![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 145 | ← | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | → | Archive 155 |
Hey, Military History WikiProject,
I'm not sure where to post this but this is a very active WikiProject so it might as well be this talk page! I just noticed that today, there are suddenly dozens of empty aircraft categories. I'm not sure if there have been a lot of article deletions or just some reorganization going on. But you might check out Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion at the bottom of the right-hand column. In case something is out of order, you have 7 days before these empty categories will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), 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. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm trying to add an article for A-class review.
And nothing happens. The "red link" that is supposed to appear is blue, and leads to the archived review. What am I doing wrong, please? auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
[1] - SS Leviathan, + an unconnected text. Is it any use to us? Also [2] for the Battle of Verdun? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
While I await (especially) third opinions on the CINCPAC Command History text above, I have taken the liberty of removing the 1975 evacuation of U.S. personnel from South Vietnam from the MACV article, because MACV's existence ended in early 1973. The whole section duplicates material from an agency article which definitely was in SVN in 1975, the Embassy of the United States, Saigon. The MACV page was previously distorted significantly by inclusion of post-1973 details. I wasn't sure whether to add this note to the discussion above, but it's actually separate. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I am engaged at Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam with Mztourist, who while having spent significant amounts of time on the Vietnam War does not appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy. In 1972-73 the Military Assistance Command Vietnam HQ was downsized into a enormous Defense Attache Office, under a two-star Defense Attache, made up of over 400 personnel. Given that the organization changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon, I moved the section on the DAO into the Embassy page, where Mztourist tried to remove it. Can I please have some third opinions to advise Mztourist that Defense Attaches aren't independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors? Much appreciate some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Finally!! "Work together with the Ambassador"!! You've quoted something that admits the DAO was attached to the Ambassador!! We've already agreed that there were two reporting lines; that's clear. What I am arguing, and you have not advanced any evidence against, is that this remnant of HQ MACV was technically part of the Embassy. That accords with all the evidence, yours and mine, and accords with both removal of the data from the MACV article (it was shut down, that's logical), and addition of the data to the Embassy article (that's where the DAO organizationally resided). The DAO was part of the Embassy, though with lots of reporting lines to USSAG/7AF and higher up in the DOD chain. So too do DAOs in Embassies today - responsible to the Ambassador for some things, and responsible to the relevant COCOM, DSCA, and/or DIA for others; in Saigon in 1973 (via USSAG/7AF), in Hanoi today, and worldwide today. But that does not change the technical placing of the DAO within the Embassy. It was clearly *not* part of USSAG/7AF, you haven't even tried to argue that. So no, I will not be reverting my changes. In particular, readding the DAO material to the MACV page would be ridiculous.
'..only in public affairs and media matters?' ..Martin sent the deputy DA home for arguing that the evacuation security force should be a whole Marine Amphibious Brigade!! Clearly things could be fluid, and his authority extended to a much greater extent!!
Try and answer me this: if we remove the data from the MACV page, and we remove it from the Embassy page, where would we put it? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is is an "either/or" situation. It appears to me that this information about DAO Saigon should be summarised on the MACV page in an "Aftermath" section or similar, but has sufficient reliable sources to justify its stand-alone notability and should therefore have a stand-alone page with all available and relevant information. Perhaps at Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
As per consensus, I have created Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Mztourist ( talk) 05:26, 12 May 2019 (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)
11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Albert Kesselring for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Despite the RFC at WP:ENDPORTALS being resolved as "strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time", a number of users have engaged on a good-faith program of deleting portals in batches or singly. I have long been a participant in this project and as part of my involvement I have maintained and watched Portal:American Civil War and other war-related portals. Now with Wikipedia much evolved the usefulness of portals as a content-space has been called into question. I'm not sure I have answers. I know that it's not practical for me to maintain all the entries on this tool:
None of the above are currently listed for discussion, so far as I'm aware. Is there anyone here who'd like to list themselves as maintainers for these fully developed navigation tools? I'd be all too happy to show interested parties how to do the actual work, which at this point is not nearly as intensive as redeveloping these portals from scratch.
There deserves to be a fuller discussion about how to rehabilitate and increase visibility of portals but at this point the trend is to delete many of those which aren't actively maintained or are inadequately developed.
There a bunch of backstory to this deletion process and I'm not trying to canvass for MfD participants. I'm merely trying to save work many project members have done over the last 15 years before damage is done. Any project interest? BusterD ( talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect I'm being cantankerous/bloody-minded/adjective-of-your-choice in my interaction with an IP editor over Template:WWI_tanks. The IP has expanded the navbox with many WWI vehicles of which I was not aware and the also at the List of combat vehicles of World War I (prototype tanks, self-propelled guns, armoured cars et ) - which is good. And it throws up lots of things that possibly warrant articles of their own or covering in general articles of the "armoured vehicle development in X country" type. But to my mind while a list article can handle redlinks and supplementary comments this has resulted in a very big very redlinked navbox. (I note also that some of the vehicles are French and they have very long names). So far I've suggested a discussion but it's likely by now that they think I'm a bad faith actor. If anyone has ideas on how I can engage constructively that would be helpful. Working in Navbox space is tricky because it's unlike an article where you can add appropriate cites. And I'm out of practice editing on Wikipedia and policy. Of course if I'm being a complete ass and a fool do tell me. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new page reviewer and just added someone else's new article, Expeditionary energy economics, to your project. I am unsure about how to add this article to one of your specific Task Forces, so please proceed as you see fit. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Project members may want to give their input on the discussion about page moves at Talk:Panzer (disambiguation), which also concerns the Panzer article. ( Hohum @) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello WP MilHist! I'm working through the backlog at Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 and came across Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941. It seems legit, but only has one source, and is orphaned. I was wondering if anyone could help answer some questions for me. Is it indeed a legitimate term? If so, is it really something that needs its own standalone article, or would it be better off merged elsewhere? And third, if it is legit and should stand alone, where can I link to it to de-orphan it? I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Thank you in advance! ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look up contemporaneous material on the “civil war”, you see a different picture from the “war between the states”; “Bull Run” gives a different picture from “Manassas”. This sort of thing sometimes shows up in unexpected places; American newsmen, for instance, were active in Germany until US entry in WWI, and often used different names for battles than did the British or French.
Obviously, this is something of preaching to the converted; the historiographical standards for military articles on Wiki are much, much higher than those for most of the rest of Wikipedia. Still worth keeping in mind, though. Qwirkle ( talk) 14:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Some list articles eg List of common WWII infantry weapons, List of infantry weapons of World War I, List of combat vehicles of World War I have Flag icons in the section headers. The WP:MoS (not in MOS:FLAG where you might think it would be mentioned but in MOS:HEADINGS) says that's not a place for flag icons (or any icon). Equally there shouldn't be links, as in List of limited service World War II combat vehicles. And that as it's a technical issue it overrides local consensus or IAR. I'm assuming the MilHist project doesn't have a different view on this, only it could get a bit revert-y in applying (and enforcing the rule) and I wouldn't want to find myself without a policy to stand on. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the frigate Egyptienne wrecked in the Bosphorus in October/November 1854? - "Latest Intelligence". The Times. No. 21902. London. 18 November 1854. col E, p. 6. template uses deprecated parameter(s) ( help). Mjroots ( talk) 07:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the "Russian ship Rostikoff" wrecked before 20 December 1853. Apparently a ship of the line of 120 guns. - "Foreign Intelligence - Russia and Turkey". The Royal Cornwall Gazette, Falmouth Packet, and General Advertiser. No. 2638. Truro. 13 January 1854. p. 2.. Mjroots ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some Field Marshal of these live through after 1871 , the proclamation of the German Empire.
Since Prussia , Bavaria and Hanover became part of German Empire after 1871. Were those Field Marshal such as Prince Karl Theodor of Bavaria , William, Duke of Brunswick , Friedrich Graf von Wrangel , Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Frederick (Frederick III) automatically become Field Marshal of German Empire ?
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 15:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Since the current List of German field marshals and List of Austrian field marshals article make me puzzle , I need somebody to clarify. -- Comrade John ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Do the articles War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 and Iraq War order of battle, 2009 serve a purpose anymore? They used to be continuously updated lists, but ended up frozen in time because editors stopped updating them. I'm not sure what the point is of preserving these snapshots of troop deployments for those two years. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 107#Future of Iraq War order of battle for previous discussion. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. This is somewhat related the one that I ask previously.
Four questions:
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 11:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hans-Joachim Marseille, 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. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "Frisian Legion" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Draft:Frisian Legion looks to me like an ill-prepared attempt to create a hoax. I see absolutely zero relevant English sources in a Google Book search, and that seems highly unlikely if the legion had existed. I have asked User:Olimpus344 for sources, but they have not replied.
The associated "logo", File:Frisian legion.png, does not have a credible source, is marked as "own work", and does indeed look exactly like that. Creation of fake files to support a hoax article is classic modus operandi. Adding a link to the article title in another article as was done in Special:Diff/862080187/863452484 is also classic. I'm inclined to think the draft should be tagged with {{ db-hoax}}, but seek opinions from editors more acquainted with history in general.
This made me look further into what Olimpus344 has been doing:
Advanced search for: "Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Considering all of the above, I think all uploads to Commons by this user should be tagged for speedy deletion and sr:Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца should be tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. Would anybody here happen to speak Serbian and know the speedy deletion procedure there? Sam Sailor 12:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Republika Srpska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Republika Srpska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I updated templatedata for Template:WikiProject Biography (added values and descriptions), see the botttom of Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. But I didn't "update military-work-group" and "military-task-force" - Whats the difference? Christian75 ( talk) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I've finished my project on British Army first-class cricketers and left the two generals who played for the team until last. Please feel free to expand Edward Fitzherbert (British Army officer) and Harold Fawcus - I've covered the bare bones but you guys might have more military things to add to them. Cheers. StickyWicket ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Harvey is a known hoaxer. He is a PhD and was (and still is) published in reputable journals. He wrote some on air power history. Are his works RS? Or is he presumptively unreliable? He also published on aviation under the name Stephen Harvey. Srnec ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The Pritzker Military Museum and Library will be launching a new exhibit, D-Day +75. Mainstream news articles on the exhibit will be available shortly. In the meantime, please check out the announcement here: http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/permanent-current-upcoming-exhibits/d-day-75/
PMML has a new CEO, Rob Havers. Crain's Chicago Business has this article: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arts-entertainment/meet-new-head-pritzker-military-museum
There is a lot of other news articles on PMML that would really help update the main Wikipedia article. Those resources have been added to the talk page. There is also a lot about PMML and the WWI Centennial in Google News.
And if you need help tracking down a print resource for a Wiki article you are working on, please be sure to email us at librarian@pritzkermilitary.org as the PMML staff is happy to scan the appropriate pages to you if we have the book or journal in PMML's collection.
Happy editing! TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I working on a non-mil article and a source says in 1864, my subject was in Washington to try to get better mail service for the Arizona territory and that he was successful in "rendering 'signal service' to the Territory.
Does anyone know what this could have been referring to. I've found that "signal service" could mean signalling between ships or stations on land with flag/torches and telescopes. Or it also meant Army telegraph. (I found a 1873 report in the NYT about the Chief Signal Officer - military signaling and telegraphy.)
At the time, Arizona was just formed and pretty much dependent on the army (and this was also during the Civil War). The newly appointed civilian officials traveled there by army escort, and I'm guessing the army brought the mail as well. I'd like to elaborate more on what this improved mail service was.
Does anyone know anything about this? MB 01:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Women Airforce Service Pilots. WW II pilot. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Pages on AEW are being taken over by wrestlers, some more voices in the discussions would be welcome:
|
Redirect discussion of AEW closed as keep to Airborne Early Warning and Control. starship .paint ( talk) 03:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've run across the term "Vedette mail" used in the 1860s. (e.g. [14]). Vedettes were apparently riders who carried military mail on horseback. Our article Vedette (sentry) doesn't get into this, and I can't find much more than what is in the link above. I'd like to mention Vedette mail in the sentry article if anyone has a source. MB 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I've done a general clean-up of grammar, punctuation, typos, etc. on the article for The Ascent. Can we get a second pair of eyes on it to see if it still needs the quality standards template? Any other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. /info/en/?search=The_Ascent Cadar ( talk) 13:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
|title=
where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using |script-title=
instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed.
This {{
sfn}}
short reference doesn't link to anything; it should; or it should be deleted.{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Elem |author-link=Elem Klimov |trans-title=Larisa: book about Larisa Shepitko |script-title=ru:Лариса: книга о Ларисе Шепитько |location=Moscow |publisher=Iskusstvo |year=1987 |pages=290 |ref=harv |language=ru}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
sfn}}
write:
{{sfn|Klimov|1987}}
{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Hermann |last2=Murzina |first2=Marina |last3=Plahov |first3=Andrei |last4=Fomina |first4=Raisa |trans-title=Elem Klimov. Unshot cinema |script-title=ru:Элем Климов. Неснятое кино |location=Moscow |publisher=Chroniqueur |year=2008 |page=384 |isbn=978-5-901238-52-3 |language=ru}}
Alland these|title=
where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using|script-title=
instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed.
{{
sfn}}
short refs.|script-title=
updated. All quotation marks and guillemets removed. Maybe double-check me to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I used the browser's search function to find all relevant instances and replaced them. If there's nothing else, I'll give it a couple more days to see if anyone else has any comments, then the template can come off. And thanks again. This is the first time I've dealt with Cyrillic content on an article, so it's new territory for me.Just wanted to make readers aware of this resource, which can be helpful for research leads, and ask any assistance. There's lots of codenames accessible via Category:Military operations involving the United States that haven't been added. Would like to thank Lineagegeek for recent help, including obscure U.S. Air Force codenames. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to inform the project of two articles that cites zero sources: Defence Avionics Research Establishment and U.S. Carrier Group tactics. starship .paint ( talk) 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Turkish Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Turkish Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
These are the two Holy Roman Empire's field marshal rank.
Is Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle higher than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?
If so , why some Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle holder such as Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen award Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle earlier than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Please take a moment to comment on the most appropriate redirection target at Talk:Armed services. ( Hohum @) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived as nobody's commented on it in the last few weeks. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Queensland Government has a a website WWII places in Queensland, which is interesting material but alas copyright only. However, I have just discovered that they publish the same info in a CSV on the Queensland Open Data repository (albeit with some HTML markup) under a CC-BY-3.0 licence. Now I don't understand why they would use different licensing for the same material in different places, but, shrugs, why should we care? So long as one of them is CC-BY, we have an opportunity. What this means is that it should be possible to write a tool to go through and convert each entry into reasonably good wikitext for insertion as a section into the relevant place article (and/or wherever else it might be useful). Now, as some of you might be aware, I have done similar things with heritage registers but there I was generating whole articles, whereas I think these entries are more of a size to be a section (or subsection) in a larger article (which actually makes the task easier -- generating ledes, infoboxes, categories is not so easy). You can of course do these things manually but with 566 entries, it would be a very time-consuming to do it all manually. Having said this, I am not a believer in dumping machine-generated wikitext into articles without some human review and often a little bit of copyediting is needed to get it MoS conformant and sometimes a bit of wikilinking may be required (I can generate wikilinks but not as well as a human can). So my approach is to generate *draft* wikitext which a human editor inserts and polishes as required. Still a bit tedious (hundreds of anything is tedious) but a lot less time-consuming than doing it all manually. I've got a couple of large-ish projects happening at the moment, so this is probably something I will look at later in the year. But I just thought I would put the idea out there to see if anyone else is interested in being involved. I don't write military history content normally so I think a collaboration with some folk who do will probably get a better outcome than my going solo with it. Kerry ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of wars involving the United States: Any advice could help with similar debates on a lot of other pages. TrendBronco ( talk) 04:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some discrepancies between contemporary newspaper reports and Wikipedia articles re certain Russian ships scuttled at Sevastopol.
From the Hampshire Chronicle and Sussex Telegraph of 14 October 1854 under the article heading "Off the River Katscha, Sebastopol, September 28":-
Two day ago would refer to 26 September (new style date?). As for the ships, is "Holy Trinity" the Tri Svyatelia, which is listed as having been scuttled on List of shipwrecks in September 1854#11 September (old style date?)? "Rostislaff" is probably the Russian ship Rostislav, which according to the article was scuttled on 13 February 1855. "Sisepoli", "Zagoodieh", "Ooriel" and "Zoolevche" - no idea, not in the list of sail or steam frigates, nor listed at Threedecks. "Silistria" is probably the Silistriya, which is listed in the list of ships of the line of Russia as having been scuttled at Sevastopol in 1854. Mjroots ( talk) 08:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Is the Peruvian transport ship Mercedes, lost on 1 May 1854 the same vessel as the frigate Mercedes acquired by the Peruvian Navy in 1840? Mjroots ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to the earlier discussion, the Daily News of 23 November adds the information that "An Egyptian three-decker has been wrecked near Varna. Admiral Hassan Pacha, who was on board, perished. He is much regretted. A fourth of the crew was saved." Does this shed any light on which vessel it was? Mjroots ( talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
From Russkii Invalid, No. 261, 22 November, 1854:
This site quotes the Russkii Invalid (No. 261) of 22 November 1854:
And also from the Russkii Invalid (No. 263) of 24 November 1854, quoting the Triest Gazette:
There's a brief discussion on my Talk Page, at User talk:Narky Blert#Firetrap, which IIRC was prompted by a bad military-related link to the DAB page Fire Trap. We may have identified a couple of holes in WP worth filling; I didn't even mention e.g. minefields or Kesselschlacht in that discussion. So, if I prompt an editor or two here to start writing... Narky Blert ( talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I doubt there will be much reaction to this, but some time ago, a banned editor moved the article on the 763d Bombardment Squadron to 763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. For reasons I gave at Talk:763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, it is unlikely the two units are the same, and no WP:RS is given for the move. Before I ask an admin to move the article back over redirect, I thought I'd give everyone in the project an opportunity to rebut the lack of identity between the units.
|
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)
13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
PMML has been in the news a lot in the last 30 days. See: Google search
2019 Pritzker Literature Award will be announced before summer's end. Pritzker Military Presents will start its new season on WTTW this fall. Any help updating these articles is appreciated. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Bond|Taylor|2001}} |title=The Battle for France & Flanders Sixty Years On |editor1-last=Bond |editor1-first=B. |editor1-link=Brian Bond |editor2-last=Taylor |editor2-first=M. D. |year=2001 |publisher=Leo Cooper |location=Barnsley |edition=1st |isbn=978-0-85052-811-4}}
** {{harvc |last=Buckley |first=J. |c=The Air War in France |year=2001 |in1=Bond |in2=Taylor}}
Can the harvc bit accommodate authorlink? I tried |authorlink=John Buckley (historian) but got nothing. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
We are in the final stages of a plan to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
Apollo 11 moonwalk on the
Main Page on July 16–24. I began preparation for this last year, in August 2018. I was wondering if there was any interest in doing something similar for the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII. I think this WikiProject is well suited to coordinating such an effort. We can choose two dates,
Victory in Europe (May 8, 2020) and
Surrender of Japan (September 2, 2020August 15, 2020), and flood the Main Page with articles about
World War II on both these dates. I met little resistance to the idea and found many supporters to my cause when coordinating the Apollo 11 anniversary. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
01:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
General comment: planning for and improving articles and other activities to mark such anniversaries is excellent. I'd like to collect examples of this (along with brief commentary on how successful the attempts were). The examples from MILHIST that I can think of are the ones that were mentioned under 'special projects' but were trimmed and are mentioned in the past tense on the MILHIST main page as 'previous special projects have included work on': the American Civil War, World War I and the D-Day landings (it is ironic that the latter went inactive). Non-MILHIST ones I can think of include the activity centred around the Titanic centennial (I can't remember if a central co-ordination page was set up for that). Anyway, the 75th anniversary of D-Day got me wondering if it is too early to gently ramp up towards the centennial of WWII? This may be ambitious given that this is 25 years away, and Wikipedia is not even 20 years old yet, but maybe some of the groundwork could be laid now to avoid repeating past mistakes or being overly ambitious? How far in advance were the other 'special' projects set up, and what (apart from the obvious of people willing to do the work) makes such a project successful? Carcharoth ( talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Changed the tense here on one of those inactive projects, though that is just tidying up. I hope those pages are kept to show what was attempted, even if what happened wasn't quite what was planned (there was a lot of activity on the WWI topic, still is to some extent, just not as co-ordinated as it could have been). Carcharoth ( talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the 75th anniversaries are special? The 100th anniversaries tend to generate more coverage, though in this case the dwindling number of WW2 veterans still alive gives each milestone anniversary a bit more significance. You may be right about it being too early for WW2 centenary. Nothing planned yet. Only references are in SF books! :-) (Actually, if you look hard enough, there are plans here and there and preparations already in place for the WW2 centenary, usually of the form of far-sighted commemoration committees doing WWI commemoration that will lay groundwork for WWII commemorations). Carcharoth ( talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I would observe that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the start of the war. We might consider a focus on that anniversary since many of the events of the 75th anniversary have both passed and been overshadowed by the 100th anniversary of WW1. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Incubator – I have started an incubator for V-E Day. Please join at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/V-E Day. --- Coffeeand crumbs 07:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, all! I have just created an article about Brigadier General Laura Yeager, shortly to become the first woman to command an Army infantry division. I am not familiar with the traditions and format of military articles so I would appreciate any help or corrections. In particular, I don't know how to list her awards and decorations. Would one of you be willing to do that? They are listed here: [16] Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Where can I find the B class criteria for WP:MILHIST so I can show someone how to assess WP:MILHIST. Adamdaley ( talk) 03:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that articles on campaigns of World War II aren't consistent on capitalization - we have Guadalcanal Campaign, North African Campaign, and Philippines Campaign (1944–1945), but also Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, and Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign (among many others). These probably ought to be standardized one way or the other - any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.[bold added for emphasis] WP:TITLE defers to this on the matter of capitalisation.
Why were no notices of these proposed moves not given on the articles in question? Kablammo ( talk) 19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
At risk of tying up editors in unproductive RM debates, I feel that the above moves should have a little bit more discussion before being declared "uncontroversial." N-Grams supports uncapitalized usage but also might be including all sorts of running text about other topics. I feel "consistency" is a very weak argument here because, as usual, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the sources are consistent. I would say that "descriptive titles" where Wikipedia made up a name - e.g. - Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign - sure, use "campaign." For the campaigns that are their own entity... well, to quote Cinderella157 above, "MOS:CAPS also defers to usage in [independent, reliable] sources. Military sources will tend to over-capitalise. Capitalisation of different campaigns in sources will vary and in consequence..." That sounds like an argument to do a case-by-case examination to me, and if the best sources "over-capitalise" then so should Wikipedia. I'm not a subject matter expert here and will defer to WWII experts, but if sources differ, then it could well be there was no problem at all to begin with - that we'd expect no consistency and these should all be moved individually IF that particular campaign doesn't appear to be de-capped. SnowFire ( talk) 03:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
RM discussion is open now at Talk:Tunisian_Campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019 for 4 more of these. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject please take a look at the recent edits to Lend-lease please. ( Hohum @) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of "The Urgent Need for Prevention of Genocide of the Assyrians and Yezidis of Iraq", a document presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! A discussion was the started in WikiProject Venezuela regarding the Venezuelan 19th century army Hell Legion. I understand this is one of the most active WikiProjects in the English Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is any editor that has bibliographic material to start an article about the topic. Many thanks in advance! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military. I would like to invite the inputs from editors familiar with the subject.
Regards. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Quick question: is it more appropriate to add a British-built war memorial in South Africa to the British task force, the African one, or both? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I've recently stumbled across some articles on individual engagements between surface ships and submarines in WWI: Action of 15 October 1917, Action of 17 November 1917, Action of 21 May 1918, Action of 5 September 1918, Action of 8 May 1918. Having read through them, I don't believe that any are actually notable, although you might be able to make a case for two of them as they cover the engagements in which Americans earned the Medal of Honor. There are also a few more covering engagements in the Black Sea in WW2, but, by and large, these sorts of things are not covered on WP, probably because they're actions that are too low a level to be encyclopedic and are best covered by the articles on the ships involved, IMO. And there would literally be hundreds of attacks to cover. Do we want to change this as a matter of policy?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of HNLMS Amsterdam and HNLMS Cyclops lost after 14 December 1854 whilst on a voyage from the Baltic to Vlissingen? Mjroots ( talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve noticed a number of increasing edits on military articles that change capitalization. For instance Secretary of the Army is changed to secretary of the Army or secretary of the army. Much of this is in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, but MOS:MILTERMS states “The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized.” so, as a community, what makes sense? My personal opinion is that capitalization, when consistent in outside sources should be used, even if it contradicts MOS:JOBTITLES and added as an exception under MILTERMS. Garuda28 ( talk) 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at WT:AV re the addition of a template to the June 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone article, Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've redrafted the article on slighting in my sandbox and wondered if I could get some input on it. I'd like to copy it over to mainspace but since I've written one of the sources used I'd like to try and establish some sort of consensus first. For those of you who haven't come across the term before, it's about the deliberate destruction of buildings – especially fortifications. If you have any comments, I reckon Talk:Slighting would be a good place for them; I'll create a new section there shortly. Richard Nevell ( talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Douglas Albert Munro; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A recent citation at English Longbow has been removed as unreliable. The edit suggests that the book is actually a compilation of wikipedia content. The book is :
Syed Ramsey Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times, Vij Books, 2016 isbn=9789386019813
Having reviewed what I can through Amazon and Google, I think the assessment may well be correct. Is anyone else aware of the author or publisher? If nothing else, I'm flagging it here as a caution to editors who may see it elsewhere.
Monstrelet ( talk) 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am looking at the edits of a user who frequently changes "General" to "Gen." etc. Is there any guidance on this? I have always assumed that in general [pun intended] that the full rank ought to be used unless space is an issue in--a table or whatever--(Just as is done with the month in dates ( MOS:DATEFORMAT).
One of the issues with using abbreviations is just because a reader is familiar with one verity of English they may not be with another. So for example an American maybe familiar with what a "technical sergeant" is but a Brit probably would not. Using "TSgt" just puts another level of opaqueness into a sentence that uses the abbreviation.
What are others thoughts on this? -- PBS ( talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only...– with a rare common sense exception where the rank is relevant in context. As for that initial mention, I see no reason why it should be abbreviated. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have found some more advise in the main MOS article in the section :See Do not use unwarranted abbreviations. There seems to be general agreement so far on how to handle this, and it is the practice I have seen in hundreds of articles. So how to proceed? -- PBS ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it all right if I update the MH MOS to reflect the renaming and redirection of {{ infobox military structure}} to {{ infobox military installation}}? RobDuch ( talk· contribs) 23:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Vote (after reading Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name)
In short, for more there a decade there is a problem with the titles of three articles:
1947–1949 Palestine war,
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
It was agreed that there is a need for a common prefix for these three articles, and a neutral title should be chosen. Before casting a vote, you are encouraged to donate 10 minutes of your time and read
Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name to understand the background of this long discussion. Thanks.--
Bolter21 (
talk to me)
16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of "La Russie", a three-deck ship of the line of 112 guns lost at the Battle of Sweaborg.("The Baltic". Glasgow Herald. 14 September 1855.). Nothing in the List of ships of the line of Russia fits and Threedecks draws a blank. Mjroots ( talk) 06:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found she in the List mentioned above: Rossiya 120/128 ("Россия", 1839) - Hulked as floating barracks 1857, BU 1860-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 11:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Patton976 Is this editor another visit by our resident Italian chauvinist? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This editor has now been re-blocked for threatening to use multiple sockpuppet accounts to disrupt Wikipedia on their talk page. It would be worth keeping an eye out for them. Nick-D ( talk) 01:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Elliot See; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing attempt at "uncontroversial" decapitalization of "Campaign" in proper name phrases such as " Bougainville Campaign". Any input appreciated. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I read this thread, purely out of curiosity, and can't help feel that there's some form of manipulation going on, to influence the outcome. No offence to this Dicklyon guy, but on observing his repeated use of the terms "evidence" and "proper name" (while avoiding saying "proper noun"), in nearly every reply, I feel it comes across as POV dog-whistling: trying to enforce a status quo rather than being open to other opinions. In my mind, the "proper name" for most battles and campaigns is not only the result of nomenclature (i.e. an offical naming process) or established usage, but is a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference. So if we have one "Bougainville Campaign" it is THE Bougainville Campaign of WWII, not a "Bougainville campaign" which reads like some unnotable event in Bougainville and could mean anything; a political group seeking votes in Bougainville would be running a "Bougainville campaign". A "presidential campaign" or "womens' rights campaign", is a generic event, they are not a proper names. However, looking at the unique historical events which Dicklyon has raised as "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious, an attempt to enforce WP:NCCAPS (which, as Qwirkle notes, only pays lip-service to the issue) in a manner that is not necessarily in spirit with the guidelines and lacks collaboration with experienced MILHIST project editors who write and maintain war-related articles. IMHO, these requested moves ignore established English grammar regarding the use of proper nouns and, to a lesser degree, exhibit a form of historical revisionism, since renaming "X Campaign" to "X campaign" may appear to devalue that event. Historical editors would be wise to review flagged campaigns on a case-by-case basis and challenge any moves, if appropriate, and not be influenced by over-simplified demands for "evidence" that prevent you from thinking outside the box and using common sense. Sorry to come across as blunt and over-analytical – it's just my way when I see what I consider wikilawyering. I'm sure that's not the case here, however. — Marcus( talk) 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference? If you wish to make such an assertion, please do so within accepted onomastic theory - otherwise, it has the appearance of a fallacious arguement based on an appeal to unsubstantiated and arguably false authority (such as claiming "established English grammar"). Onomastic theory does not support such an assertion. A proper noun|name is not descrptive. "Campaign" is descriptive. A proper noun|name is specific in its reference but not an exclusive criteria. The definite article (the) is also specific. Further, a proper noun|name is not modified by an article (or like), yet articles commence "The X C[c]ampaign ..." - modified by an article (the). Capitalisation for emphasis, importance or significance is not an onomastic criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Most battle names in English take the definite article. Most names of wars do as well. (So do many revolutions, upheavals, names of eras, &cet.) If nothing else, “campaign” is a very obvious analog. Qwirkle ( talk) 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Battles and wars are also, of course, a blatant exception.?
Next, the evolution of simple descriptives to names is such a commonplace that it should not need discussion. The Battle of Britain uses “Britain” as a geographic modifier of “battle”, the central part of the phrase. Qwirkle ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization [emphasis added] in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.This statement is not at odds with the broader statement that prefaces MOS:CAPS. The evidence presented in respect to the various moves does not indicate anything approaching "consistent capitalization" and certainly not sufficient to create "reasonable" uncertainty in respect to the substantive criteria. What is the authority (reference or like) to assert:
unique notable events, and per English grammar are considered proper names? Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Moves should not be proposed using MOS:CAPS, because MOS:CAPS has nothing to do with the naming of articles as it as that is not a guideline for article titles policy (AT), The guidance on this issue for article titles is in the AT section " Article title format" (link via WP:LOWERCASE). The lead in that section states "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles" and the first sub section "Use sentence case". If the policy section is not clear enough then the guideline that helps to explain policy can be used. It is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) ( WP:NCCAPS). Each article should be assessed on its own merrits using the name and format commonly used in reliable sources not as blanket moves as some may be descriptive titles and as such should follow the sentence case as advised in WP:LOWERCASE. However in some cases the campaign name may have become a name that is commonly used for the actions in which case upper case campaign may be more appropriate. This is something that an investigation of the sources can be used to ascertain, which is why there should be a separate RM for each article not a bulk request as has been done at Talk:Burma Campaign. -- PBS ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria ( PBS). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Oh no it doesn't". If it does quote the line. Secondly even if it does, we make decisions on the policy Article title the MOS is not a policy and where it diverges from the policy then it ought to be fixed. In this case there is nothing in the policy that says "consistently capitalized" see WP:COMMONNAME. -- PBS ( talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
PBS, Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS:For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters ...You will note (and can confirm) that the link in that text is to MOS:CAPS. At WP:AT, what it does say is:as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I find the proposal to decapitalize "campaign" in article names a bit ludicrous as it contravenes basic English grammar for proper names (possibly related to the fact that I'm seeing a lot usage in articles lately of proper names rendered (non-capitalized noun) of (capitalized place name), like king of England or battle of Hastings). Obviously an article title like centrifugal pump requires no additional capitalization since it's not a proper name, but something like the Great Fire of Smyrna does, since it's a proper name referring to a specific incident. And, more specifically in American Civil War historiography, campaign is usually capitalized referring to the Overland or Gettysburg Campaigns. And I suspect that much the same is true for terms like the New Guinea Campaign, etc. I wonder if this is an AmEng vs BritEng thing as well with the Americans generally capitalizing it and the Brits sometimes?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45 is declared by the proposer to be a test case for a possible later mass nomination of such pages. This could do with more participation given the wide consequences of the result, so far it is only the nominator and myself. Spinning Spark 11:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved away from deletion and into a proposed merge of the battle honours "North West Europe 1940" currently at North-West Europe campaign of 1940, North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour), and the aforementioned North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45. Discussion at Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45#Merge proposal. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased that this matter has moved from confrontation to resolution. However, I make the following observations in a broader sense:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The S-200 (missile) article, following the incident yesterday when a missile believed to be a stray S-200 fired by Syria hit Northern Cyprus, appears to have been used as a coatrack to about the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (phrases like "illegally occupied region of Cyprus(by the Turkey's army at 1974)" and "that fact is supported by the foreign minister of the illegally self-proclaimed (1983)[64] [65]and without international recognition fake state of "Northen Cyprus"". The discussion of the incident could really do with a little diplomatic tweaking to make it more neutral. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for George Washington's political evolution; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Should Salute to America be included as part of WikiProject Military history? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Someone has added the article to WP:MILHIST. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to ask, but is it possible to add a new parameter for Template:Infobox national military regarding foreign assistance? In the Peshmerga page, I've added a long list of countries which have sent weapons to Peshmerga but the list also includes countries such as Sweden and Norway which train Kurdish soldiers. Having these countries under 'foreign suppliers' is misleading to me, so perhaps we need a parameter that includes training? Unless it could be argued that training is somehow supplying a military as well. Thanks in advance. -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 14:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I left a message at the Venezuelan Wikiproject, and somebody adviced me to ask about it here: As I was wathching some videos about Simón Bolívar, I discovered that some English-speaking YouTubers like to talk more about the Legion of Hell ( Spanish: Legión Infernal) than to introduce José Tomás Boves. I think an article should be written about this Legion, Boves article in Wikipedia does not even make mention of this. From what I understood, the Legion served as a military division pro-Spain that finished with the Second Republic, but also as a repression force against the population. I wonder if anybody here would have a good reference that we could use to create the article (specially books). I would not know where to start, we are lacking of an Spanish Wikipedia article about it as well. Please ping me if you answer.-- MaoGo ( talk) 15:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, some of you who are not often engaged with the higher workings of Wikipedia or don't get the Signpost may not be aware of the recent incident where the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) Trust & Safety Team banned an admin for a year in an office action. To date, two bureaucrats and twenty admins have resigned the tools over this issue. I suggest you read the Arbitration Committee's open letter to the WMF Board regarding this matter, and the related discussions. They can be found here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is important to know there is a organization out there that can pull rank on admins and that even Arbcom can't help you. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 06:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an update on this issue, the WMF Board has issued a statement here. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Not here too, please. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Yuri Gagarin for A-class but have a question before I do. Are redlinks a failing criteria for A-class on this project? --- Coffeeand crumbs 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:German-occupied Europe#Requested move 24 June 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Facts707 ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Three new categories created today and populated into a number of articles, they dont appear to add anything to the articles or naviagtion, one of the main problems is I have no idea what the terms mean or if they are of any use. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The following categories are proposed to be merged or deleted.
The discussion is being had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've just created an article on the Oxford University first-class cricketer Denis Oswald, who it turns out was a senior linguist and cryptographer in the Testery section at Bletchley in the war. His activities might make for an interesting article, so I'm posting him here to see if anyone fancies doing his codebreaking activities more justice in the article than I ever could. Also, feel free to rename the page – not sure the current article name is exactly accurate! Many thanks. StickyWicket ( talk) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
FYSA, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "army" and "navy" that the community should be aware of. Any input on possible changes would be appreciated. Garuda28 ( talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You know what I miss about her most right now? Watching her wag her tail. Haven’t seen that for a while around here, nope.
Other way ‘round, here, yessir. Qwirkle ( talk) 23:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The Pritzker Literature Award was announced today. John Morrow, Jr. is the 2019 recipient. See: [24], Military historian John H. Morrow wins $100000 award, and [25] for starters. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the redirect Wikipedia:CIVILWAR, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, either be deleted or repurposed for this WikiProject, perhaps for the American Civil War task force. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Wikipedia:CIVILWAR would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Is Ben Wheatley a reliable source to be considered for the Battle of Prokhorovka (see A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka)? In his abstract Wheatley states "The battle of Prokhorovka was steeped in Soviet legend (and myth) for many decades. This remained the case until post-Soviet era research revealed the reality of a Soviet armoured disaster. Building on this knowledge this article explores Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle of Prokhorovka. The photographs provide visual confirmation across the battlefield of the demise of the 5th Guards Tank Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps'. The battle's most famous locations are visualized (many for thefirst time) in wartime photographs; these include the notorious anti-tank ditch, Hill 252.2, Oktiabrskiy statefarm, Storozhevoye Woods and the site of Tiger tank duels on and close to Hill 241.6." Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a WP on it? Hawkeye says that it's prohibited. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 145 | ← | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | → | Archive 155 |
Hey, Military History WikiProject,
I'm not sure where to post this but this is a very active WikiProject so it might as well be this talk page! I just noticed that today, there are suddenly dozens of empty aircraft categories. I'm not sure if there have been a lot of article deletions or just some reorganization going on. But you might check out Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion at the bottom of the right-hand column. In case something is out of order, you have 7 days before these empty categories will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), 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. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm trying to add an article for A-class review.
And nothing happens. The "red link" that is supposed to appear is blue, and leads to the archived review. What am I doing wrong, please? auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
[1] - SS Leviathan, + an unconnected text. Is it any use to us? Also [2] for the Battle of Verdun? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
While I await (especially) third opinions on the CINCPAC Command History text above, I have taken the liberty of removing the 1975 evacuation of U.S. personnel from South Vietnam from the MACV article, because MACV's existence ended in early 1973. The whole section duplicates material from an agency article which definitely was in SVN in 1975, the Embassy of the United States, Saigon. The MACV page was previously distorted significantly by inclusion of post-1973 details. I wasn't sure whether to add this note to the discussion above, but it's actually separate. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I am engaged at Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam with Mztourist, who while having spent significant amounts of time on the Vietnam War does not appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy. In 1972-73 the Military Assistance Command Vietnam HQ was downsized into a enormous Defense Attache Office, under a two-star Defense Attache, made up of over 400 personnel. Given that the organization changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon, I moved the section on the DAO into the Embassy page, where Mztourist tried to remove it. Can I please have some third opinions to advise Mztourist that Defense Attaches aren't independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors? Much appreciate some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Finally!! "Work together with the Ambassador"!! You've quoted something that admits the DAO was attached to the Ambassador!! We've already agreed that there were two reporting lines; that's clear. What I am arguing, and you have not advanced any evidence against, is that this remnant of HQ MACV was technically part of the Embassy. That accords with all the evidence, yours and mine, and accords with both removal of the data from the MACV article (it was shut down, that's logical), and addition of the data to the Embassy article (that's where the DAO organizationally resided). The DAO was part of the Embassy, though with lots of reporting lines to USSAG/7AF and higher up in the DOD chain. So too do DAOs in Embassies today - responsible to the Ambassador for some things, and responsible to the relevant COCOM, DSCA, and/or DIA for others; in Saigon in 1973 (via USSAG/7AF), in Hanoi today, and worldwide today. But that does not change the technical placing of the DAO within the Embassy. It was clearly *not* part of USSAG/7AF, you haven't even tried to argue that. So no, I will not be reverting my changes. In particular, readding the DAO material to the MACV page would be ridiculous.
'..only in public affairs and media matters?' ..Martin sent the deputy DA home for arguing that the evacuation security force should be a whole Marine Amphibious Brigade!! Clearly things could be fluid, and his authority extended to a much greater extent!!
Try and answer me this: if we remove the data from the MACV page, and we remove it from the Embassy page, where would we put it? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is is an "either/or" situation. It appears to me that this information about DAO Saigon should be summarised on the MACV page in an "Aftermath" section or similar, but has sufficient reliable sources to justify its stand-alone notability and should therefore have a stand-alone page with all available and relevant information. Perhaps at Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
As per consensus, I have created Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Mztourist ( talk) 05:26, 12 May 2019 (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)
11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Albert Kesselring for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Despite the RFC at WP:ENDPORTALS being resolved as "strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time", a number of users have engaged on a good-faith program of deleting portals in batches or singly. I have long been a participant in this project and as part of my involvement I have maintained and watched Portal:American Civil War and other war-related portals. Now with Wikipedia much evolved the usefulness of portals as a content-space has been called into question. I'm not sure I have answers. I know that it's not practical for me to maintain all the entries on this tool:
None of the above are currently listed for discussion, so far as I'm aware. Is there anyone here who'd like to list themselves as maintainers for these fully developed navigation tools? I'd be all too happy to show interested parties how to do the actual work, which at this point is not nearly as intensive as redeveloping these portals from scratch.
There deserves to be a fuller discussion about how to rehabilitate and increase visibility of portals but at this point the trend is to delete many of those which aren't actively maintained or are inadequately developed.
There a bunch of backstory to this deletion process and I'm not trying to canvass for MfD participants. I'm merely trying to save work many project members have done over the last 15 years before damage is done. Any project interest? BusterD ( talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect I'm being cantankerous/bloody-minded/adjective-of-your-choice in my interaction with an IP editor over Template:WWI_tanks. The IP has expanded the navbox with many WWI vehicles of which I was not aware and the also at the List of combat vehicles of World War I (prototype tanks, self-propelled guns, armoured cars et ) - which is good. And it throws up lots of things that possibly warrant articles of their own or covering in general articles of the "armoured vehicle development in X country" type. But to my mind while a list article can handle redlinks and supplementary comments this has resulted in a very big very redlinked navbox. (I note also that some of the vehicles are French and they have very long names). So far I've suggested a discussion but it's likely by now that they think I'm a bad faith actor. If anyone has ideas on how I can engage constructively that would be helpful. Working in Navbox space is tricky because it's unlike an article where you can add appropriate cites. And I'm out of practice editing on Wikipedia and policy. Of course if I'm being a complete ass and a fool do tell me. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new page reviewer and just added someone else's new article, Expeditionary energy economics, to your project. I am unsure about how to add this article to one of your specific Task Forces, so please proceed as you see fit. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Project members may want to give their input on the discussion about page moves at Talk:Panzer (disambiguation), which also concerns the Panzer article. ( Hohum @) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello WP MilHist! I'm working through the backlog at Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 and came across Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941. It seems legit, but only has one source, and is orphaned. I was wondering if anyone could help answer some questions for me. Is it indeed a legitimate term? If so, is it really something that needs its own standalone article, or would it be better off merged elsewhere? And third, if it is legit and should stand alone, where can I link to it to de-orphan it? I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Thank you in advance! ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look up contemporaneous material on the “civil war”, you see a different picture from the “war between the states”; “Bull Run” gives a different picture from “Manassas”. This sort of thing sometimes shows up in unexpected places; American newsmen, for instance, were active in Germany until US entry in WWI, and often used different names for battles than did the British or French.
Obviously, this is something of preaching to the converted; the historiographical standards for military articles on Wiki are much, much higher than those for most of the rest of Wikipedia. Still worth keeping in mind, though. Qwirkle ( talk) 14:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Some list articles eg List of common WWII infantry weapons, List of infantry weapons of World War I, List of combat vehicles of World War I have Flag icons in the section headers. The WP:MoS (not in MOS:FLAG where you might think it would be mentioned but in MOS:HEADINGS) says that's not a place for flag icons (or any icon). Equally there shouldn't be links, as in List of limited service World War II combat vehicles. And that as it's a technical issue it overrides local consensus or IAR. I'm assuming the MilHist project doesn't have a different view on this, only it could get a bit revert-y in applying (and enforcing the rule) and I wouldn't want to find myself without a policy to stand on. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 21:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the frigate Egyptienne wrecked in the Bosphorus in October/November 1854? - "Latest Intelligence". The Times. No. 21902. London. 18 November 1854. col E, p. 6. template uses deprecated parameter(s) ( help). Mjroots ( talk) 07:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of the "Russian ship Rostikoff" wrecked before 20 December 1853. Apparently a ship of the line of 120 guns. - "Foreign Intelligence - Russia and Turkey". The Royal Cornwall Gazette, Falmouth Packet, and General Advertiser. No. 2638. Truro. 13 January 1854. p. 2.. Mjroots ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some Field Marshal of these live through after 1871 , the proclamation of the German Empire.
Since Prussia , Bavaria and Hanover became part of German Empire after 1871. Were those Field Marshal such as Prince Karl Theodor of Bavaria , William, Duke of Brunswick , Friedrich Graf von Wrangel , Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Frederick (Frederick III) automatically become Field Marshal of German Empire ?
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 15:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Since the current List of German field marshals and List of Austrian field marshals article make me puzzle , I need somebody to clarify. -- Comrade John ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Do the articles War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 and Iraq War order of battle, 2009 serve a purpose anymore? They used to be continuously updated lists, but ended up frozen in time because editors stopped updating them. I'm not sure what the point is of preserving these snapshots of troop deployments for those two years. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 107#Future of Iraq War order of battle for previous discussion. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. This is somewhat related the one that I ask previously.
Four questions:
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 11:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hans-Joachim Marseille, 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. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "Frisian Legion" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Draft:Frisian Legion looks to me like an ill-prepared attempt to create a hoax. I see absolutely zero relevant English sources in a Google Book search, and that seems highly unlikely if the legion had existed. I have asked User:Olimpus344 for sources, but they have not replied.
The associated "logo", File:Frisian legion.png, does not have a credible source, is marked as "own work", and does indeed look exactly like that. Creation of fake files to support a hoax article is classic modus operandi. Adding a link to the article title in another article as was done in Special:Diff/862080187/863452484 is also classic. I'm inclined to think the draft should be tagged with {{ db-hoax}}, but seek opinions from editors more acquainted with history in general.
This made me look further into what Olimpus344 has been doing:
Advanced search for: "Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Considering all of the above, I think all uploads to Commons by this user should be tagged for speedy deletion and sr:Друштво за уређење и улепшавање Карађорђевог шанца should be tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. Would anybody here happen to speak Serbian and know the speedy deletion procedure there? Sam Sailor 12:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Republika Srpska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Republika Srpska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I updated templatedata for Template:WikiProject Biography (added values and descriptions), see the botttom of Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. But I didn't "update military-work-group" and "military-task-force" - Whats the difference? Christian75 ( talk) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I've finished my project on British Army first-class cricketers and left the two generals who played for the team until last. Please feel free to expand Edward Fitzherbert (British Army officer) and Harold Fawcus - I've covered the bare bones but you guys might have more military things to add to them. Cheers. StickyWicket ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Harvey is a known hoaxer. He is a PhD and was (and still is) published in reputable journals. He wrote some on air power history. Are his works RS? Or is he presumptively unreliable? He also published on aviation under the name Stephen Harvey. Srnec ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The Pritzker Military Museum and Library will be launching a new exhibit, D-Day +75. Mainstream news articles on the exhibit will be available shortly. In the meantime, please check out the announcement here: http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/permanent-current-upcoming-exhibits/d-day-75/
PMML has a new CEO, Rob Havers. Crain's Chicago Business has this article: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arts-entertainment/meet-new-head-pritzker-military-museum
There is a lot of other news articles on PMML that would really help update the main Wikipedia article. Those resources have been added to the talk page. There is also a lot about PMML and the WWI Centennial in Google News.
And if you need help tracking down a print resource for a Wiki article you are working on, please be sure to email us at librarian@pritzkermilitary.org as the PMML staff is happy to scan the appropriate pages to you if we have the book or journal in PMML's collection.
Happy editing! TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I working on a non-mil article and a source says in 1864, my subject was in Washington to try to get better mail service for the Arizona territory and that he was successful in "rendering 'signal service' to the Territory.
Does anyone know what this could have been referring to. I've found that "signal service" could mean signalling between ships or stations on land with flag/torches and telescopes. Or it also meant Army telegraph. (I found a 1873 report in the NYT about the Chief Signal Officer - military signaling and telegraphy.)
At the time, Arizona was just formed and pretty much dependent on the army (and this was also during the Civil War). The newly appointed civilian officials traveled there by army escort, and I'm guessing the army brought the mail as well. I'd like to elaborate more on what this improved mail service was.
Does anyone know anything about this? MB 01:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Women Airforce Service Pilots. WW II pilot. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Pages on AEW are being taken over by wrestlers, some more voices in the discussions would be welcome:
|
Redirect discussion of AEW closed as keep to Airborne Early Warning and Control. starship .paint ( talk) 03:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've run across the term "Vedette mail" used in the 1860s. (e.g. [14]). Vedettes were apparently riders who carried military mail on horseback. Our article Vedette (sentry) doesn't get into this, and I can't find much more than what is in the link above. I'd like to mention Vedette mail in the sentry article if anyone has a source. MB 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I've done a general clean-up of grammar, punctuation, typos, etc. on the article for The Ascent. Can we get a second pair of eyes on it to see if it still needs the quality standards template? Any other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. /info/en/?search=The_Ascent Cadar ( talk) 13:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
|title=
where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using |script-title=
instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed.
This {{
sfn}}
short reference doesn't link to anything; it should; or it should be deleted.{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Elem |author-link=Elem Klimov |trans-title=Larisa: book about Larisa Shepitko |script-title=ru:Лариса: книга о Ларисе Шепитько |location=Moscow |publisher=Iskusstvo |year=1987 |pages=290 |ref=harv |language=ru}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
sfn}}
write:
{{sfn|Klimov|1987}}
{{cite book |last=Klimov |first=Hermann |last2=Murzina |first2=Marina |last3=Plahov |first3=Andrei |last4=Fomina |first4=Raisa |trans-title=Elem Klimov. Unshot cinema |script-title=ru:Элем Климов. Неснятое кино |location=Moscow |publisher=Chroniqueur |year=2008 |page=384 |isbn=978-5-901238-52-3 |language=ru}}
Alland these|title=
where the assigned value is written in Cyrillic script should be using|script-title=
instead (remember to include the language code prefix). Some of the citations seem to have extraneous quote-marks and guillemet; these should be removed.
{{
sfn}}
short refs.|script-title=
updated. All quotation marks and guillemets removed. Maybe double-check me to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I used the browser's search function to find all relevant instances and replaced them. If there's nothing else, I'll give it a couple more days to see if anyone else has any comments, then the template can come off. And thanks again. This is the first time I've dealt with Cyrillic content on an article, so it's new territory for me.Just wanted to make readers aware of this resource, which can be helpful for research leads, and ask any assistance. There's lots of codenames accessible via Category:Military operations involving the United States that haven't been added. Would like to thank Lineagegeek for recent help, including obscure U.S. Air Force codenames. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to inform the project of two articles that cites zero sources: Defence Avionics Research Establishment and U.S. Carrier Group tactics. starship .paint ( talk) 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Turkish Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Turkish Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
These are the two Holy Roman Empire's field marshal rank.
Is Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle higher than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?
If so , why some Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle holder such as Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen award Reichsgeneralfeldmarschalle earlier than Kaiserliche Feldmarschalle ?
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Please take a moment to comment on the most appropriate redirection target at Talk:Armed services. ( Hohum @) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived as nobody's commented on it in the last few weeks. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Queensland Government has a a website WWII places in Queensland, which is interesting material but alas copyright only. However, I have just discovered that they publish the same info in a CSV on the Queensland Open Data repository (albeit with some HTML markup) under a CC-BY-3.0 licence. Now I don't understand why they would use different licensing for the same material in different places, but, shrugs, why should we care? So long as one of them is CC-BY, we have an opportunity. What this means is that it should be possible to write a tool to go through and convert each entry into reasonably good wikitext for insertion as a section into the relevant place article (and/or wherever else it might be useful). Now, as some of you might be aware, I have done similar things with heritage registers but there I was generating whole articles, whereas I think these entries are more of a size to be a section (or subsection) in a larger article (which actually makes the task easier -- generating ledes, infoboxes, categories is not so easy). You can of course do these things manually but with 566 entries, it would be a very time-consuming to do it all manually. Having said this, I am not a believer in dumping machine-generated wikitext into articles without some human review and often a little bit of copyediting is needed to get it MoS conformant and sometimes a bit of wikilinking may be required (I can generate wikilinks but not as well as a human can). So my approach is to generate *draft* wikitext which a human editor inserts and polishes as required. Still a bit tedious (hundreds of anything is tedious) but a lot less time-consuming than doing it all manually. I've got a couple of large-ish projects happening at the moment, so this is probably something I will look at later in the year. But I just thought I would put the idea out there to see if anyone else is interested in being involved. I don't write military history content normally so I think a collaboration with some folk who do will probably get a better outcome than my going solo with it. Kerry ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of wars involving the United States: Any advice could help with similar debates on a lot of other pages. TrendBronco ( talk) 04:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some discrepancies between contemporary newspaper reports and Wikipedia articles re certain Russian ships scuttled at Sevastopol.
From the Hampshire Chronicle and Sussex Telegraph of 14 October 1854 under the article heading "Off the River Katscha, Sebastopol, September 28":-
Two day ago would refer to 26 September (new style date?). As for the ships, is "Holy Trinity" the Tri Svyatelia, which is listed as having been scuttled on List of shipwrecks in September 1854#11 September (old style date?)? "Rostislaff" is probably the Russian ship Rostislav, which according to the article was scuttled on 13 February 1855. "Sisepoli", "Zagoodieh", "Ooriel" and "Zoolevche" - no idea, not in the list of sail or steam frigates, nor listed at Threedecks. "Silistria" is probably the Silistriya, which is listed in the list of ships of the line of Russia as having been scuttled at Sevastopol in 1854. Mjroots ( talk) 08:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Is the Peruvian transport ship Mercedes, lost on 1 May 1854 the same vessel as the frigate Mercedes acquired by the Peruvian Navy in 1840? Mjroots ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to the earlier discussion, the Daily News of 23 November adds the information that "An Egyptian three-decker has been wrecked near Varna. Admiral Hassan Pacha, who was on board, perished. He is much regretted. A fourth of the crew was saved." Does this shed any light on which vessel it was? Mjroots ( talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
From Russkii Invalid, No. 261, 22 November, 1854:
This site quotes the Russkii Invalid (No. 261) of 22 November 1854:
And also from the Russkii Invalid (No. 263) of 24 November 1854, quoting the Triest Gazette:
There's a brief discussion on my Talk Page, at User talk:Narky Blert#Firetrap, which IIRC was prompted by a bad military-related link to the DAB page Fire Trap. We may have identified a couple of holes in WP worth filling; I didn't even mention e.g. minefields or Kesselschlacht in that discussion. So, if I prompt an editor or two here to start writing... Narky Blert ( talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I doubt there will be much reaction to this, but some time ago, a banned editor moved the article on the 763d Bombardment Squadron to 763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. For reasons I gave at Talk:763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, it is unlikely the two units are the same, and no WP:RS is given for the move. Before I ask an admin to move the article back over redirect, I thought I'd give everyone in the project an opportunity to rebut the lack of identity between the units.
|
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)
13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
PMML has been in the news a lot in the last 30 days. See: Google search
2019 Pritzker Literature Award will be announced before summer's end. Pritzker Military Presents will start its new season on WTTW this fall. Any help updating these articles is appreciated. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Bond|Taylor|2001}} |title=The Battle for France & Flanders Sixty Years On |editor1-last=Bond |editor1-first=B. |editor1-link=Brian Bond |editor2-last=Taylor |editor2-first=M. D. |year=2001 |publisher=Leo Cooper |location=Barnsley |edition=1st |isbn=978-0-85052-811-4}}
** {{harvc |last=Buckley |first=J. |c=The Air War in France |year=2001 |in1=Bond |in2=Taylor}}
Can the harvc bit accommodate authorlink? I tried |authorlink=John Buckley (historian) but got nothing. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
We are in the final stages of a plan to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
Apollo 11 moonwalk on the
Main Page on July 16–24. I began preparation for this last year, in August 2018. I was wondering if there was any interest in doing something similar for the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII. I think this WikiProject is well suited to coordinating such an effort. We can choose two dates,
Victory in Europe (May 8, 2020) and
Surrender of Japan (September 2, 2020August 15, 2020), and flood the Main Page with articles about
World War II on both these dates. I met little resistance to the idea and found many supporters to my cause when coordinating the Apollo 11 anniversary. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
01:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
General comment: planning for and improving articles and other activities to mark such anniversaries is excellent. I'd like to collect examples of this (along with brief commentary on how successful the attempts were). The examples from MILHIST that I can think of are the ones that were mentioned under 'special projects' but were trimmed and are mentioned in the past tense on the MILHIST main page as 'previous special projects have included work on': the American Civil War, World War I and the D-Day landings (it is ironic that the latter went inactive). Non-MILHIST ones I can think of include the activity centred around the Titanic centennial (I can't remember if a central co-ordination page was set up for that). Anyway, the 75th anniversary of D-Day got me wondering if it is too early to gently ramp up towards the centennial of WWII? This may be ambitious given that this is 25 years away, and Wikipedia is not even 20 years old yet, but maybe some of the groundwork could be laid now to avoid repeating past mistakes or being overly ambitious? How far in advance were the other 'special' projects set up, and what (apart from the obvious of people willing to do the work) makes such a project successful? Carcharoth ( talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Changed the tense here on one of those inactive projects, though that is just tidying up. I hope those pages are kept to show what was attempted, even if what happened wasn't quite what was planned (there was a lot of activity on the WWI topic, still is to some extent, just not as co-ordinated as it could have been). Carcharoth ( talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the 75th anniversaries are special? The 100th anniversaries tend to generate more coverage, though in this case the dwindling number of WW2 veterans still alive gives each milestone anniversary a bit more significance. You may be right about it being too early for WW2 centenary. Nothing planned yet. Only references are in SF books! :-) (Actually, if you look hard enough, there are plans here and there and preparations already in place for the WW2 centenary, usually of the form of far-sighted commemoration committees doing WWI commemoration that will lay groundwork for WWII commemorations). Carcharoth ( talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I would observe that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the start of the war. We might consider a focus on that anniversary since many of the events of the 75th anniversary have both passed and been overshadowed by the 100th anniversary of WW1. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Incubator – I have started an incubator for V-E Day. Please join at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/V-E Day. --- Coffeeand crumbs 07:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, all! I have just created an article about Brigadier General Laura Yeager, shortly to become the first woman to command an Army infantry division. I am not familiar with the traditions and format of military articles so I would appreciate any help or corrections. In particular, I don't know how to list her awards and decorations. Would one of you be willing to do that? They are listed here: [16] Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Where can I find the B class criteria for WP:MILHIST so I can show someone how to assess WP:MILHIST. Adamdaley ( talk) 03:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that articles on campaigns of World War II aren't consistent on capitalization - we have Guadalcanal Campaign, North African Campaign, and Philippines Campaign (1944–1945), but also Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, and Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign (among many others). These probably ought to be standardized one way or the other - any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.[bold added for emphasis] WP:TITLE defers to this on the matter of capitalisation.
Why were no notices of these proposed moves not given on the articles in question? Kablammo ( talk) 19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
At risk of tying up editors in unproductive RM debates, I feel that the above moves should have a little bit more discussion before being declared "uncontroversial." N-Grams supports uncapitalized usage but also might be including all sorts of running text about other topics. I feel "consistency" is a very weak argument here because, as usual, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the sources are consistent. I would say that "descriptive titles" where Wikipedia made up a name - e.g. - Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign - sure, use "campaign." For the campaigns that are their own entity... well, to quote Cinderella157 above, "MOS:CAPS also defers to usage in [independent, reliable] sources. Military sources will tend to over-capitalise. Capitalisation of different campaigns in sources will vary and in consequence..." That sounds like an argument to do a case-by-case examination to me, and if the best sources "over-capitalise" then so should Wikipedia. I'm not a subject matter expert here and will defer to WWII experts, but if sources differ, then it could well be there was no problem at all to begin with - that we'd expect no consistency and these should all be moved individually IF that particular campaign doesn't appear to be de-capped. SnowFire ( talk) 03:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
RM discussion is open now at Talk:Tunisian_Campaign#Requested_move_16_June_2019 for 4 more of these. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject please take a look at the recent edits to Lend-lease please. ( Hohum @) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of "The Urgent Need for Prevention of Genocide of the Assyrians and Yezidis of Iraq", a document presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! A discussion was the started in WikiProject Venezuela regarding the Venezuelan 19th century army Hell Legion. I understand this is one of the most active WikiProjects in the English Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is any editor that has bibliographic material to start an article about the topic. Many thanks in advance! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military. I would like to invite the inputs from editors familiar with the subject.
Regards. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Quick question: is it more appropriate to add a British-built war memorial in South Africa to the British task force, the African one, or both? — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I've recently stumbled across some articles on individual engagements between surface ships and submarines in WWI: Action of 15 October 1917, Action of 17 November 1917, Action of 21 May 1918, Action of 5 September 1918, Action of 8 May 1918. Having read through them, I don't believe that any are actually notable, although you might be able to make a case for two of them as they cover the engagements in which Americans earned the Medal of Honor. There are also a few more covering engagements in the Black Sea in WW2, but, by and large, these sorts of things are not covered on WP, probably because they're actions that are too low a level to be encyclopedic and are best covered by the articles on the ships involved, IMO. And there would literally be hundreds of attacks to cover. Do we want to change this as a matter of policy?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of HNLMS Amsterdam and HNLMS Cyclops lost after 14 December 1854 whilst on a voyage from the Baltic to Vlissingen? Mjroots ( talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve noticed a number of increasing edits on military articles that change capitalization. For instance Secretary of the Army is changed to secretary of the Army or secretary of the army. Much of this is in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, but MOS:MILTERMS states “The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized.” so, as a community, what makes sense? My personal opinion is that capitalization, when consistent in outside sources should be used, even if it contradicts MOS:JOBTITLES and added as an exception under MILTERMS. Garuda28 ( talk) 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at WT:AV re the addition of a template to the June 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone article, Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've redrafted the article on slighting in my sandbox and wondered if I could get some input on it. I'd like to copy it over to mainspace but since I've written one of the sources used I'd like to try and establish some sort of consensus first. For those of you who haven't come across the term before, it's about the deliberate destruction of buildings – especially fortifications. If you have any comments, I reckon Talk:Slighting would be a good place for them; I'll create a new section there shortly. Richard Nevell ( talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Douglas Albert Munro; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A recent citation at English Longbow has been removed as unreliable. The edit suggests that the book is actually a compilation of wikipedia content. The book is :
Syed Ramsey Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times, Vij Books, 2016 isbn=9789386019813
Having reviewed what I can through Amazon and Google, I think the assessment may well be correct. Is anyone else aware of the author or publisher? If nothing else, I'm flagging it here as a caution to editors who may see it elsewhere.
Monstrelet ( talk) 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am looking at the edits of a user who frequently changes "General" to "Gen." etc. Is there any guidance on this? I have always assumed that in general [pun intended] that the full rank ought to be used unless space is an issue in--a table or whatever--(Just as is done with the month in dates ( MOS:DATEFORMAT).
One of the issues with using abbreviations is just because a reader is familiar with one verity of English they may not be with another. So for example an American maybe familiar with what a "technical sergeant" is but a Brit probably would not. Using "TSgt" just puts another level of opaqueness into a sentence that uses the abbreviation.
What are others thoughts on this? -- PBS ( talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only...– with a rare common sense exception where the rank is relevant in context. As for that initial mention, I see no reason why it should be abbreviated. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have found some more advise in the main MOS article in the section :See Do not use unwarranted abbreviations. There seems to be general agreement so far on how to handle this, and it is the practice I have seen in hundreds of articles. So how to proceed? -- PBS ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it all right if I update the MH MOS to reflect the renaming and redirection of {{ infobox military structure}} to {{ infobox military installation}}? RobDuch ( talk· contribs) 23:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Vote (after reading Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name)
In short, for more there a decade there is a problem with the titles of three articles:
1947–1949 Palestine war,
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
It was agreed that there is a need for a common prefix for these three articles, and a neutral title should be chosen. Before casting a vote, you are encouraged to donate 10 minutes of your time and read
Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name to understand the background of this long discussion. Thanks.--
Bolter21 (
talk to me)
16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the identity of "La Russie", a three-deck ship of the line of 112 guns lost at the Battle of Sweaborg.("The Baltic". Glasgow Herald. 14 September 1855.). Nothing in the List of ships of the line of Russia fits and Threedecks draws a blank. Mjroots ( talk) 06:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found she in the List mentioned above: Rossiya 120/128 ("Россия", 1839) - Hulked as floating barracks 1857, BU 1860-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 11:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Patton976 Is this editor another visit by our resident Italian chauvinist? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This editor has now been re-blocked for threatening to use multiple sockpuppet accounts to disrupt Wikipedia on their talk page. It would be worth keeping an eye out for them. Nick-D ( talk) 01:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Elliot See; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing attempt at "uncontroversial" decapitalization of "Campaign" in proper name phrases such as " Bougainville Campaign". Any input appreciated. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I read this thread, purely out of curiosity, and can't help feel that there's some form of manipulation going on, to influence the outcome. No offence to this Dicklyon guy, but on observing his repeated use of the terms "evidence" and "proper name" (while avoiding saying "proper noun"), in nearly every reply, I feel it comes across as POV dog-whistling: trying to enforce a status quo rather than being open to other opinions. In my mind, the "proper name" for most battles and campaigns is not only the result of nomenclature (i.e. an offical naming process) or established usage, but is a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference. So if we have one "Bougainville Campaign" it is THE Bougainville Campaign of WWII, not a "Bougainville campaign" which reads like some unnotable event in Bougainville and could mean anything; a political group seeking votes in Bougainville would be running a "Bougainville campaign". A "presidential campaign" or "womens' rights campaign", is a generic event, they are not a proper names. However, looking at the unique historical events which Dicklyon has raised as "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious, an attempt to enforce WP:NCCAPS (which, as Qwirkle notes, only pays lip-service to the issue) in a manner that is not necessarily in spirit with the guidelines and lacks collaboration with experienced MILHIST project editors who write and maintain war-related articles. IMHO, these requested moves ignore established English grammar regarding the use of proper nouns and, to a lesser degree, exhibit a form of historical revisionism, since renaming "X Campaign" to "X campaign" may appear to devalue that event. Historical editors would be wise to review flagged campaigns on a case-by-case basis and challenge any moves, if appropriate, and not be influenced by over-simplified demands for "evidence" that prevent you from thinking outside the box and using common sense. Sorry to come across as blunt and over-analytical – it's just my way when I see what I consider wikilawyering. I'm sure that's not the case here, however. — Marcus( talk) 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
a "proper noun" in the strictest possible sense: unique events are given a capitalised identity, anything else is a generic reference? If you wish to make such an assertion, please do so within accepted onomastic theory - otherwise, it has the appearance of a fallacious arguement based on an appeal to unsubstantiated and arguably false authority (such as claiming "established English grammar"). Onomastic theory does not support such an assertion. A proper noun|name is not descrptive. "Campaign" is descriptive. A proper noun|name is specific in its reference but not an exclusive criteria. The definite article (the) is also specific. Further, a proper noun|name is not modified by an article (or like), yet articles commence "The X C[c]ampaign ..." - modified by an article (the). Capitalisation for emphasis, importance or significance is not an onomastic criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Most battle names in English take the definite article. Most names of wars do as well. (So do many revolutions, upheavals, names of eras, &cet.) If nothing else, “campaign” is a very obvious analog. Qwirkle ( talk) 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Battles and wars are also, of course, a blatant exception.?
Next, the evolution of simple descriptives to names is such a commonplace that it should not need discussion. The Battle of Britain uses “Britain” as a geographic modifier of “battle”, the central part of the phrase. Qwirkle ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization [emphasis added] in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.This statement is not at odds with the broader statement that prefaces MOS:CAPS. The evidence presented in respect to the various moves does not indicate anything approaching "consistent capitalization" and certainly not sufficient to create "reasonable" uncertainty in respect to the substantive criteria. What is the authority (reference or like) to assert:
unique notable events, and per English grammar are considered proper names? Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Moves should not be proposed using MOS:CAPS, because MOS:CAPS has nothing to do with the naming of articles as it as that is not a guideline for article titles policy (AT), The guidance on this issue for article titles is in the AT section " Article title format" (link via WP:LOWERCASE). The lead in that section states "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles" and the first sub section "Use sentence case". If the policy section is not clear enough then the guideline that helps to explain policy can be used. It is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) ( WP:NCCAPS). Each article should be assessed on its own merrits using the name and format commonly used in reliable sources not as blanket moves as some may be descriptive titles and as such should follow the sentence case as advised in WP:LOWERCASE. However in some cases the campaign name may have become a name that is commonly used for the actions in which case upper case campaign may be more appropriate. This is something that an investigation of the sources can be used to ascertain, which is why there should be a separate RM for each article not a bulk request as has been done at Talk:Burma Campaign. -- PBS ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria ( PBS). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Oh no it doesn't". If it does quote the line. Secondly even if it does, we make decisions on the policy Article title the MOS is not a policy and where it diverges from the policy then it ought to be fixed. In this case there is nothing in the policy that says "consistently capitalized" see WP:COMMONNAME. -- PBS ( talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
PBS, Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS:For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters ...You will note (and can confirm) that the link in that text is to MOS:CAPS. At WP:AT, what it does say is:as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I find the proposal to decapitalize "campaign" in article names a bit ludicrous as it contravenes basic English grammar for proper names (possibly related to the fact that I'm seeing a lot usage in articles lately of proper names rendered (non-capitalized noun) of (capitalized place name), like king of England or battle of Hastings). Obviously an article title like centrifugal pump requires no additional capitalization since it's not a proper name, but something like the Great Fire of Smyrna does, since it's a proper name referring to a specific incident. And, more specifically in American Civil War historiography, campaign is usually capitalized referring to the Overland or Gettysburg Campaigns. And I suspect that much the same is true for terms like the New Guinea Campaign, etc. I wonder if this is an AmEng vs BritEng thing as well with the Americans generally capitalizing it and the Brits sometimes?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45 is declared by the proposer to be a test case for a possible later mass nomination of such pages. This could do with more participation given the wide consequences of the result, so far it is only the nominator and myself. Spinning Spark 11:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved away from deletion and into a proposed merge of the battle honours "North West Europe 1940" currently at North-West Europe campaign of 1940, North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour), and the aforementioned North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45. Discussion at Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45#Merge proposal. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased that this matter has moved from confrontation to resolution. However, I make the following observations in a broader sense:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The S-200 (missile) article, following the incident yesterday when a missile believed to be a stray S-200 fired by Syria hit Northern Cyprus, appears to have been used as a coatrack to about the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (phrases like "illegally occupied region of Cyprus(by the Turkey's army at 1974)" and "that fact is supported by the foreign minister of the illegally self-proclaimed (1983)[64] [65]and without international recognition fake state of "Northen Cyprus"". The discussion of the incident could really do with a little diplomatic tweaking to make it more neutral. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for George Washington's political evolution; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Should Salute to America be included as part of WikiProject Military history? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Someone has added the article to WP:MILHIST. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to ask, but is it possible to add a new parameter for Template:Infobox national military regarding foreign assistance? In the Peshmerga page, I've added a long list of countries which have sent weapons to Peshmerga but the list also includes countries such as Sweden and Norway which train Kurdish soldiers. Having these countries under 'foreign suppliers' is misleading to me, so perhaps we need a parameter that includes training? Unless it could be argued that training is somehow supplying a military as well. Thanks in advance. -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 14:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I left a message at the Venezuelan Wikiproject, and somebody adviced me to ask about it here: As I was wathching some videos about Simón Bolívar, I discovered that some English-speaking YouTubers like to talk more about the Legion of Hell ( Spanish: Legión Infernal) than to introduce José Tomás Boves. I think an article should be written about this Legion, Boves article in Wikipedia does not even make mention of this. From what I understood, the Legion served as a military division pro-Spain that finished with the Second Republic, but also as a repression force against the population. I wonder if anybody here would have a good reference that we could use to create the article (specially books). I would not know where to start, we are lacking of an Spanish Wikipedia article about it as well. Please ping me if you answer.-- MaoGo ( talk) 15:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, some of you who are not often engaged with the higher workings of Wikipedia or don't get the Signpost may not be aware of the recent incident where the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) Trust & Safety Team banned an admin for a year in an office action. To date, two bureaucrats and twenty admins have resigned the tools over this issue. I suggest you read the Arbitration Committee's open letter to the WMF Board regarding this matter, and the related discussions. They can be found here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is important to know there is a organization out there that can pull rank on admins and that even Arbcom can't help you. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 06:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an update on this issue, the WMF Board has issued a statement here. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Not here too, please. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Yuri Gagarin for A-class but have a question before I do. Are redlinks a failing criteria for A-class on this project? --- Coffeeand crumbs 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:German-occupied Europe#Requested move 24 June 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Facts707 ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Three new categories created today and populated into a number of articles, they dont appear to add anything to the articles or naviagtion, one of the main problems is I have no idea what the terms mean or if they are of any use. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Monmouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The following categories are proposed to be merged or deleted.
The discussion is being had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've just created an article on the Oxford University first-class cricketer Denis Oswald, who it turns out was a senior linguist and cryptographer in the Testery section at Bletchley in the war. His activities might make for an interesting article, so I'm posting him here to see if anyone fancies doing his codebreaking activities more justice in the article than I ever could. Also, feel free to rename the page – not sure the current article name is exactly accurate! Many thanks. StickyWicket ( talk) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
FYSA, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "army" and "navy" that the community should be aware of. Any input on possible changes would be appreciated. Garuda28 ( talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You know what I miss about her most right now? Watching her wag her tail. Haven’t seen that for a while around here, nope.
Other way ‘round, here, yessir. Qwirkle ( talk) 23:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The Pritzker Literature Award was announced today. John Morrow, Jr. is the 2019 recipient. See: [24], Military historian John H. Morrow wins $100000 award, and [25] for starters. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the redirect Wikipedia:CIVILWAR, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, either be deleted or repurposed for this WikiProject, perhaps for the American Civil War task force. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Wikipedia:CIVILWAR would be appreciated. -- BDD ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 149th Armor Regiment; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Is Ben Wheatley a reliable source to be considered for the Battle of Prokhorovka (see A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka)? In his abstract Wheatley states "The battle of Prokhorovka was steeped in Soviet legend (and myth) for many decades. This remained the case until post-Soviet era research revealed the reality of a Soviet armoured disaster. Building on this knowledge this article explores Luftwaffe reconnaissance photographs taken in the days and weeks immediately following the battle of Prokhorovka. The photographs provide visual confirmation across the battlefield of the demise of the 5th Guards Tank Army's 18th and 29th Tank Corps'. The battle's most famous locations are visualized (many for thefirst time) in wartime photographs; these include the notorious anti-tank ditch, Hill 252.2, Oktiabrskiy statefarm, Storozhevoye Woods and the site of Tiger tank duels on and close to Hill 241.6." Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yashima; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a WP on it? Hawkeye says that it's prohibited. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)