Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk)
Battle co-ordinates
Hello. There are a number of articles listed at Category:Czech Republic articles missing geocoordinate data which relate to battles. How are battle coordinates established? Is it simply a case of finding the town (or equivalent) in the title and adding that to the page? Thanks, C679 13:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Anybody here to shed some light on this, please? Thanks, C679 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Still waiting for an answer, this project has a lot of members, so please could somebody let me know. Thanks, C679 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your question 100%, but I'll give a try at an answer... I would say it's not as simple as just finding the location of the town (or equivalent) in the title. I'd add that if you're not certain that the coordinates are actually on the battlefield, then you shouldn't fill them in. I generally choose a location that's near the center of the battlefield. In the case of US Civil War battlefields that are part of the US National Park system, it seems the coordinates used are often those of the Visitor's Center for the park. If you can find the battlefield location in Google maps satellite view, then just right click on the spot and select "What's here?", it will show you the latitude and longitude of that location. Mojoworker (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Still waiting for an answer, this project has a lot of members, so please could somebody let me know. Thanks, C679 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus (1 vote for Plan Z and 1 for Operation Z), and since I was the only vote for Operation Z, I will combine the articles under Z Plan. It may not occur immediately, but will go on my to do list. speednat (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Check the link - Plan Z is a different article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that Craggaunowen should probably be tagged for Wikiproject Milhist. If someone here agrees, please can you do the necessary? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The war on error continues, and Battle of Winchester is the last military history disambiguation page on the February 2014 list of most-linked disambiguation pages. Expert help in knocking this one out would be greatly appreciated! bd2412 T 14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- This done. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Translating technical terms - policy?
I've been getting back into editing wikipedia and doing some work around military organization and command in WWI and WWII. One little issue that's cropping up is whether or not to translate technical terms, and if so whether to go with literal translations or to try and use equivilant terms. All three options crop up in sources. Any guidance would be appreciated. RaiderAspect (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Are there any specific examples you can point to? Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nine times out of ten I would say no. Many terms like Panzerfaust are used in the English-language literature so translating wouldn't really be helpful. I guess dependent on the situation it would be useful to add some English-language description like German shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. I've always gone by the terms my sourcing was using. I think your use of the term quartiermeister is appropriate. You've explained what it meant and the word has deeper meaning then deputy chief of staff or some-such. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Indian Scout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there an article covering military motorcycles? Types of motorcycles does not list one, but considering its use as a courier and scout vehicle, seems like such as beast should exist. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closest thing I can find is Category:Military motorcycles (Hohum @) 18:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I actually wouldn't think it deserves a separate page, unless I've been missing something and forgotten that these bikes have mounted weapons or waht not. Right now, all I see are camo-colored motorbikes. Buggie111 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's certainly material to justify an article. I've got about three books on the shelf here on "military motorcycles", without even looking at single model histories. Many models, and even whole makers, have been developed to make motorcycles meeting the specific needs of the military. They're not just green bikes. There are even the weirdos like the French anti-tank scooter, the US hydraulic four(sic)-wheel drive, the Italian halftrack trike and of course the Kettenkrad. There's also a significant crossover into diesel motorcycle, where the non-petrol armies of today have been able to eradicate the petrol engine from everything except motorcycles and chainsaws. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I actually wouldn't think it deserves a separate page, unless I've been missing something and forgotten that these bikes have mounted weapons or waht not. Right now, all I see are camo-colored motorbikes. Buggie111 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there is an article at Indian auxiliaries about "Auxiliary Indians" (indios auxiliares) about the time of the Conquistadors and the Spanish Empire. It occurs to me that such a generic title should be a disambiguation page, linking to all forms/units of Native America auxiliaries, and South Asian auxiliaries... What do you guys think? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd certainly agree if there are articles to disambiguate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One problem is that auxiliaries is a rather broad term, varying in meaning according to time and context. Were the South Asian auxiliaries to which you refer the same as the tribal irregulars employed by the Spanish in the Americas, and if so which foreign power were they allied with? The various colonial powers of the 17th-20th centuries often employed local levies which might termed auxiliaries but they could vary from casually employed "friendlies" under their own leadership through to organized and trained units such as the French goumiers. Buistr (talk)
- Off the top of my mind, we have an article Auxiliary Force (India), United States Army Indian Scouts, Code talker. And those native levies from the 17th-20th centuries certainly are generally thought of as auxiliaries, making the article title ambiguous to my mind. I suspect most North Americans would expect those to be the topic of such an article title. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One problem is that auxiliaries is a rather broad term, varying in meaning according to time and context. Were the South Asian auxiliaries to which you refer the same as the tribal irregulars employed by the Spanish in the Americas, and if so which foreign power were they allied with? The various colonial powers of the 17th-20th centuries often employed local levies which might termed auxiliaries but they could vary from casually employed "friendlies" under their own leadership through to organized and trained units such as the French goumiers. Buistr (talk)
- I'd certainly agree if there are articles to disambiguate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I am looking for some more reviewers. It has two supports and is not attracting more reviewers recently. Anyone interested? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Highlight duplicate wikilinks
Does anyone know why this has disappeared from the toolbox in the left margin? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Found it....Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up
If anyone's working on an article, and has an image that needs a bit of restoration to make it more usable - it need not be FP quality, though that's always nice, as it gets the article on the main page - please let me know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keith-264 everything on here ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh. Choose one or two to start. There's a limit to how many I can do a day =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Adam Cuerden—if you have nothing else, I'll be getting Template:Sclass- to FA when I block out a couple weeks of time for it. There's a few FP-quality images from NARA in it, especially this one, if you're interested. Again, though, only if you have nothing else! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or does that one look like it's a scan from a print on non-photographic paper? There are lines which look like paper grain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Crisco, I'm not sure what to even look for, so you tell me? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to say scanner lines, myself. It's a bit mediocre at full resolution, but it's big enough that that may not matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, this exists, and is probably a better and more interesting picture of the ship. Any objections, @The ed17:? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't that one already in the article? (Near the bottom). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's of the rear of the ship, which is why I used the other image in the lead. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- LoL. Adam, do you want to take File:Photograph of the Battleship USS Michigan - NARA - 19-N-13573.jpg or should I? Don't have much to do today so I wouldn't mind editing that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, this exists, and is probably a better and more interesting picture of the ship. Any objections, @The ed17:? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Adam Cuerden—if you have nothing else, I'll be getting Template:Sclass- to FA when I block out a couple weeks of time for it. There's a few FP-quality images from NARA in it, especially this one, if you're interested. Again, though, only if you have nothing else! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh. Choose one or two to start. There's a limit to how many I can do a day =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- If there's anything you an do to improve the quality of the maps here Second Battle of the Aisne I'd be grateful even unto half my kingdom.Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've jumped in and done a few - but there are plenty left! (Hohum @) 11:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Found a better-quality image of Soupir. Maps are next, though mapmaking/vectorizing is a different skill than I have, so it'll mainly be checking if larger copies can be found. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've jumped in and done a few - but there are plenty left! (Hohum @) 11:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria
An RfC has been opened at Talk:Pogrom, regarding the appropriate WP:LSC for the events listed. Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Blanking on Royal Navy article
There's been some recent article blanking on Royal Navy ranks, rates, and uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries [1][2]. I've moved the article to avoid further dispute and would welcome other user comments here. Thanks for any input. -OberRanks (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
AfC submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HMCS Reo II. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/USS Smith-Briggs. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Done This wasn't actually submitted for review but I commented anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wisconsin Military Road. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Featured Topic: Ford Island
Hi folks. I'm going to start on a project to try to get topics related to Ford Island to featured topic status. A lot of these articles are related to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Would anyone be interested in working on these with me? We could even get Attack on Pearl Harbor to GA or FA and overlap another featured topic. Sources should be plenty, there is a lot of history here. My main interest is in Ford Island itself, but this is a great project for anyone with interest in the attacks as well.--v/r - TP 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello from WikiProject Bibliographies
Hello everyone!! I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and would like to invite people here to help our readers to find links to bibliographies at one central location (Wikipedia:List of bibliographies). The page will be reinvigorated over the next few months. You are the first project I have approached about helping populate this. I asking for help because I am assuming this project would have a preferences in how and what should be added and thus could set a format for presentation of the bibliographies covered by this Military history project. -- Moxy (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have copied an article called 1814 campaign in France from Wikia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) and I have added the appropriate attribution.
But the article lacks in-line citations for verification and hold opinions that may not be verifiable, so the article needs copy editing to bring it in line with Wikipedia norms. I am placing the information here so that those with an interest in this project are aware it exists. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Generations of Main Battle Tanks to help avoid an edit war
Hey folks,
I've been recommended here by a mod of the wikipedia support IRC to hopefully get a little help with an article that is being consistently abused by people trying to use casual thoughts and opinions over sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation
As has been cited on the page, there are 3 known generations of MBT. However the editor 'Rasseru' has consistently "undone" the efforts to keep it correct and trying to imply there is a "4th" generation populated solely by the Japanese Type 10 tank that they really seem to love personally (as evidenced by their posts in the talk page) and via using a misinterpreted article that states it as the "4th generation of Japanese tanks", but that doesn't mean it's "4th gen" in the terms of the article. (It simply means that it's the 4th MBT they've made, when you check the article) Some of the other "cites" they use to say "4th generation" are simply hobby sites or general internet descriptions, not genuine sources and certainly not listed by the generational specifics that define the article from its highest sources. I have corrected it, been undone and then brought it to the talk page of the article, only for him to remove everything I ever said on there, something which a wikipedia mod has put a mention of proper process of on his talk page. As such, it's clear they didn't want to discuss it with me and were just trying to remove everything I'd done to keep the article accurate to sources. However, I was recommended to come here and seek help from other editors for this issue on how to correct it all and keep them from consistently edit warring this page on tank history.
