Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 71

message: I've recently combined the style guide's sections on unit and base naming, since they were essentially copies with some terms substituted out; hopefully, the combined presentation makes the scope of the common convention a bit clearer.
I'd like to propose a small (in my opinion, anyways) change to the guideline, to account for the case (particularly with long-defunct units) where historians have adopted a common name that differs from the "official" name used by the unit during its existence.  The guideline as currently worded suggests the common historical name as an alternative only where a formal name doesn't exist at all; I propose changing this to include cases where the formal name is deprecated by historians in favor of an alternative common name.  In terms of precise text, I'd suggest changing The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs, or, for units or bases that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature. to The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.Would there be any objections to this?  Or any other comments? Kirill 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem with me. I originally wrote the base section, because I felt that was an area of concern that wasn't covered in the original version of the style guide. I copied the unit name section because I felt that was the most appropriate way of doing it -- this seems to be even better. It's simpler and there's less room for confusion. I fully support it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That looks very sensible. However, could you please provide some examples of where there's a difference between the formal name and the name commonly used by historians to illustrate your point? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are simple examples where a full formal name has been shortened in common usage; for example, the Yeomen Warders are almost never referred to as the "Yeomen Warders of Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress the Tower of London".  Another, slightly more subtle example—and the reason why the issue came up—is discussed at WT:USMIL#Civil War Regiments Naming Convention; modern historians have adopted a convention for ACW regiment names that doesn't exactly match the official names the regiments were created with. Kirill 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (Are such examples worth mentioning in the guideline itself?) Kirill 13:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally brought up this issue and simple wanted to find some uniformity if a concensus could be reached. Also remember, many of these units, particularly of the American Civil War, are long forgotten by most but on Wikipedia, so there might not be a "common" name. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, are there any objections at this point? Kirill 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has objected, I've gone ahead and changed the guideline.  Further comments are, of course, entirely welcome. Kirill 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the unit & base naming convention 

message: thumb|left|front view
I found this at Les Invalides in Paris.  No one at the Misc. Reference desk was able to identify it definitively, so I'm wondering if someone here might have a clue.  It's not a mitrailleuse or Billinghurst Requa Battery (not enough barrels and is on a swivel).  Someone suggested organ gun but that description doesn't seem to fit.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll guess a Nordenfelt or Maxim-Nordenfelt (or is it spelled Nordenfeldt?) http://www.geocities.com/aroach.geo/nrdenfld.html htom (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has 10 barrels, BTW.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn. It looks a hell of a lot like descriptions I've read of a Chevalier et Grenier mitrailleuse (not the standard cannon-shaped mitrailleuse), but that weapon had two "decks" of barrels. That being said, it did have 10 barrels, which yours appears to have as well. I was at Les Invalides a few years ago, but don't remember seeing this. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nordenfelts were made with up to twelve barrels ( here's a ten-barrel:  http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/24482 ) htom (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a pic from the front but will have to get home to take a look at it.  BrokenSphereMsg me 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pic added.  There looks like a lever of some kind on the right side of the gun.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hah, IDing images is a giant task. I know I have uploaded hundreds of things to commons where my best description was 'a gun 27' or 'a gun next to another gun' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could kick myself now for not also photographing the caption cards which were likely nearby because as anyone who has been to Les Invalides knows, there are dozens and dozens of artillery pieces around one of the courtyards, and no 2 look alike.  However I didn't have much time (~3 hours or so) when I visited because I had to meet up with a tour in Paris at 6, so I basically rushed through the medieval section and focused on WW II and the Napoleonic sections more.  Next time I'll go back for the whole day.  ;)  --BrokenSphereMsg me 02:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be simpler to ask someone in Paris to ID the thing? I know its fun to have a guess, but I become frustrated :\--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I try to photo captions. Sometimes they get fuzzy. And too often things don't have them... I remember recently taking a series of  portrait photos - but who is on them is anybody's guess... sigh :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to Rama, who took the picture on the right, his titles, let alone descriptions of the items he photographed at Les Invalides are hardly descriptive at all and leave the viewer guessing as to what exactly the objects are beyond their own generalizations.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's located on a balcony behind the large black statue of Napoleon that overlooks what I believe IIRC is the first courtyard of the Musee de l'armee if you enter from the south side.  The Renault FT-17 light tank should be at the foot of the stairway you would climb to access this balcony.  BrokenSphereMsg me 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When someone goes there, also look for a description of the statue so it can be added to the image description.  For that matter, has someone located the facility's office where records of all those items are kept?  Maybe this place doesn't use public labels, but there should be a history or records officer keeping track of the item catalog.  Incidentally, someone planning to visit such an office/person might want to print the first page of the Commons category for the place (and the Army Museum?) and invite the person to define an account and append descriptive information to the image descriptions pages.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID this gun? 

message: I'd like to ask that people take a look at the RfC on Talk:Sun Bin with regard to whether two alleged alternative names for him are properly includable in the article and, if so, whether they should be in the lead paragraph.  --Nlu (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun Bin 

message: Is there a Military History trivia page?
For example, what did former US President Clinton and Hitler had in common? :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Members by Kirill 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Euhm they both had 2 legs.... But no kidding, indeed I hope there is no such trivia page. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OH OH I know, they both have the letter "i" in their name. BonesBrigade 02:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll keep you lot guessing until next year :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Both had mistresses?? BonesBrigade 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you are warm even if you don't know it :0), mistresses are not quite what I had in mind since this is military trivia, but its almost half the answer. This trivia is only possible because an article in Wikipedia is incomplete--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia  

message: Here's the Top Twenty as of 1800 hrs GMT 23 December 2007.
# Bedford  —  7,180
# TomStar81  —  5,140
# Parsival74  —  5,000
# FayssalF  —  3,500
# Roger Davies  —  2,600
# Kateshortforbob  —  2250
# Cromdog  —  2,200
# Ouro  —  2020
# BrokenSphere  —  2000
# Jacksinterweb  —  2,000
# Maralia  —  2,000
# MBK004  —  1,325
# JKBrooks85  —  1,250
# Sniperz11  —  1100
# Blnguyen  —  1000
# Burzmali  —  1000
# Raoulduke47  —  1000
# TicketMan  —  1000
# Welsh  —  1000
# Cplakidas  —  890
There's just over one week left to go. So if you haven't signed up yet, please do so and tag at least some! Happy holidays, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This'll teach me to get into good habits and tag articles when I create them.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MHA07|Tag & Assess]] Top Twenty 

message: Is there an On this day in military history place?
e.g. 24 December 2007  this day in 1790, marked the taking of Turkish fortress Izmail by the Russian troops under the command A.V.Suvorov.--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portal:War/Selected anniversaries. :-) Kirill 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day? 

message: The A-Class review for Evacuation of East Prussia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Evacuation of East Prussia]] now open 

message: From :pl:Hulajgród and :uk:Гуляй-город: a type of siege machine used by Cossack and Russian forces around 16th and 17th century. It was a type of siege tower, on wheels or on a skid. Used during sieges of towns or encampments, carried troops and artillery, were pulled by people or animals. Onestly I don't see a reason why this should be merged to siege tower articles on respective wikis, but maybe there is something I am missing (the above is from the pl article, I don't read Ukrainian)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might take a look at the Hellenistic siege towers, for example the Helepolis. It was used as a protective building for artillery that shot at the besieged and from the top levels small arms fired at single enemy soldiers. I don't understand Polish or Ukrainian, but your description sounds like an emulation of this Hellenistic tactic with gunpowder weapons. One advantage of such a building could be that it is possible to fire at close range on specific points of a fortification and thus breach the walls. The difference to the Greek version is that they didn't have such an excess of firepower and fired only on the defences at the top of the wall. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any idea how this is called? 

message: Does anyone know where I can find information on the type of radars used by naval ships during WWII? I am looking for both navigational and gunnery radar information, however I have heard from reliable source that much of the latter is still classified, so I would settle for information on the former if at all possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Radar 

message: The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Heuschrecke 10]] now open 

message: Just to let everyone know,  now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.  As part of converting to its use, a bunch of disambiguation pages tagged with other classes have wound up being marked as unassessed; if you spot one of them, please apply this new tag.  Thanks! Kirill 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking disambiguation pages