This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Greco-Italian war is currently being re-written finally! We are asking for more editors to get involved to help improve it! So please take an interest and help out Enigma and Keith in the editing process!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Brigadier Rohitha Neil Akmeemana. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo#Merge proposal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
|noimage=yes
to turn off that eye icon thing --
70.51.202.183 (
talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately partisan editors believe there is something to be gained by adding false casualty figures to WWI and WW2 articles (and other wars too no doubt). It appears they believe that they can somehow turn lost wars from the past into victories. Actually, the only way one benefits from Wikipedia, both losers and victors, is to have true knowledge of the past.
Take for example the Brusilov Offensive. The English version of Wiki says the Russians suffered losses of ~1.4 M, and the Axis ~0.75M, roughly a ratio of 2:1.
The Russian version [ [1]] says Russian losses ~0.5M and Axis losses ~1.5M, roughly a ratio of 1:3.
So the two versions of Wiki (reflecting biases of editors) are off by a factor of 6. This is great disservice to our readers and also to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who spend their time trying to make Wikipedia better.
I have tried to correct a few articles, but unfortunately partisans have a lot more energy and time than I do :(
Maybe this Task Force can come up a new protocol for reporting losses in articles. Maybe casualty figures should be agreed upon by a panel, and should not be allowed to be changed by single editors. Also there could be more collaboration between editors of Wiki version of involved countries.
Best Wishes,
JS ( talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
PS Given that the October 2010 version (before an editor rampage) of the English article said "Professor Graydon A. Tunstall of the University of South Florida called the Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory." I am more inclined to believe Russian Wiki on this one.
A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire (2015) Geoffrey Wawro might be worth a look but he leans rather heavily on Dowling. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Would some kind soul show me how to add the location on the map here Mount Trebeshinë to Battle of Trebeshina the map here? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Could interested editors consider commenting on the above RfC regarding the use of witness testimony? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indigo Publications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Publications until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medal of Honor#Number of Medal of Honor awards. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of S.A. is under discussion, see talk:S.A. (corporation) and talk:S.A. for multiple discussions. -- 70.51.203.69 ( talk) 05:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've created an article on the Inconstant, which Napoleon escaped from Elba in. Assistance in expanding the article is welcomed. Mjroots ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Could some expert look at Battle of Midway? This is an old FA which has "page needed" on many of the refs. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Commemorative Air Force (formerly called the "Confederate Air Force") from the "See also" section of Military of the Confederate States of America because there is absolutely no relationship between the CSA and the CAF. Another editor has reverted twice my removal of the spurious link and challenged me to gain consensus on the talk page for the change. The former name of the CAF was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and the organization has long ago distanced themselves from the former name. The CAF, which was started in Texas, now has chapters in every region of the United States. The aircraft that they fly are mainly from WWII and have no connection to the American Civil War. There is nothing encyclopedic about linking to the CAF article from any Civil War related article, since the CSA ceased to exist in 1865 and the CAF was started in 1957. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I had Cyclistes Frontière on my translation to-do list, but turns out on fr.wikipedia it's split into two separate articles about different sub-units, so I thought to start by having just one article on the concept in Belgium overall. However, I can only read French weakly, and that's what most of the books on GoogleBooks that mention them are written in. If there's an interested French speaker, can you skim GoogleBooks and pick out a few more useful facts to include in this stub? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion re categorization of sailing ship articles has been started at WT:SHIPS. Opinions from members of this WP are welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that an anonymous IP is deleting the modern views on the battle that I've been adding with exhaustive references to many different sources. It claims that the old works, the majority of them dating back to the early 20th century, are better despite having neglected the usage of Spanish sources. I've tried to portray both old and modern approaches to the battle through my editing of the article, but my work is being continuosly reverted by anonymous IPs. Weymar Horren ( talk) 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is in progress at Eurofighter Typhoon as to whether to include a paragraph comparing the radar cross-section of this aircraft to the Dassault Rafale. Please participate in the RFC if you are interested. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted this before, but never saw an answer....I've been going through the backlog and have assessed a bunch of articles on the tunneling companies (WWI) that seem very redundant. Same sources, same text, and most are barely past stub class, although a few are definitely B. Shouldn't these be in a list, and the ones that have some notability broken out into their own article? auntieruth (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I ask you all for help with Juan Manuel de Rosas. The article is in need of reviews for its FAC. The page is here. The problem is that Rosas as well as Argentine history (with the exception of the Falklands War) as gathered little interest in here so far. If you can, take your time to review the article, please. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A fairly small addition of the Battle of Hong Kong by User:Speedyspeedo User talk:Speedyspeedo to the "See also" section led to reverts by User:Trekphiler User talk:Trekphiler who is "not seeing the connection" leading to me reverting and then making the connection in Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor#Common time for events. Too many U.S. centric eyes view the Pearl Harbor attack in isolation, partly due to the date line confusion thinking all those other events took place "the next day" rather than within just over seven hours real time. Trekphiler has now, despite efforts to demonstrate a connection, made four reverts. I have changed the links in the lead paragraphs from simple geographic links to the pages dealing with the coordinated attacks. Rather than make another revert myself I'll leave it to other eyes to decide. Because there is too often an isolated view of events on that one morning across the Pacific my personal view is that we need to make links to the overall picture very obvious. For one thing, I've read too many accounts of the feeling in those message centers as reports came in rapid succession of attacks across such a wide ocean front and the dismay, confusion and almost unreality of the situation. Palmeira ( talk) 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I've accepted Harold Edwards (RCAF officer) after an extensive copy edit, however I'd appreciate it if you had a look and tweaked it according to your own guidelines and style. It could also use an infobox. Many thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Milhisters, you probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. I'm now working with the WMF's comms team for a few months. I just published this profile of Milhist coordinator Peacemaker67 on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. It's a great story, and I must thank Peacemaker for working with me over the last couple of weeks. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: the WMF received a complaint about the blog post from a Wikimedian, and they have taken it down pending specific criticism. I can't give more detail without violating privacy, confidentiality, etc. etc. Those wishing to read it will have to do so in the Signpost, hopefully only for now. My apologies for the inconvenience. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment on an RFC going at the talk page of Kargil war here, would be right to have neutral third party view Shrikanthv ( talk) 09:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is no article on the phenomenon of foreign fighters. Given that the concept has become a fairly pressing international concern (particularly in the context of "foreign terrorist fighters" participating in the conflict in Iraq and Syria), this seems like an area that's ripe for exploration. Is anyone interested in collaborating on such a project? TheBlueCanoe 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Milunka Savić describes the subject as "the most decorated female combatant in the history of warfare". Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) and I were discussing whether or not this is likely, and thought it best to ask members of the project for their opinions on the topic. Are their reliable source which uphold this assertion, or ones that say something to the contrary? Thanks in advance for all comments. 23 editor ( talk) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
MOS: Dates and numbers - Military dates - This discussion has been going on for months. This is just the latest thread. Inasmuch as this would affect this project, you might be interested. There has been some discussion therein about changing all existing articles to one style or the other. — Maile ( talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This list of likely copyright violation can be categorized by wikiproject: control-F "WikiProject Military history" or similar projects of interest. -- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, the last few editions of this project's monthly newsletter The Bugle have been a bit thinner than normal. TomStar81 has been providing excellent articles on World War I, but the book reviews and other possible features have been relatively scarce. To help turn this situation around, I'd like to encourage members of the project to consider contributing reviews, opinion articles, short news stories, or whatever takes your fancy. For instance, the Wikimedia blog currently has a really interesting article in which Wehwalt discusses some of his favourite articles, and members of this project might be interested in doing the same. If you'd like to make a contribution, you can post it directly via the news room, or draft it elsewhere and contact myself or my co-editor Ian Rose to arrange for it to be published. Ian and I are also happy to answer any questions. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please. PLEASE. This article is in desperate need of some heavy-duty copyediting (and has been tagged since 2007!!!). I simply cannot take it on right now. The latest is this content being repeatedly added by another editor. If it's what the reliable sources say, then fine, but to me it seems very not WP:NPOV and seems very essay-ish to me. See also that editor's remarks at the "POV problem" section where they refer to the editors (including myself) who reverted their edits as attempting "to bully and intimidate me by placing threatening 'warnings' on my talk page". I have left their content intact, tagged that section as being unreferenced (on that score they were absolutely right) but am asking folks from this WikiProject to step into the breach and fix this article up. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a question: if someone was a colonel during the Civil War, would that make them notable? I've got someone who already passes notability overall since he was part of the House of Delegates, but I only have one source for him so I'm a little antsy about creating a page based on ultimately one source. It'd be helpful if he passed on other criteria as well, like military service. Here's a page about him on Encyclopedia Virginia, if anyone wants to look at that. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
This WikiProject was recently created and I'm trying to determine if there is any level of interest in it. Right now, this WikiProject consists of just one editor. I'm notifying several related WikiProjects in order to gauge whether there is sufficient interest in this one that it should be allowed to grow or be deleted. Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that she served with the Royal Navy during WWII as HMT Girl Pat, I've tagged the FA Girl Pat (1935 trawler) article for MILHIST. The article needs expansion with details of her RN service and post-war service if anyone is able to do this. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't an Admiralty document in The National Archives a primary source? Ranger Steve Talk 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with how Pershing missile displays is laid out. Are there better examples of how to do this? -- 21lima ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikiproject Mil-Hist,
I thought you'd like to know that there are now ~800 new items on Commons that have been imported from the
http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu collection. You can see the complete project here:
Commons:Commons:Europeana/Europeana 1914-1918 batch upload.
Because of the way I had to do this upload, these files are hand-selected to have a high likelihood of being usable in Wikipedia articles - It's not just a massive dump of pictures. Rather, it is items from Europeana 14-18 project that are BOTH freely licensed AND "encyclopedic". Also, because these are crowdsourced items, many of the descriptions are quite personal stories of the objects' original owner, and they can be used to illustrate 'general' topic articles. Just some examples...:
You can see on that project page that I've divided them into language groups - this is based on the language of the description (and therefore the object's owner), not based the originating country of the object - often items relating to France items will be in the "German" [language] section, and vice versa.
