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

Period Task Forces missing[edit]

Dear wikipedians, just noticed that for some historical periods (e.g.: Victorian Era, Interwar Era, Post-Cold War) there is no task force set up. Hence articles in scope of them can't be tagged. What is the process to establish these? Thanks,DPdH (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ask if anyone is interested (which you've near enough done. Task forces aren't made pro eo as it were, usually they are only made if at least a few people show interest in it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day, if there aren't relevant period task forces, generally there will be a regional or national one that will be applicable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that TF types can overlap, however is not the same asfocus on historic periods. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian military deception[edit]

I'd appreciate any input from WikiProject Good Article participants here about listing Russian military deception. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC...[edit]

...may be of interest to the members of this project: [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion/Proposal on Template:Infobox military person[edit]

Now probably on the MOS talk itself, too.

Another discussion that might be of interest. Specifically as a proposal has been made. It is in continuation of those other two discussions about the issue of the applying capitalization rules outside of sentences.

Apparently the views are conflicting with each other and both sides, one of those being me, think to have a case per wikipedias manual of style. As our project is the one that works with both the content and the infobox I put it up here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RfD notification: First aerial victory by the U.S. military[edit]

First aerial victory by the U.S. military and some of its variants have been nominated for deletion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 16#First aerial victory by the U.S. military would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Barking Creek[edit]

This article needs some help.

It's very interesting - about the first Brit pilot casualty of WWII, from a friendly fire incident.

Unfortunately, some of it doesn't make sense.

Wyresider (talk · contribs) posted questions on the talk page in August 2015, but unfortunately nobody has responded. He's asked again today on helpdesk [2] [3].

So, can somebody help? Please see - and respond - at Talk:Battle of Barking Creek, thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Polish airman killed by British civilians?[edit]

In Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain#Poland it is stated that: "...30 Polish airmen were killed during the Battle. One of them died at the hands of an angry crowd in east London". Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Any help at Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain#Polish airman killed by British civilians? would be appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If the people in the crowd took Polish for German, and weren't familiar with British pattern vs German pattern aircrew dress, it seems quite possible. The incident described, baling out and landing in Wapping, makes sense and is backed by a reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It may be "possible" but did it happen? On what day? What was the man's name? Nobody knows... The reference is The Guinness Book of Military Anecdotes for goodness' sake. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a scene in the film Battle of Britain where a Polish pilot parachutes into a field and is frogmarched at pitchfork point (presumably into custody) because the folk who find him assume he is an enemy airman. Britmax (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems well attested that some allied airmen were "captured" during the Battle of Britain by local defenders. The issue is whether a Polish airman was actually killed by a mob of eastenders. Monstrelet (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Not wholly similar but one reason for the decision to pay a bounty to the Home Guard for captured airman was a umber of instances of them shooting bailed out Polish pilots. So given this (and no actual source that contests the claim) I see no issue here, beyond a need to attribute the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26 am, Today (UTC+0)
Do you have a reference for Polish pilots being shot or even shot at? It happened to James Brindley Nicolson, but he wasn't Polish. Alansplodge (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And I can't find a ref for the Home Guard bounty, except for an episode of Dad's Army. Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
[deleted in error] apolsKeith-264 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
[4].Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but no shot Poles yet? Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

War crimes by the 239th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht[edit]

I am looking for more information and references regarding war crimes committed by the 239th Infantry Division at Katowice following the German invasion in 1939. The German Katowice Wiki article references a book by Jochen Böhler Der Überfall: Deutschlands Krieg gegen Polen [The Invasion: Germany's War against Poland]. Unfortunately not the entire section is referenced. The German Wiki article indicates that although the Polish Army had retreated from Katowice, members of the 239th Infantry Division executed 80 civilians and burned down the Great Synagogue, Katowice. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Determined editor at it again at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands[edit]

Longstanding editors may remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat, about a enormous and incoherent article created by a very determined editor who wanted everything in 'his' article to remain exactly the way he saw fit - basically had no idea about WP:OWN. I've been attempting to reason with this editor, Johnvr4, at User talk:Mark Arsten. Seemingly one of the results is that he's created the above offshoot, back into the mainspace, about nuclear weapons issues only peripherally related to Red Hat. But he is absolutely ironclad that his new article shall remain untouched, including sentences in the lead which aren't about anything that's mentioned in the body of the article. Would some uninvolved eyes please review both the text and the talkpage, please, and give some third opinions? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Military magazines[edit]

I've noticed Category:Military magazines; this seems horribly ambiguous for a military topic category name. Since it is concerning military, wouldn't ammunition clip, ammunition magazine, or armoury be a very likely confusion for such a name ? Category:Military periodicals or Category:Military periodical magazines would seem to make more sense -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage of Succession boxes for military commanders[edit]

Is the usage of succession boxes for military commanders within MILHIST style policy? See for example Nikanor Zakhvatayev. Kges1901 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Most German WWII generals have them; sample: Erich Abraham. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And British generals (Bernard Paget and Harold Franklyn for example), although some of their US colleagues seem to go without (Mark W. Clark doesn't have one, but Ernest J. Dawley does). Alansplodge (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Task forces for Templates and Disambiguation articles?[edit]

Should one add task force to these articles? Is "no-task-force=y" appropriate?

  • I wouldn't bother doing it at all, but if you think that it's worthwhile, no task force is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion[edit]

A number of templates have been nominated for discussion. They can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GA reassesment required[edit]

For the British Army- here is the original: Talk:British Army/GA2. I'm not necesarilly disputing the result, but it's unlikely- verging, in truth, on the impossible- that that represents a review of the thoroughness the page deserves. Actually, I'm amazed that it hasn't already been a GA or more for a while now. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. An article like that needs a very experienced reviewer; it's not an easy thing to write, nor to review. Just from a quick run through the sourcing doesn't look strong enough and the sources there are aren't consistently formatted. There's no way it would survive a formal reassessment in its current condition. It's in a lot better shape than it could be, but there's a lot of work to go yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Favour to ask on Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War...[edit]

I've a quick favour to ask of any naval historians out there. I'm reviewing Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War, where there has been a slow burning disagreement between several editors to the geographical scope of the article - should it focus on the events of the Atlantic Ocean, or extend more widely, for example to the Indian Ocean? This matters to my review, as it would determine if the article as it stands gives a reasonable coverage of the topic or not. I'm not a specialist in this period, and if anyone with more knowledge fancied leaving an opinion, I'd much certainly appreciate it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm more interested in American history then Naval history in particular, but my answer would be that it does not - I can see why its causing trouble since the Anglo-French War is the broader conflict for France, and likely why France intervened at all, but we are treating it as part of the American Revolutionary War. But to answer your question, I do not think Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War gives reasonable coverage of the historical background for France becoming involved in the War, though this could be just a paragraph since there is already an article on the topic. I would suggest putting this in as a background to "France enters the theatre" Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy[edit]

Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other community discussions, etc). (Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Do sources need to be in English?[edit]

Can you please provide your comments at: Talk:Battle of Ap Bau Bang#RfC: Language of sources regards Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No they don't need to be In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
However, it is strongly encouraged where it is possible; as they can be easily read and checked that way. And unlike the past, many books are translated into English editions these days; also this is English Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue seems to be one of POV, the sources put "the other sides" version of events. Quite often such material is not published in English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have boldly closed the RfC. Whether individual non-English sources are reliable, or of a similar or higher quality than available English sources is an appropriate discussion to be had and decided on a case-by-case basis. But whether non-English sources are categorically disqualified is not up for debate, and if it were, the appropriate places to make that case (which would surely fail) would be at WP:VP or WP:V. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Medieval foot armour[edit]

Please see move discussion at Talk:Sabaton In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)