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. |
I've just suggested a page move from James Mattis to Jim Mattis at Talk:James Mattis #Requested move 23 November 2017. There seem to be reasonable grounds for either name, so your thoughts and comments either way would be most welcome. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of articles on National Commanders of the Civil Air Patrol. Until August 1975, NCCAPs were military personnel, but thereafter they were civilians who were given the title Brigadier General or Major General. There's a couple of articles for which sourcing is not good and not a lot is visible online. Does WP:SOLDIER's presumption of notability apply to these civilian national commanders, or does only WP:BASIC/ WP:ANYBIO apply (with a WP:LISTBIO redirect applied if not)? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 13:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a Request for Comment on the Benito Mussolini article which may concern members of this project. the issue is the lead image to be used in the infobox, i.e. whether to keep the current portrait ("#1"), or replace it with one of the proposed alternatives. Any input would be appreciated, best regards -- Director ( talk) 07:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing we merge Marine Corps Intelligence into Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, keeping the title of the latter. I have posted notices to both talk pages, but in the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, have requested that all responses be posted to the latter (destination) article's talk page, not on the other talk page and not here. That is where I have laid out my basic reasoning as well. Please have a look a both pages and post your thoughts. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 16:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to say that whoever creates the most new women bios between 26th and 30th November will win $200 worth of books of their own choice. So if anybody here wants to buy some books to help their editing, now's your chance!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I think that this needs one more definite support. It would be appreciated if you could spend the time. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
'Donald Edward' Walsh, an Adjutant General of Connecticut should read Edward Donald Walsh. He actually went by E.Donald Walsh his entire life and would laugh when the military called him Edward D. Walsh- so somehow, this is par for the course. I was able to make a few edits but couldn't figure out how to change the basic listing/ header. Thank you for your posting. Cheers- Patricia Walsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8300:AE7E:ADE0:1A08:D32:1AF0 ( talk) 12:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Momčilo Đujić has been nominated for A-Class review since August, has two supports and an image review, and needs another reviewer. Any assistance would be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Does this list deserve to exist? Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I added
to Clearing the Channel Coast to find that it was a redirect to the same page. Is there a way to cancel the redirect? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other MILHISTs projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Second Boer War Would an aficionado look here to see why some casualty data is outside the infobox? I managed to sort out some of the problems but am a bit stuck. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 20:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Military_history
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the 815 Naval Air Squadron article, is it encyclopedic to have information regarding different flights listed on an operational squadron? Gavbadger ( talk) 11:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I guess I'm kind of new here, but I was wondering if I could ask for some help? I've recently created an article for the M37 HMC ( /info/en/?search=M37_105_mm_Howitzer_Motor_Carriage), a somewhat little known self-propelled gun (only 300-ish produced). It was accepted after a lot of edits, but some of the sources are still iffy. I asked the reviewer for help, and he said that some of the people here might be able to help with more reliable references.
I want to continue creating articles about the more obscure prototypes and tanks of World War II, but it's very difficult to find a source, much less one that is reliable. Umm... so basically, may I ask for help with references about those tank related projects? If anyone may have them sitting on a shelf or ideas of sources, mostly for the M37 article and perhaps obscure tanks in general (at least ones not on Wikipedia)? Thank you! Lil'Latios ( talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Ooh cool! Thanks! Lil'Latios ( talk) 01:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Formatting request: could someone good with tables take a look at the bottom of the page please. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Sam Manekshaw; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:DONTHIDE, shouldn't templates like Template:Army units and Template:Naval units be initially in the un-collapsed state? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently edited List of events named massacres but it would appear that this page is quite controversial, especially details regarding massacres involving Jews and Palestinians, but it is the sort of list that attracts nationalists and causes POV issues. I've just been looking through some of the past editors and there are loads who created an account, made one edit to the list, then just haven't edited ever again. Although I'm wondering how many are sock puppets, that aside, would it be prudent to semi-protect this article indef. and require confirmed editors to approve pending edits? — Marcus( talk) 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have instigated a discussion about this highly biased and OR driven article at Talk:British_war_crimes#Article_problems. Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
On December 8, 2017, I added "1969 Treaty of Tlatelolco" to the Template:Nuclear_weapons_limitation_treaty, guessing that the year should be entry into force. A big thanks to @ Brandmeister: for pointing out that the years in the template entries seem inconsistently to reflect either the signing (adoption?) or entry into force. What are the criteria for entries? And, by the way, should the template name use "treaties" instead of "treaty"? Thanks in advance for your help here. Litjade ( talk) 23:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked for opinions at Talk:French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle#Gender pronouns referring to the ship on a matter that is likely to be of interest to members of this project. Please comment there if you have an opinion on the matters raised there. Many thanks, MPS1992 ( talk) 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Should Category:American military personnel of the Korean War and its brethren (sistren?) be diffusing or not? I've started moving entries into the four branches (all the Es and many of the Ds), but now I'm wondering. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T) and other lists. Xx236 ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, is there a British equivalent to United States military occupation code? I'm looking around, but cannot find it. South Nashua ( talk) 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Members of this WP are encouraged to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I am asking for opinions on recent deletions. Please see Template talk:Top German World War II Aces# Proposed change to initial state. I appreciate your comments, thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sprucing up the IFF article, and this has led to a question... when an "overview" article like this contains sub-sections like IFF Makr III, generally speaking do you prefer to have a MAIN link under the sub-header, or a link within the text itself? If there is going to be a link in the text anyway, do you still like to have the MAIN? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just notifying this WP that the above AFD debate just began. Delsort script doesn't have a way to notify WikiProjects, so doing this by hand. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The first source in the Operation Albumen is a dead link, the site is now just a domain reselling page and this is all that the internet archive have copies of as well. I've had a quick look for alternative sources but all I'm seeing are mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm told that this is the sort of thing that there will almost certainly be at least one book written about and that someone here is bound to have one. I'm not a subject area expert - I just found the article on my quest to remove links to domain reselling pages. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
An important topics badly overlooked in Wikipedia. Started, by, I guess, a high-schooler newbie. I pushed the page a bit in correct direction. However the subject is in a dire need of experts. Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering that a lot of conflicts and developments took place since the end of the Cold War, is it perhaps time to create a Post Cold War task project? I created this a while back but lost interest at some point, nevertheless people keep working on this topic and subjects such as the Russo-Georgian War.-- Catlemur ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
What ship is "Big Landing Craft Oslyabya. No trace of any vessels with a BDK pennant number on the List of active Russian Navy ships. Mjroots ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just completed some copyediting on Heinz Schmidt (pilot) and noted with some dismay that the article includes a complete list of his 173 claims. I've looked at a variety of other top fighter ace articles, both Allied and German, and maybe about a third of them have victory lists appended. My question is if we should establish some sort of policy regarding the inclusion of victory lists? My inclination is not to allow them as I believe that they are far in excess of the appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, being of interest really only to super-specialized readers who can get that sort of detail from books. I consider myself a specialist in the Luftwaffe, and all I'm generally interested in are claim totals and the total number of combat missions. What do y'all think about them?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
My take is that it is too much detail. I really do not need to see every kill.19:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's what I've amended it to read:
Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Would Charles Howeson meet the threshold for notability for an article. Mjroots ( talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely fantastic, I see I've been nominated for unforeseen work being the scenes. Nobody likes to award me with any with all the work I in, still nothing. Perhaps, I'll stay at Wikimedia Commons. Same old sh*t with each having their own favourite people(s) selected. What have I done wrong cause I've been outspoken several times, especially when Peacemaker67, get his nickers in a twist. Guess everyone loves him? But poor old me, ALWAYS forgotten. Adamdaley ( talk) 11:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea there was some sort of nom process going on. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
If I could take a moment to play Devil's Advocate and consider the nominations from Adamdaley's POV. Here are some interesting statistics:
We recently (earlier this year?) decided not to track the Bronze Star in categories. Bronze Star Medal#See also is a section with links to lists of recipients. Two of the lists exist; four are redlinks. I'm not sure if these lists contradict our group assessment or not. I'm pretty sure they're being worked in good faith.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Input from additional editors on a large-scale discussion of suitable sources for the Panzer ace article on its talk page would be appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 04:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Another editor and I have reached a "agree to disagree" position on the inclusion of historian Randall Hansen's material on the son of the subject, vis-a-vis the potential veracity of recordings made in Trent Park of the subject. I added the matreial in October, it was removed on the 14th. I put it back on the 17th after some discussion and it was gain removed yesterday. Discussion can be found here and additional input would be appreciated. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z32; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Param Vir Chakra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z51; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on this discussion on category structure for Military personnel by service and war. There are cases where both the categories for Category:American military personnel of the Korean War and Category:American army personnel of the Korean War are included on an article. IMHO, that seems redundant to also include the included cat. Please add a comment if you agree or disagree at the category discussion page here. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I started the WP:WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and I am having difficulty with finding new members to contribute to pages pertaining to the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.
I am of the opinion that the creation of the following articles would be beneficial: History of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, Notable United States Coast Guard Auxiliarists, Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Interpreter Corps, Director of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Commodore, Missions of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Executive Committee, and the Coast Guard Auxiliary Association.
Expansion/improvements to these pages: United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary would also help.
Any assistance to support this project will be greatly appreciated. COASTIE I am ( talk) 13:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion over on the Battle of San Carlos (1982) talk page about the level of detail and presentation style in the article. Additional input would be appreciated. Dbsseven ( talk) 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:World War II military equipment of Czechoslovakia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for delete. 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States), 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. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to add to anyone's workload, but could I get a look at the problem raised at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 701#Loop of redirects? It looks like articles were converted to redirects without taking care that the target of the redirect did not contain a link (in this case, a template-generated link) back to the new redirect. Pinging K.e.coffman as one of the editors involved. I fixed one example. Another example that has not yet been fixed is Willy Unger. There seem to be quite a few. Thanks. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, starting from the original linkclassifier script and a day of playing around with javascript and I have a revised script linkclassifier-list-self-redirects.js
that lists the self-redirects near the top of the page where I can copy them off. Applying this to several of the alpha sublists of Iron Cross recipients, I can see that there appear to be a large number of entries still needing to be fixed. I think there's enough to justify spending a bit more time on an editing script to add the nolink=1
parameters rather than trying to do this entirely by hand. It may be a while before I get to it, but that's a chance for someone who knows better than me to step up and say "STOP! You're doing it wrong" or otherwise intervene. This will not be a bot or fully automatic edit, just some automated assistance to speed up what looks like a fairly tedious task. @
AustralianRupert: it looks like "U" was a list that had fewer than the average entries with only 6. Most of the ones I checked appear to be northward of 20.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 08:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the current policy about using these sources? WP:PRIMARY states the we should favour secondary sources, and that when we do use primary sources no interpretation or analysis of them should be made, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm currently working on the article about the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade. With this edit, I added summary information of the unit's movements in late February 1916. Later parts of the diary place the unit in the Ypres salient in June (of that year). There is a detailed account of events from June 2nd to June 16th - locations given and actions mentioned are consistent with the fact that the unit participated in the Battle of Mont Sorrel. Other sources (for example, the 1962 History, by Nicholson) only give summary details of the involvement of this specific brigade. Would a summary (i.e. not "analysis") of events, as described in the diary, be an appropriate use of primary sources? More generally, is it acceptable to use these sources to infer the participation, and the details of said participation, of a given unit in a battle or other event? 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bougainville counterattack; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot of sourced and well referenced content has been removed from the article 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) without any proper explanation. Please see the talk page discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know if it's possible to access a copy of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research online? The society's website suggests a list of contents only, and only as far back as 2007. Maybe JSTOR, to which I don't have access, has the full contents? In the WP article Yeomanry, I'm sourcing from the SAHR's article The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820, published in 1985 (Volume LXIII, I believe). This is available online from Balfron Heritage Group, but I suspect the page numbers don't match, and anyway I'd rather cite directly from an more authoritative sounding source. Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-charting album. Was at Tactical (album) at one point but is now sitting over "Tactical". There is a disambiguation page at Tactical (disambiguation), but a dozen mainly military history related articles are mis-linking to the album. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I notice that articles from the above wikiproject can be tagged as part of our crusades task force, see for example Zengid dynasty. This doesn't bring them into the main WP:MilHist listing (see for example here) but they do get listed in Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists ( for example). Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Pinging User:Kirill Lokshin, who kindly set up this category. This is not a major issue, but I have (very slowly) been trying to reduce the backlog in this category and it would be nice to exclude these articles to which the B-class checklist cannot be added (or is the solution to add the milhist baner to these articles, though there are some which may not be within scope (eg Zaraka Monastery). Thanks for any advice - Dumelow ( talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There are requested moves at:
that would benefit from your !vote and rationale. Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 09:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, are there any users experienced with creating maps here? I am asking this because I am attempting to get 15th Tank Corps, a Soviet unit, to FA status, and the maps I have in the article are not in English and poor quality for the article as they don't show units below army level. The sources I used for the article include more detailed maps, but I don't have the expertise to create my own maps. Users that want to help can email me at the address listed on the "Email this user" button under tools on the left side of the screen, and I will send images of maps with translations of foreign terms. Kges1901 ( talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day, ladies and gentlemen, if there is anyone who is not currently receiving a copy of the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, but would like to, I invite you to please add your name to the distribution list. This list can be found here. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe we have sufficient articles covering military topics dating from after the Cold War that we could consider adding an era task force. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
As soon as we have more than a handfull of enlistees I think we can go ahead to create the neccessary infrastructure. I have started the Draft:WikiProject Military history/Cold War task force page. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add yourself to this list:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1558–1566) may be of interest to some of the members of this project. The page (which is likely to be merged) and other related topics such as Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) could use attention to verify their claims and improve the page structures and referencing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see WP:SOLDIER or whatever bio-MOS applies to military individuals be updated to state that a person's last rank should NOT be used in the lead directly before their name. A biography covers an entire person's life, therefore "General John Doe (1 Jan 1800 – 30 Dec 1895)" wasn't born a General in 1800 and likely didn't instantly become a general, probably worked through several ranks and campaigns, and if he died in retirement 30 or so years after his last battle, was he still a general?
I removed "Field Marshal" from Arthur Wellesley some time ago, without opposition, but have received opposition to removing "Vice-Admiral" from leading Horatio Nelson and related articles. I see the article on George S. Patton begins with "General", and find it factually "wrong". A rank refers to a limited and fixed period of a person's career, Wellington, for example, was only a Field Marshal from 1813–15, Nelson was a Vice-Admiral from 1801–05, Patton wasn't promoted to General until 14 April 1945 and he died in December 1945. Is holding the rank of General for less than a year of his 60-year life notable? John Churchill wasn't a general all his life, why should "General" precede his name in the lead?
"Last rank" notability is a form of WP:Systematic bias – we're promoting the false impression that the last highest rank held by military figures is better and automatically notable. I'm willing to call "bullshit" on this and challenge the practice, and suggest the MOS be updated to help avoid it. Nelson may have been notable for dying as a Vice-Admiral at the Battle of Trafalgar, but the Battle of the Nile was an equally notable battle, which he survived, and there he was still a Rear-Admiral. During many of Wellington's notable battles through the Peninsular War between 1808–13 he was a Lieutenant-General or General, but not a Field Marshal. His battle at Waterloo may be his most notable, but that doesn't make his rank more important that all his previous ranks.
Napoleon doesn't begin with "Emperor", Adolf Hitler doesn't begin with "Führer" except in infoboxes where such titles might belong. But these ranks and titles should not be placed in the lead before the person's name, it is not encyclopedic... I could be wanting to refer to a soldier at any point in his life or career, Hitler in WW1, Napoleon during the Revolution, Wellington as Prime Minister, etc. The highest titles we relate to these people do not dictate their entire lives from birth to death. It's a socially engineered form of synthesis to relate military figures with their last rank and imply that it is a primary notable feature. However, since we don't lead articles with honorifics, "President" or "Prime Minister" we shouldn't be leading with high ranks like "General" and "Admiral" either, because it distorts the lead with biased notability. — Marcus( talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
MarcusBritish: - "Patton is not notable for being a General any more than Murphy was for being a First Lieutenant
" - wow, sorry, but I could not disagree with you more. And I think your post directly above shows you are very... 'passionate', about this, maybe a little too much so. You seem to be taking extreme personal offence to this issue. Anyway, the fact is, Patton is an excellent example of why the MOS is as such and his BLP introduces him as "General George S. Patton". No, he was not promoted to General at birth, and he had made some very notable accomplishments in his career before reaching that rank, (some not even military, such as the Olympics), but in the end, what Patton is most known for is his leadership on the battlefield as a general, specifically as CO of 3rd Army in France. It was in that role, as LTG then GEN that he is so widely known as one of the greatest military commanders of all time (there is variations on this from source to source), that is why I agree with the lead in his BLP as is, the MOS and most of the others here. I don't see any "bias" here and there is no need for a change. Cheers -
theWOLFchild 15:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This is like saying we shouldn't include "Sir" or postnominals because people didn't hold them from birth! It's ludicrous. Yes, of course we should add ranks. Unlike many other titles, once held they tend to be used for life. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I was the first editor to reinstate the rank on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. I see that I was reverted and that @ Dabbler: subsequently reinstated the rank again. It would have been appropriate for us to be notified of this discussion by its originator. But anyway, I noted the point made above by User:Hawkeye7 in my edit summary: "he wasn't Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronte or a Knight of the Bath for his entire career either, and they're included". I don't think there's any risk at all that a reader will infer that a rank was held throughout a person's life (or even throughout a person's career) simply because it's used in this way: it's a standard usage, and everyone knows that the vast majority of military officers are promoted to various ranks throughout their career. I'd note that the proposed alternative ("Nelson was a British Vice-Admiral" or similar) effectively says the same thing (clearly he wasn't always a British Vice-Admiral), and I don't think we want to resort to needlessly complex phraseology like "Nelson was a British naval officer who was a Vice-Admiral at the time of his death". I'd also note that although in Nelson's case his most famous exploits were as an admiral, this isn't always the case: Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet, for example, though he retired as a Vice-Admiral, is most famous as a Captain at Trafalgar. So how do we include his final rank if not at the start of his name? "Hardy was a British Vice-Admiral" tends to imply that he is famous as such, which is misleading. I therefore don't see anything wrong with starting articles with ranks, and indeed I think it is by far the most straightforward and most helpful way to indicate the final rank held by a military figure. As others have noted, the comparison to "Prime Minister", "President", etc., are misguided: those are positions, not ranks, and are treated entirely differently in sources and in general usage. And I disagree that MOS:HONORIFICS applies here, and have set out why in response to the specific post raising it above. Proteus (Talk) 19:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
So how do we include his final rank if not at the start of his name?" I personally would say: Not at all as far as the first sentence goes; especially not if there are several sentences in the lead. Taking Hardy as your own example the first sentece for now says, after the debated part, "was a royal navy officer". I think that is what it should say. You could of course substitute e.g. with was a British naval officer or simply was a British admiral - all of those are correct. The highest full rank can be brought up later in the lead if it is notable on its own in some way or the majority of the subjects notability being connected to it (e.g. taking James Longstreet being the very first and senior Lieutenant General of the Confederate States Army; or that bloke Hermann Göring being the only Reichsmarschall ever; or most of Napoleon's marshals [though they are a bit tricky]) and, of course, in the infobox and within the main text (and categories if applicable). But still that is already two/three issues mixed together.
The issues as I see them:
- use of rank as first word of an article or lead section (which I think is covered by MOS)
- use of general/admiral not just as literal full rank but in the meaning of rank group (e.g. general officers, which includes quite a lot of ranks if we go international)
- use of full rank in the first sentence (or lead at all)
- and probably whatever remains of the bias argument of
User:MarcusBritish after excluding the stuff above.
Maybe anybody sees the issues (the issues, not the subjectively right anwers to them) differently? ...
