Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

New: Poorly-Concieved Redirect

Hello. My name is Nathan Zhang. Some time ago I started a page (using another, lost account) called "Landing Zone X-Ray" in order to present the present-day area and geography of the battlefield, not the actual battle itself (and no, I DO NOT want to put this info in the Battle of Ia Drang page. Now that I have all my research completed, I goto the page and notice that it redirects to The Battle of Ia Drang page. I want this redirect removed so I can write out my originally-intended page. Thank you very much for having given me this time of yours. I do hope you remove the redirect and tell me at User:Shenshuai. Thank you very much. --Shenshuai 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with "Kosovo War" article

There is currently a revert war going on, any outside views, fact checking and additional references would be very welcome. Mieciu K 11:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Near East taskforce?

Idea popped into my head to form a taskforce to cover wars between the kingdoms of the Near East (including Ancient Egypt, but obviously NOT including Graeco-Persian wars, which stay within Classical warfare taskforce) to cover wars in that geographical area in the grey area before the Classical warfare taskforce cut-off of 700BC. Plenty to work from (Category:Battles of Egypt, Category:Battles of Babylonia, Category:Battles of the Canaanites, Battle of Megiddo....), and can draw members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East, which both need revivifying. Any thoughts? Neddyseagoon 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, if anyone else can be found to work on it. What's the activity level in that area of the wiki like? Kirill Lokshin 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just looking around for that, by looking on those projects I mentioned, plus any I can find on Holy Land history. Is there some way of getting the same message to various talk-pages? I'm new at this game! :-) Neddyseagoon 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Copy-and-pasting, basically ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As ever! These things are never easy, are they! Announcements posted up on all users of those Projects, though I baulked at doing everyone in the Classical Warfare Project and so put up something on its talk page. Now the waiting for replies! Neddyseagoon 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know much about those battles, but I'm interested in biblical-time warfare, so if you decide to go ahead with it, I can help, I guess. -- Миборовский 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page layout

So, we seem to have acquired a thematic organization of the talk page. Do people prefer the new layout (allowing for some minor issues to be fixed, obviously), or the old chronological organization? Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The current layout seems very workable. It keeps the discussions on a particular topic together ... the thread of thought is easier to follow. And, consensus will be easier to identify (versus reading through all prior posts on a topic.) I imagine that discussions may, from time to time, get fragmented; but, I don't think it will be a major issue. —ERcheck (talk) @

American Chinese take Mogaung, Chindits take umbrage

I am very annoyed with the editing of this page over the last hour. This is a talk page not an article page. Comments and sections should be left alone unless

  1. The page is being archived
  2. The author of the piece decides to edit their entry.

Kirill I am sure that the edits you are making are in good faith, but you should not be messing about with sections which have had edits made to them in the last few weeks. In the time I put composed and try to save a reply, (that because it was of some size and had involved me looking up information on other page), most of the previous entires in the section, most put in over the last 24 hours had gone!

If you wish to automate the archiving of this talk page then have a look at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Automated archival --Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, what about refactoring talk pages? As far as I know, the only changes that were made was moving a few sections around, which is even on the tame side of that.
As it says "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevent details to its context." My emphasis. Moving sections around with new text less than a day old is confusing, particularly as one can not use the page history to track changes because the changes are so large. If you are going to do this, and I would rather you did not, then perhapse you shoud create a Permanent link archive first (see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Permanent link archives method)
Am I to assume, incidentally, that you'd prefer the old chronological layout to the new one? Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It is the usual way that talk pages are (un)structured.Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Meh. You're right insofar as article talk pages are concerned; but this page tends to be closer (as far as usage is concerned) to something like WP:AN, which sees quite frequent section movement to keep discussions together.
I'm ambivalent on this layout idea, myself. (I wasn't the one to introduce it, incidentally; I merely cleaned it up somewhat once it had already been put into place.) Other people have commented in favor of structuring the page like this, though; it would be nice to have a few more opinions as to which structure we should adopt in the future (keeping in mind that the longer threads we've been seeing lately make frequent archiving, as was done in the past, increasingly impractical). Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Amusing section name aside, I think he (Philip) does have a point. Most of us are used to checking for latest developments at the bottom of a talk page. Personally, I think I might overlook new discussions in this format. -- Миборовский 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Alternative idea: New topics added at the bottom. If the discussion generates a lot of interest, then the discussion can be moved above to a place in the thematic area, WITH a wikilink to its section. For example for the discussion on format:
===New discussions===
==== Talk page layout ====
—ERcheck (talk) @ 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW. It might be nice to have a "Help needed" section. See Kosovo request "above". ;-) —ERcheck (talk) @ 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, actually. We could create a section for requests of the "hey, come look at this article" type, which we tend to see a lot of; and have other discussions, which tend to be bulkier, in their own sections chronologically. Kirill Lokshin 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I see two flavors of "help": (1) Urgent/help needed now — to look at edit issues/wars; and (2) Review/help expand. #2 Would be appropriate for the "Articles" section, while #1 would be in a new section. —ERcheck (talk) @ 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be somewhat confusing to have two different sections for listing article requests, though? Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
One good argument for retaining the chronological layout, incidentally, would be the way the "new section" function is set up to work; anyone using it will form a section at the bottom of the page, which would then need to be moved somewhere afterwards. I suspect we're going to wind up with a fairly confusing layout, with some sections organized topically and some trailing at the bottom of the page.
Maybe we should just have a sort of "pre-archive" section at the top where all the brief requests and discussions could be moved once they were complete (which generally takes a few days, at most) and have the longer-running threads keep their chronological order below that? Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Automated archival might be a solution. Once a subsection has not had a contribution for a number of days/weeks it can be archived (or so the link in that section User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto says. This is also how it is done on the village pump pages with User:Crypticbot. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how well that would work when you have several levels of subsections, though. Do recent edits prevent "sister" subsections under the same top-level section from being archived? If not, it'll make introducing section breaks somewhat difficult, since earlier parts of the discussion will mysteriously disappear. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As this is a talk page, if new topics are added at the bottom as they usually are, there should be no need for many subsections. Also if automatic archiving is used then one can always reactor perform a minor edit and "fix" any subsection headings which look like causing the problems you are suggesting may occur. Further automatic archiving does away with the need to manually intervene, as subjects which have no recent edits will be removed moving the large ones you which editors are still contributing too will move up the page. It also has the advantage that there will be less chance of editors accusing one another of bad faith edits, as is happening in the spat on the link in the next section (#Request for Admin at Ilyushin Il-2). It seems to be a working solution on the village pump pages which have a large number of edits on them. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; seems like it would make things easier for everyone concerned. Anyone have particular objections to either of (a) putting the page back in chronological order and (b) turning on automatic archiving? Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in light of the various objections received, I've changed the page back to a chronological layout, at least for the time being. I'll see if I can get the automatic archiving working; maybe that will alleviate any problems with section creep that we're (potentially?) having. Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin at Ilyushin Il-2

