Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AICT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members
Shortcut:

Help![edit]

Look at my 43rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment page. Please fix the problem. You'll know it when you see it. Sorry, it's my first real article.

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision[edit]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions.

Request opinion on suitability of "Report of Proceedings"/"CO Report" as reliable source[edit]

Hi all. I've just dropped a post on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the suitability of a modern patrol boat captain's Report of Proceedings/CO Report as a reliable source for articles on the relevant patrol boat. The opinions of the more militarily wise would be useful, so please comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Warship captain's "Report of Proceedings/CO Reports"... reliable_source? -- saberwyn 12:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

One more reviewer needed on several ACRs[edit]

G'day all, there are 5-6 ACRs that already have two supports that just need one more reviewer (and support, of course) to meet our requirements. I'll have a look at a couple I haven't reviewed as yet, but it would be good if we could clear a few over the weekend (wherever you are in the world). I know it's coming up to exam time in some jurisdictions, but if you get a chance... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 17:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm halfway through a review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Formidable (67) and don't expect there to be many issues. I'll try to look at a few others as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Two have now been passed, any and all help appreciated in shifting a couple more of the older ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone read Dutch?[edit]

And/or in a position to offer an opinion on this article name? No. 322 multi-role F-16 Squadron, RNLAF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Should just be No. 322 Squadron, RNLAF. Everything else is liable to change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The pages should probably be merged, shouldn't they? Brigade Piron (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
With No. 322 (Dutch) Squadron RAF ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's probably a bit excessive, IMO. The RAF and the RNlAF squadrons should have separate articles unless there's a real shortage of sources for the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly see the justification - I've worked with 350th Squadron (Belgium) (formerly No. 350 (Belgian) Squadron, RAF) but in my mind the unit name guidelines apply here too. To have two articles (which will both inevitably overlap extensively in the Background section if not elsewhere) is just a content fork. Brigade Piron (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the modern Dutch air force uses 'No.' at the start of unit names. The scramble.nl order of battle for the force labels the squadrons 322 Squadron, etc. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
When doing a little on the main RNLAF article I created a bunch of redlinks at '3XX Squadron RNLAF' and that includes 322 Squadron RNLAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarah West[edit]

Can I get some assistance on Sarah West? bunnylover23 (talk · contribs) is currently deleting sourced content on the grounds that he is 'removing lies', and I don't want to be caught in a 3RR situation. Benea (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Brigades[edit]

The guideline says "Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps,". Is there a stylistic convention for brigades in English ie is 2nd Brigade more commonly used than Second Brigade or II Brigade? I am not creating any articles on brigades, but I am creating articles on the Waterloo Campaign and many of the movements and skirmishes were fought at brigade level.

As soon as the French had assembled in sufficient force at Charleroi, Napoleon ordered Count Pajol to detach General Clary's Brigade towards Gosselies, and to advance with the remainder of the First Corps of Reserve Cavalry towards Gilly. General Clary, with the 1st French Hussars, reached Jumet, on the left of the Brussels road, and only but little more than a mile from Gosselies, before the First Prussian Brigade had crossed the Piéton.[1]

That by the way is the "Prussian 1st Brigade" not the "first Prussian brigade"! — but William Siborne's editors in that edition did like capitals. In this edition, by different editors, published in the same year, it has "1st Prussian brigade" — they didn't like capitals! -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for the War rape article[edit]

It's recently been proposed that the War rape article be moved to Wartime sexual violence, and there's a discussion of this at Talk:War rape#Requested move. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Waffen-SS Commanders[edit]

Can someone who works in this area try link to this orphaned list? Or alternatively redirect if there is a better page? Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks

Could we clean it up first, before adding it to the template? (the references should be clarified) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Poorly named article. It is a list of commanders of the divisions of the SS. This information can be covered in the articles on the divisions. Another approach would be to include other SS commanders such as corps commanders and army commanders. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to reflect the content (divisional commanders). It needs proper references, I've deleted Feldgrau, Axis History Factbook etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that the article is at List of Waffen-SS division commanders, what do we do with the redirect Waffen-SS Commanders ? Commanders of units that are not divisions would not be listed in the list. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There were no Waffen-SS commanders other than divisional commanders on the list anyway, so I would say it could be deleted. So long as the new list is added to the Waffen-SS article as a "See also", there should be no need for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry[edit]

Dear weaponry experts: (the "weaponry" project seems to redirect here) This old AfC submission was declined with the suggestion that the information be merged. Is this a notable topic, or can some in fact be added to another article? If so, would someone like to do it? Weapons are something I know little about. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is Anglo-Saxon weaponry which the content might merge with. Or possibly into Anglo-Saxon military organization and/or Anglo-Saxon warfare GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The best solution would probably be expanding Anglo-Saxon weaponry along the lines of Viking Age arms and armour Monstrelet (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It should not be merged into any article unless the general references are converted into inline citations (WP:BURDEN). I think that it is inexcusable to add paragraphs of new content without them being supported with inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? That's the ideal situation, but it's certainly not a requirement for a new article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
First problem to overcome is no-one has yet offered to do it. If my solution is followed, it would be an article expansion not a merger (as no article on armour exists what would one merge?). It would indeed be nice if additional content was in-line cited but most articles wouldn't get developed if that was essential from the off Monstrelet (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For me, it would depend on whether the uncited material looks correct; if an editor (e.g. PBS) has concerns about it, then yes, I think we should avoid adding it in unless it is supported with citations. If we are all thinking it looks accurate and above board, then that's a different matter, of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay; it looks as though my task is done; I'll leave it to the experts. PBS has edited the draft, so it will hang around another six months until something is done with it. If any content is merged, don't forget to credit the draft's creator in the edit summary. Thanks for taking time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and Monstrelet, I've challenged it so the burden is on anyone who wants to added the material to provide inline citations (the very first section of the verifiability policy). I am surprised that 8 years after the debates on quality not quantity, that experienced editors would contemplate supporting the addition of paragraphs of text without inline citations. To show I am not hypocritical on this: I nearly always create new articles with inline citations here are my five most recent (created since the 25 of July): Stedman (30th), Stuart (29th), Piéton (28th), Röder (27th), Hobe (25th) -- they are some small support articles for a set of much bigger articles on Waterloo Campaign, which are still under development. Earlier this year I created a 1 sentence Belgian village stub article (linked to French and Dutch article that were not much bigger), and then I had to spend time arguing with some zealous editors that 4 lines of warning template was inappropriate, so to prevent that happening again sub articles like Piéton now get citations even if they consist of just two short sentences. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, I didn't volunteer to extend the Anglo-Saxon weapon article because I don't have the sources. It would have lowered the quality of the article overall to do it without. But it is not a requirement of creating a WP article at present, as Sturmvogel commented. Whether it should be is a debate for another time. Monstrelet (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Surprised as you may be, I stand by my statement. A pronounced dislike for uncited text is your only reason? I applaud the fact that your own work is always cited, but this "habit" of yours is severely unfriendly to new editors who likely don't understand the need for cites or even how to do them properly. You've "challenged" the information so it gets deleted/rejected and you don't even have the common courtesy to let the editor know that he should improve his cites? Or how he can do so? Your interpretation of BURDEN is very strict and arguably contrary to the spirit of the last few paragraphs where cooperation to fix the identified problem is urged rather than wholesale condemnation, which appears to be your favored method of implementation.
I can understand challenging specifics that might be incorrect according to your own knowledge, but a blanket condemnation because it lacks in-line cites? I would argue that that's misreading the intent of BURDEN, otherwise we'd have to blank an enormous number of articles, many of them substantially correct, for lack of cites and/or references. And I don't believe that that is in accord with the principles of Wikipedia. Validating/expanding an article with cites, etc., is a perfectly normal thing to do, as is creating a stub with no cites or refs. Ideally, that's all done in one step, but it's hardly a requirement. I've created many stubs myself with just a single line of text, an infobox and nary a cite to be seen. Some of these have been properly expanded by myself or other editors while others still slumber awaiting their prince. If you want to go ahead and "challenge" them for lacking cites, feel free; I'll enjoy the fireworks. But now I am thinking that I need to keep an eye on how BURDEN is interpreted in reality and intervene as needed lest you illegitimately shut down new editors for failing to meet your standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I need help with a draft about a Tactical Data Link system[edit]

My ignorance of the subject is inhibiting my ability to turn User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Link-ZA into a reasonably decent article. I fear I might skip over fundamental basics and/or give undue weight to minor details because I do not know enough (read "practically nothing") about data links and communication systems and protocols to competently paraphrase sources. (I can just barely manage a rough explanation of the difference between TDMA and CDMA!). Thus I would appreciate it if a technically knowledgeable editor might join with me in creating the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)