Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manas.chafekar (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 16 March 2020 (→‎Need help on scrubbing the article for military medals and honours). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

    Milhistbot B-Class assessments

    G'day all, Milhistbot has now been run over the unassessed article categories, and has thrown up about 1,800 articles that it thinks are B-Class. As agreed, we need human eyeballs to check these ones. Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6 and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria, and provide feedback on any trends at User talk:MilHistBot. Please also delete any that you have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What I've noticed so far, at least on the articles I've worked on, is that it checks B2 fairly easily, even when the "coverage" probably wouldn't satisfy the necessary level of quality for B. Kinda hard to automate that process though, since bots aren't exactly good at knowing what it is they don't know about a subject if all they can examine is the article text; and what counts as good coverage for, say, German submarine U-153 (1941) (random hypothetical example), is probably way less than for Mengistu Haile Mariam. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly one of the limitations of Milhistbot in doing this sort of assessment. I think once we've worked our way through the backlog, the dozen or so articles thrown up each month will be manageable. Hawkeye is posting them so they can be checked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    March Madness Question

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020

    Assistance needed with Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) TFA

    Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) is going to appear on the main page as TFA on 10 March. I took the lead with developing this to FA status, but will unfortunately be out of town for most of that day. As this article covers a controversial topic, it might attract a larger than standard amount of unhelpful editing. I'd be grateful if other editors could please keep an eye on it. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The article got off much more lightly than I was expecting. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to confirm story on Wikipedia about German surrender in Channel Islands

    In three different Wiki articles (Minquiers, Liberation of the Channel Islands, and Timeline of Axis surrenders), there's a story about a group of German soldiers surrendering on Minquiers, a group of reefs of the Channel Islands, on May 23rd. Here's the version from the Minquiers page:

    A small company of Wehrmacht soldiers on the Minquiers were among the last to surrender in the Second World War. A French fishing boat, skippered by Lucian Marie, approached the island of Minquiers and anchored nearby. A fully armed German soldier approached and asked for help saying 'We've been forgotten by the British, perhaps no one on Jersey told them we were here, I want you to take us over to England, we want to surrender'. This was on 23 May 1945, three weeks after the war in Europe ended.

    I'm unable to find anything to verify this story. All the other sources online are unreliable or clearly originated on Wikipedia. Nothing reliable shows up on Google Books or Google Scholar that I can see. Can anyone verify this story? Thanks for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears in Caddick-Adams, Peter (2011). Monty and Rommel: Parallel Lives. London: Arrow Books. p. 450. ISBN 978-1848091542.: "The last Wehrmacht soldiers to surrender in Western Europe were an infantry company on the tiny Channel Island of Les Minquiers".
    The author is described here as "one of Britain’s leading military historians". Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A further appearance in here, with a slightly different quote, this time referenced to Whiting, Charles (1973). The End of the War: Europe: April 15-May 23, 1945. Stein & Day. ISBN 978-0812816051., although sadly no page number. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansplodge, thank you very much! I was able to track it down to page 168 of the Whiting book. I'll add the source to the articles. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most welcome. The text in our Minquiers article is almost an exact copy of the Caddick-Adams account; one wonders why no source was added at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having occasionally tracked down the source of unsourced statements in various articles, my suspicion for this is lazy editors. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Easter Rising and World War I

    I'm probably going to get skewered for bringing this up again, but I was wondering if the Easter Rising should be considered as part of WW1, meaning the words "Part of World War I" would be in the Easter Rising infobox. I was somewhat recently in a very heated argument at Talk:Easter Rising, and the discussion turned stale on both sides. I argued that it was part of the wider world war, with its events being heavily influenced by the war (limited German support, etc.), while the opposing side argued that it wasn't, saying that it was not a main battleground of the war (little influence), and that previous events in Ireland were of more determinable importance (I think that fairly represents the different arguments). Does anyone have any opinion on this case, and what action should be taken to edit the page, if any? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see both sides of the argument, Roger Casement and all, being valid. But it was only tangibly linked to WW1 (more a case of at the same time, rather then part of it. Here (for once) other stuff may be valid, do we do this with other conflicts that occurred at the same time?Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks for the closure. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not closed, and my answer is not definitive. I would wait for wider opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Was a bit too quick in replying. To answer your question, it depends, I guess. Would the Franco-Thai War be a similar case? For the Central Asian revolt of 1916, it is stated as part of WW1 (full disclosure, I made that edit). 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The former is a bit tough, as Cochin China was (in effect) under Japanese occupation and this affected the outcome. But yes the latter seem analogous and would indicate its a common practice. Thus I would say that (for consistencies) sake it should be part of WW1.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would see both as separate from WWI. Primarily because they were civil conflicts, rather than national conflicts. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian revolution is not described as part of WW1, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps the Greek Civil War might be of relevance? That's about all I can come up with. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dingley, that is the argument that some users used on the Rising talk page, that like the Russian revolt, it was influenced by WW1, but it doesn't mean it was part of it. It's a good counterpoint to adding it as part of the war, IMO. 98.221.136.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Finnish Civil War might be relevant, too. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Campaignbox World War I. A list of wars I made during WW1 that aren't part of it. Should the Rising be added? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Could the botched Easter Rising have been conceivable without the war and the German policy of stirring trouble in the Entente slave empires? Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, as the IRB was already planning that even before WW1 started. Maybe the timing would be different, but not the rising itself. The Banner talk 19:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the article itself make a strong enough case that the Rising was part of the war to justify such a statement being added to the infobox? And shouldn't this discussion be happening on the article TP? Factotem (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is already al large discussion on the talk page of the rising. By and large with the conclusion that it was not part of WW1. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Easter_Rising#Not_part_of_World_War_1. This is in fact a repeat from the discussion last December The Banner talk 19:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP also claims that the Armenian Genocide is part of WW1. But as that went on till 1923, that seems not correct to me. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of it was part of WW1. The other part occurred in the Turkish War of Independence. Please don't mischaracterize my views. But let's stay on topic. As the Banner has made clear, the discussion at the relevant talk page was resolved with the majority of users saying that the Rising wasn't part of WW1. I've come here only for a short second-opinion, and if a similar ruling is made, then I will add the Easter Rising to the list I made of wars that occurred during WW1 but are unrelated to and not part of it. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you mix up "during" and "part of". Not everything during the WW1-era is also part of the First World War. The Banner talk 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an idiot, I don't conflate the two words. Is there a verdict so I can place the Rising among unrelated wars or not? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rising was a war??? Factotem (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better words are rebellion, or brief conflict. There was some fighting. My question still stands. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Rising is unrelated, then what is the sense of adding it to Template:Campaignbox World War I? It makes the campaignbox only confusing when there are also unrelated events listed. The Banner talk 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to match the campaignbox with the Template:Campaignbox World War II. I'm not trying anything new. So that way no one gets confused about if something was part of the war or not. Plus, my question still stands. I'm pretty sure Banner isn't the only one with an opinion here. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ow, I think I have to wait until you came op with the 1917 Potato riots as another campaign or battle? The Banner talk 23:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop taunting me. My question still stands for other users. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole argument is an attempt to synthesise sources.

    • The Finnish Civil War was part of World War 1
    • The Easter Rising was similar to the Finnish Civil War
    • Therefore the Easter Rising was part of World War 1

    That's quite simply a policy violation and a non-starter. There can be no attempt to enforce consistency across different articles when references don't treat them consistently. This tendentious campaign of changing one article to use as leverage to change another article should stop. The IP admits they changed the Central Asian revolt of 1916 yet uses that as a reason to change the Easter Rising article. The IP doesn't mention here they have zero interest in improving the Easter Rising article, their end game can be seen at Talk:World War I casualties#Allied U-boat Losses, Arabian states, and Others. FDW777 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not true, but ok. My main concern right now is Template:Campaignbox World War I, or whether I should add the Rising as a conflict that occurred during WW1 but is completely unrelated to it. This is similar to Template:Campaignbox World War II, under the contemporaneous wars section. Assume good faith, and I recently was making minor constructive edits to the Rising page [[1]]. Should I add it to the unrelated conflicts, or should I get rid of both sections in the campaignboxes? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is true, however, that my edits were based on changing the WW1 casualties page". FDW777 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past, but not now. My question still stands. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAVBOX would suggest vaguely related articles should not be included, the part reading The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. It also states that navigation needs to be bidirectional, so the template would need to be placed on the Easter Rising article. Obviously that discussion would need to take place on that article's talk page, or a proper notification placed there so editors of that page are aware. FDW777 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Just for clarity, I should get rid of each section in both campaignboxes? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would prefer to place the Rising among the unrelated contemporaneous conflicts, so as no one gets confused as to what is part of what. In the case of the WW2 unrelated conflicts, the WW2 campaignbox is generally not present on those articles, so there would be no need to place the WW1 campaginbox on the Rising article. The part that talks about bidirectional stuff in WP:NAVBOX says "normally should," so it isn't exactly a hard and fast rule (because in this case, the articles in the box are identified as being unrelated, and thus there is no need to place campaignboxes everywhere). What do you think? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Memphis (1862)

    I've rewritten and expanded the USS Memphis (1862) article. Needs a reassessment as to class. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is fully cited and seems complete. I've assessed it as a B class. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Referring to people by military rank

    At Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1 there seems to be a disagreement about the sentence "A Board of Trade inspection took place on 1 July, conducted by Major Charles Scrope Hutchinson. It passed, and the line opened to passengers on 4 July." in regards to whether the person should be referred to as "Major Charles Scrope Hutchinson", "Charles Scrope Hutchinson" or "Major Hutchinson". I figure people from this project would be familiar with the issue, so please could someone opine in the linked discussion (search in the page for: by Major Hutchinson). Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the issues is that many Ex-officers insist on being called by their rank as if its a title (such as Lord or Sir). So I would suggest we use such articles as a guide Mick Jagger for example, so in the first sentence Major Charles Scrope Hutchinson from thence on Hutchinson.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. There's no problem at all using his rank the first time he's mentioned, but no need subsequently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. Sadly Lieutenant Commander John Manners, the oldest living first-class cricketer, passed away three days ago aged 105. If anybody fancies expanding the information on his military career from WWII, the Cricket Project would be much obliged. StickyWicket (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to add a historical locator map

    Ping at the larger forum since I asked at a niche one: Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#How_to_add_a_historical_locator_map. TIA for any help! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of RFC at Adolf Hitler

    Hi all. I have opened an RFC at Talk:Adolf Hitler regarding what number we should use for the number Jewish deaths in The Holocaust. Talk:Adolf Hitler#Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust.— Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help on scrubbing the article for military medals and honours

    Hello all,

    I need help on my recently published article. The user AngusWOOF recommended that some one from the military community check and confirm the medal and honors for the article. Can some one form this group please check? Apologies if this is not the correct forum to discuss this. It would be great if you could point me in the right direction.Manas.chafekar (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What article are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, I think it is this one: Suryakant Chintaman Chafekar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the correct one Suryakant Chintaman Chafekar. Sorry for not posting the article name. Manas.chafekar (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference request Battle of Smolensk (1941)

    Footnote 6, "I. P. Statyuk 2006" anyone know the source, I can't find it. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
    If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]