This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Someone not using his real name (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 24 June 2013 (→Firearms articles based only on patents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:17, 24 June 2013 by Someone not using his real name (talk | contribs) (→Firearms articles based only on patents)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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)
Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA
Background
The current default output of {{KIA}} is † which looks like a Christian cross in some fonts, which has caused much confusion, and quite a few threads, over many years:
- Threads at Template talk:KIA: Template talk:KIA#Origin of symbol, Template talk:KIA#Alternate symbol, Template talk:KIA#Change to KIA, Template talk:KIA#A non-religious symbol should replace the Christian cross currently used for the KIA., Template talk:KIA#RELIGIOUS INSENSITIVITY?
- Threads elsewhere: Talk:Killed in action#Why the cross?, (Semi-related Talk:Dagger (typography)#Christian Cross)
- A talk-namespace search for kia dagger brings up a few likely results of article talkpage disputes. More are mentioned in the threads linked above.
- A wider namespace search for kia dagger brings up a few more discussions.
- Searching for "kia cross" leads to many results, but quite a few are on unrelated topics.
The symbol is called a Dagger (typography), and is typically produced via the HTML † (which creates: † ).
The stylised version (as used in various typefaces) is more clearly meant to symbolise a Dagger (fighting weapon), as seen in the image File:Daggers.svg : 
The usage of the symbol – both historically, and in modern times – as a marker for people Killed in action, is not currently mentioned in that (very short) article. There's a citation-request at Dagger (typography)#Modern usage (and repeated by me, years ago, at Template talk:KIA#Clarify usage in general).
Options
Which options are available, and which we prefer, will depend partially on technical implementation, and partially on the citable references. (I'm not an expert in either. Just a mediating editor.) I think these are all the viable options that have been suggested before:
- Change the default symbol to use a particular font that has a more stylised dagger (Needs testing, as many fonts aren't universally installed)
- Change the default symbol to use an image file, instead of a typographic glyph, e.g. File:Dagger symbol.svg:
- Change the default output to: "(KIA)" - and only use the alternate "dagger symbol" when historically-accurate, or when references dictate.
That's all I can find, to summarize. Experts: Please feel free to alter my concise overview above, as needed, so that anyone coming to the thread later on, can get the most accurate overview.
Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just had a look at its use in the infobox for Second Alamein. Can hardly spot it - but does it matter?. My opinion is, if its important that X was killed during the battle, it'll be mentioned in text, and if its really important it'll be mentioned in the lead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The most recent article mentioned in the template's talkpage, is Battle of the Camel, a battle in 656 A.D. between two Muslim groups. The user who commented stated that it came across as offensive to Muslims. Other users have previously commented on the same issue, but also commented on the issue of whether it's historically accurate to use this "KIA" symbol in all wars/infoboxes across the centuries, or not. Again, I'm not familiar with any of the related topics, I'm just summarizing, and pointing towards further information. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- My first question is what is the most common style of the dagger used in reliable sources? If it is the one that Misplaced Pages presently has as a default, we should continue to use that symbol. If not, why isn't Misplaced Pages using that most common style? If it is the most common style, then why change it? If it is because someone finds it intolerant or objectionable, would the argument for change fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would question why we need the symbol at all particularly in the infobox, if the individual was that important then the fact he died in action would be in the article, so perhaps just deprecate the use of the symbol rather than mess about with it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- My first question is what is the most common style of the dagger used in reliable sources? If it is the one that Misplaced Pages presently has as a default, we should continue to use that symbol. If not, why isn't Misplaced Pages using that most common style? If it is the most common style, then why change it? If it is because someone finds it intolerant or objectionable, would the argument for change fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The most recent article mentioned in the template's talkpage, is Battle of the Camel, a battle in 656 A.D. between two Muslim groups. The user who commented stated that it came across as offensive to Muslims. Other users have previously commented on the same issue, but also commented on the issue of whether it's historically accurate to use this "KIA" symbol in all wars/infoboxes across the centuries, or not. Again, I'm not familiar with any of the related topics, I'm just summarizing, and pointing towards further information. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for centralising all these discussions Quiddity. If we can reach consensus here it might be handy to have a banner at the template page linking here. It probably won't stop drive by comments though...
Anyway, I would prefer to see the symbol remain. It's a well known symbol that I often come across in my line of work and I think it adds to the infobox. The infobox's job is to summarise important information from within the article, and the death of a commander is often very pertinent (consider the Battle of Hastings, Battle of Bosworth Field and the Battle of Trafalgar). I don't think that KIA is a suitable alternative as it's a relatively modern term and would look out of place on the above article infoboxes. It might often be inappropriate as well. The symbol is used (appropriately in my opinion) in the Battle of the River Plate article, but Langsdorff wasn't killed in action, so using KIA would be wrong.
