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. |
Getting back, for a moment, to the question of top-level operational categories: the previous discussion on this issue seemed to be tentatively favorable towards some renaming (or at least not categorically opposed to it), so we might as well continue.
The current setup is, broadly, thus:
The reasons for renaming, for anyone not wishing to read the previous discussion, are briefly summarized thus:
The two renaming schemes that I think would be most workable:
Scheme #2 has the advantage of tying in neatly with Category:Military history, making the overall placement more obvious; but the name may be a bit more esoteric. Having said that, these categories are really meant as holding bins—most editors aren't going to be adding articles directly to them—so that may not be a practical problem.
In either case, the "operations" terminology could then reappear further down the tree:
(And yes, this does tie in to the overall category restructuring proposal, if anyone is curious; but that's not going to be ready for some time yet, while this is a manageable chunk that we ought to be able to handle in the near future.)
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In British Englsih, "military" applied strictly to matters relating to the army, it's more of an American usage to apply it accross the board of all services, although this usage does seem to be gaining ground somewhat. David Underdown ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always had problems with "operations", "campaigns" and "battles" as they tend to bleed into each other. Take, for example, the Battle of Kursk: it was a "battle", it was an "operation" (Citadel), and has been referred to by several sources as the "Kursk Campaign". Even wars and campaigns tend to merge somewhat, especially when viewed from the different combatants (i.e. the Continuation War was a full war to the Finns, whereas it was a campaign or theatre of the Soviet-German War for the Soviets).
IMO, I think we'd be better off going with something generic like "conflict" ("events" would also include things that are political in nature)
Oberiko ( talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What about this?
Category:Military history by area
|
Category:Military history by period
|
Category:Military history by scale
|
I appreciate that the Age and Era use may be a bit controversial-- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Military history by location
Category:Military history by country |
Category:Military history by era
|
Category:Military history by scale
|
Strategic special operations could be another sub-category. One obvious category that doesn't fit neatly under geography, and even under theater, would be strategic deception. Under what was first Operation Bodyguard and then Operation Jael were sub-operations, by the London Controlling Staff, to make the Germans think the main invasion might take place anywhere from Norway to Southern France.
If this idea makes sense, then how would the more specific operations fit, such as FORTITUDE NORTH as the feint to Norway, and FORTITUDE SOUTH at the Pas de Calais? (I'm blanking on the name of the Southern French deception).
There are other things at the level of a theater, such as the OPERATION RANKIN plans for the occupation of Germany, or black radio propagander such as Soldatensender Calais. The technical intelligence units, such as Alsos, following behind the combat troops are yet another type of operation. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being rather low in my activity, and so having little merit in partecipating to this talk, but, if I have understand the issue, there's worries that layman can understand Military as land warfare; I suggest this type of breakdown of subcategories, once on the "by war" level:
And so on. Of course, is possible to put land & sea in lieu of army and Navy/Naval; but i don't recommend this because that is in my opinion an excessive dumbing-down of the categorizations. Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio ( talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been (briefly) discussed before, and there were no objections, but I suppose it can't hurt checking again: if there are no objections, I plan to deprecate the poorly-maintained and time-consuming manual list of campaignboxes in favor of an automatically-generated category ( Category:Campaignboxes). Does anyone see any issues with that? Kirill 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is particularly interested, there's a (lengthy) discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Project guidelines that involves, among other things, our style guide. Personally, I doubt most people here will be interested in wading through it—particularly since, as far as I can tell, nothing earth-shattering is being proposed—but please do feel free to drop by that page if you're so inclined. Kirill 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that it appears that John McCain is likely to be a primary candidate for President of the United States, the John S. McCain, Sr. article, which is about his grandfather, is likely to be viewed a lot more often in the future. Thus, please consider putting that article on your watchlist to help revert vandalism, and if you think the article could be improved, please consider assisting. Thanks, Cla68 ( talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, is there any interest in establishing a national militaries task force? Despite the easy availability of high quality information on national armed forces and their individual branches (eg, the national army, navy and air force) many of these articles are short at best or a mess at worst. This project would duplicate the work of the various regional military history task forces, but it could be a useful way to prompt an improvement drive. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force. Enjoy! :-) Kirill 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Messines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a very heated discussion at Ukrainian Insurgent Army, regarding whether the article is unbalanced or not. Input, and review from real historians would certainly help. Bobanni ( talk) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Urus-Martan ambush, which was a small battle in Chechnya in 2004 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urus-Martan ambush. While there are reliable sources which cover the battle, the battle itself was a small affair and doesn't seem to have been a significant incident in the long-running war in Chechnya. As such, the issue seems to be whether the existance of reliable sources alone is enough to justify an article on a small battle. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a sort of proposal for a new task force that I would like some feedback on. It is sort-of like the Weaponry task force, but also sort of different. I would like to propose a Prototype task force. There are a lot of things that never became used but were still created, like the Heuschrecke 10 for example. ~ Dreamy § 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is perhaps of tangential interest for most people, but:
I have decided not to stand for re-election as Lead Coordinator. I encourage anyone with an interest in coordination work to nominate themselves in the next few days. Kirill 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This comes as quite a shock to me. For the first time the traditional "six star" image I give to the Lead Coordinator will not go to Kirill. For all are sakes I hope that this will not be the end of the world as we know it. In any event, it has been an honor to serve as an assistant under you guidance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Howdy folks. How are multiple names for a unit usually handled in the {{ Infobox Military Unit}}? I just did a little work on the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, which like many units of the Continental Army went through several official name changes during its relatively brief existence (this one had a couple more than usual). I simply put all the official names in the top header of the infobox. Is there some other standard approach? — Kevin Myers 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a few short notices to anyone who cares:
Also: articles that have sections falling within our scope, even though the article itself does not technically fall within that scope (eg. a town in England, not within our scope, but has a section on the local castle that does not have its own article as of yet). Do we tag the article (I have been...) and if so, do we stick to that section or take on the whole article anyway? Cromdog ( talk) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I tagged this for WPMILHIST and I believe there are no objections that ENIGMA is part of military history. I already rated is as class B (it is a very good article) pending evaluation of a higher class. Sv1xv ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it fits the Military Science scope?
This task force covers topics related to military science, including strategy, tactics, doctrines, and military theory in general. (Please note that this is not the same thing as the role of science in the military, which is generally covered by the Military technology and engineering task force.)
Sv1xv ( talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Enigma impacted Allied Strategy and Tactics, so I would say it fails within the sciences task force. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I also modified the WPMILHIST boxes for the following two related articles:
adding "Intel-task-force=yes" tags. Sv1xv ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. It also works if you type only "Intel=yes". -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article on Ultra is more about Enigma cryptanalysis and less about intelligence dissemination. Instead of just deleting stuff, I decided to start a section with details of Ultra dissemination, based on G. Pidgeon's book. I would like to consult again Winterbotham but I have misplaced my copy so it will be some time before I finish editing.
Sv1xv ( talk) 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I did some major rearrangement of
Ultra today. I grouped together all stuff related to cryptanalysis, pending deletion or copying to
Cryptanalysis of the Enigma.
Sv1xv (
talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A related article about MAGIC intelligence derived from Japanese PURPLE and other ciphers is Magic (cryptography). It need extensive clean-up and copy editing. I just added a few book references. Sv1xv ( talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Both were on static display at the Wings Over Wine Country air show last year. The one on the right is being wheeled onto the runway as the air show has concluded. I'll post this at WP:Aircraft as well if necessary. Thanks. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
hi! the aircraft on the left is definitely a T-6 Harvard. i once had to prepare one for road shipment from a very cold airfield in norway. to identify the air force colors would be more difficult, but it may be 1 of the 70, or so, which were sold off as surplus by the south africa air force about 15 years ago. most were bought in the u.s. are still operational and very good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (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 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing process by various editors to change the spelling of place names in article titles to non-English spelling, including use of non-English fonts. This does nothing other then initiate edit wars and title disputes since it does not inform the reader, and still required inclusion of the English name of the place/event in the article so the English speaker can find it.
While this is definitely against the letter and spirit of the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (national and European Union policies are often sighted), the lengthy discussions that have taken place on various talk pages lead nowhere, and the nationalisation (dare I say "Balkanisation") of articles continues despite all reasonable arguments and citation of various Wikipedia policies. The administrative support is IMHO generally lacking, bureaucratic and eventually ineffective.
I would like to request that the MilHist project participants decide once and for all how the articles are to be named:
or
Once decided, this decision needs to be included as an explicit policy in the project, and not a guideline in the Style Guide.
Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I bug someone with better sp&g skills to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Advice to new coordinators and make sure that everything is spelled correctly and the proper grammar is used in the article? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A user has twice amended the result field for Rorke's Drift to read "Heroic British victory", which to me seems somewhat unnecessary, and verging on POV. I've reverted (also twice), but don't really want to get into a major edit war over it. Any other views? David Underdown ( talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 -- for a topic of its importance, the article has serious problems. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On the article for Barton S. Alexander I added a tag for bad citations and added the following to the talk page:
During a check for information on another article, there were citations that had nothing to do with the article. Mainly, these consisted of the citations linking to OR from references 17-23 (minus reference 18). In addition, references 22 and 23 refer to a chapter of the OR that doesn't exist (Chapter 66, OR only goes to chapter 65). http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/waro.html
Leobold1 ( talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has split Standard Missile without any discussion. He has misnamed the resultant pages, and when I pointed this out to them, he claimed that his version was correct. I have provided evidence to the contrary, including a reference to what the manufacturer calls it, and now he is avoiding the discussion. I would appreciate some outside input on this, incase it is just me, but I am sure that the name is incorrect. The issue is being discussed at Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3 (Which should be Talk:RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Villers-Bocage is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Carlson's patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is sourced (Spiegel in German) but that seems not possible ! Could somebody check ?
Ceedjee ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Are peer reviews only for long-time registered users, or can anyone make comments? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
can someone make an article on the weaponology series on military channel (discovery owned).
I enjoy seeing articles like Human Weapon and Fight Quest which both give a quick overview and episode list. Thanks Tkjazzer ( talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From my references, I do not believe this Canadian Forces Land Force Command so-called formation actually exists, and I believe it needs to be deleted or merged. Does anyone have any evidence that LFNA actually exists? Buckshot06 ( talk) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (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. |
Getting back, for a moment, to the question of top-level operational categories: the previous discussion on this issue seemed to be tentatively favorable towards some renaming (or at least not categorically opposed to it), so we might as well continue.
The current setup is, broadly, thus:
The reasons for renaming, for anyone not wishing to read the previous discussion, are briefly summarized thus:
The two renaming schemes that I think would be most workable:
Scheme #2 has the advantage of tying in neatly with Category:Military history, making the overall placement more obvious; but the name may be a bit more esoteric. Having said that, these categories are really meant as holding bins—most editors aren't going to be adding articles directly to them—so that may not be a practical problem.
In either case, the "operations" terminology could then reappear further down the tree:
(And yes, this does tie in to the overall category restructuring proposal, if anyone is curious; but that's not going to be ready for some time yet, while this is a manageable chunk that we ought to be able to handle in the near future.)
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In British Englsih, "military" applied strictly to matters relating to the army, it's more of an American usage to apply it accross the board of all services, although this usage does seem to be gaining ground somewhat. David Underdown ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always had problems with "operations", "campaigns" and "battles" as they tend to bleed into each other. Take, for example, the Battle of Kursk: it was a "battle", it was an "operation" (Citadel), and has been referred to by several sources as the "Kursk Campaign". Even wars and campaigns tend to merge somewhat, especially when viewed from the different combatants (i.e. the Continuation War was a full war to the Finns, whereas it was a campaign or theatre of the Soviet-German War for the Soviets).
IMO, I think we'd be better off going with something generic like "conflict" ("events" would also include things that are political in nature)
Oberiko ( talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What about this?
Category:Military history by area
|
Category:Military history by period
|
Category:Military history by scale
|
I appreciate that the Age and Era use may be a bit controversial-- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Military history by location
Category:Military history by country |
Category:Military history by era
|
Category:Military history by scale
|
Strategic special operations could be another sub-category. One obvious category that doesn't fit neatly under geography, and even under theater, would be strategic deception. Under what was first Operation Bodyguard and then Operation Jael were sub-operations, by the London Controlling Staff, to make the Germans think the main invasion might take place anywhere from Norway to Southern France.