If you're interested in using these images, It would be great if you could help me categorise them on Commons and indicate a 'suggested articles' next to the images on the project page (to make it easier for other people to know where the image might be used on their language wikipedia). Sincerely,
Witty
lama 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Can_we_add_WikiProject_Poland_template_to_all_articles_that_are_missing_it_but_have_the_milhist-Poland_taskforce_template.3F. Piotrus requested that Yobot adds banners of WikiProject Poland to pages that already have the milhist-Poland taskforce template. Any comments are welcome. IF there are no disagreements the bot will start the task in the next few days. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an article on Russian hypersonic military platforms? (ie. Yu-71, Project 4202) like the Chinese WU-14, the U.S. DARPA Falcon Project/ Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, the Indian Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On the article of Libyan–Egyptian War a guy keeps edit warring to claim that the conflict falls under Cold War and Egypt won the war, none is supported by any source or any internet website. He asks for a source to prove his original research to be wrong, which is not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.45.56.98 ( talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry ( talk) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The definition of a warship is under dispute at that article. A user has tried to add a "legal" defintion of warship to the article, per this diff, which I've twice reverted. Besides being written in legalese, the definition is too wordy, and restricted in scope to the modern era. However, as the user points out, the entire warship article is unreferenced, and has been tagged as such since 2007!
Any contributions the discussion at Talk:Warship#Definition of a warship would be welcome. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, for those of you who have read Battle for the Falklands (Hastings and Jenkins) there is a dispute over interpretation of the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falklands_War&diff=669253797&oldid=669249321 Confirmation or rejection of the material as (in)accurate to the text would be appreciated. K. Bog 21:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the MfD deletion discussion of Portal:Royal_Air_Force/Did_you_know/Archive - Nabla ( talk) 14:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The infobox in American-led intervention in Syria has a dagger next to King Abdullah Al Saud, but he didn't die in action:
How should this be represented? Is there an abbreviation for dying of natural causes while a leader is in command? -- Aronzak ( talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have the feeling that it is a cross, which raises further issues.-- Catlemur ( talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the 77th Division (ex-Devon and Cornwall County Division) was doing between November 1941 and December 1942? I presume, like its Norfolk counterpart, it was retaining its County Division duties of being an anti-invasion formation manning coastal defenses etc, yet i have not been able to find anything that states this. A little help would be appreciated. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at Template talk:Rocket engines that may be of interest to this project -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 05:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. This is just to advertise two RfCs:
Input from editors here would be great. It gets boring sometimes to see all the same WP:ARBPIA people commenting (not that I have anything against them). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the correct description of these ships. Were they torpedo boats or destroyers? One source I have describes them as the former, whilst another states that they were formerly the French destroyers Pomona and Iphegenia respectively. Mjroots ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Does someone want to check Draft:Thomas William Fitzpatrick out? It needs a lot of cleanup! Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
this article defies assignment to category, although for now I've added it to biography. Any suggestions? auntieruth (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Gday. An new article stub has recently been created for the Battle of Al jurf which apparently took place in September 1955 during the Algerian revolution. I'm not an expert on this field but it seems to cover the same topic as an existing article - First battle of El Djorf. Can someone with some knowledge in this area pls have a look? If it is we will probably need to merge them. If so which is the correct name? etc... Anotherclown ( talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I have another blog post up about the difficulties of writing a big-picture FA. Feedback is always welcome! (or praise, because I can pass that on to my bosses ;-) ) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know why it doesn't go off if it's clicked after editing the page? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This link may be a bit off-topic, but likely interesting to member of this project.
(links to YouTube video)
A WP:BRD discussion is open on the topic of Crimean crisis, the discussion has been blanked before [4] so you may have to rollback a future blanking to participate -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 07:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen over the intro to the article. Feedback is requested at Talk:Western Desert Campaign#Request for opinions to break this deadlock. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
At the suggestion of The ed17, I'm bringing this matter to the experts here. A recent news article discusses how Armenian Wikipedians have discovered that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov may be a Soviet propaganda creation. The English Wikipedia article discusses him as a real person, but every single one of the cited sources is in Russian. I have no idea where to even begin looking into this, but I assume many of you do. Thanks. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a copy of a letter from Maj. Dewey Fournet to Maj. Keyhoe (both from the US military) that is listed as: CONFIDENTIAL: For Release to NICAP Officials Only. It's to a civilian organisation so it's not in the CIA online records, I appear to have access to something in hard copy that isn't digitised. Can I digitise it and use it as a reference from a reliable secondary source? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Our POTD for the 27th of July is the Bombing of Hamburg. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at Template:POTD/2015-07-27 and check the blurb for errors. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Crisco 1492: I went to take a look at the blurb, but it was gone, so I put a slightly rewritten version here just so I could say I did my part to help :)
Of particular note in this clip is the use of wartime news broadcasts such as this one as instruments of propaganda during World War II. As with most publications at the time, propaganda considerations resulted in an overall favorable slant towards the U.S. war effort.Video: United Newsreel
TomStar81, thanks for the addition. The reason I decided to pull the blurb was because the issues Nick pointed out permeate the article as well; to eliminate the POV problem, we'd need more than just a new blurb. That article would need some serious TLC, which I cannot provide with the limited Wikipedia time I have right now. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 04:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! The following disambiguation pages on this month's list of most-linked pages are relevant to this WikiProject. Any help in fixing incoming links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find a serial number for the F-16 involved in Tuesday's mid-air collision over South Carolina. Can you help? Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm interested in submitting military blogger C.J. Grisham to the DYK Wikiproject but was told it's too long and there may be some unreliable sources. Someone at the DYK Wikiproject suggested I try this project for help. I had to get a crash course on using wikicode to submit this to the AFC project and I'd appreciate if a regular editor could assist. Thanks. 72.74.202.74 ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Can you tell me what sources/external links to remove and which statements aren't NPOV? 72.74.202.74 ( talk) 01:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to write a "puff piece". I'm fairly new to editing and User:MeegsC said to ask here for help improving my article. I was more than willing to make changes but pointing me to policy pages (without specifics) doesn't tell me anything. The snide comments aren't necessary. 72.74.203.154 ( talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of articles listing fortifications, forts, castles etc, such as:
Some of these lists are quite confusing, and none of them can ever be complete or nearly complete. In my opinion, some improvements can be made, such as:
In addition, there are lists relating to fortifications in a specific country, such as:
I think it would be a good idea to have more of these country-specific lists.
Does anyone else have any suggestions/ideas on how to improve these lists? Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have either or both of the following in their personal libraries and, if so, are there any refs to awards of bronze stars to Norman Dike? All the cites I have on Dike's page ultimately trace back to him or to family members.
Thanks,
-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
" Russian Winter" the article about the effect of winter in Russia on warfare, is up for renaming, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
At Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Air_Force_1939-1945-_Coastal_Command_C4614.jpg , the photo is captioned of a 10 Sqn RCAF aircraft. Now to my knowledge the 10 Sqn that was flying Short Sunderlands was Royal Australian Air Force, not RCAF. Yet I've just found that there was a 10 Sqn RCAF flying land-based anti-submarine aircraft. Can our experts please check the service history of the named aircraft, EK573/P, and see if the IWM has made a mistake? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
FA Battle of the Alamo - There has been a contentious dialogue on the talk page for months. No consensus to make changes. There is now a Dispute resolution opened by an editor. Without waiting for any action, that editor has gone nuts making edits today. Can an admin step in on this, please and restore it to prior to today's edits? I believe this is edit warring. — Maile ( talk) 23:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Time to add an article for Xian H-X to be linked from People's Liberation Army Air Force? Lots of buzz about it lately.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/china-wants-to-develop-a-new-long-range-strategic-bomber/
Hcobb ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources for Babini Group 1940? I've gleaned a couple of onlines but nothing printed. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a controversial discussion currently taking place at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, and I was wondering whether we could get a third opinion since I don't believe that I am capable of remaining impartial since I'm already opinionated. The discussion is in regards to whether or not the Nanking Massacre was actually a massacre against the city residents of Nanking, or whether it was a justified military operation aimed at exterminating guerrilla soldiers pretending to be civilians. A particular editor doesn't like how Wikipedia describes the event as a "massacre", and intends on changing the article contents. You can also find context for the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Can Wikipedia's coverage of the Nanking Massacre be considered "unfairly bullying the Japanese people"? -- benlisquare T• C• E 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
ISIS have attacked an Egyptian Navy ship, but which ship is it? Mjroots ( talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There were shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, US today in which 4 US Marines and the shooter were killed. Any help from editors with experience in dealing with this type of incident article, or help in simply watching the article, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar
I assume you all are already aware of, though I just wanted to check, of the channel The Great War on Youtube, which has been covering the events of WWI 100 years ago in real-time. Real...delayed by 100 years time, but you get what I mean. It seems like it would be a useful resource. I don't know if the videos themselves would be considered reliable sources (I somewhat doubt it), but each video includes the specific book resources used for the episode and, at minimum, they seem like a good method of keeping the events and what should be covered in order.
At the very least, it might be a fun series for all you history buffs to follow. Silver seren C 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wikipedia has no article on the concept of a battlefield. Battlefield is a disambiguation page with links mostly to little known towns, songs, and video games. Battle is not a satisfactory substitute, since many battles do not take place in a "battlefield". I have created Draft:Battlefield as a place where a substantive (and, I anticipate, substantial) article can be written on the concept of the "battlefield" itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
From our style guide: "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning". Milhist has 3 21 FAs that are titled for operations, and my own poorly informed opinion is that those titles, and this one, work fine, but I realize there's another side to this argument and I want to see if there are objections. Brianboulton has selected this article for
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2015. - Dank (
push to talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Gday. For those that are interested there is a discussion at WP:AVIATION that potentially affects many articles that also fall under this project. Pls see:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images.
Anotherclown (
talk) 12:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Anybody with access to good refs on the subject who is up to taking on a tough question on which even historians and eyewitnesses seem to disagree, see Talk:Z flag. Herostratus ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Trying to keep up on assessment backlog. This article, Conflict Armament Research, defies our present task forces. auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky#Massacre_at_Batoh_section_added. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for M15 Halftrack; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) M15 Halftrack
I'm having a bit of a struggle with Keith-264 ( talk) over capitalization of plural proper nouns in Capture of Wurst Farm. He believes that usages like 175th, 176th and 177th Infantry Regiments should not have the word regiments capitalized. I've told him that he's wrong on his talk page, but he insists not, despite user:Diannaa's support there. Perhaps y'all can weigh in there on this weighty debate?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
... the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name.
Keith-264 ( talk) 20:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep playing nice, everyone. While I see Keith's point to an extent, I'm used to writing say " Nos. 1 and 2 Squadrons", which is a method used by several official Australian historians and has always been accepted in WP reviews right up to FAC, so I think I'm with Sturm and Lineagegeek here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're all right, depending on where you're writing. I would have written 175th, 179th, 180th Infantry Regiments, but I would write four battalions attacked the Confederate cavalry. The former are proper nouns, the latter are simply nouns. Four battalions of the 175th, 179th, and 180th Infantry Regiments attacked the First Cavalry (CSA). auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This user is creating many rank pages at their original language titles, not in accordance with WP:UE. His view has just lost a deletion debate from Starshiy to Senior lieutenant. I have just found that he has been banned from de:wiki seemingly due to repeated copyright violation. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Whereas the English Wikipedia's current article count is at
6,829,478, and
Whereas the contributors of the Military history Wikiproject, one of the largest and most active projects on Wikipedia, are frequently engaged in the creation and expansion Military related articles, and
Whereas our project and its members are held to lead the way in progress made on Wikipedia,
Resolved that I hereby due pledge one WikiChevrons, one WikiProject Barnstar, and a Barnstar related to the subject in question to the first Military history Project contributor who can prove that they have successfully created the first new Military history Project article at or over the five-millionth article added to this English Wikipedia.
— TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone have a look over the current state of List of military disasters?
A recent edit described as minor with edit summary of "Reduced detail. These entries are not from an "anti British" point of view, and it is defamatory to assert that. Most of the criticism cited is from official British reports and senior British officers etc. Britain is great but not always right" added 8,763 of characters. I've edited out what I think is coatracking of political points but appreciate a second opinion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
User talk:CourtCelts1988 is back. After a 24 hour block, s/he has just started editing on King's Shropshire Light Infantry. Hamish59 ( talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Battle of Midway 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Content_guide#War we are encouraged to include the "trigger, if notable". This has been raised previously at Archive_56#Trigger_or_pretext and Archive_129#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance, with limited discussion and no conclusion. The trigger is usually the most hotly disputed topic in all articles on wars, particularly modern wars, as both sides in the actual conflict will usually have blamed each other for "starting it". The WP:MILHIST content guide could help reduce unnecessary disputes by giving guidance on how to produce a neutral description of the trigger.
I propose amending the word "trigger" to "stated casus belli", and then explaining that if the stated casus belli is disputed (i.e. WP:RS include claims that it was just a pretext), best practice would include either a footnote or a section in the main body of the article setting out the different perspectives on the stated casus belli held by WP:RS. Best practice would also avoid stating in wikipedia's neutral voice that the conflict was started by one side or the other, unless WP:RS do not reference such disputes. Oncenawhile ( talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor added Template:POV-statement and Template:Verify credibility tags to the statement "In 1994, the United States Congress and Senate called for the arms embargo to be lifted, but by this time Clinton opposed it because of previous European opposition" in the Lift and strike (Bosnia) article back in December, but didn't explain the supposed neutrality and sourcing issue. Could someone take a look at the statement and the sources for me, to give an independent assessment of whether there is a problem with them? That would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make this wikiproject actively using A class article assessment aware of the discussion. I am aware of the no-consensus discussion from March. I am unsure if A-class is useful for Wikipedia or is just more busy work which is partly why I asked the question. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864). Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Benjamin F. Strickland II for possible POV issues. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This might be of interest to members of this project, and certainly looks like a worthwhile project from the AWM. Nick-D ( talk) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone with knowledge of the official naming conventions for Canadian units have a look at Talk:123rd Battalion (Royal Grenadiers), CEF and offer an opinion. This query is also the subject of an OTRS ticket that I'm looking at. Thanks. Nthep ( talk) 20:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Frank Tarr, 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. I found instances of close paraphrasing.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Which task forces are relevant to an article about a current unit of the Czech Republic Army? It seems to me that only some parts of Europe are covered by regional task forces and there is no era task force for the present (Post-Cold War?) period. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently the Wiki search page has been spoilt, by adding a migraine headache in the search box and a promiscuous drop down menu. I've tried to stop it by altering the settings in Preferences to no avail, can anyone help please. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If a source has no ISBN etc is there a convention for noting that in a reference? I've tried adding "no OCLC/ISBN" under others= but it doesn't show at the end. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! There's a question that has been bugging me regarding the naming and scope of military unit articles, which has come pretty clearly to light at Talk:15th Infantry Brigade (Greece). The unit in question began life as the 4th Brigade, became expanded into the 15th Division in 1940-41, was reformed after WW2, downgraded to brigade in the late 1990s, and recently reduced to a regiment. Properly, this article should be moved to 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), but there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment. My question to the MILHIST community is this: what takes precedence, the name (in which case we'll have a "15th Regiment" article incorporating two entirely different lineages) or the lineage of a unit (in which case we'd need two different "15th Regiment" articles)? In addition to this, would it make sense to create separate articles for the unit during its life, e.g. a different article for the 15th Division and for the 15th Brigade? Thanks in advance! Constantine ✍ 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with combining two completely unrelated units into the same article just because they shared a common name at some point. Take a look at 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) to see how many (nine) US Air Force units have had the name 1st Reconnaissance Squadron. In our hypothetical Turkish Division, and presuming there is no difference in notability between the two divisions, I believe the appropriate way most of the time is to make 15th Division (Turkey) a disambiguation page and title of two separate articles 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940) and 15th Division (Turkey 1990-). If, as in many cases, the one that's been around a long time is more notable then the pages would be 15th Division (Turkey) (disambiguation), 15th Division (Turkey) and 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940). That leads readers to the unit the unit they'e looking for, informs them that there's another similar unit and lets them choose which to read about. There's a lot of flexibility in disambiguation pages. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened on the title of the article Russian Winter, for the discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Code | Result | |
---|---|---|
{{ User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis}} | User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis | Usage |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • contribs)
Bauer, E. (2000) [1979]. Young, Peter, ed. The History of World War II (Orbis: London, revised ed.). New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 1-85605-552-3. CS1 maint: Extra text (link) Does anyone know why CS1 maint: Extra text (link) is showing on this reference in Operation Sonnenblume? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a css to the skin User:Keith-264/common.css to see hidden labels and it appeared. I've tried various changes but nothing has worked. It shows on Operation Compass for the same reference too. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
There is an ongoing RM. Comment there for consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on renaming categories related to Bahraini uprising of 2011. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on Ram Pyari Gurjar claims that she was a woman commander who fought against Timur. However, the only source cited in the article is The royal Gurjars by Nau Nihal Singh. The book seems less of a reliable scholarly work and more of an attempt at ethnic glorification of Gurjars. I cannot find any other sources -- Google just throws up Wikipedia mirrors or articles based on Wikipedia. I've tried searching with alternative transliterations. Singh claims that she fought alongside Jograj Singh Panwar -- I can find mentions of this guy in some reliable sources, but those sources describe his story as more of a local legend than history.
Being a female commander who fought against Timur is no mean achievement. So, it's surprising that there are not more sources that mention this. I am wondering if this is a real historical figure, a legend or a hoax. Any inputs are appreciated. utcursch | talk 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose:, A-class review Runaway Scrape was closed at my request on Dec 20, 2014, perhaps prematurely. I would like to re-open this review, with old comments on it. I can explain further on the template once it is re-opened. How do I re-open the review? — Maile ( talk) 12:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If an article about a military unit is sourced only from the official website or publications by the unit itself or its parent unit/corps/branch, is it actually notable? Imho it's the same as sourcing a business article from only the company's own website or that of it's corporate parent, thus it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. At the help page discussion of an AFC submission about a Czech Army unit - WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:39:28.2C 22 July 2015 review of submission by Catriona - there's a (possibly justified) suggestion that American units are not subjected to the same standard of independent sourcing as military units of other countries. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed a new article, Eagle Dustoff, created by an inexperienced user DustoffControl ( talk · contribs) (who probably has a WP:COI). Most of the article's sections need filling in, but I did my best to fix the categories based on my very limited knowledge of military issues. Just wanted to see if anyone was interested in rescuing the article, which may not have enough content/sourcing to survive otherwise. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Gday. Could any knowledgeable (probably Australian) editors pls have a look at my comment at John Whitelaw (1921–2010)? There may have been some confusion b/n him and the achievements of his father John Whitelaw (general). I have removed half a paragraph that looked incorrect (although I wonder if there is more). Of cse pls do not hesitate to trout me if I'm wrong but it didn't look right to me. Thank you in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding the use of foreign language articles in citations to substantiate statements /claims in EN wiki articles? It makes it extremely difficult to validate a citation - and thus the fact cited, if one cannot read the source text. Is this permitted? Farawayman ( talk) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
By a roundabout means (well, checking an image's licence) I came to Muhammad Musa (4th C-in-C Pakistan Army) whose image in the infobox doesn't look like it has a valid licence ("own work" - not buying that). Rated as start on our scale, it is also rated Good Article via the Hazara Project - I suspect an overzealous editor - so I will fix that but could anyone advise on the image? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice about HMCS Bonaventure at WT:SHIPS -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Am I correct to state Draft:Scott Haraburda is non-notable? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Does a Brigadier General generally pass notability? See Draft:Henry Williams Hise for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
User:NavalWarrior has made several adds here. Most, IMO, are badly written, in an unencyclopedic tone (editorializing or adding "notes"), or are wrong outright. I'm already at 3WW, not to mention tired of trying to fix it. Can somebody take care of this? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
[9] Does anyone know how I've managed to collect a ref tag warning on the gas shell table in the right margin? It beats me. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is the right community to address this issue. If not, please point me in the right direction.
I recently came across the template Template:Infobox Confederate State ACW and articles that use it such as Texas in the American Civil War, South Carolina in the American Civil War, Florida in the American Civil War etc. One of the pieces of information it has is "Return to union control" followed by a date. It appears that articles are listing this date as the date at which they began to again be represented in congress, not the date at which their armies surrender.
