This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eastfarthingan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Eastfarthingan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Barret (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Operation Tractable
Hi
Since this is a FA, and there is no other mention of British forces in the article, do you have a source to confirm the 79th Armoured Division provided specalist units for this op?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion 79th helped in Totalise. The 31st Tank Brigade performed operations with the Canadians but these were as independent units rather than with the 79th armoured. Link here... [1]ChristiaandeWet (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the link and hint towards the 31st Brigade. I know the guidelines for FAC can be a bit iffy around around websites-even ones, such as these. But with the link to the 31st Tank Brigade i can source it from a published secondary source. I shall throw a citation into the article now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an example of a campaign that should not be on the Template. The 1982 Falklands War against Argentina might be classed as an Argentinian colonial campaign, but it was not a British colonial campaign as the British were merely defending the rights of the local population to self determination against an aggressor. Dabbler (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't make any sense. It is still a British colonial campaign since it was defending colonial a territory regardless of whether it is a an Argentine colonial campaign. Perhaps we should put this in the military history talk page for more advice. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of going through all the entries and reviewing and categorizing them into what I think should be in and what I think should be out and what I am ambiguous about. I will leave the Falklands for now. Once I have my lists, then we can discuss the whole thing. It will probably be a few weeks before I am ready as I am planning to be away for a couple of weeks without much internet access and time. Dabbler (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok sounds good to me. I knew this was a hard task when I first set out the challenge of creating the template itself. Thanks. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to MILHIST
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Battle of the Narrow seas
Hello. Please, check Talk:Battle of the Narrow Seas. I found what seem to be inaccuracies on the article, or at leat a different view supported by realiable sources. It would be good to see how to deal with this without engaging into a nearly edit war, such as happened in article of the 1st Battle of Gibraltar.--Weymar Horren (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I just took a look at the Action of 1 November 1944 article and liked it a lot. The only thing, IMO, between current status and B-class rating of article quality would be some additional background info. The article, as it is written now, assumes all readers to be aware of circumstances in the Adriatic Sea and on the surrounding land at the time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Coverage-wise that's fine. Could you explain use of the "MTB" acronym (normally that would be motor torpedo boat) for the destroyers? I just linked the MTB, but it is quite confusing to see this in the text: were there MTB's accompanying the destroyers (in that case, say which were those and list them in the infobox) or were you referring to the destroyers (then say "destroyers" instead). Referencing seems to be another problem. Specifically, recently used "vojska.net" is not a reliable source per WP:RS, nor is "naval-history.net". Could you find the relevant info elsewhere and use those instead (O'Hara is a good ref for instance)? Finally, a part of the newly-added prose is not supported by any reference, and all material need have at least one supporting ref to qualify for B-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Also fixed O'Hara ref style, please check if all instances where this ref is used really pertain to the page 173 of the book. If other pages are referenced elsewhere, there's a way to do that too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the MTB's they were patrolling another area (Krk and Rab Island) so would not have been even close to the combat area. (Pag & Lošinj). As for references I will progressively do that. Thanks.ChrisWet (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright. If you don't mind, I'll add a few details as I have a scientific journal article (in Croatian language though) dealing with the battle and the wrecks left over (among other things). Also, would you mind if I apply {{harvnb}} style refs - those are quite similar to the ones already used, but much more handy when the same book/article is used albeit with a different page numbers repeatedly?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
After a second look, the "BBC" article is really a story posted by BBC site user and therefore not suitable for use per WP:SPS. I'll see what can be found on a short notice as a replacement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I added whatever was found in the Freivogel. The coordinates look suspicious to me - that is in the general area, but the narrative seems to place them closer to Pag and Rab than that, so please check them if you can - Freivogel claims they come from British sources.
The BBC source should be changed for something else, you can probably find something in Tomasevich to support that claim. Also, I'd steer clear of the "annexation" term - they were more about "capturing" - this sounds more neutral and less legalese (just a suggestion).
Once the above is done, you might consider expanding the article lead - it should be about two paragraphs long summary of the main aspects of the article, capable of conveying central information (as if it were a standalone article) per WP:LEAD. If you wish I'll turn that over to you (as well as the BBC ref). If not, please let me know.
You're welcome. I just thought of another thing - the article could use a location map. Would you like me to make one for you indicating where key toponyms and the battlefield (per coordinates provided) are located?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and added the map anyway since the prose contains many otherwise obscure toponyms (Trstenik, Premuda, Ist etc.) - hope that's ok.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I saw you added Wenke in a way implying he commanded several vessels. According to Freivogel, he was commanding officer of UJ 208 only. UJ 202 was commanded by Heinz Trautwein, TA 20 by Heinz Guhrke - all three with the rank of "Oberleutnant zur See der Reserve". HMS Avon Vale was commanded by Lieutenant H. A. Corbett, while HMS Wheatland was under command of Lieutenant Ivan Hall. Would you prefer this info in too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes being the size that it is now, I reckon we should put these names in especially where there is a link involved. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I get it - death of Wenke. Still, all four German commanders died as indicated by posthumous decorations referenced by Freivogel p.65, so if you don't mind, this bit can be removed as redundant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