GELongstreet (
talk) 20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If I may suggest; could people take a breath, and/or a step back, and word their replies to be towards the points made, and not towards perceived flaws with other editors, and to also resist replying to such things. ( Hohum @) 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Just like to post here that I recently nominated Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo for GA status. The article is short, and its subject is an army surgeon who briefly served as President of Burkina Faso before being deposed by the more well known Thomas Sankara. If anyone wishes to review it I'd be grateful, and it would help advance our African sector and counter systemic bias (which seems to be all the rage these days). - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Royal Gloucestershire Hussars; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, anyone know why the template has a whole bunch of GANs that aren't listed at WP:GAN#WAR? The oldest one on the latter is RAF Lossiemouth, but the template has another 16 older ones. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'm getting through here: Talk:Richard Winters#"He was the last surviving Easy Company commander" is inaccurate. If I'm wrong, that's okay, too.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello historians,
I've given a WP:3O on Talk:Fifth Battle of Ypres#Regarding the German Empire constituents. The sides are in disagreement on whether the different armies of Germany, as listed in the infobox, should be shown under the German flag, or under the constituent states' flags. The convention seems to be the former; if the latter is adopted, changes would have to be made to other articles in the category. Your attention would be appreciated. François Robere ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for New Britain campaign; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
External links Q; too much trivia? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:49, 7 January 2018 (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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
He was awarded the DSC in World War II, which was upgraded to the MOH in 2014. Should he be listed in Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at: Talk:Karam Singh#Removal of citation section "Military Medal". --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 14:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
63rd (Royal Naval) Division The part ascribed to Sellers 1995 (fn 19) comes from a Kindle or some such device. Is it OK to use |loc=3853–3902 instead of pp= ? Template:Cite book wasn't much help. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Tried it but it suppressed the numbers same as nopp=y. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the identity of the French frigate Cléopâtre that was in service in 1843 please? Mjroots ( talk) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Came across this in the new pages feed. Looks a bit OR/essayish to me currently, and I'm not sure if it is a notable term. I thought it'd be better to check here, however, before sending it ot AfD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The Gulf conflict was also the first example of "hyperwar"— one that capitalizes on high technology, unprecedented accuracy, operational and strategic surprise through stealth, and the ability to bring all of an enemy's key operational and strategic nodes under near-simultaneous attack.is a quotation and not being said in Wikipedia's voice, but I imagine anyone with even the slightest knowledge of World War II is raising an eyebrow at the claim.) ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest sending this to AfD. The article is OR, with the lead reference about what 'hyperwar' apparently is not even using the term. At best it's an occasionally-used term used to refer to elements of the Revolution in Military Affairs (a frequently cited concept). Nick-D ( talk) 10:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Template:ORDATA
ORDATA has moved: it's now at https://ordata.info
Worse: all the ID numbers have been reassigned, so all 61 pages that use the template must presumably be individually updated. It looks like accurately matching Wikipedia entries to ORDATA entries requires domain knowledge which I don't have.
I've posted on the template's talk page, and notified its original author, who appears to be active in this project. Primefac offered to make the necessary changes if supplied with a list of old and new IDs.
Rural Spaceman ( talk) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Halmyros; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Battle of Pęcice has existed since January 5, 2008. A quick Google search shows absolutely no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Also from the same author is Żaglowiec Group, around since February 5, 2008. Can anyone prove that these are unquestionably hoaxes? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is a sledgehammer being used to crush a walnut? The originator made a mistake by being, perhaps, a little careless. I think the avalanche of destructive criticism that follows is unfair. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
If it's been going on that long, I suggest that you change your approach, it isn't working. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
A task force covering the Post-Cold War era is being incubated at Draft:WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force. Interested editors are invited to participate. This step has been taken after several attempts to discuss the issue here had been prematurely archived. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that it is something of a hassle that the talk page template for this WikiProject does not seem to be one of the options for AFCH and that it is also kind of hard to find even when I am trying to add it manually ... SeraphWiki ( talk) 00:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I started this article with the intention of providing data on every Allied and Axis military leader who was promoted to general before November 11 1918 and who later participated in World War II. However, other users think the title is confusing and have doubts about its relevance. I would like to invite others interested in military history to provide some advice on improving this article so it doesn't get deleted (see also deletion talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some AfC reviewing and came across a very well written and cited page Draft:Officer in Charge of Construction RVN. My primary concern is the style of the citation. Other than that (and I've checked for copy vio) I think this is close to B class in draft space. Will someone look at the citation style? I haven't seen this used much recently. BusterD ( talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I just approved this article at Articles for Creation, but it seems to be having some issues with Wikipedia's system naming requirements (it should be 2/2nd): I'm assuming this isn't the first time people here have come across that problem, so I figured I'd ask here and maybe get some people to have a look over it at the same time. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not getting into an edit war, so am asking for opinions here please. CobraDragoon has removed valid WP:REDLINKS from the List of ships of the United States Army, claiming the links are not valid. I say they are valid and should be restored. Mjroots ( talk) 04:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:Natalya_Meklin#Awards. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear guys, this is something I really want to talk about. You see, the Axis seems to be treated, even today, as only the 3 big countries. Granted they were the founders, but to talk with fellow history enthusiasts and get questions like: "Romania? Did they even fight in the war?" deeply troubles me. Like, what did Romania have to do more, than what it did? Why contributing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Eastern front, take part in numerous major battles, provide the greatest naval force in the Black Sea, have very successful flying aces, get the most German Knight's Crosses out of all the German allies, why isn't all of this enough to at least get Romania a mention here and there when talking about the Axis? It's true that I have a personal stake in this, given that I'm Romanian myself, but I really don't want to overestimate my country's importance, not at all. I am trying to normalize it. Ever since I joined the community in August, I've been doing my best to normalize my country as one of the respectable belligerents to World War II, give it the place at the table that it deserves. I started out with the navy, and am still at this chapter. Hungary too, their contribution is also too great for the disregarding it gets. So, where I'm getting with this, is: What can we do? What can we do, as Wikipedians, to try eradicate this ignorance and have all belligerents given the mentions and honors they deserve within the public talk about WW2? I really wanted to share this with you guys, thankyou for reading. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The 75th anniversary of the Japanese withdrawal from Guadalcanal will be on February 7th. I have proposed Guadalcanal Campaign for the featured article that day, and it looks like it will be selected. Its principal author, Cla68, is no longer editing, so I have taken on the task of getting it ready for a main page appearance. Any suggestions and constructive criticism will be welcomed. The article is the lead article for an 18-article in a fully-featured topic, covering a multitude of individual battles in that six-month long campaign.
In what I hope will not be a complicating factor, there is a proposal to rename the article. Interested persons are welcome to comment, at Talk:Guadalcanal Campaign#Requested move.
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. |
I've just suggested a page move from James Mattis to Jim Mattis at Talk:James Mattis #Requested move 23 November 2017. There seem to be reasonable grounds for either name, so your thoughts and comments either way would be most welcome. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of articles on National Commanders of the Civil Air Patrol. Until August 1975, NCCAPs were military personnel, but thereafter they were civilians who were given the title Brigadier General or Major General. There's a couple of articles for which sourcing is not good and not a lot is visible online. Does WP:SOLDIER's presumption of notability apply to these civilian national commanders, or does only WP:BASIC/ WP:ANYBIO apply (with a WP:LISTBIO redirect applied if not)? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 13:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a Request for Comment on the Benito Mussolini article which may concern members of this project. the issue is the lead image to be used in the infobox, i.e. whether to keep the current portrait ("#1"), or replace it with one of the proposed alternatives. Any input would be appreciated, best regards -- Director ( talk) 07:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing we merge Marine Corps Intelligence into Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, keeping the title of the latter. I have posted notices to both talk pages, but in the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, have requested that all responses be posted to the latter (destination) article's talk page, not on the other talk page and not here. That is where I have laid out my basic reasoning as well. Please have a look a both pages and post your thoughts. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 16:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to say that whoever creates the most new women bios between 26th and 30th November will win $200 worth of books of their own choice. So if anybody here wants to buy some books to help their editing, now's your chance!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I think that this needs one more definite support. It would be appreciated if you could spend the time. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
'Donald Edward' Walsh, an Adjutant General of Connecticut should read Edward Donald Walsh. He actually went by E.Donald Walsh his entire life and would laugh when the military called him Edward D. Walsh- so somehow, this is par for the course. I was able to make a few edits but couldn't figure out how to change the basic listing/ header. Thank you for your posting. Cheers- Patricia Walsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8300:AE7E:ADE0:1A08:D32:1AF0 ( talk) 12:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Momčilo Đujić has been nominated for A-Class review since August, has two supports and an image review, and needs another reviewer. Any assistance would be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Does this list deserve to exist? Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I added
to Clearing the Channel Coast to find that it was a redirect to the same page. Is there a way to cancel the redirect? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other MILHISTs projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Second Boer War Would an aficionado look here to see why some casualty data is outside the infobox? I managed to sort out some of the problems but am a bit stuck. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 20:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Military_history
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 12:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the 815 Naval Air Squadron article, is it encyclopedic to have information regarding different flights listed on an operational squadron? Gavbadger ( talk) 11:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I guess I'm kind of new here, but I was wondering if I could ask for some help? I've recently created an article for the M37 HMC ( /info/en/?search=M37_105_mm_Howitzer_Motor_Carriage), a somewhat little known self-propelled gun (only 300-ish produced). It was accepted after a lot of edits, but some of the sources are still iffy. I asked the reviewer for help, and he said that some of the people here might be able to help with more reliable references.
I want to continue creating articles about the more obscure prototypes and tanks of World War II, but it's very difficult to find a source, much less one that is reliable. Umm... so basically, may I ask for help with references about those tank related projects? If anyone may have them sitting on a shelf or ideas of sources, mostly for the M37 article and perhaps obscure tanks in general (at least ones not on Wikipedia)? Thank you! Lil'Latios ( talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Ooh cool! Thanks! Lil'Latios ( talk) 01:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Formatting request: could someone good with tables take a look at the bottom of the page please. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Sam Manekshaw; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:DONTHIDE, shouldn't templates like Template:Army units and Template:Naval units be initially in the un-collapsed state? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently edited List of events named massacres but it would appear that this page is quite controversial, especially details regarding massacres involving Jews and Palestinians, but it is the sort of list that attracts nationalists and causes POV issues. I've just been looking through some of the past editors and there are loads who created an account, made one edit to the list, then just haven't edited ever again. Although I'm wondering how many are sock puppets, that aside, would it be prudent to semi-protect this article indef. and require confirmed editors to approve pending edits? — Marcus( talk) 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have instigated a discussion about this highly biased and OR driven article at Talk:British_war_crimes#Article_problems. Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
On December 8, 2017, I added "1969 Treaty of Tlatelolco" to the Template:Nuclear_weapons_limitation_treaty, guessing that the year should be entry into force. A big thanks to @ Brandmeister: for pointing out that the years in the template entries seem inconsistently to reflect either the signing (adoption?) or entry into force. What are the criteria for entries? And, by the way, should the template name use "treaties" instead of "treaty"? Thanks in advance for your help here. Litjade ( talk) 23:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked for opinions at Talk:French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle#Gender pronouns referring to the ship on a matter that is likely to be of interest to members of this project. Please comment there if you have an opinion on the matters raised there. Many thanks, MPS1992 ( talk) 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Should Category:American military personnel of the Korean War and its brethren (sistren?) be diffusing or not? I've started moving entries into the four branches (all the Es and many of the Ds), but now I'm wondering. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T) and other lists. Xx236 ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, is there a British equivalent to United States military occupation code? I'm looking around, but cannot find it. South Nashua ( talk) 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Members of this WP are encouraged to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I am asking for opinions on recent deletions. Please see Template talk:Top German World War II Aces# Proposed change to initial state. I appreciate your comments, thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sprucing up the IFF article, and this has led to a question... when an "overview" article like this contains sub-sections like IFF Makr III, generally speaking do you prefer to have a MAIN link under the sub-header, or a link within the text itself? If there is going to be a link in the text anyway, do you still like to have the MAIN? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just notifying this WP that the above AFD debate just began. Delsort script doesn't have a way to notify WikiProjects, so doing this by hand. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The first source in the Operation Albumen is a dead link, the site is now just a domain reselling page and this is all that the internet archive have copies of as well. I've had a quick look for alternative sources but all I'm seeing are mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm told that this is the sort of thing that there will almost certainly be at least one book written about and that someone here is bound to have one. I'm not a subject area expert - I just found the article on my quest to remove links to domain reselling pages. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
An important topics badly overlooked in Wikipedia. Started, by, I guess, a high-schooler newbie. I pushed the page a bit in correct direction. However the subject is in a dire need of experts. Staszek Lem ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering that a lot of conflicts and developments took place since the end of the Cold War, is it perhaps time to create a Post Cold War task project? I created this a while back but lost interest at some point, nevertheless people keep working on this topic and subjects such as the Russo-Georgian War.-- Catlemur ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
What ship is "Big Landing Craft Oslyabya. No trace of any vessels with a BDK pennant number on the List of active Russian Navy ships. Mjroots ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just completed some copyediting on Heinz Schmidt (pilot) and noted with some dismay that the article includes a complete list of his 173 claims. I've looked at a variety of other top fighter ace articles, both Allied and German, and maybe about a third of them have victory lists appended. My question is if we should establish some sort of policy regarding the inclusion of victory lists? My inclination is not to allow them as I believe that they are far in excess of the appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, being of interest really only to super-specialized readers who can get that sort of detail from books. I consider myself a specialist in the Luftwaffe, and all I'm generally interested in are claim totals and the total number of combat missions. What do y'all think about them?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
My take is that it is too much detail. I really do not need to see every kill.19:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's what I've amended it to read:
Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Would Charles Howeson meet the threshold for notability for an article. Mjroots ( talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely fantastic, I see I've been nominated for unforeseen work being the scenes. Nobody likes to award me with any with all the work I in, still nothing. Perhaps, I'll stay at Wikimedia Commons. Same old sh*t with each having their own favourite people(s) selected. What have I done wrong cause I've been outspoken several times, especially when Peacemaker67, get his nickers in a twist. Guess everyone loves him? But poor old me, ALWAYS forgotten. Adamdaley ( talk) 11:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea there was some sort of nom process going on. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
If I could take a moment to play Devil's Advocate and consider the nominations from Adamdaley's POV. Here are some interesting statistics:
We recently (earlier this year?) decided not to track the Bronze Star in categories. Bronze Star Medal#See also is a section with links to lists of recipients. Two of the lists exist; four are redlinks. I'm not sure if these lists contradict our group assessment or not. I'm pretty sure they're being worked in good faith.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Input from additional editors on a large-scale discussion of suitable sources for the Panzer ace article on its talk page would be appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 04:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Another editor and I have reached a "agree to disagree" position on the inclusion of historian Randall Hansen's material on the son of the subject, vis-a-vis the potential veracity of recordings made in Trent Park of the subject. I added the matreial in October, it was removed on the 14th. I put it back on the 17th after some discussion and it was gain removed yesterday. Discussion can be found here and additional input would be appreciated. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z32; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Param Vir Chakra; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z51; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on this discussion on category structure for Military personnel by service and war. There are cases where both the categories for Category:American military personnel of the Korean War and Category:American army personnel of the Korean War are included on an article. IMHO, that seems redundant to also include the included cat. Please add a comment if you agree or disagree at the category discussion page here. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I started the WP:WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and I am having difficulty with finding new members to contribute to pages pertaining to the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.
I am of the opinion that the creation of the following articles would be beneficial: History of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, Notable United States Coast Guard Auxiliarists, Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Interpreter Corps, Director of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Commodore, Missions of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Executive Committee, and the Coast Guard Auxiliary Association.
Expansion/improvements to these pages: United States Coast Guard Auxiliary and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary would also help.
Any assistance to support this project will be greatly appreciated. COASTIE I am ( talk) 13:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's " Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2017 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2017. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2017. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.
Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion over on the Battle of San Carlos (1982) talk page about the level of detail and presentation style in the article. Additional input would be appreciated. Dbsseven ( talk) 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:World War II military equipment of Czechoslovakia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for delete. 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States), 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. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to add to anyone's workload, but could I get a look at the problem raised at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 701#Loop of redirects? It looks like articles were converted to redirects without taking care that the target of the redirect did not contain a link (in this case, a template-generated link) back to the new redirect. Pinging K.e.coffman as one of the editors involved. I fixed one example. Another example that has not yet been fixed is Willy Unger. There seem to be quite a few. Thanks. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, starting from the original linkclassifier script and a day of playing around with javascript and I have a revised script linkclassifier-list-self-redirects.js
that lists the self-redirects near the top of the page where I can copy them off. Applying this to several of the alpha sublists of Iron Cross recipients, I can see that there appear to be a large number of entries still needing to be fixed. I think there's enough to justify spending a bit more time on an editing script to add the nolink=1
parameters rather than trying to do this entirely by hand. It may be a while before I get to it, but that's a chance for someone who knows better than me to step up and say "STOP! You're doing it wrong" or otherwise intervene. This will not be a bot or fully automatic edit, just some automated assistance to speed up what looks like a fairly tedious task. @
AustralianRupert: it looks like "U" was a list that had fewer than the average entries with only 6. Most of the ones I checked appear to be northward of 20.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 08:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the current policy about using these sources? WP:PRIMARY states the we should favour secondary sources, and that when we do use primary sources no interpretation or analysis of them should be made, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm currently working on the article about the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade. With this edit, I added summary information of the unit's movements in late February 1916. Later parts of the diary place the unit in the Ypres salient in June (of that year). There is a detailed account of events from June 2nd to June 16th - locations given and actions mentioned are consistent with the fact that the unit participated in the Battle of Mont Sorrel. Other sources (for example, the 1962 History, by Nicholson) only give summary details of the involvement of this specific brigade. Would a summary (i.e. not "analysis") of events, as described in the diary, be an appropriate use of primary sources? More generally, is it acceptable to use these sources to infer the participation, and the details of said participation, of a given unit in a battle or other event? 135.23.202.24 ( talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Bougainville counterattack; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot of sourced and well referenced content has been removed from the article 1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) without any proper explanation. Please see the talk page discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know if it's possible to access a copy of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research online? The society's website suggests a list of contents only, and only as far back as 2007. Maybe JSTOR, to which I don't have access, has the full contents? In the WP article Yeomanry, I'm sourcing from the SAHR's article The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820, published in 1985 (Volume LXIII, I believe). This is available online from Balfron Heritage Group, but I suspect the page numbers don't match, and anyway I'd rather cite directly from an more authoritative sounding source. Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-charting album. Was at Tactical (album) at one point but is now sitting over "Tactical". There is a disambiguation page at Tactical (disambiguation), but a dozen mainly military history related articles are mis-linking to the album. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I notice that articles from the above wikiproject can be tagged as part of our crusades task force, see for example Zengid dynasty. This doesn't bring them into the main WP:MilHist listing (see for example here) but they do get listed in Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists ( for example). Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Pinging User:Kirill Lokshin, who kindly set up this category. This is not a major issue, but I have (very slowly) been trying to reduce the backlog in this category and it would be nice to exclude these articles to which the B-class checklist cannot be added (or is the solution to add the milhist baner to these articles, though there are some which may not be within scope (eg Zaraka Monastery). Thanks for any advice - Dumelow ( talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There are requested moves at:
that would benefit from your !vote and rationale. Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 09:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, are there any users experienced with creating maps here? I am asking this because I am attempting to get 15th Tank Corps, a Soviet unit, to FA status, and the maps I have in the article are not in English and poor quality for the article as they don't show units below army level. The sources I used for the article include more detailed maps, but I don't have the expertise to create my own maps. Users that want to help can email me at the address listed on the "Email this user" button under tools on the left side of the screen, and I will send images of maps with translations of foreign terms. Kges1901 ( talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day, ladies and gentlemen, if there is anyone who is not currently receiving a copy of the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, but would like to, I invite you to please add your name to the distribution list. This list can be found here. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe we have sufficient articles covering military topics dating from after the Cold War that we could consider adding an era task force. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
As soon as we have more than a handfull of enlistees I think we can go ahead to create the neccessary infrastructure. I have started the Draft:WikiProject Military history/Cold War task force page. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add yourself to this list:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1558–1566) may be of interest to some of the members of this project. The page (which is likely to be merged) and other related topics such as Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) could use attention to verify their claims and improve the page structures and referencing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see WP:SOLDIER or whatever bio-MOS applies to military individuals be updated to state that a person's last rank should NOT be used in the lead directly before their name. A biography covers an entire person's life, therefore "General John Doe (1 Jan 1800 – 30 Dec 1895)" wasn't born a General in 1800 and likely didn't instantly become a general, probably worked through several ranks and campaigns, and if he died in retirement 30 or so years after his last battle, was he still a general?
I removed "Field Marshal" from Arthur Wellesley some time ago, without opposition, but have received opposition to removing "Vice-Admiral" from leading Horatio Nelson and related articles. I see the article on George S. Patton begins with "General", and find it factually "wrong". A rank refers to a limited and fixed period of a person's career, Wellington, for example, was only a Field Marshal from 1813–15, Nelson was a Vice-Admiral from 1801–05, Patton wasn't promoted to General until 14 April 1945 and he died in December 1945. Is holding the rank of General for less than a year of his 60-year life notable? John Churchill wasn't a general all his life, why should "General" precede his name in the lead?
"Last rank" notability is a form of WP:Systematic bias – we're promoting the false impression that the last highest rank held by military figures is better and automatically notable. I'm willing to call "bullshit" on this and challenge the practice, and suggest the MOS be updated to help avoid it. Nelson may have been notable for dying as a Vice-Admiral at the Battle of Trafalgar, but the Battle of the Nile was an equally notable battle, which he survived, and there he was still a Rear-Admiral. During many of Wellington's notable battles through the Peninsular War between 1808–13 he was a Lieutenant-General or General, but not a Field Marshal. His battle at Waterloo may be his most notable, but that doesn't make his rank more important that all his previous ranks.
Napoleon doesn't begin with "Emperor", Adolf Hitler doesn't begin with "Führer" except in infoboxes where such titles might belong. But these ranks and titles should not be placed in the lead before the person's name, it is not encyclopedic... I could be wanting to refer to a soldier at any point in his life or career, Hitler in WW1, Napoleon during the Revolution, Wellington as Prime Minister, etc. The highest titles we relate to these people do not dictate their entire lives from birth to death. It's a socially engineered form of synthesis to relate military figures with their last rank and imply that it is a primary notable feature. However, since we don't lead articles with honorifics, "President" or "Prime Minister" we shouldn't be leading with high ranks like "General" and "Admiral" either, because it distorts the lead with biased notability. — Marcus( talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
MarcusBritish: - "Patton is not notable for being a General any more than Murphy was for being a First Lieutenant
" - wow, sorry, but I could not disagree with you more. And I think your post directly above shows you are very... 'passionate', about this, maybe a little too much so. You seem to be taking extreme personal offence to this issue. Anyway, the fact is, Patton is an excellent example of why the MOS is as such and his BLP introduces him as "General George S. Patton". No, he was not promoted to General at birth, and he had made some very notable accomplishments in his career before reaching that rank, (some not even military, such as the Olympics), but in the end, what Patton is most known for is his leadership on the battlefield as a general, specifically as CO of 3rd Army in France. It was in that role, as LTG then GEN that he is so widely known as one of the greatest military commanders of all time (there is variations on this from source to source), that is why I agree with the lead in his BLP as is, the MOS and most of the others here. I don't see any "bias" here and there is no need for a change. Cheers -
theWOLFchild 15:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This is like saying we shouldn't include "Sir" or postnominals because people didn't hold them from birth! It's ludicrous. Yes, of course we should add ranks. Unlike many other titles, once held they tend to be used for life. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I was the first editor to reinstate the rank on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. I see that I was reverted and that @ Dabbler: subsequently reinstated the rank again. It would have been appropriate for us to be notified of this discussion by its originator. But anyway, I noted the point made above by User:Hawkeye7 in my edit summary: "he wasn't Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronte or a Knight of the Bath for his entire career either, and they're included". I don't think there's any risk at all that a reader will infer that a rank was held throughout a person's life (or even throughout a person's career) simply because it's used in this way: it's a standard usage, and everyone knows that the vast majority of military officers are promoted to various ranks throughout their career. I'd note that the proposed alternative ("Nelson was a British Vice-Admiral" or similar) effectively says the same thing (clearly he wasn't always a British Vice-Admiral), and I don't think we want to resort to needlessly complex phraseology like "Nelson was a British naval officer who was a Vice-Admiral at the time of his death". I'd also note that although in Nelson's case his most famous exploits were as an admiral, this isn't always the case: Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet, for example, though he retired as a Vice-Admiral, is most famous as a Captain at Trafalgar. So how do we include his final rank if not at the start of his name? "Hardy was a British Vice-Admiral" tends to imply that he is famous as such, which is misleading. I therefore don't see anything wrong with starting articles with ranks, and indeed I think it is by far the most straightforward and most helpful way to indicate the final rank held by a military figure. As others have noted, the comparison to "Prime Minister", "President", etc., are misguided: those are positions, not ranks, and are treated entirely differently in sources and in general usage. And I disagree that MOS:HONORIFICS applies here, and have set out why in response to the specific post raising it above. Proteus (Talk) 19:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
So how do we include his final rank if not at the start of his name?" I personally would say: Not at all as far as the first sentence goes; especially not if there are several sentences in the lead. Taking Hardy as your own example the first sentece for now says, after the debated part, "was a royal navy officer". I think that is what it should say. You could of course substitute e.g. with was a British naval officer or simply was a British admiral - all of those are correct. The highest full rank can be brought up later in the lead if it is notable on its own in some way or the majority of the subjects notability being connected to it (e.g. taking James Longstreet being the very first and senior Lieutenant General of the Confederate States Army; or that bloke Hermann Göring being the only Reichsmarschall ever; or most of Napoleon's marshals [though they are a bit tricky]) and, of course, in the infobox and within the main text (and categories if applicable). But still that is already two/three issues mixed together.
The issues as I see them:
- use of rank as first word of an article or lead section (which I think is covered by MOS)
- use of general/admiral not just as literal full rank but in the meaning of rank group (e.g. general officers, which includes quite a lot of ranks if we go international)
- use of full rank in the first sentence (or lead at all)
- and probably whatever remains of the bias argument of
User:MarcusBritish after excluding the stuff above.
Maybe anybody sees the issues (the issues, not the subjectively right anwers to them) differently? ...
GELongstreet (
talk) 20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If I may suggest; could people take a breath, and/or a step back, and word their replies to be towards the points made, and not towards perceived flaws with other editors, and to also resist replying to such things. ( Hohum @) 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Just like to post here that I recently nominated Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo for GA status. The article is short, and its subject is an army surgeon who briefly served as President of Burkina Faso before being deposed by the more well known Thomas Sankara. If anyone wishes to review it I'd be grateful, and it would help advance our African sector and counter systemic bias (which seems to be all the rage these days). - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Royal Gloucestershire Hussars; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, anyone know why the template has a whole bunch of GANs that aren't listed at WP:GAN#WAR? The oldest one on the latter is RAF Lossiemouth, but the template has another 16 older ones. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'm getting through here: Talk:Richard Winters#"He was the last surviving Easy Company commander" is inaccurate. If I'm wrong, that's okay, too.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello historians,
I've given a WP:3O on Talk:Fifth Battle of Ypres#Regarding the German Empire constituents. The sides are in disagreement on whether the different armies of Germany, as listed in the infobox, should be shown under the German flag, or under the constituent states' flags. The convention seems to be the former; if the latter is adopted, changes would have to be made to other articles in the category. Your attention would be appreciated. François Robere ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for New Britain campaign; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
External links Q; too much trivia? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:49, 7 January 2018 (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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
He was awarded the DSC in World War II, which was upgraded to the MOH in 2014. Should he be listed in Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at: Talk:Karam Singh#Removal of citation section "Military Medal". --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 14:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
63rd (Royal Naval) Division The part ascribed to Sellers 1995 (fn 19) comes from a Kindle or some such device. Is it OK to use |loc=3853–3902 instead of pp= ? Template:Cite book wasn't much help. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Tried it but it suppressed the numbers same as nopp=y. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the identity of the French frigate Cléopâtre that was in service in 1843 please? Mjroots ( talk) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Came across this in the new pages feed. Looks a bit OR/essayish to me currently, and I'm not sure if it is a notable term. I thought it'd be better to check here, however, before sending it ot AfD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The Gulf conflict was also the first example of "hyperwar"— one that capitalizes on high technology, unprecedented accuracy, operational and strategic surprise through stealth, and the ability to bring all of an enemy's key operational and strategic nodes under near-simultaneous attack.is a quotation and not being said in Wikipedia's voice, but I imagine anyone with even the slightest knowledge of World War II is raising an eyebrow at the claim.) ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest sending this to AfD. The article is OR, with the lead reference about what 'hyperwar' apparently is not even using the term. At best it's an occasionally-used term used to refer to elements of the Revolution in Military Affairs (a frequently cited concept). Nick-D ( talk) 10:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Template:ORDATA
ORDATA has moved: it's now at https://ordata.info
Worse: all the ID numbers have been reassigned, so all 61 pages that use the template must presumably be individually updated. It looks like accurately matching Wikipedia entries to ORDATA entries requires domain knowledge which I don't have.
I've posted on the template's talk page, and notified its original author, who appears to be active in this project. Primefac offered to make the necessary changes if supplied with a list of old and new IDs.
Rural Spaceman ( talk) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Halmyros; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Battle of Pęcice has existed since January 5, 2008. A quick Google search shows absolutely no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Also from the same author is Żaglowiec Group, around since February 5, 2008. Can anyone prove that these are unquestionably hoaxes? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is a sledgehammer being used to crush a walnut? The originator made a mistake by being, perhaps, a little careless. I think the avalanche of destructive criticism that follows is unfair. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
If it's been going on that long, I suggest that you change your approach, it isn't working. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
A task force covering the Post-Cold War era is being incubated at Draft:WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force. Interested editors are invited to participate. This step has been taken after several attempts to discuss the issue here had been prematurely archived. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that it is something of a hassle that the talk page template for this WikiProject does not seem to be one of the options for AFCH and that it is also kind of hard to find even when I am trying to add it manually ... SeraphWiki ( talk) 00:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I started this article with the intention of providing data on every Allied and Axis military leader who was promoted to general before November 11 1918 and who later participated in World War II. However, other users think the title is confusing and have doubts about its relevance. I would like to invite others interested in military history to provide some advice on improving this article so it doesn't get deleted (see also deletion talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some AfC reviewing and came across a very well written and cited page Draft:Officer in Charge of Construction RVN. My primary concern is the style of the citation. Other than that (and I've checked for copy vio) I think this is close to B class in draft space. Will someone look at the citation style? I haven't seen this used much recently. BusterD ( talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I just approved this article at Articles for Creation, but it seems to be having some issues with Wikipedia's system naming requirements (it should be 2/2nd): I'm assuming this isn't the first time people here have come across that problem, so I figured I'd ask here and maybe get some people to have a look over it at the same time. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not getting into an edit war, so am asking for opinions here please. CobraDragoon has removed valid WP:REDLINKS from the List of ships of the United States Army, claiming the links are not valid. I say they are valid and should be restored. Mjroots ( talk) 04:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:Natalya_Meklin#Awards. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear guys, this is something I really want to talk about. You see, the Axis seems to be treated, even today, as only the 3 big countries. Granted they were the founders, but to talk with fellow history enthusiasts and get questions like: "Romania? Did they even fight in the war?" deeply troubles me. Like, what did Romania have to do more, than what it did? Why contributing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Eastern front, take part in numerous major battles, provide the greatest naval force in the Black Sea, have very successful flying aces, get the most German Knight's Crosses out of all the German allies, why isn't all of this enough to at least get Romania a mention here and there when talking about the Axis? It's true that I have a personal stake in this, given that I'm Romanian myself, but I really don't want to overestimate my country's importance, not at all. I am trying to normalize it. Ever since I joined the community in August, I've been doing my best to normalize my country as one of the respectable belligerents to World War II, give it the place at the table that it deserves. I started out with the navy, and am still at this chapter. Hungary too, their contribution is also too great for the disregarding it gets. So, where I'm getting with this, is: What can we do? What can we do, as Wikipedians, to try eradicate this ignorance and have all belligerents given the mentions and honors they deserve within the public talk about WW2? I really wanted to share this with you guys, thankyou for reading. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The 75th anniversary of the Japanese withdrawal from Guadalcanal will be on February 7th. I have proposed Guadalcanal Campaign for the featured article that day, and it looks like it will be selected. Its principal author, Cla68, is no longer editing, so I have taken on the task of getting it ready for a main page appearance. Any suggestions and constructive criticism will be welcomed. The article is the lead article for an 18-article in a fully-featured topic, covering a multitude of individual battles in that six-month long campaign.
In what I hope will not be a complicating factor, there is a proposal to rename the article. Interested persons are welcome to comment, at Talk:Guadalcanal Campaign#Requested move.