I'm not an historian, but this doesn't seem to make sense. Shouldn't "union control" be the date at which the union physically had control? I'd propose the template be modified to say something like "Representation within the union returned" Jbeyerl ( talk) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The article List of wars involving the United Kingdom could IMO, do with some TLC. While military history is not my forte, this article seems crude (and often factually wrong). I've done some basic fixing in the last few days, but more is needed. Among the 'clangers' was listing Ulster Defence Force and 'B specials' as Nationalist groups in N. Ireland in relation to 'the Troubles'.(fixed), and listing Bosnian War as a UK victory (??? how a peace-keeping force could even achieve a victory, was not explained). Editors with more experience than I in rendering military history will have a better eye. Please 'ping' if my attention is required (or even to tell me I'm wrong). Pincrete ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey y'all--do you have an opinion on edits like this one? As far as I'm concerned this is needless formatting which only makes things more difficult to edit later. FDRMRZUSA (hereby pinged) has made a couple more of such edits. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two issues with File:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg, an image used in an article that's currently listed at WP:DYK. Firstly, the file description claimed that the frigate in the background was a Leander-class vessel; it rather obviously isn't (an ex-RN sailor contacted OTRS to point out that error and suggested it was a Whitby-class ship; a comment on the file page itself suggested it's a Rothesay-class ship; to me they loook virtually identical). Secondly, the source for the file given at the Commons seems incorrect, possibly due to a typo in the image number. I have commented on both issues at commons:File talk:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg; input would be appreciated. Huon ( talk) 10:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This officer is the first female in the RAF to command an operational squadron (Foxhunting 12). Given 12's current flying, she is commanding a squadron that is in action; a battalion level unit. This I believe makes her eligible for an article under MILPEOPLE. She probably has other GNG coverage. Was I right to redlink her in the squadron page (never mind about the confusing fact that there are other articles for other Nikki Thomases who already exist?) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm in a content dispute of sorts here. There's an IP editor with what looks like a POV problem (& an issue with less than ideal English). I originally asked for clarification on the nature of the convoys (not believing minelayers were suited for deep-ocean escort). The tag was ignored & removed, the IP editor claiming Morison didn't say. When I read the linked Morison, I found mention of convoys to Trinidad (p386), which strongly suggest to me the Brazilians were limited to coastal convoys; that fits my previous understanding. (I have not read all of Morison, nor have I read Blair on the U-boat...) In response, the IP editor offered a completely different ref to minelayers (not in Brazilian service) & is now suggesting the mention of "minelayers" be changed to "escorts" or "warships", claiming Morison doesn't make it clear, & claiming some other source says different. I am frankly getting tired of arguing with him, & it's getting frustrating. Will somebody take a look & weigh in? Preferably somebody who's read Blair & Morison--better still, somebody who has them both at hand? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, you'll probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. There's a new blog post from Nick-D up at the Wikimedia blog: " The Hunt for Tirpitz." We've had a good amount of military history posts recently, and I'd be happy to run more—if you have an idea, message me! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI I've started a discussion on the talk page of this article about concerns I have regarding recent changes to it, pls see Talk:Bougainville Civil War#Problems with current state of this article. My knowledge of the subject is limited so I'm requesting others have a look and see if my concerns are valid or not. In particular I have an issue with the poor quality of the sourcing (most of the article has been re-writing without any references, or using You Tube references) and possible breech of NPOV (it rather prominently relies on an article in the Green Left Weekly without, in my opinion, providing adequate balance to that material for instance). Anotherclown ( talk) 06:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We currently have Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects which contains subcategories for "cancelled" projects by country (e.g. Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States) but also includes subcategories for "abandoned" projects (e.g. Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom). The difference, according to the main category, is whether ("cancelled") or not ("abandoned") the projects reached the flight-test stage of development. However, they're currently all categorized together, and there is no Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects. Is it necessary to differentiate between these two definitions?
Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this site ( list of 70 usages) considered a reliable source for historical and WW-related topics? Don't have a specific case in mind, just wondering about a general evaluation of its use for encyclopedic articles. Found the author info here, so the author obviously is very knowledgeable, but can he be considered as reliable expert? GermanJoe ( talk) 07:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a matter concerning the Type 054A article on WT:SHIPS. - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
An RM that affects this project (the war films task force) is currently taking place. Interested editors may wish to discuss here. Chase ( talk | contributions) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Le Cateau: does anyone have a print copy of Zuber, Terence (2011). The Mons Myth. Stroud, Gloucestershire: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-7628-5? TiltuM added some details from Zuber but he only has the e version, which doesn't have page numbers. If anyone can fill them in we'd be grateful. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I just completed writing an article about WWII Major General Walter E. Lauer and thought I'd post a little announcement over here in the project. I see we have lists and lists and lists of articles that need writing. How about a list of new articles or articles that have been recently improved? There's nothing like recognizing success and progress to encourage additional contributions. — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 23:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have found some good sources on the historical and political aspects, but the sections on the military preparation and operation are very weak and only sourced to a couple of websites. Any help from the wizards who lurk here would be great. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hermann Fegelein; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions, but as k+ sections are being added without any attempt at sourcing, this needs to be looked at. Does anyone have time to go through their recent additions and maybe source, possibly rollback them?
Several editors have warned them already, for a few different articles, but there's no engagement. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Can anybody help with an enquiry over on the Humanities Reference Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tampico_Affair.3F please? Alansplodge ( talk) 12:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Omar Bradley about how to correctly reflect General of the Army Bradley's years of service, the options being 1915–1981 (commissioning to death) and 1915–1951 (commissioning to retirement from active service). On 11 August, I reverted a change from the former to the latter. Two others disagree and believe the latter should be used. Inside the infobox there is a notation to use the longer period because Bradley was on active duty until death. Comments welcome at Talk:Omar Bradley#Years of Service.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy? We need a page reference for "...there is considerable justice in Matthew Cooper's assertion that the panzer divisions were not given the kind of strategic mission that was to characterize authentic armoured blitzkrieg, and were almost always closely subordinated to the various mass infantry armies." for the Blitzkrieg article please. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Would a few editors chime in at [ [10]], could use assistance to improve the general article and notability concerns. Hell in a Bucket ( talk)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav monitor Drava; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an RAF squadrons expert but this article is in dire shape. Considering we're the en:wiki, these sort of articles should be our bread and butter. Could I kindly request our RAF experts to take a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This story might be worth keeping an eye on. Could be an article if it is confirmed to ave been found. Mjroots ( talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Is a military exercise such as Operation Bold Quest (which is put on multiple times each year by the U.S. and about a dozen partner nations) worthy of a Wikipedia page? If so, what would be the best way of going about submitting it? I know how to create a page, but being a commander in the JCS chairman's office, I'm worried I might run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
Morgan Murphy 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganMurphy14 ( talk • contribs)
Oh how I loathe this article, although not due to the subject. I request a third opinion, before I get myself banned for breaching the 3 revert rule. An editor's claims to be cleaning the article up is in fact code for removing everything they do not agree with despite the fact that - even in this poorly sourced article - sourced information contradicts them. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I notice we have a number of articles that draw heavily on
Herbert Werner's book “Iron Coffins” as a source and I'm wondering how good an idea this is: How reliable is it as a source?
I know its veracity has been questioned (Clay Blair lists it in the bibliography to Hitler's U-boat War, but is careful to say in the text “Werner claims...” or “Werner implies..” and in at least one place says Werner's “assertion... cannot be substantiated from German records” (vol I, p313)
I've just re-arranged his biography article, for the reasons given
on the talk page and in the
(new) book section, but I'm wondering what to do about the other articles (
U-557, for example, and
U-230,
U-415 etc). Any thoughts?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an article entitled Battle of Timbuktu and another one Second Battle of Timbuktu. The second article's initial section appears to be a repetition of the first article, followed by a second section on a second phase or battle a few days later. It would appear that they should be merged as one article under the former title or the second article should make clear that it refers to the second battle/phase. I don't know how these events are regarded in that repect, or indeed if either or both are termed the "Battle of Timbuktu". Views?
They could both do with a bit of copy editing too. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Trinity (nuclear test) article was changed by an IP who insists that since the article is in American English, the term "fortnight" cannot be used. Is this correct? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding commodores this time. Do they equal "1-star" generals and thus are usually considered notable? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_131#Notability_question and Draft:Edward Gabriel Andrè Barrett. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't cover the death of millions of POWs during WWII. A disaster. Xx236 ( talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Had noticed that quite a few links to this Navy ship do not work anymore. Is it possible to edit them with new links for information relating to the info of the ship? JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't consider blogs to be reliable sources. No mystery there. Several pages about the members of E Co, 2d Bn, 506th PIR link to shadow boxes displaying awards and other emblems associated with the subject of the page. One example is Speirs' shadowbox pertaining to Ronald Speirs. Is an unedited shadowbox any better than a blog?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled onto this by accident today while researching John Madison Hoskins, a flag officer who for some reason doesn't seem to have an article about him, but does have a movie: The Eternal Sea. So I checked the Wead article and there's a very enthusiastic and well-intentioned editor User:SteveMiamiBeach who's making a proper mess out of it. I'm so boggled by the insanely unencyclopedic approach to the subject, it's probably best that somebody else break the bad news to this guy and get the pagespace back under some semblance of control. Would somebody biographically inclined give this a look? I'm not kidding, it's a wasteland over there. BusterD ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
All comments would be appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I did a foolish thing and watched an old movie ( The Eternal Sea starring Sterling Hayden), and predictably, I got curious about the protagonist. The film reminds me much of John Wayne's The Wings of Eagles (but much more accurate, based on found sources). The fellow Hayden low keys didn't have an article about him and so I created one: John Hoskins (officer). There are not as many sources as I'd like, though there are some good ones already attached (including a Life Magazine cover story). What I'm looking for is an article or book relating Hoskins' enthusiasm for jet aircraft in carrier flight operations. The movie, produced and released while Hoskins was still a serving RADM, seems to indicate that Hoskins advocated reinforced decks and stronger catapults on carriers being built while WWII was ongoing, sensing the need for jet takeoffs and landings; in addition, the film indicates that Hoskins himself (peg-leg and all) flew takeoffs and landings along with an air group to validate the premise that carriers would be able to handle jet aircraft cycling through operations. Anybody know where I should be looking? What I've got right now dovetails with the premises of the film, and while I'm not using the movie as an RS, I suspect there's some truth to be found. Ideas? BusterD ( talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've not tagged the 2015 Arras attack article for this WP, as the link is rather tenuous. Will leave it to this project to decide whether or not it comes under your remit. Reports are that US Marines disarmed the attacker. Mjroots ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Antoni Koper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the length of the Battle of Buna–Gona article, and a request for opinions about splitting the article. I've offered my opinion, but I think it would be best if a few others could chime in as this is not an easy decision and there may be better ways of doing it that what I'm suggesting, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal at WP:AFC/C about creating a new category for members of WPMILHIST called Category:WikiProject Military history Members -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just came from copy editing [11] and especially removing some 'promotional' text [12] from Battle of Britain Bunker. The page could use some attention from editors with some knowledge in this area. The page also has only one real footnote, though it has several potential sources in "Further reading". My first, edit re. "15 September 1940", is of concern as I am unsure what the original writer meant, regards, 220 of Borg 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 22 on the deletion of an article on a general officer. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for a somewhat off topic comment as I know this is beyond our control, but this is page is still appearing on Google over 6 days after it was deleted. Even further off, another Jeffrey Sinclair was the first station Commander on Babylon 5. :-/ 220 of Borg 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for August Meyszner; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Greco-Italian war is currently being re-written finally! We are asking for more editors to get involved to help improve it! So please take an interest and help out Enigma and Keith in the editing process!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Brigadier Rohitha Neil Akmeemana. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo#Merge proposal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
|noimage=yes
to turn off that eye icon thing --
70.51.202.183 (
talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately partisan editors believe there is something to be gained by adding false casualty figures to WWI and WW2 articles (and other wars too no doubt). It appears they believe that they can somehow turn lost wars from the past into victories. Actually, the only way one benefits from Wikipedia, both losers and victors, is to have true knowledge of the past.
