, DFC, Oak cluster in lieu of 2nd DFC. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 20:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
G'day. This review needs more reviewers or will need to be closed fairly shortly. If you can assist pls have a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Glina massacres. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This single-sourced article needs some work, appropriate cleanup tags, or something... as is, it could easily be deleted. I found it in the Copyedit backlog, but the content is not suitable for c/e now. Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 03:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"Awards for bravery". The Nautical Magazine (1905). The Board of Trade have received from H.M. the Emperor of Russia, through the Foreign Office, two gold cigarette cases for Captain H. E. Batt, master, and Mr. Keen, surgeon, of the British steamship Ajax, of Liverpool, which have been awarded to them in recognition of their services to the Russian officers and men wounded at the battle of Chemulpo in February last year.
Same but shorter mentioned by Lewis Bayly at his "Pull together!: The memoirs of Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly", P. 112
The captains of Varyag, the Pascal, and the Elba were decorated by the Tsar, who also gave cigar-cases with his monogram in diamonds to the captain and doctor of the Ajax.
From Russia I twisted the Web around but found only a short Australian cargo record from 1904: "Ajax, steamer, 4,477 tons. H. Batt"
Does anyone know anything about their full names and other details? -- NeoLexx ( talk) 16:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Madison Bodge. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Two established and competent editors are involved in a protracted dispute over referencing in a GA review. I tried to mediate the argument as best I could, but I am neither familiar enough with the GA criteria nor referencing on Wikipedia to be able to give a definitive opinion on the matter. I ask that any long-term GA reviewers, as well as anyone familiar with referencing on Wikipedia, to comment on the GAN page and help us reach consensus. I am sad that this dispute has so soured the relationship between these two editors, and I think we need several members of the community to step in and help resolve this dispute. This is an urgent matter, and the sooner other editors step in, the better. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give us in the matter. Thank you. AmericanLemming ( talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Thanks kindly for the feedback guys. It is not the "pass" in itself which is annoying, but the fact that it was made without any actual reassessment ever taking place. It is my belief that GregJackP was purposefully being troublesome and this has simply led to a protractive debate over the matter, which GregJackP fails to see any wrong in provoking. It would have made more sense for him to either open a GA2 and perform a bona fide second review of the article, by properly taking all the criteria into account, or as MisterBee suggests, seeking broader consensus. My close was made on the grounds that it would be impossible for myself and the nominee to continue working on the review after the debate, and so GregJackP had no right to "pass" the article within the space of my review. His strict adherence to GACR without looking to question other faults within articles appears to allow poor standards by treating GANs as rubber-stamp "sufficient" rather than "always room for improvement" which is detrimental towards the GA process IMO. The nominee was far to defensive in arguing against consistent referencing, and failed to own up to the fact that it was he who implemented the changes to short form in the first place. As a result I was in a position that forced me to request that he convert all refs in tune with WP:REF guidelines. GregJackP clearly does not accept that this is the case and is either happy with the poor referencing, poor prose, biased tone, and unreliable sourcing, or more likely, never reviewed the article in the first place to realise that these issues were and still are present. His argument now becomes a WP:COI, in that he performed the "pass" therefore he "must be right". Nice to see that other members of MilHist don't share his blinked understanding of GACR and would have challenged the poor referencing. Regardless, this incident has forced be to conclude that GAN can easily become a nasty process if nominees are not prepared to go the extra mile to improving an article (bearing in mind that converting refs to a uniform standard is not difficult) and would rather argue about it and aim to disgrace the reviewer with false assertions and malicious remarks in the name of self-interest as Poeticbent did to me. I will not be taking on a GAN again anytime soon, and if it suffers from the indignity of bad editors such as GregJackP, so be it. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the situation escalated. Marcus was blocked and GregJackP retired. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Still trying to drum up reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. If anyone would like to pitch in, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this poem in scope of our project? The poet Joyce Kilmer served in the military. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Eyes needed. An editor is pushing a POV that runs counter to the standard histories of post -WW I Europe and the caused of WW II. BMK: Grouchy Realist ( talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There's now a discussion of this at Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth which other editors are most welcome to participate in. Input from people with knowledge of the air raids on the UK in World War II or the geography of the Liverpool area would also be valuable at Talk:Liverpool Blitz. Nick-D ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by the section a little bit above, based on a news source, I was wondering what the views are of people here on news sources in general relating to WWI news (which will be increasing in volume over the coming year)? Putting to one side the issue of new books coming out at a rate of knots and how to manage the information in those, there will be a lot of coverage in news sources as well. Some will be soundbite headline-type, others will be more thoughtful and considered. Some will be features written for newspaper by various historians and writers. Is it worth discussing how to handle such sources in general? One site I'm going to be following a lot (being from the UK) is the BBC one here. There will obviously be lots of others as well. The level of news coverage of war as a historical topic will be unprecedented, so it might be worth discussing how to reconcile and manage an influx of such sources. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
if interested persons would like to have a look at Lae_War_Cemetery you will see I have updated with some photos. The page also needs a few fact checks and prose redesign. Was hoping someone with knowledge of military history can add links to the different regiments in the "panels" list at the bottom of the page..