Thanks for any help folks, I stand ready to aid however needed.
--User:TheFuzzyOne (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is a somewhat muddled issue. Sources of debatable reliability do speak of a "fourth generation", while other sources of equally debatable reliability call the same tank "third generation". Expert attention would be highly welcome. Huon (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thats fully understood. However the page thus far has been defined by the 1983 Rolf Hilmes source at the top. Thats the one that it's all been laid out according to already. If we're to rechange it all, then all the definitions of it needs to be changed around as currently it's been made to change because of "which tank is better" as opposed to by defined traits or dates which should be stated clearly. Each one is defined by some sort of technology currently, but the "4th gen" ones suggested by Rasseru don't bring anything new to the table to change that in a historical sense. I just worry that the page will turn into arguements over "which tank is best and should be countered as 'good enough' to be in any table, as opposed to that of historical and documented definitions regardless of individual ability. As can be seen, Rasseru's comments started with "I think" which says enough to me that if it becomes about individual "power" and "what wins over what" it would create a massive can of worms in future of 'tank arguements', that's my primary concern to keep using the traditional generational definitions instead of 'power levels'. --User:TheFuzzyOne (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- TheFuzzyOne didn't fully read the source about advanced 3rd generation and fourth generation. Clearly in many new sources stated that "using a new generation of technology" and using fourth generation armor same as fighting wheeled units. Plus in the fact the design and advancement that was put into a tank that is rarely seen by other nations and not a upgraded version. I maybe be one of the people who suggested and the future angle the article... I talk this out in the talk before. Before I made any changes and waited for a while, did some research on the subject and found sources. TheFuzzyOne just came and undone everything without talking about it at first. I have another concern of users who do not have their profile or user wiki setup. I seen these users not trusted with their sources and who don't state their background or allow comment on wiki user page for future talk. As I added more source after the first undone. I felt TheFuzzyOne comments were very harassing on the topic and not open minded at all. Didn't give me a chance to state my debatable views of the topic. If TheFuzzyOne clearly wanted to talk about this issue? He would talk in a better tone than he is doing now. Also he is failing take in recent events and developments. This source of "1983 Rolf Hilmes" is from another era and things have changed in 30 years from tanks at that time. I am willing to give up on "fourth generation" idea because clearly someone else will bring up this topic again and again. But I won't give advanced 3rd generation that clearly be seen now and a lot more people are using this term in wiki and in the public. I am willing to stop posting to "Generations of Main Battle Tanks" if TheFuzzyOne is not allow to post on that article as well. We would just harass each other on who is right. Because TheFuzzyOne clearly over reacts on my talk comment "I think" as individual stating the fact. This word is misplace out of context and I do not think my word is law. That why I may of moved the talk that is maybe a bad move and the talks were very one sided to TheFuzzyOne. I do not know why power is being bring up to this arguments? Someone really thinks that this is about power? Lastly, if this topic is about Asian against Western powers? No Asian nation should be looked down on their military advancements and the technology they could make. A lot of info was lost with the undo from other users from removing advanced third generation and fourth generation. Rasseru (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I like to point out that the naming and assigning of the generations is not done by the military. The "generations concept" comes from the media and the public to tell others "that this tank is better because....". Also if you put this in a book or a film you have to use "generations concept" for the viewer to better understand. Since the Military now just explain things by technologically which people are now smarter to understand. Less need to class tanks by a "generation" to get people to understand. Also "generations" is use for historians that really don't study current technologies that much of the time. Based on the current list generations, technologies of nations, and development that 10 to 20 years. We should be in a theory of Generation 4, but now a lot of people are reporting that these are "Advanced 3rd Generation". Basically saying these tanks are better than the ones in the 80s and 90s. Which they are and the common person only see them looked different with some parts that are the same. A lot of the Advanced 3rd Generation's technologies are just well hidden/secret, used as upgrades for past generations, more concept, and hardly used in combat with a matching generation. The major different of a 3rd Generation and a Advanced is that the technologies were built and design into the tank than being a add-on. Rasseru (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Some new articles
A couple of interesting new articles have been created recently: Australian Army during World War I and Tanks in the Australian Army. Could use a little assistance with citations, fixing some wikilinks, general clean up etc though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Australian Army during World War I seems to be cobbled together from existing articles, judging by the citations. Hamish59 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
AfC submission - 27/02
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Belgian refugees. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)