Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history - Wikipedia
7 people in discussion
- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
An editor has requested that Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Help reviewing my Article on the Battle of Muddy Flat 1854.
Draft:The Battle of Muddy Flat Please reach out to me if anyone is interested. It's really cool. The United States actually participated in the war of the Taiping Rebellion and teamed up with the British and Taipings against the Qing Dynasty who hired pirate mercenaries to help them. Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Module:Infobox military conflict 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. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having stumbled upon Tabs of the United States Army (and learning that these insignia are even called tabs), I noticed with some annoyance that the word "tab" was inconsistently capitalized in that article, sometimes as "tab" sometimes as "Tab". I was pretty confident that, when talking about tabs in general, we should use lower case. It's in no case a proper noun then. The problem was in usages like "Airborne Tab" or "Special Forces Tab", as if that's a proper noun as an official title of the thing. I looked at the main US Army source promininently used in that article, AR 670-1, and this Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia document does not use caps for the word tab, even when referring to "the airborne tab".
Badges are trickier, apparently, because the capitalization in AR 670-1 varies. Section 21, for example, leaves "badge" lowercase, as in:
- "...who have been awarded the combat infantryman badge, the expert infantryman badge", top of p.49 (PDF-page 57) or
- "...have been awarded the corresponding Parachutist or Air Assault badge", lower down on that same page.
Section 22, meanwhile, seems to cap more eagerly, as in
- "...affixed to the Parachutist Badge and the Military Free Fall Parachutist Badge", p.52 (PDF-p.60)
- "...or Naval Qualification Badges such as the Naval aviation warfare specialist" p.54 (PDF-p.62)
That section also caps "Presidential Medal of Freedom" and "Medal of Honor", with which I take no issue, but also capitalizes "Soldiers", as in "next of kin of Soldiers who lost their lives", e.g. at the top of p.51 (PDF-p.59). The 2nd page of the PDF also uses "...authorizes female Soldiers who are...", which I see as just wrong.
But based on this (shaky?) evidence in AR 670-1, and encouraged by the fact that Ranger tab already had a lowercase title and that other sources I quickly surveyed tended to not cap, I went about standardizing on lower-case usage, not only within Tabs of the United States Army, but with the titles and content of our other tab articles. Ranger tab, for example, had mixed-use (mostly "Tab"); other articles (Ranger Challenge Tab and President's Hundred Tab), were all "Tab".
I tried "fixing" the last article, after moving (with redirects) what I could, but Special Forces tab already exists as a redirect to Special Forces Tab. My "bold clean-up" is now stalled at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. My question (finally!! is, what style policy is appropriate for article names and references to this kind of insignia?
I've found a fairly recent move discussion at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024, with arguments in favor of "Ranger tab". However, the wide use of "Tab" (even months later on that article) makes me wonder what consistent usage we want. Thanks for your time and any input you can give. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- My impression, from looking at a variety of sources, is that tab is not generally considered to be part of a proper name, but badge often is. For example, that parachutist badge is capped in almost all books (but not in Army Officer's Guide). Go figure. And qualification badges would of course be lowercase, though a minority of books cap it. Specific qualification badges can be capped. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The most appropriate guideline is generally the lead at MOS:CAPS, which relies on studying sources, even if that doesn't make it all easy or totally consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I have a few sources about shoulder sleeve insignia or patches. When tab is used in a sentence, unconnected to a specific tab, it is not capitalized. However, I found nothing in any of them about capitalization of a specific tab, such as Ranger Tab. The tabs themselves are in all caps. That is the way the sources that I have show them in sentences or captions. That is not helpful for Wikipedia title captions, of course. Donner60 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello all. Just wondering if anyone owns, or might be able to access, a copy of Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup (ISBN: 9781445659657). If so, if would help expand a FA candidate. Cheers in advance. AA (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Hi AA. I assume it was for filling in the missing page numbers at Robert Poore? I got lucky with Google Books preview which had the pages in question and have completed the citations - Dumelow (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It was indeed for the page numbers! How did you manage it? My usual trick is to quickly flick the pages, and it usually confuses it enough to reveal the page numbers, but it didn't work this time! Much appreciated :) AA (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I usually do a search for the subject you are looking for within the book (eg. "poore"). It will give you a snippet view of each mention and the surrounding couple of sentences. If you do a fresh Google search for a particular phrase (ie. enclosed in quotation marks) on the page you are interested in it will often give you full page preview access; the url it gives you has the page number encoded into it, eg. "&pg=PT543" is page 543. Bit of a faff but works OK as long as there's not too many mentions in the book! - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It was indeed for the page numbers! How did you manage it? My usual trick is to quickly flick the pages, and it usually confuses it enough to reveal the page numbers, but it didn't work this time! Much appreciated :) AA (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Should we reset the goals listed at WP:MILHIST#What do we do? All but the B-class goal are over 100% complete. (Well done everyone!) Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Last time this came up the coordinators elected to "bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while". That was two years ago. Back in 2018, there was a proposal that we move away from long term goals towards more short-term goals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Looks like this is being tackled at WT:MHCOORD#Suggestions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone know why ShadowTZX keeps putting casualties for the Western Front 1914-1918 into the infobox? I've asked twice. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Maybe ShadowTZX finds the infobox of Western Front tactics, 1917 as confusing as I do. It gives a date range of the entire war, lists 1917 as an Allied victory, and in the commanders box lists Foch but notes he only took command in 1918 - not really relevant/correct if this is about 1917 only. Nthep (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You might be right, I'm not sure if other parts of the infobox have been altered too. I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I've edited the infobox but wonder now if it's the right one? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You might be right, I'm not sure if other parts of the infobox have been altered too. I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
TZX has replied, apparently he's using the article as a sandbox so I've set one up for him. Should keep him out of trouble. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone know of a change in the way that the edit screen looks? When I click the edit button, it looks normal, then all of a sudden, items that are links or in the lang|xx| formula etc go coloured.... It's like someone's got over-enthusiastic with crayons. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It's doing it here now. I've checked my preferences but can't see anything that would do this. {{short description|German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, 1917}} ('Edit screen changes?' is sans serif and in a larger font, 'short description' is violet in bold, the rest of the text is violet and not bold). Most perplexing. Even the four tildes are in blue.... Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You turned on the syntax highlighter.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks, I'll get rid. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No thanks, too fussy. Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am currently volunteering at a book sale and we have about 40 Time Life books about WWII. Note that this is a limited time offer because other people are buying books and the sale ends today at 7PM EST. Please ping me if you need one and I’d be happy to contact you about sending it or just finding the info you need. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Tough timeline here! If that happens again, I might advise adding "URGENT" or similar to your section title. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello all. I have seen the term "South African Field Force" banded about in works on the Second Boer War, but I'm not entirely sure what it is. Is it another name for the South African Army, or an extension of the Natal Field Force? AA (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know a great deal about the Second Boer War but the term "field force" was used fairly often in the later 19th century to denote a group of units working together in one campaign. The British and colonial troops committed to the Second Invasion of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War were formally known as the South African Field Force (which was itself further split into two divisions) and an earlier incarnation of the Natal Field Force served in the First Boer War (1880-1881). The Peshawar Valley Field Force and Kabul Field Force were used in the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880). I don't know much about how they were formed specifically but I suspect they were an easy way to combine together units drawn from various British Army commands, armies (Natal Colony, British India etc.) and locally-raised forces under a single commander - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It was (in a sense) the British term for a temporary brigade. In the Cold War, there was a formally organized field force in BAOR (8th field force as I recall). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Field force Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you all for getting back to me on this, has helped settle a query at FAC. AA (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Field force Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It was (in a sense) the British term for a temporary brigade. In the Cold War, there was a formally organized field force in BAOR (8th field force as I recall). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a "meta" WikiProject that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. I would love it if some of you would put that page on your watchlist and would join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Added. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: y'all may also be interested. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi everyone so the Battle of Muddy Flat article has been published. Should we add it to the List of wars involving the United States and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?
Please let me know your thoughts and contribute to the conversations either here or there, preferably both. If no objects to it, I will likely do it myself at some point in the near future. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks Ed. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply