Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 64

message: Discussion seems to have stalled on this. Does anyone want to comment on the examples I provided? I found another example recently: War of Heaven . It seems faintly ridiculous to have a battle infobox for this (it can't really be called military history by any stretch of the term), but have a look at the flag used for St Michael. It reduces a biblical myth to the level of a wargaming episode. Completely and utterly ridiculous. Carcharoth 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  This one violates much of the stuff above, and large parts of the general MoS to boot, but I wonder if picking a fictional example is going to be useful here. Kirill 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose it may be worth mentioning that one shouldn't make up flags for groups that didn't have any. ;-) Kirill 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or at least where there are no reliable sources for one or both sides -- that might help discourage "flagcruft." ;-) llywrch 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example

message: So, any other comments?  Can we move forward with something practical here, or are there still major issues that people would like to see addressed? Kirill 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still unclear on one point.  In some cases it seems that the use of flags in military personnel infoboxes is almost encouraged, particularly in the cases of wars where more than a few countries were involved.  On the other hand, the idea of using duplicate information (Allegiance: United States (insert U.S. flag here)) is discouraged. So for military personnel infoboxes, which is preferred?  --ScreaminEagle 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really think of any benefit to using flags in personnel infoboxes, since the visual information will basically always be redundant to the text right next to it.  (I'm sure somebody will now proceed to come up with some suitably clever use for them, proving me wrong. ;-) Kirill 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that placing flags in personnel infoboxes is unnecessary and I'm willing to support a formal, written policy on the issue. Cla68 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Make it really, really clear please, so that when I direct people to that page and point out that it's unnecessary, indeed highly discouraged, to insert country flags in their personnel infoboxes, they won't give me a line of crap about how it makes it look better or it's important for clarification or some such thing.  --ScreaminEagle 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: Barring any objections, I'm planning to put up the following on the project page in the near future.  It's essentially the above draft with a note about consistent usage among parties added:
* In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider:
** Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information (for example, icons used to indicate place of birth for a military commander) are usually not.
** Can flag icons be used consistently?  In other words, do all the groups in a given list have usable flags?  If only a few have them, it may be better to omit flags for all the items than to have a different layout for each one.
** Will adding icons disrupt the existing structure or flow of the text?
* When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones. In particular:
** When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy.
** Avoid using national flags in inappropriate contexts, such as for groups or individuals not aligned with any country.
Comments? Kirill 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added the text above at WP:MILMOS#FLAGS.  Further comments and refinements are, of course, quite welcome. Kirill 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final? draft 

message: Hello, I just joined the wikiproject; my main interests are medieval weapons and armaments of European/Asian origin.  While it seems that the majority of the weaponry task force is concentrated on modern weapons, any pointers on style, categorization, or anything else would be greatly appreciated. Gizzakk 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Member 

message: Just wanted to get this up before it closes: :Category:Recipients of the Ranger tab was nominted for deletion. Looking at the comments there, it is obvious that the nominator and at least one voter has no clue about what the ranger tab and ranger qualification means, so I'm asking people from here to go and comment before it closes - I'm not asking you to say keep - delete if you think it should be delted, but I think people who might know a little more about it should comment on it.--Nobunaga24 00:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for deletion 

message: An initial straw-poll regarding Allies & Axis vs. Nationalities is going on here. Participation and feedback are most welcome. Oberiko 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on the issue

message: Well, I have news that is both good and bad at the same time.  Per previous discussion here, today I ambled on down to tank row at the entrance to the aberdeen proving ground. You can imagine my surprise when I saw that it was no longer there :(
So I drove a mile down the road to the musuem, and asked what happened. Apparently they took them all back and put them in the field in back of the musuem, with all the other pieces (the same field that I have twice photographed. So the news is good and bad at the same time. Tank row was next to the entrance, and they get *VERY* upset if you are photographing stuff near the entrance (such pictures could help out terrorists planning an attack on the base to get inside), so getting permission to photographs the tanks there was uncertain. The bad news is that they did not keep the tanks together - instead, they split them up and placed them all over the field. So the only way to make sure I get them all is to go through the field and photograph everything (for the third time). This is not something I am willing to do. However, I did shoot some more pictures of ones that I don't think I got the last two times. I'll be uploading them tonight for identification. Raul654 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple of years since I've been there, but I could have sworn the tanks were like that (out in back with everything else) originally.  In fact, I recall taking photos of them out back.  I don't remember any such Tank Row when I was there.  So it would seem it was only meant to be a temporary display anyway.  --ScreaminEagle 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that most of the tanks were in back of the musuem - but they put another dozen-or-so next to the visitors entrance. That was tank row. I just asked a colleague who has been there since the mid-80s -- he said Tank Row has been there ever since he started working there. It's just my luck that the day I go to take a picture of it is the same week they get rid of it ;) Raul654 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Well, I've never said my memory was perfect.  I still don't remember them there, which means I probably missed out on something pretty cool.  Oh well.  --ScreaminEagle 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to the weaponry task force that the museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground has an extensive, and I mean extensive, collection of historical firearms in their back room which would probably be a good resource to get photos for firearms articles.  Although their back room isn't publically open they'll usually take you back there if you ask them nicely and if they're not too busy with something else. Cla68 06:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identify that tank/gun, Round 3

message: This is one of the project's less helpful articles- a exhaustive listing of the types of wings and other units that Strategic Air Command had at certain times, ie 'Reconnaissance Air Divisions - 1 in 1955 and 1 in 1971' and so on like that. I think by itself this is too esoteric and unusable, and it should be deleted, though some information may be migrated first. What do others think? Buckshot06 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is already in, e.g. Strategic Air Command divisions; so I don't think we'll lose much by getting rid of this particular list. Kirill 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Organizational Order of Battle]]

message: I have concerns that veterans of the 3rd US Infantry Regiment, as well as the senior command staff of the United States Army, have been arbitrarily rejected as primary sources contrary to WP:NOR to make a point regarding the history and naming of that unit. As a matter of respect for the unit veterans, the Chief of Staff's office and his subordinate staff officers, I am no longer contributing to or commenting on Wikipedia articles pertaining to any element of the United States Armed Forces, and I have informed my students that such articles are not acceptable for citation in their academic work submitted for publication. I may continue to contribute to the German General Staff article or other articles on other-than-American topics as I find credible sources authored by recognized military historians in the future. Hotfeba 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being familar with this particular case (so I may be wrong), it sounds from your post like an improper interpretation of WP:NOR. The only way NOR itself would be involved is if you (or any other editor) engages in "original research", drawing conclusions or making interpretations not based on a published source. Veterans and any command staff are clearly regarded as primary sources. There is currently a very lengthy discussion on the talk page of NOR. We are discussing how to remove the definitions, etc. of the various types of sources, so that the policy concentrates solely on "no original research", not on side topics like what kind of source something is. If there are any objections to what I think you are complaining about, it seems like it would be more related to the verifiability or reliable sources policies. Hope this helps some. wbfergus  Talk 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:NOR section on "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources", a credible primary source includes those persons "very close to the situation being written about". Unit veterans reasonably qualify as primary sources, but their account of the unit's name is rejected in favor of after-the-fact standardization of unit article names by at least one Wikipedia editor. I have provided a good secondary source (written by a 19th century unit veteran/primary source) on the article talk page from www.army.mil/cmh on the unit's official name as it (3rd United States Infantry Regiment) was rendered as early as 1894 under the US Army's commanding general at the time, which should settle the issue but for one's desire for standardization. In any case, the Wikipedia article is merely a tertiary source at best, not suitable for citation on its own. Other Wikipedia policies may apply, but I found the above source policy on another editor's recommendation for avoiding OR in this specific matter. Hotfeba 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, a couple of different things then are "in play" here. First, article names aren't really 'standard' representations of what something may actually be called, it's primarily used (especially here in MILHIST) for easier 'sorting' or 'grouping' purposes. This project has many different "3rd" or "Third" on here from a lot of various nations. It was agreed upon a year or so back that browing through the non-standardized names was becoming quite a chore, and standardizing the names would greatly simplify the task. An article "name" doesn't really matter to much, as withing the text of articles, the linkage to the article can still be piped to the applicable name (or real) name. I can see where you would like the actual article name to be the correct representation of what the unit actually is called, but when it's conglomerated in with 30 other "3rd's", it easy to get lost in the shuffle. Within the article itself it could (maybe should?) clearly state what the "official" name is. Depending upon how your edits were worded may reflect on whether or not the other editor correctly assumed "original research" on your part. If, within the article, your edit consisted of something like "In 1894 the US Army's commanding general organized the unit as the '3rd United States Infantry Regiment'", followed by a reference to the applicable 'source', then it is simply a statement of fact and not original research. However, something like "Many veterans of the unit insist that the appropriate name of the unit is '3rd United States Infantry Regiment' and has been called that since 1894" could easily be called OR, as it seems to be making a conclusion or interpreatation of facts not augmented by a published source. wbfergus  Talk 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference: this is the matter discussed in #The Old Guard above.  Briefly: our guideline calls for the official name to be used, there's some disagreement over what that official name is, and people have unfortunately become upset because of the dispute. Kirill 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was asked to comment on others' edits -- I have refrained from editing that article after a US Army photo I attributed to www.army.mil was removed as not public domain several months ago -- and I am removing my user name from the MILHIST project per accepted Wikipedia policy on conflict avoidance. Hotfeba 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of unit veterans as primary sources on unit history 

message: The A-Class review for Issy Smith is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Issy Smith]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Military history of Gibraltar during World War II]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Barrosa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Barrosa]] now open 

message: I was just reading about it and it REALLY needs to be restarted in two different sections it's talking about 4 different legions--Rofur 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the X legio 

message: The A-Class review for Fort Runyon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Fort Runyon]] now open 

message: Hello WikiProject Military history members, I'm Neranei. A few weeks ago, I rescued Portal:NATO from an MfD, and it seriously needs upkeep. As NATO is within the scope of your project, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take this portal on. If you would like to, either post here or come talk to me. Thanks! Neranei (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try a do-it-yourself approach. Wandalstouring 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for helping rescue that portal.  If no one else shows up to help you with your efforts with the portal, please don't be disheartened, it's just that everyone is heavily involved already with whatever their present area of interest is.  Your efforts with the project are seen, however, and appreciated. Cla68 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I would like to note that the Black Hawk War collaboration is still ongoing. Much progress has been made. With two current GA nominations we have 3 battle articles left to raise to GA, then finish off Black Hawk War, and get it to FA, with the ultimate goal of a featured topic in mind. Any interested editors are encouraged to join up, please sing up in the participants section. Perhaps, if we can get enough interested editors to join up and help out we can become a full-fledged task force, with a nifty userbox and everything, if you're into that kind of thing. :) Anyway, check it out if you have time. Thanks. IvoShandor 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing collaboration

message: The A-Class review for Cleomenean War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kyriakos 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cleomenean War]] now open 

message: Some time ago there was a discussion on this page regarding the use of information obtained through documentaries being cited as source material on articles that fall within our projects perview. A small discussion ensued on two fronts: what kind of documenatry material should be considered a "reliable source", and if they are to be considered reliable sources, how much wieght should be attached to them. Like all material gathered and presented on an audio and/or visual plane, a documentry is likely to be influenced by the side that made the film or show, and may conatin inaccurate information (case in point:Dogfights). Under most circumstances this wouldn't be a major problem, but as the popularity of tv and film documetaries grows the material presented in them is making its way into our higher ranking articles, and that requires our attention bacuase our B, GA, A, and FA clas articles should be free of inaccurate information. At present there is some talk of creating a tagging system for article using information obtained from documentary sources so that the articles can be checked for POV compliance and to ensure that the information presented is correct. At the moment the focus seems to be on creating a new template and/or category for documentary related material (possibly even worked into the MILHIST template itself), but more input on this idea is need before any descion on the matter is reached. Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Related Material 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Cleomenean War; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cleomenean War]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Smolensk War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Smolensk War]] now open 

message: Someone familar with WWII era planes please look at this image and tell me if the planes shown on the back are Seahawks or Kingfishers, becuase I do not know the two well enough to tell one from the other and I kinda need to :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same result. Bukvoed 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you get to the page with the bad URL, simply backspace (remove) the file name. That will take you up a level to the directory listing of all the files. Since it's a bad file name, I don't know which is the correct image though. There's a bunch there. wbfergus  Talk 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm... looks like the original URL was ok, but some database problem prevents from accessing the file directly. The quickest way to access it is probably via this page . Bukvoed 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ...Or, I could just upload it and link to it. That would simplify things, seeing as how I would be using the image anyway :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it'd have to be a Kingfisher, since the Seahawk didn't even make the drawing board until 1942, and that picture was taken in 1941. It's tough to tell, though, since in the picture, they almost look like biplanes. JKBrooks85 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that my problem. I figure they were designed with the Kingfisher in mind, but probably would have been tweaked to handle the seahawk since building a battleship would have taken a few years. I put both in my rewrite since it figure its an accurate assessment, but wanted to know which planes they were pictured with here. Thnaks for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: The German page at :de:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._Gardepanzerarmee_%28Rote_Armee%29 has a great linkplate for the Soviet armies of WW2, which I would very much like to adopt for the Soviet army articles I'm writing. But I can't figure out how to copy the script. Would somebody mind copying/translating it over and depositing the result in Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army? Then I'd be able to modify it for the articles we have in en-wiki for Sov armies. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual page to copy over is :de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Verbände der Roten Armee, which can be transplanted into an instance of  fairly easily.  It needs someone who knows enough German to translate the links, though. Kirill 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can translate the GErman, but I don't know how to transplant the links. The page data is now in my sandbox, accessible through my userpage. If someone can 'transplant' the page into the military navigation box arrangement that would be good; afterwards I can establish the new links. Buckshot06 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. Kirill 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kirill; result at Army (Soviet Army), preparing to be roled out more widely... Buckshot06 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for Soviet Armies

message: The A-Class review for Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Fort Jackson (Virginia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! JKBrooks85 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Fort Jackson (Virginia)]] now open 

message: For the benefit of anyone that doesn't usually follow that page:
The project's contest department has just completed its sixth month of competition. The overall results for the past six months show JKBrooks85 in first place, with 92 points, followed by Carom, with 45 points, and Blnguyen, with 38 points.  Congratulations to the high scorers, and thanks to everyone that has taken the time to participate in the contests!
As usual, all project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries! Kirill 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project writing contest reaches six-month mark 

message: Can someone more knowledgeable take a look at Maavägi? It was created by a new user , and has issues with layout, language, links and more - also possibly images may be copyrighted, I suspect. -- Sander Säde 08:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with [[Maavägi]] 

message: I'm new to this type of research. How would I find out information about a ship that was a member of the Spanish Armada. Details of its activities during the campaign are easy to come by, but I'm looking for its history before 1588. Sancho 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about an old ship 

message: I've just found this page, which unfortunately focuses on only one ADIZ, the one around Washington DC, without explaining that ADIZs are a frequent part of Western countries' air defence arrangements. Should I move it to something like ADIZ (Washington DC area), set up a disambig page somewhere, or what? And what about the Australians & Japanese etc doing Air DefenCe Identification Zones, while the DC one is an Air DefenSe Identification Zone? Buckshot06 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd suggest moving the page to Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) and creating a disambiguation page at Air Defense Identification Zone. The disambiguation page can then be expanded into an article when someone has the time or inclination to do so. I'd include red links to all the American zones and what foreign zones immediately come to mind. A brief explanation is all that's needed. JKBrooks85 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Buckshot06 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. I deleted the globalization tag on the new separated page, since it's now relabled with something a little more accurate. I also reworked the main page slightly and created sections for future international additions. JKBrooks85 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air Defense Identification Zone]] 

message: Featured article Ernest Emerson could use some watching; it just survived an AfD, started when it appeared on the mainpage.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now up at Featured article review, link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Comments are always welcome. Woodym555 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest Emerson 

message: Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ernest Emerson FAR 

message: I took this photo about 2 years ago at Aberdeen proving ground and currently do not know what this vehicle is called nor its home country. Sorry for the bad quality but its been in my room for about 1 year ForeverDEAD 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BRDM-2?  Looks like it anyway.  --ScreaminEagle 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely a BRDM-2.  As far as the "home country," it's orginally a Soviet design, but a lot of countries use it now.  From the Arabic numbers on the side ("187") and the desert paint, I'd guess it's a North African nation ... maybe Egypt?Mike f 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, if you took this picture of a BRDM-2 on display at APG, it's probably Iraqi, not Egyptian ... likely captured during Desert Storm. Mike f 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks ForeverDEAD 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BRDM-2.  Looks like it has been repainted, so identifying the owner may be a bit tricky.  The Iraqis tended to have colored flags painted on the front as I recall, but I don't know how consistent they were.  It may be a Soviet export model or a licensed manufacture in-country.  The Syrian units in the CF had these as well.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, repainted in that it has been painted for desert use (Iraqi would be a good guess as to how we came to obtain it in the first place).  But just to point out the obvious, some of the colors on that thing are due to degraded photo quality and not some wacky paint scheme (in case someone didn't notice....). --ScreaminEagle 12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me identyfy this vehicle 

message: Please comment or participate in helping make a portal that features this project's content make it to featured portal status. It's only a good portal because we're churning out great pagespace. BusterD 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[P:ACW|ACW Portal]] up for [[Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review#Portal:American_Civil_War|Portal peer review]]