This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone has been replacing the flag of the Austrian Empire, used in the Infobox Military Conflict by removing the flagicon template in large a number of articles such as the Battle of Paris (1814). As of yet no source has even been presented to support these changes. -- Domino theory ( talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If this flag had any use outside of the middle ages, and certainly after 1806, there are sources displaying it as a symbol of the German Confederation. These facts tell us that if not the first, then certainly the latter is more than reason enough to prevent its use here by default. In light of this it is ludicrous that it has been promoted at all, especially since it has not been supported by any sources.
The flag presented by Kirill on the other hand was actually used as a military flag by the Austrian Empire according to sources. There would probably be few problems in using a military flag regarding information on battles, but preferably it should be converted to svg format, and it should definately be invoked by template, as a war flag. Not least to avoid the frivolous repetitive editing and reverting we have been forced to see examples of so far.
However, even a flawless military flag does not represent more than the military. Flags of the World makes reference of the flag already in use as a flag used by the Habsburg monarchy from 1700. This far no better flag has been presented for the Austrian Empire that can be supported by sources. Austria-Hungary has other and more well defined flags. -- Domino theory ( talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Kirill 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)In this way was in the year 1686 officially introduced the golden flag with the twin-headed eagle of the Habsburgs as flag for the empire of the Austrian Habsburgs. Initially it was in use until 1918 as state flag...
Coincidentally, as described the national flag also served as the merchant ensign. -- Domino theory ( talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"In this way became the device of the black eagle on golden ground abridged heraldical: black over gold. Since the establishment of the Empire of Austria in 1804 it was allowed to use this flag as national and merchant flag." - ( Flaggenlexikon)
{{
flagicon|Austrian Empire|state}}
should produce the state flag, just like {{
flagicon|Austria|state}}
produces the state flag of the current republic. If we have the state flag somewhere I will see to it that the subtemplate is updated, and I will restore the civil flag to the country article. Will you be able to take a look at the altered battle articles? --
Domino theory (
talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)The nearly universal use of the Russian tricolor is a real problem for the period concerned. That Tricolor is ok for current Russian articles and for some later 19th century - its wrong for the period 1700-1830 during which any Imperial Standard similar to the Imperial Standard of the Holy Roman Empire and Austrian Empire should be used. Domino's misunderstanding of what the Holy Roman Empire is causing a reliance on anachronistic descriptions of the states involved. Should the term 'Austrian Empire' be used for periods before the 'Austrian Empire' existed. It might be better to use HRE or at least Hapsburg Empire.see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria In fact, sources show the use of the Imperial Standard in use from 1630-1866 and possibly beyond: 1630 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126214&imageID=89818&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=324&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=335 1701 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126208&imageID=89812&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=60&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=64 1650 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126228&imageID=89832&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=348&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=349 1896 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=124558&imageID=91755&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=924&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=936 1851 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125578&imageID=90568&parent_id=120441&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=12&imgs=12&total=108&pos=17&snum= 1861-66 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125548&imageID=90499&parent_id=120440&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=60&imgs=12&total=106&pos=66&snum= http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125465&imageID=90516&parent_id=120440&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=106&pos=83&snum= 1867+ http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125311&imageID=90740&parent_id=120442&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=79&pos=77&snum= http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125312&imageID=90741&parent_id=120442&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=79&pos=78&snum= I hope this clarifies the need to remove the bicolors & tricolors from later periods that are used anachronistically in the info boxes for periods 1630-1896. Tttom1 ( talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've made this flag: Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png which can be a candidate to replace the current flag being used on the infoboxes, which IMHO is immensly ugly and unpleasant to the eye. (Compared to other rather simplistic flags, it really stands out). The quicker this is done, the better. Centy – reply• contribs – 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
And...I've found a nice version of the Russian double-headed eagle Imperial standard although the source is rather funny: Image:Bandera Imperio Ruso (AOEIII).PNG. Problem is that 22px, it looks a lot like the Austrian one. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've recently combined the style guide's sections on unit and base naming, since they were essentially copies with some terms substituted out; hopefully, the combined presentation makes the scope of the common convention a bit clearer.
I'd like to propose a small (in my opinion, anyways) change to the guideline, to account for the case (particularly with long-defunct units) where historians have adopted a common name that differs from the "official" name used by the unit during its existence. The guideline as currently worded suggests the common historical name as an alternative only where a formal name doesn't exist at all; I propose changing this to include cases where the formal name is deprecated by historians in favor of an alternative common name. In terms of precise text, I'd suggest changing
The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs, or, for units or bases that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.
to
The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.