If this idea makes sense, then how would the more specific operations fit, such as FORTITUDE NORTH as the feint to Norway, and FORTITUDE SOUTH at the Pas de Calais? (I'm blanking on the name of the Southern French deception).
There are other things at the level of a theater, such as the OPERATION RANKIN plans for the occupation of Germany, or black radio propagander such as Soldatensender Calais. The technical intelligence units, such as Alsos, following behind the combat troops are yet another type of operation. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being rather low in my activity, and so having little merit in partecipating to this talk, but, if I have understand the issue, there's worries that layman can understand Military as land warfare; I suggest this type of breakdown of subcategories, once on the "by war" level:
And so on. Of course, is possible to put land & sea in lieu of army and Navy/Naval; but i don't recommend this because that is in my opinion an excessive dumbing-down of the categorizations. Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio ( talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been (briefly) discussed before, and there were no objections, but I suppose it can't hurt checking again: if there are no objections, I plan to deprecate the poorly-maintained and time-consuming manual list of campaignboxes in favor of an automatically-generated category ( Category:Campaignboxes). Does anyone see any issues with that? Kirill 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is particularly interested, there's a (lengthy) discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Project guidelines that involves, among other things, our style guide. Personally, I doubt most people here will be interested in wading through it—particularly since, as far as I can tell, nothing earth-shattering is being proposed—but please do feel free to drop by that page if you're so inclined. Kirill 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that it appears that John McCain is likely to be a primary candidate for President of the United States, the John S. McCain, Sr. article, which is about his grandfather, is likely to be viewed a lot more often in the future. Thus, please consider putting that article on your watchlist to help revert vandalism, and if you think the article could be improved, please consider assisting. Thanks, Cla68 ( talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, is there any interest in establishing a national militaries task force? Despite the easy availability of high quality information on national armed forces and their individual branches (eg, the national army, navy and air force) many of these articles are short at best or a mess at worst. This project would duplicate the work of the various regional military history task forces, but it could be a useful way to prompt an improvement drive. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force. Enjoy! :-) Kirill 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Messines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a very heated discussion at Ukrainian Insurgent Army, regarding whether the article is unbalanced or not. Input, and review from real historians would certainly help. Bobanni ( talk) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Urus-Martan ambush, which was a small battle in Chechnya in 2004 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urus-Martan ambush. While there are reliable sources which cover the battle, the battle itself was a small affair and doesn't seem to have been a significant incident in the long-running war in Chechnya. As such, the issue seems to be whether the existance of reliable sources alone is enough to justify an article on a small battle. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a sort of proposal for a new task force that I would like some feedback on. It is sort-of like the Weaponry task force, but also sort of different. I would like to propose a Prototype task force. There are a lot of things that never became used but were still created, like the Heuschrecke 10 for example. ~ Dreamy § 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is perhaps of tangential interest for most people, but:
I have decided not to stand for re-election as Lead Coordinator. I encourage anyone with an interest in coordination work to nominate themselves in the next few days. Kirill 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This comes as quite a shock to me. For the first time the traditional "six star" image I give to the Lead Coordinator will not go to Kirill. For all are sakes I hope that this will not be the end of the world as we know it. In any event, it has been an honor to serve as an assistant under you guidance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Howdy folks. How are multiple names for a unit usually handled in the {{ Infobox Military Unit}}? I just did a little work on the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, which like many units of the Continental Army went through several official name changes during its relatively brief existence (this one had a couple more than usual). I simply put all the official names in the top header of the infobox. Is there some other standard approach? — Kevin Myers 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a few short notices to anyone who cares:
Also: articles that have sections falling within our scope, even though the article itself does not technically fall within that scope (eg. a town in England, not within our scope, but has a section on the local castle that does not have its own article as of yet). Do we tag the article (I have been...) and if so, do we stick to that section or take on the whole article anyway? Cromdog ( talk) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I tagged this for WPMILHIST and I believe there are no objections that ENIGMA is part of military history. I already rated is as class B (it is a very good article) pending evaluation of a higher class. Sv1xv ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it fits the Military Science scope?
