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. |
William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Mahamat Nouri is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Omar Khadr is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The coordinators have appointed Kirill Lokshin as a coordinator emeritus to reflect his on-going involvement in the project. The appointment ends concurrently with the other coordinators' term in september 2008. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to resolve this conflict... For BAV 485, I lifted the template from GAZ 46, only to find it did not allow certain specs; neither did the template from BTR 152, nor ZiS-151 (I don't think). Obviously, something needs to be done to resolve this. I'd suggest a broader vehicular template ("military vehicle"?), allowing a wider range of specs, is needed. Trekphiler ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After a discussion on a user's talkpage, I feel I must come here with the issue. Electrobe has been converting some instances of Template:Military navigation to use Template:Navbox and now Template:Navbox Military so as to change the colour scheme. As far as I can see, the new Template:Navbox Military has no additional function other than to have a different colour scheme.
The questions to be asked are: Do we need another military navbox? Does the existing navbox need a new colour parameter? Thoughts would be much appreciated. Woody ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a request for some more users to pop over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy to assess it. So far, there has been something of a dearth of reviewers and it is likely to be closed soon simply due to a lack of interest. Any input would be appreciated, thankyou. Woody ( talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Category:Unassessed military history articles is bursting at the seams. Could editors with a bit of spare time please help reducing the backlog? Many thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, a backlog has built up in the GA nominations for War and military, any help from experienced editors here to review these articles would be very much appreciated. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bowie knife needs cites. The article is tagged as within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Kenneth Dewar is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! There are also several other recent peer review requests that could use additional input. Thanks! Kirill 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's the clues; It's on HMS Cardiff (D108), probably taken around 1982 (the Falklands War). Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mrg3105 has decided to start naming every military unit in the project each with it's country disambigator, whether it has a similar sounding unit or not. Also, he's systematically changing Civil War and Revolutionary war regiments from, for example, 10th Virginia Regiment to 10th Virginia Infantry Regiment, which I believe is incorrect historically - they simply didn't have that word in their titles. Can we get some other opinions here please? I believe that, for example, 10th Missile Squadron does not need a (United States) behind it because there has always only been one 10th (S)MS, and that is what our naming conventions says currently. I do not believe there is a demonstrated need for the convention to change, and I think this needs to be discussed, rather than being re-done by only one editor. Buckshot06 ( talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the image one conjures up on reading that? 500,000 troops leisurely driving down Novgorod's main street!
Given that more than one editor has a concern over the renaming of battle/operations articles, this page appears to be a good place to have a general, wide-ranging discussion on the issue, which will build consensus and allow a widely agreed standard to be followed in future. Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
German convention, outside of large operations with code names, was to use formation/unit operational name + mission objective + date. This is how "Battle of Kiev" was created, because the actual name was (in translation) Army Group Centre advance on Kiev August operations. Seriously, this is what is says on operational orders. For units it would (example) 202nd Infantry division advance on Kramatorsk 12 September 1941, which no doubt would become Battle of Kramatorsk if anyone had chosen to write about it in English. A shorthand also existed like the Army operations north of Kiev in September (as opposed to the Luftwaffe), which included all Army units under the same commander. Sometimes this is seen as (example) Kampfgruppe Manteuffel operations.... These styles are completely intermixed in German-derived accounts, so it is often hard to say what the writer is talking about because invariably a published work is a reduction of a larger volume of research. Moreover as you understand operations on both sides overlapped in timing, form and objectives.
There seems to be some edit warring going on on some articles, where numbers of casualties etc. get changed. First an editor did that without references, now references get added. The editor who changes the numbers did not get warned, nor was discussed with this editor. I am confused whether his number changes are correct, or that one (or both?) of the sources are incorrect. Can I ask people here to take up the discussion with user:Irtehprwn (the number changing editor), user:83.250.40.152 (could be his IP), and user:Shipseggsbasket (who changes numbers back), and to check what needs to be done to the articles? Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit warring is continuing; the sources we are talking about are:
There may be more, but these are three examples. As the involved editors still refuse to discuss, I'd like some specialist to have a look. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How well contextualised a Stub article need to be so it does not get deleted? What are the minimum requirements?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Many articles on military units seem to have interminable lists of former members, what's the general view on how these should be made up? Brought to mind as I've just noticed the size of the list on the Special Air Service article.
Personally if an individual has no article in the repository they probably shouldn't be listed. There are some anomalies, each of the members of the Bravo Two Zero patrol is listed, along with the founders of the Regiment, a few miscellaneous authors etc.
Grateful for some views, my inclination is to cull the majority though.
ALR ( talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you all know the rules now, this is a pic of the "Bristol Group" on the way to the Falklands in May 82. There's a list of the ships on the groups article. The pic was taken by the author from his ship Cardiff, so the tanker either has to be the Bayleaf or the Olna, and the ships being replenished must be one of the two Type 21s or one of the three Type 12Is (or it could be the Type 82 "Bristol"). Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The following lists of veterans have been proposed for deletion:
Lists of veterans of wars/battles/ships/whatever are normally deleted in AfDs as being indiscriminate lists of information and/or duplicates of the relevant categories, and these lists don't seem to be any exception, but they sometimes survive after editing and sourcing. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This a current FA but it has a distinct lack of references. Only 14 in fact. I stumbled across the article and just thought I should bring it to your attention so improvements can be made before it is spotted and goes through FAR. I have no knowledge of the subject itself and thought I could leave it to people who know more about the subject and also because I have not got the required time to make these improvements. Thanks. 02blythed ( talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to remove photocopy shadow form images? The item in question is -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I think the creator of the above article may need some help from the Project. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are about half a dozen articles awaiting copy-editing here. If anyone has some spare time and could help, that would be appreciated. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Current list of articles needing a copy-edit includes:
Do anybody have infobox for a Field Marshall article? I want to add it to Sam Manekshaw's Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyogaerospace ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
These above articles have been nominated for deletion. Does anybody here have any opinion on subject Djln -- Djln ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggest creation of [[Category:Military raids]]. There are certainly enough of them in history-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I get a spam notice in Talk:Operation Bagration when trying to update/insert project templates. The spam notice says - The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://hubpages.com, however, I can't see the link in the page! Can anyone help on this?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
List of naval commanders has been prodded. FYI -- Brad ( talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't find anywhere on your project for requests, these are needed:
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope someone familiar with historical/French army can give me a hand here. At User:Oreo Priest/Bombardment of Brussels#The bombardment I've translated the title "maître d’artillerie", from fr:Bombardement de Bruxelles de 1695 as "master of artillery". Hopefully someone can either OK this or correct it. Thanks. - Oreo Priest talk 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(copied from here) I know this is true, but I can't source it, & it's created some controversy here: carriers as fleet scouts being less valuable/more expendable than BBs, per Mahanian doctrine. If somebody's got a good source, can you put it in the fn on the article page? (If it hasn't been removed again...) Thanx. Trekphiler ( talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bonchurch is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi: could you guys write an article on the idea of the strategic barrage? Googling and looking through Amazon, it seems to be a real term in military history, and still used, eg "The Strategic Barrage". -- 24.184.131.16 ( talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A member of the project, Bedford, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Bedford's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Early thermal weapons is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for James Graham (soldier) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on the Captain article's talk page about converting that article to a dab page. Since the it's tagged as a MILHIST page, I thought I'd mention it here. Cheers. Haus Talk 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Some time in the last 20 years (maybe 5 or 10), the Australian and British Navies changed the shoulder boards of Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral and Admiral from containing 1, 2 and 3 stars to containing 2, 3 and 4 stars. (Refer http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533 and http://www.navy.gov.au/general/ranks.html) Can anyone tell me when this happened? If you can point me to some references, that would be useful too. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to shoulder-boards, not sleeve or collar insignia. The sleeve insignia remains unchanged; it's the shoulder boards that have changed. (I don't think Commonwealth Navies have collar insignia.)
I tried to find the current rank insignia on the RN's official site with no success. - Pardon? Isn't that what's at
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533? Or does the RN have some other official site?
(As for the RNZN, they have a different shoulder board format to both Aus and UK!) Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 07:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So, ROGER DAVIES talk says: "send an email to Gieves and Hawkes" (thanks Roger), and ALR ( talk) says: "I think it was when Commodore was made a substantive rank, some time in the late 90s I think?" (thanks ALR). Doesn't anyone have a reference? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got this reply to an email to library@royalnavalmuseum.org:
Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Noyce, Curator of Artefacts at the Royal Naval Museum (.org) tells me:
Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone considered starting a newsletter for this project? I could start it if no one opposes. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to have mostly inaccurate information - I've got several sources for Soviet units that contradict this page, and at the moment the page isn't sourced. It's been sitting there for years without having been improved. Is there a template I can add saying it is inaccurate, or should I put it up for deletion? If I manage to get hold of a good sourced order of battle I could recreate it, but at the moment I don't have the detailed data necessary. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
While making a thorough research and verifying the sources provided, I not only discovered that Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen was not a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, I also discovered that the article is not an "original" article as required by Wikipedia policy, but an article which infringes the copyrights of the National Timerwolf Association and Time Inc. It is a paste job using content from both sites which is in violation of copyright laws. See the following evidence and judge for yourselves: Terry Allen ©1999 National Timberwolf Association and Terry Allen and His Men Copyright © 2008 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Tony the Marine ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I dont know if this is the correct page to bring this up but should this article not be part of the British Indian Army and not the British Army ? JS1 ( talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion going on over this merge @ WT Ships. Any input would be helpful. -- Brad ( talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the German tank problem? This is aparently a mathematical formula developed by intelligence officers during WWI and, according to Google, is used in math classes today. I was going to speedy delete it as being patent nonsense or for lacking context, but suspect that it might be OK, if only as a redirect. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.
Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.
I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As many of you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Tassafaronga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
At User:TonyTheTiger/Table, I am trying to keep track of my quality contributions by project. I have just added Bob Chappuis and Bump Elliott to the project by adding {{ MILHIST}} tags to their talk pages. I am fairly certain that Chappuis has at least a low level of priority to the project. I am not sure if fairly notable service to the V-12 Navy College Training Program brings an article into the project. Does anyone have any guidance.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone have this book by chance
European Resistance Movements, 1939-1945: A Complete History by Jorgen Haestrup, 1981
Thank you in advance-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen claims that flags should not be used in the military conflict infobox, with references to WP:MILHIST, but I haven't been able to find out where this is written. Is it the case, and if so, why? -- Nidator T / C 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Cardiff (D108) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Twenty-five navy ship categories have been proposed for renaming as follows:
If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thanks. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I posted some queries about Chappuis. His article would still be improved with some of your project's expertise on decorations, units and commands for his infobox? My main concern is his rank. He seems to have attained SGT. and LT. rank by some sources, but http://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=893&mtch=1&cat=all&tf=F&q=Robert+Chappuis&rpp=10&pg=1&rid=1263209 refers to him as a private.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the article on foregrips lacks both a history section and a free, clear image of a foregrip. Finding proper references for this article has also been difficult, and any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks -- Sharkface T/ C 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a bunch of tank pictures (still not done uploading them all) at My Subpage. I dont have the time to find a home for most of these photos so could you guys help. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive Added some more. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you nominate an article for re-assessment , when for example it was rated as stub class and you have added some content that would bring it upto start / B class ? JS1 ( talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the article Battle of Poltava seems to be showing the numbers for the whole battle which ranged over 14 days or something like that, while the article itself is about the day of the actual battle, I could, if you permit me to, change the casualties of the battle to those presented in Peter Englund's book "Poltava".
