Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MILHIST)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

Category:Lieutenant generals of the United States Army[edit]

Should/can this category be created ? I am happy to populate it, (I just noticed that some are currently in Category:Lieutenant generals)...GrahamHardy (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think these categories by exact rank are utterly pointless and should all be deleted. "Generals" (as a shorthand for the generic category of general officers) is fine, but we don't need every single rank categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Lieutenant generals. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Shall I add them all to that category then? GrahamHardy (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
G'day GrahamHardy While the service categories exist, you should add them to the most specific category that applies, not a parent category. If editors think this category tree should be truncated, they need to CfD them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I shall add them to Category:Lieutenant generals then, ThanksGrahamHardy (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

2 articles about same subject[edit]

The pages Theban–Spartan War and Boeotian War are about the same conflict. I very much, don't know enough about it, to start messing with the articles, so I thought it best to let this project know. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Boeotian War covers a shorter timescale and is pretty superficial. Theban-Spartan War is much more detailed and assessed as a B class article. Boeotian War could probably be lost without overall diminution of the encyclopedia. I would note that that Theban-Spartan War uses a lot of primary source references, which would be good elsewhere but I fear is not compliant with citation standards here and may mean that the B class assessment is in error.Monstrelet (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you refer to as primary sources. Just because something was written in Greek 2000 years ago doesn't make it a primary source. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It /does/ if it's talking about something that happened /in/ Greece c.2000 ago. ——SerialNumber54129 20:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Troubles listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Troubles to be moved to Northern Ireland conflict. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Navy crew lists[edit]

I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but what is Wikipedia's policy (if any) on navy crew lists? I realise this is an enormous topic, data-wise (and source-wise), but is there ever a case for a list of crew members of a particular ship or shore establishment? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently discussed on WP:SHIPS, see WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The short answer is, no, there is generally no reason to have a crew list for anything. There are occasions where individual crew members are notable in the history of the ship (whether they are themselves notable or not) and they should be included in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pacific War#RFC on detail in infobox regarding beligerents and commanders[edit]

FYI re the subject RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Operation Flintlock (World War II)[edit]

Can someone explain the benefit of Operation Flintlock (World War II) to me? It seems (apart from being rather poorly done) to be redundant to the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign article. And in my experience, we don't generally have pairs of articles like this - we have an article on Operation Weserübung, but not one on the German invasion of Norway, and Operation Forager redirects to the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign article. Anybody else think the Flintlock article ought to be redirected? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks like Operation Flintlock should redirect to Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign to me. Also the Op Flintlock article is poorly cited with only 1 reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with making it a redirect. Much as I love battleships, half the article being about two of the fire support ships, with about two sentences on the Marines and Army, is grossly incomplete. RobDuch (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism alert[edit]

The brand-new editor User:Khaginkhor added an erroneous link to one of my watchlisted articles. I looked at a few of his other contributions and reverted almost all of them as subtle vandalism. An admin needs to review these and decide upon the appropriate measures.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked but a lot of nonsense edits will need to be tidied up. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted all of those - thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Royal Australian Navy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Royal Australian Navy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Password question[edit]

How do I find out my password? Work has installed a computer and I want to log in from there but can't remember the damn thing. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Found it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

World War II picture of Germany in ruins[edit]

  • I'm looking for a picture of Germany/Berlin in ruins after the end of World War II. For example lots of ruined buildings, casualties etc. It is for a featured article so would need to be eye catching, but the resolution doesn't really matter. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If you're just trying to signify "German cities were badly damaged" and it doesn't specifically have to be Berlin, then File:Koeln 1945.jpg is probably your best bet. ‑ Iridescent 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes that looks featured article quality. I can use that. Thank you. Szzuk (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
An excellent example to use. Kierzek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

RAN posting[edit]

This is a question of Br/Au Enlish for a RAN posting to a ship in WW2 era. My experience is army but I would call it a "posting" (posted to HMAS ...) as opposed to US English that might use "billeted" (as has been done at Teddy Sheean. Just checking this isn't historical or a difference between services. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)