| Revision as of 07:03, 9 September 2013 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 121.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:44, 9 September 2013 edit undoTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,900 edits →Whaam! 50th anniversary drive now in WP:TFAR mode: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| Please consider commenting at stalled merge of ] and ] at ]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | Please consider commenting at stalled merge of ] and ] at ]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Whaam! 50th anniversary drive now in ] mode == | |||
| The ] nomination for '']'' is now open at ] to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. I presume that after nearly 700KB of discussions some people may be interested in this nomination.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:44, 9 September 2013
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Update Infobox recommendation in MOS?
WP:INFOBOXUSE - The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
I would like to propose that we consider changing this recommendation, since for many taskforces, such as Maritime Warfare, its extremely unusual to not have an infobox. Can we perhaps do a survey and/or a table of A/FA articles w/infoboxes by taskforce? I appreciate your comments!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk (talk • contribs)
- My reading of the Arbcom case is that it's not going to help us find answers, but they're almost finished, and I'd prefer to wait for their decision before making any changes to our guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I shudder at the moment with mild pain whenever infoboxes and the mandation (or banning) of them are mentioned.... I'd second Dank that this doesn't seem an ideal moment to be reviewing our guidelines, and we'd be better off waiting a few more weeks. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Waiting is probably a good idea - I wasn't aware of the controversy until now. Kirk (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I third that motion. Better to focus on content for now, and worry about infoboxes when the dust has settled. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- My read of that Arbcom case is that nothing at all is likely to change - but even if we weren't waiting, WT:MILHIST isn't where changes to WP:INFOBOXUSE would be proposed! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Our B-class crierion B5 requires that an article contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Thus, military articles are required to have an appropriate infobox. That having been said, there are some articles for which it is hard to find an appropriate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- To me, the key word in that criteria is "appropriate": if an infobox is not appropriate for an article, the article does not need one to meet B5. Diagrams (another item listed) are also inappropriate for many articles, so are not included in many B- or higher-class articles. -- saberwyn 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, the key word in B5 is "or". An infobox or an image or diagrams. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken. I suppose the issue is whether an article can get by without any supporting materials. I've got one: Russian Alsos. I cannot find any decent pictures or an appropriate infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Almost every article I write is a milbio or a milunit so the infobox is a no-brainer, as it should be for battles, ships, aircraft, vehicles... However I respect the primary editors' wishes re. other articles when an infobox may not offer so obvious a benefit. In the case Hawkeye mentions, if you can't produce decent supporting materials despite your best efforts, at least you tried... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken. I suppose the issue is whether an article can get by without any supporting materials. I've got one: Russian Alsos. I cannot find any decent pictures or an appropriate infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Our B-class crierion B5 requires that an article contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Thus, military articles are required to have an appropriate infobox. That having been said, there are some articles for which it is hard to find an appropriate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- My read of that Arbcom case is that nothing at all is likely to change - but even if we weren't waiting, WT:MILHIST isn't where changes to WP:INFOBOXUSE would be proposed! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I third that motion. Better to focus on content for now, and worry about infoboxes when the dust has settled. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Waiting is probably a good idea - I wasn't aware of the controversy until now. Kirk (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I shudder at the moment with mild pain whenever infoboxes and the mandation (or banning) of them are mentioned.... I'd second Dank that this doesn't seem an ideal moment to be reviewing our guidelines, and we'd be better off waiting a few more weeks. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Complete structure of the US military
I found this open link to the Rallypoint structure chart of the ENTIRE US Military! down to company level, with all ships, all air squadrons, all National Guard units, etc. etc. etc. the only units missing (as far as I can tell) are the tier-1 Special Forces and the units of the Defence Intelligence Agency: https://www.rallypoint.com/universe As RallyPoint is a kind of linkedin for the active US military personnel I would assume it is up-to-date and reliable. Any suggestions how we can use this? noclador (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- A quick check of a couple of Air Combat Command wings indicates it is not complete. Tactical units appear to be complete as do maintenance units, but support units assigned to Mission Support Groups (typically a Civil Engineer Squadron, a Communications Squadron, a Contracting Squadron, a Force Support Squadron, and a Security Forces Squadron) were not listed on the ones I checked. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, European Command and Africa Command appear to be missing their component commands, and even under the Navy I could not access COMUSNAVEUR. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- For some of my old units, companies are missing and locations are wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- oh, I did not expect that! I thought it would be a good source for us to check up on the US military structure. noclador (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- For some of my old units, companies are missing and locations are wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, European Command and Africa Command appear to be missing their component commands, and even under the Navy I could not access COMUSNAVEUR. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Need sources for Challenger 1 reliability and QRIH in GW1
