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. |
This article discussing attitudes to military history in US universities is really quite interesting. The quote by the military historian who suggests that her peers tend to under-estimate the sophistication of their audience is certainly a good thought-starter! Nick-D ( talk) 09:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues, some guidance I believe is required here which appears to potentially affect several articles. Briefly, a small edit war appears to have broken out regarding the infobox summary regarding Romanian contribution in article Siege of Budapest. An IP using pretty foul language appears to have added Soviet Romanian victory to said infobox. I reverted said IP and left a note on IP talkpage strongly advising that he/she begin dialogue. Now I notice Battle of Debrecen also states Soviet Romanian victory. Contrast this to First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive which merely states Axis victory in it's infobox. There may be other articles which this effects. Now I am not so sure as to my original revert. The usage of Axis or Soviet Romanian appears somewhat haphazard. Thoughts? Cheers, Irondome ( talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a new editor— Rowanis12 ( talk · contribs) which corresponds to 109.152.253.188 ( talk · contribs)—making widespread edits to the infoboxes of various battles. Many or most of these edits are just made up numbers. Sometimes the editor/IP merely tweaks the infobox to add "Decisive" to the victory. Either way it's a problem to be aware of.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been following an IP, 76.88.98.65 ( talk), who's fond of adding Category:Military equipment by war categories to various weapon articles. When those categories don't exist, they use categories for wars themselves, or for units or forces. For example, this diff of Lebel Model 1886 rifle. I'm not a member of this WikiProject and have no idea whether this fits with your project guidelines. Would someone here mind reviewing these edits? They go back several months. Ibadibam ( talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that the new title would be better suited for the page. The words are more concise that way. Etimena 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_19#First_Serbian_Volunteer_Division we are trying to work out whether the First Serbian Volunteer Division would be doing anything in Czechoslovakia as was. Your expertise would be appreciated there. Si Trew ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Can the Coordinators start a backlog reduction drive for the Chronoligal List of Wars articles? They may be fairly important, they are however a complete mess. What needs to be done? References, adding new conflicts, fact checking (dates, flags and combatants) and finally assessment. The articles in question are:
-- Catlemur ( talk) 18:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of the Hongorai River ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey all,
Can anyone help to complete the A-Class review for the 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division article? The division had it's real baptism of fire on the Somme attempting to take Mametz Wood on 7 July, and after various setbacks and changes cleared the area. On the Somme for only six days, it suffered around 4,000 casualties. My intent is for the article to get through the A-Class review, push through FA, and try to get on the front page for the division's 100th anniversary of the assault on Mametz. Please see here for the review page. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
See Pasechnik Artyom Spiridonovich and [2]. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Please can someone with access to UK databases help me confirm/ source the service record of Cyril Hills, who boxed as Darkie Ellis? I have:
from an unreliable source (an online forum). Another anecdote has him driving an army lorry to abandoned German PoW camps to tend to the released prisoners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The FAC nominator for this one left Wikipedia many years ago. Eyeballs on the article would be welcome. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
World War I casualties Request the admins take a look at the talk page @ David Fromkin , A Peace to End All Peace, things appear to be getting out of hand. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while searching the interweb so moved it to the title in the Record of Battles and Engagements (1924/1990), then found that the empty page for it was titled Capture of Gommecourt, so I'd moved it to the wrong place. When I tried to move the Capture.... page it wouldn't move and an admin referral was suggested. Could an administrator untangle them so that this article goes where it belongs (Capture of Gommecourt) and that page is renamed Attack on the Gommecourt Salient? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Military history is not my area so I thought I'd flag this here for others to determine the 'truth' of this situation. I came across some edits of a new user RommelTurk changing figures and removing content in Indian/Pakistan conflicts in what appeared dubious. In each case changing so Pakistan do better and India worse (Note that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has also reverted an edit). The user has come to my talk page here stating that the update come from a "Pakistani Military History book" and they are removing "Indian Propaganda". As I said I really don't know enough to judge apart from seeing claims of propaganda in both directions. Hopefully someone with knowledge of this topic will be able to either assist RommelTurk in fixing 'propaganda' or reverting depending on what reliable sources say. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Falklands War#RFC:Inclusion of material related to Norwegian listening station
Input welcome. W C M email 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Are there any standard templates for this project that I can use to invite people to join the project? – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Over at WP:EAR, a descendent of Lesley J. McNair has made a rather impassioned complaint about the content of the article on this WWII US Army general. While that in itself isn't so unusual, I did take a look at the article itself and think the criticism of McNair could probably use a little balancing. In particular, the relative complained that a specific published biography on McNair, General Lesley J. McNair: Unsung Architect of the U. S. Army is listed in the Further reading, but wasn't used anywhere in the article itself. If someone knowledgable on WWII would take a look at this, I think it would helpful. Thanks! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 17:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Many articles about battles don't have proper category sort keys or defaultsorts, which means that they're sorted under "B" on category pages instead of, say, the Battle of Ab Darrah Pass being sorted under "A". This bot request proposes that a bot add defaultsorts to articles with titles that look like "Battle of X" so that this issue is fixed. I've already written some code; I already make sure that false positives like the Battle of 33rd Street don't have erroneous information added. Would anyone object to the approval of this bot? APerson ( talk!) 17:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I posted this on the DISC Talk Page with no responses; so I am placing it here to gauge opposition (and hopefully positivity!)
Since 1 January 2015, DISC has been JITG (Joint Intelligence Training Group). I propose to rename this article and fix all redirects. Any opposition? The joy of all things ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in creating the Defence School of Photography article which links back to JITG. Best wishes. The joy of all things ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I've made quite a number of updates to the Elyesa Bazna (WWII spy) article and it would be great to have some feedback about the article now. I've also reviewed and made comments to items on the talk page. If someone has the time, that would be great. I would be happy to return the favor if I can.
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi-i am new to Wikipedia and am grateful for your guidance. Below is a message I received in response to my re submission of my draft.
I am not sure i am writing this on the correct page so please forgive me if this lands up in the wrong place but remain hopeful that you can help me.
History 1 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi History 1, I strongly recommend that you take advice from the topic speciatists at the Military history WikiProject. The experienced editors there will be able to assist you to get the draft into shape. It is indeed well sourced, my principal concern is the tone, it "praises" the subject a bit too much. On Wikipedia we try to write as neutrally as possible about all subjects, using the same "dry" neutrally descriptive language in Usama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, George Washington, Mao Zhedong, Winston Churchill or Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm not a specialist as military biography so the WikiProject is the best place to get the help you need. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
History 1 (talk · contribs) Draft:Gene Arden Vance Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thank you for your guidance as this is my first submission. I have used independent, reliable, published sources to obtain the facts. Please could you show me an example of particular sentences or passages in my submission and how it might be rewritten so that i can use those examples in editing my draft. I would very much appreciate additional guidance. Thank you for your help. Request on 13:23:00, 27 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by History 1[edit]
Respectfully with much gratitude -History1
History 1 ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance and examples-this is most helpful as the bulk of the source material is taken from journalists published news reports. I shall make the appropriate revisions and welcome further examples-respectfully -History1 History 1 ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is currently up at FAC, and is tagged as a Milhist article. I'm skeptical (sceptical?). There's no military related content except for the last section, which reads (in full): "Verge was commissioned as a captain in the Australian Army Medical Corps on 2 October 1914, and was attached to the 6th Light Horse Regiment as its medical officer. His regiment embarked on HMAT A29 Suevic on 21 December, reaching Egypt on 1 February 1915, and was then deployed to Gallipoli, attached to the 1st Australian Division, landing on 20 May. He contracted dysentery several months later and was evacuated to No. 17 British General Hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. He died on 8 September 1915, and was buried at the Chatby War Memorial Cemetery (Row Q, Grave No. 523) in Alexandria." - Dank ( push to talk) 15:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, while working on " Defense of the Adzhimushkay quarry" I noticed the redlinked category:Subterranean warfare. It made sense to me and I started fleshing it out. In particular, I started the "catmain" article, Subterranean warfare. Being a mil-ignoramus, suddenly I found out that we already have a great-big " Tunnel warfare" page, with category and all. My first thought was to suggest merging of both pairs, the categories and the articles. On the second thought, historically "tunnel warfare" was mostly about mining and penetration, not warfare per se. In other words, "tunnels" are kind of engineering structures, opposite to " fortifications". Hence my question: shall we split the subject of subterranean warfare similarly to the split fortification/ defense? And since we are already here, please notice that there is no such article defense (military), neither the subject is covered in the redirect's target. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course "subterranean warfare" looks like neologism to me, but at the same time it is more generic, parallel to " submarine warfare"... er... rather " Underwater warfare", but " underground warfare" sounds a bit ambiguous. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, we've been slipping the final edit and despatch of the monthly Bugle to later and later in the month recently, so for instance this month we'd be producing the Bugle at the end of May when it's going to feature April events/articles/awards, i.e. about a month old. Nick and I therefore thought we'd get things back on track by producing a May-June double issue, covering activity from April-May, to be despatched no later than the first week of June, and then go back to one month per issue and aim to get it out early the following month, so the activity we're featuring will be fresher. Doing the double issue means we don't miss out on anything but we also don't end up producing two issues in the space of a week or so (i.e. in the next couple of days for April stuff and then again in early June for May stuff). Hope that makes sense and will be okay with everyone... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: to clarify then, should I add both May and June to the WWI timeline for this edition? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Referring to this edit, the first source seems to say the opposite, although it wasn't such a clear-cut conclusion. What should the infobox state? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thgere is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as few have yet done so and a good many military aircraft lists are affected by it. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In this article on a deceased member of Special Operations Executive, I'm wrestling with what appears to be conflicting information as to whether this person was awarded an MBE. The Special Forces Role of Honor states that he was, and I found this link at the National Archives website in London. However, I note that books on the subject do not mention his being awarded an MBE. Nor can I find a reference to him being awarded an MBE in the Gazette for the date stated. The question is whether the Archives link is dispositive? Coretheapple ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Tsimba Ridge; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles about particular fighters or formations mention HVAR rockets but make it a piped link to Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket instead of that one. Knowing little of the topic, I must ask, is this correct in all cases? Some? None? Jim.henderson ( talk) 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I hopes someone has the competence to check the links, unlink the doubtful, and link correctly where the correct weapon is known. Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:25, 5 June 2016 (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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
From the few sources I've looked at, this guy is amazing. OffbeatOregon.com said about him, McAdams is a legend in the Newport area, and probably the most famous Coast Guard enlisted man ever. He started his career as in 1950, and by the time he retired in 1977 he’d participated in some 5,000 rescues and saved at least 100 people from drowning. He’d survived nine rolls — in which his motor lifeboat was fully capsized by the surf and he had to hold his breath and wait for it to roll back upright.
For being one of the most famous enlisted men in the Cosst Guard, the bio is almost shamefully small. Can someone take a look? And how does one look up and reference service personnel's decorations? Thanks. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
United States Department of Veterans Affairs § Benefits could use expansion, now that largely irrelevant content has been removed. See Talk page there, § "Subsidiary agency" for benefits is local private organization.
(Also posted to WikiProject United States.)
-- Thnidu ( talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate feedback on the note I left on the Talk page of the divisional article, comparing the two articles:
It appears to me that Wikipedia has two articles on the same unit, under different names. If this is indeed the case, I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this situation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC concerning inclusion of a sentence at Battle of Ia Drang. See Talk:Battle of Ia Drang#RfC: Significance of the air action compared to the ground action. 05:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, an article which is in this project's scope. The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything in the MOS recommending how we refer to the world wars? I always understood that we use World War I and World War II, rather than First World War and Second World War but I can't find anything in the MOS to support this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Britain but the recent literature I use for Australian-military-themed articles seems to use World War II (or Two) as much or more than Second World War. Since that suggests either term is fine, I use WWII because I think it's more common (used in the US as well for instance) and because I think it flows better when you say it (one less syllable!), so I also use WWI for consistency. I wouldn't change the terminology in any well-established article from 2WW to WWII or the other way round because I don't think there's a 'right' answer and I'll respect the main editor's preference. The main thing I think is to be consistent within the article. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate on Raynald's death on the Talk page here. An IP wants to present Ernoul's report of Raynald's death, but he/she has been unable to prove that Ernoul's report has been accepted by specialists. Actually, I am not sure that he/she presents Ernoul's report properly, because he/she made statements during the debate which proved to be wrong. For instance, he wrote that William of Tyre also recorded Raynald's death. I would really be grateful if members of this project could verify his/her claims, because I would like to improve the article, but I do not want to emphasize a POV which is ignored by most specialists. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 21:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka is making false allegations that I haven't been able to verify that Ernoul's report is not accepted by specialists. I cited two sources for it yet ye he keeps making one excuse or another instead of reading the sources. In addition also notice that he himself hasn't presented any proof about views of specialists concerning the other version of Raynald's death where he is offered to convert, yet he claims there is a "scholarly consensus" without any proof. This is completely WP:Original research and double standards on his part. In addition, please notice that I mistook from the Edbury source that William of Tyre had mentioned Raynald's death, after I realised it I removed it because it was Ernoul's work not William's. This is another example of Borsoka extending the issue needlessly when it doesn't exist just in order to enforce his POV about which version should remain in the article. Also note that he had deliberately removed Ernoul's version alomg with all the sources I added in this . 117.241.118.76 ( talk) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm translating a page from wiki.de, but I'm having real trouble finding a good English translation for the position of "Sammeloffizier" and I was wondering if any of you knew what that would properly be in English. Thank you. Red Fiona ( talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|b1=
and |b2=
is marked as yes and all of |b3=
, |b4=
, and |b5=
are marked as yes. When that occurs, {{
WikiProject Military history}} automatically shows a C rating, even if |class=
is set to something other than C. This may or may not be a problem in the eyes of the project, but either way, I could create a tracking category of all articles that are assessed as C-class via those criteria but are labeled "Start" or "Stub" in |class=
. Let me know if that category would be useful. ~
Rob
Talk 02:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on this TFA text. It would be nice to include something about Patton's reputation being largely rehabilitated by his later success as a commander, but this one is already longer than most. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The FAC nominator, Ed!, just said on his talk page that he'd like to remove all the following text from the TFA: "On 3 August 1943, during the Sicily Campaign of World War II, Patton struck, kicked and berated a soldier he found at an evacuation hospital with no apparent injuries, for being "gutless"; in fact, the soldier had malaria with a temperature of 102.2 °F (39.0 °C). Patton struck another soldier complaining of "nerves" at another hospital seven days later and threatened him with a pistol for being a "whimpering coward"; in fact, the soldier had been begging to rejoin his unit. Both soldiers suffered from what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder." I disagree, because this article is specifically about the slapping incidents, and because some of the mythology about the incidents (then and now) is different from what actually happened. But the man was much more than these two incidents, of course ... Patton is also a Featured Article, and if you guys like, we could nominate that at WP:TFAR to show Main Page readers the bigger picture. I'm trying to be neutral here. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a RfC concerning the ARVN's involvement in the Battle of Ia Drang. Please comment at Talk:Battle of Ia Drang#RfC (renew): ARVN Involvement. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Any Milhisters going to this year's Wikimania? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Thankful Villages, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 page has been through a series of edits in May that seem questionable to me. It's outside my limited area of expertise. Someone who understands the subject may want to take a look.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I have moved the History of aviation in New Zealand article from user space into article space on behalf of its author Huttoldboys. It is partly within this project's scope, but it isn't really a topic I'm familiar with, so if anyone here is keen to help improve the article further I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As you may have noticed there is some sort of tumult surrounding WWI due to the upcoming release of Battlefield 1 and rise of the The Great War Youtube channel. Perhaps we should exploit this fact by recruiting among those two interconnected communities. Games like Eve Online have already directly rewarded community input into scientific research.-- Catlemur ( talk) 19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've forgotten who I asked for help or where. I discovered this article was a red link a few weeks ago and asked what should be done. I thought I had access to some really good resources and then, when I had the chance, I just forgot. I worked with what I could find and got my draft into good enough shape to move to article space, or at least I believe I did. The sources may not be the best but they're what I had access to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please someone take care of this article, Military globalization. It is nicely written, but it looks like it is an original essay. I started chopping off unreferenced pieces, but soon I started suspecting that the whole thing is one big WP:SYNTH. Even the definition is unreferenced. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there any restrictions on withdrawing an article for A-Class re iew, and nominating it for FA instead? Usually,i would not be fussed by the A Class review process, but I was aiming to give the 38th Div article a shot at the front page for its 100th anniversary on the Somme. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Napoleon, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightblueowl ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2016
I'm working on this particular article (as well as Hikari Naval Arsenal), but even Japanese WP has very little on them, as they weren't in operation as long as say, Kure. There's material from the US Navy from after the Japanese surrender, but I don't know how to get access to material like that, as it appears to be on microfilm at the NDL. Any ideas on other possible sources for material? MSJapan ( talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This request posted at WP:RX in March has has had no response there, perhaps someone here has access to the paywalled site.
Need the complete (paywalled) version of this article preview. Needed to improve Valour-class frigate and possbly also South African Navy. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Buckshot06:. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Bengal Regiment into Bengal Native Infantry for the following reasons and I would appreciate your comments here:
I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus for Merger - Merger has been performed, no content copied to Bengal Native Infantry - Bengal Regiment now a redirect page. Exemplo347 ( talk) 22:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are people changing links like this {{main|Zaian War}} to {{Main article|Zaian War}}? Keith-264 ( talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This article needs a revision, because the details it quotes appear to be apocyrphal, looks like an attempt to find more contemporary sources was made back in 2014 (see the articles talk page), but it didn't result in a overhaul of the text to clarify what acually appears to have happened. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Oyneg Shabbos#Requested move 20 June 2016 concerning a proposal to move the article Oyneg Shabbos, about the group that chronicled life in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II and the archive they accumulated, to a new title. Please provide us with the benefit of your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm requesting help at this article. It's been the target of edit warring in the recent past and the main participants seem incapable of requesting input on their own. I'm on the verge of handing out blocks to editors that may, in the long run, prove useful to the project. I'd rather not have to do that. Also, if my intervention is harming rather than helping, please advise. Thanks Tide rolls 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this belongs here but various drafts hidden away inside other WikiProjects show up in Category:Project-Class military history articles rather than say Drafts. For example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of armed forces and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the American Indian Wars which I think are better considered a draft than projects for all the various groups. There is a RM to move that to Draft:Outline of armed forces which I think will resolve this without bothering the actual template. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Per this official announcement from the White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/21/president-obama-award-medal-honor Charles Kettles will be awarded the Medal of Honor on July 18, 2016. MoH winners are presumed notable, so passing the word along. Charles Kettles appears to be red linked at this time. Safiel ( talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive2 needs a source review for formatting and reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Image review already done. Thanks.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Honorary United States Marines, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a standard for how someone qualifies as a notable member of a military unit? A recent edit to 91st Division (United States) added Richard L. Nader, who won a bronze star while a PFC; Nader doesn't have a page and Googling him returned no recognizable results. I don't think it's a bogus entry; the text has the feel of having come from a citation. I'm not denigrating Nader's military service, but it wouldn't get him a page. Does it earn him a mention at all?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the talk page of this article which may be of interest to members of this project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a notification of Draft:John Patrick Brockley waiting for review - comment asking for someone with knowledge of area is notable or not. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I am working through astronaut articles, and would like some help implementing ribbon devices. Some articles, like Alan Shepard, have the box implemented effectively. Other astronauts, like Roger B. Chaffee, don't have the ribbon template at all.
I am not confident I can put the ribbons in the correct order (does the order matter?) and can't find any help topics on the matter.
Would anyone like to volunteer to work through the articles in the Adopt an Astronaut project and apply the ribbon device template correctly throughout?
If not, I'll settle for someone explaining to me how to properly do it myself, and I'll work through them as I have time. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 20:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We have an extremely thin fortification stub article called Bacule which is apparently a type of portcullis, although the description is very brief and not entirely clear and has been lifted almost verbatim from Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1728). I have tracked it down to Volume I, page 77 which says: "In Fortification, a Kind of Portcullis or Gate, made like a Pit-fall, with a Counter-Poise, and supported by two great Stakes: it is usually made before the Corps-de-Garde advancing near the Gates". Other than that, I can't find a single reference in English which supports this, and I am still a bit mystified about what it actually is. I suspect that it warrants a brief mention in either our Portcullis or Draw bridge articles and a redirect. I tried asking at the Language Reference Desk, who were able to confirm that bacule is a variant of bascule, French for " see-saw", but I'm still in the dark about what this thing is. Please help. Alansplodge ( talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose to replace the current Victoria Cross opening paragraph with the following. 'The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the United Kingdom honours system. It is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces. It was previously awarded to Commonwealth countries, most of which have established their own honours systems and no longer recommend British honours. It may be awarded to a person of any military rank in any service and to civilians under military command although no civilian has received the award since 1879. Since the first awards were personally presented by Queen Victoria in 1856, two thirds of all awards have been personally presented by the British monarch. These investitures are usually held at Buckingham Palace.' Unlike the US where the phrase 'highest military decoration' is appropriate, Britain and most Commonwealth countries have both military and civilian awards in one order of wear. Both British military and civilians are eligible to receive the VC and other gallantry awards and the GC and other bravery awards although the last civilian to receive the VC was in 1879 and the last British civilian to receive the GC was in 1976. So I have suggest for 'highest award' for the VC would be more helpful. I would welcome any comments at /info/en/?search=Talk:Victoria_Cross before I amend the article. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit to 79th Infantry Division (United States) updated campaigns to include Ardennes-Alsace per Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 Pg 137. I agree that the campaign is listed for the division, but it's within parentheses and I can't find an explanation for that. Can anyone help?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A merge has been proposed that would move material from Three-wheeled steam tank into Steam Wheel Tank. Discussion of this proposal appears at Talk:Steam Wheel Tank#Merge proposal. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The puppeteer Gordon Murray (he of Pippin Fort fame) died today. He served in the British Army during WWII, so the infobox could possibly be expanded to accommodate his military career. Referencing needs a little more polishing and the article needs assessment for MILHIST. Mjroots ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Asking here a question I posed at Talk:Battle of the Somme, but it may get more response here.
Now we are nearly at the halfway point of the centenary years of the First World War (August 1914/2014 to November 1918/2018), and the centenary of battles such as Verdun and Jutland have also been marked, how should the commemorations be covered in Wikipedia? Might a timeline article on the commemorations by battles or campaigns (rather than divided by nationality as at First World War centenary) be a good way to organise a rather diverse topic? Does anyone here have any advice on that? Is it best to have bits added to individual articles where needed, plus an overview article of some kind? Carcharoth ( talk) 07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The announcement of 2016 Pritzker Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing has been made. It is on PMML's website here: http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/pritzker-literature-award/hew-strachan-2016-pritzker-literature-award-winner/ and in numerous news articles on the web (including This article at the Washington Post). TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for popping up and asking about this again. I haven't been very active recently, so may have missed something. Is there any co-ordination being done on WWI topics, or disseminating news on what people are working on in relation to First World War topics?