Take for example the Brusilov Offensive. The English version of Wiki says the Russians suffered losses of ~1.4 M, and the Axis ~0.75M, roughly a ratio of 2:1.
The Russian version [ [1]] says Russian losses ~0.5M and Axis losses ~1.5M, roughly a ratio of 1:3.
So the two versions of Wiki (reflecting biases of editors) are off by a factor of 6. This is great disservice to our readers and also to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who spend their time trying to make Wikipedia better.
I have tried to correct a few articles, but unfortunately partisans have a lot more energy and time than I do :(
Maybe this Task Force can come up a new protocol for reporting losses in articles. Maybe casualty figures should be agreed upon by a panel, and should not be allowed to be changed by single editors. Also there could be more collaboration between editors of Wiki version of involved countries.
Best Wishes,
JS ( talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
PS Given that the October 2010 version (before an editor rampage) of the English article said "Professor Graydon A. Tunstall of the University of South Florida called the Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory." I am more inclined to believe Russian Wiki on this one.
A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire (2015) Geoffrey Wawro might be worth a look but he leans rather heavily on Dowling. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Would some kind soul show me how to add the location on the map here Mount Trebeshinë to Battle of Trebeshina the map here? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 12:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Could interested editors consider commenting on the above RfC regarding the use of witness testimony? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indigo Publications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Publications until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medal of Honor#Number of Medal of Honor awards. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of S.A. is under discussion, see talk:S.A. (corporation) and talk:S.A. for multiple discussions. -- 70.51.203.69 ( talk) 05:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've created an article on the Inconstant, which Napoleon escaped from Elba in. Assistance in expanding the article is welcomed. Mjroots ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Could some expert look at Battle of Midway? This is an old FA which has "page needed" on many of the refs. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Commemorative Air Force (formerly called the "Confederate Air Force") from the "See also" section of Military of the Confederate States of America because there is absolutely no relationship between the CSA and the CAF. Another editor has reverted twice my removal of the spurious link and challenged me to gain consensus on the talk page for the change. The former name of the CAF was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and the organization has long ago distanced themselves from the former name. The CAF, which was started in Texas, now has chapters in every region of the United States. The aircraft that they fly are mainly from WWII and have no connection to the American Civil War. There is nothing encyclopedic about linking to the CAF article from any Civil War related article, since the CSA ceased to exist in 1865 and the CAF was started in 1957. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I had Cyclistes Frontière on my translation to-do list, but turns out on fr.wikipedia it's split into two separate articles about different sub-units, so I thought to start by having just one article on the concept in Belgium overall. However, I can only read French weakly, and that's what most of the books on GoogleBooks that mention them are written in. If there's an interested French speaker, can you skim GoogleBooks and pick out a few more useful facts to include in this stub? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion re categorization of sailing ship articles has been started at WT:SHIPS. Opinions from members of this WP are welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that an anonymous IP is deleting the modern views on the battle that I've been adding with exhaustive references to many different sources. It claims that the old works, the majority of them dating back to the early 20th century, are better despite having neglected the usage of Spanish sources. I've tried to portray both old and modern approaches to the battle through my editing of the article, but my work is being continuosly reverted by anonymous IPs. Weymar Horren ( talk) 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is in progress at Eurofighter Typhoon as to whether to include a paragraph comparing the radar cross-section of this aircraft to the Dassault Rafale. Please participate in the RFC if you are interested. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted this before, but never saw an answer....I've been going through the backlog and have assessed a bunch of articles on the tunneling companies (WWI) that seem very redundant. Same sources, same text, and most are barely past stub class, although a few are definitely B. Shouldn't these be in a list, and the ones that have some notability broken out into their own article? auntieruth (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I ask you all for help with Juan Manuel de Rosas. The article is in need of reviews for its FAC. The page is here. The problem is that Rosas as well as Argentine history (with the exception of the Falklands War) as gathered little interest in here so far. If you can, take your time to review the article, please. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A fairly small addition of the Battle of Hong Kong by User:Speedyspeedo User talk:Speedyspeedo to the "See also" section led to reverts by User:Trekphiler User talk:Trekphiler who is "not seeing the connection" leading to me reverting and then making the connection in Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor#Common time for events. Too many U.S. centric eyes view the Pearl Harbor attack in isolation, partly due to the date line confusion thinking all those other events took place "the next day" rather than within just over seven hours real time. Trekphiler has now, despite efforts to demonstrate a connection, made four reverts. I have changed the links in the lead paragraphs from simple geographic links to the pages dealing with the coordinated attacks. Rather than make another revert myself I'll leave it to other eyes to decide. Because there is too often an isolated view of events on that one morning across the Pacific my personal view is that we need to make links to the overall picture very obvious. For one thing, I've read too many accounts of the feeling in those message centers as reports came in rapid succession of attacks across such a wide ocean front and the dismay, confusion and almost unreality of the situation. Palmeira ( talk) 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I've accepted Harold Edwards (RCAF officer) after an extensive copy edit, however I'd appreciate it if you had a look and tweaked it according to your own guidelines and style. It could also use an infobox. Many thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Milhisters, you probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. I'm now working with the WMF's comms team for a few months. I just published this profile of Milhist coordinator Peacemaker67 on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. It's a great story, and I must thank Peacemaker for working with me over the last couple of weeks. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: the WMF received a complaint about the blog post from a Wikimedian, and they have taken it down pending specific criticism. I can't give more detail without violating privacy, confidentiality, etc. etc. Those wishing to read it will have to do so in the Signpost, hopefully only for now. My apologies for the inconvenience. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment on an RFC going at the talk page of Kargil war here, would be right to have neutral third party view Shrikanthv ( talk) 09:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is no article on the phenomenon of foreign fighters. Given that the concept has become a fairly pressing international concern (particularly in the context of "foreign terrorist fighters" participating in the conflict in Iraq and Syria), this seems like an area that's ripe for exploration. Is anyone interested in collaborating on such a project? TheBlueCanoe 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Milunka Savić describes the subject as "the most decorated female combatant in the history of warfare". Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) and I were discussing whether or not this is likely, and thought it best to ask members of the project for their opinions on the topic. Are their reliable source which uphold this assertion, or ones that say something to the contrary? Thanks in advance for all comments. 23 editor ( talk) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
MOS: Dates and numbers - Military dates - This discussion has been going on for months. This is just the latest thread. Inasmuch as this would affect this project, you might be interested. There has been some discussion therein about changing all existing articles to one style or the other. — Maile ( talk) 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This list of likely copyright violation can be categorized by wikiproject: control-F "WikiProject Military history" or similar projects of interest. -- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, the last few editions of this project's monthly newsletter The Bugle have been a bit thinner than normal. TomStar81 has been providing excellent articles on World War I, but the book reviews and other possible features have been relatively scarce. To help turn this situation around, I'd like to encourage members of the project to consider contributing reviews, opinion articles, short news stories, or whatever takes your fancy. For instance, the Wikimedia blog currently has a really interesting article in which Wehwalt discusses some of his favourite articles, and members of this project might be interested in doing the same. If you'd like to make a contribution, you can post it directly via the news room, or draft it elsewhere and contact myself or my co-editor Ian Rose to arrange for it to be published. Ian and I are also happy to answer any questions. Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please. PLEASE. This article is in desperate need of some heavy-duty copyediting (and has been tagged since 2007!!!). I simply cannot take it on right now. The latest is this content being repeatedly added by another editor. If it's what the reliable sources say, then fine, but to me it seems very not WP:NPOV and seems very essay-ish to me. See also that editor's remarks at the "POV problem" section where they refer to the editors (including myself) who reverted their edits as attempting "to bully and intimidate me by placing threatening 'warnings' on my talk page". I have left their content intact, tagged that section as being unreferenced (on that score they were absolutely right) but am asking folks from this WikiProject to step into the breach and fix this article up. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 16:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a question: if someone was a colonel during the Civil War, would that make them notable? I've got someone who already passes notability overall since he was part of the House of Delegates, but I only have one source for him so I'm a little antsy about creating a page based on ultimately one source. It'd be helpful if he passed on other criteria as well, like military service. Here's a page about him on Encyclopedia Virginia, if anyone wants to look at that. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
This WikiProject was recently created and I'm trying to determine if there is any level of interest in it. Right now, this WikiProject consists of just one editor. I'm notifying several related WikiProjects in order to gauge whether there is sufficient interest in this one that it should be allowed to grow or be deleted. Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that she served with the Royal Navy during WWII as HMT Girl Pat, I've tagged the FA Girl Pat (1935 trawler) article for MILHIST. The article needs expansion with details of her RN service and post-war service if anyone is able to do this. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't an Admiralty document in The National Archives a primary source? Ranger Steve Talk 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with how Pershing missile displays is laid out. Are there better examples of how to do this? -- 21lima ( talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikiproject Mil-Hist,
I thought you'd like to know that there are now ~800 new items on Commons that have been imported from the
http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu collection. You can see the complete project here:
Commons:Commons:Europeana/Europeana 1914-1918 batch upload.
Because of the way I had to do this upload, these files are hand-selected to have a high likelihood of being usable in Wikipedia articles - It's not just a massive dump of pictures. Rather, it is items from Europeana 14-18 project that are BOTH freely licensed AND "encyclopedic". Also, because these are crowdsourced items, many of the descriptions are quite personal stories of the objects' original owner, and they can be used to illustrate 'general' topic articles. Just some examples...:
You can see on that project page that I've divided them into language groups - this is based on the language of the description (and therefore the object's owner), not based the originating country of the object - often items relating to France items will be in the "German" [language] section, and vice versa.