Björnebacke ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to present a suggestion. My suggestion is to create a tag or something to put on the talk pages of disambuiguation and other non article pages that would be used to gauge the grading of the page. Currently many Dab pages are marked as stubs and start class articles but they really aren't articles and most of them lack a meaningful structure. I believe this would reduce the number of pages that need to be reviewed as articles and would better clarify what their purpose is.-- Kumioko ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An link(see below) to an audio has been added to war elephant. Please check out whether the information provided by this link is useful according to encyclopedic standards (or just a promotional ploy because the author isn't the first one writing a book about war elephants). (Unfortunately, I won't have access to audio capable PCs for some time.)
The link:
Thanks Wandalstouring ( talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A recent NY Times article brought the subject vaguely to my attention, but after seeing an interview with the author, I began to look a bit closer into this. Trevor Paglen, currently seeking his PhD in geography I believe, recently published a book entitled " I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to be Destroyed by Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World" which details dozens of official and unofficial unit patches he's run across in his interviews and investigations into undisclosed Pentagon programs and units. It may be useful, or at the least interesting, and may provide a relatively reliable source on some Black Ops stuff, if anyone is interested. Cromdog ( talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The history section (which was moved from the 106th Rescue Wing by Buckshot) appears to be straight up copy and paste from somewhere, and is almost certainly a copyvio problem. If anyone has any info and could fix it up (even to stub level), it would be appreciated. Cromdog ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Editor Roregan and myself have been chatting about the term "giving quarter" and how that should be handled (you can see the conversation here.) Giving quarter had been redirecting to Mercy, but this was an incomplete treatment of the topic as it did not account for the "laws of war" usage. Roregan has done work to get a mention of this at Surrender (military) and redirected there instead which is a big improvement, but neither of us know much about this topic and we could use someone stopping by that article (or our discussion at my talk page) and providing some additional direction/expertise/sourcing on the topic. Any help would be appreciated. -- Gwguffey ( talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Powhatan Beaty is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to propose adding this sentence at the end of the last paragraph of WP:MILMOS#FLAGS:
Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on NATO needs a fairly significant update (and the maps themselves too). I don't know who should be in charge of it, but I figured that since this is the largest project linked to the article, then there will be a better chance to find somebody interested in doing the work. Nergaal ( talk) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've uploaded a new version of this image
over the existing image (for quality reasons), but it has not transfered this new version to the article here which is still displaying the old, faded version. Can anyone help? Thanks. Rebel Redcoat ( talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The code of {{ WPMILHIST}} has just been updated following a fairly large-scale redesign to include a number of new features, including:
If anyone sees any errors or unexpected behavior from the banner, please let us know! Thanks! Kirill 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For information, I've added a section – WP:MHA#Backlog of articles for tagging by task force – to the Assessment dept and it would be great if editors could drop by there from time to time to clear any build up! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
After my recent and ongoing stressful experiences at Armia Krajowa (I've recently improved the article on what was likely the largest WWII resistance group to an A-class status, but recently edit warring and other issues have led to article's protection) I thought that we are in need for some form of mediation/RfC with regards to milhist articles. I believe that an influx of neutral editors who would be available to quickly review and comment on such issues could stop such editing conflicts from developing and prevent editors from getting overly wikistressed. As usual, normal mediation, RfC or noticeboards can be slow, taking weeks before a single neutral editor appears. Milhist, the most active project, should be able to provide support to its members above this rather poor wiki standard. Perhaps we should create a section, akin to RfC, where we could list milhist articles in need of such input? PS. And yes, any input at Talk:Armia Krajowa will be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The RfC so quickly provided by User:Clio the Muse here Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Soviet_partisans_largest.3F has been largely ignored, and although the claim of Armia Krajowa being the largest in the World has been toned and removed from the lead, the editor User:Piotrus seems to think that consensus can be reached on historical data, and retained the claim as
Such numbers made Armia Krajowa not only the largest of the Polish resistance movements, but among the largest (if not the largest) in WWII-time Europe [a].
despite the many sources provided by the RfC that it was not the largest underground resistance in Europe due to the western part of the Soviet Union, the area of operations of the Soviet partisans, also being in Europe.
Instead of listening to advice, or undertaking further research, the user insists that others should be conducting the research to prove him wrong, although this was already provided by the RfC.
The play with numbers, which swing from 200,000 to 600,000, and average 400,000 according to the article now, i.e. a 100% margin of error in estimation, leads to implications which are as it turns out quite misinforming to the reader because the claim is also made in the article that the
The battles with the Germans, particularly in 1943 and 1944, tied down several German divisions (about 930,000 German soldiers in total)
which is quite difficult to believe because the article elsewhere states that
AK had enough weaponry only for about 32,000 soldiers.[21]
Aside from the claim that nearly 55 infantry division-equivalents of German troops were required to control a dispersed underground resistance of 32,000 (2 divisions), for most of the war the occupied territory was administered by the military security units, and that its composition was county-based, with 80% of the county security companies (Ortskommandanturen) composed on non-German personnel (often formed Soviet POWs). The 930,000 therefore represent the combined strength of the security units commanded by the 5 divisional-level administrative commands (one in Lvov), two regimental-level commands (one in Minsk), three company-level commands (one in Minsk), with a total of about 20 security companies, and the logistics line-of-communications troops of the Army Groups Centre and North (from German OOB 1944, Ian V. Hogg), and not the impression given of 930,000 German combat troops. Even those German troops that were present, were often drawn from the Luftwaffe troops, and not combat formations.
I appreciate the desire of the editor in question to display the significance of the Polish resistance during the Second World War, but there must be limits to how far that can be taken within the scope of data available. While undoubtedly Armia Krajowa did have a large membership, and those armed did fight the German and non-German troops of occupation, and did contribute to the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front by creating a friction in the Wehrmacht logistics administration, it seems to me that perspective and context need to be maintained before the article can be rated to A, or even increase in its current rating.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm a new user and third-year history student at a British university, and I'm attempting to work on Airborne forces, and I was hoping someone might give the article a look over and help me compile a list of what needs to be done in the Talk Page. Any help would really be appreciated. I'm especially concerned with adding citations, which I'm having difficulty with. Thanks! Skinny87 ( talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, following a request I posted here, I feel (in hindsight) the change to "belligerant" was a bad idea in the conflict infobox was a bad idea. It was done in attempt appease warring sides on the Iran-Iraq War article (although apparently it's been mentioned beforehand), unsuprisingly they're still warring lol. On a more serious note, it is wrong to change a template that is shown on loads of articles, because of an edit war occuring on just one article. The problem is with the Iran-Iraq war crowd, not the template.
Why does this matter? Well this "POV push" idea of adding countries who supported other countries to infoboxes is starting to spread. The sources for these are often opinions in themselves and the criteria for "support" is so extensive that pretty much every country could appear on the list on both sides! These infoboxes were made to summarise data for quick reading, not to argue over the finer points of conflcit, that's what the article is for (you can't sum up a complex situation as "support" with just a flag symbol). Ryan4314 ( talk) 09:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
But these do have different meanings in international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention uses "combatant" to refer to individuals, as, for example:
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions...
In contrast, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/150-110007?OpenDocument, Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, refers to belligerents as groups:
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land #Section I : On belligerents #Chapter I : On the qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3. To carry arms openly; and 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
I will admit I am not a fan of infoboxes in general, but I would prefer that they use the terminology of generally accepted international law, except, perhaps, when the Bush Administration is interpreting. :-( Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the change to "belligerent" addresses some problems but creates others. A basic challenge here is that the infobox is used from everything from world wars involving modern states to little raids between tribal factions. The terminology used in modern international law has little relevance to numerous pre-modern, small-scale conflicts that took place before the idea of the "state" emerged. I'd prefer that the field be renamed to the much more flexible Opponents, or Primary Opponents if we want to weed out the excessive listings we often see. — Kevin Myers 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me get away from Iran-Iraq, and take two examples that are typical of modern wars, with many participants at various levels. World War II doesn't have flags at all, but wikilinks to Allies and Axis. I think that's appropriate. If you were going to use flags, where would Italy go, before and after its surrender? Where would the Soviet Union be in August 1939, June 1941, and April 1945?
Next, look at Korean War. Do all the flags help understanding? Are the categories correct, especially putting the Soviet Union as a belligerent? I recognize the Soviet Union sent massive supplies as well as advisors, but I tend to think of the belligerents as the countries at the cease-fire or surrender conference table. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This dicussion seems to have died down, with most support, I think, for keeping the field named "Belligerents". We could use some comments on Dashiellx's idea for a new optional field named "Forces engaged", or something similar. This could be useful where the forces engaged are different than the belligerents, as in his example of the Battle of Trenton, or when you want to list the state as the "belligerent", and the army (or whatever) as the "force engaged". One downside is that the field would be open to overuse, with people trying to cram entire orders of battle into the infobox (which they do sometimes anyway). Thoughts? — Kevin Myers 05:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The new version of insurgency contains almost everything that was in the old version, but in a more formal context and with supplemental material. Unfortunately, politicians and news talking heads try to make "insurgency" a new concept specific to Iraq, or restrict its definition, or separate a wide range of actions that are reasonably considered insurgency. One important point is that terrorism does not necessarily equate to insurgency or vice versa.
I'm sorry, but I cannot find a simple and universal definition of insurgency, much as some people would like -- at least without violating WP:OR. General-purpose dictionary definitions are oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
See also counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense (FID), unconventional warfare, and counterterrorism. These articles are in varying shape, but should be considered together to minimize overlap and maximize appropriate cross-referencing. I did move some, but perhaps not enough, material out of FID. Note the history section toward the end of FID; while FID is a US term, there is some specific tie-in to British and French approaches.
Knowledgeable constructive criticism, and editing in some cases, is more than welcome. This is a lot of material to reconcile in one's head.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While I signed up to improve unconventional warfare, unless I interpret it to be US-specific, where UW is a specific mission of United States Army Special Forces, I'm wondering if it even makes sense to have an article on this topic. There are much more extensive articles on guerilla warfare, insurgency (disclaimer: I did significant recent rewrite), asymmetric warfare, etc. While I forget which tool shows which articles reference an article, I did notice that several articles that reference UW seem to do so via an article by Tomes, in a reputable journal, but I think that has questionable elements.
So -- is it reasonable to redirect UW to the US definition, just as it has been pointed out that foreign internal defense is largely the US doctrine for counterinsurgency? Things aren't always pure, as FID, much of which I wrote, does examine related British and French doctrine and history.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
While I think the titles would be somewhat awkward, I wonder if the answer to this sort of argument, which often leads to so many globalised examples that there is no concise definition for a specific term, is to create articles that are explicitly about a national doctrine: "Soviet doctrine for maneuver(armored?) warfare", "Mao/China's doctrine for guerilla warfare," "US doctrine for unconventional warfare (specifically guerilla)", "Israeli special reconnaissance doctrine," etc.
Part of the problem is that of the hundreds of current and important historic militaries, relatively few have formal doctrines. There is also the issue of multinational doctrine, certainly NATO, and possibly ASEAN for antipiracy and a few other missions.
I don't have a specific answer, but I am certainly not willing to make a coherent article-in-progress subordinate to a "globalised" introduction that I consider misleading or wrong. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The anon objecting to UW continues to make observations both disparaging and of low semantic content. While I was able to get some help from the Wikiquette noticeboard, there are more important things to do than argue that "unconventional warfare is the opposite of conventional warfare" is, perhaps, not the most elegant definition ever offered.
Building on Buckshot's observation that it is useful to identify specific national/multinational doctrines in parallel with more global and conceptual frameworks, I'd like to make a proposal. Where I'd most like help is on less awkward names for national doctrines. Let me offer a framework for special operations, both general and national:
Others? Military government vice civil affairs? Counterproliferation? Psychological operations?
Are there other national doctrines where articles would be logical, always recognizing that the U.S. publishes more of its doctrine than, it seems, anyone else? It would be frightening to be in the area of a kinetic strike with a full U.S. doctrinal library.
I do have material on more historical British and French counterinsurgency, at the end of foreign internal defense.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's some concern here about inclusion/deletion. Can I request a "tank tactics" page, if one doesn't already exist? Also, here, suggests to me something like "tank camo" or "vehicle camo" could be of use. Trekphiler ( talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This may not be the best example, but tank tactics (and design) changed radically over history, and even among nations at a given point in history. For example, the U.K. and U.S. main battle tanks are among the best in the world, but the two countries have some fairly strong differences in armament (well, ammunition carried).
Some WWII issues included the distinction between "cruiser" and "infantry tanks", and, not well understood in WWI, that tanks are more a breakthrough than an infantry support weapon.
I could see an article about tank tactics (or some other word) that sets out a structure for the doctrinal differences, and then (my preference) articles, or at least sections, that deal with the implementation of doctrine in a given time and place.
This broad issue is very much of interest to me at present, as I have one skirmish about a national doctrine-specific article unconventional warfare when a deliberately global one exists ( insurgency). I've also asked the question of whether there should be a general article in issues about air campaigns, separating the national interpretations ( JP233 for offensive counter-air)?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we have some more eyes here. One user is adding obscure info saying that the US motivation for the war was some oil deposit in VN. Vn has hardly any oil deposits. Also, there is another guy saying that the result is "peace with honor" - This is about the 3rd most viewed MILHIST article I think... about 40k reads per day IIRC. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a page called Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II which lists all the translated Soviet names for their operations. For reasons to do with the history of creating pages Talk:Prague Offensive became a general discussion page for pages which are called after Soviet WWII Operations (see the list under Talk:Prague Offensive#Prague Offensive Operation). After the battle of Kursk as the initiative on the Eastern Front moved in favour of the Soviets, it makes sense to map articles onto their initiatives as is done in most histories of the period and using names that reflect that, such as the Prague Offensive and this does not seem to me unreasonable, particularly when there is often comparatively little written about many of the campaigns in English language histories. There are of course exceptions, where there is a lot written on some Soviet Operations which give us common names like that for the " Battle of Berlin".
mrg3105 has suggested that Prague Offensive be renamed to Prague Strategic Offensive Operation (see Talk:Prague Offensive#Prague Strategic Offensive Operation) and taking this as a test case I would appreciate it if other interested editors would voice their opinions on such a move on that talk page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put an RFC onto this issue please see Talk:Prague Offensive#RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation and I think it would be a very good idea if more editors would enter the debate because at the moment a few editors are discussing whether to make changes that effect lots of articles. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you all again, but looking through various articles, such as Invasion of Normandy and Operation Market Garden I find myself confused. The former article lists the Bibliography and then Further Reading as something completely different, wheras the latter article only has References and no Bibliography. I'm rewriting Operation Varsity but frankly I'm now confused over the correct structure I should take in regards to the References section of it. I've currently edited it based on the Normandy article, but is that correct? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Skinny87 ( talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was also wondering what the guidelines were on Orders of Battle in articles. The previous editor of Operation Varsity has added one, but I'm unsure of whether they're actually required or vital - are they? Skinny87 ( talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I know you all love these games really, anyone know what type of mortar this is?
I took it at the Imperial War Museum, it was used by Argentina during the Falklands, I think it could either be a 60mm, 81mm or a 120mm. Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1936 (or maybe '33, not quite sure), the USMC decided to stop calling their regiments regiments, instead labeling them 'Marines' e.g. 1st Marine regiment --> 1st Marines or 7th Marine Regiment --> 7th Marines. Remember when Chesty said "You're the 1st Marines! Not all the communists in hell can overrun you!" So why do people keep addressing them in articles as Marine Regiments? The only reason I can think of besides ignorance (NOT stupidity) is to make it more understandable to persons not well aquainted with the USMC. If this is the case, I don't support it, but I can at least understand it. All feedback is appreciated. -- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to bring to this project's attention the edit war that's been going on at Battle of Princeton. Two editors have been going back and forth about the number of casualties and how many troops were initially involved. If someone here could take a look at the page, that'd be great. The discussion is at Talk:Battle of Princeton. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago I requested a move from the then title of 'People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)' to a title more compliant to Wikipedia naming policy. The naming issue was resolved somewhat irregularly, which I had tried to avoid as I anticipated pro-PRC editors continuing to attempt to obfuscate the name of the article, which they seem to be doing. This might benefit from some more experienced eyes on it. John Nevard ( talk) 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! Good luck and happy tagging, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|
The peer review for Battle of the Afsluitdijk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the articles needing expert attention, and found Offensive counter air attack. With a fumbling of fingers on my keyboard, I lost it, searched, and found Offensive counter air. Both are stubs.
Some time ago, I found references to the terms and other related ones in various places, and thought they were inconsistent with one another. Next, I found an article aerial warfare, with its own approach, which struck me as more historical than doctrinal.
As Gene Wilder said in Blazing Saddles, "then we are awake. We are very confused." Mr. Wilder is entitled to the editorial "we", but I shall say that when I am confused about what I read, I may write until I have clarified that which confused me.
In my userspace, I wrote User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, commenting "The Air Campaign is the title of COL John Warden's book, which may or may not be an appropriate title for the article, but gives the flavor. This article will start with principles of targeting (Warden's adaption of Clausewitz's centers of gravity), breakthrough technical advances (PGMs, ground control of PGM in close support, low observability, network, AESA), and then mission families (strike, offensive support to ground operations, counter-air, ISR, transport)."
Clearly, we do not need two almost identical stubs on offensive counter air. If others agree that aerial warfare is historical, do we need a general article on doctrine? If there is some consensus that is useful, I can move my sandbox draft to mainspace, work on it more in userspace, or forget the whole thing.
Suggestions?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got a historian working on a history of this unit who can use better advice than I can give him. The thread is on my talk page, but please respond on his talk page. Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any guidelines for project tagging? I've seen a couple of articles tagged in the last couple of days that only have a fairly tangential relationship with their subject. Brian Horrocks was tagged for the Irish wikiproject (he was in Ireland during the Anglo-Irish war for a few months in the 1920s) and Montgomery was tagged for the LGBT project (there are allegations made by Nigel Hamilton, one of his biographers, that he was a repressed homosexual and some pretty vague stuff about a relationship with a swiss boy whom he alleges Montgomery was attracted to). We could end up with inumerable projects tagging some subjects. Horrocks could be tagged with France, Russia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany if we take it to extremes. Leithp 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle for the Hague is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
Just dropping a note that I've started a new stub. I am aware of other models than the US MICLIC, but I can't find any other articles here on WP. Perhaps those who are in the know can write/link these articles, and expand the stub. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for someone to do a quick fact check on the WWII section of Bert Trautmann, an article about a man who served in the Luftwaffe during the Second World War, became a British PoW, and then proceeded to have a successful sporting career in England. I want to make sure no glaring errors about the events of the war are present, since my sources approach the subject from a sporting viewpoint, not a military one. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is in a bad state, for such an important military event it is a shame it has been allowed to continue in this pov ridden state. I recently tried to start by rewriting the intro thinking it would serve as a good point to write the rest of the article, but this has been repeatedly reverted to the usual pov soapbox rant found in these types of conflicts. I would appreciate editors to weigh in and take a look at what I've written for themselves and leave a comment on the talk page. Thanks, -- A.Garnet ( talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A CFD is under way for Category:Massacres by Americans. The scope of the discussion is actually much broader, as it necessarily involves the question of whether to create a new category tree for "Massacres committed by country Xyz". Currently we have categories for "Massacres in country Xyz", which is, of course, quite different. Please join this very important discussion. Cgingold ( talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
AK-47 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 03:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm not doing anything wrong, but I have a little time to kill and I thought I'd review some of the Unassessed articles and rate them. I know I'm quite a new editor, but I think I'm assessing them correctly. I just assessed [4] and if that's been assessed wrongly, then please let me know! Skinny87 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(od)Skinny87, if you've ever got time on your hands and are looking for things to do, consider Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. There are over 11,500 articles in that category and it's going to take all hands to the plow to put them in the right places...! Buckshot06 ( talk) 03:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an open RfC on the naming of missile and rocket articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.84.13 ( talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Verrières Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( P) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 07:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Erich Hartmann; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Appomattox Station is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As it stands there are currently 3 different info boxes which cover this period:
Well it just seems a bit too much and they all seem to overlap, am sure these could be cut down to one or two infoboxes. Any views on this?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The MOD web site for all its faults does name its Brigades as follows:
4th Mechanized Brigade
1 Mechanised Brigade
12 Mechanised Brigade
My question is do we follow suit ?
have MECHANIZED & MECHANISED - 4th with TH and 1 and 12 without the ST & TH JS1 ( talk) 14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that the National Service section on the United Kingdom be separated, and a dedicated page be created similar to the National Service in Singapore. There has also been a suggestion to incorporate the Bevin Boys into this new page as well. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi
There is a deletion discussion on the military shopping privileges scheme for Australian defence force members ( DefCom Australia). In looking at the articles on the US scheme , Base exchange, and the similar Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes I notice that there is no category that covers these in a general sense and nor does there seem to be a category or article that talks about remuneration. The closest I can get is Category:Military life and perhaps the stub Personal financial benefits of military service. I suspect the latter is worth expanding. Any comments about the category and applying it to the articles mentioned - or should there be a sub cat or should they be in Category:Military Pay and perhaps should that perhaps be Category:Military pay and benefits ?-- Matilda talk 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor just dumped a bunch of material in there and it needs checking out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that 1983 nuclear war scare be moved back to Able Archer 83. All editers are invited to participate in the discussion on this matter on the talk page for 1983 nulcear war scare. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a specialist opinion on whether Dutch Acadie is a correct article. Serious concerns have been raised about its factual accuracy, and therefore I would appreciate opinions on the subject. Thank you, PeterSymonds | talk 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There is only one person who for some unknown reason believes this article in not accurate. In fact, he thinks the action and the "colony" are not important enough for an article, that was clearly not true on the Dutch wikipedia. Here are some of my references.
