Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AICT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Insertion of "Supported by" in Infobox[edit]

Hi. There is an open RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang#RfC:_Insertion_of_South_Vietnam concerning the insertion of a "Supported by <party>" in the infobox. It would be good if interested participants can have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC has expired, but I think it needs the attention of an uninvolved who can determine consensus now. FactotEm (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I've asked AustralianRupert. Seriously, that article has literally experienced "battle ground" editing. ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not kidding! Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pipe major[edit]

Does anyone know anything about Pipe majors, in particular the military aspect? I'm looking to expand that article. Thanks, Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


I have started an RFC to get input on a proposal to rename List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy Gbawden (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elyesa Bazna/GA1[edit]

Greetings, folks. I carried out a GA review for Elyesa Bazna, a page which is within the scope of this project. I have placed the review on hold, because there were some relatively minor issues (see the review page) which are nonetheless large enough that I would not feel comfortable fixing them and then passing the article myself. Additionally, I don't have access to some of the sources. The reason I am posting here is that the nominator has not been active for many months now. If anybody with interest in World War II or Intelligence history could help out here, it would be much appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Army[edit]

User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. After looking at this, I suggested to User:Mike Christie at User talk:Mike Christie#Move of Anglo-Saxon military organisation that the article should be deleted. He agreed that AfD would be appropriate, but suggested consulting consulting MilHist first. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say AFD with extreme prejudice, since for obvious reasons there was never such a thing as the "Anglo-Saxon Army", other than arguably for a brief period between 937 and 1066, and even then the fyrd weren't really an "army" in the modern sense. Treating the Heptarchy states as a single entity on the grounds that they had similar equipment makes no more sense than treating the militaries of 20th-century Europe as a single entity. Everything that needs to be said about the militaries of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms has already been said at fyrd and housecarl. ‑ Iridescent 11:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
937 - 1066 is quite a long period really. We have, for example, an article on the German Army (Wehrmacht) which lasted according to the article from 1935 to 1946. Likewise, we don't explain all about that army at Panzergrenadier. Questions ought to be is Anglo-Saxon military organisation a notable topic? What is the hierarchy of articles in this field - should we spring an explanation of the whole from a branch of service or even a socio-military group? That said, I don't think we need separate articles on Anglo-Saxon organisation, Anglo-Saxon warfare and Anglo-Saxon weaponry. Recommend review to reorganise/merge. Monstrelet (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about Anglo-Saxon miltiary organisations, but "army" is definitely not the right term for them. There weren't a any "armies" (eg, permanently raised land forces with a fixed allegiance) in western Europe at this time. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon military organization seems a better title to me. The subject is notable, and there are books on it, although the article, while correct, doesn't list any sources. (I hate that.) While much of it is covered by fyrd and housecarl, I think that someone turning to Wikipedia for information on the subject is highly unlikely to go there in the first instance, so a top-level article seems to be reasonable. Anglo-Saxon weaponry is a fairly good article, and I wouldn't like to see it ruined by being merged. There is a big difference between 937 to 1066 and 1935 to 1946! Technological change was much slower in the 10th century than the 20th. (And I'm not sure whether "permanently raised land forces with a fixed allegiance" is a good definition of an army.) I suggest letting the experts develop the articles for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The article did list sources until a couple of days ago, but only as a reading list, not citations. The editor who changed the title has drastically shortened it and deleted the sources. See [1]. Anglo-Saxon military organisation does not seem to me notable as a separate article from Anglo-Saxon warfare, and I think a merger is probably the best solution if anyone is willing to take it on. It is outside my field, but I see User:Midnightblueowl and User:Biblioworm have worked on the good article on Anglo-Saxon weaponry. Another alternative is to change the artice to a redirect to Anglo-Saxon warfare. PS I see that the editor who changed the article title has also deleted the infobox in Godwin, Earl of Wessex. I have reverted his changes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly urge people not to remove sources like that! A reading list, while nowhere near as good as inline citations, gives the next editor somewhere to go to research the subject, and sources to check for close paraphrasing. Without it, you have to rewrite all the text. So it makes the job of improving the article much harder. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Given what's left might as well move Anglo-Saxon Army back to Anglo-Saxon military organization then redirect it to Anglo-Saxon warfare. That will retain the history. Then delete Anglo-Saxon Army and Anglo-Saxon Military as misconceived capitalizations of phrases. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
i was fine with the previous title but the current title wrongly implies that there was one "Army" for the entire period that had a continuous organizational life. A redirect would also work. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree military organisation is better than army - there was a new army each time there was a war but the nature of equipment, methods of raising etc. were more stable. That was how pre-modern warfare was and to suggest that an army has to be a permanently raised land force is flying in the face of most of military history. As to technological change rates, true but not relevant if the argument about notability is it should be based on period of existence. Surely, it should be if its notable and has the sources to create a viable article, which this topic does. I'd support anyone working on merger but I'm not very good at the merger technicalities, so it wouldn't be good for me to lead on it Monstrelet (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft gun turret as separate article[edit]

A discussion has been started about creation of a separate article (possibly named aircraft gun turret - currently a redirect) to handle the content of gun turret#aircraft, the discussion is at Talk:Gun_turret#Aircraft_gun_turret. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 7, 2016[edit]

