| Revision as of 23:01, 14 March 2022 editHuon (talk | contribs)Administrators51,324 edits →Staffel strength: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:33, 15 March 2022 edit undoRandomCanadian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers36,695 edits →Staffel strengthNext edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| There is some confusion regarding the strength of ''Staffeln'' in Nazi Germany's air force. Can someone with access to relevant sources please help sort it out? The ] article and similarly the section ] say without references that a ''Staffel'' consisted of nine to twelve planes and was subdivided into three ''Schwärme'' of four to six planes. That can't both be true since three times four to six planes would be twelve to 18 planes. The ] says they had three ''Schwärme'' of four fighters or four ''Ketten'' of three bombers; the ] says that a Staffel consisted of three to four ''Ketten'' which would yield the result of nine to twelve planes for bombers. The German source (which I cannot access) is {{cite book|author=Ulf Balke |title=Der Luftkrieg in Europa 1939–1941 |publisher=Bechtermünz Verlag |location=Augsburg |year=1998 |ISBN=3-86047-591-6 |pages=25-26 |language=de}} I also found a photo of three ''Staffeln'' of nine planes each flying in parade formation in 1937; I would assume that on parade they'd be at full strength, and to me those planes don't look like fighters, but I'm not enough of an expert to be sure. It seems likely that our description is correct for fighters, but for bombers it should be three to four ''Ketten'' of three bombers each, not three ''Schwärme'' of six bombers each. ] (]) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) | There is some confusion regarding the strength of ''Staffeln'' in Nazi Germany's air force. Can someone with access to relevant sources please help sort it out? The ] article and similarly the section ] say without references that a ''Staffel'' consisted of nine to twelve planes and was subdivided into three ''Schwärme'' of four to six planes. That can't both be true since three times four to six planes would be twelve to 18 planes. The ] says they had three ''Schwärme'' of four fighters or four ''Ketten'' of three bombers; the ] says that a Staffel consisted of three to four ''Ketten'' which would yield the result of nine to twelve planes for bombers. The German source (which I cannot access) is {{cite book|author=Ulf Balke |title=Der Luftkrieg in Europa 1939–1941 |publisher=Bechtermünz Verlag |location=Augsburg |year=1998 |ISBN=3-86047-591-6 |pages=25-26 |language=de}} I also found a photo of three ''Staffeln'' of nine planes each flying in parade formation in 1937; I would assume that on parade they'd be at full strength, and to me those planes don't look like fighters, but I'm not enough of an expert to be sure. It seems likely that our description is correct for fighters, but for bombers it should be three to four ''Ketten'' of three bombers each, not three ''Schwärme'' of six bombers each. ] (]) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping|Huon}} ; with ; taken from ; seems to support the first option (9 planes or thereabouts). ] (] / ]) 02:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:33, 15 March 2022
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Merge discussion for 12th Indiana
An editor has requested for 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years) to be merged into 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment. Since you had some involvement with 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment (3 years) or 12th Indiana Infantry Regiment, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).
Rewriting article about Reserve officer training in Russia
I would like to rewrite the article Reserve Officer Training in Russia. This article is devoted to training reserve officers in Russia but it doesn't contain the description of process of training at all. I've created 2 new articles (Draft:Military departments of civilian universities (Soviet Union and post-Soviet area) and Draft:Military training centers of civilian universities (Russia)), using the most of information presented in the article Reserve Officer Training in Russia. Please check out my new articles and also the subsection "The problem with interwiki links" in Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2022/02 where I described the problem with English, Russian and Belarusian articles devoted to the process of military education in civilian universities and to an organizational structures conducting such training. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I've finished rewriting of the article Reserve Officer Training in Russia. Please take a look at this. Now the article describes the process of military training itself. But I would like to remove the section "List of Russian civilian institutions of higher education having military training centers", and I will do when the article Draft:Military training centers of civilian universities (Russia) has been accepted, because this list organically looks in new article but not in aforementioned one. K8M8S8 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Virginia units needing disambiguation
Looks like there are a good number of similarly named Revolutionary War and ACW units from Virginia without any disambiguation or hatnotes. Using the "1st Virginia Regiment" as an example:
- 1st Virginia Regiment, a Continental Army infantry regiment
- 1st Virginia State Regiment, a state infantry regiment
- 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment, a ACW infantry regiment
- 1st Virginia Cavalry Regiment, a ACW cavalry regiment
- and we could also include
- 1st Virginia Infantry Battalion, a ACW infantry unit
Seems like we need dab pages and hatnotes. Presuming all of these names are consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and other naming conventions and prior consensus, we could keep the continental units as primary topics and create dab pages with (disambiguation) qualifiers to link to in hatnotes. Probably other states have similar issues, but let's start here. There are also some West Virginia ACW units that will be in the mix due to their names prior to statehood.
