This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
A question has come up regarding the proper title form for articles about an operation with a non-English codename; should the codename be prefaced with "Operation", or the relevant term in the original language? In other words, do we want Unternehmen Rheinübung or Operation Rheinübung? Ten-gō sakusen or Operation Ten-Go? And so forth.
And, as additional points to consider: should the approach taken for better-known operations (e.g. Barbarossa) differ from that taken for more obscure ones? And what about entire title translations (e.g. Case Blue versus Fall Blau)?
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It has occurred to me that there are three different situations here:
While I think that 1 and 2 are perfectly acceptable, I must admit to having a problem with 3....
Grant | Talk 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stick with the convention WP:ENGLISH. But note that this does not mean that we always use literal translations of English names. It means that where a particular operation is well-known in English language sources by a particular name, that name is used.
That convention says that where a subject is not well known, we should use the name in the original language:
Grant | Talk 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm of similar mind to Grant in that I think it would depend on the situation. Operations tend to be named after the following:
IMO, we should be doing our best to represent the intent of the operational name.
For example, the first should most definitely remain in the originial (albeit Anglized) form. Operation Barbarossa was named after the man, not literally a red beard. The origin of his name is beyond the scope of the article, readers who are curious can simply look it up from the wiki-link about him that we provide.
The latter two should, IMO, be translated. Something like "
Frühlingserwachen" has absolutely no meaning to anyone who doesn't speak German or isn't a World War II military history buff; "Spring Awakening", on the other hand, conveys the original intent of the name with much more clarity. Take also sets:
Fall Weiss,
Fall Blau,
Fall Grün,
Fall Rot,
Fall Gelb... those off-hand mean almost nothing to me. Case White, Case Blue, Case Green, Case Red, and Case Yellow at least convey the original intention as simple code-names. Even the example above of "Ten-gō" would mean much more to the average reader as "Heaven One Operation Heaven", conveying the importance that the Japanese placed on the operation to give it such a grandiose name.
I personally find that using foreign names is something of an elitist notion, serving little purpose other then to lessen accessibility to our target audience, the common readers. Oberiko ( talk) 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the Manual of Style provisions, and the naming conventions, is clear: to make us intelligible and comparable to other standard sources. Histories of the Second World War, in English, almost invariably use Operation Barbarossa; what do they use for Operation Polar Star, or Case White? I would bet the answer is the forms just cited; but it's a question of fact: what do they use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to agree with Oberiko on this one. The article title should be translated into English unless the another title is better known or when its a specific name of a person, place, etc. I see no reason why we can't title the article Operation White, and redirect Fall Weiss there and mention that in the intro sentance. Cromdog ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) No, I’m not suggesting an approach that would be the “most popular”, but rather the “most accessible”. I firmly believe that readers should learn the name in the native tongue from our articles, but I’ve come to expand my definition of the range of readers that should be able to learn it. We here have a tendency to write for those who are already fairly knowledgeable with the subject matter, like we are, but the readers who would benefit most are actually those who know the least about the topic – which usually means they also have no familiarity with the non-English language. “Polyarnaya Zvezda” might be an article about Pollyanna’s sister for all they might know. The reason I’m suggesting a (for the most part) mixed-language approach is that rendering the modifier in English gives these readers a clue, while the remaining foreign-language part emphasizes that the topic is actually about something foreign.
In my point 3, I really do mean names that translate into simple, common, everyday words (and single words at that, not compounds or multiple words) – the sort of words you’d learn in your first year of studying the language. By my schema, “Polyarnaya Zvezda” would be “Operation Polyarnaya Zvezda”, not “Operation Polar Star”; would be “Operation Bodenplatte”, not “Operation Baseplate” (or Base Plate); “Operation Sonnenblume”, not “Operation Sunflower”. As for “Ten-gō sakusen”, I’d prefer “Operation Ten-go” simply because there is far less familiarity with the way(s) in which oriental words can be rendered (as Cla68 and Oberiko noted earlier). Moreover, I’ve mostly seen it rendered that way in English texts – rarely “Ten-gō sakusen” and never “Operation Heaven”.
This approach retains the “foreign-ness” of the subject and avoids the misleading suggestion that it was an American or British or Canadian or whatever operation. The only reason I suggest using the translation of the simplest names is because they tend to be so short as to look awkward otherwise and those are the words that even a gradeschooler might learn. (I’m not hard over on this point, though. “Case Weiss” just looks silly to me, as though it’s named after a person.) Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
<--"only want to educate the "smartest""? Not what I said. Pay attention. "serve as a filter to keep out people who are just casual readers".? Again, not what I said. Neither what I meant. I suggest writing for the smartest challenges the "dumbest" to get smarter, to read more carefully, & I call that a good thing: treat somebody like he's dumb, he'll stay dumb; treat him like you think he can be better, he's liable to surprise you. Students only? No, just the same model regardless; Joe Average or Jack Granatstein should be able to read WP & learn something; how much each learns is the issue. And I include us; I've read several pages where I thought I knew a lot, & still learned something, & I count myself "front of the class". That is what I'm hoping everyone who comes here does: learn something. Notice, as I said before, it's the title; if I really wanted " a filter to keep out people who are just casual readers instead of hard-core dedicated military historians", I'd be advocating for no use of translation & routine use of acronyms & jargon. I'm not. And because you disagree with me, do you feel entitled to ignore my reasons? I've said it before: it's an English WP. Transliteration is a compromise I can live with. The best historiographers I've read use the original language; why should WP be less than equal to the best in print? What you can't seem to accept is, not everybody wants to aim at the least capable. Trekphiler ( talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Until now we have discussed title use from perspective of the author/editor. How would a reader search for the article? Imagine a high school student working of an essay. What would he/she look for when looking at say the earliest battles with Axis after the fall of France? Not Operation Battleaxe because he/she is starting from scratch. Does knowing the operation name matter? It seems to me that it does not. It was a name given to an operation for security reasons, but aside from that carries no other innate information about the event, as intended! It says as much in the Manual of Style. So how does an event become named for an article title that gives the article meaning? Is the author obligated to use the operation security name or to use a name that informs the reader? In my humble opinion the later is always better. British offensive in eastern Libya (1941) seems to me to be a far better article title then Operation Battleaxe because that is what it was even if it is not "sourced" or "most used" in English. I think this would solve the issue of the use of non-English terms in the titles. Common sense to me -- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Battleaxe" (interesting choice...) was used because it is far-and-away the most common name for the actions taken. "British offensive in eastern Libya (1941)" could be Operation Brevity, Operation Battleaxe, Operation Crusader, or even the last part of Operation Compass. If anyone had heard of this action, it was likely entirely due to hearing it referred to as "Battleaxe", the only alternative, "Battle of Sollum", is something that I've only found in a few books, namely Rommel's personal writings and a speech made to the House of Commons by Churchill.
In the case you mention, we have the following:
I doubt many would, randomly, type in anything to do with Libya; people with no knowledge of the war aren't going to connect something in North Africa with the war in Europe. In any case, Battleaxe isn't even close to being the first, there's the whole Battle of Britain and Axis conquering of Greece, along with many other events, before it.
But I think you'd agree that the debate about using operational names in English vs. foreign languages is a bit of a seperate subject from using operational names at all, no? Oberiko ( talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for interjecting with a subhead, but unless I've misread this discussion badly, this all started as perfectly innocent discussion about standardized practice on the subject of using the idiom "Operation" or other language translation in reference to the actions. Now we're dangerously skirting "who's correct" and positing on whether the prose under discussion is aimed at Grade 9 readability or Grade 12 readability. Except for my roughing in the numbers, have I misread? Are we actually getting bitter over this trivia? BusterD ( talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's assume that the following examples all say the same thing:
Of the above, I don't think anyone is pushing (or, by Wikipedia standards, would be allowed) to have the very first one. Of the latter three, they all appear in various historical accounts, as per the whims of the particular author, to the point that there is no real "standard".
What we have agreed on (I think) is that nothing outside of those four should be used. For example: "Operation Lorem Ipsum Dolor", which would be the "Operation operation" error. I think most of us would also agree that an inaccurate translation should be avoided where possible as well.
It would seem that the current discussion has led to dropping, for the most part, the transliteration option and now contends between the partial and full translations.
The arguments for the partial translation are:
The arguments for the full translation are:
Of course, being that I'm arguing for the full translation, my opinion may be biased. Oberiko ( talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Last mission of the battleship Yamato" is too unwieldy? It's hardly " Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II". ;-) Grant 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has mostly settled and the points for either side been made. Where should we go from here? Oberiko ( talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that a potential RfA may address some minor issues, creating conflict with attempts to be encyclopedic about military history articles. The battles in Iran-Iraq War are centered around entries in the infobox, when many more complex and significant aspects are involved and are being ignored in the heated emotions there. For those of sufficient strength, see Iran-Iraq War#Infobox again: the purpose is to add clarity, not fight battles. If it's this difficult to manage, it needs to be deleted.