I'm adding a section at Queen's Royal Irish Hussars about their involvement in GW1. Where I'm running into trouble is being too dependent upon Hugh McManners' "Gulf War One" but it is the only source I can find which speaks in depth about the unreliability of Challenger 1 prior to the war. I don't want to find the section tagged "needs more sources". Also, getting sources on the Irish Hussars in this war is like finding hen's teeth. Can anybody point me to a couple of nice sources for both subjects? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- From memory, the Osprey book Challenger Main Battle Tank 1982–97 has some useful material on problems with the tank (I read it last year and, if I remember correctly, the author argues that the tank was inferior to the other western designs of this period). It also covers the operational service of the tank during the Gulf War. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick and thanks for the link. I got a good crawl over this tank when it was in the design stages and I know what the developmental problems were. It was basically an upgraded Chieftain though so it can't be seen as a "bad" marque. My colleagues who did crew it (I didn't, having left by that time) don't have any unkind things to say about it. The major issue appears to have been the RR CV1200 which I find odd but prior to GW1 all the tanks which weren't going were stripped of everything and left as shells in the hangars - on blocks! Never saw that in my time on Chieftain. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I need some help/advice with the article on the limitanei
It has a lot about farmer-soldier-colonists, and a lot of speculation about their role, without adequate sources, and which contradicts the sources I'm using so far. I think I need to emphasize that there are disagreements, for example, on whether they date to Diocletian or only to Constantine I, and that there are changes, for example Justinian cancelling their pay. I don't see any suggestions on how to (re)structure this kind of article, either. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a mess, isn't it? Here are some suggestions. In the lead section, I'd reposition the last two paras into the text - this section should be a summary, not a first stab at trying out a controversy. I'd start the whole history section with an overview of the restructuring of the Roman army (whether by Diocletian or Constantine) to place them in their historical context. Then talk about their role and the various theories. This could include strengths and weaknesses.You have in there, uncited, Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire theories, which could be dusted down and cited. Then on to equipment. Finally, the end both in the West and the East (modern excavations on Hadrian's Wall could be referenced for the Western part and, perhaps, possible survivals in Frankish gaul). Overall, the article has an Eastern Empire slant which might be addressed with a wider range of sources. I'd be happy to do the structural shake up but don't have the resources to hand to really get into the detail.Monstrelet (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of Luttwak to sort through his claims. I inherited those, unreferenced, from earlier editors. I am focusing on the east because Treadgold is an important source, the Eastern Notitia is more intelligible, and the later history is a bit... less unclear. How about history, organization , roles , and then equipment? Ananiujitha (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would do it. On history, I do think you need the context of the Field and Border army split. Ideally, some examples of limitanei functioning as soldiers would be good. I'll see if I can hunt out Luttwak and put a reference in.Monstrelet (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've put Luttwak in and done a few more bits, including the reference to Azar Gat's book into a citation. When I have time I'd like to re-edit the farmer-soldier section, to make a more coherent discussion of the theory. I'd like to ask fellow members to help, if they can, by checking the Gat cite to see how much of the paragraph preceeding it can be attributed - it was unclear in the original edit and I don't have access to the book. One big area that may need tackling is the referencing system, which would benefit from a change to a list of reference titles and then refering to them by an author/date/page system - is there a bot for that? Monstrelet (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The farmer-soldier section contains quite a lot of redundant text. I will try to remove it and I will also help in improving the reference system.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've put Luttwak in and done a few more bits, including the reference to Azar Gat's book into a citation. When I have time I'd like to re-edit the farmer-soldier section, to make a more coherent discussion of the theory. I'd like to ask fellow members to help, if they can, by checking the Gat cite to see how much of the paragraph preceeding it can be attributed - it was unclear in the original edit and I don't have access to the book. One big area that may need tackling is the referencing system, which would benefit from a change to a list of reference titles and then refering to them by an author/date/page system - is there a bot for that? Monstrelet (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Can someone help add Signpost boxes at the top of this page?
The Signpost interviewed this WikiProject on at least three different occasions: in 2009, 2010 and 2012. There is a box at the top of this page that links to the 2012 interview, but there is no link to the two other interviews. I wonder if anyone here can add those links. Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominations now open for coordinator election!
