Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Zhou-class SSN, calling our submarine experts

The lead boat of a new class of Chinese PLAN SSN, with one of the X-shaped (rudders?) astern, sank in dock last year, the papers are reporting. We have nothing more than a redirect to Category:Nuclear submarines of the Chinese Navy however. Could I ask the editors who often write submarine articles, even if they focus on RN and USN, to put their heads together and create a short stub? Would be very helpful. An obvious workspace would be Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've started Draft:Zhou-class submarine, but I'm not 100% confident that at this stage it's detailed enough to go into mainspace. Some basic specs or goals of the programme would help, but I've not been able to find any info on that. Too bad my latest copy of Janes Fighting Ships is only from 2010. Loafiewa (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Great start!! I've made some additions and copied in H I Sutton's page. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal

Reposted from coordinator talk page for greater coverage. Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 15 year-old A-class article to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

• A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
• A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

I will be bringing these concerns to GA reassessment as well. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this for GAR as well: USS Texas (BB-35) (nom). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of "tab" and "badge"

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)

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)

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)

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)

Source request

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)

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)

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)

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)

Western Front tactics, 1917

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)

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)

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)

I've edited the infobox but wonder now if it's the right one? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

What was the South African Field Force?

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)

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)

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)

Field force Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Invitation to WikiProject Council

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)

Added. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: y'all may also be interested. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Goals on MILHIST main page are over 100%

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)

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)

Looks like this is being tackled at WT:MHCOORD#Suggestions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone need Time Life books about WWII for sourcing?

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)

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)

Edit screen changes?

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)

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)

You turned on the syntax highlighter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get rid. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I'd encourage you to try it out for a couple days... Syntax highlighting has really helped me parse things like complicated article source code and talk page conversations. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No thanks, too fussy. Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)