||This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
NATO OF rank codes
Someone has thrown the NATO comparative officer ranks tables (Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers and Ranks and insignia of NATO navies officers, though not — as yet — Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces officers) and about half the templates used in them into disarray by adding an OF-11 code, apparently in the mistaken belief that one exists and that OF codes should align with US O pay grades (which they do not). All of this “to maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia” though in an inconsistent way, so that those tables are now hopelessly out of alignment! And no doubt this meddling will have deleterious consequences in other contexts where these templates are used. Could someone (preferably a few someones) have a look at what has been done and undo the damage and/or stop this individual from wreaking further havoc? I’m not a regular enough contributor nor well enough into the sources on this to weigh in. — Mithrennaith (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I looked but couldn't find any reference to an OF11 so undid what they had done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! On Ranks and insignia of NATO navies officers someone else done the reversion and added a lot of extra tinkering with the Officer Designate and Student officer ranks, which was no improvement so I’ve put everything back to how it was before the addition of the OF11. Mithrennaith (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- In addition to this; why are the Air Force ranks not capitalised (indeed why are the UK armed forces a mix of caps and non-caps)? EG - the air force rank of Flight Sergeant is as written by the Royal Air Force in all types of media and communication. The abbreviation in written form is FSgt (same as CSgt for Colour Sergeant and SSgt for Staff Sergeant in the Army and Royal Marines). The office Cadre get to have their ranks written with caps (EG - Squadron Leader and not Squadron leader).
- Is this deliberate, an oversight or is there some weird Wiki-rule of which I am unaware?BTW, I didn't mess the templates up and I will not do anything without consensus. However the rank titles are proper nouns. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there is quite a bit of inconsistent capitalization (and inconsistent font styling, etc.) going on across the fairly large amount of comparative military rank pages. I’m not going to start a comprehensive review of that, but if you want to, be bold. As to the UK other ranks capitalization, that was changed here and is stated there to be based on WP:MILTERMS. If I read that correctly, it should also be “Squadron leader”. I agree that does not seem to accord with (UK) military usage, but I do not particularly want to spend my time having a long discussion about the soundness or otherwise of MOS policy on this point. That’s beyond my personal level of involvement, I’m afraid. — Mithrennaith (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's fair enough - and a good point. It does go against military convention - but you are right; I wouldn't want to start up against WP:MOS either, no matter how wrong it is (someone will always tell me that I am wrong about it anyway). Thanks for the quick answer. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The firearms definition is certainly the primary topic, even if we don't have an article on it. I think Triggerfinger (disambiguation) should be moved to Trigger finger, the firearms definition added as the primary term, and the medical condition moved to something else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an unreferenced article created in 2005. It makes a number of assertations about the program without providing supporting citations. Neither the editor who created the article nor the two editors who added speculative accounts of why the progran was discontinued are active Wikipedia editors any more.
In fact the one who added the statements that the tests failed due to the characteristics of the drones used in testing has only made two edits, one in 2008 and the other in 2010.
I am attempting to search up viable references, but am not sure where to start. Google searching is bringing up a lot of Wikipedia mirrors based on the article as it stands.
Anyone willing to join me in offline book searching?
Graham1973 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've made a preliminary step in editing this article. I've removed the most contentious statement to the articles talk page until a proper source can be found for it. I've also used Andreas Parsch's webpage as a source for some statements. The article has now been moved from Unreferenced to Single Source, but a lot more needs to be done.
- Some good references are needed to cover testing if they can be found. Janes Weapons Systems and similar publications in the period 1972 - 1977 sound like a good place to start. Graham1973 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Continuing with the overhaul of this article. Running out of material to add. Can someone please assist me with the research? Graham1973 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Master Category class?
I was wondering if a "Master category" should be created, meaning that their should be no articles in the category, it only contains subcategories? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Wrong term. These are called "container categories". Simply add: Template:Container category to change the purpose of a category. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Branch and service articles
So there is an editor who has tried to change around the subject matter on the military branch article and has created a completly new article called Branch of service which seems to be about almost the same thing. I completly belive this is in good faith but I'm not sure the editor has the right way to go about it. They seems to only include information which is in line with what the NATO defenition is. Opinion on what to do with these articles?*Treker (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like WP:CFORK. Guideline says "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article". Looking at it, dump the new article into the existing one but attribute the definition to NATO. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- The terms for these two concepts vary drastically from country to country, with some using the same term for both concepts, and in other cases even being inconsist with their own usage (ie switching Branch/Division/Arm for Corps/Arm on some of them).
- ie in the US (as its the one I'm most familiar with), the United States Armed Forces has 5 branches including the Army & Marine Corps, but the Army has several Branch's within it (ie Infantry), not quite half of which are called "Corps" (ie the Corps of Engineers as Administrative or Functional Corps), but the Marine Corps is not a Branch of the Navy (though it is under the Department of the Navy). Meanwhile none have any connection to a Corps (ie consisting of 2 or more divisions). It then gets even more confusing when you consider things like the Salvation Army corps which uses both "Army" & "corps" in the name.
- Most of us here understand what is meant based on the usage, but It can all be very confusing to a lay reader and if we could develop a good clear definition I belive it would be of great help to a non-expert. However, I'm at a loss as to how to succinctly differentiate the two. Gecko G (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Air Operations in the Korean War
I was looking at the News and Open Tasks page and noticed the Air Operations in the Korean War page highlighted in red. I was told that asking for help here would get me some help and guidance on the article. Thanks, Jak474 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you be specific about the help and guidance you're looking for? Is there a draft article other editors can comment on or contribute to? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Joachim Helbig, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.
The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Campaignbox Thirty Years' War
The Template:Campaignbox Thirty Years' War is currently a chaotic amalgamation of various battles. Instead I propose breaking it into separate campaigns such as:
Any input would be welcome.--Catlemur (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start. Is it one of your fields? Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not really. I am in the middle of reading "The Thirty Years War" by Peter H. Wilson, which gives a pretty good general overview of the war without being too detailed. I will also try to add some battles that have no separate articles for them. I forgot to take into account the following conflicts: Polish–Swedish War (1626–29), Peasants' War in Upper Austria, Bündner Wirren, Polish–Ottoman War (1620–21),Torstenson War. Which make the task all the more complex.--Catlemur (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's been on my shelves for a few years now. Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- How will it look if you * the campaigns and ** the battles? Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Good article review for Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
G'day all, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article is currently listed for a community Good Article Review to determine if it still meets the GA criteria. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/1. A few more opinions are needed to determine consensus. If anyone is keen to participate, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Battle of France discussion, additional opinions needed I believe
The war rages on, or at least on the Battle of France talkpage. From my take on what has happened so far: two editors have actually engaged with what sources actually say in an attempt to improve the article, while three others are essentially trolling the page stating sources don't matter. There is a lot of incivility, and the appearance that regardless of what sources say an edit war will resume. I think we need some experienced editors, or admin, to create a bit of a DMZ and help filter the good work from the spam, and funnel that material into a good conclusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- One solution is a new article on the Historiography of the Battle of France. There already is enough material on the Battle of France talk page cover the topic, and much more can be added. Basically, we have complex long-standing debates among scholars that comprise the topic all its own. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion. History is viewed differently by different historians through different periods afterwards. Not all the secondary material can be true simultaneously, sometimes. In the meantime I've asked the participants to calm down as it has gotten a little testy. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've started the historiography article -- it's mostly copied from "Battle of France" and its talk page with some new citations. suggestions are welcome! Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for devising a constructive alternative to writing in the talk page. I've put my views there again and asked the watchers to venture opinions on the result criterion in the infobox, although in my view the case for German victory and the removal of bullet points is unarguable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Project coordinator election ending soon!
Hi everyone! As a friendly reminder, voting in our annual project coordinator election is scheduled to conclude at 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Anyone who hasn't voted yet is encouraged to do so on the election page. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
India's alleged support to Baloch rebels
There is an ongoing discussion about alleged Indian support to Baloch rebels and the verifability and notability of such claim at Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan#India.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Good Article Review for Cecil E. Harris
Hey all. I put Cecil E. Harris up for GA review recently but only now finished a complete overhaul of the references/citations. It now conforms to a much higher standard. If anybody wants to begin the review process I'd greatly appreciate it; or if you have some suggestions for improvements feel free to chime in accordingly. Best Regards, Finktron (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have gone through and added numerous xrefs. I believe the whole Cecil E. Harris#VF-18 in detail section needs to be rewritten as it has too much jargon and POV (e.g. what does SNASP mean?). I also question if the level of detail of every kill is really necessary. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Please help review a draft at AFC
Draft:Supply Support Activity is a modern American "thing" related to military logistics. Is the draft acceptable in its current state? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, many "warfighters" (combat corps personnel) say "logistics just happens"...and while this ignores the (obvious) importance of expertise and operational art in the area, I think it highlights something fundamental, i.e. that the topic is largely considered a "dark art" and that most people probably do not wish to educate themselves about it. This is potentially out of ignorance, but in itself it is probably illustrative of the fact that potentially the topic isn't actually notable to people outside the area. With regards to this article, it seems... well, somewhat esoteric and largely impenetrable to the lay person. To me, it is simply referring to the way in which items are ordered, tracked, delivered, stored and disposed of in support of a military event or organisation. In short, it is really just supply chain management in "cams/ACUs" or in a military setting (and a narrow subset of that setting at that i.e just the US military). All other militaries no doubt use similar but slightly different terms of art. Individually I would argue that they are not notable, but together they would be. Hence, a parent article seems fair enough (such as those that already exist on military logistics and combat service support etc), but one that focuses on a narrow subset (like this current article), does not seem likely to meet the notability guidelines. Anyway, that is just my opinion and of course others may feel differently. Apologies if it sounds overly disparaging. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)