This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick-D (talk | contribs) at 10:08, 10 March 2023 (new Bugle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:08, 10 March 2023 by Nick-D (talk | contribs) (new Bugle)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Problematic WWII Chinese air warfare articles created/expanded by User:Got Milked
Has anyone else found problems with our biographical content related to Chinese air warfare in World War II?
I'm looking at articles created/expanded by Got Milked and am running into major issues with unreliable sources, non-neutral point of view, reliable sources that don't actually mention the article topic, and very unclear notability. For examples:
- Zheng Shaoyu's content was effectively irretrievable, and I can't see why they're notable
- Gao Zhihang is as of writing now redirected, and I can't show the similarly problematic content because of the massive copyright violations
- John Wong Pan-yang is now redirected, but previously was sourced almost entirely to unreliable sources and had little to no claim to notability (as far as I could tell)
- Same for John Huang Xinrui (see pre-redirect content)
There's a lot more out there, e.g. I suspect Xu Huansheng has very similar problems to those above. Help? Is it worth nuking and/or redirecting these? Ed 06:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliability of MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History
Hi all, is MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History considered a generally high quality reliable source? I can't really tell. Eddie891 Work 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar with it, but based on some quick Google searches I'd treat is as any other general-audiences magazine. Not great but, but not necessarily catastrophically bad either. Certainly not sufficient for any exceptional claims, tho. Ljleppan (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have a few issues, and as you say, OK, but not great. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. They just recently published an article on Fabian Ware, but from these responses I doubt it is the sort of high quality- RS we would want in a featured article. Eddie891 Work 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Flag display issue
{{navy|United States}} is currently producing the Naval Jack, not the Stars and Stripes. This means thousands of articles are wrong. It needs fixing. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can propose a change at {{Country data United States}}. Ljleppan (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Have already flagged it there but no response. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- See discussion at template talk:Country data United States. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for Hanford Site
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Julian v Gregorian
Does this project have any guidelines or preferences on how to deal with events prior to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? Britain moved over in 1752 so obviously sources published before use Julian dates but sources after appear mixed, with some converting dates and others leaving as is. As an example, p. 261 of this ] (published in 1797) has HMS Roebuck arriving at Lisbon on 6 May which is the same date given in the London Gazette (published in 1744) here ]. --Ykraps (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- As to how we present it in the article, there is guidance at MOS:JG, basically use the calendar in use at the location at that time, though conversions can also be given (particularly where it might not be clear which calendar is being used). Not sure on practice used around this time but think I remember seeing somewhere that generally dates in the past were referred to without conversion - Dumelow (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- For articles about ships that travelled between areas wth different calendars, it will be difficult to stick to "the calendar in use at that location." Where the date relates to a ship visiting a port with a different calendar, I'd suggest using both dates with Template:OldStyleDate or its variants. Also, if you are using UK sources from this time period, take a look at Old Style and New Style dates. In 1752 there were two changes in calendar for much of the UK (excluding Scotland) with moving New Year from 25 March to 1 January and then converting from Julian to "Gregorian" in September. Note that the Gregorian calendar was named for Pope Gregory XIII, so protestant countries sometimes avoided using that name even though the change was identical to the catholic calendar. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks both. Plenty to read there. From a brief look, it doesn't appear that there is a preference so long as there's an explanatory footnote. --Ykraps (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Publicizing RM on Somali Civil War
Please see Talk:Somali_Civil_War#Requested_move_5_March_2023 - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Publicizing RM on Iraq War
Please see Talk:Iraq_War#Requested_move_5_March_2023 - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Publicizing RfD
Hey, could we get some input at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 26#Landing platform vessel? There seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty about what this phrase means (or is closest to meaning), maybe you experts can clear things up. —Compassionate727 09:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Publicising RM on Iraqi conflict (2003–present) → Iraqi conflict (2003–2017)
Please see here: Talk:Iraqi_conflict_(2003–present)#Requested_move_6_March_2023 FOARP (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Siege of Lal Masjid
Siege of Lal Masjid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Mersivan
Hello everyone, please take a look at Battle of Mersivan. It seems to me it requires some objective input. GusChago (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking for input from the commumity...
...regarding the renaming of USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) to USS Robert Smalls. Just follow this-> link to WT:SHIPs. Thanks - wolf 05:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies
An RM that may be of interest to editors here, given how many Commonwealth military figures have them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947
The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 states that "the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to exercise the authorities contained in" the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. Despite being a relatively important piece of legislation, the article on the ASPA is two sentences long and there is no link to the actual act. I am having difficulty finding a pdf or other link to that act, so I thought I would bring it up here to see if anyone else might have better luck locating it. Thanks! -Location (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
|
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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)