This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How does the verbatim quoting from the London Gazette in the article Brendan Finucane or Douglas Bader differ from Wehrmachtbericht quoting (now removed with the justification "Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report") in article Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer or Gordon Gollob? Examples:
Acknowledging the fact that both references have a propaganda aspect as well as a legitimate meritorious aspect, how do they differ from a Wikipedia point of view? If they are not fundamentally different, should the British references be removed as well or should the German references be retained? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I have created this thread so that the community can have a centralised discussion and reach a consensus regarding the way "questionable" entries are treated in the various lists of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (KC).
As I understand it (and this is pretty much copy and pasted from a comment by MisterBee1966 elsewhere), the source considered to be the most superior reference on the recipients of the KC is Scherzer. Scherzer analysed the German National Archives and found 193 out of 7,321 instances where the available data in the archives did not fully verify the legal aspect of the presentation. Scherzer uses the word "questionable" (fragwürdig). He goes on to explain why this is the case and refrains from delisting any of those 193 "questionable" entries. On page 8 of his book he says "Hierzu möchte der Autor nur anmerken, daß er niemandem etwas aberkannt hat. Vielmehr legte er dar, welche Archivalien zu den einzelnen Fällen überliefert sind und in welchem Stadium des Verleihungsprozesses diese Dokumente in den Archiven vorgefunden wurden. [The author just wants to say that he has not denied anyone anything. Rather, he explained, which files to the individual cases have prevailed and at what stage of the award process, these documents were found in the archives.]"(this isn't a brilliant translation, help from some fluent De-5/En-5 editors would help us here, I believe).
Scherzer gives several reasons why this is the case. Firstly, the German National Archives are incomplete (records were lost, destroyed or not returned by the Allies). Secondly, the approval chain after 20 April 1945 until the end of the war became extremely confused. In this "confused phase" a number KC presentations where made which are considered "questionable", nevertheless there is some evidence they were made and they are listed by Scherzer and other sources, with an explanation of why they need to be considered "questionable". Currently, the various KC lists reflect Scherzer's analysis by highlighting these "questionable" recipients with both a colour coding and a ? (question mark) and a comment reflecting what the sources have to say about the award in that case. The approach currently taken with the lists is consistent with Scherzer's approach and presentation style. I think this is a good summary of the case for the status quo. I invite K.e.coffman, who has expressed a different view, to state his case in the subsection below, after which I invite members of the community to chip in using the Discussion subsection. It would be useful to get a better translation of what Scherzer says above, so if you can do a better job, feel free to have a crack. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several considerations I’d like to put forward:
At best, these entries could be considered to be about “nominees” for the Knight’s Cross in the last weeks of the war, which confers no individual notability. A topic on these incomplete/unprocessed nominations and unlawful awards is indeed interesting and possibly encyclopedic, but not the subjects of these nominations individually. The topic can be dealt with in a separate article or as part of the Recipients article, as a general discussion on why the the nominations could not be confirmed as awards by archival evidence (I.e. general collapse, unlawful presentations, incomplete records, views of AKCR as discussed by Scherzer, etc).
So in conclusion, I believe we are dealing with the issues of (1) non-independent sourcing, (2) POV and (3) undue weight. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: With regard to the lists, I agree with Peacemaker67. The decisions of the AKCR had some relevance as to who was allowed to wear the decoration after 1957. These semi-official decisions are not always based in fact, but represent the opinion of the leaders of the AKCR. Scherzer attempted to verify these decisions, but was denied access to AKCR documents, if I am not mistaken. So, both opinions are relevant, but neither is true or false per se. Thus, with regard to individual biographies of "questionable awards", I would suggest to merge them into a separate list or lists, unless the individuals concerned are notable in their own right, as the late-war presentations can hardly be considered "highest awards for valour" as per WP:SOLDIER. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Translation update: Combined input of two German speaking colleagues. I assume something (award?) has possibly been granted in the past, and the author has not decided to take away (any award), but only shows what archive material is extant and in which stage of the awarding process the documents were found in the archives. (This is worded a bit strangely in German in my opinion; I assume it is supposed to mean "which stage of the awarding process can be documented in the archives"). — Kusma ( t· c) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment : It is not the AKCR's views that are being used as a source for the lists, it is Scherzer's summation of the position of the AKCR, which he provides along with other information about them. Scherzer is independent of the topic, and he takes a nuanced position, one that takes into account all the information he was able to glean about each award. If we accept Scherzer as reliable, as the principal or leading source on the awards, then we should accept what he says, and his comments, at face value. To do otherwise is OR. If it is necessary to expand on what each list says about the "questionable" awards in order to clearly enlarge the scope to include the "questionable" awards, that is a far better approach IMO, than deleting them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment : Among the 193 questionable recipients (2.6% of all recipients listed) are also those men who were associated with the 20 July plot, the failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. These men were later sentenced to death, deprived of all honors, ranks and orders and dishonorably discharged from the Wehrmacht, among them Erwin von Witzleben, Friedrich Olbricht and Friedrich Fromm. In addition, men like Hermann Fegelein and Edgar Feuchtinger, on account of desertion, were also executed and deprived of rank and honors. Without distinction, Scherzer treats these recipients just like all the other questionable recipients, referring to them as de facto but maybe not de jure recipients. For sake of completeness, Scherzer also identified 27 (including Fegelein) instances of questionable presentation of the Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross and 13 (including Fegelein) cases of Swords presentation in doubt. Aligned with Scherzer’s approach to the issue, these listings are flagged accordingly. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In view of the above discussion, I would like to propose the following:
Item 1: Adjust the lead of the List articles to read:
Item 2: Adjust the Recipients subsection to include (relocated with some adjustments from the current lead sections):
Item 3: Adjust the listings themselves by taking into account the notability of the subjects where the KC is not confirmed by archival records. My proposal is to (1) keep entries on notable subjects (with either proven or presumed notability per WP:Soldier, such as "commanded a division or higher", or "was a general officer", etc, and/or those notable for other reasons, i.e. the 20 July plot); (2) exclude entries where a single KC is the only claim to notability. This would keep the entries of those subject whose notability does not rely solely on the KC award. Since RS coverage exists or is presumed to exists on them, readers could have learned about these subjects elsewhere, so it would be useful to include Scherzer's info on their status. Those presumed non-notable will not be included in the lists.
Item 4: Adjust individual articles of notable "disputed" recipients to reflect Scherzer's position, such as by incorporating Scherzer's commentary into either the main body of the article, or as material within the Awards subsections. Do not list the KC in the infobox or the lead, unless accompanied by statements such as "may have received" or "was nominated" etc.
Item 5: Apply a similar method to the overall topic of disputed recipients. My suggestion is to create the Disputed recipients of the Knight's Cross article to cover in general terms how these "questionable" awards came to be (loss of records; general collapse; unlawful presentations, etc). Within this article, include a list section with blue-linked articles only, i.e. only those disputed recipients who are otherwise notable (per discussion above), and not include a full list of all disputed recipients. I think this will be both useful to readers, while not including subjects that are otherwise non notable.
References
I believe these adjustments would address some of the POV issues I brought up and will give due weight to the two sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), while maintaining the encyclopedic value of these lists. Any feedback on these proposals? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please take a look at this article. It appears to conflate two rather different concepts: a specific tradition of pre-battle combat of two chosen warriors and an ordinary "vis-a-vis" combat of e.g., two knights or two aces. I have two questions with this:
I believe in this case the principle of wikipedia "one subject per article" is a bit violated. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I was reading through Rommel myth and found reference to a place called "Transpolitania", apparently a city among Italian-held north Africa during World War II. There are only three mentions of the place on Wikipedia, all in identical language about the Italian government stymieing Nazi efforts to ethnically cleanse Jews who were Italian citizens. On Google, I could only find two uses of the name that aren't from Wikipedia mirrors (or at least using our exact language). Google asks if I mean Tripolitania. Anyone know what's going on here? -- BDD ( talk) 15:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
When I create a new redirection page for an article within our project scope I of course place our template with RED-class on the respective talk page. But what about taskforces in that case; should they be included, too, or is it preferred to keep recirects out of them? ... GELongstreet ( talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I recently picked up the GA review of Ronald Poulton, unfortunately it looks like the user who submitted it (Funky Canute) has retired from Wikipedia and has not participated in the initial portion of the review. I was wondering if anyone from this project would be interested in stepping up and working on the article? It's been open for a while and I'll leave the GA review open for a couple of days more. If you are interested please respond on the Talk:Ronald Poulton/GA1 page. Thank you. MPJ -DK 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Zeebrugge Raid needs a visit from the Admins. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there any policy, guideline, previous discussion, or consensus on what nations can/should be included as belligerents in the infobox? As well as the United States, Omaha Beach currently lists United Kingdom, Canada, and Free France as belligerents, on the basis that these nations provided some naval support. Doesn't seem right to me. FactotEm ( talk) 07:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Spirals look rather controlled to me, especially when they're easing the cork out of a Cotes du Rhone bottle. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for MilHis. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! I just stumbled upon Rolia_Whitinger on Huggle and reversed a minor edit which introduced weird markup to the article's awards section. The user then contacted me on my talk page with a bizarre rant about bone transplants. Upon closer inspection, honestly the article is a bloody mess and I'd much appreciate opinions as to whether this person is in fact notable and whether this article is beyond repair and needs TNT. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, no, I do not have that book. However, I do have a book called "Air Commando" detailing 1st SOW ops from 1944-1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak474 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, if this is of interest to anyone, an editor has opened a discussion at Talk:Nanking Massacre that could use some feedback from people interested in the subject. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This new category looks like an attempt to compile an
Allied order of battle in Burma during World War II by unit size by adding, for example, all regiments using [[Category:Military units and formations in Burma in World War II|r]]
That concern aside what is the general policy, if there is one, of adding units to categories by campaign. For many articles this could lead to very long lists of categories to little benefit as units of long life will have served in hundreds of different campaigns and theatres. I notice that units are not included in current categories like
Category:Operation Market Garden.
Nthep (
talk) 22:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, A few weeks ago I noted the exceptional lack of category integration and the inconsistent use of existent categories across the variously linked articles concerning the British Empire and Commonwealth during the Second World War. If you look into the various related articles generally titled XXX in World War II, and Military history of XXX in World War II you will find a host of categories: such as Category:XXX country in World War II, Category:Military history of XXX in World War II, Category:XXX people in World War II, Category:XXX military personnel of World War II, Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II, Category: Military units and formations in XXX in World War II, and so on. Across these currently linked articles and categories are some dozen of so categories and subcategories. In Category:United States in World War II there are over 300 categories and subcategories nested within that category, specific to the conduct of the US in the war. My effort is an attempt to rationalize, integrate and bring consistent use to the categories, that already exist, related to the conduct of the war within the Empire, Commonwealth, Dominions and all internal entires. Please start with the article British Empire during World War II and Category:British Empire in World War II. All related articles and all related categories drop down from those two points. Within the entities from Aden to Burma you can now read almost any WWII article and find your way to other related civil and military matters related to that entity.
Orders of Battle generally pertain to one discrete event or campaign, under one or more beliigerant command structures. In the case of each British Empire and Commonwealth entity so far addressed, I have linked all the military formations that passed through that entity during the war. In Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II you will find domestic military formations, while in Category: Military units and formations in XXX in World War II you will find all empire, and other belligerent forces included. As to the "ordering" of the categorized articles. That is an artefact of the process of including each military formation into the category. Without some ordering it is difficult to see which formations I have missed. After any particular nation is finished I have generally tried to return the articles appearing in that category back into alphabetical order.
The category Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II has existed for years, if not decades. Whatever rationale you discuss in relation to my use of it or removing it, needs to consider why the category even exists, why others use it, what advantages it provides and what benefit accrues from removing it. Robert Brukner ( talk) 23:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Categorization impacts knowledge integration in a variety of directions. From the military unit perspective there might be an abundance of categories if the unit served in many countries. But in most country military articles there is currently little to no information pertaining to military units from, or that served in, those countries. They are essentially invisible. Articles concerning 90% or more of Empire and Commonwealth colonies and countries during the war are sparse at best. Categories allows rapid linkage to knowledge contained in other articles. Category links, provide a window through which one can quickly obtain intersectional information about military activity during the war, and also without ad naseum repetition of the same facts. It is true that building better articles is a more appropriate way to contain and explain events and knowledge. But where such articles do not exist rapid cross linkages by categories provides an immediate solution access new knowledge.
What I am reading from all of this is a concern about the actual use of extant categories. Again, I ask, why not use the categories created for us to use? In their use, we do not find the reason for not using them. While there are better solutions then the use of categories, those solutions are not being implemented. In the meantime categories allow broader integration of complex topics in a simple and easily accessible way. I would not, for example, attempt to conduct such a broad and deep category integration for the UK, as the scale would simple be to large. As to the concern that there would be an "incredible amount of clutter" at the bottom of the page, I point to World War II which has 120 categories, and World War I which has 50 categories at the bottom of their pages. If they are the sort of "clutter" about which there is concern, please address those concerns to those page editors, and the editors of the many others like them. Personally, I see no problem with the number of categories on those two pages. Not one of the articles I have worked on has anything close to that many categories on its page.
On the question of "defining characteristics of a subject." Country articles specific to the Second World War are a subject that cannot be separated from the nation's soldiers fighting those war, or the soldiers from foreign nations fighting on their soil. Their units and formations, leaders and actions, battles and operations, and the social impacts of all of that, are the defining reality of the war. Robert Brukner ( talk) 19:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Brought up at this AfD. Does a subject being "mentioned in dispatches" pass WP:SOLDIER, or not? Chris Troutman ( talk) 09:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Pipe majors, in particular the military aspect? I'm looking to expand that article. Thanks, Ostrichyearning ( talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have started an RFC to get input on a proposal to rename List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy Gbawden ( talk) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There is an open RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang#RfC:_Insertion_of_South_Vietnam concerning the insertion of a "Supported by <party>" in the infobox. It would be good if interested participants can have a look. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, folks. I carried out a GA review for Elyesa Bazna, a page which is within the scope of this project. I have placed the review on hold, because there were some relatively minor issues (see the review page) which are nonetheless large enough that I would not feel comfortable fixing them and then passing the article myself. Additionally, I don't have access to some of the sources. The reason I am posting here is that the nominator has not been active for many months now. If anybody with interest in World War II or Intelligence history could help out here, it would be much appreciated. Vanamonde ( talk) 03:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started about creation of a separate article (possibly named aircraft gun turret - currently a redirect) to handle the content of gun turret#aircraft, the discussion is at Talk:Gun_turret#Aircraft_gun_turret. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Krulak Mendenhall mission, nominator long gone, eyes would be appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. After looking at this, I suggested to User:Mike Christie at User talk:Mike Christie#Move of Anglo-Saxon military organisation that the article should be deleted. He agreed that AfD would be appropriate, but suggested consulting consulting MilHist first. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Gladiator (2000 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Why will the picture show on preview but not in the [2] article? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. If anybody has any information regarding COIN ops, I would like to see it. I'm trying to write an article on the subject. Jak474 ( talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. If you're working on British military history articles anyway, please consider taking a second to post your article on the list to join the main effort! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Let me announce a new writing contest in September. It's a contest about castles of Armenia and Spain. You have the complete information here on meta. Thanks! -- Millars ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Just seen some rank badge templates being created for example Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Bangladesh, not sure if it is just me but is not the naming convention a bit non-neutral as far as I know this is not natopedia. It also lists them by NATO rank codes which seems to be a bit of a theme in rank articles, any reason why we cant compare with russian forces equivalants (or any other non-nato force) as well? All seems a bit bias. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Missile turret is this really a thing? Does anyone actually use this phrase for real. The example seem to be launchers and all the incoming links appear to be from sci-fi entities yet there is no sci-fi examples in the article. Thoughts? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I am curious by what process articles checked against but not accepted as B-class are added to the list at the top of this page. A C-Class article within the purview of this group that was checked against B-class but not accepted (lacking only in referencing, apparently) does not appear among the 27 articles currently listed. The article in question is Cecil E. Harris. Is this just a matter of missing code in the Talk page? Thanks for your help, folks! Finktron ( talk) 12:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Nominations for the 2016 Military history Coordinator tranche are now open. We are looking nine editors interested in serving in a coordinator capacity from the end of this September until September 2017. All interested editors may self nominate here. The nominations period will end at 23:59 UTC 15 September 2016, at which point voting will officially begin. Any editors interested in running are encouraged to sign up at nominations page. If you have any questions about the position or its responsibilities you are welcome to ask any of the individual coordinators, while general information and answers to frequently asked questions about the position may be found here. For the Coordinators of the Military history Project, TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello all - Based on the discussion copied in below, I changed the pipesorting on most of the articles in Category:New York Civil War regiments so that the Infantry articles all sort together numerically, all the Artillery articles sort together numerically etc. Any opinions on that approach? I will listen for comments before taking similar steps with other categories.
Copy + Paste of earlier discussion
|
---|
Standardization of Civil War Regiment article names?Hello all - Do we have a preferred set of naming conventions for individual regiments' articles, and also for defaultsorting them in categories? For instance, I am looking at Category:New York Civil War regiments and there are different naming conventions for like articles - In other words, should " 75th New York Volunteer Infantry" be "75th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment"? Or, should " 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment" be "74th New York Volunteer Infantry"? Also, things like the 7th whatever being sorted below the 70th whatever can cause confusion to users. 70th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 71st New York Infantry 72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 75th New York Volunteer Infantry 76th New York Volunteer Infantry 77th New York Volunteer Infantry 78th New York Volunteer Infantry 79th New York Volunteer Infantry 7th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment 7th New York Militia 7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 7th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry If no specific thoughts on this, then I might try experimenting with the naming and sorting of the New York regiments to start with, and see if any solutions strike me. Any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Erm, have I broken the 3rr rule by reverting five recent edits Gallipoli Campaign here by Brophy99 as Reverting vandalism or test edit? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I realised that there were five edits half-way through so I decided against trying to do a blanket revert, in case I buggered it up like last time. ;o)) The last time I broke the 3rr rule, I did it without noticing so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal of National Defense Service, I was surprised to see no mention of them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Given we also have no Wikipedia:Notability (awards), I think it is time we added a note on what makes military awards or medals notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so...I guess my question to everyone is this: The perennial argument against specific notability standards is that they may lower the bar from WP:GNG to something lesser. Barring the Chinese award in question, a situation where, as I said at the AfD, the WP:NEXIST is difficult to judge, is there a situation where such a policy may actually allow an award to have an article where it clearly wouldn't meet GNG? TimothyJosephWood 12:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Macrinus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Pat Southern in 'The Roman Army - A Social and Institutional History distinguishes between:
It seems that the above terms could be used for detailed categorization here, however I am afraid that, for many forts, it would be difficult to support this categorization due to lack of sources. I suspect that this difficulty is even more pronounced with the forts of the later Empire, when legions became smaller. As for the permanence of Roman fortifications, "the earlier fortified camps of the early Empire ...were not generally designed as permanent bases for troops...In the second century AD from the reign of Trajan onward, when the majority of forts had become permanent bases rather than semipermanent ones..." (Southern p.180). Southern does not use the term castrum at all but I am sure that the latter can be used for denoting both temporary and permanent fortifications. If you need more details, I could consult The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, I guess he has additional details on the matter.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Imo the existing category tree is confusing. For instance, "Roman fortifications" consists of only one subcategory, "Ancient Roman forts". Thus the latter seems redundant. Due to the general confusion, articles are listed in more than one categories, i.e. Argentoratum is listed in both "Roman legionary fortresses" and "Ancient Roman forts" (additionally, it seems to me that both are wrong since Argentoratum "fort" looks nothing more than a fortified camp). I am proposing the following scheme (names are purely suggestive):
Wherever a military fortification type is uncertain (e.g. due to lack of secondary sources), I suggest to leave it in "Roman fortifications", awaiting for future categorization. What do you think?-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)```
Can I use maps from the COH on Wiki (specifically Stacey, C. P. (1956) [1955]. Six Year of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific (PDF). Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. I (2nd rev. online ed.). Ottawa: By Authority of the Minister of National Defence. OCLC 917731527)? I've been looking at Canadian copyright and am none the wiser. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody had been working on Template:Highest Military Ranks and to my opinion the result is not up to standard. Please look at the template and the discussion at Template talk:Highest Military Ranks#Introduced mistakes. The Banner talk 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding parameters in the "military award" infobox, which is in your purview. Please join in the discussion here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:E_Company,_506th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Names_of_all_soldiers. Binksternet ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Vietnam Air Force#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Can I please have some help regarding No. 1 Radio School RAF User Gbinfi is adding loads of links to official RAF Recruitment pages for the trades involved and various courses from civilian establishments.
The user is clearly current military and only works on this article and is getting difficult to correct.
Gavbadger ( talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a move to change http to https but I wonder if anyone else has noticed that some links don't work after the change? Keith-264 ( talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nguyen Chanh Thi, same nominator, long gone, eyes appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see an ongoing discussion about a request to change the width of the infobox from 315px to 270px at Template talk:WPMILHIST Infobox style. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Howzit, all. Thought I'd ping this here for discussion or pointers: I've recently proposed moving Communist Insurgency War to Communist Insurgency War (Malaysia) as it is a much clearer and more concise title, given how many countries underwent communist insurgencies from the 1950s onwards. Personally, I've come across the term "communist insurgency" being used in the proper form for five different conflicts in South America and Africa and while there's no denying that the locals in each region refer to the communist insurgency when discussing their own history, this is somewhat problematic from an encyclopedic point of view.
Being Malaysian myself, having grown up there with many relatives who can remember the insurgency in question, I'm also quite comfortable with stating that the conflict has no broadly accepted title among most Malaysians (unlike say, the " Confrontation" period), and a menagerie of terms are used to describe both the first and second waves of guerrilla activity by the Malayan Communist Party by the Malaysian government, civil society, Bahasa-language media, English-language media, and the people from various ethnic groups. From that perspective, I cannot see how the argument can be made that "Communist Insurgency War" is the final, uncontested name for this particular era of hostilities in Malaysia.
As the article has held the name of Communist Insurgency War for quite a while, I'd appreciate any explanation or comments as to what the rationale was for keeping that title, either here or at Talk:Communist Insurgency War.
Thanks, -- Katangais (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library has now posted a report on its spring pilot test of a Research Help portal. As the report outlines, our target audience of readers and new editors generally reacted more positively to the pilot than experienced editors, who raised important critiques for discussion. The report provides more details on the results and some proposed next steps for the project. Your input is welcome on the report talk page. Astinson (WMF) ( talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#1948_war_articles-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would like input on whether additions like these, on the subject of casualty figures, improve the article or not. Thank you. MPS1992 ( talk) 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am creating an article about the link mention above. I was wondering if you guys could help me with this.
Thanks, Jak474 ( talk) 16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I have not seen those titles, but I do have some that you might find helpful. One is the "Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare. I think you might enjoy it. Thanks again for the pdf. Jak474 ( talk) 23:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that in the past few years, almost everything in this project has been done by a small handful of people. I'd like to try to join this small group and help out in this great project, but I really don't know what pages to create and edit and such. Adotchar ( talk) 09:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC) - I'm working on the backlog now Adotchar ( talk) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There has been a revival of the dispute over the contents of the infobox, partly procedural and partly about content, which I fear I started, under the impression that the dispute had died a death. While bearing in mind my conflict of interest, I would be grateful if editors would venture an opinion on the validity of the requirements of the Template:Infobox military conflict for the result and territory criteria and whether entries should be determined by a survey of RS, rather than the opinions of editors. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been editing quite a bit on sub articles of Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (don't judge the parent article, it's last on the list). But I'm note entirely sure that these fall under the purview of MilHist. They almost all involve "policing" action by the "National Guard", in scare quotes because, at this point, it was basically a militia. Anyone opposed to adding these to the project? TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged Demolition of al-Baqi, which is in the interest of this WikiProject, for merger into Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'#Merger of Demolition. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is a draft which I feel could use input from this project, particularly from anyone who has helped out with the AFC process. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! Primefac ( talk) 15:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:KoreanWarCorr I tried allow wrap to get the heading centred but if wouldn't work. Would someone mind taking a look to see why? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
For editors interested in adding additional photos to Confederate States Army articles, I came across an excellent collection of army leaders here. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a currently a discussion about the Chinese Army and Chinese army redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Chinese Army, your comments there would be very welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have returned from the badlands of RL, and hope to wade back in Wiki, and I'm looking for some basic guidance on writing an article, since my wiki-fu is less rusty and more oxidised, and I can't remember a darn thing. Can someone let me know the best way to add citations these days, and also the best template for adding a bibliography? *Shakes cane* Skinny87 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor, User:Jcb (an admin on Commons), is in the process of deleting many images (apparently they are mostly images of US military insignia of various kinds, but heavily USAF unit emblems). The reason given is that they are not sourced, even though many have sources. There is a discussion (including some acrimony) at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files). Some of these images have already been deleted. In recent days, Jcb has been using the {{No source since|month=|day=|year=}} template to mark pages (e.g. File:301bw.jpg. This emblem is sourced, although the source is contained in the description, not in the expected template location, because the image was moved to Commons from en:Wikipedia by a bot. Posting this template does not include the image on the list of images for deletion and, because the bot that moved the image is listed as the user who uploaded the image to Commons, not the human being who actually made the original upload, only the bot is being notified of the pending deletions. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Would the article Frogman come within the scope of this project? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Air Force Historical Research Agency web site has been "upgraded" in the past week or so. The upgrade has involved moving all the Unit lineage and honors pages, so all references to these in Wikipedia articles that weren't done in the last week now lead to 404 error pages. Worse, (although this may be temporary) the links inside the web site for wing, group and squadron pages are also broken. A 404 error results from clicking on the "squadrons" tab, for instance, then clicking on a specific unit. Links for Major Commands work, although some images had problems using Chrome. Numbered Research Paper links also work. Using the search function on the site requires proper capitalization and not using the ordinal abbreviations to bring up the revised pages. Alternatively, the Wayback Machine seems to have the old pages archived (unlike the last time the site was revised). This affects thousands of reference links on en:Wikipedia —— anyone know of a bot to help fix this? -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 17:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone has thrown the NATO comparative officer ranks tables ( Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers and Ranks and insignia of NATO navies officers, though not — as yet — Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces officers) and about half the templates used in them into disarray by adding an OF-11 code, apparently in the mistaken belief that one exists and that OF codes should align with US O pay grades (which they do not). All of this “to maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia” though in an inconsistent way, so that those tables are now hopelessly out of alignment! And no doubt this meddling will have deleterious consequences in other contexts where these templates are used. Could someone (preferably a few someones) have a look at what has been done and undo the damage and/or stop this individual from wreaking further havoc? I’m not a regular enough contributor nor well enough into the sources on this to weigh in. — Mithrennaith ( talk) 02:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if a "Master category" should be created, meaning that their should be no articles in the category, it only contains subcategories? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Wrong term. These are called "container categories". Simply add: Template:Container category to change the purpose of a category. Dimadick ( talk) 14:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an unreferenced article created in 2005. It makes a number of assertations about the program without providing supporting citations. Neither the editor who created the article nor the two editors who added speculative accounts of why the progran was discontinued are active Wikipedia editors any more.
In fact the one who added the statements that the tests failed due to the characteristics of the drones used in testing has only made two edits, one in 2008 and the other in 2010.
I am attempting to search up viable references, but am not sure where to start. Google searching is bringing up a lot of Wikipedia mirrors based on the article as it stands.
Anyone willing to join me in offline book searching?
Graham1973 ( talk) 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at the News and Open Tasks page and noticed the Air Operations in the Korean War page highlighted in red. I was told that asking for help here would get me some help and guidance on the article. Thanks, Jak474 ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article is currently listed for a community Good Article Review to determine if it still meets the GA criteria. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1. A few more opinions are needed to determine consensus. If anyone is keen to participate, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
So there is an editor who has tried to change around the subject matter on the military branch article and has created a completly new article called Branch of service which seems to be about almost the same thing. I completly belive this is in good faith but I'm not sure the editor has the right way to go about it. They seems to only include information which is in line with what the NATO defenition is. Opinion on what to do with these articles? *Treker ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
The war rages on, or at least on the Battle of France talkpage. From my take on what has happened so far: two editors have actually engaged with what sources actually say in an attempt to improve the article, while three others are essentially trolling the page stating sources don't matter. There is a lot of incivility, and the appearance that regardless of what sources say an edit war will resume. I think we need some experienced editors, or admin, to create a bit of a DMZ and help filter the good work from the spam, and funnel that material into a good conclusion. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for devising a constructive alternative to writing in the talk page. I've put my views there again and asked the watchers to venture opinions on the result criterion in the infobox, although in my view the case for German victory and the removal of bullet points is unarguable. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Campaignbox Thirty Years' War is currently a chaotic amalgamation of various battles. Instead I propose breaking it into separate campaigns such as:
Any input would be welcome.-- Catlemur ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! As a friendly reminder, voting in our annual project coordinator election is scheduled to conclude at 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Anyone who hasn't voted yet is encouraged to do so on the election page. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about alleged Indian support to Baloch rebels and the verifability and notability of such claim at Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 2#India. GreyShark ( dibra) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I put Cecil E. Harris up for GA review recently but only now finished a complete overhaul of the references/citations. It now conforms to a much higher standard. If anybody wants to begin the review process I'd greatly appreciate it; or if you have some suggestions for improvements feel free to chime in accordingly. Best Regards, Finktron ( talk) 15:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
A pointer to a discussion about failed pings. You can now check a couple of boxes in your preferences to get notified when pings do or don't work. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Joachim Helbig, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.
The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Some good news and bad news:
But,
Draft:Supply Support Activity is a modern American "thing" related to military logistics. Is the draft acceptable in its current state? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that Italian naval ships tend to have their articles called Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi or Italian destroyer Andrea Doria. Is there a reason that they are named as such and not ITS Andrea Doria (D553) as it might be done for other navies? Thanks in advance Gbawden ( talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Attack on Convoy AN 14 I added the locator map to the infobox then got ambitious and tried to move the label from left to right of the red dot. I managed it but does anyone know why I added another and how I get rid please? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Fnar! The one on the right. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
[copied from my talk page]
Hi Dank: I m interested in trying to upgrade an article titled United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but I hesitate to go forward because the title does not square well with the contents. The article actually describes two distinct subjects, women who served in the women’s active reserve in WW II (by an act of Congress) and women who served in World War I (by edict of the Secretary of the Navy in 1917). The women’s reserve was not authorized by Congress until1942; no such reserve seems to have existed prior to this.
Question: should both periods be woven into one story, or should the story be about the US Marine Corps Women’s Reserve to the exclusion of the women who served in WW I. I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! Pendright ( talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The primary reference in all the various stub articles concerning US Navy air squadrons was changed by Naval History and Heritage at some point recently, so now almost the sole citation in all these articles is 404'd. Is there a bot that can somehow enter the new URL or is this going to have to be fixed manually? Because looking at the List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, that's going to be quite the clean-up. The new URL is https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/insignias/naval-aviation-squadron-lineage/fighter-squadron-lineage.html Thanks, Finktron ( talk) 11:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite DANAS}}
that could link to the various sections of the various DANAS chapters. That editor never used the template so there it sits abandoned. We could resurrect that template to at the least link to the silly new html page names at NHHS or change it to link directly to the pdf version of the DANAS chapter. Instead of linking to:
{{cite DANAS}}
is reworked and instances of direct urls are replaced with a call to the template (presumably AWB will suffice for that), NEXT TIME, a squeaker ensign needs to show that his division is doing something, it will be less painful for us to recover from his follies.{{
cite DANAS}}
template before I created all of the VP and VPB pages. Unfortunately changing that template won't do anything to help with the fighter squadron lineage as that's a separate document not contained in DANAS. regards
Mztourist (
talk) 03:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite DANAS}}
is working again. There is a gotcha: our squeaker ensign felt it necessary to be inconsistent in his use of chapter-section capitalization. If referencing the chapter 1 or chapter 4 sections of volume 1, be sure that these are not capitalized in |section=
; chapters 3, 5, and 6 are to be capitalized.
It might be beneficial to create a template for the lineage document so that we only have to fix one thing when the next squeaker ensign decides that changes to NHHC urls are a good thing for her division to do. There are about 65 pages linking to the lineage document.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite vf lineage}}
Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so potentially work done in any field would be recognized. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African military history articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles and might feel like a change working on some African historical battles and figures, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Template:Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about beefing up the Battle of Raseiniai article by making a massive increase in information about the 'lone wolf' KV-2. I was thinking I could add a new subsection, and write two or three paragraphs instead of the two sentences that currently apply to the skirmish. I think that the topic deserves more than a few sentences, given how badass it was. I just wanted to know if it would be ok, or would it be unnecessary? I don't really like to make big changes to articles without some sort of approval, because without an approval it runs a higher risk of being removed or reverted. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone mind checking out the section I wrote on the Battle of Raseiniai? I added a new section (The 'Lone Wolf' KV-2) and wrote about 4.5 paragraphs. You can't really miss it. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 13:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick ce then put the dupe wikilink detector on. Does everyone here know that wikilinks are only used on the first mention of a linkable item? I didn't when I started either. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Tidied and added citations and sources; perhaps interested readers would like to cast an eye with suggestions for improvements? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser#Requested move 7 October 2016 regarding the validity of using ENS as the prefix in Egyptian Navy ship article titles. Comments there are welcome. - BilCat ( talk) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted a chart for MW 10 which is sort of OK but would be grateful for some scrutiny and suggestions. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz has been nominated for deletion. The related discussion is here: Entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Article #1: /info/en/?search=Malta_Convoys
Article #2: /info/en/?search=Operation_Pedestal
Are these two articles related? I was looking up research to improve the article and after the main article (Malta Convoys), this was the second result. I just wanted clarification. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article has been a Good Article since 2010 and is undergoing a Good article reassessment now mainly due to a lot of added text earlier this year. There several review comments at WP:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1 that need to be addressed. I've started on them, but it looks like too much there for me. Thanks for any help. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The article shows a B class rating but the talk page has a start rating, missing B1 and B2.... Keith-264 ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some administrator needs to revert this move: [7]. US army division do not have a name. They are numbered. Adding a nickname to a division's article lemma is factually wrong. noclador ( talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Original headline: "Possibly the greatest source about the Eastern Front ever??"
Website in mention: http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng6.pdf
So I found this while researching the Battle of Raseiniai for sources (we still need help, by the way) and I found this. A personal account of the Russian Invasion in WWII by a high ranking Nazi official himself. Could this be one of the most useful sources pertaining to the Eastern Front of WWII ever? It is a long book so it may take a minute to load. Download the PDF to read. Thanks! UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Good morning. I'd like to let you know, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_15#Combat_Service_Support we're having a discusssion about what this might mean, if it means anything. We haven't combat support unit, for example. I am sure people at MILHIST would be able to contribute something to what we do with this one. Please excuse me if I have not followed dor pinging MILHIST, but I wanted to let you know of this discussion, I am not sure if there is a more regimented whay I should do it, but thanks in advance (or perhaps retreat!) Si Trew ( talk) (Not "The" Simon Trew, the military historian, just another Simon Trew). 07:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a conversion for 8/10ths cloud or is it still in use? I've looked in Template:Convert et al. but no luck. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I have just been wading through Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source and have found that there are a few images of US military personnel (including a couple of Medal of Honor recipients) and other subjects that may be deleted if not sourced in the next few days. Is anyone able to help find sources for these? I suspect that a few of these would be PD-US due to being military photos, so it should be possible to keep at least few of them if we can find the sources. Here is a list of the files that I found have been tagged:
Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| USMC Historical Division ought to have some of them. lovkal ( talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The whole section reads like an apologetic piece from some former member of the Polish Army.
I think a section like this might be useful, if it's brought to WP standards.- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@ 62.156.151.10: I'll tag it for POV, and see about fixing it later today. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent, @Xx236: Thank you for your help! Your statements are evidence that the section as it currently stands is indeed much more than just information, it is propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia.
AGF has limits, and I think we are past those limits. Both editors have not only shown their bigotry throughout their statements, but also their willingness to distort the truth to get their story in a WP article.- 192.166.53.201 ( talk) 09:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Yeah, sorry, the article in the German Wikipedia still contains Nazi propaganda. Nothing I could so about it. Maybe someone else will give it a try?- 62.156.151.11 ( talk) 10:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen us capitalize "diesel" as in "diesel engine." But is it wrong to do so? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have put together a proposal regarding use of bullet points on Module:Infobox military conflict, at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points. Should this be of interest, please chip in. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I hate to beg for a review, but would someone here mind checking out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neal Dow/archive1? Dow was an American Civil War general, among other things, which is why I thought members of this Wikiproject might be interested. I normally don't solicit reviews, but it's been languishing for months and I'd hate to see it fail for lack of attention. Thanks very much! --15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
{{ Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz}} is in the process of being deleted, but the information has been turned into a list (currently found in my userspace). I am looking for opinions on whether it should be moved to the Article space or deleted. Please voice your opinions at the talk page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 03:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Since we use them a lot, you might be interested [9] regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The date ranges thingie reminds me... I keep running into a couple of editors who persist in changing page ranges like pp. 567–568 to pp. 567–68. Does anyone know if there is a guideline or policy somewhere on this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I recently ran across a notice that Troop Returns are now available for the North Carolina Militia. Should be a handy tool for editors interested in the American Civil War to Spanish American War periods. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Our List of Japanese armoured fighting vehicles of World War II includes a redlink to " Type 95 Ke-Nu Rail tank". A Google search (as far as I can see) only brings up Wikipedia and forum pages that could well have a WP origin. Did such a tank exist? Alansplodge ( talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I just saw this job opening on Twitter and thought it would be of interest to some people here from the Australia Task Force - Temporary Exhibitions Research Officer at the ANZAC memorial, Sydney. Note: applications close 9 November, 4-day a week, position until December 2018. Key role description:
As the Exhibitions Research Officer you will conduct supervised research of external collections for potential exhibition and interpretive content, including primary resources of National, State and Regional institutions and participate in associated projects and programs. You will document exhibitions and collection donations, loans and acquisitions, including cataloguing, image capture and data entry, as well as upload content on the Memorial’s web site and develop content for exhibition interactives.
The description states a requires knowledge of: museum exhibition research; the development of content for information communication technologies; and thorough knowledge of military and Australian history and its interpretation.
I thought it'd be pretty cool to have a Wikimedian in the mix :-) All the best,
Witty
lama 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source for USNS Cossatot being involved in a collision in 1968. Can anyone assist please? Mjroots ( talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
These articles appear to be about the same battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, with much of the same information. Can someone more knowledgeable than me on these matters merge them together? Thanks. Sussexpeople ( talk) 09:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Sussexpeople ( talk) 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey soldiers. Just notifying all troops about the existence of WikiProject Tanks. I just created it, be sure to come over to rifle it out. Much of it is based on WP:MILHIST, but hey, it could be classified as a child project? Send some tankers over to help too.
Best regards on the field of warfare, ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Simon Trew, thanks for the laugh!! Seriously, Brig Richard Simpkin in the 1980s and Ralph Peters in the 1990s ( The War in 2020) have both seriously proposed flying tanks/lo-hover armoured helicopters - imagine a Wing In Ground-effect vehicle armoured version of the Mi-24 and you'll get an idea of how formidable such a vehicle could be. Could have er, taken off, pardon the pun, if the Central Front confrontation had continued for a longer period. There's a passing reference to a 'Challengers-must-fly' believing officer also in Beevor's Inside the British Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 25#Template:Related recipients of the Knight.27s Cross. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I remove banned users from the 'active users' section of the Members list and move them to the 'inactive users'? They don't seem to be very active at all. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and schedule George S. Patton on his birthday (also Armistice/Veterans Day). We ran George S. Patton slapping incidents this summer, which cast him in a negative light, and I think it's only fair to show a more rounded picture. The Zaloga (2010) link in the refs is dead, and I'm not sure about this edit by an IP; otherwise, it passes the sniff test, and a lot of people looked at the article in August. Still, it gets a fair amount of vandalism, so people may want to keep an eye on it. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The Strategic, Defence & Security Studies collection newly added to WP:Taylor & Francis might be of interest to some here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Help requested, please, with the right way to proceed on a thorny article naming and referencing problem. There are two new articles, created by the same editor, on a WWII General who commanded the 113th Airborne: Eldridge Chapman and Elbridge Chapman. The editor created them in that order and in good faith, evidently seeing the second spelling in references and thinking that "Eldridge" was a spelling error on his part. I had originally speeded Elbridge Chapman db-a10, but the article creator makes the valid point at Talk:Elbridge_Chapman that some reasonably WP:RS spell his name "Elbridge", but I can also see WP:RS including book references from mainstream publishing houses like Simon & Schuster where it's spelled "Eldridge". The spellings "Eldridge Chapman" and "General Eldridge Chapman" both return more Google hits, but that's hardly proof of Eldrige being correct. So I've currently tagged them as merge, rather than a speedy, and the two articles are now more or less identical. Can a military history expert please point us at a canonical source verifying his first name? Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 03:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see the not-quite-RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3#Change "result" parameter to "outcome", on a proposition intended to help avoid misinterpretation of a "just the facts" infobox parameter as being a place for extensive, freeform, subjective cause–effect assertions that may be better handled in well-cited, contextual article prose. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
See
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How does the verbatim quoting from the London Gazette in the article Brendan Finucane or Douglas Bader differ from Wehrmachtbericht quoting (now removed with the justification "Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report") in article Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer or Gordon Gollob? Examples:
Acknowledging the fact that both references have a propaganda aspect as well as a legitimate meritorious aspect, how do they differ from a Wikipedia point of view? If they are not fundamentally different, should the British references be removed as well or should the German references be retained? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I have created this thread so that the community can have a centralised discussion and reach a consensus regarding the way "questionable" entries are treated in the various lists of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (KC).
