Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Gog the Mild (talk | contribs) Response |
→Trịnh Tố Tâm advice: cmt |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== [[Trịnh Tố Tâm]] advice == |
|||
== Yevgeny Khaldei photo archives published == |
|||
Howdy. I created [[Trịnh Tố Tâm]] through using the Vietnamese article as a base. The statement that he personally killed 272 enemies during the Vietnam War is exceptional, but I can't find any sources that criticize that number. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell what's propaganda or not. Would it be incorrect to use words such as "allegedly" or "claimed" as I did in the article, or would this be a mild form of [[WP:OR]] as the sources do not seem to use this language? With this exceptionalism in mind, what articles would you link to this one in order to de-orphan in? [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The World War II photo archives of the famed Soviet photographer [[Yevgeny Khaldei]], best known for his photograph of soldiers raising the Soviet flag on the Reichstag, have been published on russiainphoto.ru in 1024px resolution. Just for [https://russiainphoto.ru/search/years-1945-1945/?query=&author_ids=171 1945] alone there are 1,882 photographs. The photos are all now in public domain since copyright of photographers who worked for [[TASS]] news agency during World War II has expired. These photographs can greatly improve the coverage of the Eastern Front, and even include images that would never have been published in the Soviet Union, for example [[:File:Друзья-товарищи Красноармейцы помогают идти раненому товарищу во время боев за Вену.jpg|this photograph of soldiers assisting a wounded comrade]]. Fair warning that the collection includes many images of corpses. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|talk]]) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ |
:{{ping|Mbdfar}} Technically, yes that would be OR. What you could do is recast the sentence to make clear that it's not Wikipedia's voice. For example, using info from [[:vi:Tiền phong (báo)]], you could say "The state-owned news outlet ''Báo điện tử Tiền Phong'' reported that ...". That level of caution is a good practice when repeating any information from non-indepdendent state-owned outlets. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
== [[JD Vance]] == |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 24 July 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 24 July 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello! There has been several threads, some archived, about which of his decorations should be mentioned where in the article, like the infobox, and if a primary source should be used. One ongoing thread is [[Talk:JD_Vance#Why_do_you_keep_deleting_his_medals?]], and it lists some other threads. If you have an opinion, please join. In case you didn't know, JD Vance is Donald Trumps VP-candidate. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==A fight over at [[Battle of Buena Vista]]== |
|||
Can one of you have a look? I think I'm about to block the edit-warring IP, but the sourcing isn't all that great (and needs formatting and cleanup--my antediluvian opinion is that the cleaner and stronger something is, the less likely it is to turn into a battleground). Judging from the talk page the matter has been contentious for a decade and a half, but I see no solid discussion and not much of a consensus. Your help is appreciated. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Remember [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content]]. There is consensus on the inclusion of medals yet you seem to have devoted an inordinate amount of time in pushing for undue change. Remember [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and perhaps you could take a break from hyperediting a single article above all. There is also no need for [[Wikipedia:Canvassing]]. [[Special:Contributions/73.123.180.173|73.123.180.173]] ([[User talk:73.123.180.173|talk]]) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps someone else might also step forward. I have a few sources and will look into further. My initial reaction is that the IP is correct. It was an American victory. Even if the Mexicans claimed victory, the facts show otherwise. Reliance on Mexican face-saving propaganda, excuses and distortions doesn't really change that. So what if they retreated with their flags and war trophies. I know you can't act on that until I or someone else provides some sources. (I have at least five that might provide some clarity.) But perhaps it is too soon to block the IP. FWIW, I wonder whether this dispute can ever be satisfactorily resolved given the entrenched opinions and need to evaluate objectively somewhat difficult to find sources. Of course, you need to resolve the edit warring regardless of that so I hope any further information will help you. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::No, there is no consensus to include them. His awards are in the category of "was present with a pulse"; I have all of his same medals (or the Army equivalent) with the exception of the sea service medal. They're routine, run-of-the-mill awards that are handed out by the literal hundreds of thousands, and they do not belong in the infobox. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
::If there was consensus to include the medal, we wouldn't have like ten separate discussions on the topic. There's more discussions than Vance has medals. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Drmies}} {{u|Cinderella157}} I will defer to Cinderella157's more extensive and well considered research and assessment. Perhaps my initial reaction was based on a too incomplete recollection (although I did intend to follow it up as noted). I was a little too hasty and perhaps spreading myself a little too thinly by addressing this, especially at first glance. Cinderella157 does comment on the need for improvement. Although I am deferring and will not spend considerable additional time on this, I will look at the sources that I have and that I have already noted to see if I can add something useful but will leave it to others after that. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|Drmies}} {{u|Cinderella157}} This is what I am posting on the article talk page. I leave it here also to complete this thread. These excerpts are from the sources that I have readily at hand. I think they are generally reliable; almost all them are from books by historians whose biographies are shown on Wikipedia pages. They seem to me to support the view that the battle was an American victory though perhaps a near-run thing or pyrrhic victory. I post this for what its worth and leave further handling and resolution of this matter to you and others: |
|||
[p. 352] “The Battle of Buena Vista was over. A handful of artillerists backed up by volunteers fighting bravely when bravely led had repulsed a superior force executing a well-conceived and well-nigh successful turning movement. Taylor's losses were high – 746 killed, wounded and missing – but Santa Anna's were five times higher. And on the morning of February 24 he turned his troops and began his horrible retreat to San Luis, arriving there with [353] half of the force he had led north with the next best thing to victory: an announcement of one.” [[Robert Leckie (author)|Leckie, Robert]]. ''The Wars of America: Volume 1: Quebec to Appomattox''. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. {{OCLC|1940480}}. |
|||
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 220, August 2024 == |
|||
[p.357] “Although the hierarchy mistrusted him, he [Santa Anna] was obviously a lesser evil than Farias, and the Moderados, believing in his “victory” at Buena Vista, also rallied to his support.” Leckie, 1968. |
|||
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|||
[p. 139] “About 14 percent of his [Zachary Taylor's] men were dead, wounded or missing. Although Mexican losses had been severe and Santa Anna retreated, Old Rough and Ready took little joy in the victory. 'The great loss on both sides,' he wrote, 'has deprived me of everything like pleasure.'” [[Allan R. Millett|Millett, Allan R.]] and Peter Maslowski and William B. Feis. ''For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012''. Third Edition. New York: Free Press, 2012. {{ISBN|978-1-4516-2353-6}}. |
|||
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|||
{| |
|||
| [[File:The Bugle.png|250px|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News|alt=Full front page of The Bugle]] |
|||
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|||
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|||
* Project news: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2024/Project news|From the editors; awards and honours; contest results]]'' |
|||
* Articles: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2024/Articles|Last month's new featured and A-class content]]'' |
|||
* Book review: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2024/Book reviews|Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem]]'' |
|||
</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
|} |
|||
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|||
''The Bugle'' is published by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military history WikiProject]]. To receive it on your talk page, please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members|join the project]] or sign up [[User:The ed17/Sandbox3#Non-members who want delivery|here]].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from [[User:The ed17/Sandbox3|this page]]. Your editors, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) and [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
== Requested move that would benefit from further views == |
|||
At pages 233-234, historian Steven Woodworth concludes his description of the battle as going back and forth. His final paragraph at page 234 is: “Morning light on February 24 revealed that Santa Anna had retreated, leaving his campfires burning to mask the withdrawal. As the realization of what this meant spread through Taylor's army, cheer after cheer swept along the U.S. lines.” [[Steven E. Woodworth|Woodworth, Steven E.]] ''Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War''. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2010. {{ISBN|978-0-307-26524-1}}. Pages 151-296 cover the Mexican-American War. |
|||
Please see: [[Talk:Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943#Requested move 25 July 2024]] for a discussion of the best title for this article. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Woodworth [p. 233] and Eisenhower [p.190] give Taylor's casualties as 673. Both note 1,500 missing, Eisenhower states they were deserters. |
|||
[p. 190] “Two regiments, in fact reached Buena Vista on the night of February 23. With these reinforcements Taylor's army was as strong as it had been, numerically, before the beginning of the battle. And Taylor's critical supply situation, much to his relief, would be eased the next morning by the arrival of forty wagons.” [[John Eisenhower|Eisenhower, John S. D.]] ''So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848''. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. {{ISBN|978-0-8061-3279-2}}. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989. |
|||
[p. 191] February 24: “Santa Anna had held a council of war the previous evening, the results of which convinced him that supplies on hand could not sustain another day's attack, He paused at Agua Nueva, rationalizing that he was luring Taylor to more open ground. That may have been so, for he still had superior numbers, even after suffering 2,100 casualties. But Taylor did not bite.” |
|||
“From Taylor's side the close squeak was soon forgotten, and dispatches to Washington reflected nothing but satisfaction.” Eisenhower goes on to say that Taylor fell back to Monterrey and stayed there. (This left the remainder of the fighting to the forces under Winfield Scott.) Eisenhower, 1989. |
|||
[p. 354] “That night Santa Anna, realizing that his effort to destroy the invading American army had failed, vacated the field. Taylor once more had demonstrated his nimble tactical brilliance, chalking up another victory that would stir appreciation and adulation among his countrymen back home. But Polk was right in concluding this was a victory without strategic significance in what was probably an unnecessary battle.” [[Robert W. Merry|Merry, Robert W.]] ''A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent''. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. {{ISBN|978-0-7432-9744-8}}. |
|||
[p.355] “While Taylor's Buena Vista triumph was much heralded in the land as another reflection of America's growing military strength, Polk chafed at the fact that it did nothing to hasten the war's end.” Merry, 2009. |
|||
[p. 259] “On the very day that Scott landed at Veracruz, Santa Anna stumbled back to San Luis Potosi after his defeat at Buena Vista. Early reports tried to cheer Mexico into believing that the battle had been a Mexican victory, but half of the twenty thousand men that Santa Anna had started north with two months before had died in battle, starved to death, or deserted. Only the horror of a foreign invader on Mexican soil could wipe away the stigma of Buena Vista and cause the Mexican populace to rally once more around Santa Anna.” [[Walter R. Borneman|Borneman, Walter R.]] ''Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America''. New York: Random House, 2008. {{ISBN|978-1-4000-6560-8}}. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Donner60|Donner60]], [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]], thank you both so much for your help! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Help''' Is there any body sufficiently fluent to search Spanish language sources (eg Google books, Google scholar, JSTOR etc) for the result of the battle in Mexican historiography? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**{{ping|Cinderella157}} {{u|Maile66}} or {{u|Karanacs}} might be useful here. They wrote [[Texas Revolution]] a few years back, and Karanacs also did a bunch of the subarticles in that topic. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Al-Shabaab (Mozambique)#Requested move 25 July 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Al-Shabaab (Mozambique)#Requested move 25 July 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 01:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Russian ground forces equipment losses in Ukraine == |
|||
There have been recent changes to [[List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces]] which have updated Russian equipment numbers to the 2024 Military Balance figures and deleted all information related to Russian losses in the Ukraine war. Where and how should Russian equipment losses in Ukraine be recorded? [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 03:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Editors are invited to contribute their views at the talkpage discussion now underway at the bottom of [[Talk:List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces]]. Regards to all [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Importance? == |
|||
Does this WP not make use of the "importance" field for tracking and sorting article assessments? [[User:Baltarstar|Baltarstar]] ([[User talk:Baltarstar|talk]]) 12:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: The Military History project banner does not have an importance rating, e.g see [[:Template:WikiProject Military history]]. An arbitrary or questionable importance rating would probably just overcomplicate things for little benefit, imo. [[User:Fnlayson|-Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 15:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Titles of Korean military vehicle articles == |
|||
I noticed [[K111 Jeep]] and [[K131 Jeep]] were recently moved to [[K111 jeep]] and [[K131 jeep]], respectively. The former indicates that it's commonly known as "Military Jeep" but it's unclear if that's sourced. The lowercase "jeep" doesn't seem likely to me and there doesn't seem to be anything to support that usage. I considered "Kia K111" and "Kia K131" as better titles, but military vehicle articles aren't often titled that way and I don't have much basis for that change besides it being the make/model convention used for civilian vehicles (and [[Kia KM250]] being titled as such). I'm not inclined to make that change unilaterally. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Most similar vehicles (commercial and "soft military vehicles") do seem to follow the "Manufacturer Model" style, while armoured vehicles are typically simply "Model". [[WP:MILMOS]] has some guidance, but I think it's under review, and the will be overlap with whatever the guidance is for regular vehicles.. 18:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Good article reassessment for [[Tsugaru clan]] == |
|||
[[Tsugaru clan]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tsugaru clan/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Good article reassessment for [[Basil W. Duke]] == |
|||
[[Basil W. Duke]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Basil W. Duke/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Category overlap - when is a Mock castle not a folly? == |
|||
Not sure this is the best place to ask my question, but I know that this group is active. I shall also flag it on the Architecture project page. We currently have two categories, [[:Category:Mock castles in England]] and [[:Category:Folly castles in England]]. I am struggling to make any distinction between the two. Aren't all Folly castles Mock castles, and vice versa? I'd be grateful for any thoughts. I'm sure it's far from the only instance of such seeming categorisation overlap. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 09:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A quick Google suggests that a [[folly]] has no purpose except to enhance a landscape and/or to project the wealth and taste of the owner. [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Folly] A mock castle may also have a very definite function, such as being a country house, an estate lodge or even a water tower. Our category seems to limit this definition to [[:Category:Mock castles|"16th century or later historic houses which are called 'castles' in the secondary sense"]]. Therefore, a castle-like domestic residence cannot be a folly, and by Wikipedia's definition, a folly cannot be a mock castle. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Alan - Much appreciated, and thank you for taking the time to consider it. So, the suggestion is that “purpose” is key. In which case, [[Bollitree Castle]], which brought me to think about this, would be a Mock castle, rather than a Folly castle. I’m not sure about something like [[Clytha Castle]], which is very clearly an [[Eyecatcher (landscape)|eyecatcher]], but also served, and serves, as a memorial and as accommodation, but I suppose there will always be outliers. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, maybe aggrevated by Wikipedia's rather narrow definition of a mock castle as specifically a "historic house". [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:White Shirts Society]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]== |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:White Shirts Society]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:White Shirts Society#RFC on bias|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 10:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Role of the Governor General of Australia as commander in chief == |
|||
There's been some tooing and froing in infoboxes on whether the Governor General of Australia should be described as the commander in chief as the representative of the monarch or in their own right. I've started a thread on this at [[Talk:Australian Defence Force#Role of the Governor General]] and would be grateful for views from other editors. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== B2 for obscure events/topics == |
|||
From the B-class criteria: |
|||
* B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. |
|||
Is it true that some articles are notable enough to deserve their own page, but not covered enough in the source material to realistically present all the information necessary to cover the topic? I'm thinking of ancient battles, for example, of which there are scarce records and little hope of discovering more substantial records. Reliable sources might analyze extant material more and more, but it doesn't seem like we'd ever know the order of battle, troop composition, or battle maneuvers of conflicts that are already partly mythologized at best. |
|||
In these cases, is B2 impossible? If so, would that mean that those articles are destined to be C or Start class forever? |
|||
Or does "reasonably" come to have a different meaning in those cases? If so, does that mean that those articles should be upgraded to B class even if they are quite short and not that informative? How does an editor necessarily know if an obscure event is reasonably covered if the standard takes on a different meaning for different degrees of historicity? |
|||
Thanks in advance for all your thoughts. [[User:Baltarstar|Baltarstar]] ([[User talk:Baltarstar|talk]]) 14:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've seen single paragraph aricles with an info box ruled B class on the rationale that it contained all the information available in English (obscure Austrian general, I think). But this was many years ago when I was activily assessing stuff, so I hope we have clearer guidelines now. [[User:Monstrelet|Monstrelet]] ([[User talk:Monstrelet|talk]]) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==''One Step Further: Those Whose Gallantry Was Rewarded with the George Cross'' by Marion Hebblethwaite== |
|||
Does anyone have access to this? There's a citation in [[James Scully (GC)]] I'd like to see verified and fleshed out (volume, pages, ISBN). When I came across the article, the citation was to an auctioneer's website (natch), which my browser dislikes. The name of the officer being quoted (Temple Gray) also needs verifying; I couldn't find him in the ''[[London Gazette]]''. |
|||
(The quote is very idiomatic, and I like the unconscious humour. The Pioneers ("sandbag-fillers") were reckoned the lowest of the low, and I doubt they got first choice of kit. So his commandant says, "Well if you're going to get a gong, we'll need to smarten you up a bit", and sends him to a tailor. As soon as he arrives in London. a Guards RSM says, "You can't see 'Is Majesty looking like ''that''!", and calls in two more tailors. And when he arrived back on Merseyside, the squad sent to subdue this by-now presumably drunk and violent navvy - who wouldn't have been allowed to pay for a drink all evening - weren't needed for that purpose.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The full text of two versions of that book are available through the Internet Archive: [https://archive.org/details/inlibrary?tab=collection&query=One+Step+Further%3A+Those+Whose+Gallantry+Was+Rewarded+with+the+George+Cross] [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 01:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Hermann Göring]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]== |
== [[:Hermann Göring]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]== |
||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Hermann Göring]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:Hermann Göring#Rfc for Herman Göring's Lede Image (2024)|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) |
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Hermann Göring]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:Hermann Göring#Rfc for Herman Göring's Lede Image (2024)|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 00:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Space before unit symbol == |
|||
[[File:Edgar Samuel Paxson - Custer's Last Stand.jpg|thumb|right|MilHist project members led by Hohum (center) defend a hill.]] |
|||
I noticed [[14.5×114mm]] and moved it to [[14.5×114 mm]] per [[MOS:UNITSYMBOLS]]. Then I noticed there are a bunch more like this. The space seems common enough in sources, and is in agreement with international standards on SI units, as well as our own MOS. Any objection if I fix more of these? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Based on that page, shouldn't it be [[14.5 × 114 mm]]? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 16:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yes, yes, thrice yes. ;O) [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It may not be technically accurate, but is it such common practice within the field that ammunition is specified without spaces that we should follow that practice? ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Even if the practice is no spaces in the academic literature, I'm not sure that conforming to a broader Wikipedia standard here is something we should get up in arms about. Things like names of specific units or even dates are something, but the placement of spaces in the size of an artillery piece is not the hill to die on. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The hill I am standing on was made by a mole. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Fair. :-) [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Here are some observations from [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%C3%97+114+mm%2C%C3%97114mm%2C%C3%97114+mm%2C%C3%97+114mm%2Cx+114+mm%2Cx114mm%2Cx114+mm%2Cx+114mm&year_start=1880&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false n-gram stats]: |
|||
::::# Until recently, the "x" is more common than the "×". |
|||
::::# With the "x", the unspaced mm was more common than spaced in the 1990s, but otherwise mostly the spaced mm dominates. |
|||
::::#With the "×", the spaced mm is more common over time. |
|||
::::#The versions with no space between "x" and number are not found (not enough to show up in n-gram stats, or don't match the pattern due to a number before the "x"). |
|||
::::#Versions with no space between "×" and number are not tabulated, as the book n-grams parsing also treats the "×" as a separate word (like it does with hyphens and apostrophes). |
|||
::::So I'd say putting in all the spaces and keeping the "×", as our MOS suggests, is plenty common in sources, and should not be controversial. If there's a tendency in the ammunition field to do differently, it's not obvious. So I'll plan to work on fixing those, unless someone objects and wants to see an RM discussion. ... I just noticed the MOS also suggests units on each number, as "14.5 mm × 114 mm", but I'm pretty sure that's not going to fly here (though [https://books.google.com/books?id=iN19EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&dq=114-mm-cartridge&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu566IueaHAxVzFzQIHYMoBp4Q6AF6BAgNEAI#v=onepage&q=114-mm-cartridge&f=false this book] does it, sometimes). I'll ask about that at the MOS talk page. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, I asked at [[WT:MOSNUM#Ammunition calibre/length naming conventions]] about revising that bit of the guideline. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It sounds there like several would rather treat it as a name to which the MOS does not apply. If so, how would people prefer to style it? Still follow MOS:NUM on the spaces and cross, but omit the repeated mm? Or something else? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Looking at scholarly papers, my impression is that the space before the mm is always there, the spaces in the middle are more common than not, and the cross is more common than the x. But [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erik-Carton/publication/374925017_SLAT_ARMOUR_AGAINST_ARMOUR_PIERCING_AP_BULLETS/links/6537777c5d51a8012b6bc096/SLAT-ARMOUR-AGAINST-ARMOUR-PIERCING-AP-BULLETS.pdf this paper] has it every which way. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, works by scientists are going to tend to use notation they are familiar with, as are military works and military historians. I think scientific study is the outlier here. Repeating the mm looks very unusual. Presumably most people searching for a specific ammunition will type in and recognise what they are used to, which is probably unspaced everything, and an x, even if this is technically incorrect. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on though. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::We do have redirects, you know, so people can type it in any way they like. Nobody needs to die on any hills or be otherwise inconvenienced by whatever style we choose. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Why not use spaces and ×, except for bullet dimensions? Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 07:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If a great majority of sources didn't use those spaces, that would be a sensible exception to ask for (that pretty much how the MOS treats other styling exceptions). I think a great majority don't use the first mm, but the spacing is really very mixed, so we might as well use WP style for that, no?. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Google search is not very good at separating and counting the variations, which are numerous. I just found another in a couple of books: "14.5 × 114mm", and sometimes with conversion "14.5 × 114mm (.57 calibre) round". [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:So I propose "14.5 × 114 mm" and such. Keith, I can't tell if you're supporting, objecting, or otherwise this as a plan. Anyone else? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Neutral'''. What do the sources day? IMAO several MOS typographical guidelines are based on the preferences of anally-retentive C19 (especially American) compositors, and we should not allow their digestive problems to override common practice in specialised areas. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Common practice is all over the map, and per [[WP:CONLEVEL]] and [[WP:SSF]], we don't generally let specialized areas override central consensus guidelines, so I don't think your comment is helping here. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::On the contrary; if there is no common practice, we should follow the MOS both in the spacing and style of the x and the spacing of the unit. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::OK, good. I may have misinterpreted your nasty remark about the MOS before. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If anyone wants to discuss further, we should do a multi-RM. I'll go ahead and start some moves, and if anyone reverts or objects I'll open the RM. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly a forgotten Confederate Regiment? == |
|||
So I'm not sure where to exactly post this; but I believe this could be a fine location for it?" |
|||
The regiment in question is the 42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment. |
|||
This was also the regiment that [[Tom Dula]] enlisted in, specifically Company K, which was from [[Mecklenburg County, North Carolina|Mecklenburg County]], [[Union County, North Carolina|Union County]], and [[Wilkes County, North Carolina]]. |
|||
I know for sure this regiment existed as it has multiple pages on different websites, including NPS.gov ([https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=CNC0042RI]) |
|||
== [[:Philippe Pétain]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]== |
|||
([https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/42nd_nc_regiment.html]) ([https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/42nd-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/]) |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Philippe Pétain]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 02:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Good article reassessment for [[130th Engineer Brigade (United States)]] == |
|||
The main reason I am asking this question is because I am unable to find a Wikipedia page for it. I'd love if anyone has additional info on it, thanks! [[User:Squogg|Squogg]] ([[User talk:Squogg|talk]]) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[130th Engineer Brigade (United States)]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/130th Engineer Brigade (United States)/1 |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 23:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Squogg}} A quick google suggests that you may have found a gap in Wikipedia, and that the regiment may be [[WP:GNG|notable]] and therefore deserve writing up. You may just have won yourself the intimidating job of writing [[WP:YFA|your first article]]; notoriously the most difficult thing you will ever do on Wikipedia. I suggest that you do the best you can by drafting an article in your personal sandbox, and then ask again here for advice and comments. ([[WP:AFC]] is another route, but you won't get specialist feedback.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Hello Narky! Thank you for the response. I've attempted to create a page for it. |
|||
::[[Draft:42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment]] |
|||
::It has also been submitted for an article [[User:Squogg|Squogg]] ([[User talk:Squogg|talk]]) 04:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:Siege of Najaf (1918)#Infobox]] == |
|||
== Request for a reading on Crusader history at Ascalon == |
|||
Please see subject discussion. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello! I've written a detailed description of [[Ascalon]] during the Crusader period. I am not an expert on Crusader history, and did my best. It would be glad of some editors could check it, and see if it is clear, if there are some rewording needed, fact checks and whatever. Thanks in advance! [[User:Bolter21|'''Bolter21''']] <small>''([[User talk:Bolter21|talk to me]])''</small> 12:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)]] == |
|||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#Cadw's renaming of castles|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles]]== |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#Cadw's renaming of castles|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles]].  On how to recognise the recent adoption of Welsh names in English for castles in Wales. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
<nowiki>[[File:Admiral Yi Sunshin's Naval campaigns in 1592.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Map of Admiral Yi Sun-Shin's naval campaigns – 1592]]</nowiki> |
|||
== Flags of Bavarian commanders at the Assault of Brussels (1708) == |
|||
:Anyone know why this pic isn't showing at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)#Naval_campaigns_of_1592]? Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have just created a page for the [[Assault on Brussels (1708)]], a battle during the [[War of the Spanish Succession]], but I am not sure what flags to use for the commanders on the Bourbon side. Maximilian of Bavaria and D'Arco were from the Electorate of Bavaria but after 1704 Bavaria was occupied by Austria. Maximilian and D'Arco subsequently went into exile with few of their troops. However, despite these two commanders leading this assault on Brussels, I have no source that states that Bavarian troops joined the French in their assaults. Should I in this instance show Bavaria as a belligerent? And should I show the flag of Bavaria next to Maximilian and D'Arco or rather the flags of the troops they commanded? [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk:DavidDijkgraaf|talk]]) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:"error on line 31943 at column 21: Namespace prefix sodipodi for type on path is not defined". What does that mean? I've no idea. You've reached the end of my use in this! [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Along the lines of {{u|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}}, I'm thinking there's an issue with the original svg file. [[:File:Admiral Yi Sunshin's Naval campaigns in 1592.svg|I can't see it on Commons]], and when I download it I see the same line 31943 etc. error. Weirdly, I ''can'' see [[:File:Admiral Yi Sunshin's Naval campaigns in 1592-es.svg|the svg's Spanish translation]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Which national flag? The modern flag? |
|||
::As for your other point. You might be right that it is can be confusing, but that still leaves us with the question if Bavaria should be mentioned at all in the infobox. [[User:DavidDijkgraaf|DavidDijkgraaf]] ([[User talk:DavidDijkgraaf|talk]]) 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::As a combatant? I don't think so. You can show that two Bavarians participated, which hardly qualifies, even if one was the titular ruler. (Given the state of the HRE at the time "ruler" is probably over generous at the best of times, which these weren't.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:52, 19 August 2024
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Trịnh Tố Tâm advice
Howdy. I created Trịnh Tố Tâm through using the Vietnamese article as a base. The statement that he personally killed 272 enemies during the Vietnam War is exceptional, but I can't find any sources that criticize that number. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell what's propaganda or not. Would it be incorrect to use words such as "allegedly" or "claimed" as I did in the article, or would this be a mild form of WP:OR as the sources do not seem to use this language? With this exceptionalism in mind, what articles would you link to this one in order to de-orphan in? Mbdfar (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mbdfar: Technically, yes that would be OR. What you could do is recast the sentence to make clear that it's not Wikipedia's voice. For example, using info from vi:Tiền phong (báo), you could say "The state-owned news outlet Báo điện tử Tiền Phong reported that ...". That level of caution is a good practice when repeating any information from non-indepdendent state-owned outlets. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! There has been several threads, some archived, about which of his decorations should be mentioned where in the article, like the infobox, and if a primary source should be used. One ongoing thread is Talk:JD_Vance#Why_do_you_keep_deleting_his_medals?, and it lists some other threads. If you have an opinion, please join. In case you didn't know, JD Vance is Donald Trumps VP-candidate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There is consensus on the inclusion of medals yet you seem to have devoted an inordinate amount of time in pushing for undue change. Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and perhaps you could take a break from hyperediting a single article above all. There is also no need for Wikipedia:Canvassing. 73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, there is no consensus to include them. His awards are in the category of "was present with a pulse"; I have all of his same medals (or the Army equivalent) with the exception of the sea service medal. They're routine, run-of-the-mill awards that are handed out by the literal hundreds of thousands, and they do not belong in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there was consensus to include the medal, we wouldn't have like ten separate discussions on the topic. There's more discussions than Vance has medals. Cortador (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024
|
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) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move that would benefit from further views
Please see: Talk:Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943#Requested move 25 July 2024 for a discussion of the best title for this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hermann Göring has an RfC
Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Philippe Pétain has an RfC
Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 130th Engineer Brigade (United States)
130th Engineer Brigade (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Admiral Yi Sunshin's Naval campaigns in 1592.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Map of Admiral Yi Sun-Shin's naval campaigns – 1592]]
- Anyone know why this pic isn't showing at [1]? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- "error on line 31943 at column 21: Namespace prefix sodipodi for type on path is not defined". What does that mean? I've no idea. You've reached the end of my use in this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Along the lines of Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I'm thinking there's an issue with the original svg file. I can't see it on Commons, and when I download it I see the same line 31943 etc. error. Weirdly, I can see the svg's Spanish translation. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
