Revision as of 10:41, 8 May 2023 editGraemeLeggett (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers111,149 edits →Renaming the Russian, Soviet and CIS task force: a suggestion← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:59, 8 May 2023 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,477 edits →Renaming the Russian, Soviet and CIS task force: reNext edit → | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:Support "Russian and Soviet". ] (]) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | :Support "Russian and Soviet". ] (]) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::That contradicts the stated scope of the task force. —''] ].'' 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ::That contradicts the stated scope of the task force. —''] ].'' 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::I think it was a couple of years ago I <s>grassed</s> reported {{u|Mzajac}} to arbcom for off-site canvassing—Twitter, wasn't it, and over the ]? :D ] 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ::<s>I think it was a couple of years ago I <s>grassed</s> reported {{u|Mzajac}} to arbcom for off-site canvassing—Twitter, wasn't it, and</s> over the ]? :D ] 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: ], please show evidence that this is true, or strike. —''] ].'' 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ::: ], please show evidence that this is true, or strike. —''] ].'' 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: Apologies. Indeed, it was a different legacy admin that I reported to the committee, with whom I was confusing you. You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor. Am happy to strike/clarify my previous remarks. Hope this helps! Apologies again. Cheers, ] 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I think editors are hearing your point Mzajac, just not agreeing with it. There is no need to keep repeating it. FWIW, IMO "Eurasia" contradicts the stated scope even more, as it would subsume China and India. Now, if you were to suggest "Eastern Europe and Russia" ... ? ] (]) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | :I think editors are hearing your point Mzajac, just not agreeing with it. There is no need to keep repeating it. FWIW, IMO "Eurasia" contradicts the stated scope even more, as it would subsume China and India. Now, if you were to suggest "Eastern Europe and Russia" ... ? ] (]) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::"Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious ] pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. ] (]) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | ::"Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious ] pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. ] (]) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:59, 8 May 2023
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang
Fort Pasir Panjang has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Good article reassessment for Winchester Model 1200
Winchester Model 1200 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hoping that somebody may have access to suitable sources that link the Models 200, 120 and 2200 to the Model 1200. If you do, please drop by and add these to the variants. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, could somebody please help with archiving a web page Lot 345: Vietnam Era U.S. Winchester 1200 Trench Shotgun with Accessories. I haven't found any free images but this could at least be used as a cited link. Thanks in advance. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- The page is archived here. 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection, Ft. Benning
I will be visiting the U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection at Fort Benning, GA, this weekend. This museum is not normally open to the public. I believe this is only the second open house they have hosted. If you want a photo of a particular tank/tanks, please let me know. There are over 190 tanks, including many "does not exist anywhere else in the world" vehicles on display. Inside the Tankodrome.
I will also be visiting Auburn to view the Philip W. Lett collection (Lett was the chief designer of the M1 Abrams). Please also let me know if you need anything scanned/photographed from that collection. Schierbecker (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Schierbecker: Photos of the prototype US heavy tank designs of World War II (on the left at about 1:25) would be useful. There were quite a few of these designs, and they're historically significant as forerunners of the US main battle tank series, as well as an interesting on 'what might have been' grounds given that the Army decided to buy lots of M4s instead of these tanks. There also seem to be some prototype designs from other countries, and photos of them would be valuable. There are surprisingly few photos of some of the main European Cold War era AFVs on Commons, so I'd suggest taking photos of all of these types as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D I would like to post my thoughts in the next Bugle. Saturday's Scouts in Action live fire demo was amazing. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- That would be fantastic - please do. Please let me know if you need any assistance with this or advice. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D, it has been a very fruitful trip. When is the publish deadline? I want to do a short write-up and a gallery of photos and video. Schierbecker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- We try to send it out in the first weekend of every month, so it might be too late for this month (unless you're a fast writer!). If you're happy to hold this over until next month, anything by the end of the month would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D, it has been a very fruitful trip. When is the publish deadline? I want to do a short write-up and a gallery of photos and video. Schierbecker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- That would be fantastic - please do. Please let me know if you need any assistance with this or advice. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D I would like to post my thoughts in the next Bugle. Saturday's Scouts in Action live fire demo was amazing. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