As I understand it (and this is pretty much copy and pasted from a comment by MisterBee1966 elsewhere), the source considered to be the most superior reference on the recipients of the KC is Scherzer. Scherzer analysed the German National Archives and found 193 out of 7,321 instances where the available data in the archives did not fully verify the legal aspect of the presentation. Scherzer uses the word "questionable" (fragwürdig). He goes on to explain why this is the case and refrains from delisting any of those 193 "questionable" entries. On page 8 of his book he says "Hierzu möchte der Autor nur anmerken, daß er niemandem etwas aberkannt hat. Vielmehr legte er dar, welche Archivalien zu den einzelnen Fällen überliefert sind und in welchem Stadium des Verleihungsprozesses diese Dokumente in den Archiven vorgefunden wurden. [The author just wants to say that he has not denied anyone anything. Rather, he explained, which files to the individual cases have prevailed and at what stage of the award process, these documents were found in the archives.]"(this isn't a brilliant translation, help from some fluent De-5/En-5 editors would help us here, I believe).
Scherzer gives several reasons why this is the case. Firstly, the German National Archives are incomplete (records were lost, destroyed or not returned by the Allies). Secondly, the approval chain after 20 April 1945 until the end of the war became extremely confused. In this "confused phase" a number KC presentations where made which are considered "questionable", nevertheless there is some evidence they were made and they are listed by Scherzer and other sources, with an explanation of why they need to be considered "questionable". Currently, the various KC lists reflect Scherzer's analysis by highlighting these "questionable" recipients with both a colour coding and a ? (question mark) and a comment reflecting what the sources have to say about the award in that case. The approach currently taken with the lists is consistent with Scherzer's approach and presentation style. I think this is a good summary of the case for the status quo. I invite K.e.coffman, who has expressed a different view, to state his case in the subsection below, after which I invite members of the community to chip in using the Discussion subsection. It would be useful to get a better translation of what Scherzer says above, so if you can do a better job, feel free to have a crack. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several considerations I’d like to put forward:
At best, these entries could be considered to be about “nominees” for the Knight’s Cross in the last weeks of the war, which confers no individual notability. A topic on these incomplete/unprocessed nominations and unlawful awards is indeed interesting and possibly encyclopedic, but not the subjects of these nominations individually. The topic can be dealt with in a separate article or as part of the Recipients article, as a general discussion on why the the nominations could not be confirmed as awards by archival evidence (I.e. general collapse, unlawful presentations, incomplete records, views of AKCR as discussed by Scherzer, etc).
So in conclusion, I believe we are dealing with the issues of (1) non-independent sourcing, (2) POV and (3) undue weight. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: With regard to the lists, I agree with Peacemaker67. The decisions of the AKCR had some relevance as to who was allowed to wear the decoration after 1957. These semi-official decisions are not always based in fact, but represent the opinion of the leaders of the AKCR. Scherzer attempted to verify these decisions, but was denied access to AKCR documents, if I am not mistaken. So, both opinions are relevant, but neither is true or false per se. Thus, with regard to individual biographies of "questionable awards", I would suggest to merge them into a separate list or lists, unless the individuals concerned are notable in their own right, as the late-war presentations can hardly be considered "highest awards for valour" as per WP:SOLDIER. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Translation update: Combined input of two German speaking colleagues. I assume something (award?) has possibly been granted in the past, and the author has not decided to take away (any award), but only shows what archive material is extant and in which stage of the awarding process the documents were found in the archives. (This is worded a bit strangely in German in my opinion; I assume it is supposed to mean "which stage of the awarding process can be documented in the archives"). — Kusma ( t· c) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment : It is not the AKCR's views that are being used as a source for the lists, it is Scherzer's summation of the position of the AKCR, which he provides along with other information about them. Scherzer is independent of the topic, and he takes a nuanced position, one that takes into account all the information he was able to glean about each award. If we accept Scherzer as reliable, as the principal or leading source on the awards, then we should accept what he says, and his comments, at face value. To do otherwise is OR. If it is necessary to expand on what each list says about the "questionable" awards in order to clearly enlarge the scope to include the "questionable" awards, that is a far better approach IMO, than deleting them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment : Among the 193 questionable recipients (2.6% of all recipients listed) are also those men who were associated with the 20 July plot, the failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. These men were later sentenced to death, deprived of all honors, ranks and orders and dishonorably discharged from the Wehrmacht, among them Erwin von Witzleben, Friedrich Olbricht and Friedrich Fromm. In addition, men like Hermann Fegelein and Edgar Feuchtinger, on account of desertion, were also executed and deprived of rank and honors. Without distinction, Scherzer treats these recipients just like all the other questionable recipients, referring to them as de facto but maybe not de jure recipients. For sake of completeness, Scherzer also identified 27 (including Fegelein) instances of questionable presentation of the Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross and 13 (including Fegelein) cases of Swords presentation in doubt. Aligned with Scherzer’s approach to the issue, these listings are flagged accordingly. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In view of the above discussion, I would like to propose the following:
Item 1: Adjust the lead of the List articles to read:
Item 2: Adjust the Recipients subsection to include (relocated with some adjustments from the current lead sections):
Item 3: Adjust the listings themselves by taking into account the notability of the subjects where the KC is not confirmed by archival records. My proposal is to (1) keep entries on notable subjects (with either proven or presumed notability per WP:Soldier, such as "commanded a division or higher", or "was a general officer", etc, and/or those notable for other reasons, i.e. the 20 July plot); (2) exclude entries where a single KC is the only claim to notability. This would keep the entries of those subject whose notability does not rely solely on the KC award. Since RS coverage exists or is presumed to exists on them, readers could have learned about these subjects elsewhere, so it would be useful to include Scherzer's info on their status. Those presumed non-notable will not be included in the lists.
Item 4: Adjust individual articles of notable "disputed" recipients to reflect Scherzer's position, such as by incorporating Scherzer's commentary into either the main body of the article, or as material within the Awards subsections. Do not list the KC in the infobox or the lead, unless accompanied by statements such as "may have received" or "was nominated" etc.
Item 5: Apply a similar method to the overall topic of disputed recipients. My suggestion is to create the Disputed recipients of the Knight's Cross article to cover in general terms how these "questionable" awards came to be (loss of records; general collapse; unlawful presentations, etc). Within this article, include a list section with blue-linked articles only, i.e. only those disputed recipients who are otherwise notable (per discussion above), and not include a full list of all disputed recipients. I think this will be both useful to readers, while not including subjects that are otherwise non notable.
References
I believe these adjustments would address some of the POV issues I brought up and will give due weight to the two sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), while maintaining the encyclopedic value of these lists. Any feedback on these proposals? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please take a look at this article. It appears to conflate two rather different concepts: a specific tradition of pre-battle combat of two chosen warriors and an ordinary "vis-a-vis" combat of e.g., two knights or two aces. I have two questions with this:
I believe in this case the principle of wikipedia "one subject per article" is a bit violated. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I was reading through Rommel myth and found reference to a place called "Transpolitania", apparently a city among Italian-held north Africa during World War II. There are only three mentions of the place on Wikipedia, all in identical language about the Italian government stymieing Nazi efforts to ethnically cleanse Jews who were Italian citizens. On Google, I could only find two uses of the name that aren't from Wikipedia mirrors (or at least using our exact language). Google asks if I mean Tripolitania. Anyone know what's going on here? -- BDD ( talk) 15:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
When I create a new redirection page for an article within our project scope I of course place our template with RED-class on the respective talk page. But what about taskforces in that case; should they be included, too, or is it preferred to keep recirects out of them? ... GELongstreet ( talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I recently picked up the GA review of Ronald Poulton, unfortunately it looks like the user who submitted it (Funky Canute) has retired from Wikipedia and has not participated in the initial portion of the review. I was wondering if anyone from this project would be interested in stepping up and working on the article? It's been open for a while and I'll leave the GA review open for a couple of days more. If you are interested please respond on the Talk:Ronald Poulton/GA1 page. Thank you. MPJ -DK 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Zeebrugge Raid needs a visit from the Admins. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there any policy, guideline, previous discussion, or consensus on what nations can/should be included as belligerents in the infobox? As well as the United States, Omaha Beach currently lists United Kingdom, Canada, and Free France as belligerents, on the basis that these nations provided some naval support. Doesn't seem right to me. FactotEm ( talk) 07:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Spirals look rather controlled to me, especially when they're easing the cork out of a Cotes du Rhone bottle. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for MilHis. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! I just stumbled upon Rolia_Whitinger on Huggle and reversed a minor edit which introduced weird markup to the article's awards section. The user then contacted me on my talk page with a bizarre rant about bone transplants. Upon closer inspection, honestly the article is a bloody mess and I'd much appreciate opinions as to whether this person is in fact notable and whether this article is beyond repair and needs TNT. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, no, I do not have that book. However, I do have a book called "Air Commando" detailing 1st SOW ops from 1944-1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak474 ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, if this is of interest to anyone, an editor has opened a discussion at Talk:Nanking Massacre that could use some feedback from people interested in the subject. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This new category looks like an attempt to compile an
Allied order of battle in Burma during World War II by unit size by adding, for example, all regiments using [[Category:Military units and formations in Burma in World War II|r]]
That concern aside what is the general policy, if there is one, of adding units to categories by campaign. For many articles this could lead to very long lists of categories to little benefit as units of long life will have served in hundreds of different campaigns and theatres. I notice that units are not included in current categories like
Category:Operation Market Garden.
Nthep (
talk) 22:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, A few weeks ago I noted the exceptional lack of category integration and the inconsistent use of existent categories across the variously linked articles concerning the British Empire and Commonwealth during the Second World War. If you look into the various related articles generally titled XXX in World War II, and Military history of XXX in World War II you will find a host of categories: such as Category:XXX country in World War II, Category:Military history of XXX in World War II, Category:XXX people in World War II, Category:XXX military personnel of World War II, Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II, Category: Military units and formations in XXX in World War II, and so on. Across these currently linked articles and categories are some dozen of so categories and subcategories. In Category:United States in World War II there are over 300 categories and subcategories nested within that category, specific to the conduct of the US in the war. My effort is an attempt to rationalize, integrate and bring consistent use to the categories, that already exist, related to the conduct of the war within the Empire, Commonwealth, Dominions and all internal entires. Please start with the article British Empire during World War II and Category:British Empire in World War II. All related articles and all related categories drop down from those two points. Within the entities from Aden to Burma you can now read almost any WWII article and find your way to other related civil and military matters related to that entity.
Orders of Battle generally pertain to one discrete event or campaign, under one or more beliigerant command structures. In the case of each British Empire and Commonwealth entity so far addressed, I have linked all the military formations that passed through that entity during the war. In Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II you will find domestic military formations, while in Category: Military units and formations in XXX in World War II you will find all empire, and other belligerent forces included. As to the "ordering" of the categorized articles. That is an artefact of the process of including each military formation into the category. Without some ordering it is difficult to see which formations I have missed. After any particular nation is finished I have generally tried to return the articles appearing in that category back into alphabetical order.
The category Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II has existed for years, if not decades. Whatever rationale you discuss in relation to my use of it or removing it, needs to consider why the category even exists, why others use it, what advantages it provides and what benefit accrues from removing it. Robert Brukner ( talk) 23:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Categorization impacts knowledge integration in a variety of directions. From the military unit perspective there might be an abundance of categories if the unit served in many countries. But in most country military articles there is currently little to no information pertaining to military units from, or that served in, those countries. They are essentially invisible. Articles concerning 90% or more of Empire and Commonwealth colonies and countries during the war are sparse at best. Categories allows rapid linkage to knowledge contained in other articles. Category links, provide a window through which one can quickly obtain intersectional information about military activity during the war, and also without ad naseum repetition of the same facts. It is true that building better articles is a more appropriate way to contain and explain events and knowledge. But where such articles do not exist rapid cross linkages by categories provides an immediate solution access new knowledge.
What I am reading from all of this is a concern about the actual use of extant categories. Again, I ask, why not use the categories created for us to use? In their use, we do not find the reason for not using them. While there are better solutions then the use of categories, those solutions are not being implemented. In the meantime categories allow broader integration of complex topics in a simple and easily accessible way. I would not, for example, attempt to conduct such a broad and deep category integration for the UK, as the scale would simple be to large. As to the concern that there would be an "incredible amount of clutter" at the bottom of the page, I point to World War II which has 120 categories, and World War I which has 50 categories at the bottom of their pages. If they are the sort of "clutter" about which there is concern, please address those concerns to those page editors, and the editors of the many others like them. Personally, I see no problem with the number of categories on those two pages. Not one of the articles I have worked on has anything close to that many categories on its page.
On the question of "defining characteristics of a subject." Country articles specific to the Second World War are a subject that cannot be separated from the nation's soldiers fighting those war, or the soldiers from foreign nations fighting on their soil. Their units and formations, leaders and actions, battles and operations, and the social impacts of all of that, are the defining reality of the war. Robert Brukner ( talk) 19:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Brought up at this AfD. Does a subject being "mentioned in dispatches" pass WP:SOLDIER, or not? Chris Troutman ( talk) 09:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Pipe majors, in particular the military aspect? I'm looking to expand that article. Thanks, Ostrichyearning ( talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have started an RFC to get input on a proposal to rename List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy Gbawden ( talk) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There is an open RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang#RfC:_Insertion_of_South_Vietnam concerning the insertion of a "Supported by <party>" in the infobox. It would be good if interested participants can have a look. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, folks. I carried out a GA review for Elyesa Bazna, a page which is within the scope of this project. I have placed the review on hold, because there were some relatively minor issues (see the review page) which are nonetheless large enough that I would not feel comfortable fixing them and then passing the article myself. Additionally, I don't have access to some of the sources. The reason I am posting here is that the nominator has not been active for many months now. If anybody with interest in World War II or Intelligence history could help out here, it would be much appreciated. Vanamonde ( talk) 03:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started about creation of a separate article (possibly named aircraft gun turret - currently a redirect) to handle the content of gun turret#aircraft, the discussion is at Talk:Gun_turret#Aircraft_gun_turret. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Krulak Mendenhall mission, nominator long gone, eyes would be appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. After looking at this, I suggested to User:Mike Christie at User talk:Mike Christie#Move of Anglo-Saxon military organisation that the article should be deleted. He agreed that AfD would be appropriate, but suggested consulting consulting MilHist first. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Gladiator (2000 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Why will the picture show on preview but not in the [2] article? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. If anybody has any information regarding COIN ops, I would like to see it. I'm trying to write an article on the subject. Jak474 ( talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. If you're working on British military history articles anyway, please consider taking a second to post your article on the list to join the main effort! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Let me announce a new writing contest in September. It's a contest about castles of Armenia and Spain. You have the complete information here on meta. Thanks! -- Millars ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Just seen some rank badge templates being created for example Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Bangladesh, not sure if it is just me but is not the naming convention a bit non-neutral as far as I know this is not natopedia. It also lists them by NATO rank codes which seems to be a bit of a theme in rank articles, any reason why we cant compare with russian forces equivalants (or any other non-nato force) as well? All seems a bit bias. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Missile turret is this really a thing? Does anyone actually use this phrase for real. The example seem to be launchers and all the incoming links appear to be from sci-fi entities yet there is no sci-fi examples in the article. Thoughts? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I am curious by what process articles checked against but not accepted as B-class are added to the list at the top of this page. A C-Class article within the purview of this group that was checked against B-class but not accepted (lacking only in referencing, apparently) does not appear among the 27 articles currently listed. The article in question is Cecil E. Harris. Is this just a matter of missing code in the Talk page? Thanks for your help, folks! Finktron ( talk) 12:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Nominations for the 2016 Military history Coordinator tranche are now open. We are looking nine editors interested in serving in a coordinator capacity from the end of this September until September 2017. All interested editors may self nominate here. The nominations period will end at 23:59 UTC 15 September 2016, at which point voting will officially begin. Any editors interested in running are encouraged to sign up at nominations page. If you have any questions about the position or its responsibilities you are welcome to ask any of the individual coordinators, while general information and answers to frequently asked questions about the position may be found here. For the Coordinators of the Military history Project, TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello all - Based on the discussion copied in below, I changed the pipesorting on most of the articles in Category:New York Civil War regiments so that the Infantry articles all sort together numerically, all the Artillery articles sort together numerically etc. Any opinions on that approach? I will listen for comments before taking similar steps with other categories.
Copy + Paste of earlier discussion
|
---|
Standardization of Civil War Regiment article names?Hello all - Do we have a preferred set of naming conventions for individual regiments' articles, and also for defaultsorting them in categories? For instance, I am looking at Category:New York Civil War regiments and there are different naming conventions for like articles - In other words, should " 75th New York Volunteer Infantry" be "75th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment"? Or, should " 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment" be "74th New York Volunteer Infantry"? Also, things like the 7th whatever being sorted below the 70th whatever can cause confusion to users. 70th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 71st New York Infantry 72nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 74th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 75th New York Volunteer Infantry 76th New York Volunteer Infantry 77th New York Volunteer Infantry 78th New York Volunteer Infantry 79th New York Volunteer Infantry 7th New York Heavy Artillery Regiment 7th New York Militia 7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment 7th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry If no specific thoughts on this, then I might try experimenting with the naming and sorting of the New York regiments to start with, and see if any solutions strike me. Any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Thanks KConWiki ( talk) 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Erm, have I broken the 3rr rule by reverting five recent edits Gallipoli Campaign here by Brophy99 as Reverting vandalism or test edit? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I realised that there were five edits half-way through so I decided against trying to do a blanket revert, in case I buggered it up like last time. ;o)) The last time I broke the 3rr rule, I did it without noticing so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal of National Defense Service, I was surprised to see no mention of them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Given we also have no Wikipedia:Notability (awards), I think it is time we added a note on what makes military awards or medals notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so...I guess my question to everyone is this: The perennial argument against specific notability standards is that they may lower the bar from WP:GNG to something lesser. Barring the Chinese award in question, a situation where, as I said at the AfD, the WP:NEXIST is difficult to judge, is there a situation where such a policy may actually allow an award to have an article where it clearly wouldn't meet GNG? TimothyJosephWood 12:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Macrinus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Pat Southern in 'The Roman Army - A Social and Institutional History distinguishes between:
It seems that the above terms could be used for detailed categorization here, however I am afraid that, for many forts, it would be difficult to support this categorization due to lack of sources. I suspect that this difficulty is even more pronounced with the forts of the later Empire, when legions became smaller. As for the permanence of Roman fortifications, "the earlier fortified camps of the early Empire ...were not generally designed as permanent bases for troops...In the second century AD from the reign of Trajan onward, when the majority of forts had become permanent bases rather than semipermanent ones..." (Southern p.180). Southern does not use the term castrum at all but I am sure that the latter can be used for denoting both temporary and permanent fortifications. If you need more details, I could consult The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, I guess he has additional details on the matter.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Imo the existing category tree is confusing. For instance, "Roman fortifications" consists of only one subcategory, "Ancient Roman forts". Thus the latter seems redundant. Due to the general confusion, articles are listed in more than one categories, i.e. Argentoratum is listed in both "Roman legionary fortresses" and "Ancient Roman forts" (additionally, it seems to me that both are wrong since Argentoratum "fort" looks nothing more than a fortified camp). I am proposing the following scheme (names are purely suggestive):
Wherever a military fortification type is uncertain (e.g. due to lack of secondary sources), I suggest to leave it in "Roman fortifications", awaiting for future categorization. What do you think?-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 13:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)```
Can I use maps from the COH on Wiki (specifically Stacey, C. P. (1956) [1955]. Six Year of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific (PDF). Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. I (2nd rev. online ed.). Ottawa: By Authority of the Minister of National Defence. OCLC 917731527)? I've been looking at Canadian copyright and am none the wiser. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody had been working on Template:Highest Military Ranks and to my opinion the result is not up to standard. Please look at the template and the discussion at Template talk:Highest Military Ranks#Introduced mistakes. The Banner talk 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding parameters in the "military award" infobox, which is in your purview. Please join in the discussion here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:E_Company,_506th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Names_of_all_soldiers. Binksternet ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Vietnam Air Force#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Can I please have some help regarding No. 1 Radio School RAF User Gbinfi is adding loads of links to official RAF Recruitment pages for the trades involved and various courses from civilian establishments.
The user is clearly current military and only works on this article and is getting difficult to correct.
Gavbadger ( talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a move to change http to https but I wonder if anyone else has noticed that some links don't work after the change? Keith-264 ( talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nguyen Chanh Thi, same nominator, long gone, eyes appreciated. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see an ongoing discussion about a request to change the width of the infobox from 315px to 270px at Template talk:WPMILHIST Infobox style. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Howzit, all. Thought I'd ping this here for discussion or pointers: I've recently proposed moving Communist Insurgency War to Communist Insurgency War (Malaysia) as it is a much clearer and more concise title, given how many countries underwent communist insurgencies from the 1950s onwards. Personally, I've come across the term "communist insurgency" being used in the proper form for five different conflicts in South America and Africa and while there's no denying that the locals in each region refer to the communist insurgency when discussing their own history, this is somewhat problematic from an encyclopedic point of view.
Being Malaysian myself, having grown up there with many relatives who can remember the insurgency in question, I'm also quite comfortable with stating that the conflict has no broadly accepted title among most Malaysians (unlike say, the " Confrontation" period), and a menagerie of terms are used to describe both the first and second waves of guerrilla activity by the Malayan Communist Party by the Malaysian government, civil society, Bahasa-language media, English-language media, and the people from various ethnic groups. From that perspective, I cannot see how the argument can be made that "Communist Insurgency War" is the final, uncontested name for this particular era of hostilities in Malaysia.
As the article has held the name of Communist Insurgency War for quite a while, I'd appreciate any explanation or comments as to what the rationale was for keeping that title, either here or at Talk:Communist Insurgency War.
Thanks, -- Katangais (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library has now posted a report on its spring pilot test of a Research Help portal. As the report outlines, our target audience of readers and new editors generally reacted more positively to the pilot than experienced editors, who raised important critiques for discussion. The report provides more details on the results and some proposed next steps for the project. Your input is welcome on the report talk page. Astinson (WMF) ( talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#1948_war_articles-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would like input on whether additions like these, on the subject of casualty figures, improve the article or not. Thank you. MPS1992 ( talk) 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am creating an article about the link mention above. I was wondering if you guys could help me with this.
Thanks, Jak474 ( talk) 16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I have not seen those titles, but I do have some that you might find helpful. One is the "Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare. I think you might enjoy it. Thanks again for the pdf. Jak474 ( talk) 23:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that in the past few years, almost everything in this project has been done by a small handful of people. I'd like to try to join this small group and help out in this great project, but I really don't know what pages to create and edit and such. Adotchar ( talk) 09:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC) - I'm working on the backlog now Adotchar ( talk) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There has been a revival of the dispute over the contents of the infobox, partly procedural and partly about content, which I fear I started, under the impression that the dispute had died a death. While bearing in mind my conflict of interest, I would be grateful if editors would venture an opinion on the validity of the requirements of the Template:Infobox military conflict for the result and territory criteria and whether entries should be determined by a survey of RS, rather than the opinions of editors. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been editing quite a bit on sub articles of Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (don't judge the parent article, it's last on the list). But I'm note entirely sure that these fall under the purview of MilHist. They almost all involve "policing" action by the "National Guard", in scare quotes because, at this point, it was basically a militia. Anyone opposed to adding these to the project? TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged Demolition of al-Baqi, which is in the interest of this WikiProject, for merger into Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'#Merger of Demolition. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is a draft which I feel could use input from this project, particularly from anyone who has helped out with the AFC process. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! Primefac ( talk) 15:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:KoreanWarCorr I tried allow wrap to get the heading centred but if wouldn't work. Would someone mind taking a look to see why? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
For editors interested in adding additional photos to Confederate States Army articles, I came across an excellent collection of army leaders here. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a currently a discussion about the Chinese Army and Chinese army redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Chinese Army, your comments there would be very welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have returned from the badlands of RL, and hope to wade back in Wiki, and I'm looking for some basic guidance on writing an article, since my wiki-fu is less rusty and more oxidised, and I can't remember a darn thing. Can someone let me know the best way to add citations these days, and also the best template for adding a bibliography? *Shakes cane* Skinny87 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor, User:Jcb (an admin on Commons), is in the process of deleting many images (apparently they are mostly images of US military insignia of various kinds, but heavily USAF unit emblems). The reason given is that they are not sourced, even though many have sources. There is a discussion (including some acrimony) at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files). Some of these images have already been deleted. In recent days, Jcb has been using the {{No source since|month=|day=|year=}} template to mark pages (e.g. File:301bw.jpg. This emblem is sourced, although the source is contained in the description, not in the expected template location, because the image was moved to Commons from en:Wikipedia by a bot. Posting this template does not include the image on the list of images for deletion and, because the bot that moved the image is listed as the user who uploaded the image to Commons, not the human being who actually made the original upload, only the bot is being notified of the pending deletions. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Would the article Frogman come within the scope of this project? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Air Force Historical Research Agency web site has been "upgraded" in the past week or so. The upgrade has involved moving all the Unit lineage and honors pages, so all references to these in Wikipedia articles that weren't done in the last week now lead to 404 error pages. Worse, (although this may be temporary) the links inside the web site for wing, group and squadron pages are also broken. A 404 error results from clicking on the "squadrons" tab, for instance, then clicking on a specific unit. Links for Major Commands work, although some images had problems using Chrome. Numbered Research Paper links also work. Using the search function on the site requires proper capitalization and not using the ordinal abbreviations to bring up the revised pages. Alternatively, the Wayback Machine seems to have the old pages archived (unlike the last time the site was revised). This affects thousands of reference links on en:Wikipedia —— anyone know of a bot to help fix this? -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 17:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone has thrown the NATO comparative officer ranks tables ( Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers and Ranks and insignia of NATO navies officers, though not — as yet — Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces officers) and about half the templates used in them into disarray by adding an OF-11 code, apparently in the mistaken belief that one exists and that OF codes should align with US O pay grades (which they do not). All of this “to maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia” though in an inconsistent way, so that those tables are now hopelessly out of alignment! And no doubt this meddling will have deleterious consequences in other contexts where these templates are used. Could someone (preferably a few someones) have a look at what has been done and undo the damage and/or stop this individual from wreaking further havoc? I’m not a regular enough contributor nor well enough into the sources on this to weigh in. — Mithrennaith ( talk) 02:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if a "Master category" should be created, meaning that their should be no articles in the category, it only contains subcategories? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Wrong term. These are called "container categories". Simply add: Template:Container category to change the purpose of a category. Dimadick ( talk) 14:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an unreferenced article created in 2005. It makes a number of assertations about the program without providing supporting citations. Neither the editor who created the article nor the two editors who added speculative accounts of why the progran was discontinued are active Wikipedia editors any more.
In fact the one who added the statements that the tests failed due to the characteristics of the drones used in testing has only made two edits, one in 2008 and the other in 2010.
I am attempting to search up viable references, but am not sure where to start. Google searching is bringing up a lot of Wikipedia mirrors based on the article as it stands.
Anyone willing to join me in offline book searching?
Graham1973 ( talk) 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I was looking at the News and Open Tasks page and noticed the Air Operations in the Korean War page highlighted in red. I was told that asking for help here would get me some help and guidance on the article. Thanks, Jak474 ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article is currently listed for a community Good Article Review to determine if it still meets the GA criteria. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1. A few more opinions are needed to determine consensus. If anyone is keen to participate, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
So there is an editor who has tried to change around the subject matter on the military branch article and has created a completly new article called Branch of service which seems to be about almost the same thing. I completly belive this is in good faith but I'm not sure the editor has the right way to go about it. They seems to only include information which is in line with what the NATO defenition is. Opinion on what to do with these articles? *Treker ( talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
The war rages on, or at least on the Battle of France talkpage. From my take on what has happened so far: two editors have actually engaged with what sources actually say in an attempt to improve the article, while three others are essentially trolling the page stating sources don't matter. There is a lot of incivility, and the appearance that regardless of what sources say an edit war will resume. I think we need some experienced editors, or admin, to create a bit of a DMZ and help filter the good work from the spam, and funnel that material into a good conclusion. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for devising a constructive alternative to writing in the talk page. I've put my views there again and asked the watchers to venture opinions on the result criterion in the infobox, although in my view the case for German victory and the removal of bullet points is unarguable. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Campaignbox Thirty Years' War is currently a chaotic amalgamation of various battles. Instead I propose breaking it into separate campaigns such as:
Any input would be welcome.-- Catlemur ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! As a friendly reminder, voting in our annual project coordinator election is scheduled to conclude at 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Anyone who hasn't voted yet is encouraged to do so on the election page. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about alleged Indian support to Baloch rebels and the verifability and notability of such claim at Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 2#India. GreyShark ( dibra) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I put Cecil E. Harris up for GA review recently but only now finished a complete overhaul of the references/citations. It now conforms to a much higher standard. If anybody wants to begin the review process I'd greatly appreciate it; or if you have some suggestions for improvements feel free to chime in accordingly. Best Regards, Finktron ( talk) 15:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
A pointer to a discussion about failed pings. You can now check a couple of boxes in your preferences to get notified when pings do or don't work. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Joachim Helbig, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.
The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Some good news and bad news:
But,
Draft:Supply Support Activity is a modern American "thing" related to military logistics. Is the draft acceptable in its current state? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that Italian naval ships tend to have their articles called Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi or Italian destroyer Andrea Doria. Is there a reason that they are named as such and not ITS Andrea Doria (D553) as it might be done for other navies? Thanks in advance Gbawden ( talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Attack on Convoy AN 14 I added the locator map to the infobox then got ambitious and tried to move the label from left to right of the red dot. I managed it but does anyone know why I added another and how I get rid please? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Fnar! The one on the right. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
[copied from my talk page]
Hi Dank: I m interested in trying to upgrade an article titled United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but I hesitate to go forward because the title does not square well with the contents. The article actually describes two distinct subjects, women who served in the women’s active reserve in WW II (by an act of Congress) and women who served in World War I (by edict of the Secretary of the Navy in 1917). The women’s reserve was not authorized by Congress until1942; no such reserve seems to have existed prior to this.
Question: should both periods be woven into one story, or should the story be about the US Marine Corps Women’s Reserve to the exclusion of the women who served in WW I. I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! Pendright ( talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The primary reference in all the various stub articles concerning US Navy air squadrons was changed by Naval History and Heritage at some point recently, so now almost the sole citation in all these articles is 404'd. Is there a bot that can somehow enter the new URL or is this going to have to be fixed manually? Because looking at the List of squadrons in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, that's going to be quite the clean-up. The new URL is https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/insignias/naval-aviation-squadron-lineage/fighter-squadron-lineage.html Thanks, Finktron ( talk) 11:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite DANAS}}
that could link to the various sections of the various DANAS chapters. That editor never used the template so there it sits abandoned. We could resurrect that template to at the least link to the silly new html page names at NHHS or change it to link directly to the pdf version of the DANAS chapter. Instead of linking to:
{{cite DANAS}}
is reworked and instances of direct urls are replaced with a call to the template (presumably AWB will suffice for that), NEXT TIME, a squeaker ensign needs to show that his division is doing something, it will be less painful for us to recover from his follies.{{
cite DANAS}}
template before I created all of the VP and VPB pages. Unfortunately changing that template won't do anything to help with the fighter squadron lineage as that's a separate document not contained in DANAS. regards
Mztourist (
talk) 03:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite DANAS}}
is working again. There is a gotcha: our squeaker ensign felt it necessary to be inconsistent in his use of chapter-section capitalization. If referencing the chapter 1 or chapter 4 sections of volume 1, be sure that these are not capitalized in |section=
; chapters 3, 5, and 6 are to be capitalized.
It might be beneficial to create a template for the lineage document so that we only have to fix one thing when the next squeaker ensign decides that changes to NHHC urls are a good thing for her division to do. There are about 65 pages linking to the lineage document.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite vf lineage}}
Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so potentially work done in any field would be recognized. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African military history articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles and might feel like a change working on some African historical battles and figures, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Template:Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about beefing up the Battle of Raseiniai article by making a massive increase in information about the 'lone wolf' KV-2. I was thinking I could add a new subsection, and write two or three paragraphs instead of the two sentences that currently apply to the skirmish. I think that the topic deserves more than a few sentences, given how badass it was. I just wanted to know if it would be ok, or would it be unnecessary? I don't really like to make big changes to articles without some sort of approval, because without an approval it runs a higher risk of being removed or reverted. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone mind checking out the section I wrote on the Battle of Raseiniai? I added a new section (The 'Lone Wolf' KV-2) and wrote about 4.5 paragraphs. You can't really miss it. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 13:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick ce then put the dupe wikilink detector on. Does everyone here know that wikilinks are only used on the first mention of a linkable item? I didn't when I started either. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Tidied and added citations and sources; perhaps interested readers would like to cast an eye with suggestions for improvements? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser#Requested move 7 October 2016 regarding the validity of using ENS as the prefix in Egyptian Navy ship article titles. Comments there are welcome. - BilCat ( talk) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted a chart for MW 10 which is sort of OK but would be grateful for some scrutiny and suggestions. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz has been nominated for deletion. The related discussion is here: Entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Article #1: /info/en/?search=Malta_Convoys
Article #2: /info/en/?search=Operation_Pedestal
Are these two articles related? I was looking up research to improve the article and after the main article (Malta Convoys), this was the second result. I just wanted clarification. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article has been a Good Article since 2010 and is undergoing a Good article reassessment now mainly due to a lot of added text earlier this year. There several review comments at WP:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1 that need to be addressed. I've started on them, but it looks like too much there for me. Thanks for any help. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The article shows a B class rating but the talk page has a start rating, missing B1 and B2.... Keith-264 ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some administrator needs to revert this move: [7]. US army division do not have a name. They are numbered. Adding a nickname to a division's article lemma is factually wrong. noclador ( talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Original headline: "Possibly the greatest source about the Eastern Front ever??"
Website in mention: http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng6.pdf
So I found this while researching the Battle of Raseiniai for sources (we still need help, by the way) and I found this. A personal account of the Russian Invasion in WWII by a high ranking Nazi official himself. Could this be one of the most useful sources pertaining to the Eastern Front of WWII ever? It is a long book so it may take a minute to load. Download the PDF to read. Thanks! UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Good morning. I'd like to let you know, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_15#Combat_Service_Support we're having a discusssion about what this might mean, if it means anything. We haven't combat support unit, for example. I am sure people at MILHIST would be able to contribute something to what we do with this one. Please excuse me if I have not followed dor pinging MILHIST, but I wanted to let you know of this discussion, I am not sure if there is a more regimented whay I should do it, but thanks in advance (or perhaps retreat!) Si Trew ( talk) (Not "The" Simon Trew, the military historian, just another Simon Trew). 07:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a conversion for 8/10ths cloud or is it still in use? I've looked in Template:Convert et al. but no luck. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I have just been wading through Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source and have found that there are a few images of US military personnel (including a couple of Medal of Honor recipients) and other subjects that may be deleted if not sourced in the next few days. Is anyone able to help find sources for these? I suspect that a few of these would be PD-US due to being military photos, so it should be possible to keep at least few of them if we can find the sources. Here is a list of the files that I found have been tagged:
Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| USMC Historical Division ought to have some of them. lovkal ( talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The whole section reads like an apologetic piece from some former member of the Polish Army.
I think a section like this might be useful, if it's brought to WP standards.- 62.156.151.10 ( talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@ 62.156.151.10: I'll tag it for POV, and see about fixing it later today. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent, @Xx236: Thank you for your help! Your statements are evidence that the section as it currently stands is indeed much more than just information, it is propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia.
AGF has limits, and I think we are past those limits. Both editors have not only shown their bigotry throughout their statements, but also their willingness to distort the truth to get their story in a WP article.- 192.166.53.201 ( talk) 09:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Yeah, sorry, the article in the German Wikipedia still contains Nazi propaganda. Nothing I could so about it. Maybe someone else will give it a try?- 62.156.151.11 ( talk) 10:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen us capitalize "diesel" as in "diesel engine." But is it wrong to do so? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have put together a proposal regarding use of bullet points on Module:Infobox military conflict, at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points. Should this be of interest, please chip in. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I hate to beg for a review, but would someone here mind checking out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neal Dow/archive1? Dow was an American Civil War general, among other things, which is why I thought members of this Wikiproject might be interested. I normally don't solicit reviews, but it's been languishing for months and I'd hate to see it fail for lack of attention. Thanks very much! --15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
{{ Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz}} is in the process of being deleted, but the information has been turned into a list (currently found in my userspace). I am looking for opinions on whether it should be moved to the Article space or deleted. Please voice your opinions at the talk page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 03:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Since we use them a lot, you might be interested [9] regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The date ranges thingie reminds me... I keep running into a couple of editors who persist in changing page ranges like pp. 567–568 to pp. 567–68. Does anyone know if there is a guideline or policy somewhere on this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I recently ran across a notice that Troop Returns are now available for the North Carolina Militia. Should be a handy tool for editors interested in the American Civil War to Spanish American War periods. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Our List of Japanese armoured fighting vehicles of World War II includes a redlink to " Type 95 Ke-Nu Rail tank". A Google search (as far as I can see) only brings up Wikipedia and forum pages that could well have a WP origin. Did such a tank exist? Alansplodge ( talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I just saw this job opening on Twitter and thought it would be of interest to some people here from the Australia Task Force - Temporary Exhibitions Research Officer at the ANZAC memorial, Sydney. Note: applications close 9 November, 4-day a week, position until December 2018. Key role description:
As the Exhibitions Research Officer you will conduct supervised research of external collections for potential exhibition and interpretive content, including primary resources of National, State and Regional institutions and participate in associated projects and programs. You will document exhibitions and collection donations, loans and acquisitions, including cataloguing, image capture and data entry, as well as upload content on the Memorial’s web site and develop content for exhibition interactives.
The description states a requires knowledge of: museum exhibition research; the development of content for information communication technologies; and thorough knowledge of military and Australian history and its interpretation.
I thought it'd be pretty cool to have a Wikimedian in the mix :-) All the best,
Witty
lama 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source for USNS Cossatot being involved in a collision in 1968. Can anyone assist please? Mjroots ( talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
These articles appear to be about the same battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, with much of the same information. Can someone more knowledgeable than me on these matters merge them together? Thanks. Sussexpeople ( talk) 09:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Sussexpeople ( talk) 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey soldiers. Just notifying all troops about the existence of WikiProject Tanks. I just created it, be sure to come over to rifle it out. Much of it is based on WP:MILHIST, but hey, it could be classified as a child project? Send some tankers over to help too.
Best regards on the field of warfare, ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Simon Trew, thanks for the laugh!! Seriously, Brig Richard Simpkin in the 1980s and Ralph Peters in the 1990s ( The War in 2020) have both seriously proposed flying tanks/lo-hover armoured helicopters - imagine a Wing In Ground-effect vehicle armoured version of the Mi-24 and you'll get an idea of how formidable such a vehicle could be. Could have er, taken off, pardon the pun, if the Central Front confrontation had continued for a longer period. There's a passing reference to a 'Challengers-must-fly' believing officer also in Beevor's Inside the British Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 25#Template:Related recipients of the Knight.27s Cross. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I remove banned users from the 'active users' section of the Members list and move them to the 'inactive users'? They don't seem to be very active at all. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and schedule George S. Patton on his birthday (also Armistice/Veterans Day). We ran George S. Patton slapping incidents this summer, which cast him in a negative light, and I think it's only fair to show a more rounded picture. The Zaloga (2010) link in the refs is dead, and I'm not sure about this edit by an IP; otherwise, it passes the sniff test, and a lot of people looked at the article in August. Still, it gets a fair amount of vandalism, so people may want to keep an eye on it. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The Strategic, Defence & Security Studies collection newly added to WP:Taylor & Francis might be of interest to some here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Help requested, please, with the right way to proceed on a thorny article naming and referencing problem. There are two new articles, created by the same editor, on a WWII General who commanded the 113th Airborne: Eldridge Chapman and Elbridge Chapman. The editor created them in that order and in good faith, evidently seeing the second spelling in references and thinking that "Eldridge" was a spelling error on his part. I had originally speeded Elbridge Chapman db-a10, but the article creator makes the valid point at Talk:Elbridge_Chapman that some reasonably WP:RS spell his name "Elbridge", but I can also see WP:RS including book references from mainstream publishing houses like Simon & Schuster where it's spelled "Eldridge". The spellings "Eldridge Chapman" and "General Eldridge Chapman" both return more Google hits, but that's hardly proof of Eldrige being correct. So I've currently tagged them as merge, rather than a speedy, and the two articles are now more or less identical. Can a military history expert please point us at a canonical source verifying his first name? Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 03:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see the not-quite-RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3#Change "result" parameter to "outcome", on a proposition intended to help avoid misinterpretation of a "just the facts" infobox parameter as being a place for extensive, freeform, subjective cause–effect assertions that may be better handled in well-cited, contextual article prose. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
See
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)