Back in April, I found a couple of projects (such as this Wikipedian in Residence), and wondered if more were out there or if there is a list somewhere? Some searches throw up more results. Would there be interest in a directory of past and present pages relating to the topic? Editathons (e.g this one), MilHist Bugle articles (that will be a long list, an example) and so on? Or does such a directory or category already exist? Another example is this meetup which is related to this overview. Another example, were people here aware of Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK? It can be difficult to find these, as they don't tend to be all listed in one place, or categorised.
Ideally, such links would be gathered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial (not very active) or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force, but maybe a separate directory page attempting to keep track of everything would be a good way to start and to encourage exchange of ideas and approaches? Where would be the best place to start such a directory (I have started in my userspace here, but am happy to move this somewhere else or build on anything that already exists). Carcharoth ( talk) 07:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to put the finishing touches on the H2S (radar) article, but I have a funny feeling about the layout and I'm looking for advice...
1) Rotterdam happened almost immediately, but it is physically placed near the end. That's because it spans the entire rest of the war. Should I put that at the very end? What about the post-war developments? 2) Should post-war, which is really about Mk. IX, be its own two-equals section?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I've logged last month's entries, if we can start verifying with a view to completing that in the next few days so we can keep to our new schedule of despatching the Bugle in the first week or so of the new month, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone out there know if this is an actual machine, or if it even existed at all? The article got tagged as a copyright violation, but given the preponderance of the world of tanks information that comes up I have a hunch that this could be a hoax article. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Could some Milhisters take a look at this AfD of a Coast Guard Captain? There is a disagreement over whether his commands make him notable under WP:SOLDIER 5 & 6. Thanks. Gbawden ( talk) 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments would be highly appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 14:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I became aware of the article on this C15th privateer via WP:ANI. There is a comprehensive article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Could someone proficient in Spanish could expand the article from the Spanish article please? Mjroots ( talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noted the widespread use of the term "Soviets" or "Soviet" in Easten front articles referring to the Red Army. I would suggest this is no more acceptable than using the term "Nazis" or "Nazi" in all articles referring to the Wehrmacht. I propose this term be replaced by Red Army, VVS for Red Army airforce units and VMF For the Red Navy. I would suggest we create a redirect for the VMF as it presently goes to the article Soviet Navy which has already been tagged for weasel words. I suggest a rephrasing of all such terms where encountered. Soviet is a political-civilian-ideological term, as is Nazi, and I would suggest it has no place in military articles. I intend replacing the terms where I encounter them, as they are POV, And I would welcome comments on this, leading to a consensus. Many would be seriously pissed off if we referred to a Nazi army, airforce or navy, and I strongly believe the same NPOV logic should apply to the terminology of the Red Army, navy and airforce here. Cheers Irondome ( talk) 02:32, 5 July 2016 (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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the two tanks CTMS-1TB1 and MTLS-1G14 be part of the Marmon-Herrington CTLS, or be their own seperate articles? They may fail either notability or verifiability due to only having three credible sources that I could find. Thanks for your opinion, -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( need to talk?) 00:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the name, and perhaps scope, of the Qays and Yaman tribes article. The Qays and Yaman played a critical role during the Umayyad era and the factional feud was one of the chief factors of the Umayyad state's collapse. The feud persisted to varying degrees for centuries and had a resurgence in Ottoman Lebanon and Palestine, finally diminishing in the mid-19th century. For those interested, particularly from the Early Muslim history taskforce, your participation is welcome. Cheers -- Al Ameer ( talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Could someone provide with me the code neccesary to make one? Would like to put a similar one in the Rome wiki project. Thanks to all Iazyges ( talk) 01:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
https://kcl.academia.edu/RobertFoley some very interesting stuff here for free. Well done that bloke.... Keith-264 ( talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I need help making the template for my task force that's currently in incubation, so that I can put it on the talk page, and assess it. If anyone could help me I would be grateful.
Here's the current page if you would like to help. Iazyges ( talk) 01:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Template:WikiProject Roman military history
Thank you all this has been very helpful. Iazyges ( talk) 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1 needs some love so it can get on the main page for a centennial anniversary. Will anyone pitch in? It's only had a couple reviews in an entire month at FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have nav templates as well as individual articles for several classes of submarines where there are only a few subs in the class, and articles on the subs themselves are minimal. Is there any problem with full-merging the constituent subs in the classes into their respective class articles as follows:
or are we somehow bound by precedent to have to have separate articles? MSJapan ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A newcomer is working on Afghan Forest Digital Camouflage at his sandbox. Could someone who knows of such things please say if it is notable and if so, where to get the best sources? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently working on a small (I am the only active member as of now) task force within the military history WP, I would like to invite anyone interested in either Roman or Byzantine Military History, to work on the project with me. Here is the Link Incase you are interested, thank you. Iazyges ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
See my proposal at Template talk:Ruheroes. I could have just been WP:BOLD but thought I'd check with you lot first. Please comment there. Pam D 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
A newbie has created a bunch of tiny, unreferenced articles about Heroes of Soviet Union like Samad Abdullayev, then went inactive: [12]. Does anyone feel like fixing them? They are hovering around WP:TNT, INHO, through one survived AfD (because another editor did expand it with a ref). They are probably not hoaxes, but, sigh... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently consensus was reached in this discussion to restructure the Iraq War article into an broader article for the entire war from 2003 to the present and to move Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) to Iraq War (2003–11) so that page can serve as the article for the 2003–11 phase of the war.
There is much work that needs to be done. Not just the changes to these two articles agreed to in the discussion. But also all the pages that will be affected by these changes (such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi insurgency (2003–06), Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–07), Iraqi insurgency (2011–13), Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), Military intervention against ISIL, American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Syrian civil war, ect.). I am requesting assistance. Charles Essie ( talk) 15:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is a category at Category:United States military images and it states that Images taken or made by US military are Under United States copyright law, such images are public domain. I've just written this article here: Wilhelm Tranow, and on the off chance I searched Google images for a picture of the man, and came across a picture of him, here @: [ [13]]. Is that image copyright under US law? Its obviously a image take sometime before or during the second world war. It has obviously been taken from some archive, originally by TICOM who were US and British military searching the continent for military assets they could filch but these folk who are now selling it. What I'm fundamentally asking, is there a process which I can do through to get hold of this image? Can an argument be made that it is in the public domain? Thanks. scope_creep 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Lineagegeek: and I have behaved a bit badly and conducted a bit of a slow-motion edit war on the date categories attached to United States Air Force units and formations. Briefly, I want to, and have, been putting the estab/disestab dates in that match the years that the article subject unit - like Air Rescue Service was active, formed c. 1944 and disestablished 1966. I argue that doing that is the only way they will show up properly in the year/date categories. If one doesn't do this, the disestablishment date category doesn't work properly.
Lineagegeek's view is that when a unit is redesignated, eg. the Air Rescue Service became the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service in 1966, it has not been disestablished, only redesignated, so he removes the disestablishment date categories. You will see from the edit history of Air Rescue Service that that is what he's just done.
He argues that because the unit has a continuing history, under a different name, the disestablishment categories should not be added to the former names under which the unit has served. We need some third opinions here to make a decision, because we both think that we're right.
Lineagegeek, I've tried to put this as objectively and hopefully as fairly as possible, but please feel free to add your side of the story. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
[17] does this Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand Licence mean that the map is available to copy on Wikipedia? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I had a question about the creation of a possible redirect. According to User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Soviet Union, Dragon Returnees were Nazi scientists taken to Soviet Union after the World War Two. Is this another name for Operation Osoaviakhim or a completely separate operation? Thanks. 72.74.202.100 ( talk) 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have recently created this article - Siege of Arrah - and I have submitted a request for peer review here. I would appreciate feedback from the Military History Wikiproject (preferring this to feedback from unrelated history projects) so if you have time, please feel free to have a look. Thanks! Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I would welcome WW2 buff input for the above article in making it ship shape.
Otto Kittel, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.
-- CCCVCCCC ( talk) 05:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello all - Do we have a preferred set of naming conventions for individual regiments' articles, and also for defaultsorting them in categories? For instance, I am looking at Category:New York Civil War regiments and there are different naming conventions for like articles - In other words, should " 75th New York Volunteer Infantry" be "75th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment"? Or, should " 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment" be "74th New York Volunteer Infantry"? Also, things like the 7th whatever being sorted below the 70th whatever can cause confusion to users.
70th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 71st New York Infantry 72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 75th New York Volunteer Infantry 76th New York Volunteer Infantry 77th New York Volunteer Infantry 78th New York Volunteer Infantry 79th New York Volunteer Infantry 7th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment 7th New York Militia 7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 7th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry
If no specific thoughts on this, then I might try experimenting with the naming and sorting of the New York regiments to start with, and see if any solutions strike me. Any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) needs just a few more editors to complete its A-Class review. Please help review the article. Thanks in advance, Kges1901 ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this person? I found it classified as General George Patton, which seems strange to me, since he doesn't look anything like him, and he seems to be wearing a British/Commonwealth Brigadier insignia. He looks irritatingly familiar though ( Hohum @) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at countless pictures of Battens, Peytons etc.; British, Australian, New Zealander and Canadian brigadiers, officers in Palestine, and come up with diddly squat. ( Hohum @) 18:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice there are obvious military portraits of the victim (Tracie McBride) and the perpetrator (Louis Jones) of the Murder of Tracie McBride: Both of them were soldiers. What info needs to be gathered to confirm this so I can put the portraits on the Wikimedia Commons? WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would anybody here be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at History of the French Foreign Legion? It is mildly bizarre in that it is referred to in French Foreign Legion as the main article on history of the unit but frequently lacks the detail that that article has. These issues were noted by Ian Rosein 2010 but there seems to have been no improvement. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, Rogožarski IK-3 is a Yugoslav aircraft article that has been in the GA queue since December last year. Any aircraft aficionados who would like to have a look would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele Does anyone object to me altering the title of the campaignbox to The Flanders Offensive 1917 so that the contents can be labelled The Battle of Messines and The Battles of Ypres (with or without ", 1917")? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead sentence for the USS Gerald R. Ford article currently uses PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) as the bold title for the article. "PCU" refers to a "pre-commissioning unit" but is not part of the name of the vessel, which is currently Gerald R. Ford and will be USS Gerald R. Ford upon commissioning. The Naval History and Heritage Command clearly explains the use of prefixes in U.S. Navy vessel names over the past several decades:
The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.
Thus "PCU" Is not an actual part of the vessel's name. I cannot find a single reliable source to suggest that "PCU" should be included in the ship's name. The Navy itself uses "pre-commissioning unit" as a descriptor, rather than as part of the ship title. It's not even consistently capitalized when the Navy uses it:
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (NNS) -- Sixty new crew members checked aboard pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), April 30, joining the first of the newest class of aircraft carrier.
And the subject of the article on the Gerald R. Ford is the vessel which will be known as USS Gerald R. Ford. There are a number of other pages I've worked on which use this convention without issue (see USS Manchester and the other not-yet-commissioned littoral combat ships for examples). The Manchester article currently uses future tense phrasing to line up the bolded article title with the current vessel status:
USS Manchester (LCS-14) will be an Independence-class littoral combat ship [...]
Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the title of the article (which is "USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)" should be used and bolded. Thus, the bolded title should be either USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the page title) or Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the vessel's current name), and the use of "PCU" in the bold ship title is inappropriate.
However, I was reverted when I removed "PCU", and told to seek consensus here. I'm certainly against adding "PCU" to the bold title on other pages where it's not already added, and I don't see why it should be included in the bolded title for the Gerald R. Ford page when doing so violates MOS:BOLDTITLE. If people insist on keeping the description of the ship as a pre-commissioning unit, then the lead-in could be phrased as:
The pre-commissioning unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is [...]
I would accept this as a matter of lead paragraph phrasing, since it does not violate MOS:BOLDTITLE or falsely imply that "PCU" is part of the ship name. However, regardless of how the article is phrased, PCU should not be bolded. Please let me know whether you disagree with this, and if so, why. Shelbystripes ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Willy Albrecht has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposals to rename Category:Military personnel from Connecticut etc: also to have American military personnel by century categories eg Category:20th-century American military personnel; to match Category:20th-century French military personnel etc, and so that the category Category:American military personnel of the Korean War is no longer a subcategory of Category:20th-century United States government officials. Likewise for other centuries. Hugo999 ( talk) 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) this is just one example for many removals from the lists of KC recipients. The removal is not supported by the sources and I wonder if the removal is justifiable or if this is research? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Nazi war machine, currently a redirect to Category:Military of Nazi Germany, has been nominated at RfD and members of this project are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 25#Nazi war machine. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I often view the Fringe Theories noticeboard and I saw something about Knight's Cross holders, which is being discussed here: [21]. The discussion focuses on WP:SOLDIER and the deletion of a number of articles about Knight's Cross holders (Ritterkreuztraeger, RKT) has been justified by the argument that the Knight's Cross was not necessarily the "highest award for valor" mentioned in WP:SOLDIER. There is a legitimate case (Peter Arent) of a person who was never awarded the RK. The other cases appear to be ones where removal of one or two specific sources as "unreliable" results in an apparent absence of sources supporting the RK award. I noted that new RKTs were listed in German daily newspapers, often on the front pages. Newspapers even mentioned when an RKT was going to be present at a public event.
I do not like the way old essays and "what Wikipedia is not" guidelines are used; they were written for a time when, I guess, Wikipedia was at real risk of becoming a repository for random facts about Star Trek and Pokemon. The spirit of WP:SOLDIER appears to be "you can't create an article about your soldier relative," and the only statement about a non-notable soldier is precisely that: one who can only be traced with genealogical documents. Now we are at a point where most of the extremely important articles exist and are in need of improvement, and new articles must be drawn from a pool of less notable subjects that are nevertheless notable.
It's interesting that searching for the subjects of the deleted articles (like Alois Kalss) locates a) evidence that the individual existed and was a RKT, b) mirrors of deleted articles from Wikipedia, and c) articles on right-wing wikis. Not allowing the article to exist on English Wikipedia contributes to the illusion of bias in this encyclopedia. And it unfairly creates a higher standard for German soldiers than for American and British (but not Russian) ones, in that multiple secondary sources (read: Google-searchable books in English) can be called for in order to satisfy WP:SOLDIER and the equally unrealistic WP:GNG. (I've also patrolled new articles fairly often, and lots of utterly un-notable ones get created, while nomination for deletion seems to require an article running afoul of an editor willing to nominate.)
So, was this what the authors of WP:SOLDIER had in mind? I don't think it was... Roches ( talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A slight dispute has arisen over James Whiteside McCay. McCay, who died in 1930, was an Australian officer who held the rank of Lieutenant-General. At the time this rank (as with other similar ranks such as Major-General and Lieutenant-Colonel that use a modifier to lower the main rank) was always spelled in British and Commonwealth English with a hyphen, and indeed was until relatively recently. I therefore altered his rank to the spelling with the hyphen. Another editor has altered it back with the argument that the article is written in Australian English, and Australia now does not use the hyphen in such ranks (neither, incidentally, does Britain). I would argue that since the rank was spelled with a hyphen at the time it should be spelled with a hyphen on Wikipedia, as his rank was actually Lieutenant-General and not Lieutenant General. Anything else would be revisionism. A minor point, but opinions would be welcome. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Paul Egger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
If anyone here has any knowledge of writing about Napoleonic-era battlefield prints, could they take a look at Talk:The siege of San Sebastian (1813)#About deletion proposal? This is obviously the work of a well-intentioned newcomer, and I feel like I'm kicking a puppy nominating it for deletion two weeks after creation, but to me this looks like a generic souvenir print of the type that flooded Europe during the French Revolutionary Wars. I find it very unlikely that enough has been written about it to remotely scrape notability, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have just removed Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) from the No. 27 Squadron RAF article as clearly adding a campaign category for military units with nearly 100 years of history doesnt add any value and just creates loads of clutter. There are other military units in the category with multiple campaign histories but not really my area so I though I would raise it here before this categorisation spreads to other wars and campaigns, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in this community reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" ( example).
I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or Parsecboy have copies of the email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ed, I'd recommend double-checking, or perhaps getting a second opinion from some one with an image-checking background like User talk:Nikkimaria. Looking through the site, they are claiming copyright over some images where they were published in the US pre-1923, so are now definitely out of copyright in the US - they shouldn't be claiming copyright over these, therefore; in other cases, they are claiming copyright over anonymous, unpublished photographs from "unknown donors" - I wouldn't want to guess the correct Commons tag for that one! :) I'm also uncertain how they claim to own the copyright over images that they simultaneously state are in the public domain. In short, I wouldn't be personally very confident, on the basis of the records being presented on the website, that they're meeting the standard for the Commons. I'd recommend getting a decent set of eyes looking over them, and to suggest the right tagging regime, before going for a large scale upload. Hchc2009 ( talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Leonhard Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Hans Havik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Came across the above article, which is largely uncited and tagged refimprove since 2008. I'm not sure if this is fact or not. I am wondering if someone more knowledgeable would be interested in having a look. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe some outside opinions are required on the talkpage for the above article in regards to the drafting of a revised lede. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Heinz Jürgens (SS officer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Friedrich Blond has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has recently been deleting RAF categories from individuals who served in the RAF in the war but were not regular RAF personnel. See for instance [22] and [23]. I believe this is against the spirit of categorisation and should be reverted. Military service is usually very defining for those who served, even if they only served for a few years, and especially if they served in a world war. Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Military service categories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Werner Weinlig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Sepp Draxenberger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: Why are you leaving all these messages about AfD's on the Military History talk page? I don't think this is a good idea because you are overwhelming the page. And for example, my discussion, which is important got sandwiched in between these. I can see one AfD in a day but not ten or more. This is not what this project discussion page is for. So, I am going to ask you to please stop. This is disrupting the page. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 00:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I having a sort of confusion while asses the articles relating to the position of the heads of the services i.e the articles relating to the Chiefs of the Staff or head of the service such as Chief of the Air Staff (India), Chief of Army (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee etc. should be assessed for the respective article classes or list classes? Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A six year old quote on Yahoo Answers [24] was placed in the lead of Military history of France first by an anonymous IP [ [25] with BBC History in parenthesis. I reverted due to inaccurate - imprecise attribution [26], This was reverted again by a red-linked user [27]. I have reverted again [28], emphasizing to not revert again without engaging in the discussion already begun on the talk page: [29], [30].
I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this situation in case the red-linked user decides to be uncooperative. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I also previously left a message on the red linked user's talk page [31]. It could be a BBC History quote on Yahoo Answers - but how are editors supposed to know this without correct attribution? I don't have all day to search out and verify content that might be challenged. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: Adjust the list articles, such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and others, to use Veit Scherzer as the main source to confirm the award, instead of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel.
Please see discussion on Scherzer vs Fellgiebel in MilHist archives. Short version (my interpretation): Scherzer superseded Fellgiebel as the current authority on the KC recipients.
This adjustment will resolve the following concerns:
Feedback? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps we should try to get Attack on Pearl Harbor to at least GA status, for its 75th anniversary this year. I might start working on it in the coming days, but seeing that it will be a rather large task I invite anyone interested to help out. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've made a lot of improvements to the article on WWI brigadier general Lincoln Clark Andrews, but I could use some help with the infobox. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wonder if someone can help. In my sandbox I've created a list of the vessels of Task Force O, the naval component of the landings at Omaha Beach. I've used Badsey & Bean's "Omaha Beach" as a source, but I don't see how such a list can be compiled without basically just lifting the info from that book (or indeed, any other published source). Is this a copyright violation? Thanks. FactotEm ( talk) 15:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to request the creation of a separate infobox specifically for militants. As you might know the military person infobox is the one that is used to show activities of a militant. While most of it is okay, there are a few problems with it which can cause confusion among some readers and editors. First is of course that a military person is someone who serves in a country's armed forces. Therefore I highly doubt a military person infobox should be used for militants.
Another problem is the "Service years" section in the infobox. Service years is the time someone serves for in an armed force, using it on militants might cause confusion as it might read like an army description. This has also led to disputes and edit-warring, see for example history of the article about militant Burhan Wani where some sections of the infobox have been removed because of confusion about the infobox. Also see Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani#Removal of service years, battles/wars and rank.
In addition to the above mentioned problems, some sections of the infobox like "Awards" aren't ever even used in case of militants. The "military person infobox" is clearly not suited for militants. I will therefore based on all these grounds like to request creation of a separate infobox type for militants. I hope you will find all the reasons I gave as satisfactory. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose these additions to the new infobox is "Active years" or "Activity years" instead of "Service years" to show years during which they have been in militancy. A "Position/rank" section instead of just "Rank". Say for example a militant is appointed a War Minister/Information Minister by a militant group, it can't be called a "rank". In addition sections typical of military persons shouldn't be there in a militant infobox, example "Service/branch", "Service number", "Commands held", "Awards" and "Memorials". DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I should add that the notion of a clear distinction between "militant" and "person serving in the armed forces" is a very modern concept. Consider, for example, that the same infobox is used for military figures during antiquity and the middle ages, where the concept of "armed forces" is much less clearly defined than it is in the modern era. Is a feudal baron besieging his neighbor's castle a "person serving in the armed forces" or a "militant"? Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say Washington was respected militant. American revolution was not an insurgency or a militancy. The word "military" is always used in relation to armed forces of a country not militant groups. A feudal baron cannot be considered "serving in the armed forces" or a "militant". He's not technically serving in an army, he owns the army. And unlike militants he is not mounting an insurgency and he is not breaking the law. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be going nowhere. User:Kirill Lokshin If not a new infobox then can atleast the changes I suggested be made to the military infobox? DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 18:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion re the categorization of ship articles at WT:SHIPWRECK#Categorization issue. Input from members of this Wikiproject is requested. Mjroots ( talk) 07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I had listed this PRODed article on WPMIL article alerts yesterday. It's no longer listed there, so I'm mentioning here. I don't know if Hired armed tender Elizabeth is a viable article or not, but with a PROD on it, there is limited time to decide either direction. — Maile ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose for the creation of a separate infobox template for military commanders. The proposed infobox is expected to contain parameters form {{ Infobox military person}} and {{ Infobox officeholder}}. I mean mostly some four to five parameters from Infobox officeholder are to be added to Infobox military person. For example, the parameters such as order, office, term_start, term_end, alongside, predecessor, successor, president, prime minister etc. Additionally parameters such as chief of the staff, defence_minister and required label can be added. This type of infobox will be useful for usage in the article of military commanders such as the articles of commanders of United States Unified Combatant Commands, the chiefs of the staff, flag officers and other three-star rank officers. The present code of Infobox military person doesn't have any option for mentioning the pivotal offices held by the subject. Although Infobox officeholder has a section for military service, many of the parameters that are required for a article presenting a military biography or subject were dropped. Please share your opinion accordingly. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This FA on the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident was promoted in 2008. Eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 11:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Night vision scope was expanded (from a redirect) into an article by a new editor. Could someone take a look at it and see whether any of that material should be merged to Night vision device (minus any spammy links, of course)? (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:46, 12 August 2016 (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. |
This article discussing attitudes to military history in US universities is really quite interesting. The quote by the military historian who suggests that her peers tend to under-estimate the sophistication of their audience is certainly a good thought-starter! Nick-D ( talk) 09:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues, some guidance I believe is required here which appears to potentially affect several articles. Briefly, a small edit war appears to have broken out regarding the infobox summary regarding Romanian contribution in article Siege of Budapest. An IP using pretty foul language appears to have added Soviet Romanian victory to said infobox. I reverted said IP and left a note on IP talkpage strongly advising that he/she begin dialogue. Now I notice Battle of Debrecen also states Soviet Romanian victory. Contrast this to First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive which merely states Axis victory in it's infobox. There may be other articles which this effects. Now I am not so sure as to my original revert. The usage of Axis or Soviet Romanian appears somewhat haphazard. Thoughts? Cheers, Irondome ( talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a new editor— Rowanis12 ( talk · contribs) which corresponds to 109.152.253.188 ( talk · contribs)—making widespread edits to the infoboxes of various battles. Many or most of these edits are just made up numbers. Sometimes the editor/IP merely tweaks the infobox to add "Decisive" to the victory. Either way it's a problem to be aware of.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been following an IP, 76.88.98.65 ( talk), who's fond of adding Category:Military equipment by war categories to various weapon articles. When those categories don't exist, they use categories for wars themselves, or for units or forces. For example, this diff of Lebel Model 1886 rifle. I'm not a member of this WikiProject and have no idea whether this fits with your project guidelines. Would someone here mind reviewing these edits? They go back several months. Ibadibam ( talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that the new title would be better suited for the page. The words are more concise that way. Etimena 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_19#First_Serbian_Volunteer_Division we are trying to work out whether the First Serbian Volunteer Division would be doing anything in Czechoslovakia as was. Your expertise would be appreciated there. Si Trew ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Can the Coordinators start a backlog reduction drive for the Chronoligal List of Wars articles? They may be fairly important, they are however a complete mess. What needs to be done? References, adding new conflicts, fact checking (dates, flags and combatants) and finally assessment. The articles in question are:
-- Catlemur ( talk) 18:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of the Hongorai River ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey all,
Can anyone help to complete the A-Class review for the 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division article? The division had it's real baptism of fire on the Somme attempting to take Mametz Wood on 7 July, and after various setbacks and changes cleared the area. On the Somme for only six days, it suffered around 4,000 casualties. My intent is for the article to get through the A-Class review, push through FA, and try to get on the front page for the division's 100th anniversary of the assault on Mametz. Please see here for the review page. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
See Pasechnik Artyom Spiridonovich and [2]. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Please can someone with access to UK databases help me confirm/ source the service record of Cyril Hills, who boxed as Darkie Ellis? I have:
from an unreliable source (an online forum). Another anecdote has him driving an army lorry to abandoned German PoW camps to tend to the released prisoners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The FAC nominator for this one left Wikipedia many years ago. Eyeballs on the article would be welcome. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
World War I casualties Request the admins take a look at the talk page @ David Fromkin , A Peace to End All Peace, things appear to be getting out of hand. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article while searching the interweb so moved it to the title in the Record of Battles and Engagements (1924/1990), then found that the empty page for it was titled Capture of Gommecourt, so I'd moved it to the wrong place. When I tried to move the Capture.... page it wouldn't move and an admin referral was suggested. Could an administrator untangle them so that this article goes where it belongs (Capture of Gommecourt) and that page is renamed Attack on the Gommecourt Salient? Thanks. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Military history is not my area so I thought I'd flag this here for others to determine the 'truth' of this situation. I came across some edits of a new user RommelTurk changing figures and removing content in Indian/Pakistan conflicts in what appeared dubious. In each case changing so Pakistan do better and India worse (Note that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has also reverted an edit). The user has come to my talk page here stating that the update come from a "Pakistani Military History book" and they are removing "Indian Propaganda". As I said I really don't know enough to judge apart from seeing claims of propaganda in both directions. Hopefully someone with knowledge of this topic will be able to either assist RommelTurk in fixing 'propaganda' or reverting depending on what reliable sources say. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Falklands War#RFC:Inclusion of material related to Norwegian listening station
Input welcome. W C M email 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Are there any standard templates for this project that I can use to invite people to join the project? – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Over at WP:EAR, a descendent of Lesley J. McNair has made a rather impassioned complaint about the content of the article on this WWII US Army general. While that in itself isn't so unusual, I did take a look at the article itself and think the criticism of McNair could probably use a little balancing. In particular, the relative complained that a specific published biography on McNair, General Lesley J. McNair: Unsung Architect of the U. S. Army is listed in the Further reading, but wasn't used anywhere in the article itself. If someone knowledgable on WWII would take a look at this, I think it would helpful. Thanks! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 17:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Many articles about battles don't have proper category sort keys or defaultsorts, which means that they're sorted under "B" on category pages instead of, say, the Battle of Ab Darrah Pass being sorted under "A". This bot request proposes that a bot add defaultsorts to articles with titles that look like "Battle of X" so that this issue is fixed. I've already written some code; I already make sure that false positives like the Battle of 33rd Street don't have erroneous information added. Would anyone object to the approval of this bot? APerson ( talk!) 17:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I posted this on the DISC Talk Page with no responses; so I am placing it here to gauge opposition (and hopefully positivity!)
Since 1 January 2015, DISC has been JITG (Joint Intelligence Training Group). I propose to rename this article and fix all redirects. Any opposition? The joy of all things ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in creating the Defence School of Photography article which links back to JITG. Best wishes. The joy of all things ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I've made quite a number of updates to the Elyesa Bazna (WWII spy) article and it would be great to have some feedback about the article now. I've also reviewed and made comments to items on the talk page. If someone has the time, that would be great. I would be happy to return the favor if I can.
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi-i am new to Wikipedia and am grateful for your guidance. Below is a message I received in response to my re submission of my draft.
I am not sure i am writing this on the correct page so please forgive me if this lands up in the wrong place but remain hopeful that you can help me.
History 1 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi History 1, I strongly recommend that you take advice from the topic speciatists at the Military history WikiProject. The experienced editors there will be able to assist you to get the draft into shape. It is indeed well sourced, my principal concern is the tone, it "praises" the subject a bit too much. On Wikipedia we try to write as neutrally as possible about all subjects, using the same "dry" neutrally descriptive language in Usama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, George Washington, Mao Zhedong, Winston Churchill or Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm not a specialist as military biography so the WikiProject is the best place to get the help you need. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
History 1 (talk · contribs) Draft:Gene Arden Vance Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thank you for your guidance as this is my first submission. I have used independent, reliable, published sources to obtain the facts. Please could you show me an example of particular sentences or passages in my submission and how it might be rewritten so that i can use those examples in editing my draft. I would very much appreciate additional guidance. Thank you for your help. Request on 13:23:00, 27 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by History 1[edit]
Respectfully with much gratitude -History1
History 1 ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance and examples-this is most helpful as the bulk of the source material is taken from journalists published news reports. I shall make the appropriate revisions and welcome further examples-respectfully -History1 History 1 ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is currently up at FAC, and is tagged as a Milhist article. I'm skeptical (sceptical?). There's no military related content except for the last section, which reads (in full): "Verge was commissioned as a captain in the Australian Army Medical Corps on 2 October 1914, and was attached to the 6th Light Horse Regiment as its medical officer. His regiment embarked on HMAT A29 Suevic on 21 December, reaching Egypt on 1 February 1915, and was then deployed to Gallipoli, attached to the 1st Australian Division, landing on 20 May. He contracted dysentery several months later and was evacuated to No. 17 British General Hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. He died on 8 September 1915, and was buried at the Chatby War Memorial Cemetery (Row Q, Grave No. 523) in Alexandria." - Dank ( push to talk) 15:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, while working on " Defense of the Adzhimushkay quarry" I noticed the redlinked category:Subterranean warfare. It made sense to me and I started fleshing it out. In particular, I started the "catmain" article, Subterranean warfare. Being a mil-ignoramus, suddenly I found out that we already have a great-big " Tunnel warfare" page, with category and all. My first thought was to suggest merging of both pairs, the categories and the articles. On the second thought, historically "tunnel warfare" was mostly about mining and penetration, not warfare per se. In other words, "tunnels" are kind of engineering structures, opposite to " fortifications". Hence my question: shall we split the subject of subterranean warfare similarly to the split fortification/ defense? And since we are already here, please notice that there is no such article defense (military), neither the subject is covered in the redirect's target. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course "subterranean warfare" looks like neologism to me, but at the same time it is more generic, parallel to " submarine warfare"... er... rather " Underwater warfare", but " underground warfare" sounds a bit ambiguous. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, we've been slipping the final edit and despatch of the monthly Bugle to later and later in the month recently, so for instance this month we'd be producing the Bugle at the end of May when it's going to feature April events/articles/awards, i.e. about a month old. Nick and I therefore thought we'd get things back on track by producing a May-June double issue, covering activity from April-May, to be despatched no later than the first week of June, and then go back to one month per issue and aim to get it out early the following month, so the activity we're featuring will be fresher. Doing the double issue means we don't miss out on anything but we also don't end up producing two issues in the space of a week or so (i.e. in the next couple of days for April stuff and then again in early June for May stuff). Hope that makes sense and will be okay with everyone... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: to clarify then, should I add both May and June to the WWI timeline for this edition? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Referring to this edit, the first source seems to say the opposite, although it wasn't such a clear-cut conclusion. What should the infobox state? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thgere is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as few have yet done so and a good many military aircraft lists are affected by it. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In this article on a deceased member of Special Operations Executive, I'm wrestling with what appears to be conflicting information as to whether this person was awarded an MBE. The Special Forces Role of Honor states that he was, and I found this link at the National Archives website in London. However, I note that books on the subject do not mention his being awarded an MBE. Nor can I find a reference to him being awarded an MBE in the Gazette for the date stated. The question is whether the Archives link is dispositive? Coretheapple ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Tsimba Ridge; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles about particular fighters or formations mention HVAR rockets but make it a piped link to Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket instead of that one. Knowing little of the topic, I must ask, is this correct in all cases? Some? None? Jim.henderson ( talk) 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I hopes someone has the competence to check the links, unlink the doubtful, and link correctly where the correct weapon is known. Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:25, 5 June 2016 (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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
From the few sources I've looked at, this guy is amazing. OffbeatOregon.com said about him, McAdams is a legend in the Newport area, and probably the most famous Coast Guard enlisted man ever. He started his career as in 1950, and by the time he retired in 1977 he’d participated in some 5,000 rescues and saved at least 100 people from drowning. He’d survived nine rolls — in which his motor lifeboat was fully capsized by the surf and he had to hold his breath and wait for it to roll back upright.
For being one of the most famous enlisted men in the Cosst Guard, the bio is almost shamefully small. Can someone take a look? And how does one look up and reference service personnel's decorations? Thanks. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
United States Department of Veterans Affairs § Benefits could use expansion, now that largely irrelevant content has been removed. See Talk page there, § "Subsidiary agency" for benefits is local private organization.
(Also posted to WikiProject United States.)
-- Thnidu ( talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate feedback on the note I left on the Talk page of the divisional article, comparing the two articles:
It appears to me that Wikipedia has two articles on the same unit, under different names. If this is indeed the case, I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this situation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC concerning inclusion of a sentence at Battle of Ia Drang. See Talk:Battle of Ia Drang#RfC: Significance of the air action compared to the ground action. 05:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, an article which is in this project's scope. The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything in the MOS recommending how we refer to the world wars? I always understood that we use World War I and World War II, rather than First World War and Second World War but I can't find anything in the MOS to support this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Britain but the recent literature I use for Australian-military-themed articles seems to use World War II (or Two) as much or more than Second World War. Since that suggests either term is fine, I use WWII because I think it's more common (used in the US as well for instance) and because I think it flows better when you say it (one less syllable!), so I also use WWI for consistency. I wouldn't change the terminology in any well-established article from 2WW to WWII or the other way round because I don't think there's a 'right' answer and I'll respect the main editor's preference. The main thing I think is to be consistent within the article. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate on Raynald's death on the Talk page here. An IP wants to present Ernoul's report of Raynald's death, but he/she has been unable to prove that Ernoul's report has been accepted by specialists. Actually, I am not sure that he/she presents Ernoul's report properly, because he/she made statements during the debate which proved to be wrong. For instance, he wrote that William of Tyre also recorded Raynald's death. I would really be grateful if members of this project could verify his/her claims, because I would like to improve the article, but I do not want to emphasize a POV which is ignored by most specialists. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 21:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka is making false allegations that I haven't been able to verify that Ernoul's report is not accepted by specialists. I cited two sources for it yet ye he keeps making one excuse or another instead of reading the sources. In addition also notice that he himself hasn't presented any proof about views of specialists concerning the other version of Raynald's death where he is offered to convert, yet he claims there is a "scholarly consensus" without any proof. This is completely WP:Original research and double standards on his part. In addition, please notice that I mistook from the Edbury source that William of Tyre had mentioned Raynald's death, after I realised it I removed it because it was Ernoul's work not William's. This is another example of Borsoka extending the issue needlessly when it doesn't exist just in order to enforce his POV about which version should remain in the article. Also note that he had deliberately removed Ernoul's version alomg with all the sources I added in this . 117.241.118.76 ( talk) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm translating a page from wiki.de, but I'm having real trouble finding a good English translation for the position of "Sammeloffizier" and I was wondering if any of you knew what that would properly be in English. Thank you. Red Fiona ( talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|b1=
and |b2=
is marked as yes and all of |b3=
, |b4=
, and |b5=
are marked as yes. When that occurs, {{
WikiProject Military history}} automatically shows a C rating, even if |class=
is set to something other than C. This may or may not be a problem in the eyes of the project, but either way, I could create a tracking category of all articles that are assessed as C-class via those criteria but are labeled "Start" or "Stub" in |class=
. Let me know if that category would be useful. ~
Rob
Talk 02:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on this TFA text. It would be nice to include something about Patton's reputation being largely rehabilitated by his later success as a commander, but this one is already longer than most. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The FAC nominator, Ed!, just said on his talk page that he'd like to remove all the following text from the TFA: "On 3 August 1943, during the Sicily Campaign of World War II, Patton struck, kicked and berated a soldier he found at an evacuation hospital with no apparent injuries, for being "gutless"; in fact, the soldier had malaria with a temperature of 102.2 °F (39.0 °C). Patton struck another soldier complaining of "nerves" at another hospital seven days later and threatened him with a pistol for being a "whimpering coward"; in fact, the soldier had been begging to rejoin his unit. Both soldiers suffered from what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder." I disagree, because this article is specifically about the slapping incidents, and because some of the mythology about the incidents (then and now) is different from what actually happened. But the man was much more than these two incidents, of course ... Patton is also a Featured Article, and if you guys like, we could nominate that at WP:TFAR to show Main Page readers the bigger picture. I'm trying to be neutral here. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a RfC concerning the ARVN's involvement in the Battle of Ia Drang. Please comment at Talk:Battle of Ia Drang#RfC (renew): ARVN Involvement. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Any Milhisters going to this year's Wikimania? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Thankful Villages, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 page has been through a series of edits in May that seem questionable to me. It's outside my limited area of expertise. Someone who understands the subject may want to take a look.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I have moved the History of aviation in New Zealand article from user space into article space on behalf of its author Huttoldboys. It is partly within this project's scope, but it isn't really a topic I'm familiar with, so if anyone here is keen to help improve the article further I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As you may have noticed there is some sort of tumult surrounding WWI due to the upcoming release of Battlefield 1 and rise of the The Great War Youtube channel. Perhaps we should exploit this fact by recruiting among those two interconnected communities. Games like Eve Online have already directly rewarded community input into scientific research.-- Catlemur ( talk) 19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've forgotten who I asked for help or where. I discovered this article was a red link a few weeks ago and asked what should be done. I thought I had access to some really good resources and then, when I had the chance, I just forgot. I worked with what I could find and got my draft into good enough shape to move to article space, or at least I believe I did. The sources may not be the best but they're what I had access to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please someone take care of this article, Military globalization. It is nicely written, but it looks like it is an original essay. I started chopping off unreferenced pieces, but soon I started suspecting that the whole thing is one big WP:SYNTH. Even the definition is unreferenced. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there any restrictions on withdrawing an article for A-Class re iew, and nominating it for FA instead? Usually,i would not be fussed by the A Class review process, but I was aiming to give the 38th Div article a shot at the front page for its 100th anniversary on the Somme. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Napoleon, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightblueowl ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2016
I'm working on this particular article (as well as Hikari Naval Arsenal), but even Japanese WP has very little on them, as they weren't in operation as long as say, Kure. There's material from the US Navy from after the Japanese surrender, but I don't know how to get access to material like that, as it appears to be on microfilm at the NDL. Any ideas on other possible sources for material? MSJapan ( talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This request posted at WP:RX in March has has had no response there, perhaps someone here has access to the paywalled site.
Need the complete (paywalled) version of this article preview. Needed to improve Valour-class frigate and possbly also South African Navy. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Buckshot06:. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Bengal Regiment into Bengal Native Infantry for the following reasons and I would appreciate your comments here:
I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus for Merger - Merger has been performed, no content copied to Bengal Native Infantry - Bengal Regiment now a redirect page. Exemplo347 ( talk) 22:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are people changing links like this {{main|Zaian War}} to {{Main article|Zaian War}}? Keith-264 ( talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This article needs a revision, because the details it quotes appear to be apocyrphal, looks like an attempt to find more contemporary sources was made back in 2014 (see the articles talk page), but it didn't result in a overhaul of the text to clarify what acually appears to have happened. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Oyneg Shabbos#Requested move 20 June 2016 concerning a proposal to move the article Oyneg Shabbos, about the group that chronicled life in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II and the archive they accumulated, to a new title. Please provide us with the benefit of your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm requesting help at this article. It's been the target of edit warring in the recent past and the main participants seem incapable of requesting input on their own. I'm on the verge of handing out blocks to editors that may, in the long run, prove useful to the project. I'd rather not have to do that. Also, if my intervention is harming rather than helping, please advise. Thanks Tide rolls 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this belongs here but various drafts hidden away inside other WikiProjects show up in Category:Project-Class military history articles rather than say Drafts. For example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of armed forces and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the American Indian Wars which I think are better considered a draft than projects for all the various groups. There is a RM to move that to Draft:Outline of armed forces which I think will resolve this without bothering the actual template. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Per this official announcement from the White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/21/president-obama-award-medal-honor Charles Kettles will be awarded the Medal of Honor on July 18, 2016. MoH winners are presumed notable, so passing the word along. Charles Kettles appears to be red linked at this time. Safiel ( talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive2 needs a source review for formatting and reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Image review already done. Thanks.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Honorary United States Marines, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a standard for how someone qualifies as a notable member of a military unit? A recent edit to 91st Division (United States) added Richard L. Nader, who won a bronze star while a PFC; Nader doesn't have a page and Googling him returned no recognizable results. I don't think it's a bogus entry; the text has the feel of having come from a citation. I'm not denigrating Nader's military service, but it wouldn't get him a page. Does it earn him a mention at all?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the talk page of this article which may be of interest to members of this project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a notification of Draft:John Patrick Brockley waiting for review - comment asking for someone with knowledge of area is notable or not. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 17:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I am working through astronaut articles, and would like some help implementing ribbon devices. Some articles, like Alan Shepard, have the box implemented effectively. Other astronauts, like Roger B. Chaffee, don't have the ribbon template at all.
I am not confident I can put the ribbons in the correct order (does the order matter?) and can't find any help topics on the matter.
Would anyone like to volunteer to work through the articles in the Adopt an Astronaut project and apply the ribbon device template correctly throughout?
If not, I'll settle for someone explaining to me how to properly do it myself, and I'll work through them as I have time. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 20:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We have an extremely thin fortification stub article called Bacule which is apparently a type of portcullis, although the description is very brief and not entirely clear and has been lifted almost verbatim from Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1728). I have tracked it down to Volume I, page 77 which says: "In Fortification, a Kind of Portcullis or Gate, made like a Pit-fall, with a Counter-Poise, and supported by two great Stakes: it is usually made before the Corps-de-Garde advancing near the Gates". Other than that, I can't find a single reference in English which supports this, and I am still a bit mystified about what it actually is. I suspect that it warrants a brief mention in either our Portcullis or Draw bridge articles and a redirect. I tried asking at the Language Reference Desk, who were able to confirm that bacule is a variant of bascule, French for " see-saw", but I'm still in the dark about what this thing is. Please help. Alansplodge ( talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose to replace the current Victoria Cross opening paragraph with the following. 'The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the United Kingdom honours system. It is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces. It was previously awarded to Commonwealth countries, most of which have established their own honours systems and no longer recommend British honours. It may be awarded to a person of any military rank in any service and to civilians under military command although no civilian has received the award since 1879. Since the first awards were personally presented by Queen Victoria in 1856, two thirds of all awards have been personally presented by the British monarch. These investitures are usually held at Buckingham Palace.' Unlike the US where the phrase 'highest military decoration' is appropriate, Britain and most Commonwealth countries have both military and civilian awards in one order of wear. Both British military and civilians are eligible to receive the VC and other gallantry awards and the GC and other bravery awards although the last civilian to receive the VC was in 1879 and the last British civilian to receive the GC was in 1976. So I have suggest for 'highest award' for the VC would be more helpful. I would welcome any comments at /info/en/?search=Talk:Victoria_Cross before I amend the article. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit to 79th Infantry Division (United States) updated campaigns to include Ardennes-Alsace per Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 Pg 137. I agree that the campaign is listed for the division, but it's within parentheses and I can't find an explanation for that. Can anyone help?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A merge has been proposed that would move material from Three-wheeled steam tank into Steam Wheel Tank. Discussion of this proposal appears at Talk:Steam Wheel Tank#Merge proposal. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The puppeteer Gordon Murray (he of Pippin Fort fame) died today. He served in the British Army during WWII, so the infobox could possibly be expanded to accommodate his military career. Referencing needs a little more polishing and the article needs assessment for MILHIST. Mjroots ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Asking here a question I posed at Talk:Battle of the Somme, but it may get more response here.
Now we are nearly at the halfway point of the centenary years of the First World War (August 1914/2014 to November 1918/2018), and the centenary of battles such as Verdun and Jutland have also been marked, how should the commemorations be covered in Wikipedia? Might a timeline article on the commemorations by battles or campaigns (rather than divided by nationality as at First World War centenary) be a good way to organise a rather diverse topic? Does anyone here have any advice on that? Is it best to have bits added to individual articles where needed, plus an overview article of some kind? Carcharoth ( talk) 07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The announcement of 2016 Pritzker Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing has been made. It is on PMML's website here: http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/pritzker-literature-award/hew-strachan-2016-pritzker-literature-award-winner/ and in numerous news articles on the web (including This article at the Washington Post). TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for popping up and asking about this again. I haven't been very active recently, so may have missed something. Is there any co-ordination being done on WWI topics, or disseminating news on what people are working on in relation to First World War topics?
Back in April, I found a couple of projects (such as this Wikipedian in Residence), and wondered if more were out there or if there is a list somewhere? Some searches throw up more results. Would there be interest in a directory of past and present pages relating to the topic? Editathons (e.g this one), MilHist Bugle articles (that will be a long list, an example) and so on? Or does such a directory or category already exist? Another example is this meetup which is related to this overview. Another example, were people here aware of Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK? It can be difficult to find these, as they don't tend to be all listed in one place, or categorised.
Ideally, such links would be gathered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial (not very active) or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force, but maybe a separate directory page attempting to keep track of everything would be a good way to start and to encourage exchange of ideas and approaches? Where would be the best place to start such a directory (I have started in my userspace here, but am happy to move this somewhere else or build on anything that already exists). Carcharoth ( talk) 07:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to put the finishing touches on the H2S (radar) article, but I have a funny feeling about the layout and I'm looking for advice...
1) Rotterdam happened almost immediately, but it is physically placed near the end. That's because it spans the entire rest of the war. Should I put that at the very end? What about the post-war developments? 2) Should post-war, which is really about Mk. IX, be its own two-equals section?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I've logged last month's entries, if we can start verifying with a view to completing that in the next few days so we can keep to our new schedule of despatching the Bugle in the first week or so of the new month, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone out there know if this is an actual machine, or if it even existed at all? The article got tagged as a copyright violation, but given the preponderance of the world of tanks information that comes up I have a hunch that this could be a hoax article. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Could some Milhisters take a look at this AfD of a Coast Guard Captain? There is a disagreement over whether his commands make him notable under WP:SOLDIER 5 & 6. Thanks. Gbawden ( talk) 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments would be highly appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 14:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I became aware of the article on this C15th privateer via WP:ANI. There is a comprehensive article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Could someone proficient in Spanish could expand the article from the Spanish article please? Mjroots ( talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noted the widespread use of the term "Soviets" or "Soviet" in Easten front articles referring to the Red Army. I would suggest this is no more acceptable than using the term "Nazis" or "Nazi" in all articles referring to the Wehrmacht. I propose this term be replaced by Red Army, VVS for Red Army airforce units and VMF For the Red Navy. I would suggest we create a redirect for the VMF as it presently goes to the article Soviet Navy which has already been tagged for weasel words. I suggest a rephrasing of all such terms where encountered. Soviet is a political-civilian-ideological term, as is Nazi, and I would suggest it has no place in military articles. I intend replacing the terms where I encounter them, as they are POV, And I would welcome comments on this, leading to a consensus. Many would be seriously pissed off if we referred to a Nazi army, airforce or navy, and I strongly believe the same NPOV logic should apply to the terminology of the Red Army, navy and airforce here. Cheers Irondome ( talk) 02:32, 5 July 2016 (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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the two tanks CTMS-1TB1 and MTLS-1G14 be part of the Marmon-Herrington CTLS, or be their own seperate articles? They may fail either notability or verifiability due to only having three credible sources that I could find. Thanks for your opinion, -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( need to talk?) 00:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the name, and perhaps scope, of the Qays and Yaman tribes article. The Qays and Yaman played a critical role during the Umayyad era and the factional feud was one of the chief factors of the Umayyad state's collapse. The feud persisted to varying degrees for centuries and had a resurgence in Ottoman Lebanon and Palestine, finally diminishing in the mid-19th century. For those interested, particularly from the Early Muslim history taskforce, your participation is welcome. Cheers -- Al Ameer ( talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Could someone provide with me the code neccesary to make one? Would like to put a similar one in the Rome wiki project. Thanks to all Iazyges ( talk) 01:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
https://kcl.academia.edu/RobertFoley some very interesting stuff here for free. Well done that bloke.... Keith-264 ( talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I need help making the template for my task force that's currently in incubation, so that I can put it on the talk page, and assess it. If anyone could help me I would be grateful.
Here's the current page if you would like to help. Iazyges ( talk) 01:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Template:WikiProject Roman military history
Thank you all this has been very helpful. Iazyges ( talk) 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1 needs some love so it can get on the main page for a centennial anniversary. Will anyone pitch in? It's only had a couple reviews in an entire month at FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have nav templates as well as individual articles for several classes of submarines where there are only a few subs in the class, and articles on the subs themselves are minimal. Is there any problem with full-merging the constituent subs in the classes into their respective class articles as follows:
or are we somehow bound by precedent to have to have separate articles? MSJapan ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A newcomer is working on Afghan Forest Digital Camouflage at his sandbox. Could someone who knows of such things please say if it is notable and if so, where to get the best sources? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently working on a small (I am the only active member as of now) task force within the military history WP, I would like to invite anyone interested in either Roman or Byzantine Military History, to work on the project with me. Here is the Link Incase you are interested, thank you. Iazyges ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
See my proposal at Template talk:Ruheroes. I could have just been WP:BOLD but thought I'd check with you lot first. Please comment there. Pam D 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
A newbie has created a bunch of tiny, unreferenced articles about Heroes of Soviet Union like Samad Abdullayev, then went inactive: [12]. Does anyone feel like fixing them? They are hovering around WP:TNT, INHO, through one survived AfD (because another editor did expand it with a ref). They are probably not hoaxes, but, sigh... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently consensus was reached in this discussion to restructure the Iraq War article into an broader article for the entire war from 2003 to the present and to move Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) to Iraq War (2003–11) so that page can serve as the article for the 2003–11 phase of the war.
There is much work that needs to be done. Not just the changes to these two articles agreed to in the discussion. But also all the pages that will be affected by these changes (such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi insurgency (2003–06), Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–07), Iraqi insurgency (2011–13), Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), Military intervention against ISIL, American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Syrian civil war, ect.). I am requesting assistance. Charles Essie ( talk) 15:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is a category at Category:United States military images and it states that Images taken or made by US military are Under United States copyright law, such images are public domain. I've just written this article here: Wilhelm Tranow, and on the off chance I searched Google images for a picture of the man, and came across a picture of him, here @: [ [13]]. Is that image copyright under US law? Its obviously a image take sometime before or during the second world war. It has obviously been taken from some archive, originally by TICOM who were US and British military searching the continent for military assets they could filch but these folk who are now selling it. What I'm fundamentally asking, is there a process which I can do through to get hold of this image? Can an argument be made that it is in the public domain? Thanks. scope_creep 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Lineagegeek: and I have behaved a bit badly and conducted a bit of a slow-motion edit war on the date categories attached to United States Air Force units and formations. Briefly, I want to, and have, been putting the estab/disestab dates in that match the years that the article subject unit - like Air Rescue Service was active, formed c. 1944 and disestablished 1966. I argue that doing that is the only way they will show up properly in the year/date categories. If one doesn't do this, the disestablishment date category doesn't work properly.
Lineagegeek's view is that when a unit is redesignated, eg. the Air Rescue Service became the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service in 1966, it has not been disestablished, only redesignated, so he removes the disestablishment date categories. You will see from the edit history of Air Rescue Service that that is what he's just done.
He argues that because the unit has a continuing history, under a different name, the disestablishment categories should not be added to the former names under which the unit has served. We need some third opinions here to make a decision, because we both think that we're right.
Lineagegeek, I've tried to put this as objectively and hopefully as fairly as possible, but please feel free to add your side of the story. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
[17] does this Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand Licence mean that the map is available to copy on Wikipedia? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I had a question about the creation of a possible redirect. According to User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Soviet Union, Dragon Returnees were Nazi scientists taken to Soviet Union after the World War Two. Is this another name for Operation Osoaviakhim or a completely separate operation? Thanks. 72.74.202.100 ( talk) 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have recently created this article - Siege of Arrah - and I have submitted a request for peer review here. I would appreciate feedback from the Military History Wikiproject (preferring this to feedback from unrelated history projects) so if you have time, please feel free to have a look. Thanks! Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I would welcome WW2 buff input for the above article in making it ship shape.
Otto Kittel, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.
-- CCCVCCCC ( talk) 05:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello all - Do we have a preferred set of naming conventions for individual regiments' articles, and also for defaultsorting them in categories? For instance, I am looking at Category:New York Civil War regiments and there are different naming conventions for like articles - In other words, should " 75th New York Volunteer Infantry" be "75th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment"? Or, should " 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment" be "74th New York Volunteer Infantry"? Also, things like the 7th whatever being sorted below the 70th whatever can cause confusion to users.
70th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 71st New York Infantry 72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 75th New York Volunteer Infantry 76th New York Volunteer Infantry 77th New York Volunteer Infantry 78th New York Volunteer Infantry 79th New York Volunteer Infantry 7th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment 7th New York Militia 7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 7th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry
If no specific thoughts on this, then I might try experimenting with the naming and sorting of the New York regiments to start with, and see if any solutions strike me. Any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) needs just a few more editors to complete its A-Class review. Please help review the article. Thanks in advance, Kges1901 ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this person? I found it classified as General George Patton, which seems strange to me, since he doesn't look anything like him, and he seems to be wearing a British/Commonwealth Brigadier insignia. He looks irritatingly familiar though ( Hohum @) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at countless pictures of Battens, Peytons etc.; British, Australian, New Zealander and Canadian brigadiers, officers in Palestine, and come up with diddly squat. ( Hohum @) 18:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice there are obvious military portraits of the victim (Tracie McBride) and the perpetrator (Louis Jones) of the Murder of Tracie McBride: Both of them were soldiers. What info needs to be gathered to confirm this so I can put the portraits on the Wikimedia Commons? WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would anybody here be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at History of the French Foreign Legion? It is mildly bizarre in that it is referred to in French Foreign Legion as the main article on history of the unit but frequently lacks the detail that that article has. These issues were noted by Ian Rosein 2010 but there seems to have been no improvement. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, Rogožarski IK-3 is a Yugoslav aircraft article that has been in the GA queue since December last year. Any aircraft aficionados who would like to have a look would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Passchendaele Does anyone object to me altering the title of the campaignbox to The Flanders Offensive 1917 so that the contents can be labelled The Battle of Messines and The Battles of Ypres (with or without ", 1917")? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead sentence for the USS Gerald R. Ford article currently uses PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) as the bold title for the article. "PCU" refers to a "pre-commissioning unit" but is not part of the name of the vessel, which is currently Gerald R. Ford and will be USS Gerald R. Ford upon commissioning. The Naval History and Heritage Command clearly explains the use of prefixes in U.S. Navy vessel names over the past several decades:
The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.
Thus "PCU" Is not an actual part of the vessel's name. I cannot find a single reliable source to suggest that "PCU" should be included in the ship's name. The Navy itself uses "pre-commissioning unit" as a descriptor, rather than as part of the ship title. It's not even consistently capitalized when the Navy uses it:
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (NNS) -- Sixty new crew members checked aboard pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), April 30, joining the first of the newest class of aircraft carrier.
And the subject of the article on the Gerald R. Ford is the vessel which will be known as USS Gerald R. Ford. There are a number of other pages I've worked on which use this convention without issue (see USS Manchester and the other not-yet-commissioned littoral combat ships for examples). The Manchester article currently uses future tense phrasing to line up the bolded article title with the current vessel status:
USS Manchester (LCS-14) will be an Independence-class littoral combat ship [...]
Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the title of the article (which is "USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)" should be used and bolded. Thus, the bolded title should be either USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the page title) or Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (going by the vessel's current name), and the use of "PCU" in the bold ship title is inappropriate.
However, I was reverted when I removed "PCU", and told to seek consensus here. I'm certainly against adding "PCU" to the bold title on other pages where it's not already added, and I don't see why it should be included in the bolded title for the Gerald R. Ford page when doing so violates MOS:BOLDTITLE. If people insist on keeping the description of the ship as a pre-commissioning unit, then the lead-in could be phrased as:
The pre-commissioning unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is [...]
I would accept this as a matter of lead paragraph phrasing, since it does not violate MOS:BOLDTITLE or falsely imply that "PCU" is part of the ship name. However, regardless of how the article is phrased, PCU should not be bolded. Please let me know whether you disagree with this, and if so, why. Shelbystripes ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Willy Albrecht has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposals to rename Category:Military personnel from Connecticut etc: also to have American military personnel by century categories eg Category:20th-century American military personnel; to match Category:20th-century French military personnel etc, and so that the category Category:American military personnel of the Korean War is no longer a subcategory of Category:20th-century United States government officials. Likewise for other centuries. Hugo999 ( talk) 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) this is just one example for many removals from the lists of KC recipients. The removal is not supported by the sources and I wonder if the removal is justifiable or if this is research? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Nazi war machine, currently a redirect to Category:Military of Nazi Germany, has been nominated at RfD and members of this project are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 25#Nazi war machine. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I often view the Fringe Theories noticeboard and I saw something about Knight's Cross holders, which is being discussed here: [21]. The discussion focuses on WP:SOLDIER and the deletion of a number of articles about Knight's Cross holders (Ritterkreuztraeger, RKT) has been justified by the argument that the Knight's Cross was not necessarily the "highest award for valor" mentioned in WP:SOLDIER. There is a legitimate case (Peter Arent) of a person who was never awarded the RK. The other cases appear to be ones where removal of one or two specific sources as "unreliable" results in an apparent absence of sources supporting the RK award. I noted that new RKTs were listed in German daily newspapers, often on the front pages. Newspapers even mentioned when an RKT was going to be present at a public event.
I do not like the way old essays and "what Wikipedia is not" guidelines are used; they were written for a time when, I guess, Wikipedia was at real risk of becoming a repository for random facts about Star Trek and Pokemon. The spirit of WP:SOLDIER appears to be "you can't create an article about your soldier relative," and the only statement about a non-notable soldier is precisely that: one who can only be traced with genealogical documents. Now we are at a point where most of the extremely important articles exist and are in need of improvement, and new articles must be drawn from a pool of less notable subjects that are nevertheless notable.
It's interesting that searching for the subjects of the deleted articles (like Alois Kalss) locates a) evidence that the individual existed and was a RKT, b) mirrors of deleted articles from Wikipedia, and c) articles on right-wing wikis. Not allowing the article to exist on English Wikipedia contributes to the illusion of bias in this encyclopedia. And it unfairly creates a higher standard for German soldiers than for American and British (but not Russian) ones, in that multiple secondary sources (read: Google-searchable books in English) can be called for in order to satisfy WP:SOLDIER and the equally unrealistic WP:GNG. (I've also patrolled new articles fairly often, and lots of utterly un-notable ones get created, while nomination for deletion seems to require an article running afoul of an editor willing to nominate.)
So, was this what the authors of WP:SOLDIER had in mind? I don't think it was... Roches ( talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A slight dispute has arisen over James Whiteside McCay. McCay, who died in 1930, was an Australian officer who held the rank of Lieutenant-General. At the time this rank (as with other similar ranks such as Major-General and Lieutenant-Colonel that use a modifier to lower the main rank) was always spelled in British and Commonwealth English with a hyphen, and indeed was until relatively recently. I therefore altered his rank to the spelling with the hyphen. Another editor has altered it back with the argument that the article is written in Australian English, and Australia now does not use the hyphen in such ranks (neither, incidentally, does Britain). I would argue that since the rank was spelled with a hyphen at the time it should be spelled with a hyphen on Wikipedia, as his rank was actually Lieutenant-General and not Lieutenant General. Anything else would be revisionism. A minor point, but opinions would be welcome. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Paul Egger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
If anyone here has any knowledge of writing about Napoleonic-era battlefield prints, could they take a look at Talk:The siege of San Sebastian (1813)#About deletion proposal? This is obviously the work of a well-intentioned newcomer, and I feel like I'm kicking a puppy nominating it for deletion two weeks after creation, but to me this looks like a generic souvenir print of the type that flooded Europe during the French Revolutionary Wars. I find it very unlikely that enough has been written about it to remotely scrape notability, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have just removed Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) from the No. 27 Squadron RAF article as clearly adding a campaign category for military units with nearly 100 years of history doesnt add any value and just creates loads of clutter. There are other military units in the category with multiple campaign histories but not really my area so I though I would raise it here before this categorisation spreads to other wars and campaigns, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in this community reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" ( example).
I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or Parsecboy have copies of the email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ed, I'd recommend double-checking, or perhaps getting a second opinion from some one with an image-checking background like User talk:Nikkimaria. Looking through the site, they are claiming copyright over some images where they were published in the US pre-1923, so are now definitely out of copyright in the US - they shouldn't be claiming copyright over these, therefore; in other cases, they are claiming copyright over anonymous, unpublished photographs from "unknown donors" - I wouldn't want to guess the correct Commons tag for that one! :) I'm also uncertain how they claim to own the copyright over images that they simultaneously state are in the public domain. In short, I wouldn't be personally very confident, on the basis of the records being presented on the website, that they're meeting the standard for the Commons. I'd recommend getting a decent set of eyes looking over them, and to suggest the right tagging regime, before going for a large scale upload. Hchc2009 ( talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Leonhard Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Hans Havik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Came across the above article, which is largely uncited and tagged refimprove since 2008. I'm not sure if this is fact or not. I am wondering if someone more knowledgeable would be interested in having a look. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe some outside opinions are required on the talkpage for the above article in regards to the drafting of a revised lede. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Heinz Jürgens (SS officer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Friedrich Blond has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has recently been deleting RAF categories from individuals who served in the RAF in the war but were not regular RAF personnel. See for instance [22] and [23]. I believe this is against the spirit of categorisation and should be reverted. Military service is usually very defining for those who served, even if they only served for a few years, and especially if they served in a world war. Please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Military service categories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Werner Weinlig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Sepp Draxenberger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: Why are you leaving all these messages about AfD's on the Military History talk page? I don't think this is a good idea because you are overwhelming the page. And for example, my discussion, which is important got sandwiched in between these. I can see one AfD in a day but not ten or more. This is not what this project discussion page is for. So, I am going to ask you to please stop. This is disrupting the page. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 00:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I having a sort of confusion while asses the articles relating to the position of the heads of the services i.e the articles relating to the Chiefs of the Staff or head of the service such as Chief of the Air Staff (India), Chief of Army (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee etc. should be assessed for the respective article classes or list classes? Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A six year old quote on Yahoo Answers [24] was placed in the lead of Military history of France first by an anonymous IP [ [25] with BBC History in parenthesis. I reverted due to inaccurate - imprecise attribution [26], This was reverted again by a red-linked user [27]. I have reverted again [28], emphasizing to not revert again without engaging in the discussion already begun on the talk page: [29], [30].
I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this situation in case the red-linked user decides to be uncooperative. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I also previously left a message on the red linked user's talk page [31]. It could be a BBC History quote on Yahoo Answers - but how are editors supposed to know this without correct attribution? I don't have all day to search out and verify content that might be challenged. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: Adjust the list articles, such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and others, to use Veit Scherzer as the main source to confirm the award, instead of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel.
Please see discussion on Scherzer vs Fellgiebel in MilHist archives. Short version (my interpretation): Scherzer superseded Fellgiebel as the current authority on the KC recipients.
This adjustment will resolve the following concerns:
Feedback? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps we should try to get Attack on Pearl Harbor to at least GA status, for its 75th anniversary this year. I might start working on it in the coming days, but seeing that it will be a rather large task I invite anyone interested to help out. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've made a lot of improvements to the article on WWI brigadier general Lincoln Clark Andrews, but I could use some help with the infobox. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 20:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wonder if someone can help. In my sandbox I've created a list of the vessels of Task Force O, the naval component of the landings at Omaha Beach. I've used Badsey & Bean's "Omaha Beach" as a source, but I don't see how such a list can be compiled without basically just lifting the info from that book (or indeed, any other published source). Is this a copyright violation? Thanks. FactotEm ( talk) 15:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to request the creation of a separate infobox specifically for militants. As you might know the military person infobox is the one that is used to show activities of a militant. While most of it is okay, there are a few problems with it which can cause confusion among some readers and editors. First is of course that a military person is someone who serves in a country's armed forces. Therefore I highly doubt a military person infobox should be used for militants.
Another problem is the "Service years" section in the infobox. Service years is the time someone serves for in an armed force, using it on militants might cause confusion as it might read like an army description. This has also led to disputes and edit-warring, see for example history of the article about militant Burhan Wani where some sections of the infobox have been removed because of confusion about the infobox. Also see Talk:Burhan Muzaffar Wani#Removal of service years, battles/wars and rank.
In addition to the above mentioned problems, some sections of the infobox like "Awards" aren't ever even used in case of militants. The "military person infobox" is clearly not suited for militants. I will therefore based on all these grounds like to request creation of a separate infobox type for militants. I hope you will find all the reasons I gave as satisfactory. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose these additions to the new infobox is "Active years" or "Activity years" instead of "Service years" to show years during which they have been in militancy. A "Position/rank" section instead of just "Rank". Say for example a militant is appointed a War Minister/Information Minister by a militant group, it can't be called a "rank". In addition sections typical of military persons shouldn't be there in a militant infobox, example "Service/branch", "Service number", "Commands held", "Awards" and "Memorials". DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I should add that the notion of a clear distinction between "militant" and "person serving in the armed forces" is a very modern concept. Consider, for example, that the same infobox is used for military figures during antiquity and the middle ages, where the concept of "armed forces" is much less clearly defined than it is in the modern era. Is a feudal baron besieging his neighbor's castle a "person serving in the armed forces" or a "militant"? Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say Washington was respected militant. American revolution was not an insurgency or a militancy. The word "military" is always used in relation to armed forces of a country not militant groups. A feudal baron cannot be considered "serving in the armed forces" or a "militant". He's not technically serving in an army, he owns the army. And unlike militants he is not mounting an insurgency and he is not breaking the law. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be going nowhere. User:Kirill Lokshin If not a new infobox then can atleast the changes I suggested be made to the military infobox? DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 18:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion re the categorization of ship articles at WT:SHIPWRECK#Categorization issue. Input from members of this Wikiproject is requested. Mjroots ( talk) 07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I had listed this PRODed article on WPMIL article alerts yesterday. It's no longer listed there, so I'm mentioning here. I don't know if Hired armed tender Elizabeth is a viable article or not, but with a PROD on it, there is limited time to decide either direction. — Maile ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose for the creation of a separate infobox template for military commanders. The proposed infobox is expected to contain parameters form {{ Infobox military person}} and {{ Infobox officeholder}}. I mean mostly some four to five parameters from Infobox officeholder are to be added to Infobox military person. For example, the parameters such as order, office, term_start, term_end, alongside, predecessor, successor, president, prime minister etc. Additionally parameters such as chief of the staff, defence_minister and required label can be added. This type of infobox will be useful for usage in the article of military commanders such as the articles of commanders of United States Unified Combatant Commands, the chiefs of the staff, flag officers and other three-star rank officers. The present code of Infobox military person doesn't have any option for mentioning the pivotal offices held by the subject. Although Infobox officeholder has a section for military service, many of the parameters that are required for a article presenting a military biography or subject were dropped. Please share your opinion accordingly. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This FA on the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident was promoted in 2008. Eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 11:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Night vision scope was expanded (from a redirect) into an article by a new editor. Could someone take a look at it and see whether any of that material should be merged to Night vision device (minus any spammy links, of course)? (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)