One-battle campaignbox
Expedition from Brazos Santiago | |
---|---|
On whether Template:Campaignbox Expedition from Brazos Santiago should exist at all: it has but one battle in it, and the expedition itself has no article of its own. In 2014, Mojoworker has argued in favor of keeping the template, but more discussion is needed. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- There's been some more recent TFDs that have supported the existence of similar campaignboxen. See Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Template:Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas and Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_28#Template:Campaignbox_Operations_near_Saint_Mark's. Hog Farm Talk 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Unless there's potential for expansion, this seems to be almost decorative and of little navigational use (like using a map for directions to get to the dead end of a one-way street you're already on). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
RS question
Operation Wunderland Combat operations of the German armed forces on the Northern sea route during the Great Patriotic War by E P Guriev is this a RS? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- All post-Soviet sources and a professional publication, so I'd think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It does seem a slightly odd place for a history article to be published - a conference about environmental sciences - if its used to draw unusual conclusions then undue may come in to play - if its for simple facts then that shouldn't be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've used it sparingly and put most of the material in notes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- It does seem a slightly odd place for a history article to be published - a conference about environmental sciences - if its used to draw unusual conclusions then undue may come in to play - if its for simple facts then that shouldn't be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
92nd Engineer Batt. Detachment Size
So, one question. I was looking at the 92nd Engineer Battalion page, and it doesn't actually say what the size of the detachments are. Are they platoon-sized? Company-sized? What? Can someone please clear this up? I don't have access to the necessary tools to do so, unfortunately. Faith15 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Detachments can be pretty much any size. It's an "as needed" kind of thing. Sometimes it's a squad, sometimes a platoon. Companies are usually sent intact and wouldn't be listed as a detachment, but a company-size detachment could be possible if you combined assets from different companies within the battalion. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. Gotcha. Thanks, @Intothatdarkness. Faith15 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. Gotcha. Thanks, @Intothatdarkness. Faith15 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Renaming the Russian, Soviet and CIS task force
Can we rename the “Russian, Soviet and CIS” milhist task force? The name is mildly embarrassing.
Referring to Moscow’s moribund “CIS” project does not define or describe the task force’s current scope any better than invoking the “EEU,” “CSTO,” or “Union State” would. It reflects a non-neutral, obsolete point of view: the CIS was thought of as a potential successor to the Soviet Union around 1993 or so, but never became that. The CIS has eight active member states, but this project concerns thirteen countries. No one uses “CIS” to refer to this subject field: there is no important university department or academic specialty called “CIS Studies.”
And since it is a military history task force, we can assume all historical predecessor states, and don’t have to name a particular one – i.e., the Soviet Union – while omitting others within the geographical scope, e.g., Kyivan Rus, the Crimean Khanate, the Golden Horde.
For example, the biggest relevant academic association is the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. Dartmouth College changed its Russian Languages and Literatures department to East European, Eurasian and Russian studies. In Canada, Carleton has an Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, St. Francis Xavier a Centre for Post-Communist Studies, and Toronto a Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.
A year ago I suggested a move at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 167#Requested move 3 May 2022. I would still suggest Eastern Europe and Eurasia military history task force, but am open to any other objective title. —Michael Z. 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that renaming of academic associations was dictated by the attempt to preserve funding (Russia "is not cool" now). XX century history know many waves of renaming (the first one was caused by WWI, and, as far as I remember, event the British royal family changed its name as a result).
- I think "CIS" looks really awkward. Maybe "Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet" task force would be a better name? It would refer to three periods (pre 1917, 1917-91, and post 91). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, CIS is needlessly obscure, though I think just "Russian and Soviet" would be suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Happy with "Russian and Soviet." Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- You’re just making that up. Organizations renamed themselves to accurately reflect their scope and in response to changes in academia after the colonial and Soviet periods. If it’s not clear to you that views have changed in the last century . . .
- Russia is not a period. It is a country. The scope of this task force is the military history of thirteen countries, and none of them are Soviet. Its name should reflect the academic views of current sources about its subject, and not imperial nostalgia or any other political POV. —Michael Z. 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, CIS is needlessly obscure, though I think just "Russian and Soviet" would be suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support "Russian and Soviet". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- That contradicts the stated scope of the task force. —Michael Z. 14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it was a couple of years ago Iover the Kiev naming dispute? :D SN54129 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)grassedreported Mzajac to arbcom for off-site canvassing—Twitter, wasn't it, and- User:Serial Number 54129, please show evidence that this is true, or strike. —Michael Z. 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies. Indeed, it was a different legacy admin that I reported to the committee, with whom I was confusing you. You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor. Am happy to strike/clarify my previous remarks. Hope this helps! Apologies again. Cheers, SN54129 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think editors are hearing your point Mzajac, just not agreeing with it. There is no need to keep repeating it. FWIW, IMO "Eurasia" contradicts the stated scope even more, as it would subsume China and India. Now, if you were to suggest "Eastern Europe and Russia" ... ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious Dugin's pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- That’s Eurasianist. The existence of Eurasianism doesn’t discredit the geopolitical notion of Eurasia. —Michael Z. 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Eurasia is obviously commonly used to refer to Russia and Central Asia in academia. It is inclusive. It does not apply a Russo-centric point of view by omitting a dozen out of thirteen states within the scope.
- “Eastern Europe and Russia” is Eurocentric, omitting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. —Michael Z. 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Eurasian" may also refer to highly obscure and dubious Dugin's pseudotheory. It would be better to avoid it. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have always understood Eurasia to be the combination of Europe and Asia, since Europe isn't really a continent geographically speaking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- That was my understanding too - everything between Strait of Gibraltar and Bering Strait - and that is what the article of that name says. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is. But Eurasian also refers to transcontinental territories, especially those of the Russian Federation, the USSR, and the Russian empire. There are plenty of states in Eurasia but only a few are Eurasian states. —Michael Z. 17:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- How about "Russian Empire, Soviet and post-Soviet"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The regional task forces define themselves by the regions or modern countries. The only exceptions are ones that are strictly about defunct empires, the Roman and Ottoman. Referring to modern nations by (a selection of) their former colonizers is a disrespectful POV. —Michael Z. 21:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- it fits the scope "this task force covers much of the military history of the post-Soviet states and territories formerly part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire". Those countries are literally defined by the group they were part of.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- But does CIS really still fairly apply to the former Soviet member states? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The regional task forces define themselves by the regions or modern countries. The only exceptions are ones that are strictly about defunct empires, the Roman and Ottoman. Referring to modern nations by (a selection of) their former colonizers is a disrespectful POV. —Michael Z. 21:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- That was my understanding too - everything between Strait of Gibraltar and Bering Strait - and that is what the article of that name says. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Russia, Central Asia and Caucasus. post-Soviet Ukraine and Belarus are covered by European task force. European Russia is also covered by that task force FWIW. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Wrong image in "voulge" page
The page about the polearm known as "Voulge" (vouge as well) contains the wrong image. The information in the page itself seems perfectly fine. At least it fits with what I know. The problem is that the image shows a double-edged sword, when the polearm in question is a single-edged blade attached to a long wooden stick. The polearm itself does not resemble any kind of sword in any way. (Edit: forgot to add the page itself https://en.wikipedia.org/Voulge ) Canzandridas (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The problem with the voulge is it is a horribly imprecise term. It can mean a broad bladed single edge weapon but the 15th century weapon of the same name usually looks just like the one in the photo. It's even more confusing when we consider the so-called Swiss voulge, which many would consider a type of halberd. Having looked at the photo, incidentally, I suspect it is a copyvio - the source of the photo (the Musee de L'Armee) clearly claim copyright and there is no sign in the wikimedia page that they have waived it. Monstrelet (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah the more I look into it the more confusing it get with details that count somewhere and don't somewhere else haha. Since the photo that's there now looks exactly as to what I would expect a voulge head to be my job here is done (I say as if I was some kind of authority in this). I understand that might have been a voulge, and if it turned out to be a copyvio then all is well if it was fixed! I'll crawl back to my hole now and thank you for your time! Canzandridas (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- But the illustration shows voulges of a type specifically said in the article as being misidentified in the 19th century. The copyvio did meet the more recent identification of the medieval weapon. Monstrelet (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)