Thoughts? Mdewman6 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- At least to me, it looks like the cavalry regiment and the battalion are fine as is, since the titles are naturally disambiguated. The "1st Virginia State Regiment" does appear to be known as that to distinguish from the other Continental unit, see this among other things. I do think that the 1st Virginia Regiment and 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment do need dabbing though. This situation is not unique to Virginia - there's also 1st Pennsylvania Regiment (ARW) vs 1st Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment (ACW) (as well as the 1st Pennsylvania Reserve Regiment), and similar situations also exist for all of the other 13 colonies. Maryland is especially fun, because you have 1st Maryland Regiment, 1st Maryland Infantry Regiment (Confederate), 1st Maryland Infantry Regiment (Union), and 1st Maryland Infantry Regiment, Potomac Home Brigade. For distinguishing between ACW and ARW units where there is no primary topic, I'm not sure if dabbing by army or by war is the better option. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we at least need some hatnotes. I do think dab pages would be best, as all of the examples above except the battalion article are a "1st Virginia Regiment", even if naturally disambiguated. One could even argue we should have dab pages such as 1st Virginia, since units are often referred to by these short names (e.g. 20th Maine), which would encompass all of the military units and probably bring in other things like 1st Virginia General Assembly (though perhaps most of these non-military uses wouldn't be referred to as just " " and run afoul of WP:PTM). I was thinking of congressional districts too, but these are usually or and not the former. But, I can't find any examples of such pages, so it seems like existing consensus is to defer to search results, which is probably best as we'd be talking about a lot of dab pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- My instinct is maybe 1st Virginia Regiment (Continental Army) and 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment (Confederate) or something like that. The state one is probably fine as-is, as I'm not seeing that the others are ever known with "state" in the title. Unless there's a lot of non-military uses of "1st Virginia" (I don't think the assembly is ever known as "1st Virginia" alone, and the congressional districts are known as "Virginia's 1st" or "VA-1", the dab page would be at 1st Virginia Regiment and could be linked as a hatnote for all 5 units. Hog Farm Talk 22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think for now, I will slowly work on creating dab pages at Regiment (disambiguation) for use in hatnotes as appropriate, leaving natural disambiguation in place for the titles (unless there are any glaring issues that come up). This would at least be an improvement over the status quo. The ARW articles aren't really primary over the ACW articles, but I don't think typical volunteer infantry regiments in the ACW were referred to as, for example, "1st Virginia Regiment" very often (except in contexts where this would be unambiguous), whereas use of other shorthand combinations of the full name like "1st Virginia", "1st Virginia Volunteers", and "1st Virginia Infantry" were more commonplace. So I think for now we should favor natural disambig until it is shown that parenthetical disambig would be better, unless there are objections. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- My instinct is maybe 1st Virginia Regiment (Continental Army) and 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment (Confederate) or something like that. The state one is probably fine as-is, as I'm not seeing that the others are ever known with "state" in the title. Unless there's a lot of non-military uses of "1st Virginia" (I don't think the assembly is ever known as "1st Virginia" alone, and the congressional districts are known as "Virginia's 1st" or "VA-1", the dab page would be at 1st Virginia Regiment and could be linked as a hatnote for all 5 units. Hog Farm Talk 22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we at least need some hatnotes. I do think dab pages would be best, as all of the examples above except the battalion article are a "1st Virginia Regiment", even if naturally disambiguated. One could even argue we should have dab pages such as 1st Virginia, since units are often referred to by these short names (e.g. 20th Maine), which would encompass all of the military units and probably bring in other things like 1st Virginia General Assembly (though perhaps most of these non-military uses wouldn't be referred to as just " " and run afoul of WP:PTM). I was thinking of congressional districts too, but these are usually or and not the former. But, I can't find any examples of such pages, so it seems like existing consensus is to defer to search results, which is probably best as we'd be talking about a lot of dab pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Medal of Honor Recipients
I have been doing extensive work on Civil War Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed some problems. For example, I finished the T-Z sorting page and I found that a link that was blue actually linked to a different person and not the medal recipient it should have been. Later whilst looking around the A-F article, I noticed 3-4 blue links that linked back to the A-F page. I want to know if there is a way to find out how many of these false blue links there are and how widespread this issue is. Thanks in advance, Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
- Assuming I didn't mess up my regexes along the way, this page should now show a table containing every linked person from those lists where the link is not the trivial case of "Link Firstname Lastname to a Misplaced Pages article entitled Firstname Lastname. The first column of the table is the link as it appears in the MH tables, the second column is the combined Firstname Lastname as used for sorting those tables, and the third column is the manually modified link for that entry. The items you want to find should be entries where the third column is neither "
Example text
" nor something that is obviously correct for the name, such as "John Smith (Medal of Honor)
". No warranty that I didn't mess the parsing, tho. To find cases where the entry for "John Smith" links to a wrong John Smith, I don't think there's any way of automating that. So you'd just have to manually go through the original tables for that. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- One of our editors most devoted to MOH recipients was the now banned User:Kumioko. I acquired this list from him. It may be somewhat useful. BusterD (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2022-02-27/Serendipity
I thought this was an inspiring article, for all sorts of reasons and wondered if there has been any subproject or contest by this group to gather war images by country/battle/artist/museum? My focus is generally paintings, but old photographs are equally fascinating (mostly because they were such a production to do in situ). Thanks for tips about WP article category trees or Commons category trees. Jane (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
James Edward Edmonds
Can anyone suggest a source for "Edmonds died on 2 August 1956 at Brecon House, Sherborne, Dorset, after a brief illness." please. Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know about the "brief illness", but all the rest is in his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing in this? It probably contains biographical information, but unfortunately I can only see a few pages. SN54129 11:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks I have a copy, It's my main source for the article but it ends when he retires (it's Green's PhD thesis). Some sections are all over the place so I might find a decent cite as I plug away but I'm not optimistic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's the sort of thing that would be in a Times etc obit, wouldn't it? Do you have access to WP:TWL? Newspapers.com might have one. SN54129 12:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks I have a copy, It's my main source for the article but it ends when he retires (it's Green's PhD thesis). Some sections are all over the place so I might find a decent cite as I plug away but I'm not optimistic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice war overview templates?
Hi! I want to make an overview template of the First Carlist War to place at the bottom of articles (listing battles, major operations, and other miscellaneous articles) and I was wondering if there were any that would be good references to base my work on. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Slat armor and "cope cages"
-
This is a "cope cage".
-
This is not a "cope cage", it's just ordinary slat armor.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Can we get some additional eyes on Slat armor to watch for disruptive editing from new editors? There's been a lot of nonsense edits like this one due to the ongoing 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, likely due to a popular twitter trend (example1, example2, example3, example4, example5) among those who follow OSINT circles.
For context, during the invasion it was observed that the Russian military has attached makeshift, improvised slat armour made from steel grilles above the turrets of their T-72s and T-90s to protect against top-down missile attacks, however because these improvised countermeasures have proven to be ineffective against Javelins and NLAWs, they've been commonly and humourously dubbed "cope cages". All of this is factual, well-documented and sourced (e.g. here and here), and I don't have an issue with that. The problem is that every 14 year old kid who browses OSINT threads on twitter now thinks that it's funny to change the lead paragraph so that it reads "Cope cage is a type of vehicle armor designed to protect against..." or something along those lines.
To clarify, a "cope cage" is a specific subset type of improvised slat armor specifically mounted to the top of the turret; not all slat armors are cope cages (more often than not, slat armour is put around the skirts of the hull, and anywhere the crew might reside), so the disruptive meme edits don't make sense from a factual standpoint. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Pakistani medals
Can I have an opinion as to whether being posthumously awarded the Tamgha-e-Basalat is sufficient for notability? DS (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SOLDIER has been depreciated, so it comes down to whether sources on each individual recipient are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- In general sense only, it is uncommon for a recipient of a second tier non-operational gallantry award to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to meet the notability guidelines. The key would be to look for sources and assess it that way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
James Edward Edmonds favour please
History of the Great War has the image of an inside page of OH 1914 I. Does anyone know how to do the same thing with the image of the OH in the infobox (page 11 of the volume) in the Edmonds article? I've had a stab and got nowhere. The red cover is a very nice red but I'd rather it showed page 11. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keith-264 Are you the Funk Soul Brother? SN54129 16:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would be if was good enough; I'm having a 90s trance revival at the moment. ;O) Thanks for the edit, much appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've done this before, see Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem for an example. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Warning of doxxing of Misplaced Pages editors seen as opposing the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Editors working on topics relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should read this post by Maggie Dennis, the Wikimedia Foundation's Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability. It discusses "an effort ... being made to identify Misplaced Pages editors whose activities are seen as opposing the Russian narrative of the war". See also WP:AN#Arrest of a Wikipedian in Belarus. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Evidence? Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here. Doxxing was done on Telegram. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mark Bernshtein, Wiki-activist, was detained in Minsk. He is accused of the "spread of anti-Russian materials". We discussed this here Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian. K8M8S8 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages's coverage should be neutral and not pro to either side, not simply non-pro Ukrainian / anti-Russian. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how WP:NPOV works. Neutral is "neutral according to the best sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, I gave a simple explanation, not implied anything counter to WP:NPOV. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is that editors are being targeted/at real risk of being targeted for posting material that runs counter to Russian propaganda. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Understood, though I did not comment on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Russian law punishes anyone who calls the war anything other than a "special operation" and spreads "misinformation" about the topic with up to 15 years in prison. In the past people have ended up in prison for far less (posting memes).--Catlemur (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Merger discussion for 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (3 Months)
An article that you have been involved in editing—1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (3 Months)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Infobox too big
Please comment on how the infobox might be reduced to better serve our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinderella157 at this point I feel like I want to make a "this user believes the size of infoboxes in military conflicts over time trends towards infinity". Too many damn infobox-articles! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Staffel strength
There is some confusion regarding the strength of Staffeln in Nazi Germany's air force. Can someone with access to relevant sources please help sort it out? The Staffel (unit) article and similarly the section Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45)#Staffel say without references that a Staffel consisted of nine to twelve planes and was subdivided into three Schwärme of four to six planes. That can't both be true since three times four to six planes would be twelve to 18 planes. The German "Staffel" article says they had three Schwärme of four fighters or four Ketten of three bombers; the German "Kette" article says that a Staffel consisted of three to four Ketten which would yield the result of nine to twelve planes for bombers. The German source (which I cannot access) is Ulf Balke (1998). Der Luftkrieg in Europa 1939–1941 (in German). Augsburg: Bechtermünz Verlag. pp. 25–26. ISBN 3-86047-591-6. I also found a photo of three Staffeln of nine planes each flying in parade formation in 1937; I would assume that on parade they'd be at full strength, and to me those planes don't look like fighters, but I'm not enough of an expert to be sure. It seems likely that our description is correct for fighters, but for bombers it should be three to four Ketten of three bombers each, not three Schwärme of six bombers each. Huon (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Huon: this; with an impressive biography to support it; taken from this; seems to support the first option (9 planes or thereabouts). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)