Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AICT)
Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers


    Requests for project input

    [edit]

    Help reference military history articles in the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive

    [edit]

    Hi WikiProject Military history, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. There's already been an impressively large reduction in the number of unreferenced military history articles over the last months, but in case you want to apply any more of that energy to the drive, you can quickly access a list of remaining ones here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding reliable sources is welcome. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inaccurate article section War Reserve Constables=

    [edit]

    It's been suggested I draw attention to this Talk:War reserve constable both on here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement in the hope someone with better skills and ideas than myself can sort out an inaccuate section (they says only 3 WRCs were killed 'in the line of duty' when that's clearly not the case. Many thanks to anyone willing to have a look! Rhillman (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:5.56×45mm NATO#Requested move 29 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Haile Selassie

    [edit]

    Haile Selassie 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your input would be welcome at Talk:Eric Braeden#Wilhelm Gustloff. Thanks for participating! Renerpho (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mini-drive on Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure

    [edit]

    I recently asked for help here on assessing articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials. Contributions by Chipmunkdavis, Hawkeye7, Matarisvan, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Zawed, Hog Farm and Sturmvogel 66 brought down that category's backlog by 50 or so and helped make progress towards our B-class target (we nudged up 0.1% on the target over the period, but not all of this will be down to the new articles generated from the drive).

    I thought I would try to replicate this success in another area. These articles in theory need only attention to structure ie. section headers and lead paragraph. Same procedure as before:

    Look at one of the articles below and either:

    • If you think it passes all of the B-class criteria and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
    • If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
    • If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria, do so and then list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for formal assessment

    When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below

    Thanks in advance everybody - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Classical
    Medieval
    Early Muslim
    Early Modern
    American Revolutionary War
    Napoleonic
    American Civil War
    World War I
    World War II
    Cold War
    Post-Cold War

    Luftflotte 5

    [edit]

    I'm looking for better sources on this air fleet, any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis (pp. 225-230) which may help. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Luftwaffe over Finland (pp. 5-6) Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, how about Axis blockade runners? Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I'll have a butcher's. I'm looking for more info on its anti-shipping operations. Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Took a peek at Wiki de and there's an OOB lifted from Niehorster that should come in handy, I've copied it into Convoy PQ 15 talk, for convenience. Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tables question

    [edit]

    Operation Stonewall I'm changing lists to tables and wonder if there's a way to thicken some of the horizontal lines to separate groups of ships? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Keith-264, it's a bit fiddly but you can assign each of the four borders of a cell to a different style. I've done an example below for the first line of a table from the article you linked - Dumelow (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TF.21.
    Name Flag Type Notes
    USS Card  United States Navy Bogue-class escort carrier Task Group.21.14
    USS Decatur  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.14
    USS Leary  United States Navy Wickes-class destroyer Task Group.21.14
    USS Schenck  United States Navy Wickes-class destroyer Task Group.21.14
    USS Core  United States Navy Bogue-class escort carrier Task Group.21.15
    USS Belknap  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.15
    USS George E. Badger  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.15
    USS Goldsborough  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.15
    USS Block Island  United States Navy Bogue-class escort carrier Task Group.21.16
    USS Bulmer  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.16
    USS Barker  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.16
    USS Paul Jones  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.16
    USS Parrott  United States Navy Clemson-class destroyer Task Group.21.16
    It is a bit fiddly isn't it? I'll have a play over the weekend, thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh-er, I've chopped and changed your notation but can't underline USS Schenk to separate TG 21.4, then do the same to the other TGs. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited the table above to reflect what I think you want. Hopefully that gives you a model to apply it - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing to say this won't make sense if the tables are sorted eg. by name so you may want to turn off sorting (I have done so above)- Dumelow (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {od}} I'd worked out that I'd have to repeat the four lines at each change of TG but I couldn't stop entries skipping cells. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Came across this newly minted article by a newly minted editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I find something strikingly peculiar about the article? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pic question

    [edit]

    [[File:B-24 Liberators at low altitude.jpg|thumb|upright|left|B-24s bomb the [[Ploiești]] oil fields in August 1943.]] I see that some pics these days have thumb and upright. I thought that upright was for altering the size of the pic that takes account of the different sized screens that people use. Is there a reason for combining thumb and upright that I've missed? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith-264 You should always combine these. Thumb allows for the normal presentation of images on-wiki, including captions, while upright scales with the size of the device a person is viewing the article with (as you noted). Non-thumbed images are rare. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your input would be welcome in the discussion about the real name of the former German Minister of Defense, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I have found a hoax

    [edit]

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Greene, North Carolina; while I can find evidence of a "Camp Green" from 1917-1919, I cannot find support for the specific claims. The article claims to be about a US Army fort in North Carolina active since 1890. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I also came across this one during the WP:NOV24 drive and found nothing. You may also be interested in Camp Carlisle, Virginia, which appears to have existed at least - Dumelow (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversation on Vital Articles about adding and removing several types of military aircraft.

    [edit]

    I have created a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM that discusses adding/removing several types of aircraft, with an emphasis on removing some U.S. planes due to them being over represented and adding non-U.S. aircraft. Please feel free to join the conversation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Myself and another editor have reached an impasse regarding a trivial detail in this article. A third opinion would be welcomed. Synopsis;

    • Cramlington Aerodrome was created in 1915 as a response to Zeppelin raids
    • At this time the British Army and Royal Navy were still arguing over who was responsible for Home Defence.
    • When the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) took charge, was the airfield name changed to reflect this?
    • When the Royal Air Force (RAF) came into being, was the airfield name changed to reflect this?
    • Logic suggests that on both occasions, the name of the establishment should change, but is this supported by any evidence?
    • Two sources are cited as support for a change of name - but is either of them a reliable source?

    WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]