Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 50°06′11″N 40°09′10″E / 50.10306°N 40.15278°E / 50.10306; 40.15278
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: note this edit where a MILHIST co-ordinator is apparently named and shamed
→‎Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: What's your problem with my edit, MPS1992, and did you consider pinging me?
Line 101: Line 101:


::See also [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed]]. And edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=837681444&oldid=837678982 this] (edit summary: {{tq|"note about Cinderella157"}}), where MILHIST co-ordinators are, apparently, named and shamed. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
::See also [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed]]. And edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=837681444&oldid=837678982 this] (edit summary: {{tq|"note about Cinderella157"}}), where MILHIST co-ordinators are, apparently, named and shamed. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
:::? What's your problem with my edit, [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]], and did you consider pinging me? I made the edit because Cinderella hadn't mentioned in their statement that they're a MILHIST coordinator, unlike Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth who (appropriately, IMO) stated it first off, and I wanted it made clear. Mainly for the benefit of Newyorkbrad, who had asked specifically for input from "subject-knowledgeable editors", something a coordinator surely is. As for my repetition of Cinderella's links, I didn't want any arb to miss those either. Incidentally Cinderella "thanked" me for for my edit. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC).


== Proposing name change to "Phosgene attack 19 December 1915" ==
== Proposing name change to "Phosgene attack 19 December 1915" ==

Revision as of 21:55, 23 April 2018

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

    Question re: scoring for the April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive contest

    Still feeling somewhat like the "slow kid in class" (once again borrowing terminology from Gog the Mild), but am also becoming more comfortable with various Wikipedia tools, etc. thanks to tips from everyone during the April backlog drive. So, first, many thanks to creators of the drive and to all who have provided input. Second, from the various instructions I've read over the past few weeks, it looks like backlog drive participants are supposed to be doing their own rough scoring, but I'm confused about how to do that because I've seen what appear to be two different "how to score" charts:

    Which one do I use (no. 1 or 2)? Thank you in advance for the scoring tutorial. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @47thPennVols: No.1 - the rules for the drive. Ignore no. 2, those are the rules for the contest. (Unless you want to put articles into the contest as well. I do.) Don't worry about actually adding up your score, a helpful if underpaid coordinator will do that for you. Just make sure that you record all of the articles you tag, assess, etc on your Drive worksheet. Which you seem to be doing.
    If I get problems I tend to peek at what others are doing, via user contributions, view history and compare selected revisions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Number 1 is the thing to do. Number 2 is the regular writing/improving contest that is run every month (and the whole year for that matter) and is not related to the drive. As for scoring itself just add your edits to the worklist and once the month is over a coordinator will do the math for you ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Obscure chemical lineage and honors question

    As [1] reveals, some U.S. Army Chemical units have a much longer history than otherwise known. Fixing their Lineage and Honors now presents a serious question. Unusual knowledge may be required. Can anyone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That was just a little more creative than usual vandalism. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NBC in the US military is notoriously...hyperbolic. I'd let it lie barring compelling information. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree -- always let sleeping dragons lie. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a Middle-Earth task force to tag it with? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't put it through assessment. It shall not pass. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether adding certain material at this time is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion remains unchanged, and consensus here and at the article supports your recent edits. I've again removed the material as it lacks the support to be included. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox military award

    Template:Infobox military award has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox award. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Portuguese-Ottoman War

    What is the opinion of the Military History community on this page, The Portuguese-Ottoman War? It used to be called just Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts until a user took the initiative to change its name and merge it with Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-89).

    I disagree with these changes, since the last two articles were meant to detail very specific periods of fighting on their own, while the name "The Portuguese-Ottoman War" does not seem as appropriate, since the Portuguese and Turks fought occasionally and undeclaredly for a period of some 200 years, between the 16th and 18th centuries.

    The author of these edits however, refuses any changes regardless of arguments, so I'd like to consult with the community if splitting them again would be in order, and if moving to the old name would be more approppriate. Crenelator (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article itself requires a lot of work. Style-wise, its use of frequent bold type and a great many quotations from sources is poor. Some of the English is eccentric and non-encylopedic in tone. Monstrelet (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A-Class review that needs one more set of eyes

    G'day all, it's mine, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Commissioner Government has been open since 22 January, so closing in on three months. It has two supports and just needs another reviewer to get it over the line. Any comments appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is currently an ongoing move discussion at this page which could probably benefit from additional disinterested opinions of editors who have experience with potentially controversial non-obvious titles. Your input is appreciated. Thanks. GMGtalk 11:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Was wondering if someone from WP:MILHIST would mind taking a look at Frank Richards (author) and seeing if they can help out his grandson Secretpsychologist whose trying to correct some errors in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ==Infobox issue==

    |place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France * |coordinates = {{Coord|50|06|11|N|40|09|10|E|display=INLINE,title}} * |map_type = France * |map_size = 200 * |map_caption = {{centre|Serre-lès-Puisieux, a village in the [[Communes of France|commune]] of [[Puisieux, Pas-de-Calais|Puisieux]] in the [[Pas-de-Calais]] [[Departments of France|department]] in northern [[France]].}} * |map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

    Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pl? Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) See below for legible version[reply]

    Loc Map Q

    |place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France
    |coordinates = 50°06′11″N 40°09′10″E / 50.10306°N 40.15278°E / 50.10306; 40.15278
    |map_type = France
    |map_size = 200
    |map_caption = Serre-lès-Puisieux, a village in the commune of Puisieux in the Pas-de-Calais department in northern France.
    |map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

    Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pls? Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Found it, buggered up the coords....Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Up until a few days ago, Paul von Rennenkampf contained two sources that supported spelling his last name with a single 'f'. Recently, TsaristAlvin has removed those sources, replacing them with an offline source (so I can't readily verify spelling) and attempting to add de.wiki as a source.

    There are two issues: first, the change/removal in sourcing; but more critically, the spelling of the last name. TsaristAlvin has attempted to move the page to Paul von Rennenkampff and Paul Georg von Rennenkampff. What name should the article have per MOS and other Wikipedia policies? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Article should be kept at original title. A single f at the end of his name is the standard English transliteration and also the most accurate translation of his Russian last name per WP:RUS romanization. Double f is his German name, but even though Rennenkampf was a Baltic German he spent his career in a Russian-speaking army so English sources refer to him by the Russian transliteration of his name with a single f. Not a single English google books hit refers to him with two f's, so clearly Rennenkampf is his common name. Kges1901 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship needs attention

    A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

    There is an ongoing discussion here related to WWII, which may benefit from knowledgeable editors from this project. Thanks. GMGtalk 11:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I would encourage @WP:MILHIST coordinators: to visit this discussion as certain actions by the project have been indicated in discussions to date. The case is titled German war effort of 1939–45. It directly arises from / is linked to the recent Review essay by @K.e.coffman (ping for courtesy) that appeared in April's edition of the Bugle. The matter is of relevence to any editors that contribute in any way to articles related to or touch upon the German war effort in WW2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. And edits such as this (edit summary: "note about Cinderella157"), where MILHIST co-ordinators are, apparently, named and shamed. MPS1992 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ? What's your problem with my edit, MPS1992, and did you consider pinging me? I made the edit because Cinderella hadn't mentioned in their statement that they're a MILHIST coordinator, unlike Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth who (appropriately, IMO) stated it first off, and I wanted it made clear. Mainly for the benefit of Newyorkbrad, who had asked specifically for input from "subject-knowledgeable editors", something a coordinator surely is. As for my repetition of Cinderella's links, I didn't want any arb to miss those either. Incidentally Cinderella "thanked" me for for my edit. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Proposing name change to "Phosgene attack 19 December 1915"

    I came across the oddly-named Phosgene attack 19 December 1915 page. I am not sure if naming it like this was intentional or not, but since it comes across as oddly-written, i'd say the effect wasn't achieved. Proposing a change to "Phosgene attack on 19 December 1915" or "Phosgene attack of 19 December 1915". YuriNikolai (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a note on the articles talk page about this, and have replied there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26

    The Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 article describes a sub-scale replica which has nothing to do with the original Supermarine company. I am posting here because of the confusion this article could cause. I have started a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26#Move or merge?. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]