Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Good article reassessment for Fort Pasir Panjang
Fort Pasir Panjang 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.
Good article reassessment for Morea expedition
Morea expedition 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. Onegreatjoke (talk)
Battle of the Wilderness
Someone named User talk:Sormando, who appears to have been in several edit wars, keeps changing the InfoBox image for Battle of the Wilderness. I think it is ugly, and I would rather see a color image. I thought the original image was pleasing for readers. Any thoughts from anyone else? I think we have a case of someone who does not write articles, but only changes other people's work—and will not compromise. TwoScars (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @TwoScars and Sormando: - my general thought on this is to avoid the Kurz & Allison illustrations as they are usually horrifyingly inaccurate. File:Battle of Chancellorsville.jpg (Stonewall shot in battle in broad daylight), File:Battle of Vicksburg, Kurz and Allison.png (Grant's Canal actually working in the background), and File:Battle of Pea Ridge.jpg (pretty much everything is wrong, particularly that involving Pike's tribesmen) are particularly egregious examples. File:The Battle of the Wilderness, Virginia, May 5th & 6th 1864 LCCN2003656457.jpg is in color but is rather garish and isn't going to be much of an improvement over the Kurz & Allison image for accuracy. How about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg (the cover illustation of Rhea's book about the battle)? My choice would probably be the Winslow Homer painting, but of the black-and-white images, I'd probably go with File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg over the current image in use. (File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg) Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You may edit it however you like but I agree that those illustrations are highly anachronistic. The illustration I presented was made by Alfred Waud, a famous wartime illustrator who was eyewitness to the battle, often sketching the fighting on the spot and in the moment. Food for thought.
- Best Sormando (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, as a non-ACW person, I find File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg the most visually pleasing and most likely to be accurate given it was done contemporaneously. I think the current one, File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg too dark to make out details, even on my 27" monitor. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I had edited the article earlier this year with that illustration as a replacement for the Allison & Kurz one, but another editor had removed it, citing that 'it does not show the dense forests in which the battle was fought', so I chose differently this time, but edit as you see fit.
- Best Sormando (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- PM and Sormando - what about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg? This is in color, I can't think of any accuracy concerns in its portrayal of a small unit action for this battle, and it shows the dense trees that characterized the battle. It's public domain and the book that is probably the single most important modern treatment of this topic used it as a cover illustration. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever the consensus of the MH people is fine with me. I like the File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg image, as long as others prefer it too. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I find the Winslow Homer image too dark. File:The Wilderness near Palmers and Spotswoods Houses.jpg (which is already in the article further down) shows how densely the terrain was wooded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I added the category "Battle of the Wilderness" to the current Wadsworth image. I will keep looking for an image that makes everyone happy. I would like to have a color image that shows the woods. I think the fighting on Orange Plank Road is more interesting than the Orange Turnpike (apologies to Iron Brigade, John B. Gordan, and Jubal Early fans). Orange Plank is where Hammond slowed down A.P. Hill and the CSA almost split the Union force. On the next day, Longstreet got wounded near the Orange Plank Road. Maybe the Library of Congress or Harper's has a good image, or perhaps Sormando knows of more images. TwoScars (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I find the Winslow Homer image too dark. File:The Wilderness near Palmers and Spotswoods Houses.jpg (which is already in the article further down) shows how densely the terrain was wooded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever the consensus of the MH people is fine with me. I like the File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg image, as long as others prefer it too. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- PM and Sormando - what about File:Winslow Homer - Skirmish in the Wilderness (1864).jpg? This is in color, I can't think of any accuracy concerns in its portrayal of a small unit action for this battle, and it shows the dense trees that characterized the battle. It's public domain and the book that is probably the single most important modern treatment of this topic used it as a cover illustration. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, as a non-ACW person, I find File:Capture of a part of the breastworks.jpg the most visually pleasing and most likely to be accurate given it was done contemporaneously. I think the current one, File:Major-General Wadsworth fighting in the Wilderness LCCN2004660194.jpg too dark to make out details, even on my 27" monitor. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Concerns about List of attacks on U.S. territory
Is this list worth saving? Right now, it has no inclusion criteria and I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- It could be moved to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory, I guess. How to handle the US Civil War and various terrorist attacks might need discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
How to assess a B-Class article in practice?
Hi everyone!
I am from the Chinese Wikipedia. Around ten years ago, my WikiProject (translation) implemented the B-Class checklist mechanism (translation) following the example of WP:MH/B?. However, our B-Class assessment have come to a halt partly due to the complex workflow.
For instance, in this assessment (translation), both the reviewer and the editor spent a considerable amount of time on it, but the review result was quite simple — B1=no
and B2/B3/...=yes
were added to the WikiProject banner.
Regarding other B-Class review requests, reviewers have a great deal of respect for this kind of reviews, but they don't really want to do them. As a result, almost all stronger articles are left unreviewed as C-Class and eventually become GAs directly. This is similar to A-Class reviews in other WikiProjects.
The B-Class assessment mechanism at MH is well-run; I think one reason is that the review process is serious but not overly complicated. Simplifying the operation can help activate the process, although I don't have a strong sense of how effective it would be. How do you assess a B-Class article in practice? How much time does it take for you to review one? How thoroughly do you read the article?
Thank you!--Lopullinen 05:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- G'day. For me, the B-Class review is a quick one, only taking a few minutes to read the article, checking that the criteria are met. Of course, the more you do the quicker you get. We now have a bot that automatically assesses up to B-Class, but the B-Class ones are checked by a human at the end of the month. If there are any criteria that only marginally meet or don't meet the standard, I tend to err on the side of yes, as B-Class isn't a big deal. The main criteria of contention tend to be b1 and b2, but if every para is cited at the end at least (and quotes are cited), and the sources appear reliable, it should be a yes. b2 is harder to judge, especially if you don't know the subject. A quick Google Books search for the subject will identify any obvious sources or material left out, but we are not looking for comprehensiveness here. b3 is easy to judge, and b4 likewise in most cases. b5 is met if there is an infobox (if appropriate) or an image, unless the article is quite long, in which case a couple of supporting images etc would be expected. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Assessment for the Regency of Algiers article
Hi; I think this article: Regency of Algiers is ready to be checked if it meets the criteria of a B-Class article, a review would be welcome. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- G'day, if you list it at WP:MHAR someone will check it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Assistance on Battle of Kherson — Future GAN
I am hoping to eventually GAN the article, but some assistance is needed before that. First of all, I have a copy/edit request at the copy-editor guild, which has to happen anyway before the GAN, but recently, another editor added a non-neutral tag to the article. Can some assistance be given to help in order to get rid of the non-neutral tag? I started a talk page discussion on the battle’s article for the non-neutral tag. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject banners in articles related to the Apollo program
Is it really related to WikiProject? Parham wiki (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Parham wiki: Which articles? Always give examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Apollo 11 and Apollo 15 Parham wiki (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Apollo 15? The one with the three US Air Force officers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, But the Apollo program was not military. Parham wiki (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- "What topics do we cover? We generally consider any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within our scope." It is difficult to see how Apollo 15 fits into this, or any of the eight "broad areas" we then list. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wehwalt added it in 2018 [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't remember the circumstances. No objection to reversion if you feel it justified. Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how it might happen - for several years, one requirement for being a NASA astronaut was experience as a test pilot (at first, the criterion was military test pilot, see Mercury Seven#Selection criteria). This meant that virtually all astronauts of the 1960s were selected from the U.S. armed forces - the few civilians (e.g. Neil Armstrong) to be selected had previous military service. It wasn't until Jack Schmitt flew on Apollo 17 in 1972 that a pure civilian was part of a space mission crew. So out of 32 Apollo astronauts (Grissom, White and Chaffee included), 31 had some military connection. So it could be said that all crewed Apollo missions fall within MILHIST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- True that is a direct connection between most astronauts and the military. But that's not a direct connection from the military to the NASA Apollo program itself imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that each of the crewed Apollo missions involved a fairly large military operation to retrieve the capsule and crew at the end of the mission (as an aside, this might be an interesting topic for a stand-alone article?) Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, great point. Military support for the Launches (significant maybe?). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how it might happen - for several years, one requirement for being a NASA astronaut was experience as a test pilot (at first, the criterion was military test pilot, see Mercury Seven#Selection criteria). This meant that virtually all astronauts of the 1960s were selected from the U.S. armed forces - the few civilians (e.g. Neil Armstrong) to be selected had previous military service. It wasn't until Jack Schmitt flew on Apollo 17 in 1972 that a pure civilian was part of a space mission crew. So out of 32 Apollo astronauts (Grissom, White and Chaffee included), 31 had some military connection. So it could be said that all crewed Apollo missions fall within MILHIST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't remember the circumstances. No objection to reversion if you feel it justified. Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wehwalt added it in 2018 [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- "What topics do we cover? We generally consider any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within our scope." It is difficult to see how Apollo 15 fits into this, or any of the eight "broad areas" we then list. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, But the Apollo program was not military. Parham wiki (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Apollo 15? The one with the three US Air Force officers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Apollo 11 and Apollo 15 Parham wiki (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Redundant units in section See also
See also is often filled with redundant unrelated units of the same type, or most of them are already mentioned in the text. Let's remove it. Example K9 Thunder#See also: Panzerhaubitze 2000, AS-90, T-155 Fırtına, K10 ARV and probably others are already mentioned above in the text or even has their own section, so there is no need to repeat them to section See also. Looks like some missed something and thinks see also works in this way, but it's not the case. There is no need to create section See also and fill it with redundant lists. Eurohunter (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1947 Jammu massacres
Kindly participate at Talk:1947 Jammu massacres#Dating, for sharing your views with regards to the dispute that whether we should state Jammu massacres started in August 1947 or October 1947. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)