Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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


@WP:MILHIST coordinators:

Hey soldiers. Just notifying all troops about the existence of WikiProject Tanks. I just created it, be sure to come over to rifle it out. Much of it is based on WP:MILHIST, but hey, it could be classified as a child project? Send some tankers over to help too.

Best regards on the field of warfare, 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I just burned my retinas on your colour scheme. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Make the main color green instead of yellow. It's the most common tank color and it won't make me feel like this: UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: @UNSC Luke 1021: Owch, ok! 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that we have a military land vehicles task force which covers this topic. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes we do. We also have an Incubator for projects such as this one, and as it so happens we have a tank group in there already. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Though it didn't seem to take off Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Tanks seldom do GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Imagine, a flying tank! How awesome! Face-grin.svg Target360YT (talk · contribs) 03:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Target360YT:.... actually I have seen flying tanks, but only simluated. When I worked for British Aerospace, we had various simulation systems that mostly were set up for mid-range missile defence, and the simulators (not the real kit) tended to assume certain parameters such that gravity = 0 because it makes it easier to simulate the planes snd missiles etc flying around without having to worry about gravity in every equation.
But unnfortunately, for land vehicles this tended to mean that rather than stick on the ground they would fly up in the air because exactly nothing was sticking them to the ground any more. And because of various other parameters, such that a tank doesn't really have much ability to bank, roll or pitch, it would not only fly up in the air but spin around its centre of inertia while doing so, as the guidance equations desperately tried to get it back onto the ground again. It was quite amusing to watch. We stuck them back on the ground with a bit of... welll... we stopped them flying up in the air, but it was quite amusing to see them do it on the simulator, this was one of those well you know those 3D things you get at amusement parks? A dome that was 360 degrees in the azimuth and 180 in the elevation, so if we hadn't stopped them they would have probably ended all up at the North Pole or something. We had about twenty projection cameras doing the rest of the world simulation and these tanks would start spinning up into the air. Tanks shouldn't do that. I did propose that proper British tanks should stay glued to terra firma but naughty foreign tanks should be allowed to spin up to infinity, but I didn't get far with that proposal. Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Mother of Goodness... 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Simon Trew, thanks for the laugh!! Seriously, Brig Richard Simpkin in the 1980s and Ralph Peters in the 1990s (The War in 2020) have both seriously proposed flying tanks/lo-hover armoured helicopters - imagine a Wing In Ground-effect vehicle armoured version of the Mi-24 and you'll get an idea of how formidable such a vehicle could be. Could have er, taken off, pardon the pun, if the Central Front confrontation had continued for a longer period. There's a passing reference to a 'Challengers-must-fly' believing officer also in Beevor's Inside the British Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Peters was actually referring to the Osprey (MV-22) in that book. Intothatdarkness 17:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It goes back further than that; during WW2 the British used a winged version of the Tetrarch during the Normandy landings, dropped from bombers and gliding in behind German lines. (It didn't work; because they had to be light enough not to drop like bricks, they were hopelessly outgunned.) Russia still operates a version of the BMD-1 equipped with retro-rockets, allowing it to be dropped from a bomber, land and go straight into action, although I don't believe this variant has ever seen combat since during the invasion of Afghanistan—the only Soviet or Russian war in which they might have proved useful—special forces seized Afghanistan's airports on the first day allowing equipment to be flown in normally. ‑ Iridescent 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The Tetrarch used in Normandy were delivered in Hamilcar gliders. However, according to Wikipedia, the British, along with many others, had played with a winged tank design Monstrelet (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Since we have the military land vehicles task force already, do we really need a separate project for tanks? Kierzek (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Neal Dow[edit]

Hello! I hate to beg for a review, but would someone here mind checking out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neal Dow/archive1? Dow was an American Civil War general, among other things, which is why I thought members of this Wikiproject might be interested. I normally don't solicit reviews, but it's been languishing for months and I'd hate to see it fail for lack of attention. Thanks very much! --15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New WWII List[edit]

{{Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz}} is in the process of being deleted, but the information has been turned into a list (currently found in my userspace). I am looking for opinions on whether it should be moved to the Article space or deleted. Please voice your opinions at the talk page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Date ranges[edit]

Note: A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC.

Since we use them a lot, you might be interested [1] regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but note from the RFC closing statement: "when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes, two year date styles may be used". So "1939–45" is just as acceptable as "1939–1945" in those areas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know any infoboxes that are so cramped (apart from the ones full of fatuous bullet points, that is) but for me it's always been an aesthetic matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges[edit]

The date ranges thingie reminds me... I keep running into a couple of editors who persist in changing page ranges like pp. 567–568 to pp. 567–68. Does anyone know if there is a guideline or policy somewhere on this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that both are acceptable provided it's consistent within the article, so people shouldn't be arbitrarily changing from one (consistent) style to the other in a given article. The most recent discussion, which put arguments for both styles, is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Type 95 Ke-Nu rail tank?[edit]

Our List of Japanese armoured fighting vehicles of World War II includes a redlink to "Type 95 Ke-Nu Rail tank". A Google search (as far as I can see) only brings up Wikipedia and forum pages that could well have a WP origin. Did such a tank exist? Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Zaloga, Armored Trains p 24 describes a Type 95 rail tank but calls it a So-Mo, or So-Ki for the convertible version. [2] Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The Type 4 Ke-Nu is a variant of the Type 95 Ha-Go. I find no evidence of a Type 95 Ke-Nu existing. Samf4u (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I may remove it from the list and add Type 95 So-Ki to the "Variants" section of the Type 95 Ha-Go using User:Kendall-K1's reference when I have a moment. Thank you both for your efforts. Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Now done. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
D'oh! I've just found a stub article called Type 95 So-Ki. I have linked this with the Type 95 Ha-Go article and added the Zaloga ref above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Type 95 So-Ki is correct. Good work. I also have found several entries lately on the "List of Japanese armoured fighting vehicles of World War II", which were not correct but fixed them accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina Militia records[edit]

I recently ran across a notice that Troop Returns are now available for the North Carolina Militia. Should be a handy tool for editors interested in the American Civil War to Spanish American War periods. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

USNS Cossatot[edit]

I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source for USNS Cossatot being involved in a collision in 1968. Can anyone assist please? Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This mentions the collision briefly, and this provides more details. This newspaper has more details as well (you can see the plain text below, but it appears to be all jumbled up with other articles on the page). Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, have referenced the accident and added the relevant shipwreck navbox. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Temporary job at ANZAC memorial Sydney[edit]

I just saw this job opening on Twitter and thought it would be of interest to some people here from the Australia Task Force - Temporary Exhibitions Research Officer at the ANZAC memorial, Sydney. Note: applications close 9 November, 4-day a week, position until December 2018. Key role description:

As the Exhibitions Research Officer you will conduct supervised research of external collections for potential exhibition and interpretive content, including primary resources of National, State and Regional institutions and participate in associated projects and programs. You will document exhibitions and collection donations, loans and acquisitions, including cataloguing, image capture and data entry, as well as upload content on the Memorial’s web site and develop content for exhibition interactives.

The description states a requires knowledge of: museum exhibition research; the development of content for information communication technologies; and thorough knowledge of military and Australian history and its interpretation.
I thought it'd be pretty cool to have a Wikimedian in the mix :-) All the best, Wittylama 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

86th (Machine Gun) Battalion, CEF and 86th Battalion (Machine Gun), CEF[edit]

These articles appear to be about the same battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, with much of the same information. Can someone more knowledgeable than me on these matters merge them together? Thanks. Sussexpeople (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of the articles are pretty low quality. A merge would probably be best because whatever one of the articles is missing is found in the other one. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I had a go at this. There is a bit of contradictory information and some of the information on the pages was copyvio text. If anyone can improve it further, please feel free. I merged the article into the one that had existed the longest: 86th (Machine Gun) Battalion, CEF. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Sussexpeople (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Banned Users[edit]

Can I remove banned users from the 'active users' section of the Members list and move them to the 'inactive users'? They don't seem to be very active at all. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I would say move them to a new section, as some of them made good contributions but were compromised, or else requested a ban because they spent too much time on here, perhaps called "Banned members". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving them to the inactive list should be fine. There's no reason to highlight banned users in particular. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill. "Lists of shame" have historically been strongly frowned upon on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

TfD: Related recipients of the Knight's Cross[edit]

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 25#Template:Related recipients of the Knight.27s Cross. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)