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

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)


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)
Is there any record of the UK using this system? It's definitely printed on the walls of the ROC posts, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 1 March 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)
Just keep in mind that the correct spelling is Vorpostenboote, with a capital V. Manxruler (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Will do, link amended. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, good. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 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 [1].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)
  • Not that experienced with MILHIST assessment, but it probably should be classed as "xL" class then as well for MILHIST, regardless of the current FLC outcome. GermanJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Crisco, it is a list. I've noted at FLC that I'm surprised it didn't go for AL review first. It looks to me as if it would have benefited from a close look by Milhist reviewers before being nominated at FLC. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinions needed about a Draft about a Vietnam War air combat incident[edit]

Please see User:Zkhan khan/sandbox. Is the incident sufficiently notable to have a separate article? If yes, is this draft an acceptable description of the incident? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign[edit]

I felt quite smug at putting a big map into the Background section, until I noticed that it obscures the campaignbox when it drops down. Does anyone know of a cure short of moving the map please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'm at it, does anyone know why the title for the campaignbox on Military operations in North Africa during World War I runs off the page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Western Desert Campaign: perhaps put the map where the Italian tankettes picture is now (making it a bit smaller), and it should move down automatically if/when the campaignbox is expanded? As things stand, at least on my machine, we have a vast expanse of whitespace on the right of the map (or is this deliberate, perhaps, as a desert motif?).
Military operations in North Africa during World War I: It doesn't run off the page for me. Maybe it's your browser or something. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The campaignbox in Military operations in North Africa during World War I is broken for me using Firefox but not with Chrome or IE. All with Monobook.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm using Seamonkey, odd that it's only in this article.Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Seamonkey's based on the same code as Firefox so I am fairly sure your browser's the issue Keith, based on what Nigel's said above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Frietjes is using a Microsoft class that is not supported by Firefox. We need an admin to revert Template:Campaignbox back to the 5 May 2014 version. Frustrating not being able to do anything around here. Hawkeye7 (talk)
I moved the map.Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Portal placement in a article[edit]

Could someone please cite the OFFICIAL chapter and verse on the placement of a portal or portal bar within an article? I have put portal bars in the "See also" section and have been told that that is wrong; I have put it at the very bottom of the article only to have someone ten minutes later move the portal bar to the "See also" section of the article. I honestly do not know the convention. Help... Cuprum17 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume it depends on the structure of the page but I usually put them at the bottom of the page and trust to luck. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The current incarnation of WP:MOS/Layout says internal links like portals belong in the see also section, although there would be some natural variance depending on the article's structure, and creating a section only for a template (portal or otherwise) appears to be discouraged. -- saberwyn 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It says portals are usually placed in the See Also section. There are some reasons for this. First, there is an important caveat: Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.. So if there is no See Also section otherwise, you are not supposed to create one just to hold the portals. Secondly, a subject bar can be used to unify the portals and the Wikimedia sister projects links, but these are supposed to go into the External Links, which is the last section (Or the in the last section if there isn't one.) While it seems logical that the internal links should be in See Also, articles with multiple portals create a clutter of boxes, or a neat portal bar. The latter is my favourite, but it doesn't look the best if there are no more sections to follow, so like Keith, I prefer putting them down the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I copied that usage from you, assuming that it was how it's done. ;O) I wondered why they sometimes found their way up the page for ages. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They go in the "See also" section, or at least, that's what I do and that's what the Manual of Style says. Putting them under EXTERNAL links makes no sense, considering that they link WITHIN Wikipedia. What I do is, if there's no bulleted articles in the "See also" section, I turn the portal link into a Portal Bar. When bulleted articles are added, I change the bar into a regular portal link. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Usually I don't edit in the military field (doing edits on the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte tank), and I want to know if the site can even be considered as a reliable source. I'm not sure how this would stand in any standard article, but I have seen it frequently on articles, even when they have had their B-class criteria checked (while passing). So this is more of a question. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be considered reliable. None of its articles are sourced, it's not associated with any organization of note, and I never heard of any of the article authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Very good points there, your comment has saved me from sourcing it since the information given in the article has been incredibly hard to source. Thanks you. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Nelson Mandela (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of A-Class review?[edit]

Can someone give me an example of the purpose of A-class, as opposed to FA?

Reading the FAQ and related documents on the process, it seems that some of the purpose of A-class is to prepare for FA. Those same documents state that A-class is deliberately similar to FA.

This being the case, what is the purpose of A? Why would anyone not post directly to FAC, and get a wider variety of eyeballs?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we're more likely to know your topic better than the average FAC reviewer and thus better equipped to catch factual mistakes and evaluate your sources? The latter are more likely to catch infelicities in prose, MOS compliance, etc. in my experience. You may not feel that it's worth your time, but that's your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My question is more along the lines of "is there an article that will want to stop at A?" For instance, does A-class allow the use of fair use images? That would be a major advantage if it did. That's just one example though, there seem to be a number of cases that "outlaw" FA, but maybe not A-class. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there are articles that would necessarily need to stop there—the criteria are indeed quite similar, with FA of course tending to be more stringent on quality of prose—but there are certainly editors who might not be interested in submitting articles to the FAC process, for whatever reason. Since FAC only allows nominations from an article's principal authors, that necessarily excludes certain articles from consideration there. Kirill [talk] 01:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)