| Revision as of 04:26, 26 June 2013 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,392 edits →Targets achieved so far in the June 2013 backlog reduction drive: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:58, 26 June 2013 edit undoSomeone not using his real name (talk | contribs)11,896 edits →Proposed navbox template: WWII Soviet aircraft guns: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 397: | Line 397: | ||
| Not long to go now... ] (]) 04:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | Not long to go now... ] (]) 04:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Proposed navbox template: WWII Soviet aircraft guns == | |||
| At least the following qualify: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:58, 26 June 2013
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
This category still has over 20,000 articles in it. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are now less than 20,400 articles in this category. Any and all help with reducing this category is appreciated. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- A drive would be good. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- A drive would certainly clear out the backlog a lot more quickly than a single user doing a few articles at a time. Any volunteers to set one up? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Got this category down to 20,275 articles. Again, this is a bit much for any single person to do. This would go a heck of a lot faster if several people did this, like a drive. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- A drive would certainly clear out the backlog a lot more quickly than a single user doing a few articles at a time. Any volunteers to set one up? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- A drive would be good. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
One reason progress is slow is because there are editors who create Talk pages and insert {{WPMILHIST|class=Start}} instead of taking a moment to insert something like {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=n}} and thereby increase the number of articles in this category at the same time others try to reduce the backlog. Either way the editor is assessing the article, as start class. Is there a rationale for this?--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is there some reason this can't be handled by Bot requests ?— Maile (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- It has to be assessed by a human. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Category down to 20,100 articles. Who is taking care of starting that drive? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Getting there very slowly. Still needing a lot of help in order to empty this category. there has to be at least 400 battles articles alone. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closer to the 20,000 mark. Usually I can only edit for a few minutes at a time, so this is going slowly. Any and all help would be much, much, much appreciated and NEEDED. At the rate I am going, it will propably be years before this category is emptied. By the way, how is that drive coming along? 76.7.231.58 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Getting there very slowly. Still needing a lot of help in order to empty this category. there has to be at least 400 battles articles alone. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Category down to 20,100 articles. Who is taking care of starting that drive? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Milestone The backlog may now be under 20,000, but absolutely a milestone is that articles starting with the letter B now appear among the 200 listed on the first page.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's (at least temporarily) below 20,000, so a
Barnstar of Diligence
- to those who are working on this (feel free to cut and paste this to your talk page if you contributed). I have noticed on my last couple of edits that editors using the template where a yes or no answer is required have left an item with a yes/no response. This makes the article show up in the backlog, so if you're helping on this, use the Show preview button and open up the list to make sure there are no question marks. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Almost to the 19,900 mark. Who's in charge of that drive? 76.7.238.180 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- to those who are working on this (feel free to cut and paste this to your talk page if you contributed). I have noticed on my last couple of edits that editors using the template where a yes or no answer is required have left an item with a yes/no response. This makes the article show up in the backlog, so if you're helping on this, use the Show preview button and open up the list to make sure there are no question marks. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Gday. I've proposed a drive here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Drive_proposal_for_June. Will see if there is any support. Happy to be lead planner. Anotherclown (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- IRT the backlog there has definitely been some progress since I started tracking it at least:
| Click on for progress bar | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Well done so far, hopefully if the drive gets off the ground we can reduce this further. Anotherclown (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to help with the drive. Will this be starting on June 1st or is this still in the planning stages? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank goodness that somebody is actually trying to encourage multiple people to take care of this. Still 19,825 articles in the category, so this will take all the help available. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Howdy. The drive starts at 00:00 UTC on 31 May and runs through 23:59 UTC on 30 June. Pls see docs at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to rearrange that category in subcategories for each task force? I may help more easily if I could work with a category where I'm more or less familiar with most articles or their context Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- And another thing, do we really need to assess start-class articles? An article that does not even fill the screen may have good accuracy and grammar, in its small size, but would need more work to be ready for higher levels, and surely after all that work it would have to be re-asessed anyway. Perhaps if the template is fixed to categorize only the articles tagged as C or B with incomplete assesments, the sze would be dramatically reduced. Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Since C- and B-Class assessments are automatically generated based on the checklist, it's simply not possible to have a C- or B-Class article with an incomplete assessment; the article will automatically be assessed as Start-Class if any part of the checklist is incomplete. Kirill 10:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Howdy. The drive starts at 00:00 UTC on 31 May and runs through 23:59 UTC on 30 June. Pls see docs at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/June 2013 backlog reduction drive. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank goodness that somebody is actually trying to encourage multiple people to take care of this. Still 19,825 articles in the category, so this will take all the help available. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to help with the drive. Will this be starting on June 1st or is this still in the planning stages? Wild Wolf (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Question on scoring; so if I take a stub to B class, I get points for all applicable categories?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would have thought it would only be the categories that weren't already at B-class that you would get points for. Any other thoughts on this? Anotherclown (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pushed it past the 20% mark. Still needs plently of help. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Still working on it. Got the battle articles down to the first two pages. Still need TONS of help to get this category cleared. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apropos of which, a quick reminder about the amazingly useful User:Kephir/gadgets/rater tool - it easily halves the time & page-loading needed to assess an article. It won't add blank B-class fields if they don't already exist, but that might be something amenable to a bot run. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Still working on it. Got the battle articles down to the first two pages. Still need TONS of help to get this category cleared. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pushed it past the 20% mark. Still needs plently of help. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank goodness other people will start helping with this. Did a bunch of articles on Thursday, got it down to 19,595. Checked it the next day, went up over 19,600, got it down to where it was the previous day. Checked it today, back over 19,600. At this rate, it would take years for me to clear out this category. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Below 19,000 now. Fantastic job. At this rate, the category just might dip below 14,000 before month end. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Almost to 18,000. Over one quarter done. 76.7.238.180 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Subcategories
Any chance of subdividing this category by task force? I think someone mentioned that possibility above. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any chance at all? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Information regarding Jones Morgan
Hi, I recently created an article about a man who was argued to be the last surviving veteran of the Spanish-American War. At one point, (I specify more on the article and the 2nd citation) a bill was proposed to congress about 10 months before his death that would've granted him honorable discharge and therefore recognition of his service, which was disputed. I have researched far and wide but as of yet cannot find the outcome of this bill or if it survived at all, etc, etc. Help would be much appreciated. Thanks! -1Matt20 (talk)
Operation Red Hat
Hi,
Could experienced editors please take a look at Operation Red Hat? This is a controversial topic (US deployment of chemical weapons in the Pacific during the Cold War) and I have a number of concerns about the article:
- Lengthy digressions on topics that are only tangentially related to the topic, for instance detailed discussions of accidents involving American nuclear weapons, when the topic of the article is supposed to be about chemical weapons. There are also some mentions of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, CIA activities in Cambodia, the School of the Americas, etc. There is also a lot of text about Japanese/American collaboration on chemical and biological warfare that is only tangentially related to this specific operation which, if I understand correctly, had to do with relocated chemical weapons stocks from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll.
- Dodgy sourcing such as Nexus (magazine) which, based on the Misplaced Pages article, looks like a fringe publication with no reliability
- Massive use of primary source documents, including lengthy quotations from these documents, without the use of a secondary source
- Enormous article length (200,000KB)
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. GabrielF (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the Nexus sourcing except for one instance, since it was mostly duplicated. The length isn't too concerning, but if it does digress (which it does in a few instances), it should be trimmed or split apart. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've decided to AfD this article: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Operation Red HatGabrielF (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Extra opinions on the AfD would be very helpful. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've decided to AfD this article: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Operation Red HatGabrielF (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Project 112
I draw attention to Project 112, the umbrella CW project whose stockpiles were ultimately disposed in Operation Red Hat. That precursor/larger project page was also expanded mainly by the same editor who has some trouble representing sources accurately. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Suggested articles
Someone should write US chemical weapons in Okinawa and US nuclear weapons in Okinawa covering the introduction, notable incidents and withdrawal of such weapons. There are plenty of sources. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Edgewood Arsenal experiments
Edgewood Arsenal experiments was nominated for deletion today. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Allegations of Agent Orange in Okinawa / Agent Orange
Can someone create that article? It's a mounting controversy; see for example www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/06/04/issues/as-evidence-of-agent-orange-in-okinawa-stacks-up-u-s-sticks-with-blanket-denial/ I'm asking because the same editor who filled Operation Red Hat with irrelevancies has also pasted that issue in at least three other articles, coat-racking them. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Agent Orange article is the place for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It probably won't fit there because there are a lot of details to the allegations (and even more details in the DoD rebuttal report), but at least I've NPOVed the existing claims in that section. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see it was another favorite article of Johnvr4 and he contributed to other sections there as well. Those need checking as well. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, Anon, just a pet peeve I have, but if you're interested in helping out Misplaced Pages even further, why not just register? It's really easy to do, and it's easier (as another editor) to work with, rely on, and trust registered editors than IP editors, since there's some accountability. Just a thought! Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Easy? I tired four times. In first three the user name was too similar to an existing one. Last time the captcha was wrong. It would be easy if the form did not completely reset if something is wrong. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I've registered. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, Anon, just a pet peeve I have, but if you're interested in helping out Misplaced Pages even further, why not just register? It's really easy to do, and it's easier (as another editor) to work with, rely on, and trust registered editors than IP editors, since there's some accountability. Just a thought! Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Agent Orange article is the place for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Task force idea
Have you ever had discussions of a Military art, music and sounds task force. Military art would cover posters, photographs, paintings and sculptures. The sculptures would overlap with the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_memorials_and_cemeteries_task_force, but obviously there are many military posters, some of which are notable enough for articles, many historical photographs worthy of articles and many military themed paintings worthy of articles. In addition to the articles all the sound and image files would be a part of the task force. Most of my prior contributions to the project are art and sound work. Military music would cover songs like Semper Fidelis (march), Battle Hymn of the Republic and such. Military sounds would cover a lot of the sound files of drum cadences, and speeches. I would not be an active member of such a task force, but I am just suggesting its creation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I recall that we've discussed something along these lines before—perhaps when we first created the war films task force?—but there was no real interest from anyone in actually being an active participant of such a group. Unless that has changed, I don't think a new task force is going to be particularly useful; the infrastructure isn't difficult to set up, but it's of little value if nobody is planning to use it. Kirill 08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- O.K., I am then going to start assigning task forces to articles I have worked on:
- Maritime: Torpedo...Los!
- Science: Torpedo...Los!
- Aviation: As I Opened Fire, Blam (Roy Lichtenstein), Whaam!, Red Tail Reborn, Flight of the Red Tail, The Restorers
- WWII: Red Tail Reborn, Flight of the Red Tail
- US: Willie Gillis, Red Tail Reborn, Flight of the Red Tail, The Restorers
- Films: The Restorers
- Weaponry: As I Opened Fire
I remain unsure about Grrrrrrrrrrr!!, which may be a military attack dog, bomb sniffer, and may be out of scope for the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
New ammo infobox
Hi. I have created a new ammo infobox that adds two additional, optional, maximum pressure parameters, along with parameters to specify test method. The parameter to specify test method can be used with a single pressure as well, optionally. This is important especially in military cartridges because there are significant variations in maximum pressure specifications depending on whether the test method used was SAAMI/US MIL-SCATP or CIP/EPVAT/NATO. I am not proposing to add CIP pressure data to every ammo article, unless there is consensus to do so.
The idea behind this is that infobox data should be able to be compared between articles, per Help:Infobox. There is an additional kink in that sometimes there are SAAMI standards, CIP standards which are equivalent pressures to SAAMI, except different numbers due to method differences, and EPVAT pressures which are specified higher than CIP using a comparable methodology (i.e. they are actually overpressure by civilian standards). This is the case for 9mm NATO vs 9mm Luger. That is the primary reason I included up to three pressures, though we may choose not to specify that way in practice.
- User:Gigs/sandbox - Three infoboxes, one showing two pressures with methodology, one showing the backward compatible existing behavior, and the last showing a single pressure with method specified.
- Template:Infobox_firearm_cartridge/sandbox This is where the modified template is right now. It should be safe to roll out since it's backward compatible with current usage, and should not necessitate any changes to existing articles.
Gigs (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- The new version looks fine to me. (Having said that, I'm not really an expert on ammunition, so I may not be the best person to evaluate whether the implementation is technically correct.) Kirill 08:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The new version looks good. One caveat from me: the pressure testing standards. I'm not expert either, here, but I'm unfamiliar with both. That said, most of the articles I've ever seen quote a number but not a spec; some have named a spec, & I believe that's the SAAMI standard. If, as you say, the pressures can differ based on methodology, I'm seeing a potential can & worms... TREKphiler 10:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Outside my area of expertise but wouldn't it make sense to keep the amount of detail in the infobox down and have it in a specification section of the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't go too crazy, but knowing the methodology is essential to making sense of the numbers when comparing them. It's basically part of the "unit of measurement". Kind of like dBi vs dBd for antennas or PSIg vs PSIa, except worse, because there's no easy way to convert CIP to SAAMI or vice versa. Like I said, just having this ability doesn't mean that we necessarily need to add CIP pressures to every article that has only SAAMI now, that can be a separate discussion. Gigs (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Outside my area of expertise but wouldn't it make sense to keep the amount of detail in the infobox down and have it in a specification section of the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles in Spanish Wikpedia
I was translating this template into Spanish and I found this two articles that don't exist in English:
- es:Expedición de Drake y Hawkins (Expedition of Drake and Hawkins)
- es:Invasión española de Inglaterra de 1597 (Spanish invasion of England in 1597)
Best regards,--Kizar (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Some of this is covered in Battle of San Juan (1595), Battle of Pinos, and Battle of San Juan (1598), with more general coverage in Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), but there doesn't seem to be an article exactly matching the former, certainly not one of that length. I may at some point take this on, but couldn't possibly now. Cdtew (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are several English piracy expeditions that are not here in the English Misplaced Pages. The one with John Oxenham (which had some participation by Drake) is an important one; but even the Oxenham article links to another person (William Arthur Dunkerley) who had nothing to do with the pirates. I'd contribute to it, but would probably not be able to work on them for over a year.--MarshalN20 | 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
AfC submission
Another one for you guys and gals: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ellard A Walsh. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Identifying some military material
In preparation for the WWI edit-a-thons that will take place on the 29th of June (so far confirmed in at least eight countries) I am connecting articles to a number of images; and I was hoping to get some help to identify the military equipment portrayed in them (and suggestions on articles that could be connected to them):
-
-
Does anyone know what type of balloon this is?
-
-
The dirigible?
-
What type of gas mask is this?
.jpg)
All help is welcome! Best, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The tank in the first image seems to be a Renault FT.
- The second image appears to be the same kid of German observation balloon seen in these images: File:Bombed balloon.jpg File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00321A, Westfront, Aufsteigender Fesselballon..jpg
- Third image: If you get a better description than "two maxim guns on a truck", I'll be surprised.
- The dirigible/aircraft contraption looks like the Astra - Ville de Paris Astra info (Hohum ) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- For the airships, did you try asking at Commons:COM:WikiProject Aviation ? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd agree, the tank is an FT17. I'd guess it's a captured example, but....
- The balloon looks like a pretty standard observation type.
- Other than that, I couldn't be any help. :( TREKphiler 05:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Based upon the photo's caption, the tank appears to belong to a unit of the American Third Army that was moving into the Rhineland for occupation duty via Luxembourg in December 1918 after the Armistice. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the "balloons" are in fact one observation balloon of German design and the "blimp with airplane" is a dirigible balloon whose gasbag and gondola are separated by a rigid post. I have updated the original questions accordingly. Not convinced it's the "Ville de Paris" as such but it's obviously of the same parentage - as it is an artist's impression and unnamed, the details may even be a composite of several balloons the artist has seen. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- the gas mask is a M1917 German one, known to the troops as a Lederschutzmaske. They had a range of slightly different canisters, but you can just make out the multi-pane eyelet. They came in a cylinder with a sling like this. Good detail on the mask here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- the tank is a US Army Renault FT, definitely. I believe the machine guns on the truck are Vickers, not Maxims. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that the tank is a Renault FT, which the caption and the uniforms suggest is crewed by Doughboys. Also I think{{cn}} that the external fuel tank was only ever used by the US. However this tank is not an "FT-17" (this misnomer didn't appear until after the war) and it's certainly not a US "six tonner" or M1917, as they didn't serve in Europe during WWI. Mis-labelling the FT is a regular problem, especially as it frequently causes disruptive arguments on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake about the machine guns, they are Vickers. (Hohum ) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the captured nature of the FT. And FT17 was the first thing that came to me. :( TREKphiler 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake about the machine guns, they are Vickers. (Hohum ) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the Germans referred to the balloon in the second illustration as the "Draken." I don't know if this was a generic name or one specific to a particular type of observation balloon.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the balloon I found this images on Europeana 1914-1918: 1 and 2 from July and August 1916. At least the crashed balloon from July is called Drachen but as the caption is Drachen-Ballone (Dragon-Balloons) it seems to be the name of the type. Sadly the quality is not the best but from what you can see, even the balloons on the Europeana photos seem to be slightly different in design from the original requested photo and the Bundesarchiv photo. It is possible that all this balloons with minor design changes were called Drachen but that cant be said with 100% proof. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you all! I hope all of you will participate next Saturday and write some WWI related articles! Best, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Wartime powers/wartime authorities
Hi all, at an FAC review we noted that neither of these subjects have articles. Is there anything extant which they can be redirected to, or should an article be created? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that depend on what war you're talking about? And whether you mean legal powers or military alliances? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- As a phenomenon, rather. For instance, "Wartime powers (also known as wartime authorities) are the extraordinary powers granted to political or military groups on a temporary basis in times of war or civil unrest," etc. I'm not quite familiar with the literature on the subject, but it's probably notable enough for an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- These titles appear to be too general in scope. Suggest the subject be narrowed down to more specific subjects. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Martial law isn't the same thing at all - its governance by the military, while 'wartime powers' are additional powers assumed by a civilian government as part of its war effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely, although in the article in question it was the military which requested additional powers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Martial law isn't the same thing at all - its governance by the military, while 'wartime powers' are additional powers assumed by a civilian government as part of its war effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- These titles appear to be too general in scope. Suggest the subject be narrowed down to more specific subjects. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- The topic we do have an artcle on is emergency powers (which redirects to state of emergency); in many countries this is the general term and "war powers" may simply be a specialised case of emergency powers. In some there is a specialised legal concept for wartime - see, for example, the German State of Defence or the French fr:état de siège - but in most they're all bound up together, war and unrest and disasters alike, so it's probably best to discuss the general concept in the emergency article and only split out on a per-country basis. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I like Andrew's suggestion, but there still seems to be a slight difference in a "State of Emergency", which may trigger highly specific powers of a government, and "Wartime powers" which, depending on the government, may be broad and permit vast swaths of the government to circumvent usual checks and balances. The State of emergency article is huge, and in many parts it discusses wartime restrictions (ie: Ex parte Milligan), but it also talks a lot about true States of emergency (disasters, terrorism, etc. - which are all more limited restrictions that are imposed or lifted). I think a broad Wartime powers article, referencing similarities to State of emergency, would be helpful. This is also a topic we should consult with WP:Wikiproject Law on, though, as this is almost as much their domain as ours. Cdtew (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the UK acts granting various powers already have articles like Defence of the Realm Act 1914, Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, Treachery Act 1940. There's room for expansion but the basics are already there, if there is a need for Wartime powers then perhaps it ought to be by country to avoid getting too big. NtheP (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Conceptually, I think they're much the same thing. I don't think there's a scope difference - emergency powers may be very specific or they may amount to comprehensive and indefinite martial law. The powers granted to governments by the particular context vary between country, and we should distinguish between wartime and peacetime extraordinary powers when writing about a specific country, but in general I think we'll confuse the matter by trying to claim there's a meaningful difference in all cases. Note, for example, that India's three States of Emergency occured both in wartime and in peacetime, with the same legal powers... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that, in effect, they're much the same, and are most times two sides of the same coin. With all due respect, though, I think you'll find that most countries with some form of longstanding legal precedent will differentiate between the two types of powers; in addition, war powers contain a whole realm of powers very rarely found in emergency powers - namely those concerning the requisitioning of materiel (and men) for military use, directing military conflict, and rules setting up terms for engagement with the enemy. In British law (and by extension, in American jurisprudence), the war powers are derived from a different font (that of the need for providing for common defense) than emergency powers (as such - derived from the need for preservation of the common weal). Sometimes they overlap (like Lincoln's suspension of the habeas corpus was an emergency power based on insurrection, but was tinged with the scent of war powers). I'm fairly certain this distinction can be found in most western countries, and possibly elsewhere. Now, naturally, this is all OR on my part, and I have no sources at hand to confirm this (for the moment - while I'm at my day job). That's another reason we need to get WP:WikiProject Law's opinion on this. Cdtew (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- P.S.: Called in some other opinions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Law#Input needed: Emergency powers v. Wartime powers/War powers. Cdtew (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikiproject Law dude here; I agree they're pretty much the same thing. If we look at UK legislation, for example (I see that's an example that has been used) the most recent law is the Civil Contingencies Act, which defines a state of emergency to include not only state and civil unrest but also war. The legal powers the government is authorised to use in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear attack are the same legal powers as would be used if it was someone falling asleep at a power plant and turning Didcot into a small pool of gently steaming human and nuclear waste although to be honest if Didcot ended up filled with shambling, dripping zombies and the ruined shells of buildings I'm not sure anyone would notice . TL;DR: they are, as Andrew says, pretty much the same thing. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I must respectfully disagree, not that they're similar in usage (as I've admitted before), but only in that they're vastly different in origin. But I'm not one to prolong a discussion where I don't intend to do the lion's share of any work, so I will concede to the consensus, whatever it may be. Cdtew (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of ACRs that need attention
G'day all, I know we're all beavering away at the drive, but there are a couple of ACRs that have been open since 3 May and could do with fresh set(s) of eyes.
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Howe (Continental Army officer) (one support at this stage) and
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmuth Raithel (two supports so far - disclosure:my nom)
Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
gun control rfc
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Unidentified toy artillery
I need help identifying this piece here. Make, era? See also reverse side. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Saturday 29 June: edit-a-thon about First World War in Belgium
On Saturday 29 June there are several edit-a-thons organized in several countries in Europe with the subject World War I. This World War had Belgium as chess board so it is great to announce an edit-a-thon in Belgium. This event where new and existing users can write and expand articles is held in Leuven (Louvain). The location is KU Leuven - AGORA Leercentrum and is located at the E. Van Evenstraat 4 on 15 minutes walking from Leuven railway station.
What is an edit-a-thon?
An edit-a-thon is a (small) event where people come together and work on articles on a particular topic. Often such edit-a-thon is organized for people relatively new to Misplaced Pages and held at an organization.
What are the ingredients?
- A short explanation/presentation about Misplaced Pages (encyclopaedia), the principles: a neutral point of view, free licensing, no original research, mentioning available sources.
- Cheatsheets/antisèche/spiekbriefjes
- Some literature, you may take it to the event and is very welcome
- An internet connection is present
How can I sign up?
Signing up is needed at wmbe
wikimedia.org
Be welcome! Romaine (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
the Netherlands
At the same time there will be an edit-a-thon in the Netherlands about the same subject, between 12:00 tot 17:00 in Doorn (near the city of Utrecht). More information at wmnl:WOI editathon. Romaine (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Twinkle wikiproject welcome
I notice that Twinkle has welcome options which are customised for Wikiprojects (Go to user talk page, click the TWinkle dropdown, choose WEL, choose the Wikiproject option in dropdown)
An example of the template it drops: template:welcome-videogames
Perhaps we could put a Template together, possibly with the current issue of the Bugle attached, and some other relevant text - and get it added to the Twinkle options? (Hohum ) 00:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- <crickets><tumbleweed> (Hohum ) 22:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Renaming suggestion: Kamov Ka-50 -> Kamov Ka-52_Kamov_Ka-52-2013-06-22T10:58:00.000Z">
I put this request on the article talk page
Since the Ka-52 is the main production version with planned naval versions and a supposed export version, while the Ka-50 was an earaly variant with only a few produced it would make sense to rename the article to Ka-52. The lede needs to be changed as well as it is the Ka-52 that is produced.D2306 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)_Kamov_Ka-52">
_Kamov_Ka-52">
Barbarossa OOB
Looking at the Barbarossa OOB page, I have noticed the German part is quite incomplete, when compare to the actual OOB. Gernally, the units completely missing are:
- Security divisions
- Army Group reserves
- OKH reserves
For AG North for example this translates to (using Glantz as source):
- XXIII Corps (Army Group Reserve)
- L Corps (OKH reserve Behind AG North)
- Army Group rear lines
- 207th Security Division
- 281st Security Division
- 285th Security Division
Similarly for other Army Groups. Should this be added in? D2306 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- If these form part of the OOBs in reliable sources, then they should be included. My understanding is that these units were follow-on forces, so they may have originally been excluded as they weren't part of the initial invasion force. Given that they formed a significant part of the German war effort (and were responsible for a number of war crimes) they should be included. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am adding it in then.
- This in a reliable source, namely * Glantz, David M. (2002). The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944. Kansas University Press. ISBN 0-7006-1208-4. in the German OOB section.
- Although these divisions were not part of the "initial" force, they started to join the battle within days of the invasion and the soviet part of the OOB inludes reserve units the were not part of the initial fighting. Security divisions were not on the frontline, but nevertheless performed an important role in the overall campaign, by fighting partisans and keeping supply lines clear.D2306 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Muong Khoua
Do you think this would make a GA? S.G. ping! 14:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- G'day, I only had a quick look, but it seems like it might have a chance. I'd suggest putting it up for a peer review first to see what a wider audience comes up with. If that is positive, then I'd suggest nominating it at WP:GAN. Good luck. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Designing a WWI Barnstar
Is there anyone that would be interested in designing a barnstar (or medal or something) for the Europeana Challenge that will take place on Saturday 29th this week? It would be a fun addition!
Best,
John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Firearms articles based only on patents
I've nominated for deletion Storle machine gun, Fokker machine gun, Johnston machine gun, Clarke machine gun, and Hodges machine gun—all created by the same editor based solely on patents (which are WP:PRIMARY sources) and based on the appearance of said pattens in a list. The list indicates that the patents may have been influential and/or licensed to others, but it's a huge list. I hope we're not going to see a stub for every patent on that list, presenting the invention (which sometimes isn't even a gun, but some sub-mechanism thereof) as it were a real firearm. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Patents might be primary, but they also pass through a good deal of independent review (far more than many things we accept as RS). I see a dependence on patents as being an issue for cleanup, but not of itself for deletion.
- A stronger case might be made for deletion if the weapon was only described and not produced. Although we surely wouldn't extend that principle to delete things such as the Puckle gun. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Puckle gun has at least one full-page coverage in a 2004 book (cited in the article) which counts as independent coverage, so it's not in the same boat. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple more articles: Kovonalov machine gun, Neal submachine gun. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm objecting to your PRODs, and rather than discuss it on each talk page, I'll do so here. I concur with Andy's statement above that Patents aren't strictly on the same level as other primary sources. These are documents that have a higher degree of reliability and less of a likelihood that they may violate NPOV or some other policy. Look, for instance, at how WP:WikiProject NRHP does things. Under their long-standing (and previously oft-argued-about) policies, you can base an entire article on a property's NRIS listing, which is a Federal record. It's obviously considered best to have additional sources to support NRIS, but not required. To my understanding, umerous AfD discussions have resulted in this being upheld. I therefore think that perhaps a Refimprove or BetterSource templates may be needed, deletion is a bit drastic. Citation to a published patent when mixed with other factors should, in my mind, be sufficient to establish verifiability. Now, if you take issue with the idea that it's not notable because it was never produced and may not have influenced other inventions, then object, but object on those grounds and not this primary source issue. Cdtew (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I will AfD them individually. There are millions of patents. Most of their topics are not WP:NOTABLE, not because the source is unreliable, but because it's not independent. Similarly the are millions of peer-reviewed academic papers. Their topics are not necessarily notable either. Prime examples include management methods, for which there used to be quite a spam in Misplaced Pages. Those usually have both some primary academic sources and patents, yet they get deleted. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please, do us a favour and at least bundle the AfDs. Otherwise it's just creating work for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Firearms looks like quite a bit of work already. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- While you may be looking to impose and ad-hoc policy on patents, I think each of these articles needs to be evaluated indvidually, because there are some differences between these. And during the AfD additional sources may be found for some but not others. You don't seem to have any real interest in firearms based on your lack of participation in the ongoing AfDs of that type. So if 4-5 AfD are too much for you, sorry, you'll have to bear with me. Anyway, I'm having technical difficulties opening the AfD, so that will probably have to wait for a while anyway. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please, do us a favour and at least bundle the AfDs. Otherwise it's just creating work for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I will AfD them individually. There are millions of patents. Most of their topics are not WP:NOTABLE, not because the source is unreliable, but because it's not independent. Similarly the are millions of peer-reviewed academic papers. Their topics are not necessarily notable either. Prime examples include management methods, for which there used to be quite a spam in Misplaced Pages. Those usually have both some primary academic sources and patents, yet they get deleted. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Savin–Norov machine gun is marginal, but it has a bit of coverage in a book. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, if you're proposing an editor's articles for deletion, you need to leave them a talk page notice for each article proposed. And finally, before you get accused of socking, you may want to sign in -- just a friendly reminder. Cdtew (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- An article based solely on a patent would fail under the general notability guideline which asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Patents are not independent of the subject "affiliated with the subject or its creator"; and a single patent would not stack up against "multiple sources are generally expected". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying don't PROD an article because of Primary sources; nominate it for AfD because of notability. Obviously there are millions of patents, but I think there's some precedent that says that similar filings with the government can support a stub, if there are other indications of notability. That's the only reason I deprodded. I honestly don't care if they're all deleted, I just think AfD is the best route; plus, as Someone mentioned above, some of the articles might be rescued in AfD with additional sources. Cdtew (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- An article based solely on a patent would fail under the general notability guideline which asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Patents are not independent of the subject "affiliated with the subject or its creator"; and a single patent would not stack up against "multiple sources are generally expected". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
New book out on the 1918-1920 Syrian campaigns...
Just to say that if you're interested in the Transjordan campaigns (as I know several of our members are), John Grainger's "The Battle for Syria, 1918-1920" is now out. It has a middling sort of review out of the Times Literary Supplement, but seems interesting. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Japanese battleship Musashi#ENGVAR
Input requested, here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hah, you beat me to it Dan. Basically the problem is that although this was first written in British English, somewhere along the line it has been changed into American English in contravention of WP:ENGVAR. There might be an argument that this is an inherently American topic; I'm not sure if that was the current editors' argument in talk and I am not sure I buy it if it was. Any other thoughts? --John (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Being a Japanese ship, obviously no strong national ties are involved and I don't put much weight on any argument that AmEng should be used because the primary opponent of the Japanese was the US. But my issue is that I don't care what an article was written in when it first began however many years ago; only about what it used when I started work on it. As far as I'm concerned it's not worth my time to check and certainly not to convert it back, especially since I'm only somewhat fluent in the other varieties in the Anglosphere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Flers-Courcelette
Does anyone know how to swap the hyphen in the title Battle of Flers-Courcelette to a dash (Battle of Flers–Courcelette)? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would insert an ndash from the menu on a page, then cut and paste that where needed, such as the move/rename menu. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Will that work on the page header?Keith-264 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The Infobox maybe? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, the title in brown above "A start-class article "....Keith-264 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- You'll have to move (rename) the article from "Battle of Flers-Courcelette" (w/ dash/hypen) to "Battle of Flers–Courcelette" (w/ ndash) to change that. See WP:Move, How to move a page. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Had a go, I think it's OK although it showed up twice in my watchlist. Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Moves always show up twice (because you've effectively altered two pages - the article plus the old title, now a redirect). It's to be expected :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Will that work on the page header?Keith-264 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Brunei
I found this picture on the Brunei article. It is quite obviously not of George Wootten. Anyone know who it is of? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- G'day Hawkeye, I reckon that is CAPT R.J.D. Wright, Allied Translator and Interpreter Section, 9th Division. See Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Several ACRs that need attention
G'day all, I know we're all staggering towards the finish line of the drive, but there are several ACRs that have been open for six weeks and could do with fresh set(s) of eyes.
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Howe (Continental Army officer) (open since 3 May, now two supports, just needs one more)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French ship Vengeur du Peuple (open since 7 May, also has two supports)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Crossroads (open since 9 May, one support so far)
Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Southeast Croatia (Open since 12 May, has two supports)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minefields in Croatia (Open since 12 May, has two supports)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/509th Composite Group (Open since 26 May, has two supports)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of sunken battlecruisers (Open since 7 June, has two supports)
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R) (Open since 10 June, has two supports)
Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What is an AFV
An editor is concerned about the scope of Armoured fighting vehicle and that it includes vehicles that are not AFVs as defined by some sources (NATO and government documents have been given). So far I have given my view that usage of AFV in sources I am aware of tends to be quite inclusive of just about anything that has been armoured and propelled itself across the ground for the purposes of man waging war upon his neighbour. I think more opinions and access to more sources would be conducive to finding a (quorate) consensus. Discussion here Talk:Armoured_fighting_vehicle#Confusion_in_article_-_general_revision_and_change_is_needed, if you have time to join in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Targets achieved so far in the June 2013 backlog reduction drive
G'day all, excellent work, we have already exceeded our targets for:
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of military history, and
- Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists.
The target for Military history articles needing expert attention is very achievable, only needing two more articles to receive attention.
Not long to go now... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed navbox template: WWII Soviet aircraft guns
At least the following qualify: ShKAS machine gun, Berezin UB, ShVAK cannon, Berezin B-20, Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23, Nudelman-Suranov NS-23, Nudelman-Suranov NS-37. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Category: