Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military science, technology, and theory task force/archive1

Scope

I assume "engineering" includes machinery and hardware. Does it also include fortifications? Folks at 137 09:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, engineering of defensive structures would be included. That's my understanding, anyway. There's quite a substantial discussion about the scope over at the WikiProject's main talk page. Jakew 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's right. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, its what we had in mind during the discussion on the main project Talk page: Machinery, Fortifications, Chemistry, Roads, Equipement,etc.--Dryzen 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From my post at Military Science tf: "I think of technology and engineering as physical manifestation (all articles referring to tangible items and places), this task force as technique, theory and development (those articles which refer to most intangibles, substance of history and new classes of tangibles), and the historiography group as military journalism and controversy (article about recording history and meta history, humanizing, and noting anomaly, all tangible or no)." Discussion, disagreements, drawn blades? BusterD 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied here to avoid fragmenting the discussion over three pages. Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

would things like load bearing and protective equipment also fall under the scope of this task force? I noticed that there dosen't seem to be much info about web gear in general other then a paragraph at webbing. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think so (and some of the more armor-like variants may be relevant to the weaponry task force as well). Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually understand military vehicle programs here? The reasom I ask is regarding the CUCV page, as it is absolutely horrible, containing many mistakes in both the Chrysler/GM sections and the program description. I worked at GM/MVO (General Motors/Military Vehicle Operations) at the time as the lead design engineer for these trucks (later the FMTV program base vehicle design and Midgetman launcher vehicle, all at MVO) and was responsible also for building the prototype vehicles at the Milford, MI Proving grounds. Looking over the data, Iam absolutely astounded at the inaccuracies, such as saying the M1008's had a Dana 70 rear axle with a LSD (it had a corporate 14 bolt, now made by American Axle & Manufacturing, with a Detroit Locker fully locking differential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.70.62 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, is there anybody working on military geography / topography / airforce geography? I might be able to contribute Germany-related information. Wschroedter (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help on Fuse (explosives)

We have an enthusiastic new user Snozzer (talk · contribs) who is convinced that because they were taught that "Fuse" and "Fuze" were the same thing, that nobody else could possibly use them in a technically distinct manner. I'm at 3 reverts today and I'm trying to get through on the talk page (his and articles) but I could use some help... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles

Might I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing weapon topics

Greetings. I have a short list of missing topics related to weapons and military technology. I have tried to check if there are any equivalent articles but could anyone of you have a look at the list? Thank you - Skysmith 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Waffenfarbe

The stub article Waffenfarbe has been proposed for deletion. Someone here might want to examine it and comment on the deletion proposal as to whether it should be kept, merged or deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. (I'm also concerned by some of the nominator's previous comments, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but since he hasn't really identified an actionable case for deletion, I cannot see it going through. From comments he has made on his user page and WikiProject Germany, he seems to be a German national who just hates the military and anything associating Germany with the 3rd Reich. In any case, he doesn't yet seem to quite understand what Wikipedia is and isn't, and Agathoclea appears to be trying to educate him. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look over the Nagmachon stub?

Hi. I made a few changes on the Nagmachon stub due to some inaccuracies that were there before, but to be honest, I'm not entirely confident in the info I added either. I think I may be getting info about the Nagmachon vehicle, the NagmaSho't vehicle and the Nakpadon vehicles mixed up... for example, would the "NagmaSho't" also have been referred to as "Nagmachon" at some point? thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Castles project: merge?

There's a separate castles project. Should this be merged or linked? It's tagged as inactive. Folks at 137 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Trinity test GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Beams

I just tagged the Battle of the Beams for WPMILHIST and also for British, German, WW2 and Technology task forces. Initial assessment is Start, pending review for B-class.

Sv1xv (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Military technology and engineering

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Corps

Hi all, I have been slowly improving Chemical Corps (United States Army) over the last year. There's tons more to do and any assistance (fellow Dragon Soldiers come out of the woodwork now) would be appreciated by me, and the article's readers. There are some red links that might be fun to create, maybe some good DYKs there. Anyone who wants to help should stop by. I have compiled a bunch of sources on the talk page and there is an open question there that could use some input too. Thanks. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WT:MILHIST --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Military medicine?

Is this the right group for articles related to military medicine?

If so, an editor has requested some attention for Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers‎ (emergency blood substitutes). Also, if there's an active group that does anything about history of medicine and battlefield medicine, I'm sure WikiProject Medicine would be happy to list it as a related group on its project page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IR-40

Hello, I've been moderately active with this project, but I'm not too familiar with the B-class ratings. An article I have worked on, IR-40, apparently meets all but the last one, "Supporting Materials." Could someone please explain what that is to me? Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:Rocketry

FYI, WP:LV WikiProject Rocketry is reorganizing, since rocketry is related to your subject of concern, this is to inform you. See WT:WikiProject_Rocketry#WPSpace 76.66.193.69 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of weaponry task force articles automatically in this task force

As far as I understand it, adding the weaponry task force to the WPMILHIST banner also adds this task force to the banner. With the result that the Category:Military technology and engineering task force articles includes all the weapons task force articles as well as its own. Is this by design? It makes the category tricky to navigate. I'll also mention this under the banner template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When the task force was originally set up, it was decide that all weaponry articles would be automatically tagged into it, because the scope was defined in such a way as to include every article that fell under the Weaponry TF. The alternative, I suppose, would be to eliminate that link, and say that this TF does not automatically include all weaponry (and vehicle) topics. Doing so will probably make this TF considerably smaller in scope; but it also leads to some confusion, since not everything intuitively related to military technology will necessarily be included.

In any case, it's really up to the participants of this task force and/or the project as a whole to decide how the scope should be defined; the automatic tagging is merely a reflection of that definition, and can be very easily switched to support either approach. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dardanelles Gun

This article seems to have shrunk in half, and been renamed, over the Summer, with mention of the "Basilic" cannon totally excised. Could someone have a look over it? It apparently was the target of an edit war. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The before/after diff is here; it looks to me like the article was cleaned up quite considerably (including the removal of its "In popular culture" section, which is generally a good thing!) If you have concerns about the alterations that were made, it's probably best to take them up with either Gun Powder Ma (the editor responsible) or on the article talkpage. EyeSerene^talk 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Task Force housekeeping

Please discuss this here

There's a proposal to consolidate TFs into larger, more active, ones. This includes:

• Military science could be merged with Military technology and engineering to form the Military science and technology task force.

Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Works for me since "military science" has a different connotation in the US than was perhaps initially envisioned. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Biological warfare at peer review

A new portal Portal:Biological warfare is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Biological warfare/archive1. I put a bit of work into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

New article MG 45

Apparently the MG 45 was a prototype improvement on the MG 42. It was a requested article, so I fulfilled that with this stub and filed it with the other prototype firearms. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) now open

The A-Class review for Barrage (artillery) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Task force merger

Further to this discussion at WT:MILHIST, the Military science task force and the Military technology and engineering task force have been merged together to create this, the Military science and technology task force. All updates to the task force infrastructure are now complete, and those members that make use of transcluded task-force specific templates such as the announcements template or the userbox should find they have altered accordingly. However, members may wish to update their watchlists to reflect the name changes to various pages and categories.

One minor issue that might warrant further discussion is the current task force banner image (also used in the userbox). As a placeholder I made use of the former science task force's image, Image:MilHis Sci.jpg, but suggestions for a better alternative are very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) now open

The peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal candidacy

I have nominated Portal:Biological warfare as a candidate for Featured portal status. Feel free to comment, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history/Military science and technology task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military science and technology task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) now open

The peer review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short now open

The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

James Lind

James Lind was a pioneer of naval hygiene and medical practices in the 18th century Royall Navy. So, I've added him to WPMILHIST and to this task force. Is this appropriate, given the man's impact upon naval efficiency and fighting capability? I notice that an earlier enquiry about military medicine went unanswered. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that his naval service alone warranted inclusion in Milhist, and his medical work seems to make him more than worthy of being in this task force. Supporting elements of military history like medicine all to often slip under the radar, so I think this is a good catch Folks at 13/. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder now open

The A-Class review for Ordnance QF 18 pounder is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does China have a nuclear triad?

Hello, the question of whether the PRC possesses today a nuclear triad has been raised; please see the article's Talk page if you are qualified in helping to answer the question. YLee (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open

The A-Class review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN P90 now open

The peer review for FN P90 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Tower of London now open

The featured article candidacy for Tower of London is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle now open

The peer review for GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for FN Five-seven now open

The peer review for FN Five-seven is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

'Correct' meaning of Military Acronym: TADS/PNVS

re TADS/PNVS ≡ Target Acquisition and Designation System, Pilot Night Vision System.

• A recent edit has changed the meaning of S in TADS from System to Sights.
  • This is how Lockheed Martin defines the term. See Arrowhead.
  • It was originally "Sight", but moved to "System" on 20 October 2006
• If this stays as S≡Sights, it means the article title and text don't match.
• I have also seen PNVS as Passive(not Pilot) Night Vision System (or even PNV Sensor).
  It seems the acronym can be interpreted in several ways. Advice & comments please! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the source supports the change, I've moved the article to Target Acquisition and Designation Sights, Pilot Night Vision System. As for the "P", I've certainly always seen it as indicating "Passive" rather than "Pilot" (eg PNG passive night-vision goggles), but I guess its Lockheed's kit so they can define the acronym how they like :) If you have other sourced versions, perhaps including a footnote or something giving the alternatives would be one way to address the issue? EyeSerene^talk 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Thanks for response EyeSerene. Concur with your move here(basically back to what it was ≈4 years ago!) The original move was apparently based on Google hits! See rationale Here There as a source from 2003 here, but not as good as the Manufacturer. It's likely people mistake/misspeak the meaning, it has changed slighly over time, or that alternatives exist see here, but Verifiablility/Reliable Source trumps all, I suppose. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, WP:V as always :) I think whatever versions others use (and I'm sure you're right about mistaken/misspoken meanings), we have to go by the manufacturer's official designation. EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Leslie Groves now open

The A-Class review for Leslie Groves is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic_accelerator_gun

FYI Magnetic_accelerator_gun has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)