If you're interested in using these images, It would be great if you could help me categorise them on Commons and indicate a 'suggested articles' next to the images on the project page (to make it easier for other people to know where the image might be used on their language wikipedia). Sincerely,
Witty
lama 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Can_we_add_WikiProject_Poland_template_to_all_articles_that_are_missing_it_but_have_the_milhist-Poland_taskforce_template.3F. Piotrus requested that Yobot adds banners of WikiProject Poland to pages that already have the milhist-Poland taskforce template. Any comments are welcome. IF there are no disagreements the bot will start the task in the next few days. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an article on Russian hypersonic military platforms? (ie. Yu-71, Project 4202) like the Chinese WU-14, the U.S. DARPA Falcon Project/ Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, the Indian Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On the article of Libyan–Egyptian War a guy keeps edit warring to claim that the conflict falls under Cold War and Egypt won the war, none is supported by any source or any internet website. He asks for a source to prove his original research to be wrong, which is not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.45.56.98 ( talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry ( talk) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The definition of a warship is under dispute at that article. A user has tried to add a "legal" defintion of warship to the article, per this diff, which I've twice reverted. Besides being written in legalese, the definition is too wordy, and restricted in scope to the modern era. However, as the user points out, the entire warship article is unreferenced, and has been tagged as such since 2007!
Any contributions the discussion at Talk:Warship#Definition of a warship would be welcome. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, for those of you who have read Battle for the Falklands (Hastings and Jenkins) there is a dispute over interpretation of the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falklands_War&diff=669253797&oldid=669249321 Confirmation or rejection of the material as (in)accurate to the text would be appreciated. K. Bog 21:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the MfD deletion discussion of Portal:Royal_Air_Force/Did_you_know/Archive - Nabla ( talk) 14:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The infobox in American-led intervention in Syria has a dagger next to King Abdullah Al Saud, but he didn't die in action:
How should this be represented? Is there an abbreviation for dying of natural causes while a leader is in command? -- Aronzak ( talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have the feeling that it is a cross, which raises further issues.-- Catlemur ( talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the 77th Division (ex-Devon and Cornwall County Division) was doing between November 1941 and December 1942? I presume, like its Norfolk counterpart, it was retaining its County Division duties of being an anti-invasion formation manning coastal defenses etc, yet i have not been able to find anything that states this. A little help would be appreciated. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at Template talk:Rocket engines that may be of interest to this project -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 05:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. This is just to advertise two RfCs:
Input from editors here would be great. It gets boring sometimes to see all the same WP:ARBPIA people commenting (not that I have anything against them). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the correct description of these ships. Were they torpedo boats or destroyers? One source I have describes them as the former, whilst another states that they were formerly the French destroyers Pomona and Iphegenia respectively. Mjroots ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Does someone want to check Draft:Thomas William Fitzpatrick out? It needs a lot of cleanup! Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
this article defies assignment to category, although for now I've added it to biography. Any suggestions? auntieruth (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Gday. An new article stub has recently been created for the Battle of Al jurf which apparently took place in September 1955 during the Algerian revolution. I'm not an expert on this field but it seems to cover the same topic as an existing article - First battle of El Djorf. Can someone with some knowledge in this area pls have a look? If it is we will probably need to merge them. If so which is the correct name? etc... Anotherclown ( talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I have another blog post up about the difficulties of writing a big-picture FA. Feedback is always welcome! (or praise, because I can pass that on to my bosses ;-) ) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know why it doesn't go off if it's clicked after editing the page? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This link may be a bit off-topic, but likely interesting to member of this project.
(links to YouTube video)
A WP:BRD discussion is open on the topic of Crimean crisis, the discussion has been blanked before [4] so you may have to rollback a future blanking to participate -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 07:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen over the intro to the article. Feedback is requested at Talk:Western Desert Campaign#Request for opinions to break this deadlock. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
At the suggestion of The ed17, I'm bringing this matter to the experts here. A recent news article discusses how Armenian Wikipedians have discovered that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov may be a Soviet propaganda creation. The English Wikipedia article discusses him as a real person, but every single one of the cited sources is in Russian. I have no idea where to even begin looking into this, but I assume many of you do. Thanks. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a copy of a letter from Maj. Dewey Fournet to Maj. Keyhoe (both from the US military) that is listed as: CONFIDENTIAL: For Release to NICAP Officials Only. It's to a civilian organisation so it's not in the CIA online records, I appear to have access to something in hard copy that isn't digitised. Can I digitise it and use it as a reference from a reliable secondary source? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Our POTD for the 27th of July is the Bombing of Hamburg. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at Template:POTD/2015-07-27 and check the blurb for errors. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Crisco 1492: I went to take a look at the blurb, but it was gone, so I put a slightly rewritten version here just so I could say I did my part to help :)
Of particular note in this clip is the use of wartime news broadcasts such as this one as instruments of propaganda during World War II. As with most publications at the time, propaganda considerations resulted in an overall favorable slant towards the U.S. war effort.Video: United Newsreel
TomStar81, thanks for the addition. The reason I decided to pull the blurb was because the issues Nick pointed out permeate the article as well; to eliminate the POV problem, we'd need more than just a new blurb. That article would need some serious TLC, which I cannot provide with the limited Wikipedia time I have right now. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 04:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! The following disambiguation pages on this month's list of most-linked pages are relevant to this WikiProject. Any help in fixing incoming links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find a serial number for the F-16 involved in Tuesday's mid-air collision over South Carolina. Can you help? Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm interested in submitting military blogger C.J. Grisham to the DYK Wikiproject but was told it's too long and there may be some unreliable sources. Someone at the DYK Wikiproject suggested I try this project for help. I had to get a crash course on using wikicode to submit this to the AFC project and I'd appreciate if a regular editor could assist. Thanks. 72.74.202.74 ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Can you tell me what sources/external links to remove and which statements aren't NPOV? 72.74.202.74 ( talk) 01:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to write a "puff piece". I'm fairly new to editing and User:MeegsC said to ask here for help improving my article. I was more than willing to make changes but pointing me to policy pages (without specifics) doesn't tell me anything. The snide comments aren't necessary. 72.74.203.154 ( talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of articles listing fortifications, forts, castles etc, such as:
Some of these lists are quite confusing, and none of them can ever be complete or nearly complete. In my opinion, some improvements can be made, such as:
In addition, there are lists relating to fortifications in a specific country, such as:
I think it would be a good idea to have more of these country-specific lists.
Does anyone else have any suggestions/ideas on how to improve these lists? Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have either or both of the following in their personal libraries and, if so, are there any refs to awards of bronze stars to Norman Dike? All the cites I have on Dike's page ultimately trace back to him or to family members.
Thanks,
-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
" Russian Winter" the article about the effect of winter in Russia on warfare, is up for renaming, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
At Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Air_Force_1939-1945-_Coastal_Command_C4614.jpg , the photo is captioned of a 10 Sqn RCAF aircraft. Now to my knowledge the 10 Sqn that was flying Short Sunderlands was Royal Australian Air Force, not RCAF. Yet I've just found that there was a 10 Sqn RCAF flying land-based anti-submarine aircraft. Can our experts please check the service history of the named aircraft, EK573/P, and see if the IWM has made a mistake? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
FA Battle of the Alamo - There has been a contentious dialogue on the talk page for months. No consensus to make changes. There is now a Dispute resolution opened by an editor. Without waiting for any action, that editor has gone nuts making edits today. Can an admin step in on this, please and restore it to prior to today's edits? I believe this is edit warring. — Maile ( talk) 23:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Time to add an article for Xian H-X to be linked from People's Liberation Army Air Force? Lots of buzz about it lately.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/china-wants-to-develop-a-new-long-range-strategic-bomber/
Hcobb ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources for Babini Group 1940? I've gleaned a couple of onlines but nothing printed. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a controversial discussion currently taking place at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, and I was wondering whether we could get a third opinion since I don't believe that I am capable of remaining impartial since I'm already opinionated. The discussion is in regards to whether or not the Nanking Massacre was actually a massacre against the city residents of Nanking, or whether it was a justified military operation aimed at exterminating guerrilla soldiers pretending to be civilians. A particular editor doesn't like how Wikipedia describes the event as a "massacre", and intends on changing the article contents. You can also find context for the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Can Wikipedia's coverage of the Nanking Massacre be considered "unfairly bullying the Japanese people"? -- benlisquare T• C• E 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
ISIS have attacked an Egyptian Navy ship, but which ship is it? Mjroots ( talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There were shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, US today in which 4 US Marines and the shooter were killed. Any help from editors with experience in dealing with this type of incident article, or help in simply watching the article, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar
I assume you all are already aware of, though I just wanted to check, of the channel The Great War on Youtube, which has been covering the events of WWI 100 years ago in real-time. Real...delayed by 100 years time, but you get what I mean. It seems like it would be a useful resource. I don't know if the videos themselves would be considered reliable sources (I somewhat doubt it), but each video includes the specific book resources used for the episode and, at minimum, they seem like a good method of keeping the events and what should be covered in order.
At the very least, it might be a fun series for all you history buffs to follow. Silver seren C 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wikipedia has no article on the concept of a battlefield. Battlefield is a disambiguation page with links mostly to little known towns, songs, and video games. Battle is not a satisfactory substitute, since many battles do not take place in a "battlefield". I have created Draft:Battlefield as a place where a substantive (and, I anticipate, substantial) article can be written on the concept of the "battlefield" itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
From our style guide: "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning". Milhist has 3 21 FAs that are titled for operations, and my own poorly informed opinion is that those titles, and this one, work fine, but I realize there's another side to this argument and I want to see if there are objections. Brianboulton has selected this article for
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2015. - Dank (
push to talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Gday. For those that are interested there is a discussion at WP:AVIATION that potentially affects many articles that also fall under this project. Pls see:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_aircraft_of_X_Air_Force.2FMilitary_table_formats.2C_especially_as_related_to_images.
Anotherclown (
talk) 12:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Anybody with access to good refs on the subject who is up to taking on a tough question on which even historians and eyewitnesses seem to disagree, see Talk:Z flag. Herostratus ( talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Trying to keep up on assessment backlog. This article, Conflict Armament Research, defies our present task forces. auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky#Massacre_at_Batoh_section_added. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for M15 Halftrack; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) M15 Halftrack
I'm having a bit of a struggle with Keith-264 ( talk) over capitalization of plural proper nouns in Capture of Wurst Farm. He believes that usages like 175th, 176th and 177th Infantry Regiments should not have the word regiments capitalized. I've told him that he's wrong on his talk page, but he insists not, despite user:Diannaa's support there. Perhaps y'all can weigh in there on this weighty debate?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
... the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name.
