| Revision as of 04:02, 2 May 2009 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Where am I supposed to ask a question like this?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:41, 2 May 2009 edit undo75.18.123.130 (talk) →Able Archer 83Next edit → | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
| {{#if:Socrates2008|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | {{#if:Socrates2008|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I regret to inform that the article history lists TomStar81 as the user who promoted the article to FA status, but a check of TomStar81's page reveals he is absent, and indeed he has edited sporadically since mid April. Is there any way we can postpone this FAR until TomStar81 returns? It seems bloody unfair to have the article undergo this review with him gone for at least a fortnight. ] (]) 04:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Where am I supposed to ask a question like this? == | == Where am I supposed to ask a question like this? == | ||
Revision as of 04:41, 2 May 2009
|
Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead. | Shortcut |
| Skip to table of contents • List and scope of task forces • Add new section |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Last stand
Just wants to bring attention a minor suggestion regarding the article Last Stand i made on the talk page, think more opinions then my own and one other person is required before any possibal change is made. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 15:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Robert Sink
this
- Second Lieutenant (RA) 14 June 1927
- First Lieutenant (RA) 31 August 1933
- Captain (RA) 13 June 1937
- Major (US) 31 January 1941
- Lieutenant Colonel (US) 1 February 1942
- Colonel (US) 3 November 1942
- Major (RA) 14 June 1944
- Major General (US) 11 April 1948
- Lieutenant Colonel (RA) 15 July 1948
- Brigadier General (US) 13 February 1951
- Colonel (RA) 23 March 1951
- Brigadier General (RA) 11 April 1955
- Major General (RA) 14 April 1955
- Lieutenant General (RA) 8 September 1959
does not match with this
New Milhist image
File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg - I leave it up to you if you want it (or details from it - it should be trivial to take some details of the battles from the PNG version) in any articles other than the ones it is currently in. It cleaned up very nicely. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a great find. Good job! :-) —Ed 17 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Copied to American Civil War task force Roger Davies 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A-Class review for SM UB-14 now open
The A-Class review for SM UB-14 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
British Army establishments during WWII
Does anyone on the off-chance have a source describing the establishments of British Army units during World War II? I'm specifically looking for the number of PIAT anti-tank weapons issued to every platoon, company, battalion, brigade and division. If anyone can help out, I'd be extremely greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do, but unfortunately not to hand - as I recall, British Army Handbook 1939-1945 (George Forty) has some fairly good tables of this sort of thing, if you want to try and track it down. Shimgray | talk | 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it counts as a reliable source, but this website is excellent and when I used it for wargaming it always checked out with other sources. orbat.com might also be worth a look and is very reliable. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A-Class review for 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash now open
The A-Class review for 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe N 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Peer review for Indian Air Force now open
The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
A-Class review for Albert Kesselring now open
The A-Class review for Albert Kesselring is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Stout-hearted volunteers needed for endless task
The backlogs are getting large-ish again. What we really need here is several more editors following the dynamic links as part of their daily routine and pouncing on them as they swell. Any volunteers? Roger Davies 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll chip away as time permits. Looking at the unassessed articles category, there are one or two that don't look like they belong with milhist. Can we just remove the project template? EyeSerene 13:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- thanks! And feel free too :) Roger Davies 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll volunteer. I'll keep an eye on them and knock off a few and hopefully get them back doown towards zero. Kyriakos (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good man! Roger Davies 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I knocked down a few, and will try to look in on them more often. Magic♪piano 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've started doing a few of th etaskforce ones - for museums, do we have a consensus on whether it's appropriate to include them in an "era" taskforce assuming that the contents of that museum relate (at least in part) to that era, so eg the regimental museum for a unit that fought in both world wars would be included in the era taskforces? David Underdown (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Will do some when I have some spare time so we dont duplicate work I will start on the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force from Z - A --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've knocked out all of the forts, which seems to have cut the numbers a bit. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've marked up a museum or two - who'd have thunk that the museums project would rate the Royal Armouries as low importance.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've knocked out all of the forts, which seems to have cut the numbers a bit. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been removing a few articles from milhist, notably those concerned with the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. While the Park itself clearly comes under our purview as the site of the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse, I'm not convinced that some of the sub-articles on the houses in the village (Peers House, Plunkett-Meeks Store etc) are especially relevant. However, I'd welcome a second opinion. EyeSerene 08:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're right on, EyeSerene. One thing you might check are the categories on the articles in question to make sure that there's not one that will trigger retagging by a bot in a future run. I noticed that somewhere along the line several articles on cities named "Fort Something, Statename" had a "Forts in XXX" category added (even though they were clearly only about the town), which had prompted the tag. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't thought of that. Thanks Bellhalla, I'll go back and double-check. EyeSerene 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone! The backlogs are now back to single figures. If everyone could keep this on the radar with occasional visits, it will remain manageable. Thanks again, Roger Davies 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Brazilian battleship help needed
- There are a plethora of date conflicts in sources that I am only just noticing with Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes...what should I do? Examples:
- Launch date: Conway's and a Brazilian Navy site say 10 September 1908, New York Times says the 9th. (well, the article was published on the 11th, but written on the 9th, and it says "today".)
- Commissioning date: Uboat.net says 6 January 1910, Brazilian Navy site says the 18th (assuming "incorporation = commissioning in Portuguese). A different Brazilian Navy site says that the ship's first captain took command on the 10th.
- Decommissioning date: Whitley says that she was "paid off" on 16 May 1952, but the Brazilian Navy site says that the ship's "low" (assuming that = decommissioning in Portuguese) was on 20 September 1952.
- Day taken under tow for scrapping: Whitley says 1 March 1954, Brazilian Navy site says that she was in port in Rio on the 11th.
- Help please. —Ed 17 19:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd go with whichever your gut feeling says is the more accurate source, or failing that, with something general, like "was launched in September 1908.". Then, add a verbose footnote to explain the different information and the discrepancy - "...was launched on 9th September 1908.<ref>Report in the NYT, 11th September. The date is given in some secondary sources, eg X and Y, as the 10th.</ref>" This lets you keep the text quite clean, whilst chewing the sources for the benefit of anyone who might be interested. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Times 11 September report of the launch is dated 10 September: "Launch of a Brazilian Battleship". News. The Times. No. 38749. London. 11 September 1908. col B, p. 8. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) An editorial on the tenth commented on the coincidence that Minas Gerais was launched on the same day as the dreadnought battleship St. Vincent: "The Launch of the St. Vincent". Editorials/Leaders. The Times. No. 38748. London. 10 September 1908. col E, p. 7. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) So the New York Times is just plain wrong.
- As to commissioning, a report of 6 January categorically states that the ship was handed over by Armstrongs to the Brazilian Commission on behalf of the Brazilian government, with the ship's company mustered on deck (the launch date of 10 September 1908 is also repeated): "Naval and Military Intelligence". Official Appointments and Notices. The Times. No. 39162. London. 6 January 1910. col D, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm now thinking that the NYT either had a typo or there was a miscommunication between the writer of the piece and the publisher? Who knows. :) Am changing that now.