http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Treaty.htm
http://www.acadian-cajun.com/acadia3.htm
http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Dates.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dutch+conquest+of+acadie&source=web&ots=zjDvps52MG&sig=rRkT2y5TLm3Oaru_ACo2o1OtSmM&hl=en#PPA127,M1
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
[5] and [6]. Every link clearly states that the dutch attacked two forts in the entire colony of Acadia, which I would like to add represented a small fraction of the colony, took them over, claimed Acadia as theres then abandon the forts in little under 6 weeks because of an unability to defend them. They later conceded any claims to Acadia in a further treaty. Basically to be the idea that taking over two forts, claiming a the whole colony, including Cape Breton by the way, which had the french's major fort, Louisburg, and was almost 800 km from the action, then leaving without even trying to settle, kinda means you give up claims to that region. This article, and this person, claim that Acadia at some point was taken over or conceded to the Dutch, when this is clearly far from teh case. Regardless of our constant questioning and my begging for a valid precedent so we can have a discussion he stopped talking about this in the discussions of the Dutch Empire and created a wikipedia article of its own, even though there is a Dutch Colonys in the amercans article. His insistance on using questionable sources that tend to favour my agrument on inspection coupled with his refusing to accept that Wikipedia isn't to present what you believe should be included but what a collection of people can an understanding from have driven me half mad trying to explain to him. Also, when I illusitrate a flaw in any agrument, I get accused of "dodging" the question... its gone in circles. Please, someone weight in althought I doubt it will influence him.- Kirkoconnell ( talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is much more detailed. You can continue to deny the fact and say they were never there but it isn't going to make it true. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
I have listed Dutch Acadie for deletion. WP:OR at its finest. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know, this wikiproject has nearly fifty task forces. While some are very active, others are very small and sleepy. The coordinators have been discussing ways of making them more effective.
The basic idea is that coordinators will "adopt" task forces with a view to helping them take on new initiatives and responsibilities though it will be left entirely to members of individual task forces to decide what to do. These include:
The idea here is to create and develop task force portals. These are not hugely time-consuming and provide a visible task force presence.
some ideas here include (1) inviting TF members to introduce a wiki-friend from outside Milhist and (2) putting messages/reminders in on the talk pages of related wikiprojects (ie French TF in Wikiproject France etc).
We have about twenty old FAs (they're commented out in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Showcase) with citation (and other) problems. One proposal was a task force-based drive to improve them.
This involves TF members selecting articles within the TF's scope to take to A or FA standard.
This involves monitoring progress monthly by updating the task force's to-do box.
This is aimed at reducing Milhist backlogs. By handling articles needing graphics or copyediting or whatever at task force level, we make this easier - and less daunting - to manage. The idea is also to invite specific editors with specialist skills to work on specific aspects of named articles.
As a first step, the following coordinators have "adopted" the following task forces.
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 36th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!} Kirill ( prof) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an on-going problem at Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, an editor is continually creating sockpuppets to insert contentious material regarding Montgomery's relationship with a child into the article. The editor in question seems to be DavidYork71 ( talk · contribs), a previously banned editor. Extra eyes would be appreciated. Leithp 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for John Emilius Fauquier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Numerous reverts of French flag icons in this Battle of Fontenoy and other articles of the period. Can someone intervene? Tttom1 ( talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
I think the WWII article is close to being ready for FA-submission, but I've stumbled into some writers block and am having difficulty with the last bit. Could some willing writer take a look at World War II/temp and help me finish the last sub-section "Advances in technology and warfare"? Oberiko ( talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After lengthy discussions, the coordinators have decided that the usual four-day review period for A-Class reviews may be extended by up to three days (ie up to seven days in total) in the following circumstances:
The full text is here. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Underground nuclear testing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I do not have time for what Philip seems to think is "a game of consensus", I would like to ask him to support his repeated reversions of moves with some evidence of the name "Battle of Memel" in any language; I'll help with German - Einschließung Memels (Oktober 1944 bis Januar 1945)
I post here so as "to draw in a larger group of editors" on Philips' advice, and will wait while he searches for the source in English for the "Battle of Memel" although "Geographic battle names do not need a source" according to him
I will also point out, as the German name suggests, in order there to have been a "battle", at least one side had to be on the offensive, and the German troops were not-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[7] has been repeatedly vandalising airborne-related articles, although bizarrely only ever to enter fictional cmpaigns into infoboxes or assertions that airborne divisions participated in campaigns that they did not. Can something be done about them? I'm afraid I have no idea what to do, alhtough I do try and repair whatever vandalism they do. Thanks Skinny87 ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Template:FalklandsWarProj ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. - MBK 004 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Please note that I am unable to contribute anything useful to these myself.) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Special Operations Command is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I just wanted to give you all a warning that Victory in Europe Day has been linked on Fark.com's main page. I've already added the high-traffic tag to the talk page, but expect a lot of vandalism today. - JPINFV ( talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Forţele Aeriene Regale ale României → Royal Romanian Air Force —( Discuss)— as per Use English for organisations with established English names -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}} breaks if given a class=start
parameter.
See Template talk:WPMILHIST#Start_scrambles_banner.3F
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I was updating information on this class of ship and I noticed that your project tag isn't displaying properly on the talk pages for the individual ships of this class (USS Sampson, USS Rowan etc.) Shinerunner ( talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check at Talk:Yamato class battleship. Somehow our template is malformed and the two of the projects aren't showing up. I'm oblivious to what seems to be wrong. - MBK 004 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
After trying for 45 minutes to get our template added to the World in COnflict page I finally gave up, it is showing up as hugely malformed. Can someone please figure out how to fix it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody decided to drop the permitted node count down by a factor of 20, breaking all the sub-template transclusions used in the Start-Class version. It's been fixed now, apparently. Kirill ( prof) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This photo, Image:German advance (1914).jpg, is currently being used on two articles, Battle of St. Quentin (1914) and Great Retreat, with the figures being identified as British in one and German in the other. Kirill, who uploaded it, says the figures were identified as German on the website he found it. However, to my very untrained eye, they look more like British uniforms. Can anyone shed some light on this? Leithp 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the commons page and the caption to say that it shows British troops. Leithp 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Main Agency of Automobiles and Tanks of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union , this Articlde is included in a section I am doing for TAG & ASSESS 2008.
Apart from the never ending name its rated as start but there is very little content and I was going to re-assess as a stub. I do not believe that even with a lot of work it would ever be anything more then start class, so I started thinking could it merge with another Article? I tried to locate a Russian MOD Article to see if it was suitable but with no success at present. Any Suggestions. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Late Roman army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was searching through projects that have articles tagged for notability, specifically articles related to Mexico. I noticed during this search that the Military History project had numerous articles on munitions as tagged for notability. Can I remove these tags or is each piece of equipment need to show a cause for notability, and what is a basic understanding of what is notable in that regard? -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The featured article process is currently very short of reviewers. The process is about consensus – not !voting – and "drive-by" reviews that simply say oppose or support are not given much weight. Instead, reviews should be brief critiques, focusing on article strengths and weaknesses.
In particular, the following articles, within our scope, need review:
Thank you in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this rather odd article which is presently a grab bag of distasteful incidents in military history (loosely defined). The article contains examples as diverse as the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (which, we're informed, would be a considered a war crime today, but was normal for warfare of the time) and the Basra prison incident together with a few decidedly uncontroversial atrocities with limited military involvement such as The Holocaust and The Killing Fields (where's the controversy here? - almost every sane person agrees that these were terrible crimes). Does anyone think that this is salvageable? Nick Dowling ( talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There is some tautology between Rome against the Alamanni and the Roman-Alamannic Wars in Germanic Wars. Any fixing? -- Brand спойт 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for featured article status. We received generally positive reviews, but quite a lot of comments which weren't addressed within a week, and the nomination was archived. Another issue was that there weren't enough reviewers prepared to trawl through an article of that length and depth to review it.
So,
- Kieran ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 17th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!-- ROGER DAVIES talk 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kenneth Dewar is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Battle of the Bulge is indicated as being a Featured Article, but to be honest I wouldn't even put it at GA Status. Entire sections are completely without references, there is a large Popular Culture section, and it needs a good copyedit. I hope I'm not being too presumptious by asking how the article could be downgraded? I certainly want to work on it and get it back up to FA status, but in its present condition to label it as so is just not right. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 13th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
User:FayssalF did a great listing of the most visited articles in the project for Feb 08, archived somewhere in archive 78. (WW2, WW1, and Che Guevara were I think the top three). Might I suggest that we examine the logs over a period of a few months, come up with a listing of the 10 most consistently visited articles, and think about ways to improve them as a priority? Comments welcome... Buckshot06 ( talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
<--What we really need is a focused article on how Che driving a Tiger through a trench caused global warming. :D It would guarantee WP would never need to worry about paying for capacity again. =] Trekphiler ( talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(od) The data is currently only available for February 2008. The top ten then were:
rank | Article | # Hits |
---|---|---|
37 | World War II | 674737 |
67 | World War I | 515533 |
123 | Che Guevara | 387585 |
157 | Vietnam War | 338267 |
174 | American Civil War | 324616 |
243 | Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | 284549 |
332 | Napoleon I of France | 241671 |
370 | Julius Caesar | 230835 |
414 | Alexander the Great | 220542 |
432 | Cold War | 215352 |
(od) Perhaps the way forward is a Top-Ten task force, specifically to deal with this. The key idea would be to have no more than ten articles in its remit. The list above could initially form the core ten, with the core list being as new data comes available and as articles hit the desired quality targets. This would be quite separate to any larger core article improvement scheme. Thoughts? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a fantastic idea. By having a dedicated group of people working on our most prominant articles, not only would we be enhancing Wikipedia in the most visible way we can, but I believe this would also lead to the adoption of (fairly) standard article structures. The latter would not only make reader transition from article-to-article far easier, but would likely have a trickle-down effect that would benefit all our articles. Oberiko ( talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What does everyone think about calling it the Action Department? If we can settle on a name, I can set the basics up. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if we can come up with a really good name for the proposed new department, see #Moving on above. It's basically a department to house teams for special projects: Top Ten article improvement; Nelson's birthday etc. A name similar to the simple and self-explanatory Logistics dept would be good. The person coming up with the best name gets the What a Brilliant Idea barnstar. Ideas so far include:
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have two suggestions for a name:
Anyway, those are my two suggestions. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Special projects department?. Supports or opposes below please ... -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I request as a first step the coordinators designate the most suitable place/page for a 'super-peer-review' of WW1, WW2, and Che Guevara? Would the WP:MHSP talk page be best, or elsewhere? Defining a structure that would pass professional historians' reviews is also important; if we can get the structure right and keep the crufters, vandals etc out we'll have won half the battle already. Buckshot06( prof) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Mahamat Nouri is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Omar Khadr is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The coordinators have appointed Kirill Lokshin as a coordinator emeritus to reflect his on-going involvement in the project. The appointment ends concurrently with the other coordinators' term in september 2008. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to resolve this conflict... For BAV 485, I lifted the template from GAZ 46, only to find it did not allow certain specs; neither did the template from BTR 152, nor ZiS-151 (I don't think). Obviously, something needs to be done to resolve this. I'd suggest a broader vehicular template ("military vehicle"?), allowing a wider range of specs, is needed. Trekphiler ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After a discussion on a user's talkpage, I feel I must come here with the issue. Electrobe has been converting some instances of Template:Military navigation to use Template:Navbox and now Template:Navbox Military so as to change the colour scheme. As far as I can see, the new Template:Navbox Military has no additional function other than to have a different colour scheme.
The questions to be asked are: Do we need another military navbox? Does the existing navbox need a new colour parameter? Thoughts would be much appreciated. Woody ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a request for some more users to pop over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy to assess it. So far, there has been something of a dearth of reviewers and it is likely to be closed soon simply due to a lack of interest. Any input would be appreciated, thankyou. Woody ( talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Category:Unassessed military history articles is bursting at the seams. Could editors with a bit of spare time please help reducing the backlog? Many thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, a backlog has built up in the GA nominations for War and military, any help from experienced editors here to review these articles would be very much appreciated. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bowie knife needs cites. The article is tagged as within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Kenneth Dewar is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! There are also several other recent peer review requests that could use additional input. Thanks! Kirill 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's the clues; It's on HMS Cardiff (D108), probably taken around 1982 (the Falklands War). Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mrg3105 has decided to start naming every military unit in the project each with it's country disambigator, whether it has a similar sounding unit or not. Also, he's systematically changing Civil War and Revolutionary war regiments from, for example, 10th Virginia Regiment to 10th Virginia Infantry Regiment, which I believe is incorrect historically - they simply didn't have that word in their titles. Can we get some other opinions here please? I believe that, for example, 10th Missile Squadron does not need a (United States) behind it because there has always only been one 10th (S)MS, and that is what our naming conventions says currently. I do not believe there is a demonstrated need for the convention to change, and I think this needs to be discussed, rather than being re-done by only one editor. Buckshot06 ( talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the image one conjures up on reading that? 500,000 troops leisurely driving down Novgorod's main street!
Given that more than one editor has a concern over the renaming of battle/operations articles, this page appears to be a good place to have a general, wide-ranging discussion on the issue, which will build consensus and allow a widely agreed standard to be followed in future. Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
German convention, outside of large operations with code names, was to use formation/unit operational name + mission objective + date. This is how "Battle of Kiev" was created, because the actual name was (in translation) Army Group Centre advance on Kiev August operations. Seriously, this is what is says on operational orders. For units it would (example) 202nd Infantry division advance on Kramatorsk 12 September 1941, which no doubt would become Battle of Kramatorsk if anyone had chosen to write about it in English. A shorthand also existed like the Army operations north of Kiev in September (as opposed to the Luftwaffe), which included all Army units under the same commander. Sometimes this is seen as (example) Kampfgruppe Manteuffel operations.... These styles are completely intermixed in German-derived accounts, so it is often hard to say what the writer is talking about because invariably a published work is a reduction of a larger volume of research. Moreover as you understand operations on both sides overlapped in timing, form and objectives.
There seems to be some edit warring going on on some articles, where numbers of casualties etc. get changed. First an editor did that without references, now references get added. The editor who changes the numbers did not get warned, nor was discussed with this editor. I am confused whether his number changes are correct, or that one (or both?) of the sources are incorrect. Can I ask people here to take up the discussion with user:Irtehprwn (the number changing editor), user:83.250.40.152 (could be his IP), and user:Shipseggsbasket (who changes numbers back), and to check what needs to be done to the articles? Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit warring is continuing; the sources we are talking about are:
There may be more, but these are three examples. As the involved editors still refuse to discuss, I'd like some specialist to have a look. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How well contextualised a Stub article need to be so it does not get deleted? What are the minimum requirements?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Many articles on military units seem to have interminable lists of former members, what's the general view on how these should be made up? Brought to mind as I've just noticed the size of the list on the Special Air Service article.
Personally if an individual has no article in the repository they probably shouldn't be listed. There are some anomalies, each of the members of the Bravo Two Zero patrol is listed, along with the founders of the Regiment, a few miscellaneous authors etc.
Grateful for some views, my inclination is to cull the majority though.
ALR ( talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you all know the rules now, this is a pic of the "Bristol Group" on the way to the Falklands in May 82. There's a list of the ships on the groups article. The pic was taken by the author from his ship Cardiff, so the tanker either has to be the Bayleaf or the Olna, and the ships being replenished must be one of the two Type 21s or one of the three Type 12Is (or it could be the Type 82 "Bristol"). Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 20th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The following lists of veterans have been proposed for deletion:
Lists of veterans of wars/battles/ships/whatever are normally deleted in AfDs as being indiscriminate lists of information and/or duplicates of the relevant categories, and these lists don't seem to be any exception, but they sometimes survive after editing and sourcing. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This a current FA but it has a distinct lack of references. Only 14 in fact. I stumbled across the article and just thought I should bring it to your attention so improvements can be made before it is spotted and goes through FAR. I have no knowledge of the subject itself and thought I could leave it to people who know more about the subject and also because I have not got the required time to make these improvements. Thanks. 02blythed ( talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to remove photocopy shadow form images? The item in question is -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Folks, I think the creator of the above article may need some help from the Project. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are about half a dozen articles awaiting copy-editing here. If anyone has some spare time and could help, that would be appreciated. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Current list of articles needing a copy-edit includes:
Do anybody have infobox for a Field Marshall article? I want to add it to Sam Manekshaw's Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyogaerospace ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
These above articles have been nominated for deletion. Does anybody here have any opinion on subject Djln -- Djln ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggest creation of [[Category:Military raids]]. There are certainly enough of them in history-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I get a spam notice in Talk:Operation Bagration when trying to update/insert project templates. The spam notice says - The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://hubpages.com, however, I can't see the link in the page! Can anyone help on this?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
List of naval commanders has been prodded. FYI -- Brad ( talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't find anywhere on your project for requests, these are needed:
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope someone familiar with historical/French army can give me a hand here. At User:Oreo Priest/Bombardment of Brussels#The bombardment I've translated the title "maître d’artillerie", from fr:Bombardement de Bruxelles de 1695 as "master of artillery". Hopefully someone can either OK this or correct it. Thanks. - Oreo Priest talk 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(copied from here) I know this is true, but I can't source it, & it's created some controversy here: carriers as fleet scouts being less valuable/more expendable than BBs, per Mahanian doctrine. If somebody's got a good source, can you put it in the fn on the article page? (If it hasn't been removed again...) Thanx. Trekphiler ( talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Bonchurch is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi: could you guys write an article on the idea of the strategic barrage? Googling and looking through Amazon, it seems to be a real term in military history, and still used, eg "The Strategic Barrage". -- 24.184.131.16 ( talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A member of the project, Bedford, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Bedford's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Early thermal weapons is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 11:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for James Graham (soldier) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on the Captain article's talk page about converting that article to a dab page. Since the it's tagged as a MILHIST page, I thought I'd mention it here. Cheers. Haus Talk 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Some time in the last 20 years (maybe 5 or 10), the Australian and British Navies changed the shoulder boards of Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral and Admiral from containing 1, 2 and 3 stars to containing 2, 3 and 4 stars. (Refer http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533 and http://www.navy.gov.au/general/ranks.html) Can anyone tell me when this happened? If you can point me to some references, that would be useful too. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to shoulder-boards, not sleeve or collar insignia. The sleeve insignia remains unchanged; it's the shoulder boards that have changed. (I don't think Commonwealth Navies have collar insignia.)
I tried to find the current rank insignia on the RN's official site with no success. - Pardon? Isn't that what's at
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533? Or does the RN have some other official site?
(As for the RNZN, they have a different shoulder board format to both Aus and UK!) Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk) 07:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So, ROGER DAVIES talk says: "send an email to Gieves and Hawkes" (thanks Roger), and ALR ( talk) says: "I think it was when Commodore was made a substantive rank, some time in the late 90s I think?" (thanks ALR). Doesn't anyone have a reference? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got this reply to an email to library@royalnavalmuseum.org:
Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Noyce, Curator of Artefacts at the Royal Naval Museum (.org) tells me:
Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone considered starting a newsletter for this project? I could start it if no one opposes. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to have mostly inaccurate information - I've got several sources for Soviet units that contradict this page, and at the moment the page isn't sourced. It's been sitting there for years without having been improved. Is there a template I can add saying it is inaccurate, or should I put it up for deletion? If I manage to get hold of a good sourced order of battle I could recreate it, but at the moment I don't have the detailed data necessary. Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
While making a thorough research and verifying the sources provided, I not only discovered that Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen was not a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, I also discovered that the article is not an "original" article as required by Wikipedia policy, but an article which infringes the copyrights of the National Timerwolf Association and Time Inc. It is a paste job using content from both sites which is in violation of copyright laws. See the following evidence and judge for yourselves: Terry Allen ©1999 National Timberwolf Association and Terry Allen and His Men Copyright © 2008 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Tony the Marine ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I dont know if this is the correct page to bring this up but should this article not be part of the British Indian Army and not the British Army ? JS1 ( talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion going on over this merge @ WT Ships. Any input would be helpful. -- Brad ( talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the German tank problem? This is aparently a mathematical formula developed by intelligence officers during WWI and, according to Google, is used in math classes today. I was going to speedy delete it as being patent nonsense or for lacking context, but suspect that it might be OK, if only as a redirect. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Apparently, this was triggered by a bot that detected a copyvio of something I hadn't finished paraphrasing -- unfortunately, I took the text out of userspace too soon.
Now, the bot is happy, but several people seem convinced the subject can't be covered fairly. For those unfamiliar with the overall design of these articles, see User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq. You can see various drafts from that section; apparently, I have to be in better shape before moving to mainspace.
I'd like to get some precedent established that these sub-articles are intended to reduce rants currently on Iran-Iraq War, not to increase them. As many of you know, a similar sub-article technique helped reduce the sound and fury on the Central Intelligence Agency main page.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Tassafaronga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
At User:TonyTheTiger/Table, I am trying to keep track of my quality contributions by project. I have just added Bob Chappuis and Bump Elliott to the project by adding {{ MILHIST}} tags to their talk pages. I am fairly certain that Chappuis has at least a low level of priority to the project. I am not sure if fairly notable service to the V-12 Navy College Training Program brings an article into the project. Does anyone have any guidance.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone have this book by chance
European Resistance Movements, 1939-1945: A Complete History by Jorgen Haestrup, 1981
Thank you in advance-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen claims that flags should not be used in the military conflict infobox, with references to WP:MILHIST, but I haven't been able to find out where this is written. Is it the case, and if so, why? -- Nidator T / C 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Cardiff (D108) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Twenty-five navy ship categories have been proposed for renaming as follows:
If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thanks. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I posted some queries about Chappuis. His article would still be improved with some of your project's expertise on decorations, units and commands for his infobox? My main concern is his rank. He seems to have attained SGT. and LT. rank by some sources, but http://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=893&mtch=1&cat=all&tf=F&q=Robert+Chappuis&rpp=10&pg=1&rid=1263209 refers to him as a private.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the article on foregrips lacks both a history section and a free, clear image of a foregrip. Finding proper references for this article has also been difficult, and any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks -- Sharkface T/ C 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a bunch of tank pictures (still not done uploading them all) at My Subpage. I dont have the time to find a home for most of these photos so could you guys help. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive Added some more. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you nominate an article for re-assessment , when for example it was rated as stub class and you have added some content that would bring it upto start / B class ? JS1 ( talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the article Battle of Poltava seems to be showing the numbers for the whole battle which ranged over 14 days or something like that, while the article itself is about the day of the actual battle, I could, if you permit me to, change the casualties of the battle to those presented in Peter Englund's book "Poltava".