Keith-264 ( talk) 20:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep playing nice, everyone. While I see Keith's point to an extent, I'm used to writing say " Nos. 1 and 2 Squadrons", which is a method used by several official Australian historians and has always been accepted in WP reviews right up to FAC, so I think I'm with Sturm and Lineagegeek here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're all right, depending on where you're writing. I would have written 175th, 179th, 180th Infantry Regiments, but I would write four battalions attacked the Confederate cavalry. The former are proper nouns, the latter are simply nouns. Four battalions of the 175th, 179th, and 180th Infantry Regiments attacked the First Cavalry (CSA). auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This user is creating many rank pages at their original language titles, not in accordance with WP:UE. His view has just lost a deletion debate from Starshiy to Senior lieutenant. I have just found that he has been banned from de:wiki seemingly due to repeated copyright violation. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Whereas the English Wikipedia's current article count is at
6,829,478, and
Whereas the contributors of the Military history Wikiproject, one of the largest and most active projects on Wikipedia, are frequently engaged in the creation and expansion Military related articles, and
Whereas our project and its members are held to lead the way in progress made on Wikipedia,
Resolved that I hereby due pledge one WikiChevrons, one WikiProject Barnstar, and a Barnstar related to the subject in question to the first Military history Project contributor who can prove that they have successfully created the first new Military history Project article at or over the five-millionth article added to this English Wikipedia.
— TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone have a look over the current state of List of military disasters?
A recent edit described as minor with edit summary of "Reduced detail. These entries are not from an "anti British" point of view, and it is defamatory to assert that. Most of the criticism cited is from official British reports and senior British officers etc. Britain is great but not always right" added 8,763 of characters. I've edited out what I think is coatracking of political points but appreciate a second opinion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
User talk:CourtCelts1988 is back. After a 24 hour block, s/he has just started editing on King's Shropshire Light Infantry. Hamish59 ( talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Battle of Midway 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Content_guide#War we are encouraged to include the "trigger, if notable". This has been raised previously at Archive_56#Trigger_or_pretext and Archive_129#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance, with limited discussion and no conclusion. The trigger is usually the most hotly disputed topic in all articles on wars, particularly modern wars, as both sides in the actual conflict will usually have blamed each other for "starting it". The WP:MILHIST content guide could help reduce unnecessary disputes by giving guidance on how to produce a neutral description of the trigger.
I propose amending the word "trigger" to "stated casus belli", and then explaining that if the stated casus belli is disputed (i.e. WP:RS include claims that it was just a pretext), best practice would include either a footnote or a section in the main body of the article setting out the different perspectives on the stated casus belli held by WP:RS. Best practice would also avoid stating in wikipedia's neutral voice that the conflict was started by one side or the other, unless WP:RS do not reference such disputes. Oncenawhile ( talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor added Template:POV-statement and Template:Verify credibility tags to the statement "In 1994, the United States Congress and Senate called for the arms embargo to be lifted, but by this time Clinton opposed it because of previous European opposition" in the Lift and strike (Bosnia) article back in December, but didn't explain the supposed neutrality and sourcing issue. Could someone take a look at the statement and the sources for me, to give an independent assessment of whether there is a problem with them? That would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make this wikiproject actively using A class article assessment aware of the discussion. I am aware of the no-consensus discussion from March. I am unsure if A-class is useful for Wikipedia or is just more busy work which is partly why I asked the question. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864). Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Benjamin F. Strickland II for possible POV issues. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This might be of interest to members of this project, and certainly looks like a worthwhile project from the AWM. Nick-D ( talk) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone with knowledge of the official naming conventions for Canadian units have a look at Talk:123rd Battalion (Royal Grenadiers), CEF and offer an opinion. This query is also the subject of an OTRS ticket that I'm looking at. Thanks. Nthep ( talk) 20:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Frank Tarr, 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. I found instances of close paraphrasing.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Which task forces are relevant to an article about a current unit of the Czech Republic Army? It seems to me that only some parts of Europe are covered by regional task forces and there is no era task force for the present (Post-Cold War?) period. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently the Wiki search page has been spoilt, by adding a migraine headache in the search box and a promiscuous drop down menu. I've tried to stop it by altering the settings in Preferences to no avail, can anyone help please. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If a source has no ISBN etc is there a convention for noting that in a reference? I've tried adding "no OCLC/ISBN" under others= but it doesn't show at the end. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! There's a question that has been bugging me regarding the naming and scope of military unit articles, which has come pretty clearly to light at Talk:15th Infantry Brigade (Greece). The unit in question began life as the 4th Brigade, became expanded into the 15th Division in 1940-41, was reformed after WW2, downgraded to brigade in the late 1990s, and recently reduced to a regiment. Properly, this article should be moved to 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), but there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment. My question to the MILHIST community is this: what takes precedence, the name (in which case we'll have a "15th Regiment" article incorporating two entirely different lineages) or the lineage of a unit (in which case we'd need two different "15th Regiment" articles)? In addition to this, would it make sense to create separate articles for the unit during its life, e.g. a different article for the 15th Division and for the 15th Brigade? Thanks in advance! Constantine ✍ 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with combining two completely unrelated units into the same article just because they shared a common name at some point. Take a look at 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) to see how many (nine) US Air Force units have had the name 1st Reconnaissance Squadron. In our hypothetical Turkish Division, and presuming there is no difference in notability between the two divisions, I believe the appropriate way most of the time is to make 15th Division (Turkey) a disambiguation page and title of two separate articles 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940) and 15th Division (Turkey 1990-). If, as in many cases, the one that's been around a long time is more notable then the pages would be 15th Division (Turkey) (disambiguation), 15th Division (Turkey) and 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940). That leads readers to the unit the unit they'e looking for, informs them that there's another similar unit and lets them choose which to read about. There's a lot of flexibility in disambiguation pages. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened on the title of the article Russian Winter, for the discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Code | Result | |
---|---|---|
{{ User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis}} | User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis | Usage |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • contribs)
Bauer, E. (2000) [1979]. Young, Peter, ed. The History of World War II (Orbis: London, revised ed.). New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 1-85605-552-3. CS1 maint: Extra text (link) Does anyone know why CS1 maint: Extra text (link) is showing on this reference in Operation Sonnenblume? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a css to the skin User:Keith-264/common.css to see hidden labels and it appeared. I've tried various changes but nothing has worked. It shows on Operation Compass for the same reference too. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
There is an ongoing RM. Comment there for consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on renaming categories related to Bahraini uprising of 2011. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on Ram Pyari Gurjar claims that she was a woman commander who fought against Timur. However, the only source cited in the article is The royal Gurjars by Nau Nihal Singh. The book seems less of a reliable scholarly work and more of an attempt at ethnic glorification of Gurjars. I cannot find any other sources -- Google just throws up Wikipedia mirrors or articles based on Wikipedia. I've tried searching with alternative transliterations. Singh claims that she fought alongside Jograj Singh Panwar -- I can find mentions of this guy in some reliable sources, but those sources describe his story as more of a local legend than history.
Being a female commander who fought against Timur is no mean achievement. So, it's surprising that there are not more sources that mention this. I am wondering if this is a real historical figure, a legend or a hoax. Any inputs are appreciated. utcursch | talk 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose:, A-class review Runaway Scrape was closed at my request on Dec 20, 2014, perhaps prematurely. I would like to re-open this review, with old comments on it. I can explain further on the template once it is re-opened. How do I re-open the review? — Maile ( talk) 12:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If an article about a military unit is sourced only from the official website or publications by the unit itself or its parent unit/corps/branch, is it actually notable? Imho it's the same as sourcing a business article from only the company's own website or that of it's corporate parent, thus it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. At the help page discussion of an AFC submission about a Czech Army unit - WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:39:28.2C 22 July 2015 review of submission by Catriona - there's a (possibly justified) suggestion that American units are not subjected to the same standard of independent sourcing as military units of other countries. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed a new article, Eagle Dustoff, created by an inexperienced user DustoffControl ( talk · contribs) (who probably has a WP:COI). Most of the article's sections need filling in, but I did my best to fix the categories based on my very limited knowledge of military issues. Just wanted to see if anyone was interested in rescuing the article, which may not have enough content/sourcing to survive otherwise. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Gday. Could any knowledgeable (probably Australian) editors pls have a look at my comment at John Whitelaw (1921–2010)? There may have been some confusion b/n him and the achievements of his father John Whitelaw (general). I have removed half a paragraph that looked incorrect (although I wonder if there is more). Of cse pls do not hesitate to trout me if I'm wrong but it didn't look right to me. Thank you in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding the use of foreign language articles in citations to substantiate statements /claims in EN wiki articles? It makes it extremely difficult to validate a citation - and thus the fact cited, if one cannot read the source text. Is this permitted? Farawayman ( talk) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
By a roundabout means (well, checking an image's licence) I came to Muhammad Musa (4th C-in-C Pakistan Army) whose image in the infobox doesn't look like it has a valid licence ("own work" - not buying that). Rated as start on our scale, it is also rated Good Article via the Hazara Project - I suspect an overzealous editor - so I will fix that but could anyone advise on the image? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice about HMCS Bonaventure at WT:SHIPS -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Am I correct to state Draft:Scott Haraburda is non-notable? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Does a Brigadier General generally pass notability? See Draft:Henry Williams Hise for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
User:NavalWarrior has made several adds here. Most, IMO, are badly written, in an unencyclopedic tone (editorializing or adding "notes"), or are wrong outright. I'm already at 3WW, not to mention tired of trying to fix it. Can somebody take care of this? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
[9] Does anyone know how I've managed to collect a ref tag warning on the gas shell table in the right margin? It beats me. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is the right community to address this issue. If not, please point me in the right direction.
I recently came across the template Template:Infobox Confederate State ACW and articles that use it such as Texas in the American Civil War, South Carolina in the American Civil War, Florida in the American Civil War etc. One of the pieces of information it has is "Return to union control" followed by a date. It appears that articles are listing this date as the date at which they began to again be represented in congress, not the date at which their armies surrender.