If I may, I'd like to emphasize here that things that are arguably wrong elsewhere are being used, in the Iran-Iraq article, as a drunk in the night uses a light post: for support, rather than illumination. For example, the WWII infobox shows the war going between 1939 and 1945. I'd suggest that quite a few Chinese and Japanese would disagree with that, and, even there, it would be arguable when, in the thirties, the conflict started.
My own proposal is there be an "overarching" article about the best known name for the conflict, but, in the lead, links to a series of articles on specific conflicts. In the Iran-Iraq case, I am perfectly comfortable having articles on US-Kuwaiti vs. Iran, and Iraq vs US conflict.
I am perfectly comfortable with another article on western support to Iran and Iraq, from simple supplies to advice, that also recognizes that there were no joint staffs or coalitions. It is POV, I believe, that the issue is being made of US supplies and advice, but not of the Russian equipment on both sides, the Russian and French technical assistance to the Iraqis, the Kuwaiti reflagging, the Russian and US and British equipment used by the Iranians, etc.
There could well be a separate articles on the freedom of navigation issues and combat.
Another difficult area involves both the listing of non-national combatants and of nations that changed sides. Let's go back to WWII, not the controversy at hand. In a two-column infobox, on what side(s) should Finland, the USSR, and Italy appear? Should the Seminole Nation, which declared war on the Tripartite Pact, have a listing? "Neutral" Switzerland and Sweden still probably assisted one side more than the other. Should the Swedish ball bearing sales, if nothing else, define participation? The Swedish acceptance of the Danish Jews?
If the dates were 1939-1945, then, I suppose, the US wasn't a participant. Where are the relationships to the Panay incident and Lend-Lease to be in the infobox? What about the results of the Wise Peace Policy of Comrade Stalin? Where does the Haganah fit, with a temporary truce toward Britain?
I'm afraid the discussion going on in Iran-Iraq, ostensibly about the infobox, is making me wonder if the fundamental idea of trying to make useful boxes is more like improving epicycles while ignoring Copernicus. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Siboney (ID-2999) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a problem and I am not sure how exactly to solve it. When noting other ships in the Iowa class articles some ships are given a mention including there prefixes but not hull numbers, some omit the prefixes but include the hill number, and some omit both and simply report the name of the ship. Do we have a uniform way for presenting this kind of information? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I just cleaned out the slush pile of all articles. Is there any other specific area I can help with? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Our template has a large selection of articles needing attention, any help you could provide there would be apreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember that on Tag & Assess 2007, it says "All articles you tag and assess during January will be credited fully to your tagging tally for award purposes." But now it's well into middle of February, surely someone forgot to do a follow up and dish out the awards? (Or is it held up because of the coordinators election?) OhanaUnited Talk page 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Carom ( talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:BRAC is up for deletion. I would rather not see it burned, but no one knows when the BRAC round will be. Thoughts on this deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a public resource of who is in the US armed services, and maybe their status? Matt Sanchez has been referred to as "Marine Cpl" and "reservist", but there's some question as to whether he's still a member. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a terrible shortage of these for milhist articles. Is anyone interested in volunteering their services if a list of available copy-editors were set up? This would not, of course, require copy-editors to accept every request that was made or, indeed, to copy-edit to Pulitzer prize standards. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Some ideas for structure:
Recruit editors: in-project; via announcements; in related projects, introduce a friend (from real life)
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea and would be certainly willing to chip in with anything under the 'Copyediting' section above. However, as Roger notes above, a full FA-standard copyedit takes a while (often up to a week for longer articles depending on the degree to which RL intrudes), and I'm fairly busy elsewhere on WP as well. A lot will depend on finding a pool of reliable editors that have time available ;) EyeSerene TALK 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How does just Logistics dept sound? Article logistics is kind of clunky. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
On page General Officer, User:Althena started a "List of Historically significant generals".
I think it's a lovely concept, but I imagine most of you (like me) are cringing in horror at the thought of the realities of the idea. (e.g. see my postings at Talk:General Officer#List of Historically significant generals and User talk:Althena#General Officer.)
Can one (or more) of you more-knowlegable-and-more-experience-than-me people please have a look at:
and give "Althena" some better and more useful advice than mine?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) There's also this one: List of military commanders. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I love this page, particularly the humour displayed. mrg3105: sorry if my response sounded terse; yes, the levity was noticed and appreciated. Wandalstouring: My wife came into the room and asked me why I was laughing so loudly. Howard C. Berkowitz: To avoid my wife's frowns, I laughed more quitely, but for just as long.
Oberiko: "this doesn't seem like a well thought out idea." Yes, that was my point. As I said "I think it's a lovely concept, but I imagine most of you (like me) are cringing in horror at the thought of the realities of the idea."
I agree with pretty much everything said, but I don't think it's helping Althena much.
So, returning to the original question, what is the best advice for Althena? Note the response:
Perhaps?
Again, nice idea, but still impractical.
So, Can one (or more) of you more-knowlegable-and-more-experience-than-me people ... give Althena some better and more useful advice than mine? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an answer is to add a section called "Lists of Generals", and have it contain pointers to the various categories of generals that currently exist? Pdfpdf ( talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone going to come up with some useful advice for Althena? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you Oberiko and ScreaminEagle, I find your responses very useful.
I'm now happy to close this discussion.
And thanks also to those who contributed usefully (and to those who contributed amusingly!)
Pdfpdf (
talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
List of battles by death toll is one of those hard to maintain list articles. Most of the stuff is uncited and what is cited uses sources that come to dubious solutions. All in all could benefit from someone's attention. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I assessed the article Gleiwitz incident as a B, but didn’t assess the grammar field; can someone check that for me? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the head of this article:
“Much of the information recounted here about the Harteck Process can be found in the meticulous research of author David Irving in his book the " Virus House" which can be downloaded online. The same book is also known by another title "Hitler's Atomic Scientists." The following is based on notes from the book and other sources.”
I am concern about this message because it suggested a copyright violation, can someone else check the source material and tag it as such if this be the case? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:19, 25 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 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Harteck Process, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harteck Process. Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Romanian Land Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Several editors, myself included, have been working on the article cannon. I've just put it up for a peer review, located here. Opinions of any project members with a bit of free time and a critical eye would be most welcome, we are trying to get the article as good as possible, maybe to FAC in the future. Thanks for all the great work you do on military articles, your work is appreciated. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a nationalism pushing article at Spirit of the Winter War. If this hasn't been heard of by anyone, could we get it listed on AFD? Oberiko ( talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Gregory R. Ball is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I realized that a Polish wikipedia article on pl:kuchnia polowa (mobile field kitchen, see photos) has no English interwiki; I was unable to find a reliable online translation. Commons pictures would suggest commons:Category:Field kitchens - but we have no article on field kitchen, so I want to verify that's the term before I stub it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this unit? No references were provided for the article, and nothing in it is linked. It looks iffy, but the history end of the article seems legit. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the US Carrier pages, and couldn't really find a clear place where the aircraft complement was mentioned. In fact, to find the list of aircraft on the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), I had to go to their official page. Could some conscientious wikipedian please add a section or a list with the aircraft types, numbers and unit please.
Thanks in Advance. Cheers. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:SHIPS is currently in the midst of converting all articles under their project scope to a standard infobox: {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. As many of our articles are also Military history articles, I am posting this cross-project notice. Any help is welcome, as always. The articles are tagged on their talk pages in two ways:
Each of these categories currently holds over 500 articles each, and is probably over 1000 for conversion. - MBK 004 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This article ended up in the category for tag-related issues and I think its because someone requested a peer-review, which was never started. I suppose its probably a good idea for somebody to actually get the process set-up...? Cromdog ( talk) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Here a kind editor has announced his trip to Rome. Are there any photos we need from this place? Wandalstouring ( talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on this famous regiment is abysmal. Is there someone who deals with British military regiments/history who can sort this out. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.232.8 ( talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this is off-topic, but I don't think it is, given that I believe I am coming at the problem from the perspective of an intelligence analyst. One of the more painful things I had to do during Vietnam, figuratively longer than a root canal with less pain control, was to read the translations of Nhan Dan, the North Vietnamese party publication. While we recognized that it was mostly propaganda, there would be the occasional dropped tidbit that could fit into the intelligence mosaic after cross-checking with other sources. We also derived information by looking at changes in policy among successive issues.
[Incidentally, this is some intelligence analytical tradecraft that I may not be able to source for the main articles on the topic. Is it appropriate to have a wikilink, with a disclaimer, to a MILHIST essay?]
Anyway, my approach is part of a major battleground in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink, where the opposing editor believes that WP:V requires a source to be consistently accurate before taking a fact from it. My position is that a generally unreliable source may contain nuggets of truth, which, if validated against independent sources, meet the criteria of WP:V, without vouching for the source as a whole.
This must have come up in work for MILHIST articles, where I can't believe people did not consult heavily propagandistic sites, to pull out facts worthy of further authentication. There is a legal theory generally called "fruit of the poisoned tree", suggesting that if any piece of information was obtained illegally, all derivative information that can be traced to it must be thrown out.
How do people approach WP:V? Might you, for example, look at North Korean or jihadist sites to get a starting point for...I don't want to say "original", but "appropriate" research. Again, I differ with this editor about the interpretation of WP:OR. If I bring together absolutely validated information in a new way, he believes that is "original synthesis" and banned. Frankly, under his restrictions, it would seem that Wiki editors are limited to paraphrasing a very limited set of sources.
If anyone wanted to comment in the mediation, that would be great, but I honestly think this is a valid question for MILHIST, regarding finding sources for articles.
All comments welcome, here, at User_talk:Hcberkowitz, or Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I genuinely wanted to thank the commenters here, those that left notes on my userpage, and a couple of private blog people to whom I posed the problem. The latter included a couple of lawyers familiar with poisoned trees and such.
This has helped me clarify some of what frustrates me about Wikipedia. I've done open source intelligence professionally, and I would very much like to see a cooperative public endeavor in which people use open sources to try to get truth on assorted world events. While I've made considerably more recent progress than expected on CIA, that truthseeking doesn't fit Wikipedia.
In like manner, I've had some intelligence tradecraft articles as "how to". From a strict wiki policy basis, there may be some of that, and even *gasp* independent synthesis or personal experience. There's some quite detailed information about technological methods for intelligence collection, some of which should be obvious to one adept in the appropriate kind of engineering. HUMINT, however, is not as obvious.
Many years ago, I was the network architect for the Library of Congress, and had 24-hour access. I had had a researcher's stack pass for several years before that (stack passes are now just not done). Over several years, I set a goal of reading every serious intelligence book on the shelves (in English), and gave it a pretty good shot. Not having the Library of Congress at hand, I can't precisely source; in some cases, I'll go as far as citing the book if I am certain it was the source.
At this point, I'm honestly not sure how I want to progress with Wikipedia, but I've learned to treasure quite a few MILHIST colleagues.
Thank you all. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The fifth project coordinator election has now concluded. Roger Davies has been elected to serve as the project's Lead Coordinator, and Blnguyen, Eurocopter tigre, Kyriakos, LordAmeth, Nick Dowling, TomStar81, Wandalstouring, and Woody will occupy the eight Assistant Coordinator positions. Congratulations to the winners, and thank you to everyone who participated!
If I may also be permitted a few personal remarks:
It has been a pleasure, and a great privilege, to serve as the project's Lead Coordinator for the past two years. I am deeply grateful to everyone for giving me the opportunity to play a role in shaping the course of the project's growth. I think that, through all our efforts, we have become one of the foremost projects in Wikipedia; and I have every confidence that we will continue to prosper under Roger's leadership.
For my own part, I have every intention of staying active within the project, albeit not in any official capacity; so any questions and requests for assistance or advice will continue to be entirely welcome. Kirill 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came from M6 Heavy Tank, & I notice there are a few spex missing, like fuel capacity (477 USgal, 1807 l), engine torque (1830pd-ft @2100rpm), engine compression ratio (4.92:1), ignition system (magneto), transmission (three speed; two fwd, 1 rev), track width (25.75"), electrical system (24VDC), trench crossing (11 ft), vertical wall clearing (4 ft), & turning circle (74 ft). Seems to me the template should include these, at a minimum. (I got them from the cited source, Firepower.) Trekphiler ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Externalimage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is used in quite a few military history articles and, if I remember correctly, was created as a result of a discussion on this page. It has been nominated for deletion by a possible SPA and the deletion discussion is at: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Posada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The FA-Class nomination for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! ~ Dreamy § 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
JSTOR is an incredibly useful resource for some articles. Would project members who have access might indicating, so needed articles can be obtained if necessary? Buckshot06 ( talk) 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am new, so I hope this is an ok place to write this. There is a lot of debate as to whether Peiper did commit these atrocities, he was actually 12 miles away from the baugnez crossroads at the time! I don't necessarily want to change the information, maybe just point out that the issue is debated. Thanks, User:fogle45 10:09, 03 March 2008 (UTC)
This is now up and running. There remain a couple of sections to be added but there's plenty there for the time-being. All editors who can contribute are urged to sign up :) Any discussion, questions, and comments on talk page please. Thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There's apparently been another spate of article moves to bring things "into compliance" with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME; here, a whole bunch of SS divisions have acquired a "(Germany)" disambiguator—which, if I recall correctly, was thought to be redundant in the past. I've pointed the matter out to the editor responsible; but it'd be nice if someone with more interest in these topics could follow through with any needed cleanup and so forth. Thanks! Kirill 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Byzantine navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Carom ( talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For anyone interested in such things. ;-) Kirill 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There's some discussion among the coordinators about listing admins who are Milhist members. possibilities are incorporating an admins section in the logistics dept; showing admins in the members list either with a separate section at the top or adding an asterisk after their names. What do members (including admins) feel about this? Is it helpful? And, importantly, would admins wish to add themselves to any list, or have it done automatically? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being fussy, but {{Fleet-boat-armament-3-inch}} links only torpedo, not torpedo tube & won't allow linking to Mark 14 torpedo, which, I would have thought, would be of real interest in re USN WW2 subs. Trekphiler ( talk) 04:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Benjamin Brice is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing additional recommened guidelines on the conflict infobox here. Any input is welcome. Oberiko ( talk) 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Haxxploits has been changing sourced text in the A-10 Thunderbolt II related to the GAU-8 Avenger cannon. Details of the dispute are at Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II#1 mile vs 5 miles. We need someone who knows exactly what the tern "5mil, 80%" means (I don't know, and was only going by the original source which was removed), and can explain it simply. My concern that this user does not know what he is talking about is that he interprets "a 20-foot radius cirlce" as being " a circle 20-feet wide" - should this not be 40 feet wide? I am also concerned that this could be a sock/troll-type situation, and as such, we probably need an admin to intercede in this. - Certainly, the user's tendency to "change first, explain later" needs to be dealt with by an admin. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Portal:Iraq War? I see that the one who created it has ummm...retired but before I mark this as a Portal for deletion it seems like it could be useful if updated and it appears to be fairly well done. I am also leaving this question on the Wikiproject Iraq discussion page.-- Kumioko ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is currently marked as a stub. However, a lot of work has already been done and more is in the pipeline. I feel that the stub banner could now be removed. If others agree could it pse be taken away? Mikeo1938 ( talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated an article, Huldrych Zwingli for FAC and I would like to ask if people here could comment, review, and vote. The reason I am posting this message here is that I would like to avoid canvassing, so I am leaving this message on Wikiprojects that are related to, but not directly associated with the topic. This concerns a historic figure which had some connections to Swiss military history. Thanks and please vote (Oppose or Support). -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas why we have two separate portals for the UK navy, Portal:Royal Navy and Portal:Royal Naval Service? John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Pakistan Air Force Academy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article and tagged it with projects that would probably find it interesting. I'm not sure where to list articles for this project, so I'll just mention it here. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is to announce our new assessment drive. It's strictly for experienced wiki-gnomes and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match the Milhist B-Class criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Because of a recent cut-and-paste move of Marine (military), I've opened a dicussion on the article's fate. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Marine (military). Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Lafayette Square, Buffalo was just tagged for the project as it contains an important civil war monument. Is this enough for it to be under the scope of the project? The square itself has little or no military historical importance. Is this ours? Rockfall ( talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of aplace where I can find R&D info for cancalled navy projects? I'm hereing rumors of an eight inch guided/rocket propelled artillery shell designed in the 70's or 80's that was intended for use by the Iowa class battleships, but can't find any info on it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a Portuguese speaker to help out at WP:MHL#Requests for language support? Is there one here please? -- ROGER DAVIES talk
Can anyone suggest a good term(s) to cover all oppressive activities against civilians committed by a state? Basically something which would cover the following:
Thanks. Oberiko ( talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be one word. I'm not sure if "civil rights" has any bearing in dictatorships, as they can exist in much different forms then our own. Is it a right if the state says it isn't? Oberiko ( talk) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Rather than continue trying words and phrases, could you give some examples of where you would use this umbrella term, and why a single term is better than several more specific ones? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is information gathered by Greenpeace with regard to military matters in general and nuclear weaponry in particular? TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A comment has come up on the FLC of List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy about whether to include ranks in this list. Does anyone here have strong feelings about this either way. And if they do, should this also be carried out on the other VC recipients lists Nationality (FL): Australian (FL), Canadian (FL) etc.
My personal thoughts are that it is not really neccessary as the VC is open to all, and the valour is the main focus of attention. That is me though... Woody ( talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Naissus is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the naming discussion at Talk:Memel Offensive Operation#Memel Offensive. Several articles are named "something Offensive Operation", I feel this is may not be the best name and batch renaming may be needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an unreferenced section in the article on the Vickers Vimy about use of some of the Vimy Commercials delivered as airliners to China as bombers in the Second Zhili-Fengtian War. After extensive Googleing, I have managed to find this link http://cwlam2000hk.sinaman.com/caf05.htm, which appears to say something about Chinese military use of the Vimy - can someone who can understand Chinese please check whether the link confirms what the section of the article claims about Chinese use? Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone has asked on the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk ( here) where they get the numbers that go with military units, like the "112" in "the 112th Regiment". I hoped someone here might know and would like to answer at the link above. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been in a bit of a discussion with User:'Arry Boy about how best to word mentions of awards of honours in articles, particularly with reference to appointments to the various grades of the Order of the British Empire. Strictly, "appointed ... KBE, CBE etc" is the right wording (or "promoted" if they are later given a higher grade of the same order). My feeling is there's no need to be pedantic about the wording used, when it often leads to repitition of phraseology within the article ( 'H'. Jones is particularly where it came up), I think we should go for readability, particularly since a google for "made an MBE" returns about 60.900 hits [2] so it's obviously common enough usage. David Underdown ( talk) 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could editors with knowledge of the Indian and Pakistani armies please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Indian Infantry Division. There seems to be some confusion about what happened to this division after the partition of British India. Both Pakistan and India appear to currently have 7th Divisions - which one inherited the lineage of the WW2-era division, and how should the articles be structured? Thanks, -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm...the project's mainpage has this article removed from FA status due to citation problems, however, the article itself is still rated as FA and has no mention on it anywhere of an FAR. Does anyone know what the deal is? This came to my attention because I have recently begun working on the portal Weapons of mass destruction. Cromdog ( talk) 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Request some eyes on to British replacement of the Trident system where there is a move to alter the description of the UK deterrent to an alternative wording.
Could usefully use some additional views.
Cheers
ALR ( talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at this page requires wider input; following on from the debate over the Indian 7th Division, people are looking at the inconsistent page titles for various WW2 British divisions and how they should be named, especially in relation to divisions that became part of post British armies (like the debate over the Indian 7th). Please come and contribute your points of view. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Allan Davidson the way I read the scope of the MilHist project, there has to be something more than just that someone was in the military to bring them into the project...I know its cold, but dying in a battle in WWI isn't notable in itself and won't really ever be more than just a line or two in this athlete's article....thanks!!! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...is this the right place to ask this sort of thing? I don't want to bug anyone! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion. The general appears to be a very notable Italian WWI resistence general. He is probably mentioned in various English sources, off line, about the end of war campaigns in north Italy in WWII. Anyone who can improve the article, please take some time to do so. I don't think deletion is a real concern in spite of the listing. However, he seems like a character about whom more is written in English than the few resources I can find on the web, and military historians, especially those with access to indexes to military history magazines, might be the editors who have good information. -- 69.226.108.255 ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Armia Krajowa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an improperly formated cite tag in this article that should really be adressed. Also, in the interest of NPOV, could you guys maybe find a pro-war demonstration for the topical images section? 129.108.96.45 ( talk) 06:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, is there any reason why there aren't any specific war projects e.g. "Gulf War Project". Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have an additional references for the Second Sino-Japanese War? I'm trying to find one or two good online sources for a school paper I'm writing, but so far can't find anything usable in our online collections. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The FA-class nomination for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) has been open for quite some time and I'm sure more feedback would be appreciated. Maralia ( talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that there's a section above but I'm unsure whether MILHIST is archives the talk page with a bot. Anyway, mrg3105 ( talk · contribs) has been vigorously arguing at the AFD his conviction that the independence of India and Pakistan signified a termination of lineage between the units of the new armies and the pre-partition Indian Army. He has been repeatedly asked to support his claims about the legal military ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and lineage termination. His claims appear to hinge on personal theory and interpretation of primary documents which do not appear to even allude to the issues being discussed at the AFD. He initially appeared to dismiss that Indian and Pakistani units even claimed lineage until evidence to the contrary was presented. Sources have since been produced which I believe compellingly demonstrate official recognition of lineage by the governments of India and Pakistan but he has seemingly (?) refused to accept their authority. I have explained that until he presents sources contradicting the apparent position of those governments (which has conspicuously not been challenged and/or disputed by the United Kingdom), that he must respect that Wikipedia should reflect that reality and not propagate what appears to be personal opinion and theory. To me, it amounts to original research. I've stated that and asserted that his arguments appear to be dependent on the hypothetical and theory. His claims are exceptional and demand exceptional sources. Opinions would be really appreciated as it seems as if this will be a self-perpetuating discussion even when the AFD is closed. SoLando ( Talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A zealous editor has added enough detail on the division's operations for it to make the 20 longest wikipedia pages - needs some attention and a split, I think. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Could any editors with some spare time please help reduce Category:Unassessed military history articles which is currently getting rather large (92 articles)? If we can get on top of it now, it will stop the category becoming dauntingly big :) Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Armia Krajowa; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[[Military of {{{country}}}]] |
---|
I've seen a number of comments on various talk pages about the use of manpower statistics in this infobox and how applicable they are. The estimates for total available manpower figure for military service and number of men (and women) reaching military age annually may be readily available, thanks to the CIA World Factbook, but are not very relevant nowdays - we're not at August 4, 1914!
At least at first, I'd like to ask whether we can halt the automatic display of these figures in the box even when they're not filled in - resulting in an ugly blank space.
Further on, I think we should change the infobox to something more relevant, but I'm not sure how we would actually measure military effectiveness in a quantifiable way -(Flying hours?) Ideas welcome. Buckshot06 ( talk) 05:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Siboney (ID-2999) is underway; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I find out decorations, units and commands for Bob Chappuis?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no effective Wikibeer feature.
I'd like to invite comment on two (and a fraction) things I've written, one (and a fraction) in my userspace, and one that, perhaps prematurely, got loose in mainspace. User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, is in userspace because, I hope, I have learned by what I did with Foreign internal defense in mainspace.
While they are both well sourced, in doing the "Air Campaign" piece, I consciously did not worry about original research and synthesis. My motivation in writing it was looking at the current aerial warfare article and seeing it as more historical than explaining current doctrine. So, I decided to put down thoughts and not worry about the usual constraints. The result might well be suitable as a MILHIST essay about addressing air warfare. The piece is still a work in progress, especially as I try to get my mental arms around one of the latest buzzwords, "effects-based operations". One of the nice things about this piece is that I've been able to draw on a wide range of national sources, so it is certainly leaning toward globalisation, although I still have more research to do there.
In mainspace is an article, foreign internal defense, that I believe is well sourced and reasonably globalised, but probably should split. It has a substantial amount of information on current theories of insurgency, which may not be covered elsewhere. Of course, foreign internal defense, as a form of counterinsurgency or prevention of insurgency, needs to have an understanding of the nature of insurgency, but not necessarily in the same article.
It became obvious that one piece of the FID article was US-specific, reflecting politics in the special operations community, and with Donald Rumsfeld and presumably other Bush Administration policymakers. User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FIDscraps deals with a controversy in the US military on whether the more highly trained specialists such as United States Army Special Forces are better used in "door-kicking" direct action and counter-terror, or should emphasize the longer-term FID and unconventional warfare missions. It really should be considered a current event/ongoing debate. Again, I don't know if it can be a properly encyclopedic piece about a US issue, if it has value as a MILHIST essay, or if it doesn't fit Wikipedia at all.
I'm quite comfortable accepting that some of my work is not really fit for the Wikipedia paradigm, and am open to suggestions for more appropriate venues. Let's see what does fit here. Comments may be on the talk pages or by email.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 57 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been in a minor edit war over a user concerning the Austin K2/Y article. I moved the main front image of the truck to the infobox, to keep some commonality across the breath of Military Vehicle Articles, and the other user keeps on moving the image back into the article space, citing various reasons why he keeps reverting it back. i've told him about the Style guidelines and NPOV, but he keeps on insisting to undo my edits. I really want this to stop once and for all. Is there actually a Style Guideline for Military Vehicles? Or is it just an unwritten rule that all Military Vehicles articles need to share some shared aspects by default?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's say for example that we have a British national serving with the United States Army in a particular conflict. Do I tag them with "British military personnel of the XXX war", "American military personnel of the XXX War" or both? -- James Bond ( talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the country they are serving would have to be used. This is quite normal, many dual citizens who play sport for instance are categorised under the flag under which they competed. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to standardize the categorization of personnel based on the nationality of the service (nationality of the individual is much more mutable). For the example above I would have the individual categorized as "U.S. Army personnel of the X War" and "Foreign servicemen in the U.S. Army".
I will admit, I'm a little stumbled on the example that Leopold gives. How are observers usually classified? Oberiko ( talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following table is a summary of the most consulted military histrory-related articles in February 2008. Full listing can be found here. 23 of the 1,000 most visited pages of Wikipedia are articles maintained by this project. 87 out of the 5,000 most visited articles are also related to military history. Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in getting the full list of the 87 articles.
Anyway, this is the summary and I am leaving the door open to comments and analysis. Statistics are important but interpretations can differ. I hope this would serve the project unless a statistics dept. or a stat. task force is created. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Which WikiProjects are well known for high quality A class reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.65.127 ( talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for William Stacy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this posters pop up as jokes in forums. I've seen one for a Canadian as well. Were these notable posters and does it warrant an article. I presume these are WW2 propaganda posters, was there one for each allied country? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Found a bunch of them here and they look free as they are on a US government site. I will look into the story behind these posters further. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC) LOL! look at the bad teeth on the Englishmen. Classic. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
A question has come up regarding the proper title form for articles about an operation with a non-English codename; should the codename be prefaced with "Operation", or the relevant term in the original language? In other words, do we want Unternehmen Rheinübung or Operation Rheinübung? Ten-gō sakusen or Operation Ten-Go? And so forth.
And, as additional points to consider: should the approach taken for better-known operations (e.g. Barbarossa) differ from that taken for more obscure ones? And what about entire title translations (e.g. Case Blue versus Fall Blau)?
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It has occurred to me that there are three different situations here:
While I think that 1 and 2 are perfectly acceptable, I must admit to having a problem with 3....
Grant | Talk 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stick with the convention WP:ENGLISH. But note that this does not mean that we always use literal translations of English names. It means that where a particular operation is well-known in English language sources by a particular name, that name is used.
That convention says that where a subject is not well known, we should use the name in the original language:
Grant | Talk 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm of similar mind to Grant in that I think it would depend on the situation. Operations tend to be named after the following:
IMO, we should be doing our best to represent the intent of the operational name.
For example, the first should most definitely remain in the originial (albeit Anglized) form. Operation Barbarossa was named after the man, not literally a red beard. The origin of his name is beyond the scope of the article, readers who are curious can simply look it up from the wiki-link about him that we provide.
The latter two should, IMO, be translated. Something like "
Frühlingserwachen" has absolutely no meaning to anyone who doesn't speak German or isn't a World War II military history buff; "Spring Awakening", on the other hand, conveys the original intent of the name with much more clarity. Take also sets:
Fall Weiss,
Fall Blau,
Fall Grün,
Fall Rot,
Fall Gelb... those off-hand mean almost nothing to me. Case White, Case Blue, Case Green, Case Red, and Case Yellow at least convey the original intention as simple code-names. Even the example above of "Ten-gō" would mean much more to the average reader as "Heaven One Operation Heaven", conveying the importance that the Japanese placed on the operation to give it such a grandiose name.
I personally find that using foreign names is something of an elitist notion, serving little purpose other then to lessen accessibility to our target audience, the common readers. Oberiko ( talk) 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the Manual of Style provisions, and the naming conventions, is clear: to make us intelligible and comparable to other standard sources. Histories of the Second World War, in English, almost invariably use Operation Barbarossa; what do they use for Operation Polar Star, or Case White? I would bet the answer is the forms just cited; but it's a question of fact: what do they use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to agree with Oberiko on this one. The article title should be translated into English unless the another title is better known or when its a specific name of a person, place, etc. I see no reason why we can't title the article Operation White, and redirect Fall Weiss there and mention that in the intro sentance. Cromdog ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) No, I’m not suggesting an approach that would be the “most popular”, but rather the “most accessible”. I firmly believe that readers should learn the name in the native tongue from our articles, but I’ve come to expand my definition of the range of readers that should be able to learn it. We here have a tendency to write for those who are already fairly knowledgeable with the subject matter, like we are, but the readers who would benefit most are actually those who know the least about the topic – which usually means they also have no familiarity with the non-English language. “Polyarnaya Zvezda” might be an article about Pollyanna’s sister for all they might know. The reason I’m suggesting a (for the most part) mixed-language approach is that rendering the modifier in English gives these readers a clue, while the remaining foreign-language part emphasizes that the topic is actually about something foreign.
In my point 3, I really do mean names that translate into simple, common, everyday words (and single words at that, not compounds or multiple words) – the sort of words you’d learn in your first year of studying the language. By my schema, “Polyarnaya Zvezda” would be “Operation Polyarnaya Zvezda”, not “Operation Polar Star”; would be “Operation Bodenplatte”, not “Operation Baseplate” (or Base Plate); “Operation Sonnenblume”, not “Operation Sunflower”. As for “Ten-gō sakusen”, I’d prefer “Operation Ten-go” simply because there is far less familiarity with the way(s) in which oriental words can be rendered (as Cla68 and Oberiko noted earlier). Moreover, I’ve mostly seen it rendered that way in English texts – rarely “Ten-gō sakusen” and never “Operation Heaven”.
This approach retains the “foreign-ness” of the subject and avoids the misleading suggestion that it was an American or British or Canadian or whatever operation. The only reason I suggest using the translation of the simplest names is because they tend to be so short as to look awkward otherwise and those are the words that even a gradeschooler might learn. (I’m not hard over on this point, though. “Case Weiss” just looks silly to me, as though it’s named after a person.) Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
<--"only want to educate the "smartest""? Not what I said. Pay attention. "serve as a filter to keep out people who are just casual readers".? Again, not what I said. Neither what I meant. I suggest writing for the smartest challenges the "dumbest" to get smarter, to read more carefully, & I call that a good thing: treat somebody like he's dumb, he'll stay dumb; treat him like you think he can be better, he's liable to surprise you. Students only? No, just the same model regardless; Joe Average or Jack Granatstein should be able to read WP & learn something; how much each learns is the issue. And I include us; I've read several pages where I thought I knew a lot, & still learned something, & I count myself "front of the class". That is what I'm hoping everyone who comes here does: learn something. Notice, as I said before, it's the title; if I really wanted " a filter to keep out people who are just casual readers instead of hard-core dedicated military historians", I'd be advocating for no use of translation & routine use of acronyms & jargon. I'm not. And because you disagree with me, do you feel entitled to ignore my reasons? I've said it before: it's an English WP. Transliteration is a compromise I can live with. The best historiographers I've read use the original language; why should WP be less than equal to the best in print? What you can't seem to accept is, not everybody wants to aim at the least capable. Trekphiler ( talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Until now we have discussed title use from perspective of the author/editor. How would a reader search for the article? Imagine a high school student working of an essay. What would he/she look for when looking at say the earliest battles with Axis after the fall of France? Not Operation Battleaxe because he/she is starting from scratch. Does knowing the operation name matter? It seems to me that it does not. It was a name given to an operation for security reasons, but aside from that carries no other innate information about the event, as intended! It says as much in the Manual of Style. So how does an event become named for an article title that gives the article meaning? Is the author obligated to use the operation security name or to use a name that informs the reader? In my humble opinion the later is always better. British offensive in eastern Libya (1941) seems to me to be a far better article title then Operation Battleaxe because that is what it was even if it is not "sourced" or "most used" in English. I think this would solve the issue of the use of non-English terms in the titles. Common sense to me -- mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Battleaxe" (interesting choice...) was used because it is far-and-away the most common name for the actions taken. "British offensive in eastern Libya (1941)" could be Operation Brevity, Operation Battleaxe, Operation Crusader, or even the last part of Operation Compass. If anyone had heard of this action, it was likely entirely due to hearing it referred to as "Battleaxe", the only alternative, "Battle of Sollum", is something that I've only found in a few books, namely Rommel's personal writings and a speech made to the House of Commons by Churchill.
In the case you mention, we have the following:
I doubt many would, randomly, type in anything to do with Libya; people with no knowledge of the war aren't going to connect something in North Africa with the war in Europe. In any case, Battleaxe isn't even close to being the first, there's the whole Battle of Britain and Axis conquering of Greece, along with many other events, before it.
But I think you'd agree that the debate about using operational names in English vs. foreign languages is a bit of a seperate subject from using operational names at all, no? Oberiko ( talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for interjecting with a subhead, but unless I've misread this discussion badly, this all started as perfectly innocent discussion about standardized practice on the subject of using the idiom "Operation" or other language translation in reference to the actions. Now we're dangerously skirting "who's correct" and positing on whether the prose under discussion is aimed at Grade 9 readability or Grade 12 readability. Except for my roughing in the numbers, have I misread? Are we actually getting bitter over this trivia? BusterD ( talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's assume that the following examples all say the same thing:
Of the above, I don't think anyone is pushing (or, by Wikipedia standards, would be allowed) to have the very first one. Of the latter three, they all appear in various historical accounts, as per the whims of the particular author, to the point that there is no real "standard".
What we have agreed on (I think) is that nothing outside of those four should be used. For example: "Operation Lorem Ipsum Dolor", which would be the "Operation operation" error. I think most of us would also agree that an inaccurate translation should be avoided where possible as well.
It would seem that the current discussion has led to dropping, for the most part, the transliteration option and now contends between the partial and full translations.
The arguments for the partial translation are:
The arguments for the full translation are:
Of course, being that I'm arguing for the full translation, my opinion may be biased. Oberiko ( talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Last mission of the battleship Yamato" is too unwieldy? It's hardly " Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II". ;-) Grant 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has mostly settled and the points for either side been made. Where should we go from here? Oberiko ( talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that a potential RfA may address some minor issues, creating conflict with attempts to be encyclopedic about military history articles. The battles in Iran-Iraq War are centered around entries in the infobox, when many more complex and significant aspects are involved and are being ignored in the heated emotions there. For those of sufficient strength, see Iran-Iraq War#Infobox again: the purpose is to add clarity, not fight battles. If it's this difficult to manage, it needs to be deleted.
If I may, I'd like to emphasize here that things that are arguably wrong elsewhere are being used, in the Iran-Iraq article, as a drunk in the night uses a light post: for support, rather than illumination. For example, the WWII infobox shows the war going between 1939 and 1945. I'd suggest that quite a few Chinese and Japanese would disagree with that, and, even there, it would be arguable when, in the thirties, the conflict started.
My own proposal is there be an "overarching" article about the best known name for the conflict, but, in the lead, links to a series of articles on specific conflicts. In the Iran-Iraq case, I am perfectly comfortable having articles on US-Kuwaiti vs. Iran, and Iraq vs US conflict.
I am perfectly comfortable with another article on western support to Iran and Iraq, from simple supplies to advice, that also recognizes that there were no joint staffs or coalitions. It is POV, I believe, that the issue is being made of US supplies and advice, but not of the Russian equipment on both sides, the Russian and French technical assistance to the Iraqis, the Kuwaiti reflagging, the Russian and US and British equipment used by the Iranians, etc.
There could well be a separate articles on the freedom of navigation issues and combat.
Another difficult area involves both the listing of non-national combatants and of nations that changed sides. Let's go back to WWII, not the controversy at hand. In a two-column infobox, on what side(s) should Finland, the USSR, and Italy appear? Should the Seminole Nation, which declared war on the Tripartite Pact, have a listing? "Neutral" Switzerland and Sweden still probably assisted one side more than the other. Should the Swedish ball bearing sales, if nothing else, define participation? The Swedish acceptance of the Danish Jews?
If the dates were 1939-1945, then, I suppose, the US wasn't a participant. Where are the relationships to the Panay incident and Lend-Lease to be in the infobox? What about the results of the Wise Peace Policy of Comrade Stalin? Where does the Haganah fit, with a temporary truce toward Britain?
I'm afraid the discussion going on in Iran-Iraq, ostensibly about the infobox, is making me wonder if the fundamental idea of trying to make useful boxes is more like improving epicycles while ignoring Copernicus. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Siboney (ID-2999) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a problem and I am not sure how exactly to solve it. When noting other ships in the Iowa class articles some ships are given a mention including there prefixes but not hull numbers, some omit the prefixes but include the hill number, and some omit both and simply report the name of the ship. Do we have a uniform way for presenting this kind of information? TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I just cleaned out the slush pile of all articles. Is there any other specific area I can help with? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Our template has a large selection of articles needing attention, any help you could provide there would be apreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember that on Tag & Assess 2007, it says "All articles you tag and assess during January will be credited fully to your tagging tally for award purposes." But now it's well into middle of February, surely someone forgot to do a follow up and dish out the awards? (Or is it held up because of the coordinators election?) OhanaUnited Talk page 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Carom ( talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:BRAC is up for deletion. I would rather not see it burned, but no one knows when the BRAC round will be. Thoughts on this deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a public resource of who is in the US armed services, and maybe their status? Matt Sanchez has been referred to as "Marine Cpl" and "reservist", but there's some question as to whether he's still a member. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a terrible shortage of these for milhist articles. Is anyone interested in volunteering their services if a list of available copy-editors were set up? This would not, of course, require copy-editors to accept every request that was made or, indeed, to copy-edit to Pulitzer prize standards. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Some ideas for structure:
Recruit editors: in-project; via announcements; in related projects, introduce a friend (from real life)
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea and would be certainly willing to chip in with anything under the 'Copyediting' section above. However, as Roger notes above, a full FA-standard copyedit takes a while (often up to a week for longer articles depending on the degree to which RL intrudes), and I'm fairly busy elsewhere on WP as well. A lot will depend on finding a pool of reliable editors that have time available ;) EyeSerene TALK 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How does just Logistics dept sound? Article logistics is kind of clunky. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
On page General Officer, User:Althena started a "List of Historically significant generals".
I think it's a lovely concept, but I imagine most of you (like me) are cringing in horror at the thought of the realities of the idea. (e.g. see my postings at Talk:General Officer#List of Historically significant generals and User talk:Althena#General Officer.)
Can one (or more) of you more-knowlegable-and-more-experience-than-me people please have a look at:
and give "Althena" some better and more useful advice than mine?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) There's also this one: List of military commanders. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I love this page, particularly the humour displayed. mrg3105: sorry if my response sounded terse; yes, the levity was noticed and appreciated. Wandalstouring: My wife came into the room and asked me why I was laughing so loudly. Howard C. Berkowitz: To avoid my wife's frowns, I laughed more quitely, but for just as long.
Oberiko: "this doesn't seem like a well thought out idea." Yes, that was my point. As I said "I think it's a lovely concept, but I imagine most of you (like me) are cringing in horror at the thought of the realities of the idea."
I agree with pretty much everything said, but I don't think it's helping Althena much.
So, returning to the original question, what is the best advice for Althena? Note the response:
Perhaps?
Again, nice idea, but still impractical.
So, Can one (or more) of you more-knowlegable-and-more-experience-than-me people ... give Althena some better and more useful advice than mine? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an answer is to add a section called "Lists of Generals", and have it contain pointers to the various categories of generals that currently exist? Pdfpdf ( talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone going to come up with some useful advice for Althena? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you Oberiko and ScreaminEagle, I find your responses very useful.
I'm now happy to close this discussion.
And thanks also to those who contributed usefully (and to those who contributed amusingly!)
Pdfpdf (
talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
List of battles by death toll is one of those hard to maintain list articles. Most of the stuff is uncited and what is cited uses sources that come to dubious solutions. All in all could benefit from someone's attention. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I assessed the article Gleiwitz incident as a B, but didn’t assess the grammar field; can someone check that for me? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the head of this article:
“Much of the information recounted here about the Harteck Process can be found in the meticulous research of author David Irving in his book the " Virus House" which can be downloaded online. The same book is also known by another title "Hitler's Atomic Scientists." The following is based on notes from the book and other sources.”
I am concern about this message because it suggested a copyright violation, can someone else check the source material and tag it as such if this be the case? TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:19, 25 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 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Harteck Process, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harteck Process. Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Romanian Land Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Several editors, myself included, have been working on the article cannon. I've just put it up for a peer review, located here. Opinions of any project members with a bit of free time and a critical eye would be most welcome, we are trying to get the article as good as possible, maybe to FAC in the future. Thanks for all the great work you do on military articles, your work is appreciated. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a nationalism pushing article at Spirit of the Winter War. If this hasn't been heard of by anyone, could we get it listed on AFD? Oberiko ( talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Gregory R. Ball is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I realized that a Polish wikipedia article on pl:kuchnia polowa (mobile field kitchen, see photos) has no English interwiki; I was unable to find a reliable online translation. Commons pictures would suggest commons:Category:Field kitchens - but we have no article on field kitchen, so I want to verify that's the term before I stub it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this unit? No references were provided for the article, and nothing in it is linked. It looks iffy, but the history end of the article seems legit. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the US Carrier pages, and couldn't really find a clear place where the aircraft complement was mentioned. In fact, to find the list of aircraft on the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), I had to go to their official page. Could some conscientious wikipedian please add a section or a list with the aircraft types, numbers and unit please.
Thanks in Advance. Cheers. T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:SHIPS is currently in the midst of converting all articles under their project scope to a standard infobox: {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. As many of our articles are also Military history articles, I am posting this cross-project notice. Any help is welcome, as always. The articles are tagged on their talk pages in two ways:
Each of these categories currently holds over 500 articles each, and is probably over 1000 for conversion. - MBK 004 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This article ended up in the category for tag-related issues and I think its because someone requested a peer-review, which was never started. I suppose its probably a good idea for somebody to actually get the process set-up...? Cromdog ( talk) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Iraq War troop surge of 2007 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Here a kind editor has announced his trip to Rome. Are there any photos we need from this place? Wandalstouring ( talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on this famous regiment is abysmal. Is there someone who deals with British military regiments/history who can sort this out. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.232.8 ( talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this is off-topic, but I don't think it is, given that I believe I am coming at the problem from the perspective of an intelligence analyst. One of the more painful things I had to do during Vietnam, figuratively longer than a root canal with less pain control, was to read the translations of Nhan Dan, the North Vietnamese party publication. While we recognized that it was mostly propaganda, there would be the occasional dropped tidbit that could fit into the intelligence mosaic after cross-checking with other sources. We also derived information by looking at changes in policy among successive issues.
[Incidentally, this is some intelligence analytical tradecraft that I may not be able to source for the main articles on the topic. Is it appropriate to have a wikilink, with a disclaimer, to a MILHIST essay?]
Anyway, my approach is part of a major battleground in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink, where the opposing editor believes that WP:V requires a source to be consistently accurate before taking a fact from it. My position is that a generally unreliable source may contain nuggets of truth, which, if validated against independent sources, meet the criteria of WP:V, without vouching for the source as a whole.
This must have come up in work for MILHIST articles, where I can't believe people did not consult heavily propagandistic sites, to pull out facts worthy of further authentication. There is a legal theory generally called "fruit of the poisoned tree", suggesting that if any piece of information was obtained illegally, all derivative information that can be traced to it must be thrown out.
How do people approach WP:V? Might you, for example, look at North Korean or jihadist sites to get a starting point for...I don't want to say "original", but "appropriate" research. Again, I differ with this editor about the interpretation of WP:OR. If I bring together absolutely validated information in a new way, he believes that is "original synthesis" and banned. Frankly, under his restrictions, it would seem that Wiki editors are limited to paraphrasing a very limited set of sources.
If anyone wanted to comment in the mediation, that would be great, but I honestly think this is a valid question for MILHIST, regarding finding sources for articles.
All comments welcome, here, at User_talk:Hcberkowitz, or Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I genuinely wanted to thank the commenters here, those that left notes on my userpage, and a couple of private blog people to whom I posed the problem. The latter included a couple of lawyers familiar with poisoned trees and such.
This has helped me clarify some of what frustrates me about Wikipedia. I've done open source intelligence professionally, and I would very much like to see a cooperative public endeavor in which people use open sources to try to get truth on assorted world events. While I've made considerably more recent progress than expected on CIA, that truthseeking doesn't fit Wikipedia.
In like manner, I've had some intelligence tradecraft articles as "how to". From a strict wiki policy basis, there may be some of that, and even *gasp* independent synthesis or personal experience. There's some quite detailed information about technological methods for intelligence collection, some of which should be obvious to one adept in the appropriate kind of engineering. HUMINT, however, is not as obvious.
Many years ago, I was the network architect for the Library of Congress, and had 24-hour access. I had had a researcher's stack pass for several years before that (stack passes are now just not done). Over several years, I set a goal of reading every serious intelligence book on the shelves (in English), and gave it a pretty good shot. Not having the Library of Congress at hand, I can't precisely source; in some cases, I'll go as far as citing the book if I am certain it was the source.
At this point, I'm honestly not sure how I want to progress with Wikipedia, but I've learned to treasure quite a few MILHIST colleagues.
Thank you all. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The fifth project coordinator election has now concluded. Roger Davies has been elected to serve as the project's Lead Coordinator, and Blnguyen, Eurocopter tigre, Kyriakos, LordAmeth, Nick Dowling, TomStar81, Wandalstouring, and Woody will occupy the eight Assistant Coordinator positions. Congratulations to the winners, and thank you to everyone who participated!
If I may also be permitted a few personal remarks:
It has been a pleasure, and a great privilege, to serve as the project's Lead Coordinator for the past two years. I am deeply grateful to everyone for giving me the opportunity to play a role in shaping the course of the project's growth. I think that, through all our efforts, we have become one of the foremost projects in Wikipedia; and I have every confidence that we will continue to prosper under Roger's leadership.
For my own part, I have every intention of staying active within the project, albeit not in any official capacity; so any questions and requests for assistance or advice will continue to be entirely welcome. Kirill 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came from M6 Heavy Tank, & I notice there are a few spex missing, like fuel capacity (477 USgal, 1807 l), engine torque (1830pd-ft @2100rpm), engine compression ratio (4.92:1), ignition system (magneto), transmission (three speed; two fwd, 1 rev), track width (25.75"), electrical system (24VDC), trench crossing (11 ft), vertical wall clearing (4 ft), & turning circle (74 ft). Seems to me the template should include these, at a minimum. (I got them from the cited source, Firepower.) Trekphiler ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Externalimage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is used in quite a few military history articles and, if I remember correctly, was created as a result of a discussion on this page. It has been nominated for deletion by a possible SPA and the deletion discussion is at: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Posada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The FA-Class nomination for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! ~ Dreamy § 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
JSTOR is an incredibly useful resource for some articles. Would project members who have access might indicating, so needed articles can be obtained if necessary? Buckshot06 ( talk) 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am new, so I hope this is an ok place to write this. There is a lot of debate as to whether Peiper did commit these atrocities, he was actually 12 miles away from the baugnez crossroads at the time! I don't necessarily want to change the information, maybe just point out that the issue is debated. Thanks, User:fogle45 10:09, 03 March 2008 (UTC)
This is now up and running. There remain a couple of sections to be added but there's plenty there for the time-being. All editors who can contribute are urged to sign up :) Any discussion, questions, and comments on talk page please. Thanks, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There's apparently been another spate of article moves to bring things "into compliance" with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME; here, a whole bunch of SS divisions have acquired a "(Germany)" disambiguator—which, if I recall correctly, was thought to be redundant in the past. I've pointed the matter out to the editor responsible; but it'd be nice if someone with more interest in these topics could follow through with any needed cleanup and so forth. Thanks! Kirill 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Byzantine navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Carom ( talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For anyone interested in such things. ;-) Kirill 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There's some discussion among the coordinators about listing admins who are Milhist members. possibilities are incorporating an admins section in the logistics dept; showing admins in the members list either with a separate section at the top or adding an asterisk after their names. What do members (including admins) feel about this? Is it helpful? And, importantly, would admins wish to add themselves to any list, or have it done automatically? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being fussy, but {{Fleet-boat-armament-3-inch}} links only torpedo, not torpedo tube & won't allow linking to Mark 14 torpedo, which, I would have thought, would be of real interest in re USN WW2 subs. Trekphiler ( talk) 04:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Benjamin Brice is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing additional recommened guidelines on the conflict infobox here. Any input is welcome. Oberiko ( talk) 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Haxxploits has been changing sourced text in the A-10 Thunderbolt II related to the GAU-8 Avenger cannon. Details of the dispute are at Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II#1 mile vs 5 miles. We need someone who knows exactly what the tern "5mil, 80%" means (I don't know, and was only going by the original source which was removed), and can explain it simply. My concern that this user does not know what he is talking about is that he interprets "a 20-foot radius cirlce" as being " a circle 20-feet wide" - should this not be 40 feet wide? I am also concerned that this could be a sock/troll-type situation, and as such, we probably need an admin to intercede in this. - Certainly, the user's tendency to "change first, explain later" needs to be dealt with by an admin. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Portal:Iraq War? I see that the one who created it has ummm...retired but before I mark this as a Portal for deletion it seems like it could be useful if updated and it appears to be fairly well done. I am also leaving this question on the Wikiproject Iraq discussion page.-- Kumioko ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is currently marked as a stub. However, a lot of work has already been done and more is in the pipeline. I feel that the stub banner could now be removed. If others agree could it pse be taken away? Mikeo1938 ( talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated an article, Huldrych Zwingli for FAC and I would like to ask if people here could comment, review, and vote. The reason I am posting this message here is that I would like to avoid canvassing, so I am leaving this message on Wikiprojects that are related to, but not directly associated with the topic. This concerns a historic figure which had some connections to Swiss military history. Thanks and please vote (Oppose or Support). -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas why we have two separate portals for the UK navy, Portal:Royal Navy and Portal:Royal Naval Service? John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Pakistan Air Force Academy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article and tagged it with projects that would probably find it interesting. I'm not sure where to list articles for this project, so I'll just mention it here. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is to announce our new assessment drive. It's strictly for experienced wiki-gnomes and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match the Milhist B-Class criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Because of a recent cut-and-paste move of Marine (military), I've opened a dicussion on the article's fate. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Marine (military). Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Lafayette Square, Buffalo was just tagged for the project as it contains an important civil war monument. Is this enough for it to be under the scope of the project? The square itself has little or no military historical importance. Is this ours? Rockfall ( talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of aplace where I can find R&D info for cancalled navy projects? I'm hereing rumors of an eight inch guided/rocket propelled artillery shell designed in the 70's or 80's that was intended for use by the Iowa class battleships, but can't find any info on it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a Portuguese speaker to help out at WP:MHL#Requests for language support? Is there one here please? -- ROGER DAVIES talk
Can anyone suggest a good term(s) to cover all oppressive activities against civilians committed by a state? Basically something which would cover the following:
Thanks. Oberiko ( talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be one word. I'm not sure if "civil rights" has any bearing in dictatorships, as they can exist in much different forms then our own. Is it a right if the state says it isn't? Oberiko ( talk) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Rather than continue trying words and phrases, could you give some examples of where you would use this umbrella term, and why a single term is better than several more specific ones? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is information gathered by Greenpeace with regard to military matters in general and nuclear weaponry in particular? TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A comment has come up on the FLC of List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy about whether to include ranks in this list. Does anyone here have strong feelings about this either way. And if they do, should this also be carried out on the other VC recipients lists Nationality (FL): Australian (FL), Canadian (FL) etc.
My personal thoughts are that it is not really neccessary as the VC is open to all, and the valour is the main focus of attention. That is me though... Woody ( talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Naissus is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the naming discussion at Talk:Memel Offensive Operation#Memel Offensive. Several articles are named "something Offensive Operation", I feel this is may not be the best name and batch renaming may be needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an unreferenced section in the article on the Vickers Vimy about use of some of the Vimy Commercials delivered as airliners to China as bombers in the Second Zhili-Fengtian War. After extensive Googleing, I have managed to find this link http://cwlam2000hk.sinaman.com/caf05.htm, which appears to say something about Chinese military use of the Vimy - can someone who can understand Chinese please check whether the link confirms what the section of the article claims about Chinese use? Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone has asked on the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk ( here) where they get the numbers that go with military units, like the "112" in "the 112th Regiment". I hoped someone here might know and would like to answer at the link above. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been in a bit of a discussion with User:'Arry Boy about how best to word mentions of awards of honours in articles, particularly with reference to appointments to the various grades of the Order of the British Empire. Strictly, "appointed ... KBE, CBE etc" is the right wording (or "promoted" if they are later given a higher grade of the same order). My feeling is there's no need to be pedantic about the wording used, when it often leads to repitition of phraseology within the article ( 'H'. Jones is particularly where it came up), I think we should go for readability, particularly since a google for "made an MBE" returns about 60.900 hits [2] so it's obviously common enough usage. David Underdown ( talk) 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could editors with knowledge of the Indian and Pakistani armies please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Indian Infantry Division. There seems to be some confusion about what happened to this division after the partition of British India. Both Pakistan and India appear to currently have 7th Divisions - which one inherited the lineage of the WW2-era division, and how should the articles be structured? Thanks, -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm...the project's mainpage has this article removed from FA status due to citation problems, however, the article itself is still rated as FA and has no mention on it anywhere of an FAR. Does anyone know what the deal is? This came to my attention because I have recently begun working on the portal Weapons of mass destruction. Cromdog ( talk) 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Request some eyes on to British replacement of the Trident system where there is a move to alter the description of the UK deterrent to an alternative wording.
Could usefully use some additional views.
Cheers
ALR ( talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at this page requires wider input; following on from the debate over the Indian 7th Division, people are looking at the inconsistent page titles for various WW2 British divisions and how they should be named, especially in relation to divisions that became part of post British armies (like the debate over the Indian 7th). Please come and contribute your points of view. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Allan Davidson the way I read the scope of the MilHist project, there has to be something more than just that someone was in the military to bring them into the project...I know its cold, but dying in a battle in WWI isn't notable in itself and won't really ever be more than just a line or two in this athlete's article....thanks!!! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...is this the right place to ask this sort of thing? I don't want to bug anyone! LegoTech·( t)·( c) 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion. The general appears to be a very notable Italian WWI resistence general. He is probably mentioned in various English sources, off line, about the end of war campaigns in north Italy in WWII. Anyone who can improve the article, please take some time to do so. I don't think deletion is a real concern in spite of the listing. However, he seems like a character about whom more is written in English than the few resources I can find on the web, and military historians, especially those with access to indexes to military history magazines, might be the editors who have good information. -- 69.226.108.255 ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Armia Krajowa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an improperly formated cite tag in this article that should really be adressed. Also, in the interest of NPOV, could you guys maybe find a pro-war demonstration for the topical images section? 129.108.96.45 ( talk) 06:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, is there any reason why there aren't any specific war projects e.g. "Gulf War Project". Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have an additional references for the Second Sino-Japanese War? I'm trying to find one or two good online sources for a school paper I'm writing, but so far can't find anything usable in our online collections. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The FA-class nomination for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) has been open for quite some time and I'm sure more feedback would be appreciated. Maralia ( talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that there's a section above but I'm unsure whether MILHIST is archives the talk page with a bot. Anyway, mrg3105 ( talk · contribs) has been vigorously arguing at the AFD his conviction that the independence of India and Pakistan signified a termination of lineage between the units of the new armies and the pre-partition Indian Army. He has been repeatedly asked to support his claims about the legal military ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and lineage termination. His claims appear to hinge on personal theory and interpretation of primary documents which do not appear to even allude to the issues being discussed at the AFD. He initially appeared to dismiss that Indian and Pakistani units even claimed lineage until evidence to the contrary was presented. Sources have since been produced which I believe compellingly demonstrate official recognition of lineage by the governments of India and Pakistan but he has seemingly (?) refused to accept their authority. I have explained that until he presents sources contradicting the apparent position of those governments (which has conspicuously not been challenged and/or disputed by the United Kingdom), that he must respect that Wikipedia should reflect that reality and not propagate what appears to be personal opinion and theory. To me, it amounts to original research. I've stated that and asserted that his arguments appear to be dependent on the hypothetical and theory. His claims are exceptional and demand exceptional sources. Opinions would be really appreciated as it seems as if this will be a self-perpetuating discussion even when the AFD is closed. SoLando ( Talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A zealous editor has added enough detail on the division's operations for it to make the 20 longest wikipedia pages - needs some attention and a split, I think. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Could any editors with some spare time please help reduce Category:Unassessed military history articles which is currently getting rather large (92 articles)? If we can get on top of it now, it will stop the category becoming dauntingly big :) Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Armia Krajowa; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[[Military of {{{country}}}]] |
---|
I've seen a number of comments on various talk pages about the use of manpower statistics in this infobox and how applicable they are. The estimates for total available manpower figure for military service and number of men (and women) reaching military age annually may be readily available, thanks to the CIA World Factbook, but are not very relevant nowdays - we're not at August 4, 1914!
At least at first, I'd like to ask whether we can halt the automatic display of these figures in the box even when they're not filled in - resulting in an ugly blank space.
Further on, I think we should change the infobox to something more relevant, but I'm not sure how we would actually measure military effectiveness in a quantifiable way -(Flying hours?) Ideas welcome. Buckshot06 ( talk) 05:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Siboney (ID-2999) is underway; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I find out decorations, units and commands for Bob Chappuis?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no effective Wikibeer feature.
I'd like to invite comment on two (and a fraction) things I've written, one (and a fraction) in my userspace, and one that, perhaps prematurely, got loose in mainspace. User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, is in userspace because, I hope, I have learned by what I did with Foreign internal defense in mainspace.
While they are both well sourced, in doing the "Air Campaign" piece, I consciously did not worry about original research and synthesis. My motivation in writing it was looking at the current aerial warfare article and seeing it as more historical than explaining current doctrine. So, I decided to put down thoughts and not worry about the usual constraints. The result might well be suitable as a MILHIST essay about addressing air warfare. The piece is still a work in progress, especially as I try to get my mental arms around one of the latest buzzwords, "effects-based operations". One of the nice things about this piece is that I've been able to draw on a wide range of national sources, so it is certainly leaning toward globalisation, although I still have more research to do there.
In mainspace is an article, foreign internal defense, that I believe is well sourced and reasonably globalised, but probably should split. It has a substantial amount of information on current theories of insurgency, which may not be covered elsewhere. Of course, foreign internal defense, as a form of counterinsurgency or prevention of insurgency, needs to have an understanding of the nature of insurgency, but not necessarily in the same article.
It became obvious that one piece of the FID article was US-specific, reflecting politics in the special operations community, and with Donald Rumsfeld and presumably other Bush Administration policymakers. User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FIDscraps deals with a controversy in the US military on whether the more highly trained specialists such as United States Army Special Forces are better used in "door-kicking" direct action and counter-terror, or should emphasize the longer-term FID and unconventional warfare missions. It really should be considered a current event/ongoing debate. Again, I don't know if it can be a properly encyclopedic piece about a US issue, if it has value as a MILHIST essay, or if it doesn't fit Wikipedia at all.
I'm quite comfortable accepting that some of my work is not really fit for the Wikipedia paradigm, and am open to suggestions for more appropriate venues. Let's see what does fit here. Comments may be on the talk pages or by email.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 57 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been in a minor edit war over a user concerning the Austin K2/Y article. I moved the main front image of the truck to the infobox, to keep some commonality across the breath of Military Vehicle Articles, and the other user keeps on moving the image back into the article space, citing various reasons why he keeps reverting it back. i've told him about the Style guidelines and NPOV, but he keeps on insisting to undo my edits. I really want this to stop once and for all. Is there actually a Style Guideline for Military Vehicles? Or is it just an unwritten rule that all Military Vehicles articles need to share some shared aspects by default?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's say for example that we have a British national serving with the United States Army in a particular conflict. Do I tag them with "British military personnel of the XXX war", "American military personnel of the XXX War" or both? -- James Bond ( talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the country they are serving would have to be used. This is quite normal, many dual citizens who play sport for instance are categorised under the flag under which they competed. Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to standardize the categorization of personnel based on the nationality of the service (nationality of the individual is much more mutable). For the example above I would have the individual categorized as "U.S. Army personnel of the X War" and "Foreign servicemen in the U.S. Army".
I will admit, I'm a little stumbled on the example that Leopold gives. How are observers usually classified? Oberiko ( talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following table is a summary of the most consulted military histrory-related articles in February 2008. Full listing can be found here. 23 of the 1,000 most visited pages of Wikipedia are articles maintained by this project. 87 out of the 5,000 most visited articles are also related to military history. Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in getting the full list of the 87 articles.
Anyway, this is the summary and I am leaving the door open to comments and analysis. Statistics are important but interpretations can differ. I hope this would serve the project unless a statistics dept. or a stat. task force is created. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Which WikiProjects are well known for high quality A class reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.65.127 ( talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for William Stacy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this posters pop up as jokes in forums. I've seen one for a Canadian as well. Were these notable posters and does it warrant an article. I presume these are WW2 propaganda posters, was there one for each allied country? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Found a bunch of them here and they look free as they are on a US government site. I will look into the story behind these posters further. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC) LOL! look at the bad teeth on the Englishmen. Classic. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)