Gog the Mild (talk | contribs) Query Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Cinderella157 (talk | contribs) →Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit: new section |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
I was working on a edit-a-thon draft [[Elizabeth "Tex" Williams]] and realized there's no category for "military photographers". We have [[:Category:War photographers]], but that's not the same thing since it can be civilian journalists or amateurs who photograph a war, while "military photographers" (or some similar term) could refer to military personnel who are by MOS photographers, including those who take photos in peacetime or in a non-conflict country, such as Williams where she's famous for documenting African-American enlisted troops in Iowa. Do we need a new cat, and if so what should the title be? [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
I was working on a edit-a-thon draft [[Elizabeth "Tex" Williams]] and realized there's no category for "military photographers". We have [[:Category:War photographers]], but that's not the same thing since it can be civilian journalists or amateurs who photograph a war, while "military photographers" (or some similar term) could refer to military personnel who are by MOS photographers, including those who take photos in peacetime or in a non-conflict country, such as Williams where she's famous for documenting African-American enlisted troops in Iowa. Do we need a new cat, and if so what should the title be? [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]], Perhaps there are two things needed:<br>(a) a superordinate [[:Category:Military photography]] which would include technical matters — things as equipment, applications, as well as, for example, the "cameras" and "films" that secretly captured images in prisoner-of-war camps and, also, might include uses in espionage; and, then,<br>(b) your [[:Category:Military photographers]] (with which I agree) as an associated, but separate, subordinate category. [[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] ([[User talk:Lindsay658|talk]]) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
:[[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]], Perhaps there are two things needed:<br>(a) a superordinate [[:Category:Military photography]] which would include technical matters — things as equipment, applications, as well as, for example, the "cameras" and "films" that secretly captured images in prisoner-of-war camps and, also, might include uses in espionage; and, then,<br>(b) your [[:Category:Military photographers]] (with which I agree) as an associated, but separate, subordinate category. [[User:Lindsay658|Lindsay658]] ([[User talk:Lindsay658|talk]]) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit]] == |
|||
There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether adding certain material at this time is consistent with [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Regards, [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:51, 11 April 2018
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
Scope of Weaponry Task Force
Just noticed that Weaponry TF mentions "armoured fighting vehicles". As these are already covered by Land Vehicles TF, seems a redundancy that may cause confusion. Can please AFVs be excluded from Weaponry TF scope, to avoid this? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- That does seem to be an error. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: ? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, this probably should be adjusted. I would like to hear from a few members of each task force, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Scope of Military science, technology, and theory task force
As part of the drive I am trying to attach task forces to articles. There seems to be a class of 'generic' articles which don't readily fit anywhere.
For articles such as Peace, Impact of war on children, International Criminal Court, Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration or Protective sign I have been inclined to tick no-task-force. Articles such as Non-combatant, Third Geneva Convention, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, Collective punishment or Neutral country could be said to fit under the "theory" part of SciTech, in a loose sense. But this seems to me to be a stretch and I don't want to attach this task force to articles which don't really belong there and which should be labeled "no-task-force". Opinions, comments and guidance would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Edits to airborne regiment pages
Airborne506 was permanently blocked today for vandalism and username violation. The specific offense was blanking material from the 101st Airborne Division article; however he and several IP editors (socks?) had edited other pages associated with airborne topics and I'm not sure that they didn't leave junk in their footsteps. One option is to revert all the pages to a point before the "Airborne506" and the IPs showed up. I thought it would be better to talk first.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Question: main and see also hatnotes
Is there any guidance on changing "X" to "X#Y|l1=Y" so that the blue link is a plain "Y" rather than "X § Y"? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of guidance but what I sometimes do is make a redirect at Y. Then you have plain "Y" at the hatnote, but also anyone looking for Y on their own will find it too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The page Luxembourg Army Air Corps has recently been created, which only cites one source (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/lux/army/lux-army-home.htm), which just describes it as Luxembourg Army Aviation. Upon doing a google search I cannot find any citations saying Luxembourg has an air arm at all, and those that do only historically refer to Luxembourg Army Aviation. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case, and was wondering if anyone had any had any experience. I'm not sure this falls into a notable article, as all the historical information is already at the Luxembourg Army page. Garuda28 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Luxembourg certainly has no current separate air force as that was the reason NATO chose to fly its Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft under the Luxembourg flag - I don't think the present-day 340-strong army has any aircraft either. This source confirms L-18Cs (the military version of the PA-18S) were supplied to Luxembourg and there is a 1965 picture of one in Luxembourg Army livery so it did exist at some point. If more info can be found out it might be worth keeping, otherwise probably just redirect it to the "Aircraft" section of the Luxembourg Army page - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Might be best just to redirect it back to Luxembourg Army as I dont think that leasing three Piper Cubs in the 1950s equates to them having an "Army Air Corps". MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I’m in favor of the redirect, as MilborneOne suggested. We know it used to have aircraft, but no evidence of a former aviation organization, and at that nothing that calls it the “Army Air Corps” Garuda28 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The creator seems to have a bit of a history of creating articles on air forces that aren't. Although I think it's all in good faith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with redirecting to a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- The creator seems to have a bit of a history of creating articles on air forces that aren't. Although I think it's all in good faith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I’m in favor of the redirect, as MilborneOne suggested. We know it used to have aircraft, but no evidence of a former aviation organization, and at that nothing that calls it the “Army Air Corps” Garuda28 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Tagging Hillforts
As part of April's backlog drive, I've been tagging many articles about sites of Iron Age and Bronze Age hill forts in the UK with the -WPMILHIST- tag on their talk pages. These articles range from hills, towns, parishes, battles, and conservation areas, to archaeological articles. I just wanted to check whether these are within in the remit of this WikiProject, as my reading of the project and understanding is that they are. Cdjp1 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think that they are, but I would appreciate confirmation. I wondered why the "Need B-Class checklist completed" was filling up. I suspect that I have been following you around assessing the articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness. You must have added 500 or more. Well done. I think. *Stunned* Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- You should consider adding taskforces to those as well ... surely the Fortifications task force should be true for all of them and everyone is located somewhere covered by one or several other taks forces. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Air Force Special Tactics article
I am currently working on developing an article on United States Air Force Special Tactics. If anyone has any knowledge or would want to work with me on this please let me know. The framework is currently at User:Garuda28/sandbox Garuda28 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTELodier2004" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Siege of Maubeuge er, how have I managed to bugger this up please? Will the page only allow {{sfn|Lodier|2004|nopp=y}} once? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed it ... instead of Lodier|2004 you had some with Lodier2004. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Medals and awards on Berthe Fraser
Berthe Fraser was a French resistance fighter who received seven medals and many awards. I'm having some trouble recognising what was an important award/medal and what wasn't, plus the correct way of documenting it on the article. The list is posted at the Imperial war museum.[1] If anyone has a chance to update the medal section, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanderingbartender (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
A-Class review for Neil Armstrong needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Neil Armstrong; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Obscure chemical lineage and honors question
As [2] reveals, some U.S. Army Chemical units have a much longer history than otherwise known. Fixing their Lineage and Honors now presents a serious question. Unusual knowledge may be required. Can anyone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- That was just a little more creative than usual vandalism. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- NBC in the US military is notoriously...hyperbolic. I'd let it lie barring compelling information. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree -- always let sleeping dragons lie. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Do we have a Middle-Earth task force to tag it with? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree -- always let sleeping dragons lie. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
What about Romania?
I just realized that there is no taskforce for Romania's military history. Huh, no wonder it's rather lackluster and many normal folk don't even know Romania fought in the World Wars, it doesn't get the attention it should get. I can handle the Navy, but I can't do it all by myself. Torpilorul (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary, already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force. Its scope specifically says: "This task force covers the military histories of all Balkan groups and states, as well as military activity in the Balkans by non-Balkan powers, from the fall of the Roman Empire (c. 500) to the present day. The countries included in the Balkans region for the purposes of this task force are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey." Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"Unnecessary" yeah right, this is why I alone managed to create hundreds of thousands of bytes all related solely to the Romanian Navy in less than a year. The Romanian Navy on this Wiki was a small shabby town when I joined, I turned it into a metropolis. It is necessary, addressing it as part of this cluster is clearly not enough. Torpilorul (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed all the good work you have been putting in on Romanian ships. However, establishing a separate task force for Romania would not result in a load of people suddenly deciding they wanted to do articles on Romania Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hold on, so a task force is created if a certain number of people want to create content about it? Otherwise, this really makes no sense from a logical standpoint. We have task forces for countries like Germany, who has tons upon tons of well-researched quality content. Shouldn't the poorly-addressed countries be the ones needing task forces the most? Torpilorul (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi@Torpilorul, I am one of the MilHist co-ords. Can I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/What do Milhist task forces do?. Firstly, can I say that I admire your fervor and commitment. Can I also address your concerns. A task force requires a quorum of committed editors. It takes some effort to both establish and maintain a task force - it requires a collective, on-going commitment. A task force is not established because of a perceived deficiency in WP articles or on nationalistic grounds of representation (matters that you have identified). Rather, it is driven by a "body" of editors that have a common interest in a (potential) task force. A task force does not address a short-term goal but is a long-term commitment. Creating a task force does not (of itself) remedy the deficiencies in En WP you have identified. For a task force to be in any way effective, there must already exist a body of committed editors. I hope that this clarifies your perceptions of what a task force is. I would encourage you to continue in your endeavors to add and improve MilHist articles on Romania. I would also encourage you to be involved with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force. If there is sufficient impetus from a "body" of editors to form a Romanian task force, we would consider this favourably. Having said that, there does not appear to be such a need at this time. Regards and best wishes, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm afraid so, Torpilorul. The purpose of a task force is not to encourage editors to participate in a specific topic, but instead to co-ordinate editors who are already working in one. So the purpose of a Romania task force would be co-ordinating multiple editors editing articles about Romanian military history. Really, your best bet is to carry on doing like you're doing already; updating articles and discussing it here. You may also find interested editors either in the Balkans task force or in the wider user list. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we need a Category:Military photographers?
I was working on a edit-a-thon draft Elizabeth "Tex" Williams and realized there's no category for "military photographers". We have Category:War photographers, but that's not the same thing since it can be civilian journalists or amateurs who photograph a war, while "military photographers" (or some similar term) could refer to military personnel who are by MOS photographers, including those who take photos in peacetime or in a non-conflict country, such as Williams where she's famous for documenting African-American enlisted troops in Iowa. Do we need a new cat, and if so what should the title be? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- MatthewVanitas, Perhaps there are two things needed:
(a) a superordinate Category:Military photography which would include technical matters — things as equipment, applications, as well as, for example, the "cameras" and "films" that secretly captured images in prisoner-of-war camps and, also, might include uses in espionage; and, then,
(b) your Category:Military photographers (with which I agree) as an associated, but separate, subordinate category. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether adding certain material at this time is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)