I'm not an historian, but this doesn't seem to make sense. Shouldn't "union control" be the date at which the union physically had control? I'd propose the template be modified to say something like "Representation within the union returned" Jbeyerl ( talk) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The article List of wars involving the United Kingdom could IMO, do with some TLC. While military history is not my forte, this article seems crude (and often factually wrong). I've done some basic fixing in the last few days, but more is needed. Among the 'clangers' was listing Ulster Defence Force and 'B specials' as Nationalist groups in N. Ireland in relation to 'the Troubles'.(fixed), and listing Bosnian War as a UK victory (??? how a peace-keeping force could even achieve a victory, was not explained). Editors with more experience than I in rendering military history will have a better eye. Please 'ping' if my attention is required (or even to tell me I'm wrong). Pincrete ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey y'all--do you have an opinion on edits like this one? As far as I'm concerned this is needless formatting which only makes things more difficult to edit later. FDRMRZUSA (hereby pinged) has made a couple more of such edits. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two issues with File:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg, an image used in an article that's currently listed at WP:DYK. Firstly, the file description claimed that the frigate in the background was a Leander-class vessel; it rather obviously isn't (an ex-RN sailor contacted OTRS to point out that error and suggested it was a Whitby-class ship; a comment on the file page itself suggested it's a Rothesay-class ship; to me they loook virtually identical). Secondly, the source for the file given at the Commons seems incorrect, possibly due to a typo in the image number. I have commented on both issues at commons:File talk:Phantom FG1 892 Sqn on HMS Ark Royal (R09) 1972.jpg; input would be appreciated. Huon ( talk) 10:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This officer is the first female in the RAF to command an operational squadron (Foxhunting 12). Given 12's current flying, she is commanding a squadron that is in action; a battalion level unit. This I believe makes her eligible for an article under MILPEOPLE. She probably has other GNG coverage. Was I right to redlink her in the squadron page (never mind about the confusing fact that there are other articles for other Nikki Thomases who already exist?) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm in a content dispute of sorts here. There's an IP editor with what looks like a POV problem (& an issue with less than ideal English). I originally asked for clarification on the nature of the convoys (not believing minelayers were suited for deep-ocean escort). The tag was ignored & removed, the IP editor claiming Morison didn't say. When I read the linked Morison, I found mention of convoys to Trinidad (p386), which strongly suggest to me the Brazilians were limited to coastal convoys; that fits my previous understanding. (I have not read all of Morison, nor have I read Blair on the U-boat...) In response, the IP editor offered a completely different ref to minelayers (not in Brazilian service) & is now suggesting the mention of "minelayers" be changed to "escorts" or "warships", claiming Morison doesn't make it clear, & claiming some other source says different. I am frankly getting tired of arguing with him, & it's getting frustrating. Will somebody take a look & weigh in? Preferably somebody who's read Blair & Morison--better still, somebody who has them both at hand? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, you'll probably know me better under my volunteer username, The ed17. There's a new blog post from Nick-D up at the Wikimedia blog: " The Hunt for Tirpitz." We've had a good amount of military history posts recently, and I'd be happy to run more—if you have an idea, message me! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI I've started a discussion on the talk page of this article about concerns I have regarding recent changes to it, pls see Talk:Bougainville Civil War#Problems with current state of this article. My knowledge of the subject is limited so I'm requesting others have a look and see if my concerns are valid or not. In particular I have an issue with the poor quality of the sourcing (most of the article has been re-writing without any references, or using You Tube references) and possible breech of NPOV (it rather prominently relies on an article in the Green Left Weekly without, in my opinion, providing adequate balance to that material for instance). Anotherclown ( talk) 06:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We currently have Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects which contains subcategories for "cancelled" projects by country (e.g. Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States) but also includes subcategories for "abandoned" projects (e.g. Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom). The difference, according to the main category, is whether ("cancelled") or not ("abandoned") the projects reached the flight-test stage of development. However, they're currently all categorized together, and there is no Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects. Is it necessary to differentiate between these two definitions?
Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this site ( list of 70 usages) considered a reliable source for historical and WW-related topics? Don't have a specific case in mind, just wondering about a general evaluation of its use for encyclopedic articles. Found the author info here, so the author obviously is very knowledgeable, but can he be considered as reliable expert? GermanJoe ( talk) 07:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a matter concerning the Type 054A article on WT:SHIPS. - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
An RM that affects this project (the war films task force) is currently taking place. Interested editors may wish to discuss here. Chase ( talk | contributions) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Le Cateau: does anyone have a print copy of Zuber, Terence (2011). The Mons Myth. Stroud, Gloucestershire: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-7628-5? TiltuM added some details from Zuber but he only has the e version, which doesn't have page numbers. If anyone can fill them in we'd be grateful. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I just completed writing an article about WWII Major General Walter E. Lauer and thought I'd post a little announcement over here in the project. I see we have lists and lists and lists of articles that need writing. How about a list of new articles or articles that have been recently improved? There's nothing like recognizing success and progress to encourage additional contributions. — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 23:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have found some good sources on the historical and political aspects, but the sections on the military preparation and operation are very weak and only sourced to a couple of websites. Any help from the wizards who lurk here would be great. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hermann Fegelein; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions, but as k+ sections are being added without any attempt at sourcing, this needs to be looked at. Does anyone have time to go through their recent additions and maybe source, possibly rollback them?
Several editors have warned them already, for a few different articles, but there's no engagement. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Can anybody help with an enquiry over on the Humanities Reference Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tampico_Affair.3F please? Alansplodge ( talk) 12:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Omar Bradley about how to correctly reflect General of the Army Bradley's years of service, the options being 1915–1981 (commissioning to death) and 1915–1951 (commissioning to retirement from active service). On 11 August, I reverted a change from the former to the latter. Two others disagree and believe the latter should be used. Inside the infobox there is a notation to use the longer period because Bradley was on active duty until death. Comments welcome at Talk:Omar Bradley#Years of Service.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy? We need a page reference for "...there is considerable justice in Matthew Cooper's assertion that the panzer divisions were not given the kind of strategic mission that was to characterize authentic armoured blitzkrieg, and were almost always closely subordinated to the various mass infantry armies." for the Blitzkrieg article please. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Would a few editors chime in at [ [10]], could use assistance to improve the general article and notability concerns. Hell in a Bucket ( talk)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav monitor Drava; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an RAF squadrons expert but this article is in dire shape. Considering we're the en:wiki, these sort of articles should be our bread and butter. Could I kindly request our RAF experts to take a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This story might be worth keeping an eye on. Could be an article if it is confirmed to ave been found. Mjroots ( talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Is a military exercise such as Operation Bold Quest (which is put on multiple times each year by the U.S. and about a dozen partner nations) worthy of a Wikipedia page? If so, what would be the best way of going about submitting it? I know how to create a page, but being a commander in the JCS chairman's office, I'm worried I might run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
Morgan Murphy 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganMurphy14 ( talk • contribs)
Oh how I loathe this article, although not due to the subject. I request a third opinion, before I get myself banned for breaching the 3 revert rule. An editor's claims to be cleaning the article up is in fact code for removing everything they do not agree with despite the fact that - even in this poorly sourced article - sourced information contradicts them. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I notice we have a number of articles that draw heavily on
Herbert Werner's book “Iron Coffins” as a source and I'm wondering how good an idea this is: How reliable is it as a source?
I know its veracity has been questioned (Clay Blair lists it in the bibliography to Hitler's U-boat War, but is careful to say in the text “Werner claims...” or “Werner implies..” and in at least one place says Werner's “assertion... cannot be substantiated from German records” (vol I, p313)
I've just re-arranged his biography article, for the reasons given
on the talk page and in the
(new) book section, but I'm wondering what to do about the other articles (
U-557, for example, and
U-230,
U-415 etc). Any thoughts?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an article entitled Battle of Timbuktu and another one Second Battle of Timbuktu. The second article's initial section appears to be a repetition of the first article, followed by a second section on a second phase or battle a few days later. It would appear that they should be merged as one article under the former title or the second article should make clear that it refers to the second battle/phase. I don't know how these events are regarded in that repect, or indeed if either or both are termed the "Battle of Timbuktu". Views?
They could both do with a bit of copy editing too. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Trinity (nuclear test) article was changed by an IP who insists that since the article is in American English, the term "fortnight" cannot be used. Is this correct? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding commodores this time. Do they equal "1-star" generals and thus are usually considered notable? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_131#Notability_question and Draft:Edward Gabriel Andrè Barrett. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't cover the death of millions of POWs during WWII. A disaster. Xx236 ( talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Had noticed that quite a few links to this Navy ship do not work anymore. Is it possible to edit them with new links for information relating to the info of the ship? JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't consider blogs to be reliable sources. No mystery there. Several pages about the members of E Co, 2d Bn, 506th PIR link to shadow boxes displaying awards and other emblems associated with the subject of the page. One example is Speirs' shadowbox pertaining to Ronald Speirs. Is an unedited shadowbox any better than a blog?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled onto this by accident today while researching John Madison Hoskins, a flag officer who for some reason doesn't seem to have an article about him, but does have a movie: The Eternal Sea. So I checked the Wead article and there's a very enthusiastic and well-intentioned editor User:SteveMiamiBeach who's making a proper mess out of it. I'm so boggled by the insanely unencyclopedic approach to the subject, it's probably best that somebody else break the bad news to this guy and get the pagespace back under some semblance of control. Would somebody biographically inclined give this a look? I'm not kidding, it's a wasteland over there. BusterD ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
All comments would be appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I did a foolish thing and watched an old movie ( The Eternal Sea starring Sterling Hayden), and predictably, I got curious about the protagonist. The film reminds me much of John Wayne's The Wings of Eagles (but much more accurate, based on found sources). The fellow Hayden low keys didn't have an article about him and so I created one: John Hoskins (officer). There are not as many sources as I'd like, though there are some good ones already attached (including a Life Magazine cover story). What I'm looking for is an article or book relating Hoskins' enthusiasm for jet aircraft in carrier flight operations. The movie, produced and released while Hoskins was still a serving RADM, seems to indicate that Hoskins advocated reinforced decks and stronger catapults on carriers being built while WWII was ongoing, sensing the need for jet takeoffs and landings; in addition, the film indicates that Hoskins himself (peg-leg and all) flew takeoffs and landings along with an air group to validate the premise that carriers would be able to handle jet aircraft cycling through operations. Anybody know where I should be looking? What I've got right now dovetails with the premises of the film, and while I'm not using the movie as an RS, I suspect there's some truth to be found. Ideas? BusterD ( talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've not tagged the 2015 Arras attack article for this WP, as the link is rather tenuous. Will leave it to this project to decide whether or not it comes under your remit. Reports are that US Marines disarmed the attacker. Mjroots ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Antoni Koper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the length of the Battle of Buna–Gona article, and a request for opinions about splitting the article. I've offered my opinion, but I think it would be best if a few others could chime in as this is not an easy decision and there may be better ways of doing it that what I'm suggesting, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal at WP:AFC/C about creating a new category for members of WPMILHIST called Category:WikiProject Military history Members -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just came from copy editing [11] and especially removing some 'promotional' text [12] from Battle of Britain Bunker. The page could use some attention from editors with some knowledge in this area. The page also has only one real footnote, though it has several potential sources in "Further reading". My first, edit re. "15 September 1940", is of concern as I am unsure what the original writer meant, regards, 220 of Borg 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 22 on the deletion of an article on a general officer. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for a somewhat off topic comment as I know this is beyond our control, but this is page is still appearing on Google over 6 days after it was deleted. Even further off, another Jeffrey Sinclair was the first station Commander on Babylon 5. :-/ 220 of Borg 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for August Meyszner; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)