Krulak Mendenhall mission, nominator long gone, eyes would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Missile turret"[edit]

Missile turret is this really a thing? Does anyone actually use this phrase for real. The example seem to be launchers and all the incoming links appear to be from sci-fi entities yet there is no sci-fi examples in the article. Thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I cant remember ever seeing the term in serious publications on military topics, which typically refer to "missile launchers" and the like. The term is used in computer games, which might have led to some confusion. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

COIN Ops[edit]

Hello. If anybody has any information regarding COIN ops, I would like to see it. I'm trying to write an article on the subject.Jak474 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that there's a vast literature on this topic, it might be helpful if you identified the gaps you're looking to close. Also, are you working on the Counter-insurgency article? Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Two reasonably good, up to date starting points are John Mackinlay, ¨The Insurgent Archipelago¨, and David Kilcullens recent ¨Counterinsurgency¨. But go to Small Wars Council would be a great online start. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force[edit]

As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here; I wasn't sure how to help you set this up. - Dank (push to talk) 08:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
An urgent task for you would be to take a look at some of the Roman fort categories. User:Rjdeadly has taken it upon themselves to redo a whole bunch of categories relating to Roman forts and the like, apparently without consensus. It's not my area at all, but since categories like Category:Roman legionary fortresses have existed for 10 years but are now threatened with deletion as they are now empty, someone needs to take a look and see what damage limitation is appropriate. Le Deluge (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Le Deluge (talk · contribs), The category you mentioned was due to him making a different category called Roman Legionary Fortresses, and rather than moving it he decided to CSD it, and remake it, I will check his other contribs. Iazyges (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Le Deluge (talk · contribs) After checking, he is blocked, and the category I previously mentioned he created has been tagged for speedy merging with the old one.. Iazyges (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Although this is not quite my area of expertise, these categories appear to be unclearly defined and their content jumbled together: what exactly is a "legionary fortress"? Is it a reference to the castrum, in which case it is redundant and inaccurate, since castra were used also by auxiliaries, or is it supposed to mean 'legionary base", which would include several cities and larger fortresses that do not fit within the castrum typology? Right now there is a mix of both. I suggest that until someone with good knowledge of Roman fortification typology makes a thorough categorization accordingly, "Ancient Roman forts in XXX" is perfectly sufficient. Constantine 19:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Cplakidas (talk · contribs) I did some perusing, according to Roman military engineering, a legionary fort was a permanent base of one or more legions, a castra was a temporary thing, how would this be resolved best do you think? I am making a passage in the talk page of the Roman and Byzantine military history task force to discuss it. Perhaps an RFC to decide if Legionary fort should be its own article for permanent forts, and Castra should be only for temporary one? Iazyges (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Again there's fuzziness in that many "castra" gave their names to long-lived settlements like Chester. Going back to Rjdeadly's edits, he seems to have eg decided that Category:Roman legionary fortresses in England should move to Category:Roman legionary fortresses in Britannia (UK) despite no consensus for such a move. As I say, he's been busy and some of his edits have been subtle. I've also mentioned this on WP:CGR, albeit without much response. Le Deluge (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pat Southern in 'The Roman Army - A Social and Institutional History distinguishes between:

  • temporary fortified camps of the early empire
  • forts (usually under a centurion, p.81), rarely also referring to "auxilliary forts"
  • fortresses (often calling them "legionary fortresses")

It seems that the above terms could be used for detailed categorization here, however I am afraid that, for many forts, it would be difficult to support this categorization due to lack of sources. I suspect that this difficulty is even more pronounced with the forts of the later Empire, when legions became smaller. As for the permanence of Roman fortifications, "the earlier fortified camps of the early Empire ...were not generally designed as permanent bases for troops...In the second century AD from the reign of Trajan onward, when the majority of forts had become permanent bases rather than semipermanent ones..." (Southern p.180). Southern does not use the term castrum at all but I am sure that the latter can be used for denoting both temporary and permanent fortifications. If you need more details, I could consult The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, I guess he has additional details on the matter.--Dipa1965 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dipa1965 (talk · contribs), Hm perhaps it could be split into the three you mentioned, or else a mix of the current system with that? Iazyges (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Gladiator (2000 film)[edit]

Gladiator (2000 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture question[edit]

Combat block 1 at the fortress Limeiln (ouvrage Four-à-Chaux, Alsace), showing signs of German testing of explosives inside some fortresses between 1942 and 1944

Why will the picture show on preview but not in the [2] article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Curious. I just copied the whole section to my user page, where it displayed fine, then re-copied that back to the article, and still a problem. FactotEm (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I wondered if it was to do with it being Wiki Fr but it shows all right on another wiki Eng page. Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Somebody missed to close the brackets on the image before. Fixed now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks babe. Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rank templates bias[edit]

Just seen some rank badge templates being created for example Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Bangladesh, not sure if it is just me but is not the naming convention a bit non-neutral as far as I know this is not natopedia. It also lists them by NATO rank codes which seems to be a bit of a theme in rank articles, any reason why we cant compare with russian forces equivalants (or any other non-nato force) as well? All seems a bit bias. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)