Main page | Discussion |
News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment |
A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!
Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Earlier in the week I posted another edit request on Kathleen Hicks' article, and since no one has replied yet, figured I might as well post again here. The article currently omits an important presidentially appointed position, and certain board roles are out-of-date. If anyone here is willing to review my proposed changes, I'd be grateful. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.
I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.
This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford ( talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots ( talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.
If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.
Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge ( talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
State defense forces has a hatnote for countries/states/nations, but there doesn't seem to be an article for provincial military/ provincial militaries, the general topic for "state defense force" that this U.S. focused article should have as a more general wider coverage article parent. The U.S. is not the only country with "states" as subnational divisions, nor the only country where subnational divisions have their own militaries. Just look at Somaliland and Puntland, with significant militaries that are greater than that of the central government. Historically, satrapies Chinese prefectures/provinces/circuits, Roman provinces, have had major militaries. Feudal lords that were not sovereign have usually held substantial militaries under the suzerainty of the respective sovereign crowns. So this seems to be a major omission, considering there is already a U.S. focused article.
-- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, in the Caucasus campaign#Casualties is the following passage:
This gives a total of 235,733 casualties (83,083 killed, 113,570 critically wounded, 39,080 prisoners). Disease deaths (including deaths from the cold) overwhelmingly outnumbered combat deaths for Ottoman forces however, with over twice as many Ottoman troops dying of disease in the war than in combat. Assuming the same for the Caucasus, Ottoman disease deaths would number ~ 170,000, and total deaths would number ~253,000. Additionally, total woundings were x2.5 greater than critical ones overall. If this average also held true in the Caucasus, total wounded would number 284,000. [1] Altogether, total Ottoman losses would be around 576,000 (284,000 dead, 253,000 wounded, 39,000 prisoners), over a third of total Ottoman casualties in World War I. original research?
This has been tagged as WP:OR. Would anybody have access to this to confirm whether or not this is OR. Thank you. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Assuming the same for the Caucasus ...and
If this average also held true in the Caucasus ...Thank you. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Currently Naval militia, maritime militia and Naval Militia all point to Naval militias in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As the U.S. isn't the only place that has had this kind of militia, a general topic article needs to be built. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a proper categorization scheme missing from Kentish Artillery? BD2412 T 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
the article for operation seat 12 needs extensive rewriting, as it makes claims about history that can neither be proven or disproven. is an alleged misinformation conducted by the KGB in order to smear Pope Pius XII, and that the 1963 play the Deputy, was written specifically for this purpose. the claims for its existence come from a romanian defector named Ion Mihai Pacepa, claims that are supposedly corroborated by the Mitrokhin Archives, a series of documents smuggled to the UK by an ex KGB employee, and by an counterintelligence conducted by the NSA called the Venona Project. the article keeps getting rewritten as insisting the operation is true. until i rewrote it saying not corroborated.
the article is strange{
no explanation of how Pacepa knew about this operation
no mention of Seat 12 in the page about Mitrokhin archives at all or on venona project (it lists information uncovered that is notable, therefore it would be there)
doesnt explain how the NSA discovered Seat 12
the page must be locked to avoid tampering
regarding "The Deputy", the play and what it claims have been proven to be untrue, but to insist its part of a soviet plot is absurd without evidence. Bird244 ( talk) 23:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_on_list_of_aircraft,_etc. Dream Focus 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Input at Café de Paris, London#Bomb(s) would be welcome, please; was there one bomb or two? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up here rather than the Luftwaffe page as it affects far more than just that article.
My question is, should Luftwaffe be italicised/use the lang template in articles?
The guideline at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says:
Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries.
The existence of entries in the following dictionaries suggest that Luftwaffe is fully anglicised, and shouldn't be italicised.
Your opinions would be welcome. ( Hohum @) 23:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In Li'l Abner#Main characters, it mentions that WWII Patrol Boat Squadron 29 used the character as their mascot. I gave a look but couldn't find any sources on this. Figured if anyone would know where to find that sort of info, they'd probably be here. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
G'day all, my current ACR nom Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jozo Tomasevich has been open since 20 January and has had two reviews (all points addressed, just awaiting any final tweaks required) and a source and image review. Just needs a third review to get it over the line. Cheers in anticipation, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Main page | Discussion |
News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment |
A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
|
Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!
Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Earlier in the week I posted another edit request on Kathleen Hicks' article, and since no one has replied yet, figured I might as well post again here. The article currently omits an important presidentially appointed position, and certain board roles are out-of-date. If anyone here is willing to review my proposed changes, I'd be grateful. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.
I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.
This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford ( talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots ( talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.
If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.
Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge ( talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
State defense forces has a hatnote for countries/states/nations, but there doesn't seem to be an article for provincial military/ provincial militaries, the general topic for "state defense force" that this U.S. focused article should have as a more general wider coverage article parent. The U.S. is not the only country with "states" as subnational divisions, nor the only country where subnational divisions have their own militaries. Just look at Somaliland and Puntland, with significant militaries that are greater than that of the central government. Historically, satrapies Chinese prefectures/provinces/circuits, Roman provinces, have had major militaries. Feudal lords that were not sovereign have usually held substantial militaries under the suzerainty of the respective sovereign crowns. So this seems to be a major omission, considering there is already a U.S. focused article.
-- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, in the Caucasus campaign#Casualties is the following passage:
This gives a total of 235,733 casualties (83,083 killed, 113,570 critically wounded, 39,080 prisoners). Disease deaths (including deaths from the cold) overwhelmingly outnumbered combat deaths for Ottoman forces however, with over twice as many Ottoman troops dying of disease in the war than in combat. Assuming the same for the Caucasus, Ottoman disease deaths would number ~ 170,000, and total deaths would number ~253,000. Additionally, total woundings were x2.5 greater than critical ones overall. If this average also held true in the Caucasus, total wounded would number 284,000. [1] Altogether, total Ottoman losses would be around 576,000 (284,000 dead, 253,000 wounded, 39,000 prisoners), over a third of total Ottoman casualties in World War I. original research?
This has been tagged as WP:OR. Would anybody have access to this to confirm whether or not this is OR. Thank you. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Assuming the same for the Caucasus ...and
If this average also held true in the Caucasus ...Thank you. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Currently Naval militia, maritime militia and Naval Militia all point to Naval militias in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As the U.S. isn't the only place that has had this kind of militia, a general topic article needs to be built. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a proper categorization scheme missing from Kentish Artillery? BD2412 T 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
the article for operation seat 12 needs extensive rewriting, as it makes claims about history that can neither be proven or disproven. is an alleged misinformation conducted by the KGB in order to smear Pope Pius XII, and that the 1963 play the Deputy, was written specifically for this purpose. the claims for its existence come from a romanian defector named Ion Mihai Pacepa, claims that are supposedly corroborated by the Mitrokhin Archives, a series of documents smuggled to the UK by an ex KGB employee, and by an counterintelligence conducted by the NSA called the Venona Project. the article keeps getting rewritten as insisting the operation is true. until i rewrote it saying not corroborated.
the article is strange{
no explanation of how Pacepa knew about this operation
no mention of Seat 12 in the page about Mitrokhin archives at all or on venona project (it lists information uncovered that is notable, therefore it would be there)
doesnt explain how the NSA discovered Seat 12
the page must be locked to avoid tampering
regarding "The Deputy", the play and what it claims have been proven to be untrue, but to insist its part of a soviet plot is absurd without evidence. Bird244 ( talk) 23:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_on_list_of_aircraft,_etc. Dream Focus 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Input at Café de Paris, London#Bomb(s) would be welcome, please; was there one bomb or two? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up here rather than the Luftwaffe page as it affects far more than just that article.
My question is, should Luftwaffe be italicised/use the lang template in articles?
The guideline at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says:
Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries.
The existence of entries in the following dictionaries suggest that Luftwaffe is fully anglicised, and shouldn't be italicised.
Your opinions would be welcome. ( Hohum @) 23:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In Li'l Abner#Main characters, it mentions that WWII Patrol Boat Squadron 29 used the character as their mascot. I gave a look but couldn't find any sources on this. Figured if anyone would know where to find that sort of info, they'd probably be here. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
G'day all, my current ACR nom Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jozo Tomasevich has been open since 20 January and has had two reviews (all points addressed, just awaiting any final tweaks required) and a source and image review. Just needs a third review to get it over the line. Cheers in anticipation, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)