Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Anschluss[edit]

I figure this as one of the only active projects will have folks who know about the topic. Content dispute there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the reverts, but I'm not prepared to wade through them all without some sort of discussion on the talkpage that explains what people are trying to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Likewise. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistics Bot?[edit]

I'm trying to find the statistics bot that updates the statistics tables. I unfortunately, had to format and only saved a few things. What would be the link to update it manually? Adamdaley (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget who it was that told me that this link existed, just can't remember who it was. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
... Adamdaley (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Gday Adam - I think this thread might be discussing what you are asking about. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_48#Out_of_date_stats. Is this it? Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

UK angle measurements with 600 "degrees"?[edit]

Looking at wartime photos, I keep coming across examples of circles being divided up into 600 "degrees". I am unfamiliar with any such unit, does anyone know what this is called? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a "mil" - a military measurement; if you take two spots at 100 mils apart on a compass, 1km distant from you, they are then 100m apart on the ground. Mils help coordinate artillery fire etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, this is definitely the solution. Odd, I have come across the non-angular version of this measure countless times, but never the simple "600 to a circle" which is largely equivalent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so it's NOT a mil. A mil is 6400 to a circle, which can't be reduced to 600 no matter how you mangle it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1/600[0] is based on the Imperial Russian angular mil, not the French 'metric' 1/6400 used by the rest of the world. -- saberwyn 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any record of the UK using this system? It's definitely printed on the walls of the ROC posts, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

German naval trawlers of WWII (Vorpostenboot)[edit]

OK, it seems that there were several hundred of these. Adding them all to the List of Kriegsmarine ships would dominate the list, so it would seem that a list would be a better way to deal with naming them. Question is, List of naval trawlers of Germany in WWII or List of Vorpostenboote in WWII? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My instinct is the first one, as the more natural form for English language readers but as the Vorpostenboot article exists, the second is more of a fit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As not all Vorpostenboote were ex-trawlers, would it confuse matters to refer to them as such in the article heading? The word literally means an "outpost boat" but patrol boats might give a clearer idea if an English language name was prefered. Monstrelet (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Monstrelet makes a good point, they were not all trawlers, but they were all vorpostenboote. Looks like a case where WP:UE is overruled. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that the correct spelling is Vorpostenboote, with a capital V. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Will do, link amended. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, good. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 254 Squadron RAF[edit]

Has been tagged as a copyvio from [1].Nigel Ish (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya Good Topic nom[edit]

Hi all,

I have recently nominated Spanish conquest of the Maya for Good Topic, and would welcome any reviews or comments. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

GA nom of Adolf Hitler's adjutants[edit]

I am asking for a second opinion at the GA review. I believe this article to be a list and not an article. I would appreciate a second opinion on this matter. If other reviewers concur in my opnion the article fails the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as Stand-alone lists cannot be a good article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Commented there - certainly looks like a list to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree - it is a list. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The text is in prose and there are no tables or bulleted lists. So it is not clearly a list to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of lists are prose-heavy - certainly all of the lists I've written are. See for instance List of unprotected cruisers of Germany. There's no requirement for tables or bulleted lists in MOS:LIST. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What WP:EMBED actually says is "composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list" (my italics) - the section headings are the list items. The whole article is a list of people, with an associated paragraph of text. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an FLC delegate, I'd consider it a list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I chose to fail the article at GA on the grounds that I consider it a list. The editor Jonas Vinther chose to resubmit the article, now renamed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants", at WP:FLC. I have no issue with being overruled on this decision. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that experienced with MILHIST assessment, but it probably should be classed as "xL" class then as well for MILHIST, regardless of the current FLC outcome. GermanJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Crisco, it is a list. I've noted at FLC that I'm surprised it didn't go for AL review first. It looks to me as if it would have benefited from a close look by Milhist reviewers before being nominated at FLC. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It is more akin to a list and certainly would benefit from "some work" by interested Milhist reviewers. Kierzek (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions needed about a Draft about a Vietnam War air combat incident[edit]

Please see User:Zkhan khan/sandbox. Is the incident sufficiently notable to have a separate article? If yes, is this draft an acceptable description of the incident? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ask at WT:Air as well. There's far too much detail in that draft to dump into the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the sourcing, honestly. Intothatdarkness 19:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign[edit]

I felt quite smug at putting a big map into the Background section, until I noticed that it obscures the campaignbox when it drops down. Does anyone know of a cure short of moving the map please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'm at it, does anyone know why the title for the campaignbox on Military operations in North Africa during World War I runs off the page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Western Desert Campaign: perhaps put the map where the Italian tankettes picture is now (making it a bit smaller), and it should move down automatically if/when the campaignbox is expanded? As things stand, at least on my machine, we have a vast expanse of whitespace on the right of the map (or is this deliberate, perhaps, as a desert motif?).
Military operations in North Africa during World War I: It doesn't run off the page for me. Maybe it's your browser or something. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The campaignbox in Military operations in North Africa during World War I is broken for me using Firefox but not with Chrome or IE. All with Monobook.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm using Seamonkey, odd that it's only in this article.Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Seamonkey's based on the same code as Firefox so I am fairly sure your browser's the issue Keith, based on what Nigel's said above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Frietjes is using a Microsoft class that is not supported by Firefox. We need an admin to revert Template:Campaignbox back to the 5 May 2014 version. Frustrating not being able to do anything around here. Hawkeye7 (talk)
I moved the map.Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13 fixed it for us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Portal placement in a article[edit]

Could someone please cite the OFFICIAL chapter and verse on the placement of a portal or portal bar within an article? I have put portal bars in the "See also" section and have been told that that is wrong; I have put it at the very bottom of the article only to have someone ten minutes later move the portal bar to the "See also" section of the article. I honestly do not know the convention. Help... Cuprum17 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume it depends on the structure of the page but I usually put them at the bottom of the page and trust to luck. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The current incarnation of WP:MOS/Layout says internal links like portals belong in the see also section, although there would be some natural variance depending on the article's structure, and creating a section only for a template (portal or otherwise) appears to be discouraged. -- saberwyn 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It says portals are usually placed in the See Also section. There are some reasons for this. First, there is an important caveat: Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.. So if there is no See Also section otherwise, you are not supposed to create one just to hold the portals. Secondly, a subject bar can be used to unify the portals and the Wikimedia sister projects links, but these are supposed to go into the External Links, which is the last section (Or the in the last section if there isn't one.) While it seems logical that the internal links should be in See Also, articles with multiple portals create a clutter of boxes, or a neat portal bar. The latter is my favourite, but it doesn't look the best if there are no more sections to follow, so like Keith, I prefer putting them down the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I copied that usage from you, assuming that it was how it's done. ;O) I wondered why they sometimes found their way up the page for ages. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They go in the "See also" section, or at least, that's what I do and that's what the Manual of Style says. Putting them under EXTERNAL links makes no sense, considering that they link WITHIN Wikipedia. What I do is, if there's no bulleted articles in the "See also" section, I turn the portal link into a Portal Bar. When bulleted articles are added, I change the bar into a regular portal link. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Usually I don't edit in the military field (doing edits on the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte tank), and I want to know if the site Militaryfactory.com can even be considered as a reliable source. I'm not sure how this would stand in any standard article, but I have seen it frequently on articles, even when they have had their B-class criteria checked (while passing). So this is more of a question. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be considered reliable. None of its articles are sourced, it's not associated with any organization of note, and I never heard of any of the article authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Very good points there, your comment has saved me from sourcing it since the information given in the article has been incredibly hard to source. Thanks you. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Nelson Mandela (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of A-Class review?[edit]

Can someone give me an example of the purpose of A-class, as opposed to FA?

Reading the FAQ and related documents on the process, it seems that some of the purpose of A-class is to prepare for FA. Those same documents state that A-class is deliberately similar to FA.

This being the case, what is the purpose of A? Why would anyone not post directly to FAC, and get a wider variety of eyeballs?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we're more likely to know your topic better than the average FAC reviewer and thus better equipped to catch factual mistakes and evaluate your sources? The latter are more likely to catch infelicities in prose, MOS compliance, etc. in my experience. You may not feel that it's worth your time, but that's your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My question is more along the lines of "is there an article that will want to stop at A?" For instance, does A-class allow the use of fair use images? That would be a major advantage if it did. That's just one example though, there seem to be a number of cases that "outlaw" FA, but maybe not A-class. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there are articles that would necessarily need to stop there—the criteria are indeed quite similar, with FA of course tending to be more stringent on quality of prose—but there are certainly editors who might not be interested in submitting articles to the FAC process, for whatever reason. Since FAC only allows nominations from an article's principal authors, that necessarily excludes certain articles from consideration there. Kirill [talk] 01:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Before I became disillusioned with the whole high-quality hoopjumping process (so I'm probably an example of Kirill's point above), my personal stance was that articles that were on an 'ongoing' subject and liable to change significantly in the future (Collins-class submarine, an active submarine class, is my pet example) should stay at A or lower. There's a slightly lower quality standard expected of A-class articles, so maintaining an article on a changing subject would be easier. On the other hand, I never dragged HMAS Sydney (R17) (a 70s decommissioned ship, so a 'concluded' subject) any higher than A either, and can't really think of a particular reason why. -- saberwyn 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting example, precisely the sort of thing I'm wondering about. So have you personally found A to be eaiser/simpler/better than FA? And given that A means you'll never get a charm slot on the main, do you feel the A process is even worthwhile, compared to something like GA or (if it actually worked) PR?
There is a method to my madness here. If we have two processes that do basically the same thing, why have two processes? Why not have a single process that forks at the end? So if your article goes through the review successfully and meets all the FA criterion, it goes directly to FA. Alternately, the exact same article with a free use image that the author doesn't want to remove goes directly to A. If the difference is only in minor content related issues, then there is no need for two entirely different systems.
I bring this up because from what I can tell the A-class reviewers are the same people doing the FA. So why not devolve the process to a single step? I can't see any practical limitation. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a huge practical limitation that stops FAC dead.FAC is limited to one article at a time per editor, and takes a couple of months. So the most you can do is half a dozen per annum. Perhaps a couple more if you can file with a collaborator. So realistically, many of the articles I write can never go to FAC, because I cannot find a slot. Whereas you can nominate as many articles for A-class as you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is also the problem at the FA level because of the paucity of readers. I read all (or most) of the FA applicants in the history/military history genre, just because there aren't enough readers. My last submission had one comment, on the image review, and I didn't understand it, but when I asked a question about it, there was never a response. Article came down for lack of reviews. auntieruth (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, good point, but that's precisely what I'm trying to solve. If the sub-groups could approve FA, this limitation could be imposed or removed as that sub-group wishes. auntieruth, true that, but I'm not sure it's very different in A-class? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A-class has suffered from a lack of reviewers too, causing a blowout in review times. It has advantages over FAC in this regard though. First, the nominators can nominate multiple articles at a time. Second, the format is more structured. Everybody knows that the A class requires three reviews, copyedit, source check and image check. So passers-by are in a better position to evaluate which nomination needs help, and what needs to be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ufology[edit]

Ok, this is going to seem like a weird one, so please bear with me here. I honestly think this is part of military history in a depressingly big way.

That article is awful. I've been trying to think about how I can fix it, to make it a better overview of the 'field' as a whole, and I keep running into pitfalls. Number 1 - what to do about the military response to UFOs. I have barely begun to write about the US military and government response to UFOs and I'm already only on a highly condensed version of 1947-1952 that barely covers anything. This is going to be long. There are articles on individual military projects, incidences, government reports - but nothing on how independent militaries have dealt with UFOs throughout the last 60-80 years.

Does anyone have tips on how best to cover something like this? Given the number of jets scrambled, military scientists/projects/technologies/man hours put into this, money spent - is this stuff worthy of its own article? How would you go about doing that? I write articles about paranormal stuff, military history is not my forte.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic to tackle. I haven't read these articles, but they might help:
  • 1996. "On the Edge of Science: Coping With UFOlogy Scientifically". PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 7, no. 2: 136-139.
  • Cross, Anne. 2004. "The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers". Qualitative Sociology. 27, no. 1: 3-34. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've got all the skeptic and anthropologists and military historians lined up on my bookshelf, just doing an overview of the CIAs history online right now and what it's bringing up in terms of the air force and their involvement in the issue - and how it played a large part in the Cold War - is just monumental. Wait until I dive into those articles! I don't know whether to be happy or cry. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is my beginning draft of a new article, it focuses exclusively on the US government and military's overall response to UFOs - I really think you guys would be interested. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Robert LaRue Miller[edit]

Re: Robert LaRue Miller,

I've had my eye on this "article" or so-called page for a few weeks now. First it appears in "Biography (military) articles by quality and importance" as an Unassessed "NA" page. Secondly, is this page isolated by itself? What could be done so it doesn't show up in the above assessment table? Adamdaley (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the article in question? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This: Robert LaRue Miller. I know your probably thinking that there is no article at that link. But for some reason it does appear on my Biography statistics table even though I have purged the bot for this table many times and still it exists. Adamdaley (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Robert LaRue Miller :). Unfortunately the bot isn't clever enough to handle this "special" namespace correctly (Not sure why. Maybe wide-spread draft usage was implemented, after the bot was developed?). I always try to ignore those few cases. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Last time I saw an article under the above name, I recall that it was going to be deleted for a reason I cannot remember. Adamdaley (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You could try asking at WP:WikiProject Biography or at Template:Wikiproject Biography to add a Draft categorization - "biography (military)" uses the biography project's main template, not the MILHIST template. That doesn't solve the whole problem, but would put those draft articles into a proper category. GermanJoe (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War GAR[edit]

Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice for translation article[edit]

Hi Military history WikiProject,

I'm Ryan with WikiEdu. We have a student in a translation class who will be translating an article from French to English. His first choice to translate is fr:Vie en Belgique durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Life in Belgium during World War II). We don't have such an article, but our coverage of WW2 is thorough enough that I'm concerned the reason we don't have an article by that name is because there may be consensus the topic is sufficiently covered across the many other articles about Belgium and WW2 (e.g. those at Category:Belgium in World War II). I'm hoping you can provide some advice on the matter. Thanks very much! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid the article German occupation of Belgium during World War II covers that, except for the football part that is. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Brigade Piron might be interested, he's into Belgium. Keith-264 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'll convey as much. Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user making changes to Napoleonic articles[edit]

IP user 193.140.194.44 has been making changes to some of the battle articles...changing information in the box usually. IP user 129.178.88.85 says he/she is undoing them. One is Battle_of_Jena–Auerstedt. Anyone know something about this? auntieruth (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

now this one 213.106.227.129 is making random changes....auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day[edit]

  • Template:POTD/2015-03-24 is going to be about WWI recruiting in the UK. Would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I had a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Didn't spot any clangers content-wise, couldn't resist tweaking wording just a little.. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

I have been working on this article, and have just sourced and expanded the 'India and disbandment' section. However, I have limited sources and limited access to sources on the division's time in India and Burma. Does anyone have access to sources such as Defeat into Victory, the Official History (War Against Japan), or anything else that would be able to flesh out parts of that section and specifically the following:

  • Anything the division did to help quell the civil unrest following the emergence of the Quit India movement.
  • The 23rd Infantry Brigade were deployed to the Arakan in May 1943. I have seen mention that they were deployed to Taung Bazar to cover the retreat of Anglo-Indian forces following the Japanese counterattacks during the Arakan campaign. I have not been able to source this, can someone flesh out why the brigade was deployed there?
  • The previous, unsourced, version stated that William Slim (in addition to Auchinleck) objected to the division being broken up for the Chindits. I was unable to source this, and no longer have a copy of Slim's book.

Any help is much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got the OH, what dates interest you?Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Keith. Any mention of 70th Div (or its brigades) really. In particular, August 42 onwards for its role in policing India, and May 1943 for 23rd Infantry Brigade in Arakan. I also saw mention that the division may have helped with famine relief, does the OH verify this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Warfare[edit]

FYI, Warfare has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The main purpose of the proposal was actually to discuss the best target for the redirect now that its content has been merged with War following a talk page discussion (though deletion was being canvassed as an option). I've just closed this with a suggestion that a discussion take place on a central board such as this one first, especially as there seems no likelihood of the page being deleted. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Check on article regarding foreign suppliers of Royal Brunei Armed Forces[edit]

Been seeing some anonymous IP posting in the infobox of the RBAF with good faith since defense articles do not mention the involvement of the Koreas in supplying military equipment. Can someone look into this and let me know? Ominae (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like test or minor vandalism to me. Adding both North and South Korea is uncited and shoold be very unlikely. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)