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


How reliable is Warfare History Network? DS (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I welcome other input but based on a quick look I'd say not very. I didn't see anything that suggested peer-reviewed or cited content. My quick search of WP turned up only one occurrence, so it doesn't have much of a track record here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Pity - they've got a rather detailed article about Oreste Pinto. Think it's usable as a source anyway, or better not? DS (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Try WP:RSN. - theWOLFchild 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel Palestine - A plea for a 100 year narrative[edit]

Given the importance of the conflict articles to WP:IPCOLL, I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.

The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.

I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around the IP space, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right but an article like that will be sabotaged, because it will inevitably demonstrate that the zionist occupation has no legitimacy.Keith-264 (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Geez.. don't hold back. Tell us all how you really feel... - theWOLFchild 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would kindly request all editors interested in this initiative to avoid inflammatory remarks. Wars often don't happen when right meets wrong, but when right meets right, and there are significant elements of that in the Israeli-Palestine conflict (1917: Israel: we were here 2000 years ago; Arabs: we're here *now!*). @Oncenawhile:, I wish you every success. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the place for any inflammatory or anti-Semitic comments. - theWOLFchild 05:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
See what I mean? Please keep it civil.Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be funny? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Far be it for me to try to do this, but I have to call both of you, Keith-264 and WOLFchild, out. Keith: commission. The first thing you said was inflammatory. User:Oncenawhile and his collaborators are going to try to walk a very fine line, and using inflammatory language immediately was not helpful. If you wish to use this language in regard to this conflict, stay off this site!! WOLFchild, less severe, but omission: anti-Palestinian or anti-Arabic language is just as damaging to the prospects of either creating this projected article, or in the halls of diplomacy, moving to Final Status negotiations. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's an opinion, not a fact and my comment was a fact, not an opinion. I commend Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think what Keith is getting at is that anti-Zionism != anti-Semitism, and it's not civil to use the latter as a cudgel against those who take the latter position in the argument highlighted by Buckshot above. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Antizionism is the opposite of antisemitism but as I pointed out, bad faith will out. I've had my say but will reply with Wikipedia:Civility to any more false allegations.Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As we have ably demonstrated in a few short exchanges, this is not an area to be trodden lightly. If there is a stable consensus which allows the situation to be covered at all, is it wise to destabilise it? Also, is this the place to discuss it? While the Israel/Palestine issue has generated lots of military activity, it is much wider than military history. Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Aren't these topics effectively being controlled by Arbcom anyway? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Restraining the behavior of editors, perhaps, but Arbcom does not directly control the content. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies to @Thewolfchild:. It seems finger trouble on my part inadvertently removed an earlier comment of his, which I was responding to even as I accidentally deleted it!! I'm sorry. I would continue to encourage editors, including User:Keith-264, to avoid saying things that are inflammatory regarding this topic. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem-o Buckshot, I agree with you, I found Keith's comment disconcerting. - theWOLFchild 21:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility Try owning your opinionKeith-264 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep quoting WP:Civil all you like, but maybe you should have a look at WP:INDENT. And MOS:TALK while you're at it. - theWOLFchild 00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

() Thanks very much, I wondered why some comments crabbed back to the margin like that. Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now... it's deliberate. - theWOLFchild 16:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Military insignia project[edit]

A few years ago I embarked on a goal to organize and improve Department of the Navy graphics (mainly medals, ribbons, and decorations for now) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, school and life got in the way so the project was put on hold. I now have some free time to attempt to start this up again and I was wondering if this project would fall under the realm of this WikiProject. If not, do you have any recommendations on where a better place would be? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This would be within our scope, although I do not think that we have a dedicated task force for this...yet. That having been said, the project would also probably be of interest to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, so you make wanna work with them if you are going to start up on this again. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, it might worth hooking up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals too. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish you luck with it Evan, I'll be looking forward to whatever you're able to produce. Wish I had the time (and graphical capabilities) to contribute. Any plans to produce a graphic of the lapel pin versions for civil service members of units awarded unit awards (ie the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation lapel pin). Gecko G (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Flags in lists of shipwrecks[edit]

A discussion is being held at WT:SHIPS#Flags in lists of shipwrecks re the use of ship registry flags in the various lists of shipwrecks (some of which come under the remit of this WP). Please join in the discussion over there. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my![edit]

See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian American Veterans has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Ukrainian American Veterans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Imported scripts for bespoked-up edit functions question[edit]


  • importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
  • importScript('User:Frietjes/findargdups.js');
  • importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');
  • importScript('Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js');
  • importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');

I have these but wonder if anyone knows of others that might be useful? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"No." column in lists of military aircraft[edit]

The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is not clear, as both are numbers. I have restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

SFN question[edit]

Is there a way to combine a web source which has several urls rather than duplicating the source each time in the references section? I'm having a dash at Convoy HG 76 here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 and want to combine each U-boat net citation (if possible). I've tried the advice pages with the usual blank. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you can't combine multiple pages from the same website. I tried playing around with how to do the citations here and had to break down and do individual reference entries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)