Björnebacke ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to present a suggestion. My suggestion is to create a tag or something to put on the talk pages of disambuiguation and other non article pages that would be used to gauge the grading of the page. Currently many Dab pages are marked as stubs and start class articles but they really aren't articles and most of them lack a meaningful structure. I believe this would reduce the number of pages that need to be reviewed as articles and would better clarify what their purpose is.-- Kumioko ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An link(see below) to an audio has been added to war elephant. Please check out whether the information provided by this link is useful according to encyclopedic standards (or just a promotional ploy because the author isn't the first one writing a book about war elephants). (Unfortunately, I won't have access to audio capable PCs for some time.)
The link:
Thanks Wandalstouring ( talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A recent NY Times article brought the subject vaguely to my attention, but after seeing an interview with the author, I began to look a bit closer into this. Trevor Paglen, currently seeking his PhD in geography I believe, recently published a book entitled " I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to be Destroyed by Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World" which details dozens of official and unofficial unit patches he's run across in his interviews and investigations into undisclosed Pentagon programs and units. It may be useful, or at the least interesting, and may provide a relatively reliable source on some Black Ops stuff, if anyone is interested. Cromdog ( talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The history section (which was moved from the 106th Rescue Wing by Buckshot) appears to be straight up copy and paste from somewhere, and is almost certainly a copyvio problem. If anyone has any info and could fix it up (even to stub level), it would be appreciated. Cromdog ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Editor Roregan and myself have been chatting about the term "giving quarter" and how that should be handled (you can see the conversation here.) Giving quarter had been redirecting to Mercy, but this was an incomplete treatment of the topic as it did not account for the "laws of war" usage. Roregan has done work to get a mention of this at Surrender (military) and redirected there instead which is a big improvement, but neither of us know much about this topic and we could use someone stopping by that article (or our discussion at my talk page) and providing some additional direction/expertise/sourcing on the topic. Any help would be appreciated. -- Gwguffey ( talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Powhatan Beaty is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to propose adding this sentence at the end of the last paragraph of WP:MILMOS#FLAGS:
Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on NATO needs a fairly significant update (and the maps themselves too). I don't know who should be in charge of it, but I figured that since this is the largest project linked to the article, then there will be a better chance to find somebody interested in doing the work. Nergaal ( talk) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've uploaded a new version of this image
over the existing image (for quality reasons), but it has not transfered this new version to the article here which is still displaying the old, faded version. Can anyone help? Thanks. Rebel Redcoat ( talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The code of {{ WPMILHIST}} has just been updated following a fairly large-scale redesign to include a number of new features, including:
If anyone sees any errors or unexpected behavior from the banner, please let us know! Thanks! Kirill 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For information, I've added a section – WP:MHA#Backlog of articles for tagging by task force – to the Assessment dept and it would be great if editors could drop by there from time to time to clear any build up! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
After my recent and ongoing stressful experiences at Armia Krajowa (I've recently improved the article on what was likely the largest WWII resistance group to an A-class status, but recently edit warring and other issues have led to article's protection) I thought that we are in need for some form of mediation/RfC with regards to milhist articles. I believe that an influx of neutral editors who would be available to quickly review and comment on such issues could stop such editing conflicts from developing and prevent editors from getting overly wikistressed. As usual, normal mediation, RfC or noticeboards can be slow, taking weeks before a single neutral editor appears. Milhist, the most active project, should be able to provide support to its members above this rather poor wiki standard. Perhaps we should create a section, akin to RfC, where we could list milhist articles in need of such input? PS. And yes, any input at Talk:Armia Krajowa will be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The RfC so quickly provided by User:Clio the Muse here Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Soviet_partisans_largest.3F has been largely ignored, and although the claim of Armia Krajowa being the largest in the World has been toned and removed from the lead, the editor User:Piotrus seems to think that consensus can be reached on historical data, and retained the claim as
Such numbers made Armia Krajowa not only the largest of the Polish resistance movements, but among the largest (if not the largest) in WWII-time Europe [a].
despite the many sources provided by the RfC that it was not the largest underground resistance in Europe due to the western part of the Soviet Union, the area of operations of the Soviet partisans, also being in Europe.
Instead of listening to advice, or undertaking further research, the user insists that others should be conducting the research to prove him wrong, although this was already provided by the RfC.
The play with numbers, which swing from 200,000 to 600,000, and average 400,000 according to the article now, i.e. a 100% margin of error in estimation, leads to implications which are as it turns out quite misinforming to the reader because the claim is also made in the article that the
The battles with the Germans, particularly in 1943 and 1944, tied down several German divisions (about 930,000 German soldiers in total)
which is quite difficult to believe because the article elsewhere states that
AK had enough weaponry only for about 32,000 soldiers.[21]
Aside from the claim that nearly 55 infantry division-equivalents of German troops were required to control a dispersed underground resistance of 32,000 (2 divisions), for most of the war the occupied territory was administered by the military security units, and that its composition was county-based, with 80% of the county security companies (Ortskommandanturen) composed on non-German personnel (often formed Soviet POWs). The 930,000 therefore represent the combined strength of the security units commanded by the 5 divisional-level administrative commands (one in Lvov), two regimental-level commands (one in Minsk), three company-level commands (one in Minsk), with a total of about 20 security companies, and the logistics line-of-communications troops of the Army Groups Centre and North (from German OOB 1944, Ian V. Hogg), and not the impression given of 930,000 German combat troops. Even those German troops that were present, were often drawn from the Luftwaffe troops, and not combat formations.
I appreciate the desire of the editor in question to display the significance of the Polish resistance during the Second World War, but there must be limits to how far that can be taken within the scope of data available. While undoubtedly Armia Krajowa did have a large membership, and those armed did fight the German and non-German troops of occupation, and did contribute to the defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front by creating a friction in the Wehrmacht logistics administration, it seems to me that perspective and context need to be maintained before the article can be rated to A, or even increase in its current rating.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm a new user and third-year history student at a British university, and I'm attempting to work on Airborne forces, and I was hoping someone might give the article a look over and help me compile a list of what needs to be done in the Talk Page. Any help would really be appreciated. I'm especially concerned with adding citations, which I'm having difficulty with. Thanks! Skinny87 ( talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, following a request I posted here, I feel (in hindsight) the change to "belligerant" was a bad idea in the conflict infobox was a bad idea. It was done in attempt appease warring sides on the Iran-Iraq War article (although apparently it's been mentioned beforehand), unsuprisingly they're still warring lol. On a more serious note, it is wrong to change a template that is shown on loads of articles, because of an edit war occuring on just one article. The problem is with the Iran-Iraq war crowd, not the template.
Why does this matter? Well this "POV push" idea of adding countries who supported other countries to infoboxes is starting to spread. The sources for these are often opinions in themselves and the criteria for "support" is so extensive that pretty much every country could appear on the list on both sides! These infoboxes were made to summarise data for quick reading, not to argue over the finer points of conflcit, that's what the article is for (you can't sum up a complex situation as "support" with just a flag symbol). Ryan4314 ( talk) 09:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
But these do have different meanings in international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention uses "combatant" to refer to individuals, as, for example:
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions...
In contrast, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/150-110007?OpenDocument, Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, refers to belligerents as groups:
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land #Section I : On belligerents #Chapter I : On the qualifications of belligerents
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3. To carry arms openly; and 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
I will admit I am not a fan of infoboxes in general, but I would prefer that they use the terminology of generally accepted international law, except, perhaps, when the Bush Administration is interpreting. :-( Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the change to "belligerent" addresses some problems but creates others. A basic challenge here is that the infobox is used from everything from world wars involving modern states to little raids between tribal factions. The terminology used in modern international law has little relevance to numerous pre-modern, small-scale conflicts that took place before the idea of the "state" emerged. I'd prefer that the field be renamed to the much more flexible Opponents, or Primary Opponents if we want to weed out the excessive listings we often see. — Kevin Myers 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me get away from Iran-Iraq, and take two examples that are typical of modern wars, with many participants at various levels. World War II doesn't have flags at all, but wikilinks to Allies and Axis. I think that's appropriate. If you were going to use flags, where would Italy go, before and after its surrender? Where would the Soviet Union be in August 1939, June 1941, and April 1945?
Next, look at Korean War. Do all the flags help understanding? Are the categories correct, especially putting the Soviet Union as a belligerent? I recognize the Soviet Union sent massive supplies as well as advisors, but I tend to think of the belligerents as the countries at the cease-fire or surrender conference table. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This dicussion seems to have died down, with most support, I think, for keeping the field named "Belligerents". We could use some comments on Dashiellx's idea for a new optional field named "Forces engaged", or something similar. This could be useful where the forces engaged are different than the belligerents, as in his example of the Battle of Trenton, or when you want to list the state as the "belligerent", and the army (or whatever) as the "force engaged". One downside is that the field would be open to overuse, with people trying to cram entire orders of battle into the infobox (which they do sometimes anyway). Thoughts? — Kevin Myers 05:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The new version of insurgency contains almost everything that was in the old version, but in a more formal context and with supplemental material. Unfortunately, politicians and news talking heads try to make "insurgency" a new concept specific to Iraq, or restrict its definition, or separate a wide range of actions that are reasonably considered insurgency. One important point is that terrorism does not necessarily equate to insurgency or vice versa.
I'm sorry, but I cannot find a simple and universal definition of insurgency, much as some people would like -- at least without violating WP:OR. General-purpose dictionary definitions are oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
See also counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense (FID), unconventional warfare, and counterterrorism. These articles are in varying shape, but should be considered together to minimize overlap and maximize appropriate cross-referencing. I did move some, but perhaps not enough, material out of FID. Note the history section toward the end of FID; while FID is a US term, there is some specific tie-in to British and French approaches.
Knowledgeable constructive criticism, and editing in some cases, is more than welcome. This is a lot of material to reconcile in one's head.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While I signed up to improve unconventional warfare, unless I interpret it to be US-specific, where UW is a specific mission of United States Army Special Forces, I'm wondering if it even makes sense to have an article on this topic. There are much more extensive articles on guerilla warfare, insurgency (disclaimer: I did significant recent rewrite), asymmetric warfare, etc. While I forget which tool shows which articles reference an article, I did notice that several articles that reference UW seem to do so via an article by Tomes, in a reputable journal, but I think that has questionable elements.
So -- is it reasonable to redirect UW to the US definition, just as it has been pointed out that foreign internal defense is largely the US doctrine for counterinsurgency? Things aren't always pure, as FID, much of which I wrote, does examine related British and French doctrine and history.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
While I think the titles would be somewhat awkward, I wonder if the answer to this sort of argument, which often leads to so many globalised examples that there is no concise definition for a specific term, is to create articles that are explicitly about a national doctrine: "Soviet doctrine for maneuver(armored?) warfare", "Mao/China's doctrine for guerilla warfare," "US doctrine for unconventional warfare (specifically guerilla)", "Israeli special reconnaissance doctrine," etc.
Part of the problem is that of the hundreds of current and important historic militaries, relatively few have formal doctrines. There is also the issue of multinational doctrine, certainly NATO, and possibly ASEAN for antipiracy and a few other missions.
I don't have a specific answer, but I am certainly not willing to make a coherent article-in-progress subordinate to a "globalised" introduction that I consider misleading or wrong. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The anon objecting to UW continues to make observations both disparaging and of low semantic content. While I was able to get some help from the Wikiquette noticeboard, there are more important things to do than argue that "unconventional warfare is the opposite of conventional warfare" is, perhaps, not the most elegant definition ever offered.
Building on Buckshot's observation that it is useful to identify specific national/multinational doctrines in parallel with more global and conceptual frameworks, I'd like to make a proposal. Where I'd most like help is on less awkward names for national doctrines. Let me offer a framework for special operations, both general and national:
Others? Military government vice civil affairs? Counterproliferation? Psychological operations?
Are there other national doctrines where articles would be logical, always recognizing that the U.S. publishes more of its doctrine than, it seems, anyone else? It would be frightening to be in the area of a kinetic strike with a full U.S. doctrinal library.
I do have material on more historical British and French counterinsurgency, at the end of foreign internal defense.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's some concern here about inclusion/deletion. Can I request a "tank tactics" page, if one doesn't already exist? Also, here, suggests to me something like "tank camo" or "vehicle camo" could be of use. Trekphiler ( talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This may not be the best example, but tank tactics (and design) changed radically over history, and even among nations at a given point in history. For example, the U.K. and U.S. main battle tanks are among the best in the world, but the two countries have some fairly strong differences in armament (well, ammunition carried).
Some WWII issues included the distinction between "cruiser" and "infantry tanks", and, not well understood in WWI, that tanks are more a breakthrough than an infantry support weapon.
I could see an article about tank tactics (or some other word) that sets out a structure for the doctrinal differences, and then (my preference) articles, or at least sections, that deal with the implementation of doctrine in a given time and place.
This broad issue is very much of interest to me at present, as I have one skirmish about a national doctrine-specific article unconventional warfare when a deliberately global one exists ( insurgency). I've also asked the question of whether there should be a general article in issues about air campaigns, separating the national interpretations ( JP233 for offensive counter-air)?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we have some more eyes here. One user is adding obscure info saying that the US motivation for the war was some oil deposit in VN. Vn has hardly any oil deposits. Also, there is another guy saying that the result is "peace with honor" - This is about the 3rd most viewed MILHIST article I think... about 40k reads per day IIRC. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a page called Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II which lists all the translated Soviet names for their operations. For reasons to do with the history of creating pages Talk:Prague Offensive became a general discussion page for pages which are called after Soviet WWII Operations (see the list under Talk:Prague Offensive#Prague Offensive Operation). After the battle of Kursk as the initiative on the Eastern Front moved in favour of the Soviets, it makes sense to map articles onto their initiatives as is done in most histories of the period and using names that reflect that, such as the Prague Offensive and this does not seem to me unreasonable, particularly when there is often comparatively little written about many of the campaigns in English language histories. There are of course exceptions, where there is a lot written on some Soviet Operations which give us common names like that for the " Battle of Berlin".
mrg3105 has suggested that Prague Offensive be renamed to Prague Strategic Offensive Operation (see Talk:Prague Offensive#Prague Strategic Offensive Operation) and taking this as a test case I would appreciate it if other interested editors would voice their opinions on such a move on that talk page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put an RFC onto this issue please see Talk:Prague Offensive#RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation and I think it would be a very good idea if more editors would enter the debate because at the moment a few editors are discussing whether to make changes that effect lots of articles. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you all again, but looking through various articles, such as Invasion of Normandy and Operation Market Garden I find myself confused. The former article lists the Bibliography and then Further Reading as something completely different, wheras the latter article only has References and no Bibliography. I'm rewriting Operation Varsity but frankly I'm now confused over the correct structure I should take in regards to the References section of it. I've currently edited it based on the Normandy article, but is that correct? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Skinny87 ( talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was also wondering what the guidelines were on Orders of Battle in articles. The previous editor of Operation Varsity has added one, but I'm unsure of whether they're actually required or vital - are they? Skinny87 ( talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I know you all love these games really, anyone know what type of mortar this is?
I took it at the Imperial War Museum, it was used by Argentina during the Falklands, I think it could either be a 60mm, 81mm or a 120mm. Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1936 (or maybe '33, not quite sure), the USMC decided to stop calling their regiments regiments, instead labeling them 'Marines' e.g. 1st Marine regiment --> 1st Marines or 7th Marine Regiment --> 7th Marines. Remember when Chesty said "You're the 1st Marines! Not all the communists in hell can overrun you!" So why do people keep addressing them in articles as Marine Regiments? The only reason I can think of besides ignorance (NOT stupidity) is to make it more understandable to persons not well aquainted with the USMC. If this is the case, I don't support it, but I can at least understand it. All feedback is appreciated. -- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to bring to this project's attention the edit war that's been going on at Battle of Princeton. Two editors have been going back and forth about the number of casualties and how many troops were initially involved. If someone here could take a look at the page, that'd be great. The discussion is at Talk:Battle of Princeton. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago I requested a move from the then title of 'People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)' to a title more compliant to Wikipedia naming policy. The naming issue was resolved somewhat irregularly, which I had tried to avoid as I anticipated pro-PRC editors continuing to attempt to obfuscate the name of the article, which they seem to be doing. This might benefit from some more experienced eyes on it. John Nevard ( talk) 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! Good luck and happy tagging, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|
The peer review for Battle of the Afsluitdijk is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the articles needing expert attention, and found Offensive counter air attack. With a fumbling of fingers on my keyboard, I lost it, searched, and found Offensive counter air. Both are stubs.
Some time ago, I found references to the terms and other related ones in various places, and thought they were inconsistent with one another. Next, I found an article aerial warfare, with its own approach, which struck me as more historical than doctrinal.
As Gene Wilder said in Blazing Saddles, "then we are awake. We are very confused." Mr. Wilder is entitled to the editorial "we", but I shall say that when I am confused about what I read, I may write until I have clarified that which confused me.
In my userspace, I wrote User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, commenting "The Air Campaign is the title of COL John Warden's book, which may or may not be an appropriate title for the article, but gives the flavor. This article will start with principles of targeting (Warden's adaption of Clausewitz's centers of gravity), breakthrough technical advances (PGMs, ground control of PGM in close support, low observability, network, AESA), and then mission families (strike, offensive support to ground operations, counter-air, ISR, transport)."
Clearly, we do not need two almost identical stubs on offensive counter air. If others agree that aerial warfare is historical, do we need a general article on doctrine? If there is some consensus that is useful, I can move my sandbox draft to mainspace, work on it more in userspace, or forget the whole thing.
Suggestions?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got a historian working on a history of this unit who can use better advice than I can give him. The thread is on my talk page, but please respond on his talk page. Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any guidelines for project tagging? I've seen a couple of articles tagged in the last couple of days that only have a fairly tangential relationship with their subject. Brian Horrocks was tagged for the Irish wikiproject (he was in Ireland during the Anglo-Irish war for a few months in the 1920s) and Montgomery was tagged for the LGBT project (there are allegations made by Nigel Hamilton, one of his biographers, that he was a repressed homosexual and some pretty vague stuff about a relationship with a swiss boy whom he alleges Montgomery was attracted to). We could end up with inumerable projects tagging some subjects. Horrocks could be tagged with France, Russia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany if we take it to extremes. Leithp 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle for the Hague is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
Just dropping a note that I've started a new stub. I am aware of other models than the US MICLIC, but I can't find any other articles here on WP. Perhaps those who are in the know can write/link these articles, and expand the stub. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for someone to do a quick fact check on the WWII section of Bert Trautmann, an article about a man who served in the Luftwaffe during the Second World War, became a British PoW, and then proceeded to have a successful sporting career in England. I want to make sure no glaring errors about the events of the war are present, since my sources approach the subject from a sporting viewpoint, not a military one. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is in a bad state, for such an important military event it is a shame it has been allowed to continue in this pov ridden state. I recently tried to start by rewriting the intro thinking it would serve as a good point to write the rest of the article, but this has been repeatedly reverted to the usual pov soapbox rant found in these types of conflicts. I would appreciate editors to weigh in and take a look at what I've written for themselves and leave a comment on the talk page. Thanks, -- A.Garnet ( talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A CFD is under way for Category:Massacres by Americans. The scope of the discussion is actually much broader, as it necessarily involves the question of whether to create a new category tree for "Massacres committed by country Xyz". Currently we have categories for "Massacres in country Xyz", which is, of course, quite different. Please join this very important discussion. Cgingold ( talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
AK-47 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 03:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm not doing anything wrong, but I have a little time to kill and I thought I'd review some of the Unassessed articles and rate them. I know I'm quite a new editor, but I think I'm assessing them correctly. I just assessed [4] and if that's been assessed wrongly, then please let me know! Skinny87 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(od)Skinny87, if you've ever got time on your hands and are looking for things to do, consider Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. There are over 11,500 articles in that category and it's going to take all hands to the plow to put them in the right places...! Buckshot06 ( talk) 03:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an open RfC on the naming of missile and rocket articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.84.13 ( talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of Verrières Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( P) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos ( talk) 07:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Erich Hartmann; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Appomattox Station is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Brian Horrocks is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As it stands there are currently 3 different info boxes which cover this period:
Well it just seems a bit too much and they all seem to overlap, am sure these could be cut down to one or two infoboxes. Any views on this?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The MOD web site for all its faults does name its Brigades as follows:
4th Mechanized Brigade
1 Mechanised Brigade
12 Mechanised Brigade
My question is do we follow suit ?
have MECHANIZED & MECHANISED - 4th with TH and 1 and 12 without the ST & TH JS1 ( talk) 14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that the National Service section on the United Kingdom be separated, and a dedicated page be created similar to the National Service in Singapore. There has also been a suggestion to incorporate the Bevin Boys into this new page as well. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi
There is a deletion discussion on the military shopping privileges scheme for Australian defence force members ( DefCom Australia). In looking at the articles on the US scheme , Base exchange, and the similar Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes I notice that there is no category that covers these in a general sense and nor does there seem to be a category or article that talks about remuneration. The closest I can get is Category:Military life and perhaps the stub Personal financial benefits of military service. I suspect the latter is worth expanding. Any comments about the category and applying it to the articles mentioned - or should there be a sub cat or should they be in Category:Military Pay and perhaps should that perhaps be Category:Military pay and benefits ?-- Matilda talk 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor just dumped a bunch of material in there and it needs checking out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that 1983 nuclear war scare be moved back to Able Archer 83. All editers are invited to participate in the discussion on this matter on the talk page for 1983 nulcear war scare. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a specialist opinion on whether Dutch Acadie is a correct article. Serious concerns have been raised about its factual accuracy, and therefore I would appreciate opinions on the subject. Thank you, PeterSymonds | talk 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There is only one person who for some unknown reason believes this article in not accurate. In fact, he thinks the action and the "colony" are not important enough for an article, that was clearly not true on the Dutch wikipedia. Here are some of my references.
