Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Asim Vokshi – Questionable[edit]

Re: Asim Vokshi

Apparently, he died in 1937. But somehow was active during World War II? Adamdaley (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Albanian Wikipedia has him dying during the Battle of the Ebro which ends before 1939 I would say this article is highly questionable. --Molestash (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The date of death seems uncontroversial, see this Worldcat entry [1]. It looks like the Wiki article's source may have been slightly mistranslated, from "Vokshi was like the heroes of the National Liberation War" (as in "he was equally remarkable") to "Vokshi was a hero of the National Liberation War". A native Albanian speaker would need to translate the whole source paragraph of ref #1 within its context for verification. Maybe the original contributor can clarify. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed the dubious statement for now (it can't be OK, makes no sense to keep it) and moved the source to "Further reading". GermanJoe (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Russian ground forces units[edit]

Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look at this article? It seems someone started it and just left it. Is it a duplicate of another article? Can we link to it? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an abortive attempt to spin a list out of Russian Ground Forces#Structure; I'm not sure whether it makes more sense to retain the list at this stage in the hope that someone will come along to work on it, or to just redirect it back to the main article. Kirill [talk] 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style question[edit]

  • [2] the edit refers to grammar and tense correction per manual of style but I can't find an entry in the manual. Can someone point me to it please? Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about the MoS, but using present tense in this case is most certainly wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the use of judgemental terms like characterises, clarification and speculates dubious too, since they infer motive rather than describe behaviour. I found a discussion about the passive voice in the MoS but it wasn't all that relevant.Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Use of the present tense for an author (Wilmot) writing 60 years ago seems wrong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The basic rule of thumb when discussing historiography is to treat the act of creation in the past tense (i.e., the author wrote) but to treat the work itself as a sort of timeless object. Which is to say "so-and-so wrote Book X, which argues Point Y". Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep active or deactivate: bygone WikiProject article drives[edit]

Operation Great War Centennial as read by the intent expressed in its page ended in 2014, and Bothers at War ended back in 2011. Despite these issues of historical definition, however, they are not marked historical, and are indeed given special prominence in the WikiProject's splash page. I don't see their existence as being necessarily forbidden per se, and Adam Cuerden seems to be actively updating both pages with his FP contributions. I've marked these pages historical and, seeing the edit history, undone that and brought it here for discussion.

In the keep column, if they are to remain it certainly seems necessary that their scope be redefined away from the anniversaries they were created for, now passed. In the archive column, neither of these projects ever really generated much movement in the first place, and they're not in any danger of doing so in the future.

So! Discuss! ResMar 04:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the anniversaries they were created for are ongoing, not past. The anniversaries of the ends of both wars have not yet been reached. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this is a secondary definition at best. Certainly you would not celebrate the anniversary of the 100 Year's War lengthwise! Nonetheless they could be redefined in this way, but redefined they still would need to be—for instance: Operation Great War Centennial will identify core topics on World War I and aim to bring them all to top quality before the Centenary... (emphasis mine). ResMar 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Drives are exceptional so they ought to have a time limit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Mothballed special projects is going to be inevitable unless the scope is broad enough and the timeline extended enough to carry on through the years. In the case of the two above mentioned projects they seem to be little two narrow, and thus got suffocated or so it would seem. I suppose we could entertain the idea of enlarging the scope and time frame and see if they bounce back, but I would not be in any particular hurry to try that save but for it there was an increase in the editor pool. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I would presume the idea is to organize the improvement of articles for the sub anniversaries. For the next three years we're going to have anniversaries of major World War I battles coming up, and for the next month or so, American Civil War. I would say that such long-scope projects are needed to coordinate such long timelines. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
World War I lasted over 4 years, and we're only 7 months in - it's entirely reasonable to assume that editors might still be working on articles for events that have not hit their centennial (I certainly am - my current FAC will ideally be through in time to run on 14 March - hint hint, go review it!). Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
And there's hardly much point closing the American Civil War one when it'll naturally close in a couple months anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Parsecboy, how well is your timing on FACs? I always found that getting those over with in just a month is quite ambitious! ResMar 18:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Which, honestly, is how these projects become quite useful: Timelines warning of major events well in advance let you look ahead six months and get started. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station / nuclear bunker[edit]

I've posted a question at Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Difference between this and Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker about the distinction between the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker and the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station. Any clarification or input there is much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

USS Constitution is TFA,vandalism[edit]

The USS Constitution article is Today's Featured Article, and is being subjected to much IP vandalism. Could an admin look into this point, and see if the page can at least be semi-protected? Thanks . - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put pending changes on it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry[edit]

Hello weaponry experts. I brought this to the group six months ago and a long discussion ensued about reliable sources. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 126#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anglo-Saxon Armour and Weaponry). Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. If you think it's of no value, please don't edit it, and it will fade away shortly. Just saying.... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War move discussion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:ADCOR A-556 ELITE[edit]

Dear weaponry experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable topic? Or is the information already covered somewhere else? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Article already appears to be in mainspace at the title Brown Enhanced Automatic Rifle. I have no opinion on its suitability or lack thereof for an article. -- saberwyn 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - it's gone now. The two titles are totally different. Would "Adcor A-556 Elete" be an appropriate redirect title? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lugansk People's Republic#RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lugansk People's Republic#RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?. Thanks. RGloucester 05:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


I figure this as one of the only active projects will have folks who know about the topic. Content dispute there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the reverts, but I'm not prepared to wade through them all without some sort of discussion on the talkpage that explains what people are trying to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Likewise. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of {{cite map}} template conversion[edit]

There is a discussion about the {{cite map}} template ongoing at Help talk:Citation Style 1#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.

Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{cite map}} frequently. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistics Bot?[edit]

I'm trying to find the statistics bot that updates the statistics tables. I unfortunately, had to format and only saved a few things. What would be the link to update it manually? Adamdaley (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget who it was that told me that this link existed, just can't remember who it was. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
... Adamdaley (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Gday Adam - I think this thread might be discussing what you are asking about. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_48#Out_of_date_stats. Is this it? Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

UK angle measurements with 600 "degrees"?[edit]

Looking at wartime photos, I keep coming across examples of circles being divided up into 600 "degrees". I am unfamiliar with any such unit, does anyone know what this is called? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a "mil" - a military measurement; if you take two spots at 100 mils apart on a compass, 1km distant from you, they are then 100m apart on the ground. Mils help coordinate artillery fire etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, this is definitely the solution. Odd, I have come across the non-angular version of this measure countless times, but never the simple "600 to a circle" which is largely equivalent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so it's NOT a mil. A mil is 6400 to a circle, which can't be reduced to 600 no matter how you mangle it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1/600[0] is based on the Imperial Russian angular mil, not the French 'metric' 1/6400 used by the rest of the world. -- saberwyn 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Military operations in North Africa during World War I[edit]

How do I link the page above to Template:Campaignbox North African theater (World War I)? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hamish59 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks muchly Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Military operations in North Africa during World War I the one here has run off the page....Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIL peer review[edit]

Hi all, I have requested a peer review for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and welcome all feedback. This article usually receives over 50,000 hits per day and has already been rated as meeting all B-class criteria by this WikiProject. I'd like to request an A-class review after the close of the peer review.

The article is quite long and the group is in the news frequently, so there may be a bit of a gap between when I close the peer review and request an A-class review. Nonetheless, improvements to this article will be of great benefit as this article receives a very high amount of traffic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

German naval trawlers of WWII (Vorpostenboot)[edit]

OK, it seems that there were several hundred of these. Adding them all to the List of Kriegsmarine ships would dominate the list, so it would seem that a list would be a better way to deal with naming them. Question is, List of naval trawlers of Germany in WWII or List of vorpostenboote in WWII? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My instinct is the first one, as the more natural form for English language readers but as the Vorpostenboot article exists, the second is more of a fit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As not all Vorpostenboote were ex-trawlers, would it confuse matters to refer to them as such in the article heading? The word literally means an "outpost boat" but patrol boats might give a clearer idea if an English language name was prefered. Monstrelet (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Monstrelet makes a good point, they were not all trawlers, but they were all vorpostenboote. Looks like a case where WP:UE is overruled. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

New VC award to be made (UK Armed Forces)[edit]

Seen a couple of tweets to the effect that a new award of the Victoria Cross is to be made, possible announcement at midnight GMT, see eg this from Dan Jarvis. Worth keeping an eye on I think. David Underdown (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Binh Tai Massacre[edit]

I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Binh Tai Massacre. I would appreciate if you could help me there.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 254 Squadron RAF[edit]

Has been tagged as a copyvio from [3].Nigel Ish (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya Good Topic nom[edit]

Hi all,

I have recently nominated Spanish conquest of the Maya for Good Topic, and would welcome any reviews or comments. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

GA nom of Adolf Hitler's adjutants[edit]

I am asking for a second opinion at the GA review. I believe this article to be a list and not an article. I would appreciate a second opinion on this matter. If other reviewers concur in my opnion the article fails the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as Stand-alone lists cannot be a good article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Commented there - certainly looks like a list to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree - it is a list. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The text is in prose and there are no tables or bulleted lists. So it is not clearly a list to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of lists are prose-heavy - certainly all of the lists I've written are. See for instance List of unprotected cruisers of Germany. There's no requirement for tables or bulleted lists in MOS:LIST. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What WP:EMBED actually says is "composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list" (my italics) - the section headings are the list items. The whole article is a list of people, with an associated paragraph of text. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an FLC delegate, I'd consider it a list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I chose to fail the article at GA on the grounds that I consider it a list. The editor Jonas Vinther chose to resubmit the article, now renamed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants", at WP:FLC. I have no issue with being overruled on this decision. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)