However, I can accept that it looks like a cross. Although I would rather not see us cleansing wikipedia of well known symbology just because it might offend people (should we remove the swastika from every article it appears in?), changing the font may be an idea. I'd prefer to stick to a font than use a manufactured icon - numbers 2 and 5 above look quite good.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I'm happy to go along with a consensus. I'm away for a few days now though, so won't be able to comment again till Monday. Regards, Ranger Steve 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Only non-secular Muslims, the extreme nutters that is, oppose the cross. As a "peaceful" religion, everyone else should be tolerant. But why do we only ever hear mention of Muslims? What about Sikhs or Buddhists? Or beyond that, what about atheists or other non-religious people? The fact is that the cross is symbolic of "is dead" not "died a Christian" or anything similar. We use little crosses with a poppy attached during the UK Remembrance Day services.. there is no religious implication. I think when you've got an infobox detailing a battle with a lot of officers, having (KIA) after each killed becomes cumbersome, whereas a superimposed cross is less evasive and is immediately known to mean "was killed" without any religious sentiment. I'm not a religious person, I despise organised religion, but I despise political correctness almost as much, and I see doing away with an "icon" not a "religious symbol" as yet another contrived PC motion. Islamic objections have no place on Wiki, because the icon is not being enforced for Christian reasons, it is not a headstone, rather it is used traditionally by historians. What next, do we stop wishing each other "Merry Christmas" each year because other religions don't celebrate it? Please... On an added note, I would support wrapping the html † entity with a css style tag to fix a font present on PC and Mac: Arial or Verdana, are both available and are plain. Ma®©usBritish 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- +1 to that Marcus said. I'm not a fan of the symbol in infoboxes, but I see no problem with it in principle. Intothatdarkness 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Test of Fonts:
Both of these improve the display, for me. I'm not sure if they work for everyone else? Please reply, if either of them still looks like the current †
Also, I've requested at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting that someone help advise on technical implementation, so someone might fix my examples, or provide new ones, soon. –Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well to me they look like daggers and not an underlined "t" which is definite progress in the presentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Both look the same to me, though the use of span is the better markup, font is deprecated and not supported by HTML5. I think the template:KIA needs updating to apply an inline style such as this. I think we also need to consider making it superimposed. e.g.
- I prefer the superimposed cross as it slightly removes the icon from the main text, making it clearer that it is an aside to the name. The current practice of having it the same font size as the name is a little forceful. A superimposed icon would probably be better for people printing out Wiki pages also, as in black/white a cross the same size may appear as a "t", as styles can be overwritten. Ma®©usBritish 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is a consequence of using sans-serif fonts; practically all of them have a plain, cross-like dagger. In serif fonts there is much more variety in the details, but they’re all pretty dagger-like, the stem usually tapering to a point at the foot, with serifs or similar terminations to the other strokes making the ‘pommel’ and ‘guard’. (My CSS specifies a serif text font, so I’ve never noticed the problematic daggers. I will refrain from ranting about the unsuitability of sans-serif type for body text here.) Anyway for a font specification, whether done with CSS or HTML tags, “serif” ought to suffice. For something more specific, Times Roman (in its many variants) is probably the most common serif font family; Georgia and some others have been included with both Mac and Windows systems for quite a few years now, so are likely available to most readers.—Odysseus1479 05:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I don’t much care for the superscript version, #3 just above: it‘s so small that the details that would distinguish it from a plain cross tend to vanish. Even when it’s normally sized, I expect some readers won’t notice the difference on-screen.—Odysseus1479 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the added "detail" serif provides makes any major difference anyway, at higher resolutions. A superimposed dagger or cross is no bigger or smaller than a reference number. Serif or sans-serifs, it's still going to look like a cross shaped icon, it doesn't really matter if it tapers at the bottom. Personally I'm more in favour of than because it is more defined and means we don't have to be concerned about resolution issues, for the best part of the range, as serifs are more likely to pose an issue at extremely high resolutions, superimposed or not. Better safe than sorry. We should be making this sans-serif to keep in mind that resolutions keep getting more extreme.. I don't see how anyone copes with reading text beyond 1080p anyway, what with technology pushing monitor resolutions to 4K (even 8K?) scales, people will end up with monitors the size of a whole wall before we know it (and bad squints). We can't be expected to cover every resolution easily, from handheld mobile/tablet devices to 1080p+ screens, but at least with sans-serif you know it will more-or-less look the same across the range, where serif fonts could pose issues at lower and higher settings, because fine detail renders differently. Probably explains why most web safe fonts in use are of the plainer sans-serif varieties. The KISS principle applies here. Ma®©usBritish 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: If, for whatever reason, the above options don't work and you want a specific style of dagger, you could make or use a free/open font with the appropriate symbol, and add a request for it to be added as a WebFont, thus overcoming the question of which fonts a system may have. --xensyria 11:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
KIA Dagger symbol - Update
- I've updated the template based on the feedback, for which much thanks to all. If any further changes are needed, hopefully we can discuss them briefly here or there, and keep moving forward.
- The article killed in action could really use some work, and ought to include a mention of this symbol and its modern and historic usages. If anyone can find info, that'd be awesome. It has over 3,500 incoming links.
Hope that all works, thanks again. –Quiddity (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm opposed to the application of "serif" fonts, for the technical reasons stated in my last comment, which seem to have been ignored. I think a greater level of consensus is required before applying changes to such a widely-used template, given that only 3 or 4 people actually responded to this 5-day old thread, the change was too hastily applied. Also, please see WP:FONTFAMILY, which, had I known this MOS guideline existed earlier, I would have mentioned. Also, WP:SUPSCRIPT shows that sup/sub are directly supported and even recommended over various html entities by the MOS, despite earlier concerns. I think we need to look at other options here. Ma®©usBritish 10:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I personally agree with the use of serif fonts to make the dagger symbol clearer: WP:FONTFAMILY seems to be talking about using CSS directly in an article's code, and this would be an example of one of the "special templates" mentioned at the end of the second paragraph; even if the computer has no serif fonts at all, this will default back to how it has been until now (i.e. not the end of the world). Superscript seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but bold (currently on by default) for some reason actually makes it much less clear, at least on my display (is it the other way round for anyone else?):
- Normal, bold: †, non-bold: †
- Superscript, bold: , non-bold:
- So under the new changes we should now have bold switched off by default. Also, the code should surely have the serif
<span style="...">around the entire{{#ifeq:{{{bold|}}}|||}}, though for some reason span is still being applied to the unspanned†at the moment. --xensyria 13:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)- Hi, point by point:
- Nobody had commented in 3 days, so my code update was an attempt to prevent further umbrage at other articles in the meantime.
- I was taking into account the numerous comments in the threads I linked at the thread-top, so the change is based on more than just the commenters here.
- The bold-normal versions and the bold-superscript versions are equally clear for me, but the non-bold-normal version is slightly less clear, and the non-bold-superscript version is the least clear.
- I added the span to the unbolded dagger in the following edit, hence that is serif.
- I didn't implement superscript because (a) it can negatively effect the leading in some cases and I'm not familiar with where this template is used outside of infoboxes (which would need testing), and (b) it is less clear because it is smaller.
- Specific changes could be suggested at Template:KIA/sandbox if anyone wants to?
- I think that's everything. Feedback welcome. –Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Xensyria – WP:FONTFAMILY: "Articles used to explicitly define font families for special characters, because older browsers could not automatically select an appropriate font. This is no longer dealt with by using explicit font definitions in the articles." Clearly states that use of in-line font-family is a past practice and is no longer used, it gives no exceptions. Help:Special characters#Viewing says that in-line font styling "may" works and does not encourage it. Using styling in a templates carries it forward into articles, so it is used in articles either way, because it ends up in the html source. MILHIST prides itself on being careful with regards meeting MOS standards, in order to meet higher quality, and this form of in-line serif styling is not a good practice, it doesn't give consideration to different user configurations, various screen resolutions, or printed media. Ma®©usBritish 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Quiddity – You've stated that the serif styling is "clear for me". That only applies to you, on your machine, with your chosen browser. It does not give respect to the dozens of other configurations on different platforms. There is too much design preference being implied here, and not enough consideration for the technical limitations. Serif fonts can lose detail at different resolutions, this is a known fact. Non-serif fonts generally don't have such issues being slightly bolder. 3 days does not grant enough time for reasonable discussion to take place. It's fair enough inviting other people to comment, but discussions should be centralised so that everyone can be on the same page. Taking
the majorityviews fromoneold/past discussions and ignoringanothernew opinions isgenerally consideredsimilar to WP:FORUMSHOP, especially when there's a conflict of interest and you make changes based on comments that only support your initial view: consensus just doesn't work that way. As much as I assume good faith in this case, I consider the change to serifpotentiallyunstable, and one that has wide-spread effects. Again, I request you take the template back to its original state and seek further opinions and approval on this matter. The leading is a pre-set matter in Wiki's CSS, and applies to all instances of sub/sup, a couple of pixels are added to the line-spacing to prevent overlap, which is not destructive to the prose. Superimposed, it is no smaller than a reference number, and without serifs still looks like a cross, rather than a twiggy thing, bold or not. It doesn't look like a "t" and it is also friendlier for printing. I think there's too much emphasis on the "dagger" image and not on the fact that it's a notation symbol. And not enough emphasis on it being placed more suitably. Books tend to notation icons superimposed, whether it be stars, crosses, or numbers, in my experience. Why is Wiki any different? Sorry, but I think we need to refocus our efforts here, on what we're trying to achieve with this template, as it is a lost cause. Ma®©usBritish 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)- @MarcusBritish:
- Serif: Serif fonts are supported by xensyria, Odysseus1479, GraemeLeggett, and myself, directly above. Serif fonts are the only way to achieve a non-cross-like symbol, unless we use an image-file.
- Superscript: Superscript was objected to by Odysseus1479 and myself (implicitly), and xensyria stated that non-bold superscript was less clear than bold superscript. (Note that Superimpose means something unrelated). Given that it is inherently smaller, it's safe to assume that superscript is less legible in general. Also, Superscript links usually (always?) lead to a reference on the same page, whereas the {{KIA}} symbol links to a completely different page.
- Spacing: The template currently (and historically) has a "
" (non-breaking space) before the symbol, so your comment that "I prefer the superimposed cross as it slightly removes the icon from the main text" (as it pertains to the 2nd example you gave) isn't accurately based on the template as it stands. - Sizing: I'd support a very minor size increase (via CSS styling), if anyone else feels that is warranted/needed, to further increase legibility/clarity.
- References regarding the contemporary and historical usage of the symbol would be great, as I requested a few times above. Partly for this discussion, but especially for the articles Killed in action and Dagger (typography)#Modern usage. If you can find any, great!
- Minor point: the discussion lasted 2 days, and then there was 3 days of silence. My apologies for not waiting the full week for the thread to be archived; I'm not familiar with this WikiProject's standard speed of action - all parts of Misplaced Pages move at different speeds, and I believe 3 days of silence to be sufficient to conclude that no new comments were forthcoming, and that preventing further insults to various cultures is important. Hence I updated the template.
- If you'd like to {{ping}} various users so that they can contribute more thoughts to this thread, then feel free. If anyone else has objections (or support) to my update, then please chime in. –Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I see no logic behind the need for a "non-cross-like" symbol, except from the anti-religious-icon people. Before it was a plain cross, now it's a cross with serifs.. there's no difference in the shape, just the quality of how it appears.
- Sizing is not easily implemented without fixing the font-size. This can present accessibility issues, and so is not a good idea as scaling is not always predictable. We don't need to make things any worse than they already are. I don't see why one small icon needs to have a ton of non-standard html/css wrapped round it either.. it simply adds bulk to the template, which is inefficient.
- The spacing matter isn't an issue, whether it be historical or not. Browsers change day-by-day, as can how we use html. There is no strength in using historic methods.. otherwise we could do many things "the old way" and never advance.
- Which brings me to the point that my concern this change completely ignores MOS recommendations was completely ignored, again. Funny how my strongest point on the Wiki guidelines keeps being skipped over and other irrelevant matters raised or created.
- Misplaced Pages:False consensus#List of 'opponents' might be worth mentioning. As the proponent of the motion to change this template you are still cherry picking views that favour your preference, whilst ignoring objections of valid technical concern. I object to the disrespectful methods being employed here.
- Your point that the KIA icon links to a different page is unsupported by any policy or guideline that implicitly requires superscripted wikilinks to be anchored is invalid. I don't intend to listen to you make rules up as you go along about how the icon should follow some unaddressed form of standardisation whilst completely ignoring the non-use of inline "font-family" CSS already covered and dissuaded by MOS. You can't pick and choose, especially when one guideline is real and the other is fantasy.
- I don't intend to jump through hoops pinging or canvassing anyone on my time, we have plenty of regulars, several coords, and a few admins at MILHIST, who visit this page, with sufficient time logged on Wiki to comment on the matter if given the chance, three days isn't adequate; the preferred process here is that you revert your edits and seek further approval, following WP:CONSENSUS methods. I'm well under rights to revert under WP:BRD given the ignorance for Help:Special characters#Viewing concerns, but I'm giving you that option. You seem hesitant to take it. Consensus isn't based on strength of numbers, but strength of argument. Seeing as my point on the change using in-line CSS, contrary to standard, as well as serif, a potential visual issues (which affects accessibility), it would seem that there are no answers to my points, of merit.
- This way this template appears needs addressing, yes, but this enforced manner is not the right way to go about it. Ma®©usBritish 01:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- @MarcusBritish:
- I personally agree with the use of serif fonts to make the dagger symbol clearer: WP:FONTFAMILY seems to be talking about using CSS directly in an article's code, and this would be an example of one of the "special templates" mentioned at the end of the second paragraph; even if the computer has no serif fonts at all, this will default back to how it has been until now (i.e. not the end of the world). Superscript seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but bold (currently on by default) for some reason actually makes it much less clear, at least on my display (is it the other way round for anyone else?):
- Sorry, I'm opposed to the application of "serif" fonts, for the technical reasons stated in my last comment, which seem to have been ignored. I think a greater level of consensus is required before applying changes to such a widely-used template, given that only 3 or 4 people actually responded to this 5-day old thread, the change was too hastily applied. Also, please see WP:FONTFAMILY, which, had I known this MOS guideline existed earlier, I would have mentioned. Also, WP:SUPSCRIPT shows that sup/sub are directly supported and even recommended over various html entities by the MOS, despite earlier concerns. I think we need to look at other options here. Ma®©usBritish 10:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll state again, that I'm interested in finding references for how this symbol has been used in the past, and in the present - and specifically whether a serif or sans-serif version is ever preferred. Also whether there are alternative symbols that we ought to be including, for historical or foreign figures -
- Eg. Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising#ק mentions a ק. But that seems to be a user's invention? It's usage isn't mentioned at ק
- Eg.2. Talk:Battle of Thermopylae#Symbol for .22killed.22 mentions the thanatos symbol, which leads to this book reference.
- I think we'd all very much like to find military-history style guides, which comment on this directly. Does anyone know of anything?
- The only typographical reference I can find is APS style manual (though of course we don't obey external style manuals, we simply keep them in mind whilst writing our own). All other style guides that I can find are referring to the dagger in its usage as a footnote indicator, not in its usage as the "death dagger". Most examples place the dagger on the baseline (not superscript) though you didn't mention superscript in your latest reply, so perhaps you are no longer seeking that change.
- At Talk:Great American Interchange#Little crosses.3F, @Bob the Wikipedian: comments on the symbol's pre-Christian usage as a symbol for death. Maybe he can provide insight or sources for that?
- See examples of talkpage disputes: Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest#Death dagger, Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising#ק, Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 2#KIA-sign, Talk:Battle of the Camel#GET RID OF THE .27CROSS.27 SYMBOL.21, Talk:Battle of Mu'tah#Outlining, Talk:Operation Entebbe#KIA.3B all or nothing, Talk:Libyan civil war/Archive 8#Removed KIA for Khamis Gaddaffi, Talk:Libyan civil war/Archive 10#Again with the dagger.3F, Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 18#KIA symbols, Talk:Iraq War/Archive 8#KIA symbol for Zarqawi.2C others, Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)/Archive 9#KIA in Infobox, etc etc etc. If the default is going to keep being a cross-like symbol, and it continually causes problems, then we have to think of ways to solve that. Ideally, we will use ways that match the external world's common usage of the symbol, particularly in the fields of history and military history. It's not just Muslims that are concerned, it's also ancient greek historians, and Jewish editors, and others.
- I do not believe font-family specification will have any negative effects on accessibility, which is why I have not needlessly reverted the change to the template, which would be based solely on your hypothetical concern. We already use font-family extensively in MediaWiki:Common.css. If sizing/scaling is the only problem, then our CSS experts will be able to advise us on the best use of percentages or ems, to fit in with the current site CSS sets - we already use that extensively for various aspects of our formatting, and percentages or ems are specifically designed to provide good accessibility. (Note: I'm been active at the WP:ACCESS pages for many years, and do have a good understanding of both CSS and accessibility issues). However, I have asked for others to give input:
- I've asked again at WT:MOS/Text formatting for feedback on technical issues, and repeated the request at WT:ACCESS, and I see you've asked at WT:MHCOORD, so hopefully some other editors will chime in, soon. –Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I still suggest a KIA icon be superscript, or even subscript. Font-family recommendations apply to in-line styling. CSS files can be over-written with custom CSS, but in-line css is harder to over-write, especially in terms of accessibility. You may well have worked on WP:ACCESS, I studied web design and web development at University some years ago, and am more than familiar with various HTML/XHTML/CSS practices, as well as WAI initiatives, which I think are very important on a website aimed to be available to anyone whose government doesn't block access. This site is designed to be read by a huge audience, not tinkered with by choosy editors. Not sure why Jews would object to the cross.. they use it too in their religion, or at least some do.. I think anyone placing religious emphasis on the icon should be ignored, pure and simple. Wiki is not a platform for religious ideology, and no one is suggesting this icon only has Christian meaning or applications. The only other option is to revert back to the (KIA) formal. I also think, at this point, I should not the lack of consistency between {{KIA}}, {{Executed}}, {{DOW}}, {{Surrendered}} and {{POW}}. I think the Executed "skull and crossbones" icon is particularly disrespectful, not of religion, but of the condemned men.. some of those may have been victims of cruel circumstances. Usage of an icon better known to mean "pirate" is rather low-brow. Given that DOW and POW are (DOW) and (POW), perhaps returning to (KIA) would be better. I think this set of templates is unprofessional, given the number of debates raised. If a generic icon cannot suffice, an indisputable acronym would be better, to suit everyone, no picky designers, no pretentious religious editors, no room for questioning the ambiguous nature of an icon vs letters. Ma®©usBritish 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- If your main technical concern is the inline-styling aspect, then we can possibly add a CSS class to the template and in our stylesheets. You said above "the use of span is the better markup " and "I think the template:KIA needs updating to apply an inline style such as this", hence I didn't understand you were objecting to this aspect. Note however, we do use inline-styling of spans extensively within broadly used templates elsewhere, eg. Template:Sidebar, Template:Small, etc. Adding classes to the main site stylesheets that are loaded for every single page, is only encouraged when it is required by a large percentage of pages. This template is only used in 3500+ instances, currently.
- The symbol does have a long history of use; but again, accurately referenced details (any references at all!) would be helpful for this discussion, and for those other templates, and for the articles about the symbol(s). In past discussions (linked at top) some editors objected to making the default display (KIA) because it is still not historically accurate, eg. @Ranger Steve:'s comments here and within this thread above.
- The other templates ({{Executed}}, {{DOW}}, {{Surrendered}} and {{POW}}) do warrant discussion, but a separate or subthread would be helpful, for other editors trying to keep up, or coming to the discussion fresh. And again in these cases, RS references for current and historical practices, would be incredibly helpful in bringing us to an informed decision. –Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- My support for span or an inline style was negated and ended when I later said, "Also, please see WP:FONTFAMILY, which, had I known this MOS guideline existed earlier, I would have mentioned." I prefer to follow the MOS very closely, for the better of articles, of MILHIST, and of Wiki itself.. it if safer in the long-run and is the only way to maintain quality standards. I'd personally mark down any article up for assessment which uses any method that contravenes the MOS or ignores WAI blatantly. I do not think Wikimedia will add unique style to the common.css for the sake of a one-character icon which sees so little use (out of all Wiki articles), and also because the cross is not used uniquely for KIA, so it wouldn't be efficient. As you say.. ~3500 is not worth the effort. Ranger Steve's comments are all generally WP:IJDLI with very little, if any, logical reasoning behind not reverting to KIA. I see no reason why one editor should stand in the way of progress. Clearly there are substantial issues with using an icon.. design and religious riff-raff. With (KIA) there are no such issues of merit. Steve simply needs to get off his high-horse and see that the icon causes more trouble than it's worth. "KIA" is a term well known, and poses less issues. Ma®©usBritish 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure where all that comes from, but I'd appreciate it if those comments were retracted or apologised for. I have no high horse - opinions have been requested and I gave mine. This is a style issue more than anything, so opinions are perfectly valid. I'm not trying to stand in the way of change - I've already pointed out on several occasions that I'm happy to go with a majority decision. I'd appreciate you not trying to besmirch other editor's views; at present your own stance could very easily be characterised in the same way you have described mine. Ranger Steve 09:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to characterise, or offer constrictive criticism, I am not, however, in the habit of redacting or apologising, as what is said is said. There are plenty of opinions and alternatives discussed above if you care to expand on them, or offer alternative solutions. Clearly there is a long-running set of issues with this template, specifically: religious context. Changes to the style introduce design issues. I see no reason not to switch to (KIA), given that † and "KIA" both mean "Killed in Action", the acronym is clearly the only method needed to diffuse the debate. There doesn't need to be historical references to the use of the term "KIA" to support using it in a template. We're in the 21st century now, we use contemporary terms, because people speak the current form of English. Everyone can understand the meaning of "killed in action", it has 2 parts.. "killed" dead, and "in action" in the battle which the article covers. It's a no-brainer, I fail to see the logic of any argument to the contrary. The use of † is apparently posing issues with over-sensitive religious types who fail to accept it as a notational icon and see it as some biased symbolic Christian cross. The only way to deal with that is to remove the controversial icon from the template and use a less ambiguous method. "KIA" may have other meanings in the world, as was suggested, but few are as commonplace as "killed in action", and there is going to be no reason why any other use of KIA will be confused with this in a military history article. A reader would have to be pretty dumb to think KIA meant any of the alternatives given at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/KIA, so I think it's a moot point to suggest otherwise, and a weak argument to raise to resist the change from what seems to be a much-hated "Christian" icon to a more practical small text format, which can be wikilinked, and in the end is probably more professional. Ma®©usBritish 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine, you have your thoughts, I've already given mine. But I see no need to demean other editors in the way you have. You say I should offer constructive criticism, but your comments about me were clearly not and added nothing to the debate. I expect better of co-ordinators. Ranger Steve 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing was demeaning about it, whatsoever. Across almost every thread on the KIA talkpage, since 2010, you have stood as the sole opponent against change to the template, contradicting all points regarding the use of the icon, resisting all options. Furthermore, you have not taken part in this lengthy discussion, which suggests that you still have no interest in seeing it changed. And all of a sudden you're here stirring up a fuss over a slight remark. For someone who claims not to have a high horse, your behaviour suggests otherwise, as this is a very defensive act. And my role as a coord is to assist the project as I see fit, so please don't invoke some kind of high order upon me and frown upon it, because it was never there to begin with. If you don't like my observation, that's your prerogative, but don't then live up to it. WP:BAIT Ma®©usBritish 10:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't fully read my comments above where I said I'd be away for a while. I'm far from the only opponent to change, I have never contradicted anything, and I've repeatedly said I'm happy to go with a consensus but one has never been forthcoming (doesn't really look like one is now either). You might consider it a slight remark, I consider it an unnecessary insult. As it stands though, I won't be commenting further. Whilst I have plenty of time for sensible discussion, I have no time for petty insults more suited to the comments page of tabloid newspapers. This thread is already in the gutter. Ranger Steve 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hyperbolical and pretentious remarks hardly help further it either. Ma®©usBritish 10:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Calm down, both of you, but especially Marcus. It's a bloody website, and we're arguing over a text dagger. There are bigger problems to go ape about. Ed 02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hyperbolical and pretentious remarks hardly help further it either. Ma®©usBritish 10:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't fully read my comments above where I said I'd be away for a while. I'm far from the only opponent to change, I have never contradicted anything, and I've repeatedly said I'm happy to go with a consensus but one has never been forthcoming (doesn't really look like one is now either). You might consider it a slight remark, I consider it an unnecessary insult. As it stands though, I won't be commenting further. Whilst I have plenty of time for sensible discussion, I have no time for petty insults more suited to the comments page of tabloid newspapers. This thread is already in the gutter. Ranger Steve 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing was demeaning about it, whatsoever. Across almost every thread on the KIA talkpage, since 2010, you have stood as the sole opponent against change to the template, contradicting all points regarding the use of the icon, resisting all options. Furthermore, you have not taken part in this lengthy discussion, which suggests that you still have no interest in seeing it changed. And all of a sudden you're here stirring up a fuss over a slight remark. For someone who claims not to have a high horse, your behaviour suggests otherwise, as this is a very defensive act. And my role as a coord is to assist the project as I see fit, so please don't invoke some kind of high order upon me and frown upon it, because it was never there to begin with. If you don't like my observation, that's your prerogative, but don't then live up to it. WP:BAIT Ma®©usBritish 10:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine, you have your thoughts, I've already given mine. But I see no need to demean other editors in the way you have. You say I should offer constructive criticism, but your comments about me were clearly not and added nothing to the debate. I expect better of co-ordinators. Ranger Steve 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to characterise, or offer constrictive criticism, I am not, however, in the habit of redacting or apologising, as what is said is said. There are plenty of opinions and alternatives discussed above if you care to expand on them, or offer alternative solutions. Clearly there is a long-running set of issues with this template, specifically: religious context. Changes to the style introduce design issues. I see no reason not to switch to (KIA), given that † and "KIA" both mean "Killed in Action", the acronym is clearly the only method needed to diffuse the debate. There doesn't need to be historical references to the use of the term "KIA" to support using it in a template. We're in the 21st century now, we use contemporary terms, because people speak the current form of English. Everyone can understand the meaning of "killed in action", it has 2 parts.. "killed" dead, and "in action" in the battle which the article covers. It's a no-brainer, I fail to see the logic of any argument to the contrary. The use of † is apparently posing issues with over-sensitive religious types who fail to accept it as a notational icon and see it as some biased symbolic Christian cross. The only way to deal with that is to remove the controversial icon from the template and use a less ambiguous method. "KIA" may have other meanings in the world, as was suggested, but few are as commonplace as "killed in action", and there is going to be no reason why any other use of KIA will be confused with this in a military history article. A reader would have to be pretty dumb to think KIA meant any of the alternatives given at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/KIA, so I think it's a moot point to suggest otherwise, and a weak argument to raise to resist the change from what seems to be a much-hated "Christian" icon to a more practical small text format, which can be wikilinked, and in the end is probably more professional. Ma®©usBritish 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure where all that comes from, but I'd appreciate it if those comments were retracted or apologised for. I have no high horse - opinions have been requested and I gave mine. This is a style issue more than anything, so opinions are perfectly valid. I'm not trying to stand in the way of change - I've already pointed out on several occasions that I'm happy to go with a majority decision. I'd appreciate you not trying to besmirch other editor's views; at present your own stance could very easily be characterised in the same way you have described mine. Ranger Steve 09:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- My support for span or an inline style was negated and ended when I later said, "Also, please see WP:FONTFAMILY, which, had I known this MOS guideline existed earlier, I would have mentioned." I prefer to follow the MOS very closely, for the better of articles, of MILHIST, and of Wiki itself.. it if safer in the long-run and is the only way to maintain quality standards. I'd personally mark down any article up for assessment which uses any method that contravenes the MOS or ignores WAI blatantly. I do not think Wikimedia will add unique style to the common.css for the sake of a one-character icon which sees so little use (out of all Wiki articles), and also because the cross is not used uniquely for KIA, so it wouldn't be efficient. As you say.. ~3500 is not worth the effort. Ranger Steve's comments are all generally WP:IJDLI with very little, if any, logical reasoning behind not reverting to KIA. I see no reason why one editor should stand in the way of progress. Clearly there are substantial issues with using an icon.. design and religious riff-raff. With (KIA) there are no such issues of merit. Steve simply needs to get off his high-horse and see that the icon causes more trouble than it's worth. "KIA" is a term well known, and poses less issues. Ma®©usBritish 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Donation request for a book
Hey everyone! Would anyone have use for the book, "The Military History of California: The Chronicle of California's Historic Presidios, Forts, Camps, Stations, Fields, Bases, and Cannon from the Pre-Spanish Occupation to the End of the Cold War, 1579-1974 the Defenders of the Western Front"? I just received a request from them to donate the book on OTRS (2013060510013469), which is extremely comprehensive, so if anyone or a project would be interested in this, I would be willing to see the capacity in which he is willing to work with us. Here is some more information about it, but it looks like a very comprehensive book from the looks of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it looks interesting. Is it a physical book or is it in electronic format? I would need to wait a month or two for my schedule to clear a bit before I could use it, but it looks like a valuable reference for improving California related articles. Mojoworker (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think he wants to give it to us verbatim, from the looks of it. It's a huge book, so I think it would be a valuable resource. I'm hoping we'll get an electronic resource, as it would be easier for multiple editors to work on it, but I will let you know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Australian World War I edit-a-thon on 28 and 29 June
I posted about this last year, but as a reminder, there will be an online-only edit-a-thon on 28 and 29 June concerning Australia's involvement in World War I. This edit-a-thon will be focused mainly on the social context and impact of the war, as well as women's involvement in Australia's war effort - these topics were selected as they're currently under-represented. Further information is available at Meta-Wiki here, and editors are warmly encouraged to sign up and post articles on the work list as well as suggested references ahead of the event. Non-Australian editors are very welcome to participate. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have put my name down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
War art
Does war art such as Whaam! (Roy Lichtenstein's most famous painting and likely the most valuable 2-dimensional piece of military-themed art in the world), Torpedo...Los!, As I Opened Fire, Grrrrrrrrrrr!! and Blam fall under WP:MILHIST? If so, are they A-class eligible even though they have minimal military content?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- In case you are wondering about my motivation, the 50th anniversary of Whaam!'s first exhibition is September 28th and I am shooting for WP:TFA. It is currently at WP:PR and I can use more feedback on the article. I was hoping I could list it at A-class as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have put Whaam! in the A-class queue without tagging Torpedo...Los!, As I Opened Fire, Grrrrrrrrrrr!! or Blam for MILHIST. Still sort of awaiting feedback on his other works, but feel Whaam! may be a special case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, to me they feel rather like war memorials and similar war-related art - probably within scope. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- They seem different from memorials, but like war-related art if you ask me. I was just not sure how much military content was required in the prose for them to be within scope. I have tagged all 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Upon second thought, if I were a fighter pilot, I might see Whaam!, As I Opened Fire or Blam as a memorial. And if I were a navy torpedo gunner maybe Torpedo...Los! would be a memorial and if the military still has canine crews, maybe Grrrrrrrrrrr!! would be a memorial.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- They seem different from memorials, but like war-related art if you ask me. I was just not sure how much military content was required in the prose for them to be within scope. I have tagged all 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, to me they feel rather like war memorials and similar war-related art - probably within scope. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have put Whaam! in the A-class queue without tagging Torpedo...Los!, As I Opened Fire, Grrrrrrrrrrr!! or Blam for MILHIST. Still sort of awaiting feedback on his other works, but feel Whaam! may be a special case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 17 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)
Spaces above navboxes
I noticed some uniformity but also some controversy related to manual spacing in certain articles of this project. See Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237 for example. I have opened a discussion at the general MOS talk page about the issue. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
"Britain"/"United Kingdom"
I and another editor are currently discussing the use of the terms "United Kingdom" and "Britain" here – whether to use one over the other, and, if so, which and when. All thoughts appreciated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:55, 17 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)
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)
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)