http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Treaty.htm
http://www.acadian-cajun.com/acadia3.htm
http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Dates.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dutch+conquest+of+acadie&source=web&ots=zjDvps52MG&sig=rRkT2y5TLm3Oaru_ACo2o1OtSmM&hl=en#PPA127,M1
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
[5] and [6]. Every link clearly states that the dutch attacked two forts in the entire colony of Acadia, which I would like to add represented a small fraction of the colony, took them over, claimed Acadia as theres then abandon the forts in little under 6 weeks because of an unability to defend them. They later conceded any claims to Acadia in a further treaty. Basically to be the idea that taking over two forts, claiming a the whole colony, including Cape Breton by the way, which had the french's major fort, Louisburg, and was almost 800 km from the action, then leaving without even trying to settle, kinda means you give up claims to that region. This article, and this person, claim that Acadia at some point was taken over or conceded to the Dutch, when this is clearly far from teh case. Regardless of our constant questioning and my begging for a valid precedent so we can have a discussion he stopped talking about this in the discussions of the Dutch Empire and created a wikipedia article of its own, even though there is a Dutch Colonys in the amercans article. His insistance on using questionable sources that tend to favour my agrument on inspection coupled with his refusing to accept that Wikipedia isn't to present what you believe should be included but what a collection of people can an understanding from have driven me half mad trying to explain to him. Also, when I illusitrate a flaw in any agrument, I get accused of "dodging" the question... its gone in circles. Please, someone weight in althought I doubt it will influence him.- Kirkoconnell ( talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is much more detailed. You can continue to deny the fact and say they were never there but it isn't going to make it true. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
I have listed Dutch Acadie for deletion. WP:OR at its finest. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know, this wikiproject has nearly fifty task forces. While some are very active, others are very small and sleepy. The coordinators have been discussing ways of making them more effective.
The basic idea is that coordinators will "adopt" task forces with a view to helping them take on new initiatives and responsibilities though it will be left entirely to members of individual task forces to decide what to do. These include:
The idea here is to create and develop task force portals. These are not hugely time-consuming and provide a visible task force presence.
some ideas here include (1) inviting TF members to introduce a wiki-friend from outside Milhist and (2) putting messages/reminders in on the talk pages of related wikiprojects (ie French TF in Wikiproject France etc).
We have about twenty old FAs (they're commented out in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Showcase) with citation (and other) problems. One proposal was a task force-based drive to improve them.
This involves TF members selecting articles within the TF's scope to take to A or FA standard.
This involves monitoring progress monthly by updating the task force's to-do box.
This is aimed at reducing Milhist backlogs. By handling articles needing graphics or copyediting or whatever at task force level, we make this easier - and less daunting - to manage. The idea is also to invite specific editors with specialist skills to work on specific aspects of named articles.
As a first step, the following coordinators have "adopted" the following task forces.
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 36th Engineer Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!} Kirill ( prof) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an on-going problem at Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, an editor is continually creating sockpuppets to insert contentious material regarding Montgomery's relationship with a child into the article. The editor in question seems to be DavidYork71 ( talk · contribs), a previously banned editor. Extra eyes would be appreciated. Leithp 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for John Emilius Fauquier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Numerous reverts of French flag icons in this Battle of Fontenoy and other articles of the period. Can someone intervene? Tttom1 ( talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
I think the WWII article is close to being ready for FA-submission, but I've stumbled into some writers block and am having difficulty with the last bit. Could some willing writer take a look at World War II/temp and help me finish the last sub-section "Advances in technology and warfare"? Oberiko ( talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After lengthy discussions, the coordinators have decided that the usual four-day review period for A-Class reviews may be extended by up to three days (ie up to seven days in total) in the following circumstances:
The full text is here. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Underground nuclear testing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I do not have time for what Philip seems to think is "a game of consensus", I would like to ask him to support his repeated reversions of moves with some evidence of the name "Battle of Memel" in any language; I'll help with German - Einschließung Memels (Oktober 1944 bis Januar 1945)
I post here so as "to draw in a larger group of editors" on Philips' advice, and will wait while he searches for the source in English for the "Battle of Memel" although "Geographic battle names do not need a source" according to him
I will also point out, as the German name suggests, in order there to have been a "battle", at least one side had to be on the offensive, and the German troops were not-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[7] has been repeatedly vandalising airborne-related articles, although bizarrely only ever to enter fictional cmpaigns into infoboxes or assertions that airborne divisions participated in campaigns that they did not. Can something be done about them? I'm afraid I have no idea what to do, alhtough I do try and repair whatever vandalism they do. Thanks Skinny87 ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Template:FalklandsWarProj ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. - MBK 004 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Please note that I am unable to contribute anything useful to these myself.) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Special Operations Command is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I just wanted to give you all a warning that Victory in Europe Day has been linked on Fark.com's main page. I've already added the high-traffic tag to the talk page, but expect a lot of vandalism today. - JPINFV ( talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Forţele Aeriene Regale ale României → Royal Romanian Air Force —( Discuss)— as per Use English for organisations with established English names -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}} breaks if given a class=start
parameter.
See Template talk:WPMILHIST#Start_scrambles_banner.3F
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I was updating information on this class of ship and I noticed that your project tag isn't displaying properly on the talk pages for the individual ships of this class (USS Sampson, USS Rowan etc.) Shinerunner ( talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check at Talk:Yamato class battleship. Somehow our template is malformed and the two of the projects aren't showing up. I'm oblivious to what seems to be wrong. - MBK 004 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
After trying for 45 minutes to get our template added to the World in COnflict page I finally gave up, it is showing up as hugely malformed. Can someone please figure out how to fix it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody decided to drop the permitted node count down by a factor of 20, breaking all the sub-template transclusions used in the Start-Class version. It's been fixed now, apparently. Kirill ( prof) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This photo, Image:German advance (1914).jpg, is currently being used on two articles, Battle of St. Quentin (1914) and Great Retreat, with the figures being identified as British in one and German in the other. Kirill, who uploaded it, says the figures were identified as German on the website he found it. However, to my very untrained eye, they look more like British uniforms. Can anyone shed some light on this? Leithp 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the commons page and the caption to say that it shows British troops. Leithp 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Main Agency of Automobiles and Tanks of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union , this Articlde is included in a section I am doing for TAG & ASSESS 2008.
Apart from the never ending name its rated as start but there is very little content and I was going to re-assess as a stub. I do not believe that even with a lot of work it would ever be anything more then start class, so I started thinking could it merge with another Article? I tried to locate a Russian MOD Article to see if it was suitable but with no success at present. Any Suggestions. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Late Roman army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was searching through projects that have articles tagged for notability, specifically articles related to Mexico. I noticed during this search that the Military History project had numerous articles on munitions as tagged for notability. Can I remove these tags or is each piece of equipment need to show a cause for notability, and what is a basic understanding of what is notable in that regard? -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The featured article process is currently very short of reviewers. The process is about consensus – not !voting – and "drive-by" reviews that simply say oppose or support are not given much weight. Instead, reviews should be brief critiques, focusing on article strengths and weaknesses.
In particular, the following articles, within our scope, need review:
Thank you in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this rather odd article which is presently a grab bag of distasteful incidents in military history (loosely defined). The article contains examples as diverse as the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (which, we're informed, would be a considered a war crime today, but was normal for warfare of the time) and the Basra prison incident together with a few decidedly uncontroversial atrocities with limited military involvement such as The Holocaust and The Killing Fields (where's the controversy here? - almost every sane person agrees that these were terrible crimes). Does anyone think that this is salvageable? Nick Dowling ( talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There is some tautology between Rome against the Alamanni and the Roman-Alamannic Wars in Germanic Wars. Any fixing? -- Brand спойт 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for featured article status. We received generally positive reviews, but quite a lot of comments which weren't addressed within a week, and the nomination was archived. Another issue was that there weren't enough reviewers prepared to trawl through an article of that length and depth to review it.
So,
- Kieran ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 17th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!-- ROGER DAVIES talk 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kenneth Dewar is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Battle of the Bulge is indicated as being a Featured Article, but to be honest I wouldn't even put it at GA Status. Entire sections are completely without references, there is a large Popular Culture section, and it needs a good copyedit. I hope I'm not being too presumptious by asking how the article could be downgraded? I certainly want to work on it and get it back up to FA status, but in its present condition to label it as so is just not right. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 13th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ( prof) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
User:FayssalF did a great listing of the most visited articles in the project for Feb 08, archived somewhere in archive 78. (WW2, WW1, and Che Guevara were I think the top three). Might I suggest that we examine the logs over a period of a few months, come up with a listing of the 10 most consistently visited articles, and think about ways to improve them as a priority? Comments welcome... Buckshot06 ( talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
<--What we really need is a focused article on how Che driving a Tiger through a trench caused global warming. :D It would guarantee WP would never need to worry about paying for capacity again. =] Trekphiler ( talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(od) The data is currently only available for February 2008. The top ten then were:
rank | Article | # Hits |
---|---|---|
37 | World War II | 674737 |
67 | World War I | 515533 |
123 | Che Guevara | 387585 |
157 | Vietnam War | 338267 |
174 | American Civil War | 324616 |
243 | Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | 284549 |
332 | Napoleon I of France | 241671 |
370 | Julius Caesar | 230835 |
414 | Alexander the Great | 220542 |
432 | Cold War | 215352 |
(od) Perhaps the way forward is a Top-Ten task force, specifically to deal with this. The key idea would be to have no more than ten articles in its remit. The list above could initially form the core ten, with the core list being as new data comes available and as articles hit the desired quality targets. This would be quite separate to any larger core article improvement scheme. Thoughts? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a fantastic idea. By having a dedicated group of people working on our most prominant articles, not only would we be enhancing Wikipedia in the most visible way we can, but I believe this would also lead to the adoption of (fairly) standard article structures. The latter would not only make reader transition from article-to-article far easier, but would likely have a trickle-down effect that would benefit all our articles. Oberiko ( talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What does everyone think about calling it the Action Department? If we can settle on a name, I can set the basics up. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if we can come up with a really good name for the proposed new department, see #Moving on above. It's basically a department to house teams for special projects: Top Ten article improvement; Nelson's birthday etc. A name similar to the simple and self-explanatory Logistics dept would be good. The person coming up with the best name gets the What a Brilliant Idea barnstar. Ideas so far include:
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have two suggestions for a name:
Anyway, those are my two suggestions. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Special projects department?. Supports or opposes below please ... -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I request as a first step the coordinators designate the most suitable place/page for a 'super-peer-review' of WW1, WW2, and Che Guevara? Would the WP:MHSP talk page be best, or elsewhere? Defining a structure that would pass professional historians' reviews is also important; if we can get the structure right and keep the crufters, vandals etc out we'll have won half the battle already. Buckshot06( prof) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)