Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
Talk:New Look military reforms#Proposed merging
I think the article New Look military reforms should be merged to the article 2008 Russian military reform. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear K8M8S8 this has been done. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
FB MSBS Grot
An issue re the editing of the FB MSBS Grot article has been raised at WP:ANI#FB MSBS Grot. More eyes from members of this WP on the article might not be a bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
GAR for Battle of Lechaeum
Battle of Lechaeum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Guadalcanal campaign#List of ships lost
Pls see discussion at Talk:Guadalcanal campaign#List of ships lost about removal of unsourced content. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hatnotes
For some reason User:Unbh is insisting I get consensus to make housekeeping edits to hatnotes.
As a courtesy to readers, it is common for articles to include hatnotes that include both a link to the main disambiguation page and one or more highly sought after topics by the same name. For instance, Titanic includes a hatnote to Titanic (1997 film), and Top Gun includes a hatnote to the sequel.
I placed a hatnote on Centurion linking Centurion (tank) (the tank receives almost twice as many page views), a hatnote on Stinger to FIM-92 Stinger (which receives more than six times as many views), and a hatnote on Scimitar to FV107 Scimitar (which receives over half as many views).
Sanity check, please? Schierbecker (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- What have Titanic and Top Gun got to do with this - WP:OTHER. There's no need to link to pages beyond the general disambiguation or to overemphasise AFVs and weapons systems.Unbh (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the cases of Centurion and Scimitar, hatnoting the AFV directly is definitely of use to the reader, as they are military topics and the searcher is pretty likely to be searching for them. Not sure about Stinger though, seems a long bow. I'd leave that one as the general dab page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, WikiNav indicates about seventy percent of readers on Stinger (disambiguation) are clicking on the air-to-ground missile, and another fifteen percent are clicking on the air-to-air variant. Schierbecker (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, it seems like the massive majority (~75%) of the incoming page views are from stinger and the massive majority (~75%) of the outgoing clicks are to FIM-92 Stinger. Given how massively skewed those numbers are, saving the readers that one page load seems like a solid enough reason to directly include the MANPAD in the hatnote, like is done with Turkey linking to both Turkey (bird) and Turkey (disambiguation).
- Scimitar is similarly skewed (~65% outgoing to FV107 Scimitar; ~20% outgoing to Supermarine Scimitar), but Centurion seems like a closer fight between Centurion (tank) (~45% outgoing) and Centurion (film) (~25% outgoing).
- In my view, hatnoting Stinger to FIM-92 Stinger is a pretty obvious move, as is hatnoting Scimitar to FV107 Scimitar, while Centurion to Centurion (tank) is less clear cut (but not obviously wrong). Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, WikiNav indicates about seventy percent of readers on Stinger (disambiguation) are clicking on the air-to-ground missile, and another fifteen percent are clicking on the air-to-air variant. Schierbecker (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the cases of Centurion and Scimitar, hatnoting the AFV directly is definitely of use to the reader, as they are military topics and the searcher is pretty likely to be searching for them. Not sure about Stinger though, seems a long bow. I'd leave that one as the general dab page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Coronation flypast 1953
Does anyone have any sources or details of the Coronation flypast on 2 June 1953 for our Coronation of Elizabeth II article? Not to be confused with the RAF Coronation Review flypast on 15 July 1953. Alansplodge (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's quite a bit in the contemporary press - eg this quite detailed summary in the Belfast Telegraph on 3 June. 144x RAF Meteors in two large arrowheads, and a smaller group of 24x RCAF Sabres between them. Flew past at about 1500ft over the course of a minute (apparently after some tweaks to the flight plan due to bad weather and delays in the procession). Happy to add it to the article if you could point out where it should go! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Azovstal casualties in infobox
Pls see discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Azovstal casualties in infobox. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Meaning of "sublatern" in different regions
Please see this discussion at the subaltern talk page about the meaning of the term and whether it might or might not include captains ... any comments/edits to the article would be appreciated. Graham87 08:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on cuts to the background section
Please see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on cuts to the background section. This may be viewed as a matter of copy-editing. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Global Firepower Index reliable?
We have an article on Global Firepower Index, which produces comparisons of military strength. It's used in some articles such as Russian Armed Forces, but its use is problematic, see Talk:Russian Armed Forces#Global Firepower Index and ranking for more, and it's getting into WP:OWN territory. More eyes and opinions would be useful. But essentially, is Global Firepower Index reliable? Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Globalfirepower.com said no. The site's rankings has been reported on in some outlets, but there is no indication who is behind this site, how its rankings are worked out, or any objective information and analysis over whether its rankings are reliable or used in authoritative sources. Should this source be deprecated across wikipedia as unreliable? And should it even have an article on it at all? The website is part of a network of others of identical design, consisting of:
- https://www.globalfirepower.com/
- https://www.militaryfactory.com/
- https://www.wdmma.org/
- https://www.wdmmw.org/
- https://www.sr71blackbird.org/
Frankly this is looking like a fansite passing off as expert analysis, which is now being used to unbalance wikipedia by pushing fringe views. For example he added to the article that the Russian army is the second in strength and deleted that it was hard for them during the war in Ukraine, since they occupied about a fifth of the entire country during the war, which is not a bad result, and He added that the Russian army is one of the strongest armies in the world. Spokoyni (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is an opaque data aggregator that takes user submissions. No professional staff listed. Heck no, not reliable. A hallmark of the earlier days. That Wikipedia article on the index should also probably be deleted, the only coverage provided is cheap reprint stats from the margins of the sometimes reputable press, aka The Times of India and modern-day Newsweek, etc. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse IndyBeetle. Completely unreliable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thirded!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse IndyBeetle. Completely unreliable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I entirely concur, and have started deleting it from articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse starting an AfD on the article. Needs to be AfD'd pronto. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
RfC on the end of the American Civil War
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#RfC:_When_did_the_Civil_War_end? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Generals
I would like to say that all persons ranked major general, lieutenant general and full general are commonly called as generals, isn't it correct? Please explain it. See Category:Pakistani generals, Category:Indian generals and Category:British Army generals, in these categories aren't the officers ranked from major general to full general listed? Then why should be there separate categories of Category:Sri Lankan major generals and Category:Sri Lankan lieutenant generals? All persons ranked from major general to full general should be listed in Category:Sri Lankan generals; please explain it, Sri Lanka was a British colony. MN Namiki (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure if there's a hard and fast rule either way. Any kind of general might make sense to be listed in "XXX generals", but it makes equal sense to give them their own more rank specific category. Category:Royal Navy admirals has recently been split out into Category:Royal Navy vice admirals and Category:Royal Navy rear admirals for example. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I am talking about generals, not admirals. MN Namiki (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Like Category:Iranian brigadier generals, Category:Major generals of Prussia or Category:Swedish Air Force lieutenant generals? ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet:, Sri Lanka was a British colony and the rank structure of the Sri Lanka Army is as same as the British Army ranks. MN Namiki (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- So? Means what? ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet:, Sri Lanka's English is British English, Sri Lanka got independence in 1948 from Britain. The armed forces of the country originated from the British Armed Forces, Sri Lanka still follows the British style regimental system, British style English ranks for ordinary soldiers, also Royal Navy's influence is present in Sri Lanka Navy and Royal Air Force's influence in Sri Lanka Air Force, everything you can say including the rank insignia too. And you have talked about Iran, Prussia and Sweden - these countries armed forces are not like the British Armed Forces. MN Namiki (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, seems I wasn´t specific enough. Means what in regards to the category? ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet:, Sri Lanka Armoured Corps is similar to Royal Armoured Corps; Sri Lankan army generals should be listed in one category - the category is Category:Sri Lankan generals like the Category:British Army generals have lists of persons who have attained the ranks from major general to full general - this is by belief. MN Namiki (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The category of British Army generals that you so frequently use as example has bulked up to some 3000 entries with its own table of contents, something that I call overcrowded. In my opinion a prime example to be broken up into subcategories for the specific ranks to diffuse it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WikiDan61:, Please note carefully that Category:Sri Lankan major generals and Category:Sri Lankan lieutenant generals - these two categories lists were in Category:Sri Lankan generals, Sri Lanka was a British colony, please explain it. MN Namiki (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion the organisation of British Army general officer categories really isn't something to try and copy. We have a list for British generals and brigadiers but a seperate one for British Army full generals, and while the Category:British Army generals seems to make an attempt at organising the list and differentiating between brigadiers and true generals, it doesn't really succeed. The category is a morass of people of different ranks and stations, and in fact does include many brigadiers as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, See - List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers. MN Namiki (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies for not understanding, but what are you demonstrating with that list? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet:, I am not interested in this topic anymore, do whatever you want. MN Namiki (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, Do as you wish, I am not interested in this subject anymore. MN Namiki (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Reminder of proposal to prohibit WikiProjects from classifying articles as A-class
I would like to inform this WikiProject, which does use the A-class article class, that there is a proposal to prohibit WikiProjects from using the A-class at MfD that was filed yesterday. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)