This task force covers topics related to military science, including strategy, tactics, doctrines, and military theory in general. (Please note that this is not the same thing as the role of science in the military, which is generally covered by the Military technology and engineering task force.)
Sv1xv ( talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Enigma impacted Allied Strategy and Tactics, so I would say it fails within the sciences task force. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I also modified the WPMILHIST boxes for the following two related articles:
adding "Intel-task-force=yes" tags. Sv1xv ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. It also works if you type only "Intel=yes". -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article on Ultra is more about Enigma cryptanalysis and less about intelligence dissemination. Instead of just deleting stuff, I decided to start a section with details of Ultra dissemination, based on G. Pidgeon's book. I would like to consult again Winterbotham but I have misplaced my copy so it will be some time before I finish editing.
Sv1xv ( talk) 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I did some major rearrangement of
Ultra today. I grouped together all stuff related to cryptanalysis, pending deletion or copying to
Cryptanalysis of the Enigma.
Sv1xv (
talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A related article about MAGIC intelligence derived from Japanese PURPLE and other ciphers is Magic (cryptography). It need extensive clean-up and copy editing. I just added a few book references. Sv1xv ( talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Both were on static display at the Wings Over Wine Country air show last year. The one on the right is being wheeled onto the runway as the air show has concluded. I'll post this at WP:Aircraft as well if necessary. Thanks. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
hi! the aircraft on the left is definitely a T-6 Harvard. i once had to prepare one for road shipment from a very cold airfield in norway. to identify the air force colors would be more difficult, but it may be 1 of the 70, or so, which were sold off as surplus by the south africa air force about 15 years ago. most were bought in the u.s. are still operational and very good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (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 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing process by various editors to change the spelling of place names in article titles to non-English spelling, including use of non-English fonts. This does nothing other then initiate edit wars and title disputes since it does not inform the reader, and still required inclusion of the English name of the place/event in the article so the English speaker can find it.
While this is definitely against the letter and spirit of the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (national and European Union policies are often sighted), the lengthy discussions that have taken place on various talk pages lead nowhere, and the nationalisation (dare I say "Balkanisation") of articles continues despite all reasonable arguments and citation of various Wikipedia policies. The administrative support is IMHO generally lacking, bureaucratic and eventually ineffective.
I would like to request that the MilHist project participants decide once and for all how the articles are to be named:
or
Once decided, this decision needs to be included as an explicit policy in the project, and not a guideline in the Style Guide.
Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I bug someone with better sp&g skills to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Advice to new coordinators and make sure that everything is spelled correctly and the proper grammar is used in the article? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A user has twice amended the result field for Rorke's Drift to read "Heroic British victory", which to me seems somewhat unnecessary, and verging on POV. I've reverted (also twice), but don't really want to get into a major edit war over it. Any other views? David Underdown ( talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 -- for a topic of its importance, the article has serious problems. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On the article for Barton S. Alexander I added a tag for bad citations and added the following to the talk page:
During a check for information on another article, there were citations that had nothing to do with the article. Mainly, these consisted of the citations linking to OR from references 17-23 (minus reference 18). In addition, references 22 and 23 refer to a chapter of the OR that doesn't exist (Chapter 66, OR only goes to chapter 65). http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/waro.html
Leobold1 ( talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has split Standard Missile without any discussion. He has misnamed the resultant pages, and when I pointed this out to them, he claimed that his version was correct. I have provided evidence to the contrary, including a reference to what the manufacturer calls it, and now he is avoiding the discussion. I would appreciate some outside input on this, incase it is just me, but I am sure that the name is incorrect. The issue is being discussed at Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3 (Which should be Talk:RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Villers-Bocage is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Carlson's patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is sourced (Spiegel in German) but that seems not possible ! Could somebody check ?
Ceedjee ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Are peer reviews only for long-time registered users, or can anyone make comments? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
can someone make an article on the weaponology series on military channel (discovery owned).
I enjoy seeing articles like Human Weapon and Fight Quest which both give a quick overview and episode list. Thanks Tkjazzer ( talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From my references, I do not believe this Canadian Forces Land Force Command so-called formation actually exists, and I believe it needs to be deleted or merged. Does anyone have any evidence that LFNA actually exists? Buckshot06 ( talk) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)