The Lae page has also been updated. I am at this location for a few months if anyone wants specific photos taken. Phenss ( talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Phenss ( talk) 12:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Phenss ( talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
For days now, I've been seeing the articles that have been added to the "Requests for assessment". They have been deleted since they have been assessed, but I'm still seeing them as they are still there, yet I know that they are not. I've cleaned my internet history so many times, they still appear. Adamdaley ( talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has a stance on the topic, we have a novice trying to get a draft through AFC. If anyone has any input, you can type and sign it directly at the top of the page, or use the {{afc comment|1=WRITE COMMENT HERE}}
template to add any suggestions or comments for reviewers or the originator. Thanks!
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Military history. I don't really edit here at Wikipedia but I am Reguyla and I have been building up the Military Wiki over at Wikia. I recently found out that some of the aricles for your project exceed 300, 000 template parser calls and wanted to reach out and let you know in case you wanted to reduce that and make them more accessible. The list of articles I am aware of is below.
Please let me know if you have any questions. If you don't wish me to post things like this here let me know that too. I'm not sure what the procedure is for this sort of crosswiki contact. Reguyla ( talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
For all those not aware, the administrators in the commons are taking a rather hard line with regards to WWI and WWII memorials in France being considered subject to French freedom of panorama. As a consequence, images for a number of war memorials has already been deleted. Although I disagree with the general conclusion, I've begun putting forward a number of memorials for deletion from the commons and then moving images that are used in the main subject article, or a couple of articles, to wikipedia en.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, thought I'd post a couple of links that might be of interest to members of this project. The UK National Archives have published the British Army's war diaries of the First World War, and are hoping for crowdsourced help to tag the data on each page. Links are National Archive blog post and Operation War Diary project page. -- IxK85 ( talk) 09:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a limit to how many books we accept in a further reading section? An editor Defalbe ( talk · contribs) has just added a couple to Gallipoli Campaign, one with a worrying note thats its available to buy on E Bay. While a list of further reading can be usefull, for something like a war or campaign it could be never ending. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Want to gain free access to a top research university's library so you can improve Wikipedia articles? Apply to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar!. George Mason University's position is now open: Application. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a paragraph in the article Battle of Berlin which was put together after extensive exchanges on the talk page back in the middle of 2010.
The wording is
|
---|
|
Against the current consensus this text has been replaced with
|
---|
|
It would be helpful if other informed editors were contribute to the discussion at Talk:Battle of Berlin#Goebbels's fevered prophecies as we have a situation at the moment were one editor has reverted reverts by three other editors and seems willing to continue to edit war in their preferred version. Perhaps others will support their point of view, perhaps they will agree with the current consensus either way more eyes and comments would be appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ranger program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about a space probe program. This strikes me as odd, as Rangers are specialized types of troops (and other things, such as forestry and law enforcement), and there should be many ranger programs, many more prominent than the space missions. Any opinions? -- 70.50.148.122 ( talk) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday. Wondering if anybody would be able to assist with addressing some of the points raised in the reviews for these articles? The nominator and principle author of these two articles is topic banned at the moment and cannot address the cmts that have come up. I've done a little but don't really have the sources (or the time) to work through most of these (but have done one or two and may be able to chip in for a few more). These articles are not in bad shape in my opinion and with a few editors working on it may be possible to get one or both of these over the line. The reviews are here - Talk:Battle of Rafa/GA1 and here - Talk:Third Battle of Gaza/GA1 if anyone is interested. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been following some of this and I've made this post at RoslynSKP's talk page to summarise the status of those nominations, plus advice to seek clarification from ArbCom if that is needed (the admin who imposed the block that triggered the topic ban said at the time that he thought it only covered article space - I'm not sure, but that may have caused some of the confusion here). The timing of the topic ban and the start of the reviews of these GA nominations (nominated in September, October and November) is unfortunate. I'm not sure of the etiquette here. Might it be worth asking at WT:GAN what the best approach is, or is it normal for others to step in and help out with the reviews in such cases (I would have thought withdrawing the nominations and having someone else nominate them with a joint credit might be better)? Also, does anyone know whether it is possible to stop Legobot leaving messages on behalf of the reviewers asking RoslynSKP to take part in the reviews? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please try to deal with the complete lack of appropriate referencing in the BLP Malcolm B. Frost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 ( talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again fellows! Could you have a look at this one? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That last one is very good. -- S.G.(GH) ping! 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday. For anyone interested Enfield revolver is up for GA reassessment - Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Enfield_revolver/1. Looks like it could use some attention from some of our firearms editors. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else receive an image error with the Southeast Asian military history task force? I receive the pixel dimension on all related articles. -- Molestash ( talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
While doing Battle of Nghĩa Lộ the Southeast-Asian template image has become invalid. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This submission is relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a category tree for foreign civilians interned in the UK during WWII? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday - this article has been nominated for deletion and may be a hoax - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sikandarabad. Purported to be part of the Mughal Civil War (1752-1754). Personally I've got no idea but would be good if any our editors with an interest / some knowledge in this area checked it out. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)