Would there be any objections to this? Or any other comments? Kirill 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this at Les Invalides in Paris. No one at the Misc. Reference desk was able to identify it definitively, so I'm wondering if someone here might have a clue. It's not a mitrailleuse or Billinghurst Requa Battery (not enough barrels and is on a swivel). Someone suggested organ gun but that description doesn't seem to fit. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I must say, my first instinct was that it looked like some form of single bank mitrailleuse. Especially given the carriage (which looks like it could be from any time from the late 1700s to 1800s IMO). I may have to pop back to Les Invalides now just to spot this. Narson ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ex. May Day Riots of 1894. No indication that military was brought in, which would make it cleary our concern. So... part of MILHIST or not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that people take a look at the RfC on Talk:Sun Bin with regard to whether two alleged alternative names for him are properly includable in the article and, if so, whether they should be in the lead paragraph. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a Military History trivia page? For example, what did former US President Clinton and Hitler had in common? :)-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the Top Twenty as of 1800 hrs GMT 23 December 2007.
There's just over one week left to go. So if you haven't signed up yet, please do so and tag at least some! Happy holidays, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there an On this day in military history place?
e.g. 24 December 2007 this day in
1790, marked the taking of
Turkish
fortress
Izmail by the
Russian troops under the command A.V.
Suvorov.--
Mrg3105 (
talk) 10:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
From pl:Hulajgród and uk:Гуляй-город: a type of siege machine used by Cossack and Russian forces around 16th and 17th century. It was a type of siege tower, on wheels or on a skid. Used during sieges of towns or encampments, carried troops and artillery, were pulled by people or animals. Onestly I don't see a reason why this should be merged to siege tower articles on respective wikis, but maybe there is something I am missing (the above is from the pl article, I don't read Ukrainian)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find information on the type of radars used by naval ships during WWII? I am looking for both navigational and gunnery radar information, however I have heard from reliable source that much of the latter is still classified, so I would settle for information on the former if at all possible. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
My grandmother, Anne Marie Lauenstein (fomerly Anne Marie Heinke) was the very first German war bride to ever come to the United States. I can ask her lots of questions about how she came over here. She has had numerous articles written about her in papers from 1945 or so.
She says that she and my grandfather have recorded the entire story on tape a long time ago and she will let me borrow it to hear it.
Anyone else that can find other information about her on the Internet would be greatly appreciated. Discuss it here (or on my talk page) if you can find any information, especially the old newspapers. There is an essay on the Internet somewhere that cites the paper as a source...you might be able to find it if you type in "First German War Bride" in quotes on Google.
I'll be contributing greatly to the war bride article soon!
-- Xernous ( talk) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, {{ WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages. As part of converting to its use, a bunch of disambiguation pages tagged with other classes have wound up being marked as unassessed; if you spot one of them, please apply this new tag. Thanks! Kirill 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone has been replacing the flag of the Austrian Empire, used in the Infobox Military Conflict by removing the flagicon template in large a number of articles such as the Battle of Paris (1814). As of yet no source has even been presented to support these changes. -- Domino theory ( talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If this flag had any use outside of the middle ages, and certainly after 1806, there are sources displaying it as a symbol of the German Confederation. These facts tell us that if not the first, then certainly the latter is more than reason enough to prevent its use here by default. In light of this it is ludicrous that it has been promoted at all, especially since it has not been supported by any sources.
The flag presented by Kirill on the other hand was actually used as a military flag by the Austrian Empire according to sources. There would probably be few problems in using a military flag regarding information on battles, but preferably it should be converted to svg format, and it should definately be invoked by template, as a war flag. Not least to avoid the frivolous repetitive editing and reverting we have been forced to see examples of so far.
However, even a flawless military flag does not represent more than the military. Flags of the World makes reference of the flag already in use as a flag used by the Habsburg monarchy from 1700. This far no better flag has been presented for the Austrian Empire that can be supported by sources. Austria-Hungary has other and more well defined flags. -- Domino theory ( talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Kirill 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)In this way was in the year 1686 officially introduced the golden flag with the twin-headed eagle of the Habsburgs as flag for the empire of the Austrian Habsburgs. Initially it was in use until 1918 as state flag...
