Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Category:Military units and formations in Burma in World War II[edit]

This new category looks like an attempt to compile an Allied order of battle in Burma during World War II by unit size by adding, for example, all regiments using [[Category:Military units and formations in Burma in World War II|r]] That concern aside what is the general policy, if there is one, of adding units to categories by campaign. For many articles this could lead to very long lists of categories to little benefit as units of long life will have served in hundreds of different campaigns and theatres. I notice that units are not included in current categories like Category:Operation Market Garden. Nthep (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; this is a misuse of the category system. Indeed, a useful presentation - as an article. Feel free to take it to MfD with my support. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I did raise this series of cats like Category:Military units and formations in Aden in World War II by the same user a few weeks ago but nobody seemed to be interested :( MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Then the answer is relatively simple, I would say. Invite this user to come to this discussion and continue to lay out our concerns, and they can fire back and we can address the root of the problem. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Note left for Robert Brukner who created these categories. I wouldn't want to see these cats deleted before they could be converted in skeleton list articles. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, A few weeks ago I noted the exceptional lack of category integration and the inconsistent use of existent categories across the variously linked articles concerning the British Empire and Commonwealth during the Second World War. If you look into the various related articles generally titled XXX in World War II, and Military history of XXX in World War II you will find a host of categories: such as Category:XXX country in World War II, Category:Military history of XXX in World War II, Category:XXX people in World War II, Category:XXX military personnel of World War II, Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II, Category: Military units and formations in XXX in World War II, and so on. Across these currently linked articles and categories are some dozen of so categories and subcategories. In Category:United States in World War II there are over 300 categories and subcategories nested within that category, specific to the conduct of the US in the war. My effort is an attempt to rationalize, integrate and bring consistent use to the categories, that already exist, related to the conduct of the war within the Empire, Commonwealth, Dominions and all internal entires. Please start with the article British Empire during World War II and Category:British Empire in World War II. All related articles and all related categories drop down from those two points. Within the entities from Aden to Burma you can now read almost any WWII article and find your way to other related civil and military matters related to that entity.

Orders of Battle generally pertain to one discrete event or campaign, under one or more beliigerant command structures. In the case of each British Empire and Commonwealth entity so far addressed, I have linked all the military formations that passed through that entity during the war. In Category:Military units and formations '''of''' XXX in World War II you will find domestic military formations, while in Category: Military units and formations '''in''' XXX in World War II you will find all empire, and other belligerent forces included. As to the "ordering" of the categorized articles. That is an artefact of the process of including each military formation into the category. Without some ordering it is difficult to see which formations I have missed. After any particular nation is finished I have generally tried to return the articles appearing in that category back into alphabetical order.

The category Category:Military units and formations of XXX in World War II has existed for years, if not decades. Whatever rationale you discuss in relation to my use of it or removing it, needs to consider why the category even exists, why others use it, what advantages it provides and what benefit accrues from removing it. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, have you read WP:NONDEF? Whether the 7th Armoured Brigade was in Egypt, or Burma, or the Federal Republic of Germany, does not define its essential characteristics. It was an armoured brigade, formed at a certain time, disbanded at a certain time, but military units are not essentially defined by either changing command structures (which is the reason why Category:10th Mountain Division (United States) breaks the rule, because it includes units that have been both in and out of 10MD/ID/MDLI over the years, or the various old Carrier Strike Group categories, now deleted) or the locations in which they fought. Consider the article for the British Army having 300 categories below it listing every engagement in which it has ever taken part in. You'll see, as with the other inappropriate-category listings at WP:Overcategorization, that this overburdens the list of categories at the bottom of the page, rendering them less useful. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: WP:CATDEF states that 'A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.}}' (stolen from CATDEF) 02:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
These categories would, if added to all articles across all countries, create an incredible amount of category clutter at the bottom of the page. These categories can be covered better in list articles. Kges1901 (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorization impacts knowledge integration in a variety of directions. From the military unit perspective there might be an abundance of categories if the unit served in many countries. But in most country military articles there is currently little to no information pertaining to military units from, or that served in, those countries. They are essentially invisible. Articles concerning 90% or more of Empire and Commonwealth colonies and countries during the war are sparse at best. Categories allows rapid linkage to knowledge contained in other articles. Category links, provide a window through which one can quickly obtain intersectional information about military activity during the war, and also without ad naseum repetition of the same facts. It is true that building better articles is a more appropriate way to contain and explain events and knowledge. But where such articles do not exist rapid cross linkages by categories provides an immediate solution access new knowledge.

What I am reading from all of this is a concern about the actual use of extant categories. Again, I ask, why not use the categories created for us to use? In their use, we do not find the reason for not using them. While there are better solutions then the use of categories, those solutions are not being implemented. In the meantime categories allow broader integration of complex topics in a simple and easily accessible way. I would not, for example, attempt to conduct such a broad and deep category integration for the UK, as the scale would simple be to large. As to the concern that there would be an "incredible amount of clutter" at the bottom of the page, I point to World War II which has 120 categories, and World War I which has 50 categories at the bottom of their pages. If they are the sort of "clutter" about which there is concern, please address those concerns to those page editors, and the editors of the many others like them. Personally, I see no problem with the number of categories on those two pages. Not one of the articles I have worked on has anything close to that many categories on its page.

On the question of "defining characteristics of a subject." Country articles specific to the Second World War are a subject that cannot be separated from the nation's soldiers fighting those war, or the soldiers from foreign nations fighting on their soil. Their units and formations, leaders and actions, battles and operations, and the social impacts of all of that, are the defining reality of the war. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you had better review WP:Category carefully and then potentially speak up at that talkpage. CATDEF specifically says that 'A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people). The majority of this project's editors do not agree with you. I think we will have to take this to WP:MFD. Please bear in mind that as far as my limited experience with you, you're a great new editor, but this approach does not appear to meet our rules. That's what deletion debates are for - they create the community WP:CONSENSUS to decide on whether things fit within the rules or not. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

1st Air Commando Group[edit]

If we are talking about Burma and World War II, then why don't we write an article about the 1st Air Commando Group? It would be a great addition to the page, and I have quite a few books about the subject, and my dad is a former Air Force Special Operations Command MC-130P Combat Shadow pilot. I'm only twelve, but I know a lot about the subject.
Jak474 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jak474: there is already an article - 1st Special Operations Wing. Nthep (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Oy, you @Nthep:, there's a military leadership saying, "never step on enthusiasm." Our chunk-of-an-article inside 1 SOW about the 1st Air Commando Group is about five, relatively meaty, paragraphs. We could *easily* expand that, and the genesis of U.S. Air Force special operations on wiki could easily benefit from it. If it gets too big, we can separate it out into a new article. More importantly, we should encourage young 'uns who have lots of books on the subject and personal motivations for writing, not discourage them.
@Jak474:, please feel free to expand 1st Special Operations Wing#1st Air Commando Group. Sing out if you want advice/help, and if we need to spin it off into a separate article, we can do so. Do you have No Room for Error by Col. John T. Carney? What does your dad think of it? Kind regards (NSDQ) Buckshot06 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't stepping on anyone's enthusiasm just pointing out that an article on/including the topic already exists. Nthep (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, I do not have that book. However, I do have a book called "Air Commando" detailing 1st SOW ops from 1944-1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak474 (talkcontribs) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions about article neutrality at Talk:Nanking Massacre[edit]

Hi all, if this is of interest to anyone, an editor has opened a discussion at Talk:Nanking Massacre that could use some feedback from people interested in the subject. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

WP:SOLDIER[edit]

Brought up at this AfD. Does a subject being "mentioned in dispatches" pass WP:SOLDIER, or not? Chris Troutman (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not by itself -- if awards alone are being used to determine notability of a Commonwealth soldier, it'd have to be the VC or GC from memory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Ian. VC/GC or multiple awards of next level down. Certainly not MiD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Not by itself, no, but for the article in question the person actually had several higher awards (DSO and DSC for example). Ultimately it comes down to the level of sourcing, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Then why is WP:SOLDIER written as it is? It intones being mentioned is enough to pass muster, unless I'm reading it wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
SOLDIER is about a presumption of notability based on awards received, rank, command etc. We assume that someone that meets SOLDIER will meet the GNG if we look for reliable sources. The example of Sheehan is to show that meeting GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (which he does) trumps any presumption (or lack thereof) based on SOLDIER. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was certainly the intention when I drafted the sentence on Sheehan. The meaning seems clear to me (when read as a whole with the rest of the essay), but I recognize that it is difficult to pick up infelicities in one's own writing. Is there a better way of saying this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I wouldn't mention dispatches, at all. Explain Sheehan meets GNG, beyond qualifying on the basis of awards. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 20 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)

RFC[edit]

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)

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)