Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Active discussions
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

Review of editsEdit

Hi,

I have been adding new content to the pitched battle article and was hoping for a review of the edits. I will continue to be adding amendments over the next few days.

Cheers.

Differentiating between articlesEdit

I'm looking to create an article on the nephew of Admiral Peter Rainier, who was also named Peter and was a Royal Navy officer. How should I go about differentiating between these two articles when the second is created? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You could treat them in a similar way to Hugh Pigot. Note: The links on the disambiguation page are redirects and the articles are named using the date of birth. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll follow that example. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to find sources for naval equipment?Edit

Hello! I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and since I’m working on improving some pages related to certain navies, I was wondering of a way to find reliable sources relating to naval equipment. Thank you! TheAnonymous1065 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Military Balance is very useful and highly reliable, and you can access it via a Taylor and Francis account through the Wikipedia Library. Most websites purporting to list the equipment of various military forces are not reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Endorsed!! Especially avoid globalfirepower.com, which is about as reliable as the Daily Mail. Do ask also if you need clarification with any individual navies - we have a lot of experts around here. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I should also note that Jane's Fighting Ships is the gold-standard reference on equipment operated by navies. It can be hard to find copies though due to Jane's weird access policies, but some universities have access via online databases. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request may be able to help with access issues. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by naval equipment per se, but when it comes to warships, the New Vanguard series by Osprey Publishing can be a good starting point. Loafiewa (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For historical ships 1860-1995, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships (4 vols.) can be found used on various websites. For naval weapons circa 1890-present, navweaps.com is a good source. Jane's is the best for current naval info (or for any specific year since 1898) if you can access it at a reasonable cost. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Hubs"Edit

Does anyone know anything about "hubs"? They seem to be a new way of navigating between articles because, apparently, navboxes don't show up in mobile view. I've seen them added recently to the bottom of some milhist articles, for example at War of the Fifth Coalition. Personally I find them poorly formatted, overlong and inferior to navboxes, which can be defaulted to collapse. Is there a policy page or anything relating to these hubs? Surely the way forwards is for WMF to implement a technical solution for navboxes to appear on mobile, rather than partially duplicate them in this manner? - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Hub page is something different altogether. I have no idea where these came from, but it's questionable on mobile view and looks horrible and duplicative on desktop. The related-topic ones (like the 6th coalition on the 5th coalition page) can't even be expanded and require going to a different page. They're like worse navboxes that take up more space. The actually decent way to address that issue would be to make navboxes show up on mobile, or make how to get use desktop view on mobile device better advertised. Hog Farm Talk 13:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the source, it is hard-coded in the article with the generic {{infobox}} template, not with any formal "hub" template. This is probably the work of one editor. I agree it looks horrible and would support removal unless/until there is a consensus to add these. MB 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, another example is the replacement of Template:Campaignbox Waterloo with Template:Campaign Waterloo 1815. @Ruedi33a:, you've added many of these "hubs". Can you provide any more information? Why are some hardcoded into articles and others are templates? It will be a nightmare to add a link to the former surely? - Dumelow (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I had found that the articles in the French invasion of Russia were in a poor state concerning use of sfn, references and so on. I started to correct them and added sources that can be read online. Then I checked the corrected article on my standard mobile and no campaignbox was visible, no warning, nothing. I asked the wiki helpdesk and got the answer that I have to turn on the desktop mode. I did this and there was no campaignbox, no warning, nothing. I started my first template: French invasion of russia mobile. I put it into every article about the French invasion of Russia and they worked perfectly well without any comments of other users during the next days. Then I created the new OSM street maps for the French invasion of Russia, each one is unique as the place of the battle is shown with a diamond. I got one negative comment, improved the maps and everything was fine. Then I went into the Peninsular war: bad structure and content of the campaignbox, double entries, misleading headers with wrong years and so on. And they were not visible on tablets and mobiles again without warning the user. So I developed a solution with the following constraints: as simple as possible(ugly), not on the first page(on the last), visible on every device(done as I know so far), invent a section name as short and precise as possible(hub). One unique hub for every major campaign was needed. Then I saw that I need the other hubs accessible from the section hub. This was developed last and you are right: templates are better here and I will create them. But I am really happy to talk first to colleagues who are interested in how to go on. Can you fix the campaignbox invisibilty problem?Ruedi33a (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This needs to be brought up at WP:VPP or proposed at WP:VPR, since this changes the way Wikipedia is being built. It probably needs addressing in the wP:Manual of style, as it does not conform with MOS:LAYOUT -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This should definitely not use {{infobox}}. Is there a programmatic way to detect mobile, that will still display on mobile? If so, use that and use a slice from an Outline page. (do slices work on mobile?; do slices still work?) --- or just replace this hub thing with a hyperlink to an Outline page. -- this seems to be a solution looking for a problem, since it is designed for mobile, so should not appear on computers. I think dumbing down everything to the lowest common device is just making computer access to the internet an exercise in frustration as interfaces for websites keep getting dumbed down so that it works badly on computers, while trying to make computers screens look like a mobile phone. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
And anyway, having a separate one for mobile in addition to the one for desktop creates the issue of having two appear on desktop, it's better to simply find a way to make the better-formatted desktop one appear on mobile. Hog Farm Talk 03:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't like this at all. Hub pages have been obsolete since 2007. Suggest reverting to Template:Campaignbox Waterloo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I support the reversion suggested by Hawkeye7 Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, you changed a "Hub" section in the "War of the Fifth Coalition" and here is the dicsussion about it. We are still searching a solution for the campaignbox invisibility problem: No campaignbox seems to be visible at least on an Android mobile or tablet. A mobile user cannot directly jump from the 5th coalition to the 6th coalition after your change that deleted a first circumvention of the problem Ruedi33a (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I see the wiki as a production environment and I am against a deletion of the "Hub"s as long as we have no other circumvention or solution for the campaignbox invisibility problem on Android. Ruedi33a (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ruedi33a, I think there is consensus here to revert to campaign boxes for now and to seek a solution at VP to make them visible on mobile view. Perhaps this is something you'd like to drive forward there? - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What is VP? I am not a technical specialist, but I can create a problem report or a trouble ticket...Ruedi33a (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the WP:VILLAGEPUMP, where project-wide discussion takes place. I suspect the best place to post this would be at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I think we're all in agreement that the best solution is for campaign boxes to be made visible in mobile view - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Done in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template:Campaignbox is not visible on mobiles and tablets even if desktop mode is turned on Ruedi33a (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) @Ruedi33a: I reverted an edit (not yours) to add a hub at the top of the article because it was already placed at the bottom. I also removed what I believe were excess hubs because it was cluttering up the bottom of the article, which can be viewed here: [1] I have no opinion on using hubs in am article, as long as it is used thoughtfully. Based on the above conversation, I don't think there is a consensus yet to include hubs in articles, or how they should be included. I agree with Dumelow above that this might be something you want to drive forward. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Article assessmentEdit