Coincidentally, as described the national flag also served as the merchant ensign. -- Domino theory ( talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"In this way became the device of the black eagle on golden ground abridged heraldical: black over gold. Since the establishment of the Empire of Austria in 1804 it was allowed to use this flag as national and merchant flag." - ( Flaggenlexikon)
{{
flagicon|Austrian Empire|state}}
should produce the state flag, just like {{
flagicon|Austria|state}}
produces the state flag of the current republic. If we have the state flag somewhere I will see to it that the subtemplate is updated, and I will restore the civil flag to the country article. Will you be able to take a look at the altered battle articles? --
Domino theory (
talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)The nearly universal use of the Russian tricolor is a real problem for the period concerned. That Tricolor is ok for current Russian articles and for some later 19th century - its wrong for the period 1700-1830 during which any Imperial Standard similar to the Imperial Standard of the Holy Roman Empire and Austrian Empire should be used. Domino's misunderstanding of what the Holy Roman Empire is causing a reliance on anachronistic descriptions of the states involved. Should the term 'Austrian Empire' be used for periods before the 'Austrian Empire' existed. It might be better to use HRE or at least Hapsburg Empire.see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria In fact, sources show the use of the Imperial Standard in use from 1630-1866 and possibly beyond: 1630 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126214&imageID=89818&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=324&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=335 1701 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126208&imageID=89812&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=60&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=64 1650 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=126228&imageID=89832&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=348&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=349 1896 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=124558&imageID=91755&word=austria%20uniforms&s=1¬word=&d=&c=&f=&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&num=924&imgs=12&total=1146&pos=936 1851 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125578&imageID=90568&parent_id=120441&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=12&imgs=12&total=108&pos=17&snum= 1861-66 http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125548&imageID=90499&parent_id=120440&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=60&imgs=12&total=106&pos=66&snum= http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125465&imageID=90516&parent_id=120440&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=106&pos=83&snum= 1867+ http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125311&imageID=90740&parent_id=120442&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=79&pos=77&snum= http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=125312&imageID=90741&parent_id=120442&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=72&imgs=12&total=79&pos=78&snum= I hope this clarifies the need to remove the bicolors & tricolors from later periods that are used anachronistically in the info boxes for periods 1630-1896. Tttom1 ( talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've made this flag: Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png which can be a candidate to replace the current flag being used on the infoboxes, which IMHO is immensly ugly and unpleasant to the eye. (Compared to other rather simplistic flags, it really stands out). The quicker this is done, the better. Centy – reply• contribs – 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
And...I've found a nice version of the Russian double-headed eagle Imperial standard although the source is rather funny: Image:Bandera Imperio Ruso (AOEIII).PNG. Problem is that 22px, it looks a lot like the Austrian one. Centy – reply• contribs – 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've recently combined the style guide's sections on unit and base naming, since they were essentially copies with some terms substituted out; hopefully, the combined presentation makes the scope of the common convention a bit clearer.
I'd like to propose a small (in my opinion, anyways) change to the guideline, to account for the case (particularly with long-defunct units) where historians have adopted a common name that differs from the "official" name used by the unit during its existence. The guideline as currently worded suggests the common historical name as an alternative only where a formal name doesn't exist at all; I propose changing this to include cases where the formal name is deprecated by historians in favor of an alternative common name. In terms of precise text, I'd suggest changing
The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs, or, for units or bases that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.
to
The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.
Would there be any objections to this? Or any other comments? Kirill 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this at Les Invalides in Paris. No one at the Misc. Reference desk was able to identify it definitively, so I'm wondering if someone here might have a clue. It's not a mitrailleuse or Billinghurst Requa Battery (not enough barrels and is on a swivel). Someone suggested organ gun but that description doesn't seem to fit. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I must say, my first instinct was that it looked like some form of single bank mitrailleuse. Especially given the carriage (which looks like it could be from any time from the late 1700s to 1800s IMO). I may have to pop back to Les Invalides now just to spot this. Narson ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ex. May Day Riots of 1894. No indication that military was brought in, which would make it cleary our concern. So... part of MILHIST or not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that people take a look at the RfC on Talk:Sun Bin with regard to whether two alleged alternative names for him are properly includable in the article and, if so, whether they should be in the lead paragraph. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a Military History trivia page? For example, what did former US President Clinton and Hitler had in common? :)-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the Top Twenty as of 1800 hrs GMT 23 December 2007.
There's just over one week left to go. So if you haven't signed up yet, please do so and tag at least some! Happy holidays, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there an On this day in military history place?
e.g. 24 December 2007 this day in
1790, marked the taking of
Turkish
fortress
Izmail by the
Russian troops under the command A.V.
Suvorov.--
Mrg3105 (
talk) 10:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
From pl:Hulajgród and uk:Гуляй-город: a type of siege machine used by Cossack and Russian forces around 16th and 17th century. It was a type of siege tower, on wheels or on a skid. Used during sieges of towns or encampments, carried troops and artillery, were pulled by people or animals. Onestly I don't see a reason why this should be merged to siege tower articles on respective wikis, but maybe there is something I am missing (the above is from the pl article, I don't read Ukrainian)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find information on the type of radars used by naval ships during WWII? I am looking for both navigational and gunnery radar information, however I have heard from reliable source that much of the latter is still classified, so I would settle for information on the former if at all possible. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
My grandmother, Anne Marie Lauenstein (fomerly Anne Marie Heinke) was the very first German war bride to ever come to the United States. I can ask her lots of questions about how she came over here. She has had numerous articles written about her in papers from 1945 or so.
She says that she and my grandfather have recorded the entire story on tape a long time ago and she will let me borrow it to hear it.
Anyone else that can find other information about her on the Internet would be greatly appreciated. Discuss it here (or on my talk page) if you can find any information, especially the old newspapers. There is an essay on the Internet somewhere that cites the paper as a source...you might be able to find it if you type in "First German War Bride" in quotes on Google.
I'll be contributing greatly to the war bride article soon!
-- Xernous ( talk) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, {{ WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages. As part of converting to its use, a bunch of disambiguation pages tagged with other classes have wound up being marked as unassessed; if you spot one of them, please apply this new tag. Thanks! Kirill 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)