This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trekphiler (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 30 July 2017 (→Bomarc'd: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:58, 30 July 2017 by Trekphiler (talk | contribs) (→Bomarc'd: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requesting adoption of a GAN
I took on a review of an article, Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, without realizing that the nominator both was quite new, with about a dozen edits, and had not made any edits to the page itself. The page is promising, but has some severe problems with dead links. If anyone has the time and is willing to adopt the nomination/fix the issues, please let me know. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: I'll have a go at the dead links. Is there any sort of timetable I need to be aware of? Mojoworker (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
War Is Boring as RS
Is War Is Boring considered a reliable source? I was surprised to see that the USS Stark incident article is mostly unsourced and am wondering how much I can rely on this source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would have thought not, but maybe it has just never been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would view them as a RS. They have an editorial board, info is vetted, etc. A serious journal article or book with a noted author would be stronger - but in some coverage areas WIB is what you've got, particularly with contemporary events. You do need to ignore opinion pieces there (as in other sources).Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've read warisboring's stuff before; they're pretty good. I would feel fine using it as a source for the Stark incident. I would shy away from political opinion pieces, as Icewhiz warns, but for most other stuff they've been pretty responsible in their coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that War is Boring is a reliable source - at least in its current incarnation. While some of the site's contributors are professional journalists and/or have a good track record of being published in high quality works, its quality control is weak and I've seen some obvious errors in articles and (more importantly) lots of sloppy analysis - its articles tend to be tabloid in nature. Some of the previous incarnations of the site were under the aegis of websites with decent quality control, but since it's moved to being a stand-alone website its standards have become somewhat more lax. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just looking in passing, it leaves me feeling like it's a blog or fansite, not a serious place. I might read it, but I wouldn't source from it, not without being able to back up the claim. TREKphiler 12:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I follow them regularly - it's a bit beyond that - It is a regular crew of professional journalists (Some of whom may be moonlighting elsewhere). Their podcast is produced with Reuters - ]. Their content also shows up on www.realcleardefense.com. Some of their content is reprints (the National Interest, Historical firearms, and Insight crime IIRC) - other is original. The coverage is "popular" - aiming for a popular readership, but it isn't a blog or fansite. I'd put it on the level of something like Popular Mechanics (which also covers warfare items every once in a while) - their angle, in general, is to cover items that are "cool" (and thus appeal to a a casual reader - including recently movie/game criticisms (opinions)) - but they do have serious coverage as well. They aren't the best source, but they are well beyond a blog and fansite (graphics of their new website aside).Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just looking in passing, it leaves me feeling like it's a blog or fansite, not a serious place. I might read it, but I wouldn't source from it, not without being able to back up the claim. TREKphiler 12:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I think I'll go ahead and use them. There are a couple places where they disagree with the official US version of events, and I think I'll include their version but attribute it to them and note that it differs from the official account. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice of proposed global replacement
 |
 |
There is a proposal on Commons to globally replace an image, which is relevant to this WikiProject. Please voice your opinion at Commons here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I commented there. Basically the idea goes against WP:Commons own policy against blanket changes to images (outside of a bit of cropping and contrast adjustment) so I don't think it will have much traction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GraemeLeggett: I appreciate it. Is there anyone here who specializes in Japanese military awards and ribbons? I really know nothing about them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I commented there. Basically the idea goes against WP:Commons own policy against blanket changes to images (outside of a bit of cropping and contrast adjustment) so I don't think it will have much traction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Help needed on Operation Tonga
I note that the editors who are responsible for writing the majority of this article and promoting it to GA are no longer active. I have done a spring cleaning, however there are a few areas that need work in order for the article to be able to rightly maintain its GA status (or be promoted by fellow editors). Can anyone help in the following areas?
- German casualties: They are currently stated to be an estimated 400 dead and an estimated 400 captured. However, no source is given. Does anyone have a source on German losses attributed to Tonga?
- Harclerode: the reference section lists two books attributed to the author, but none of the inline citations identify which book is used or if both are. Does anyone have access to Harclerode's Go To It! The Illustrated History of the 6th Airborne Division and Wings of War – Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, and can confirm if one or both books were used?
- I believe, based off the Battle of Merville Gun Battery, which is the correct source; so I will move the other into a see also section. However, it would appreciated if another editor would be able to vet this if they have access to either of these sources.66.77.160.179 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Analysis of the operation: This section is lacking in information regarding the impact of Tonga, can anyone help flesh it out?
- Journal info: Can anyone help complete the info for the "Overlord and Operational Art" journal entry? We are missing the publisher and location, as well as any jstor/doi/issn info
Done
Regards, 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was able to take care of the last point but am no use on the rest unfortunately. Anyone else? Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you 66.77.160.179 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional request:
- Additional photos to illustrate the article. In particular: a photo of the 22nd Independent Parachute Company in Normandy (if possible), of the 3rd Parachute Brigade (8th and 9th Para, and the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion), and perhaps something of the assault on Merville?
Once again, thanks 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Request for Comment - Fighter Aircraft
There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Fighter_aircraft#RFC_about_fighter_effectiveness_section
Please feel free to comment if you wish. - Nick Thorne 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Recruit new editors for the project?
Hi, Peacemaker67, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?
| Username | Recent Edits within Military history | Recent Edits in Misplaced Pages | First Edit Date | Most Recent Edit Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonemre78 (talk · contribs) | 1 | 1 | 2017-7-15 | 2017-7-15 |
| Cabowen2 (talk · contribs) | 1 | 2 | 2017-7-19 | 2017-7-19 |
| Alphagurder (talk · contribs) | 1 | 1 | 2017-7-17 | 2017-7-17 |
| AKi12 (talk · contribs) | 1 | 1 | 2017-7-14 | 2017-7-14 |
| Anaruna (talk · contribs) | 329 | 1467 | 2009-9-8 | 2017-7-18 |
| Zwerubae (talk · contribs) | 235 | 797 | 2014-10-18 | 2017-7-20 |
| Display name 99 (talk · contribs) | 209 | 11677 | 2011-8-8 | 2017-7-23 |
| JF42 (talk · contribs) | 199 | 962 | 2007-3-12 | 2017-7-19 |
| KreyszigB (talk · contribs) | 273 | 2005 | 2012-7-21 | 2017-7-15 |
| Jerryntcjc (talk · contribs) | 207 | 537 | 2013-5-27 | 2017-7-20 |
| Milexpert101 (talk · contribs) | 315 | 789 | 2012-9-28 | 2017-7-22 |
Bobo.03 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- G'day. Jsnsjsns and Thetruth16 are blocked. I suggest inviting anyone who has a couple of hundred edits in the Milhist area and has edited in the last two weeks. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeh, I will tune the system to remove blocked editors in the future. Other than that (enough edits in Milhist and be active) - we right now select editors who made most edits in Milhist in their most recent 500 edits and who were active in the past week - what makes for a good candidate new editor for your project? Some of our ideas: they've edited lots of articles within your scope; they've edited talk pages of some of your existing members; they've edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Which of these you think are important and any other criteria you think would be useful? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can I just clarify Bobo.03, are you suggesting automating the invitation process based on set parameters? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think there might be two steps here. One is about how to recommend editors to the project, for instance, what type of information would you like to know about the new editors to make your recruiting decision, or what recommendation strategies we would implement. The other one is about how to execute the invitation process, for instance, it can be fully automated like a bot will send invitations to suitable candidate editors every month, semi-automated like a single "button" to generate an invitation to a candidate, or just managing the invitation process totally manually. Those are just the thoughts and concerns we have when designing the system. I guess I was asking the first part, and you were asking the second part. Does this answer your question? Hope it makes sense to you :) Bobo.03 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can I just clarify Bobo.03, are you suggesting automating the invitation process based on set parameters? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeh, I will tune the system to remove blocked editors in the future. Other than that (enough edits in Milhist and be active) - we right now select editors who made most edits in Milhist in their most recent 500 edits and who were active in the past week - what makes for a good candidate new editor for your project? Some of our ideas: they've edited lots of articles within your scope; they've edited talk pages of some of your existing members; they've edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Which of these you think are important and any other criteria you think would be useful? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Bobo.03, this certainly sounds very interesting. Please could you clarify, which items that you have are thoughts and which items are concerns? MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey MPS1992, Thanks for your interest!. Yeh, for instance, the three automation approaches mentioned above are the ideas/thoughts we have. Also, we have different recommendation strategies to identify new editors to the project. Our major concern is if our proposed ideas would work our for your project and help recruit new editors. More specifically, for instance, which of our design proposals would you prefer? Bobo.03 (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Bobo.03, this certainly sounds very interesting. Please could you clarify, which items that you have are thoughts and which items are concerns? MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: may want to chime in here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, we've done invitations manually on the whole, which has a tendency to miss opportunities. I think we need to be careful for whatever solution is not seen as spam, but overall I think this could be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would observe that doing it manually adds a personal touch even if a tool helps identify opportunities. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems a fair call. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions, Cinderella157, AustralianRupert! I agree that sending personalized messages manually on Misplaced Pages in general is more responsive, though there are lots of templates available floating around. Any suggestion regarding what makes a good candidate editor for your project to recruit? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd probably just go with a monthly automatically generated list (posted on the co-ord page, probably) that cross references editors working in Milhist space against those listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Members. I would suggest that the list be limited to those that edited two or more Milhist tagged articles in the month (so as to reduce the number of hits for editors who just coincidentally edited a Milhist article), who were not already listed as a member. A co-ordinator, or indeed anyone else, could then decide who to invite to the project with a personalised message, or a templated one, and they could then do that with a manual post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Rupert, a report posted to the coord page would do the trick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, AustralianRupert! I think they are good suggestions! We will work on them, and yes, in the future, we could make it in a report format in the coord page. Bobo.03 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd probably just go with a monthly automatically generated list (posted on the co-ord page, probably) that cross references editors working in Milhist space against those listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Members. I would suggest that the list be limited to those that edited two or more Milhist tagged articles in the month (so as to reduce the number of hits for editors who just coincidentally edited a Milhist article), who were not already listed as a member. A co-ordinator, or indeed anyone else, could then decide who to invite to the project with a personalised message, or a templated one, and they could then do that with a manual post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions, Cinderella157, AustralianRupert! I agree that sending personalized messages manually on Misplaced Pages in general is more responsive, though there are lots of templates available floating around. Any suggestion regarding what makes a good candidate editor for your project to recruit? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems a fair call. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would observe that doing it manually adds a personal touch even if a tool helps identify opportunities. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Bomarc'd
Can I get some neutral opinion? I've got User:Andy Dingley calling the Bomarc a ballistic missile here and implying it's a SAM here. Now, it was intended to destroy bombers, but I've only ever heard it called a cruise missile. Can somebody weigh in on the Arrow talk page & straighten him out? I'm getting really tired of arguing with him, about every edit I make. Thx. TREKphiler 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just how far are you going to canvass this?
- Bomarc was a SAM. It was never a ballistic missile. It was never a cruise missile. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, IDK, I was thinking WP Aviation, WP Canada, WP United States, WP Technology, WP History, WP Energy, WP Acronyms... TREKphiler 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Most heavy SAMs can also be fired in a ballistic mode against ground targets as a very secondary role, however this is not their main application. Old SA2s have been used for this purpose recently in Libya, Yemen, annd Syria. I do not know if BOMARC had a ground mode, but it is quite likely given the weight class.Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Y'know, Andy, maybe you should look at the specs. Ramjet engine, range 400km. Doesn't sound like a SAM to me, like Enzian or Standard or...pick one you like. And then there's that pesky CIM-10 designator. You might call it a SAM. WP might call it a SAM. DoD didn't call it a SAM: RIM-2, SAM; MIM-3 Nike Ajax, SAM. RIM-8, SAM. DoD had a designation system for a reason. But you're convinced I can't be right about anything, aren't you? And I should stop bothering you with facts? TREKphiler 04:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Most heavy SAMs can also be fired in a ballistic mode against ground targets as a very secondary role, however this is not their main application. Old SA2s have been used for this purpose recently in Libya, Yemen, annd Syria. I do not know if BOMARC had a ground mode, but it is quite likely given the weight class.Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, IDK, I was thinking WP Aviation, WP Canada, WP United States, WP Technology, WP History, WP Energy, WP Acronyms... TREKphiler 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per 1962 United States Tri-Service missile and drone designation system and sources found there, the "I" indicates "intercept-aerial" which means the targets were aircraft. The C, M, and R indicate the launch environment, in these cases coffin, mobile, and ship-launched, all of which are usually ground based. Taken together with the "I", these are all SAMs. Sorry, but the CIM-10 Bomarc was a SAM, as it's article indicates. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, y'know, when the "IM"s kept coming back, it started me thinking "Intercept Missile"... So I goofed. I have felt stupider, but I can't think when. TREKphiler 04:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)