I have run across many articles that have been assessed as B-class that are lacking in one or more areas. I recall there is/was a bot performing multiple project assessments to "equalize" or give some standard to the system. Maybe I have been running across these but it is problematic. Akissi Kouamé is one example (see talk) that I do not see as even approaching B-class as well as many shorter articles that I think could be expanded. If an article can be expanded it is probably not "complete in content and structure" and often not "adequately referenced". Biographies are a concern and particularly BLP's. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Every article assessed as B class by the bot is rechecked by an editor. Any editor is welcome to help with this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Discussion#AutoCheck report for May. Akissi Kouamé has never been bot assessed, but was signed off as B class in 2019. Skimming the article and refreshing myself as to what Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ say, it looks at worst on the margin and I would personally assess it right now as B class. Which part of which criterion do you feel it fails? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look but your possible assessment would mean our assessment interpretations are not in the same universe. That might be why I am hesitant to reassess. I have left comments at Talk:Akissi Kouamé#Article issues. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If this was on another project I would rate the article as borderline Start/C-class. As Military History doesn't use C-class, that makes it a borderline Start/B-class here. Formal assessment begins at GA, so anything below that is at the discretion of individual assessors. The B-class checklist is a helpful guide but is still subject to individual interpretation. If you feel strongly that a key element of the article is missing, downgrade that part of the B-class checklist. The checklist is intended to guide editors on what areas need improvement. However, your comments on the talk page pointing out the gaps in the article serve the same purpose as flagging the issue in the checklist (though your comments go into more detail than a yes/no flag). From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as a point of clarification, MILHIST does of course use C-class. It is our second commonest classification after start, with over 49,000 articles. However, it cannot be awarded by an assessor - it is automatically awarded on the basis of the B-class criteria check list and is dependent on the assessment of B1 and B2. Otherwise, sound advice. Monstrelet (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I should have said, "As Military History use a non-standard implementation of C-class." This project was a late adopter of C-class and chose to implement it in a different way to others, which does cause a small amount of confusion from time to time. I am not judging which method is better, just that the difference exists. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. I had run into some "confusion" when I tried to assess an article from start to C-class but couldn't. Mainly I am going through categories as maintenance. I tend to leave details so I can return later without going off-base (my daughter says I have severe ADHD) and can revisit going straight to working on an article. I have downgraded some obvious failures. I am not just trying to mass demote articles but work towards improvements. A benefit is that I am reading many new articles, making more simple corrections when encountered, -- PLUS -- There may be other editors that watch a page and have some time to look into concerns that a tag doesn't address. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

MilHist admin soughtEdit

There is a difference of opinion at the FA Battle of the Aegates which seems to be lapsing into edit warring. Could an admin perhaps step in to bang heads together, one of which may well be mine? There is a brief outline of positions on the talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. I hope. Thank you Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

21st Regiment of (Light) DragononsEdit

An administrator will need to move 21st Regiment of (Light) Dragonons.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a new article. Moving to a new name should be possible by normal users unless there's a conflict with another article. What is the new title supposed to be? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
We also have 23rd Regiment of (Light) Dragoons and 24th Regiment of (Light) Dragoons which seems to be an 18th century style, most other British light dragoon articles follow the 19th Light Dragoons format. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Kinda' like the old style. jmho - wolf 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Landing Ship Tank (LST) 1942–2002 bookEdit

Does anyone have access to Rottman, Gordon L. (2005). Landing Ship Tank (LST) 1942–2002. New Vanguard No. 115. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-923-3. please? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason I asked was because I was having extreme difficulty in sourcing info for the description section of the SS Empire Gaelic article. However, an unexpected source, The Times, came to the rescue! Any editor with access to book sources on LSTs may be able to further add to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Astronautix.com a reliable source?Edit

Mark Wade's site has been brought up in many FACs, with the self-published nature of the site considered a strike against its reliability. Mark Wade is a reliable source per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee. I have found errors in his work, but no more, and not more egregious, than I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. That said, I tend to use other, more direct sources when I can, but I would not disqualify something from Featured status for citing his work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles Reid (general)Edit

I'm not a military historian but became interested in this gentleman because of the Leeds Tiger (see Leeds City Museum and the work in progress of Draft:Leeds Tiger), a large stuffed tiger which he shot in 1860.

I've created an article but am not sure whether it's even at the right title, and someone more familiar with the Siege of Delhi etc could doubtless improve the text. I've added him to List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire. We have a damaged portrait, but there may be a better image around somewhere. Any improvements to the article would be welcome. Over to you! PamD 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi PamD, I see Storye book has renamed the article, my thanks to both of you for your work. I've written a few articles about East India Company chaps and they always seem to make interesting biographies. Looking forward to seeing your tiger article in main space too! - Dumelow (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this WikiprojectEdit

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the Battle off Samar is in a pretty lackluster shape. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased that only 25 (and now fewer) of the top 500 listed at that page are of stub or start class. One comment, should United States military casualties of war be list class rather than article (it is currently rated start class)? - Dumelow (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

FAR noticeEdit

I have nominated England expects that every man will do his duty for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was British Forces Near East?Edit

Dear all, I'm trying to sort out what British forces were on the island of Cyprus from the first few years of the 1960s, and part of this is what British Forces Near East and British Forces (in) Cyprus consisted of. I would ask the assistance of our Gazette experts Dormskirk and PBS-AWB to sort out whether they can find the London Gazette entry circa 1 March 1961 by which Air Marshal Sir William MacDonald was seemingly appointed Commander, British Forces Near East. Or were his titles, that also included command of Near East Air Force (Royal Air Force), actually slightly different? Would assist in working out what exactly BFNE was. Cheers and thanks to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: I have found the entry when he left the post in 1962. At that time the post's title was, "Administrator of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the Island of Cyprus."[2] From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Looking at William MacDonald (RAF officer), it appears he was appointed to the post in 1958 and left the post in 1962. There is unlikely to be a Gazette entry for 1961 as changes in the name of a job title rarely required a new notice in the Gazette. It would be different if there were major changes in the responsibilities of the post to go along with the name change, as that could have been treated as the end of one post and the start of a new post. The reappointment to the same posts in 1960 may also not have a Gazette entry; there are normally entries for start date and end date but not renewal dates. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
In an article in the Times in March 1961 he was described as "Administrator of the British Sovereign Base Areas, Cyprus and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Near East Air Force". The Near East Air Force was formed in Cyprus on 1 March 1961 when it was renamed from Middle East Air Force as he was the boss of the MEAF since 30 Dec 1958 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41586/supplement/7952 it may not have been announced. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This link Near East Command might help. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by other editors; he became the commander of the MEAF in 30 December 1958 and it looks as though everything in the next few years relates to changes in that job rather than any new job. Dormskirk (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history".