||This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
How reliable is Warfare History Network? DS (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I welcome other input but based on a quick look I'd say not very. I didn't see anything that suggested peer-reviewed or cited content. My quick search of WP turned up only one occurrence, so it doesn't have much of a track record here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pity - they've got a rather detailed article about Oreste Pinto. Think it's usable as a source anyway, or better not? DS (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Try WP:RSN. - theWOLFchild 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Military insignia project
A few years ago I embarked on a goal to organize and improve Department of the Navy graphics (mainly medals, ribbons, and decorations for now) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, school and life got in the way so the project was put on hold. I now have some free time to attempt to start this up again and I was wondering if this project would fall under the realm of this WikiProject. If not, do you have any recommendations on where a better place would be? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This would be within our scope, although I do not think that we have a dedicated task force for this...yet. That having been said, the project would also probably be of interest to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, so you make wanna work with them if you are going to start up on this again. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, it might worth hooking up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals too. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wish you luck with it Evan, I'll be looking forward to whatever you're able to produce. Wish I had the time (and graphical capabilities) to contribute. Any plans to produce a graphic of the lapel pin versions for civil service members of units awarded unit awards (ie the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation lapel pin). Gecko G (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Imported scripts for bespoked-up edit functions question
I have these but wonder if anyone knows of others that might be useful? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"No." column in lists of military aircraft
The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is not clear, as both are numbers. I have restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to combine a web source which has several urls rather than duplicating the source each time in the references section? I'm having a dash at Convoy HG 76 here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 and want to combine each U-boat net citation (if possible). I've tried the advice pages with the usual blank. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, you can't combine multiple pages from the same website. I tried playing around with how to do the citations here and had to break down and do individual reference entries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ah well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran a war crime?
This is the claim currently being made on the Allied war crimes during World War II article. The change was reverted yesterday with a request to come back with sources. The user has, although a quick glance at the sources used does not immediately seem to support the edits. Requesting a second set of eyes to vet this. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't a Crime against peace become one under the UN Charter after the war?Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors do not decide that such and such action in 1940s was a war crime. Only solid RS do that and in this case there were none, so I deleted the passage. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Dunkirk evacuation, as to whether additional background information should be added to the article. Interested users are invited to participate. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
In regards to recent edits made to the "List of Engagements" in the infoboxes for United States Armed Forces and Military history of the United States.
- On the US Armed Forces page, an editor (only one I believe, though they seems to have a habit of editing while logged out) made a series of IP edits, starting with this, and ending with this.
- They were reverted by another editor.
- They then promptly reverted their changes back in, with the edit summary comment; reverting because a simple revert back to a disorganized list simply won't cut it.
- I then reverted them with the comment; You've already been reverted. Go to talk page. per WP:BRD.
- They then apparently signed in and immediately reverted again, with the comment; undoing the revert after signing in. My edit is to a superior version, so let's discuss if a change is not liked
- On the Military history of the US page, the same IP editor made a series of edits, beginning with this (comment: altering list to make it less 20th century-centric) and ending with this.
- They were again reverted by another editor, with the comment; Reverted unnecessary additions - keep it simple.
- They immediately reverted their changes back in again, with the comment; added back a few of the wars that are featured prominently in the article, perhaps this is a better compromise.
- I then reverted them with the comment: once reverted, go to talk page per WP:BRD.
- Once again, they suddenly sign into their account and revert their edits back in again with the comment: reverting a second time, as BRD is inapplicable and NOT policy.
Now, there are the same (or similar) "lists of engagements" in the infoboxes on the pages for;
These are long-standing, well-written and widely accepted pages. There are likely similar lists on countless other related pages, such as for Flag-rank officers, armies, corps, navies, divisions, etc., etc. I happen to agree with the other reverting editor in that these changes to these two pages noted above are unnecessary, they make the lists look somewhat cluttered and crowded with all the dates added. There were also additional engagements/battles/wars added and it may be debatable whether they actually belong.
I also don't care for this editing style of adding in mass edits as an IP, then once they're reverted, suddenly signing in to revert them back, and continually reverting, to ram them in despite any objections, and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, especially when repeatedly requested to do so. Nor are the "my way is better" and "I don't need to discuss this" comments very collegial.
I would ask that the community review the list of engagements found in the infoboxes of these two pages, both before and after the mass changes, as well as reviewing the lists in all seven articles mentioned for comparison, to see if we can have a consensus as to which version is preferable. If anyone from the community, including any passing admins, would like to offer some advice or guidance to this user in regards to his editing style, that would be good too. Thanks - theWOLFchild 05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have not looked at these articles before but I have to say that the IP change is an improvement in presentation, it really needed some <br> added to make sense, I dont have a view on the dates. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I still think the list of engagements in the United States Army infobox looks better, along with the other 4 articles, and that's the direction these two pages should take. - theWOLFchild 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As a result of this  series of edits in March 2015, I think this page needs a copyedit by someone knowledgeable about the subject. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the edits, and the grammar is suspect. 220 of Borg 01:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)