Template talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2015[edit]

Image:Ottoman Flag.svgImage:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.svg

Superseded flag 172.56.23.99 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@179.56.23.99: I'm not sure why the current image was superseded. There didn't appear to be any discussion on the file pages at the time, and one doesn't appear technically superior to the other. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look now. Image:Ottoman Flag.svg is a darker shade of red (I have no idea which shade is "correct") and uses a straightforward way of drawing the crescent - it's two circles, one filled in white; the other (overlaid on the white one) filled in the same red as the field. Image:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.svg is in a bright red; the crescent is drawn as eight cubic Bézier curves, and has most of the coordinates specified with six decimal places, somewhat overprecise on an image that is nominally 1200px wide. In both cases, the star is drawn as ten straight lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about the shades either. All photos from the period are black and white. (There is this and this, but I don't know how helpful they would be in determining the shade.) Probably our best guess about the shade is the current Turkish flag. There is no reason to assume that it changed during the standardization in 1936. In any case, they were probably using whatever red dye they could get in the Ottoman times.
In terms of shape the second file definitely seems to be better though, looking at the photos from the time. Especially the star.--172.56.23.99 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the photos in the source for the second one, there doesn't appear to be much standardization at all. Some have the star much larger and further away than either file ([1][2]) and more closely match File:Flag_of_Turkey.svg, some have it closer and smaller than either file ([3][4]). This image (excluding the color, which was added later and, like most colorized pictures, lacks any non-primary colors) seems to most match File:Ottoman flag.svg in terms of star placement. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is hard to say that one flag is right and the other is wrong. There is a length discussion at Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire#Need THIRD OPINION, it seems that File:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.svg was prepared as a compromise between the proposals, i.e. File:Ottoman flag.svg and File:Ottoman flag alternative 2.svg; one has a chubby star and the other has a thinner one like the current Turkish flag, and File:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.svg is in between. I find myself closer to the argument that the current Turkish flag is a better basis: Before 1936 there wasn't really a standard so we can go with any flag that is red with white crescent and star, but since we have to pick a version for use in Wikipedia, I suppose it would be reasonable to assume that in standardizing the flag, the committee picked the version that was most commonly in use, rather than creating a new version.
But regardless of my thoughts, this compromise version seems to be the standard elsewhere in Wikipedia (for example it is used at Template:Country data Ottoman Empire and hence all related articles), so for consistency I suggested changing the one here as well. I think it would be better to use the same file everywhere, and if one were to suggest a change, the discussion and further change could be made on that file.--172.56.23.179 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested some input from the folks at WT:TURKEY#Flag discussion. Bazj (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done In the absence of any reply to the request for comment. Bazj (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Military history draft pages[edit]

I think this template should be changed so that draft articles don't go into Category:Military history draft pages but instead go to Category:Draft-Class military history articles. The "Draft-Class" category fits in the rest of the Category:Military history articles by quality structure (and shows up in the template). It also allows for Category:Draft-Class military history articles by task force to be there in parallel with the other classes and the task forces as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To give a better idea, Draft talk:John Cannon (American revolutionary) using WP US with "ARW" for a draft adds that to Category:Draft-Class American Revolutionary War articles. In contrast, Draft talk:137th New York Volunteer Infantry uses the ACW parameter but doesn't go into a corresponding Category:Draft-Class American Civil War articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: This is now being implemented; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Non-article assessment categories for more details. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User-class subcategories[edit]

It doesn't look like User-class articles are going into the relevant task forces (assuming there's interest in that). For example, User talk:Ryan.opel/61st Army (Soviet Union) doesn't include Category:User-Class World War II articles as it would be in Category:Draft-Class World War II articles if this was in draftspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be fixed on the template side now. Note that some of the categories are still being created, however. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It's fixed! Sorry about that then! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User class doesn't show up when collapsed[edit]

Very, very minor thing but the user-class articles don't up when collapsed. In contrast to Talk:List of battleships which says "Rated:List-class", User talk:Bahamut0013/battleships doesn't indicate that it's User-class. Very dumb to care about but in case it's showing up with other classes, may as well mention it and move on. It may be the WikiProjectBannerShell template and if so, ignore me then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: It looks like we never updated that part of the template when we added the new non-article classes. I've made the change now, so it should display properly regardless of what the rating is. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks! It's minutia but in case there were others, it's a flag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ghost FA Classing[edit]

After the recent change on June 3rd, if an article is unassessed and in a Banner Shell it appears to get rated FA. Talk:Sydney March and Talk:São Marcelo Fort as examples. I can't see what is causing it. --Molestash (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Molestash: Now fixed. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)