- As to the commissioning, I'll add that article in as a reference. Thank you both for your help! —Ed 17 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- As to commissioning, a report of 6 January categorically states that the ship was handed over by Armstrongs to the Brazilian Commission on behalf of the Brazilian government, with the ship's company mustered on deck (the launch date of 10 September 1908 is also repeated): "Naval and Military Intelligence". Official Appointments and Notices. The Times. No. 39162. London. 6 January 1910. col D, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry Ed - major correction - I was so tired last night I omitted the very important fact that the handing over ceremony was on 5 January! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...oh. Lovely. :-) So there are three possible commissioning days? —Ed 17 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and a question: define "Brazilian Commission" for me so I can add it to the article? :)
- I chose the 5th as the most likely date; the Miramar Ship Index agrees with that date as well. —Ed 17 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- And one last thing. :) The sentence you added about gunnery trials—when were they? Before or after she was commissioned? —Ed 17 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...oh. Lovely. :-) So there are three possible commissioning days? —Ed 17 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry Ed - major correction - I was so tired last night I omitted the very important fact that the handing over ceremony was on 5 January! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about asking the Brazilian Navy directly? They should have a PR or Historical dept. I don't speak portuguese, but whoever has understanding of spanish can make an educated guess of what their website says. Cheers! DPdH (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the handing over would have to mark the commissioning. I will investigate this Brazilian Commission tomorrow. I have no idea when the Gunnery trials were held; I will attempt to work it out by process of elimination (or Times article!) because Tupper, the man whose reminiscences I quoted, was in command of H.M.S. Excellent, the Royal Navy's premier gunnery training school. The most interesting part concerning this is that Tupper supposedly personally tested the blast effect of super-firing turrets from a sighting hood in Minas Gerais - and only had his hat blown off apparently. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- (@ DPdH) - website can easily be translated using Google Translate. ;)
- (@ Harls) - Ok. Thanks for the help! This could get really interesting now...I have now in my possession a copy of a very old Scientific American article that says this about the gunnery trials:
The gunnery trials created unusual interest, and the representatives of several powers were present thereat. The trials served to dissipate conclusively many apprehensions that had formerly been entertained. For instance, there was considerable discussion as to what effect would be produced upon the gun crew in the lower barbette of the fore and aft 12-inch guns when the weapons immediately above were discharged. In the first test the crew were withdrawn from the lower gun house when the upper pair was fires. It was found, however, that the roof of the lower house offered a complete protection against the blast, and that the crew could safely stay in the lower house without experiencing the slightest ill effects of the tremendous blast some five feet above their heads. It was also considered that the principle of setting the fore and aft guns one above the other and at a distance of 36 feet center to center was objectionable, on the plea that the upper guns would be interfered with from the flash of the guns just below, but here again practical trials dispersed any objections.
—Ed 17 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's still a Brazilian Naval Commission in the United Kingdom. Don't know any contact details, but it's located on Upper Richmond Road in Putney, about where the top right of the box marked A205, just below Putney Rail Station is on this map. David Underdown (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be its official webpage (English version) http://www.cnbe.mar.mil.br/Portal/bladerunner.asp?PortalID=Portal&ContentID=Ingles David Underdown (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Arthur Henry Cobby now open
The featured article candidacy for Arthur Henry Cobby is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
How to "tag" an article for expansion/translation?
Hi All, I've noticed that the article Kriegsakademie in this wikipeida is just a "stub", however in the german wikipedia is quite extensive and also seems reasonably referenced (AFAIK, as i don't read german). Is there any "formal" way of tagging an article to show that it needs expansion thru translation of a similar one existing in a different languaje wikipedia? Or any related "tab" or "list" in this project's page?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Expand German may be what you're looking for as an article tag, but I don't know where you'd list it after that. -- saberwyn 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- It should list itself at Category:Articles needing translation from German Misplaced Pages once the template's in place. I have no idea how actively the category is monitored or responded to though. EyeSerene 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces
The article Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces was created by User:Malin Tokyo in July 2008 and has been a matter of contention between her and several other editors ever since. Some core issues are how ranks compare to those of other countries in actual usage (rather than by OR/OF codes), whether such comparisons are suitable material for the article at all, whether to use the term NCO, etc. It's a nice little mixture of ownership, COI, personal attack, OR and POV allegations. A huge problem is the horrible talk page layout, making its 62 sections very hard to follow. As this is a very active project, people here probably have experience with other articles on ranks, and outside views would certainly be welcome, I hope someone might have the insane amount of spare time required to look at it. —JAO • T • C 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Nordic military history task force Roger Davies
Alexander Weston Jarvis
I have just created a very stubby article on Sir Alexander Weston Jarvis (1855-1939), who was briefly a British Conservative Member of Parliament.
However, with a bit of googling I found this webpage which suggests that he bhad some sort of role in the Boer War. I'm not sure of the reliability of http://www.angloboerwar.com/ , and military history this isn't my territory, but I hope it's OK to leave this quick pointer here in case anyone can either expand the article or add a few categories or whatever which might flag up the article for the attention of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! I'll try and look into it in more detail later. Shimgray | talk | 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Good topic nomination for "Yorktown class gunboats"
The following articles:
- Error: {{sclass}} invalid format code: 6. Should be 0–5, or blank (help)
- USS Yorktown (PG-1)
- USS Concord (PG-3)
- USS Bennington (PG-4)
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Operation Reinhard
Does this event belong in MILHIST scope (if so, it is not tagged), and does it belong to Category:Military operations? Please note it is a subcategory of Category:Nazi SS, which clearly belongs to MILHIST, and please note that Category:Operation Reinhard does not belong to any "organization" overcategory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- As it primarily involved the military, I'd say it is within scope. Roger Davies 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - I've added a couple of cats and tagged and assessed the article for milhist. EyeSerene 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Good topic nomination for "Boston campaign"
(Belated mention, it's been posted for a little while now.)
The following articles are under consideration for Good Topic status:
- Boston campaign
- Powder Alarm
- Battles of Lexington and Concord
- Battle of Bunker Hill
- Battle of Chelsea Creek
- Siege of Boston
- Fortification of Dorchester Heights
Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. Magic♪piano 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-written articles on Italian World War II combat aircraft
A new editor has been active in systematically changing all articles that pertain to Italian aircraft in World War II, see Fiat CR.42 Falco, Macchi C.200 Saetta,Macchi C.202 Folgore and Fiat G.50 Freccia as examples which I do not see as a problem. However, the same editor has also re-edited the Curtiss P-40, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane articles inserting contentious claims of superiority of Italian types. Each statement. albeit always referenced, refers to individual actions. There could possibly be a situation where an Italian biplane actually downed a more modern fighter but that does not really does not address the issue that the editor stated to me, i.e. in redressing the current view of Italian World War II combat aircraft as being inferior. He implicitly stated that a forty-year history of historians who saw Italian aviation in that light have to be challenged. I am sensing an intervention here... (LOL) FWiW, can some of the more experienced hands here take a look at the contributions of this editor Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
- I've left the editor a note; I haven't removed anything from the articles you've listed as there's been a bit of activity since the edits and I'm not particularly familiar with the subjects, so feel free to work your magic to redress any WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues introduced. I'll keep them watchlisted too, but please repost/nudge me on my talk page if problems continue. EyeSerene 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Able Archer 83
User:Socrates2008 has nominated Able Archer 83 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I regret to inform that the article history lists TomStar81 as the user who promoted the article to FA status, but a check of TomStar81's page reveals he is absent, and indeed he has edited sporadically since mid April. Is there any way we can postpone this FAR until TomStar81 returns? It seems bloody unfair to have the article undergo this review with him gone for at least a fortnight. 75.18.123.130 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Where am I supposed to ask a question like this?
Moved from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators Roger Davies 04:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Downes_(naval_officer)
Among the Essex's many prizes was the whale ship Georgiana, "which Captain Porter fitted as a cruiser, with sixteen guns, named the Essex Junior, and placed under the command of Lieutenant Downes who retained this place until the capture of the Essex and the conversion of the Essex Junior into a cartel, 28 March 1814."
http://en.wikipedia.org/USS_Essex_(1799)
The next five months brought Essex thirteen prizes, including Essex Junior, (ex-Atlantic) which cruised in company with her captor to the Island of Nukahiva for repairs. Porter put his executive officer John Downes in command of that ship.
- In the above it appears to me that the ship named Essex Junior had two different former names being the HMS ex-Atlantic and a whaler named HMS Georgiana. Which of those two re-named is correct and where should I have posted this question if not here?
- The above was posted elsewhere and it was suggested that I ask in WP:SHIPS I am not familiar with this area and do not know where questions of this kind are supposed to be asked so I finally settled here. —Brother Officer 02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)