I need an admin to step in and examine the postings of a brand new user on the talk page; he is posting multiple copies of his questions and threatening to disrupt the board. I suspect he may be a sockpuppet, or at the least a very inexperienced editor. Here. Any input into the article itself is naturally appreciated also.Michael Dorosh 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal

Could members of this project please take a look at Hannibal and respond to the Associated Peer Review. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Orleans (1870)

Anybody know enough about this to write a decent stub? Some helpful person has created this with a description of the 1428 siege ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, this may help Andreas 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime military history task force

Is there any interest in forming a maritime military history task force? I'm intersted in participating :) Inge 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too Neddyseagoon 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, they're muliplying! ;-)
More seriously, though, I suspect there would be a great deal of interest, and it's a small enough portion of overall military history that we could get away with having a task force for it; but, as with the aviation task force, you'd need to work things out with WP:SHIPS to make sure there's minimal stepping on each others' toes. Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll post a heads up about this discussion on the WP:SHIPS talk page as a first move at least. Inge 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I sort of feel that such a task force would be redundant, since WP:SHIPS is dedicated to naval ships and their histories. I suppose we (at WP:SHIPS) tend to focus on individual ships and classes rather than the bigger picture, but I think you might be better served by a joint membership here and there than in forming a task force over here that is partially redundant to another Wikiproject. TomTheHand 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Studying ships is different from studying the battles that they fight in, the politics, the tactics, the strategy, etc. A Maritime Conflict task force would be in order, as a subset of the Military History task force, IMO.Michael Dorosh 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Michael Dorosh about a naval task force. While they would still deal with ships (in conjuction and co-operation with WP:SHIPS) they would also deal with topics such as naval forces (Royal Navy etc.), naval ranks, naval battles, naval strategy, naval people etc.. Oberiko 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
What would be a good name, though? "Naval warfare"? "Maritime warfare"? "Maritime military history"? (Rather a mouthful, the last one.) Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say this is getting out of control. We are creating task forces hither and thither for everything we can imagine. And I say it is time to get a grip on ourselves. Let us be Honest with Ourselves: Most of the recently created task forces are not seeing a lot of activity going on, and frankly, many of them are superfluous. (Guilty as charged). I propose that any new task forces be created only if a minimum number of editors (say, fifteen) sign up before it is set up. Well, I said it. Fire at will. Andrés C. 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that would gain us, beyond making certain we never create another task force (let's face it: without the per-task-force advertising provided through the project banner, the odds of fifteen people simultaneously deciding to create a task force—or even of one person recruiting fifteen others independently—are pretty small). Task forces, when they were created, were meant to be informal and organic. If we create some that turn out to be unsustainable and need to be retired, that's fine; the work to mothball a task force would be minimal (particularly now that basically all visible signs of their existence are controlled centrally from {{WPMILHIST}}. It's also fine if they just take a while to get off the ground. It's not like they're really causing more work for anyone besides the putative members (and myself, since I do all the project-side setup for them), and they are doing productive things, if not as quickly as the project as a whole.
There is, of course, another, more subtle reason at work here. One of the motivations of developing the "task force" concept to begin with was to prevent the development of entirely independent WikiProjects (which tend to do unfortunate things at times—see the WikiProject ADF discussion above) in favor of more integrated groups of editors. Placing high limits on our creation of new task forces will simply cause a resurgence in these branched-out projects, which would be (at least in my opinion) highly undesirable. Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the naval or maritime (whatever we want to call it) task force is just as important as an avation task force. As mentioned above there are many aspects about maritime warfare which are not ships. We should definately cooperate with the Ship project on the ship articles and maybe we could even motivate some of them to join us in writing about other topics of maritime warfare as well. I used the word maritime because I thought coastal forts (Coastal Artillery) could be a part of the target area. They are not part of the navy, but still a part of maritime warfare. I hope this task force could be realised. There are several editors out there working on this subject so it would be nice to have a place to meet at least. Inge 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've created the Maritime warfare task force. Somebody should ideally write up something similiar to what the aviation task force has, outlining the scope of this and making clear how it differs from WP:SHIPS. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I'm not sure if members of this project would be interested in Valiant Shield? Johntex\talk 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I made one minor edit already, to the caption on the photo where you used "operation" rather than "exercise" (I corrected it also at the Military exercise page. Otherwise, looks like a good article.Michael Dorosh 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. I was not aware of the distinction in terms, but I am now. I have listed this at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates and I am hoping it will make the Main Page. Johntex\talk 05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism task force?

I don't normally express my indignation in quite so blunt a fashion, but whose bright idea was it to create this without any discussion? Are you trying to drag the project into a bloodbath? (And, somewhat more calmly, does anyone actually think it's a good idea to have something by this name as part of the project?) Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy's name is User:Rangeley (at least, he was the one to create the page). And I totally agree with you Kirill: the subject is very hot and should at least have been discussed on this very talk page. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to suspend this task force until we can have at least a discussion on it. Ultimately, I think we're going to need something like this, but not specifically the War on Terrorism (likely something like "Low intensity warfare task force") Oberiko 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That works. I'll leave the pages intact for the time being but remove the links from the navigation template and project banner until we've resolved this. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Low intensity warfare task force? I would not categorize OEF as low intensity. I would also not cahnge the name of WW2 to "very large war that took place in many locations", its called the WOT, yet everyone is afraid of a name. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is low-intensity compared to a war between regular armies, no? Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What does low intensity mean? would you classify Iraq War as low intensity since they didnt put up much of a resistance? I dont understand your definition of low intensity. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Casualties, perhaps? The entire casualty count of the the three-year war in Iraq is less than that of the first day on the Somme, for example. (There's a separate argument to be made based on the level of weaponry possessed by one of the combatants, but that's more of a question of whether assymetric warfare can be considered low-intensity in general.) Kirill Lokshin 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt aware that it should be brought up here first. The idea of this came from discussions I had with Zer0faults and Haizum about working on a project that gives better coverage on the War on Terrorism. I first, however, wanted to reach a consensus over the inclusion of the Iraq War into the War on Terrorism. We reached a consensus last night [1] so today I made the project. I am not trying to bring it into a bloodbath, but I feel that the War on Terrorism and related articles definately needs a group of people working on it. I have, for the past few months, worked on them, and so has a group of people. I thought that making it a project where we could set some goals and a to-do list would help organize this. We worked together in an effective, civil way when finding a consensus, and I feel we will work together well as a task force for other related things. Rangeley 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus" you point to is only a few hours old a this point; my personal suspicion is it'll break down as soon as all the regular participants in that edit war wake up. The issue, however, is broader than that. We should not need a per-article consensus for task force tags. Task forces are supposed to be so blatantly obvious that we cannot be reasonably accused of any impropriety by having them.
You have, instead, selected a particularly contentious topic for a task force; and, on top of that, chosen a name that a substantial number of editors regard as inappropriate. As Oberiko commented above, we likely have room for something of this sort; but we absolutely must avoid any hint of taking a political stance in our choice of terminology. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The regular players in the edit war are Anoranza, Mr. Tibbs and Nescio. Thats really it, its odd how it could take place in so many locations and only be with 3 users. I am not stating others do not agree, but this is boardering on Super Majority, and the reason these users disagree is not even because they do not beleive its linked, but instead because they feel it was not justified. However many things that happened in WW2 were not justified, we do not exclude them however. As Nescio has even admitted Iraq had ties to terrorists, the war on terrorism is over terrorists, WMDs were feared to goto terrorists, the main reason going to war was WMDs etc etc. I mean I do not see the problem, is it really then name? Everyone seems fine with quotes, will that due to alleviate the concerns? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I will be frank here. If you are not interested in keeping this task force, so be it. I have no objections. I have worked through so much bureacracy since April in trying to reach a consensus, whether it be manouevre through accusations of rule breaking, or attempting to combat deletion attempts of the pages we worked on to reach the consensus - and this was on top of the actual discussion attempting to reach consensus. I dont want this to be another fight, just please delete it. I greatly apologize for any trouble caused, I dont want to deal with it. I would much rather spend my time working on related articles than spend it on defending a task force meant for this. It isnt productive in my eyes, and it is very stressful. I will even vote to delete it should you want to bring it up first. Rangeley 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley I wont oppose it, I will just continue the work anyway. Its however more productive to have a task force. I am so tired of people complaining about a name, some users are no longer even stating they feel they arent linked, they just dont like the name. In the grand scheme of things, we are stopping facts because people do not like the name they are linked to, its silly, and I am finally happy with the Iraq War inclusion of WOT and I am also too tired to deal with a fight over a name. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, two questions:
  • Is the task force meant to concentrate primarily on the military aspects or on the political ones? If it's intended to branch heavily into politics, law enforcement, etc., it's probably better suited as a separate project than being under the umbrella of "Military history".
  • If the task force is meant to have a military focus, how is its scope defined? (I can see a number of possibilities here. One would be to follow the War on Terrorism article itself, which is somewhat problematic insofar as it ties the task force to future disputes there. Another would be to cover, as Oberiko suggested, all low-intensity conflict; this would cover most of the WoT, but also include a variety of other related conflicts. Third, it could be defined as a "Current events"-type of task force [needs a better name, obviously], which would deal with ongoing conflicts [and possibly conflicts concluded in the last X years?], and would be quite useful in dealing with things on the edges of the "history" label, but may also be rather broader in scope than what you envisioned.)
I'm not, a priori, trying to have anything deleted; I just think this needs to be discussed and renamed/rescoped so as to make its existence non-controversial. Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Primarily military ones, however not ignoring political topics that influence military decissions. For example the events of the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC would possibly be discussed in a larger project because they affected the Iraq War. Talibans rejection of the US proposal, Pakistan dropping them as recognized after it, these are events that lead tot he beginning of OEF. Its like discussion WW2 without stating why it happened, or WW1 without that assassination, that was 1 right? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The conflict is the War on Terror, you cannot rename it simply because its going on currently. Does it possibly involve future conflicts, sure, but we are not a crystal ball. We would be dealing with WOT related events, yes things in the template no and page itself. If anotehr war breaks out and the people waging it say its part of the WOT, then we will attempt to cover it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
In terms of if it will cover recent events, that is really up to if they affect the situation. The group would obviously not cover events not related to terrorism that affected the WOT. Meaning if a terrorist action instigated a nation becoming involved with the WOT or seeking help from the US to combat their terrorism, such as Philippines did, then its included. If the terrorist action happened and the US was not asked to help, the situation was not related to the WOT, meaning not done to be a statement against the WOT or one of the current wars etc, then its not related. Do all task forces go through this scrutiny of what it would handle, and not? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As I believe I mentioned above, it was pretty obvious what the other task forces would handle from their names. There is nothing in the least controversial about marking an event as being part of "French military history" or "World War I"; as I believe you have discovered, marking something as being part of "the War on Terror" is quite controversial. Hence, our desire to keep said controversy to the articles and to avoid having the project as a whole take part in disputes it really could avoid. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So ignoring that its a fact is fine, as long as it doesnt bring controvery? Maybe this would be better off as a project since apparently MILHIST group is only concerned with avoiding the complaints of 3 people. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see at least 15 people against it in the poll at the top of Talk:Iraq War; but that's really beside the point.
Unless you mean to suggest that there isn't significant controversy surrounding whether particular events are included under the War or not, as well as the use of the term in general—and I should hope you're not going to do that—then it is not the place of this project to take sides in the dispute. Hammer it out on the talk pages of the relevant articles to your satisfaction; but please don't, by the adoption of such a name for the task force, proclaim that the project as a whole supports your view on what these articles should contain. (I'll add that even if you succeed in achieving consensus on a particular article, that consensus may change over time as editors join and leave the discussion; the project's internal structures really shouldn't be held hostage to this type of never-ending debate.) Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There are 4 people against it. I am not sure what you are reading. Debate over the name does not stop it from being factually the name. You do not rename Vietnam War to American War, you simply state its not the name the Vietnamese call it. Controvery over the name involves Crystal Ballism, somethnig we do not do here at Wikipedia. THe controvery is over the name creates a war that goes on forever, hence why its not appropriate to discuss it here. Also one of those votes against has stated they accept the compromise and moved their vote to agree if you did not notice. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see where your mistake is, you are basing your information over a poll about the infobox, not about if the WOT and Iraq was are linked. That poll was over if the term should be in the infobox. It was specifically asked that way to garner more votes against it, then simply asking what the facts are. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the issue seems to have been resolved by the creation of a separate WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism. I think that leaving things at the status quo for the time being might be the best option here, but I'll leave it up to the editors working on these articles to determine if the creation of a task force (for whichever scope) on our part would be desirable. Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The need to be politically correct makes me feel that will not happen. However that project that was created is not one I am interested in. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that the political issues are under the purview of a separate project now, though, is there necessarily a need for a strictly separate task force for the WoT? Or might it be sufficient to have it covered by one that's slightly broader in scope (e.g. "Ongoing conflicts" or something like that)? Kirill Lokshin 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Krill; this particular topic isn't really ours. Things like suicide bombers definitely fall under terrorism, but would be sticky to handle as part of military history. Though it's probably to late, I'd like to again state my objection against using "War on Terrorism". That'd be like using "Great Patriotic War" as the name to define the conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in WWII; it is laden with policital bias. Oberiko 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Almost like calling something a World War when the whole world wasnt involved, or a Cold War when there was 2 or more major wars in it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I would dispute the relevance in the cases you bring up. WWII, if you check the map, involved all of the major military powers and roughly 90% of the total nations on Earth, not including those who were officially declared neutrals. The Cold War was so named not for policital/propoganda reasons, but because it was a war fought by other means (economic, proxy wars etc.) other then direct, potentially nuclear, conflict (which would have made it "hot"). Here, in this War on Terrorism, the name applies to only one side and is used, IMO, to define it as a battle between "Terrorists" and "Us", making one side the "good guys" by default. This is inherently non-neutral.
But that's besides the point. The main issue was if this qualifies as military history and, while I believe that some actions do (the 2003 invasion of Iraq etc.), things like kidnapping, suicide bombers etc. I don't think qualify. Oberiko 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the task force is called, there should be one very clearly created for the wars following September 11th (currently, OEF and OIF). It is troubling that there is no neutral term for refering to these wars, but the solution is not to give up on such a term. Perhaps I am just stuck in the moment, but whether this these wars are really about terrorism, I suspect they have been branded and will go down in the history books as the (First?) Global War on Terrorism. If you think that is a loaded term, then you are right. But wikipedia doesn't choose the names for the content of the world, it just tries picking the most neutral term it can. In this case... I can't think of one. Maybe if we can do something with the word "on" in the title. The Global War regarding Terrorism? Ha! Well, the name is stupid but who can deny that the war involves terrorism as a cental and defining feature. Now maybe it isn't a war 'on' terrorism, but that certainly a central characteristic of this war. Lastly, the title should relate specifically to the OEF, OIF and related wars. The title shouldn't be so general as 'Terrorism Task Force' or 'Low-Intens. Conflict'. (Atfyfe 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
Hi everyone(my first post on this talk) first let me say i do think the WOT is as much a POV name as al-quaida's name for it which is "The 10th Crusade", even the war on al-quaida would be more factual and less POV. Second we could change tack and discribe the conflic by tactics rather than geopolics, ie call it 21st century Asymetric warfare taskforce (sounds sooooo cool you have to want to be a member!). On a personal note i'm interested in informational warfare(is there a taskforce for that?) and web based conflicts such as the hacker battles between Japan and S.Korea, check out my page for the articles i've started.Hypnosadist 10:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Why specifically 21st century? That would, IMO, make the project small to the point that a task force would be unwarranted. Oberiko 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the WikiProject Military history be directly involved articles about a war which is current and not yet history? This seems to me very similar to the argument that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military and this one be combined. I think all of military history is enough for this project.

Perhaps the best thing to do is for those who would like to take this further, is for revitalise the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military and set up task forces there to deal with current military conflicts. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

History begins yesterday, no? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Kirill thats one of my points, the other is calling it 21c means its not POV about some VERY POV issues!Hypnosadist 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also its said that it does not cover much history, but it includes 911 and the two following wars, isreal/palestine conflict, insurgencies in nepal and other countries. The WOT covers countries from canada to thailand and on to russia. Issues including ethnic cleansing in iraq(really sectarian) and sudan, fake dollar bills from N.Korea and organised drug crime. I think that either "21c asymetric warfare" or "21c unconventional warfare" would be the best names for this taskforce. As i say above it really helps reduce the POV right from the start which means we get much more done.Hypnosadist 23:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. How would it deal with something like 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was (briefly, to be sure) a conventional, though assymetric, war? Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi kirill, The military build up and first 3 weeks of convensional warfare would not be in the remit of the taskforce in my view. But every IED,suicide bomber and militia activity after that point would be in the remit, very little of the war in iraq was uniform on uniform a-la the geneva convetions.Hypnosadist 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK so whats the SitRep on this taskforce? One final point i would like to make is that the "bloodbath" will be fought with or without this task force and many here will be "combatents".Hypnosadist 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Iraq War issue doesn't seem to have achieved a stable consensus, despite the considerable efforts there, I think it's fair to say that using "War on Terrorism" as a name is rather ill-advised at this point. It's not clear, then, (1) what the best alternate name/scope would be and (2) what degree of interest among the project members there would be in participating in such a task force. Until we get some sensible answers to these points, I don't think it would be to our benefit to move forward at all aggressively.
(The existence of a bloodbath doesn't concern me so much as the fact that putting the project in the midst of it will drag in lots of people who normally wouldn't touch those articles with a ten-foot pole, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MIA Category

I've created this new category.--James Bond 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Would we want to limit it to current MIAs, or include people who were notable for being MIAs but whose fate was later confirmed? Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting question. Maybe we should only list the current ones in that category and add a list of notable MIA's in the Missing In Action article..--James Bond 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging discussion underway

Not sure what to make of this and this.--James Bond 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

US Iraq War Veterans

I see that the category for Iraq War Veterans includes fatal casualties from the war (ie Casey Sheehan. How can you be a veteran if you're dead? Should these not be culled out? What purpose does it serve to include them? I'd suggest a separate category for those killed on active duty in Iraq.Michael Dorosh 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Category: American Iraq War fatalities, keeping in line with Category: American Iraq War veterans.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the general consensus in the category discussion above was that we should abandon using "Veterans" in category names entirely, in favor of the more general "US military personnel of the Iraq War" (or something of that sort); but, due to a whole bunch of other things that have come up recently, we haven't had time to move forward on any actual renaming yet. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I can recat these, if there is a consensus as to what the new category should be called.Michael Dorosh 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for Military Award

There are info boxes for battles, people, locations, etc. Why not for awards? It would be particularly nice if I could go to the U.S. Medal of Honor entry and have a link to the next highest (i.e. none) and next lower (i.e. Service Cross) award.

It's an idea that's been brought up several times now, but has never gotten any significant discussion. I have no objections to an award infobox per se, but I have very little knowledge of them; what fields would be appropriate (keeping in mind that this should be applicable across national lines)? Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Name, type (order/medal/other...), year of creation/revocation, country, type of award (military/civilian), awarding conditions, link to next highest/next lowest awards, number of recipients... I'm forgetting some of them for sure but that would be a start. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a great start. I might not use the term "revocation", maybe "Current Status." Also some awards (service awards) have periods of eligability that should be included in the box. Secondly, sometimes the award may be awarded by one country, but commonly worn by soldiers in another. Like the Kuwaiti Liberation Medal is issued by the country of Kuwait, by mainly awarded to soldiers of the U.S. Military. (Atfyfe 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
Types of award, too, I think - some were for service, some for bravery, some like the Bronze Star are awarded for both. Nazi Germany had two separate streams of awards - the War Merit Cross and the Iron Cross, one for non-combat service, another for combat service and/or bravery. I think there are enough exceptions to prevent a graceful handling of "next highest" award, particularly given the dual nature of some awards. But one doesn't know until one tries. What about service medals? The 1939-45 Star would feature differently in a Canadian lineup of order of precedence than in a British one (because Canada had the CVSM, mainly). Lots of issues to think about - it might behoove us to do some group planning on this page or a separate Sandbox to work the kinks out first in the planning stage.Michael Dorosh 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. Army makes a distinction between meritorious awards (for service, sometimes even in combat) and valor awards (for a specific action or specific set of actions in combat). As you report, Nazi Germany makes a distinction between non-combat and combat awards. The different ways in which goverments handle such distinctions might be difficult to handle, but perhaps worth it. I certainly thing next highest and next lowest is something worth having, simply for ease of surfing all the awards for a military. However, it too comes with problems. Often there are equal awards above or below, and often different services offer the same award in different forms (Navy Cross and the Army's Distinguished Service Cross). Perhaps in addition to next highest and next lowest, there ought to be a 'award version in other branches'? (Atfyfe 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
As mentioned by Atfyfe, even within a particular country's military, various branches have difference medals, so order of precedence would require distinguishing between service branches, etc. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've started a (rough) draft at Template:Infobox Military Award; comments are very welcome! I have no idea how to properly set up the order of precedence at the moment, so I'll give that some further thought. In the meantime, what other fields could be useful? Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something like this --
Higher Awards: Nothing Lesser Awards: Service Crosses (Army, Navy, Air Force)
Then on those awards you would need the additional section for eqivalent awards. (Atfyfe 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
I know it is a military infobox Kirill, but do you mind adding a "type" field that would be either military or civilian. I think it would be nice to have it in civilian awards' pages too.. :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Will try to do that later today. Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill :) Oh, and we will need two image and description fields too: one for the pic and one for the ribbon.... :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Any reason why the images can't just be stacked in the single field? The ribbon one would usually be too narrow to work on its own, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't know it was possible... *blushes* sorry about that... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added an "eligibility" field and three fields to use for the order of precedence. Any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, looks like the infobox is starting to be used on actual pages. Comments and further ideas for improvement would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should create a medals and decorations task force... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually suggested it about a month ago, but there didn't seem to be any (and I do mean any) interest. I have no objections to creating one if you can round up a few editors who'd be willing to be part of it, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that, I was just thinking aloud... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To see the award box in systematic use, I've added it to most all of the entries for unit awards in the U.S. Military. I intive everyone to surf around the U.S. military unit awards and see if you have any ideas for improving the infobox, you might start at the highest unit award: Presidential Unit Citation (US). (Atfyfe 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

OK I'm seriously confused

2003 Invasion of Iraq & Iraq War

Same topic, two articles? They seem to contradict themself in some areas. I'm also very concerned about the poor NPOV of the two. --James Bond 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq covers the first few days of tomahawk rain and bombing, while the whole war article covers that and the resultant suicide bombing, alley fighting etc. That's my guess. -- Миборовский 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That looks to be the case, at least at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New weapon infobox

The new {{Infobox Weapon}} is now capable of replacing most of the commonly-used weapon infoboxes; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force for more details. Does anyone have further comments on the design, or should we go ahead and start rolling this out? (And is there anyone who would be interested in helping to convert existing templates to this form?) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very complete, if I visit any that are unchanged in my wikitravels I'll convert them.Dryzen 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov

I had stumbled upon this article while I was under the impression that Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier was our only article on this particular ship of war. I tried my best to read the guidelines for deletion, but alas I'm tired and quite groggy, thus it is all lost on me. Perhaps someone who knows what he is doing could give me a hand with this, it would be much appreciated. (USMA2010 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I would ask at WP:SHIPS first; they have some standards on how articles on ship classes versus individual ships should be named, so they'll probably be able to determine what the idea behind having separate articles is. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

June newsletter

The June issue of the newsletter is basically ready to go; hence, the usual questions:

  • Is there anything significant I missed?
  • Is anyone available to work on delivering it?

Any other comments are, of course, quite welcome! Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, no takers? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I can probably deliver it... but not today. -- Миборовский 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you have some time tomorrow or Wednesday, that'd be great! If not, I'll probably just do it myself, unless somebody else comes forward. Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else interested? Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I can help again. It would be in about 14 hours from now. I'll check back then to see if my help is still needed. (Have you started? A-Z? Z-A?) —ERcheck (talk) @ 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW... I made delivery of all requested full newsletters; and special non-member requests. —ERcheck (talk) @ 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! I haven't had time to deliver any myself, so feel free to pick a place to start according to your own preferences if you do any more deliveries. Kirill Lokshin 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I started at "A". First 20 done. Whew! We have a growing membership... this is going to take some time. I've got some RL commitments, so, I'll be back later to do more. — ERcheck (talk) @ 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC); Now through 30. — ERcheck (talk) @ 02:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did the rest of them. We really should look at getting AWB or a bot for this sort of thing in the future, though; our growth in membership has been quite impressive, and shows no signs of slowing. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work... sorry I didn't get to more of them. I do agree that a bot would be helpful. — ERcheck (talk) @ 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Whew! I didn't realize how many Military history members I had corresponded with (and thus added their talk pages to my watchlist) until the newsletter came out! :D - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 07:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a delivery, have we considered making the newsletter a template? Either that or we're going to eventually need a bot to make the deliveries for us. Oberiko 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think even AWB with speed up things pretty well, actually... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if AWB is supposed to be used for this sort of thing, so we'd probably need to ask. I definitely don't want to get someone's AWB permissions revoked by asking them to do this. Kirill Lokshin 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We can always ask, but why not? They use a bot to deliver WPSIGN why not the milhist newsletter? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the WPSIGN list is composed of people who explicitely requested delivery. Since we're sending messages to everyone on the project list, it might be viewed as being more spammy by some people. Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suggest we ask the question :) (though I don't know who we should ask)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
No idea ;-) Does anybody in the project actually use AWB? They might know more about any restrictions on it. Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I use AWB a bit... That will be an occasion to expand its use even further... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes! I forgot to deliver the newsletter!!! *self flagellates* -- Миборовский 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. ;-) Would you happen to know anything about the potential for using AWB here, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you have to select a particular category for AWB to put in its worklist? I don't think we have a category of WPMILHIST members, so that might be a problem. Using AWB to deliver messages on the talkpage is certainly doable, but I'm not sure whether it can be used to deliver newsletters and such. Would it not be better to create a milhist bot or something like that? We have what, 10k articles? We can't do all that my hand... A bot would speed things up considerably. In any case, a bot/AWB delivery is no more spammy than a hand-delivery... -- Миборовский 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to go through a category, you can also have AWB parse a list, which is more interesting... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I recently failed Mirko Norac for GA status, needs more citations and citations summary at bottom of article. Alvin6226 talk 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

USMC oral history unit

This topic is not in my area, but it is not in Wikipedia yet as an article. It is not in the USMC article and there is not yet a History of the USMC article. So for what it's worth, I just heard about

  • Dr. Gary Solis, the U.S. Marine Corps’ Chief of Oral History
  • U.S. Marine Corps' oral history unit, which has recorded more than 1,500 interviews with Marines in Iraq.
  • There is a protocol for each field historian embedded with a unit, according to Colonel Nicholas Reynolds (US Marine Corps, Oral History Unit), author of Basra, Baghdad and beyond: the U.S. Marine Corps in the second Iraq War ISBN 1591147174

--Ancheta Wis 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's made by the USMC, and contains material from Marines, would the interviews be public domain? If we could get transcripts of these on WikiSource or something, it might be quite useful. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration candidates needed

Our Collaboration of the Fortnight is down to two (about to be one, in a few hours) candidates. If anyone has some articles they think need to be worked on, now would be a great time to list them! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, plenty... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added new label on a war

Hi, I added the WikiprojectWars label for the Nagorno-Karabakh War. If I did this in the wrong procedure, please inform me, thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would like some eyes on Talk:F-14 Tomcat, also re TFX project and Mcnamara's history

I have already made the request at Wikiproject:Aircraft, and I am making this request as the dispute is largely historical. User:Wiarthurhu is inserting edits that proclaim that the F-14 was designed from the outset. In addition, he made the following edit to the Robert McNamara article which, while rooted in truth, is a gross oversimplification of the matter [2]. I apologize as the Talk:F-14 Tomcat page is quite large, but I would welcome anyone with knowledge of the 1960/70's U.S. fighter acquisitions process, and in particular the TFX/FX/VFX programs. The identical information has been added to the Robert McNamara, General Dynamics F-111, and F-14 Tomcat articles.

I am gravely concerned about the editor, he has started pumping up his credentials on his talk page, but has made grave errors that he's been unwilling to retract. In the talk page he's proclaimed that the most important design aspect of the F-14 was maneuverability, and among the edits he's inserted into the McNamara page was the assertion that maneuverability was the "the decisive factor in all previous air battles" which is also grossly wrong and a grossly amateurish point of view. I have pointed this error out to him on his talk page, only to get a boastful recitation of his resume. Any WWII aviation experts are welcome to weigh in and point out his errors - hopefully we can convince him to step back and reexamine the evidence. --Mmx1 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Update

A request for mediation has been filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#F-14_Tomcat, and editors are invited to participate.

--Mmx1 00:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. I have been able to identify a couple of other individuals who agree with MMx that the F-14 was not designed to be agile, however that body of opinion is hardly large enough to justify mention in the WP, let alone justify instant erasure of any such statement considering that not only Modern Marvels, but former F-14 test Pilot and Grummman VP and engineer Bob Kress were interviewed on camera as stating the F-14 was indeed, designed from the ground up to add agility to the F-111Bs capabilities. Mr. Mmx has refused all professional and amateur citations, and even turned around a Rand report naming the F-14 as the first of 4 new air superiority fighters as a primary reference that the f-14's demotion of agility to #2 behind retaining the Phoenix as evidence agility was not even a design parameter. Agility is essentially the only requirement lacking from the F-111B, as the F-111 book I have (argh, packed up) says that weight and carrier suitability were really only brought up to bring a quick end to the F-111 so they could start something that was better than an F-4 in Vietnam Mmx has been rude, used crude language, told me that I am wrong and worse, ignored my considerable credentials while refusing to reveal any of his, as he evidently has no formal non-compulsory education, has never consulted any books, magazines, videos or museums out side of "open source" citations, nor evidence of previous experience or publishing in any field. The glaring ommission of the F-14's primary reason for redesign has been extended to other articles, which in turn, have been mirrored across other web sites which duplicate WP content, and this indeed may the reason for other individuals adopting this view. The WP and its mirros on the web space are the only places that citations can be found for MMx's position, and an examination of the history show that MMx was indeed the first individual to so modify the F-14 page to reflect this position since march of 2006. If any individual like myself had attempted to rectify this error, it would have been reverted in 10 minutes, with some remark resembling "ignorant !@#$%" as has been my experience. I have been unable to find any other source of this viewpoint other than MMx's conclusion that since one FAS paper omits any mention of agility, it must be a complete list which negates the possibility that this was an important, if secondary, design consideration. Even the commonly accepted view that the F-15 had no comprimises could be argued since the USAF retained an aircraft large enough to superset all of the F-4's various capabilities. I believe that MMx has had far too much leeway to appoint himself the sole arbiter of truth over the F-14 pages, I doubt that he exercises much more restraint over other WP articles. --Wiarthurhu 00:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't deign to respond here as to not clutter 10 different pages in wiki with the same argument. Relevant discussion can be found at Talk:F-14 Tomcat or User Talk:Wiarthurhu. The latter is....particularly interesting. It will put the ignored my considerable credentials while refusing to reveal any of his, as he evidently has no formal non-compulsory education, has never consulted any books, magazines, videos or museums out side of "open source" citations, nor evidence of previous experience or publishing in any field. comment in perspective.
P.p.s. It's "hear, hear", not "here, here" --Mmx1 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Brazil

Hi all! I am a new member of this encyclopedia, and I just want some more older veteran type influence on this article I posted yesterday. I am open ears to any suggestions, and I hope my article reaches Wikipedia standards so far. When I finish the article, I will mostly likely put it under a peer review so it can be up to par. OMEN 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft "in fiction/popular culture"

I'm not sure whether this is the best place to raise this, but IMO the frequent inclusion of a "...in fiction and/or popular culture" section in articles on aircraft looks amateur and adds nothing to the articles. For instance, why does the F-14 entry bother to mention that the aircraft "are featured in Stephen Coonts' 1986 novel Final Flight"? and is anyone seeking useful information on the B-1 likely to be interested to know that "In the movie Real Genius, a B-1B is outfitted with an air-to-ground laser weapon"?

I'd suggest that these sections be removed as they're pointless and make the articles look light-weight. The information they contain would be better located in the entries for whatever book/movie/computer game/obscure Japanese educational cartoon (see: [3]) they currently refer to --Nick Dowling 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I do think there are times when a piece of equipment being used in fiction would be relevant (as trivia), but that would have to be on a case-by-case basis and require almost unanimous consent. Oberiko 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite agree. There are certainly cases where an aircraft's role in fiction is of interest, particularly cases of fictional depictions that had broader reprecussions (the Strangelove bit in B-52 is a good example, in my opinion), but a laundry list of every place a plane has been mentioned isn't really useful. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I partially agree. On the one-hand, many well-known aircraft types will have many references made to the them and it seems pointless to try to list them all. On the other hand, someone cares enough about this information to be adding the references in. If someone cares that much, then it makes me wonder if there might be readers who would also appreciate finding the information. I think it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Johntex\talk 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, and the consensused guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Popular_culture. The problem with persistence is that frequently cases of speculative similarly are inserted (e.g. the Transformer Starscream resembles or was inspired by a particular aircraft). Also, a big problem are Ace Combat fans putting (plane is featured in Ace Combat 4), which happens pretty frequently. Which is fine except that one of 70-odd planes hardly qualifies as "featured", and the modeling is so unrealistic that the only resemblence to the real aircraft is cosmetic. Similarly, people like to insert "plane was featured in a Tom Clancy Novel" (as is every piece of modern military equipment). When there aren't significant pop culture references, renaming it "Simulations" is often helpful.--Mmx1 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for that Mmx1. That guideline looks very sensible. --Nick Dowling 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_30&oldid=1190095524"