Hello everyone! I'm pleased to announce that the 2013 project coordinator election process has now begun. We will be electing a new tranche of coordinators for the coming year; if you're interested in running, please submit a nomination statement by 23:59 UTC on September 14. Kirill 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey
Take a look at this. The creator of the article needs t expand greatly on it. B-Machine (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Help needed formatting images in infoboxes
I've noticed over the past couple of days that on some articles, images won't format. They'll go in ok on their original size which is much too big, but the moment I apply formatting the image disappears. I've currently been unable to correct this problem at Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment, Royal Irish Regiment (1684–1922) and Northern Ireland Security Guard Service. If someone could take a look for me and see what the issue is I'd be very grateful. Don't just fix it please, let me know HOW you fixed it so I can see where I'm going wrong as I'm using the same syntax I've always used and never had a problem before. Thanks in advance. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe I've sussed it. As strange as it may appear the answer appears to be to leave three spaces after the word "image" in the infobox. The apply the syntax. Anybody else come across this? Thanks to Hamish 59 for doing the Leinster Regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Prince article only has 1 space before the image link and the image shows fine (??). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot take any credit for that, SonofSetanta. I was only trying to play around with it. Hamish59 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a common rationale for inserting images. I've come across at least three ways to do it in the past - this is a new one. Hamish I note how you did it and I tried that way too but it didn't work for me. I'm wondering, as I have been all along, is it something to do with my own PC? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I made a mistaken change, then reverted myself back to the original - which now renders correctly, whereas before it did not. If it is something to do with your PC, then mine has the same problem! Hamish59 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's bizarre, that's what it is. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
GA nomination announcements
Hi all! No GA nomination created after some point on 1 September will show up automatically at WP:GAN page. According to Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations#What to do without GA bot? a bot performing that process was shut down and each new nomination need be posted at the GAN page manually using {{GANentry|1=Article|2=x}} syntax (x being the number of the GA review of the article). I see five such MILHIST-associated nominations are already missing from the GAN page right now. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Comparison of Greek naval and land tactics in the 5th century BC
The "Comparing Land and Sea" section needs some copyediting to remove the second person. Also, this article has been listed as an orphan since December 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to merge Palatini (Roman military), Comitatenses, and possibly Pseudocomitatenses into Palatini and Comitatenses
All three articles are stubs. They deal with higher and lower-status units within the late Roman field armies. There don't seem to be many distinctions beyond status and beyond some unit titles . There are a lot of controversies over the reorganization of the late Roman army, whether Diocletian or Constantine I was responsible, how large it was, etc. that are easier to address in a shared article than three separate ones. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Only Pseudocomitatenses looks like a stub, the other two do not, though "Comitatenses" is missing sourcing. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have been working on Palatini. And if we exclude the list , Comitatenses is still a stub. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I put the merger proposal at Talk:Comitatenses#Merger ProposalAnaniujitha (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone recognize this MG?
? Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Someone not using his real name: A St. Étienne Mle 1907, perhaps? Kirill 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think that you're right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- No doubt in my mind. Good pick up, Kirill. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Another WWI French machine gun so bad they passed it to their allies.Monstrelet (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
FAR notification
I have nominated Sylvanus Morley for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Have left a message on the review page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Citation template
Does anyone know if we have a cite template for The Edinburgh Gazette there is one as I suspect you all know for The London Gazette {London Gazette|accessdate=8 September 2013|date=3 May 1898|issue=26963|startpage=2747|url=http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26963/pages/2747} but I tried a word change Edinburgh for London and nothing happened, other than the red no article link. Its for an award of a DSO which I found announced in the Edinburgh but not the London Gazette. I wonder if anyone has come across this before and can help. Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gday Jim. I believe adding the city=e with the London Gazette template should work. See Template:London Gazette.Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Queen's Guard and tourists
There is a request on the Queen's Guard talk page requesting an addition to the article outlining how guards are required to behave towards tourists. Besides lots of YouTube videos of guardsmen yelling or even shoving the most obnoxious ones, I'm blessed if I can find a reference that would support an entry. Can anybody help? Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the official protocol. http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html SonofSetanta (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The section Queen's Guard#Procedure Whilst At Post does seem to have been copied and pasted (with some very minor changes) from http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html . The site does display a copyright tag, is this whole section a copyvio? Benea (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Easy to fix if it is. Just do a rewrite. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- There you go - did it for you and reffed it out to http://changing-guard.com/changing-guard-buckingham-palace.html. Let me know if that's ok. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Prompt and efficient - thank you one and all. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
War of Jenkins' Ear
Any chance we could get some second/third/fourth opinions on the outcome in the infobox on this article? There is a persistent IP with an army of socks trying to change the result to a Spanish victory, despite a number of sources indicating English language sources do not treat it as such. Normally I'd just revert and treat as TE, but this time the IP is trying to discuss its proposed changes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Third opinion provided. Cdtew (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion needs input
Please consider commenting at stalled merge of Sikorski's death controversy and 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash at Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash#Merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Whaam! 50th anniversary drive now in WP:TFAR mode
The WP:TFAR nomination for Whaam! is now open at Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests#Whaam.21 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. I presume that after nearly 700KB of discussions some people may be interested in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Category: