François Robere (talk | contribs) |
Astral Leap (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
Francois Robere, stop it. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what the disagreement is about just to win an argument on Wikipedia.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
Francois Robere, stop it. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what the disagreement is about just to win an argument on Wikipedia.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::------------->[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002618127&oldid=1002616357 diff], the '''[[Soviet Union]]''' was added as a '''State that adhered to the Tripartite Pact''' to the infobox of '''[[Axis powers]]'''.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* {{re|Volunteer Marek}} The title of Piotrus's message is {{tq|Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Former_Axis_powers_or_co-belligerents:_why_is_USSR_not_here?] He then states multiple times that the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. You then state that {{tq|the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers#Soviet_Union_joining_the_Tripartite_Pact] If it seems like your point is misunderstood, then next time instead of casting aspersions in ALL CAPS try checking what ''you'' did wrong. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
* {{re|Volunteer Marek}} The title of Piotrus's message is {{tq|Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Former_Axis_powers_or_co-belligerents:_why_is_USSR_not_here?] He then states multiple times that the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. You then state that {{tq|the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers#Soviet_Union_joining_the_Tripartite_Pact] If it seems like your point is misunderstood, then next time instead of casting aspersions in ALL CAPS try checking what ''you'' did wrong. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:27, 27 January 2021
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
Anyone fancy reviewing Draft:Christie M1931?
I came across Draft:Christie M1931 on one of J Walter Christies influential designs and got a bit carried away improving it to the extent that I reckon it's more or less fit for mainspace with a fair number of articles pointing to Christie M1931 already. As I'm not a reviewer, I can't take advantage of the clever tools to shift it into use and automagically update AfC lists, notify the original creator etc and so forth. And as it's sat there since October with no-one taking an interest, it might be a while before anyone gets round to looking at it - so if there's a member of the project with who is a review could give it the thumbs up (yeah!) or down (boo!), that would be much appreciated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @GraemeLeggett: I think you should take a look at other tank articles such as T-34, M4 Sherman, Tiger II or Cromwell tank for making basic lines of paragraph. Maybe you can add more features about M1931 through comparing draft with other article. Or you can look Panzer VIII Maus, T20 Medium Tank or IS-7 which are all articles about tank prototype. I really want to thank you for your edition. But I think we have to develop it much far. conclusion is not sure... Half-thumb up, maybe? -- Wendylove (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's good enough as a start, and as a live article it'll get more attention than stuck in draft. As I said, I'd happily shift it to mainspace myself but there are tools which I don't have that make a clean job of the move. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's now been assessed and moved to mainspace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- GraemeLeggett, For future reference you can post at WP:RM/TR to request the assistance of an administrator or page mover in carrying out a move. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's now been assessed and moved to mainspace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Thrasybulus 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 Bacon 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable articles clean-up
Just reviving this as it was recently archived. You can find a list of MilHist articles tagged for notability reasons here (let the page load, PetScan may take 30 seconds or so to complete the query). It currently stands at 424 articles, reduced from 558 at the start of the month thanks to the work of several project members. You can help by reviewing the articles: remove the notability tag if the article meets the guidelines (you may need to add additional reliable sources) or else nominate the articles for deletion, citing a reason from the notability guidelines. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've nominated Robert Saint George Dyrenforth for a merger, users here may be interested in weighing in. thanks for bringing this list back, Dumelow, I'll try to get through some more. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Likewise I've proposed Coast Guard Officers' Sword is merged into Model 1852 Naval Officers Sword and would welcome any comments - Dumelow (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Russian historiography
I'm looking to salvage some information on Russian/Soviet military historiography from ru:Кронштадтское восстание (1921)#Оценка_событий. Историография but I don't know the language and cannot verify the citations. Are there any Russian-reading milhist editors with topical interest that might be interested in helping? (please {{ping}}
) czar 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Czar: I can help.--Catlemur (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kges1901: @Ezhiki: please consider assisting. Also I run Google Translate on other wiki language articles all the time.. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the definition of WP:SOLDIER is a bit too narrow. I think it should include individuals who have a warship named after them. In the U.S. Navy, Destroyers have been named after Navy Cross recipients with only 1 Navy Cross. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Milhist Notability guide is recommendations based on the projects experience and as it says "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline." You can read WP:SOLDIER as a guide as to whether it's worth starting an article on a military person or thing. It also notes that "material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions" isn't generally an independent source as GNG requires. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, it should not. The ship is not an "award" and Notability is not inherited from the ship named after them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, it is an honor. The notability isn't inherited, the ship was named for the individual based on their merit and notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia notability does not work that way. The "awards and honors" are medals awarded, not 'things named after you'. A ship being named after someone does not indicate Wikinotability. I understand you don't like it, but that's how things work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, nowhere in WP:GNG does it say that material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions" isn't generally an independent source. It may be the opinion of some of the authors of this essay but that is where it ends. Per WP:SNG, Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards and as a corollary, don't exclude reliable sources.
- @Bushranger: we can do without the condescending attitude too. This is a conversation about something I think could be improved, which is one of the fundamentals of "how things work." Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- You have me very confused now about where whether or not armed forces material was considered an independent sources or about reliable sources being excluded came up, because literally nothing was said about that [ed: by me]. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Literally it was. You have to read. See Graeme's comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...then why were you repling to me about it? Anyway as Peacemaker points out below - DoD sources on U.S. military affairs are primary sources. They can be used to establish facts; they cannot be used to establish notability as they are not independent of the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of the fact that SOLDIER is an essay, the long-term consensus of this project reflected in SOLDIER is that a single second-level gallantry award is insufficient to give a presumption of notability, which can help a new article survive long enough to be expanded on enough to meet the GNG. To be retained long-term, a bio still needs to meet the GNG, and plain Defense Department or single service sources like press releases or website posts that don't involve input from historians are not independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- The whole "it's only an essay" thing is really tiresome at this point. We don't say "it's only consensus" (at least I really really hope we don't), but apparently compiling that consensus onto a page so that it can easily be referred to somehow renders it invalid. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the majority here, that a single Navy Cross, while it might get a sailor or marine a ship named for them, it might not necessarily be enough to have a BLP page named for them. But that said, I appreciate where Toddst1 is coming from, and at the end of the day, it would have to come down to the individual. It's entirely possible for a Navy Cross recipient to have enough secondarily and reliably sourced notable info about their heroic act or other life events to merit a BLP.
(btw: "We don't say "it's only consensus" (at least I really really hope we don't)
" - perhaps "we" don't, but some do, if said consensus is just from a WikiProject talk page and not from an MOS talk page. Just sayin') - wolf 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)- Certainly and absolutely, if GNG is met, nothing else matters. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the majority here, that a single Navy Cross, while it might get a sailor or marine a ship named for them, it might not necessarily be enough to have a BLP page named for them. But that said, I appreciate where Toddst1 is coming from, and at the end of the day, it would have to come down to the individual. It's entirely possible for a Navy Cross recipient to have enough secondarily and reliably sourced notable info about their heroic act or other life events to merit a BLP.
- The whole "it's only an essay" thing is really tiresome at this point. We don't say "it's only consensus" (at least I really really hope we don't), but apparently compiling that consensus onto a page so that it can easily be referred to somehow renders it invalid. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Literally it was. You have to read. See Graeme's comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- You have me very confused now about where whether or not armed forces material was considered an independent sources or about reliable sources being excluded came up, because literally nothing was said about that [ed: by me]. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia notability does not work that way. The "awards and honors" are medals awarded, not 'things named after you'. A ship being named after someone does not indicate Wikinotability. I understand you don't like it, but that's how things work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, it is an honor. The notability isn't inherited, the ship was named for the individual based on their merit and notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let's reverse the question: Have we found that in the vast majority of cases, a Navy Cross recipient with a ship a ship named after them has enough coverage in reliable sources to create a reasonable article? That's the criterion for addition to WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good question but I don't think that there's sufficient data for that question to be answered yet. On one hand we have all the names listed under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Henry_Allen and on the other during WWII, the USN had a lot of ships named after Navy men killed in combat. eg the 80 John_C._Butler-class_destroyer_escort ( of which - picked at random - one namesake Henry W. Tucker is reliant solely on DANFS for sourcing at moment) and then there's the 90 Gearing-class destroyers and the 50 Allen M. Sumner-class destroyers. So we've a lot of work ahead to even assess if half of those recipients have/can/should meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- And it's not like being namesake of a ship has major hurdles to clear. Sometimes all you have to do is get elected to Congress! Jokes aside, there are a lot of these namesake articles that are "enlisted sailor died in the line of duty and a ship was named after him". They deserve respect and honor, yes, but respect and honor =/= notbility, and given the sheer numbers of ships named after people it comes THIS close to being run of the mill. And, with all good faith assumed but at the same time calling it as it is, my gut is telling me this is, if not an intentional attempt at a runaround of the "Heroic Soldier = Wikipedia Article" that SOLDIER was made to put a lid on, it's a feature-not-bug side-effect... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Having put a number of single Navy Cross recipients with a ship named after them up for AFD, I believe that the correct approach is WP:GNG, i.e. is there SIGCOV in multiple RS? If yes then a separate page should be retained, if not then the page should be a redirect to the ship. WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay setting out presumptions of notability. Just meeting one of the presumptions without SIGCOV in multiple RS means the subject isn't sufficiently notable to have a page, while failing all presumptions but having SIGCOV in multiple RS means that the subject is sufficiently notable to have a page. Personally I think that most of the presumptions in SOLDIER are reasonable, but its far from a complete current consensus, for example we treat Flying aces as notable, but they're not mentioned in SOLDIER, nor are submarine "aces" and we have far too many pages of one and two Stars who did nothing and have no SIGCOV in multiple RS, but which are often retained because some Users treat SOLDIER as a guideline, which it clearly isn't. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict - and I think I'm saying similar to just above this) I think this comes to what WP:Soldier is for. On the one hand, if someone asks "Should I write an article on this person who was in the war", we say "go read WP:Soldier". Though that only comes up when editors ask first, or come across WP:Soldier. On the other when it comes to deletion discussions we use it to say "well someone who only did that in the war probably won't reach notability threshold, come up with some good cites to sources or the article gets shown the door" or "yup, they're probably well-covered somewhere even if the references are sketchy at the moment". Though the latter still needs its sourcing fixed - WP:Soldier is not carte blanche to write an article based on one paragraph in a book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- And it's not like being namesake of a ship has major hurdles to clear. Sometimes all you have to do is get elected to Congress! Jokes aside, there are a lot of these namesake articles that are "enlisted sailor died in the line of duty and a ship was named after him". They deserve respect and honor, yes, but respect and honor =/= notbility, and given the sheer numbers of ships named after people it comes THIS close to being run of the mill. And, with all good faith assumed but at the same time calling it as it is, my gut is telling me this is, if not an intentional attempt at a runaround of the "Heroic Soldier = Wikipedia Article" that SOLDIER was made to put a lid on, it's a feature-not-bug side-effect... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good question but I don't think that there's sufficient data for that question to be answered yet. On one hand we have all the names listed under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Henry_Allen and on the other during WWII, the USN had a lot of ships named after Navy men killed in combat. eg the 80 John_C._Butler-class_destroyer_escort ( of which - picked at random - one namesake Henry W. Tucker is reliant solely on DANFS for sourcing at moment) and then there's the 90 Gearing-class destroyers and the 50 Allen M. Sumner-class destroyers. So we've a lot of work ahead to even assess if half of those recipients have/can/should meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let's reverse the question: Have we found that in the vast majority of cases, a Navy Cross recipient with a ship a ship named after them has enough coverage in reliable sources to create a reasonable article? That's the criterion for addition to WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Example
Just noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin Walsh, an O-6 Navy Cross recipient and namee of USS Quentin Walsh (DDG-132) as a possible example of what's being discussed here and the real outcome of enforcing said guidance. (I believe only an admin can now see what was deleted and why.) fyi - wolf 11:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Probably either a DANFS entry (possibly via Hazegray), or something like Ralph Houser which is mostly the medal citation.
- It would probably be a useful adjunct to the project guidelines, that if one finds that an entity (ship, aircraft, fortress, airbase, vehicle) is named after someone and the someone doesn't pass GNG for an article themselves that Merge is considered in the AfD nomination. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the deleted content of Quentin Walsh, it was a longer bunch of mainly uncited text only supported to two DOD documents. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- The article was a copy paste of this Coastguard blog entry with the medal citation tagged on the end - Dumelow (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the deleted content of Quentin Walsh, it was a longer bunch of mainly uncited text only supported to two DOD documents. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Otto Skorzeny § Funeral
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Otto Skorzeny § Funeral. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Orbat naming discussion
There's a RM discussion at Talk:Raymond Confederate order of battle that has the potential to set a bit of a precedent. Orbats are titled in many different ways, and I think it's probably best to address orbat titling consistency. Please participate at this discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Structural history of the Roman military 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. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A-Class review for Lisa Nowak needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lisa Nowak; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A-Class review for Uganda–Tanzania War needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Uganda–Tanzania War; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Tracked motorcycle
Do we have an article on this tracked motorcycle? It's different to the Sd.Kfz. 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Correcting an article with original research
Hello all, I've posed a bit of a quandary over at Operation Deadstick, where I believe Wikipedia is promulgating a myth, but one that at the moment, can only be challenged with original research. Views on how to deal with this would be especially welcome. Talk:Operation Deadstick#Appropriateness of Operation Deadstick as article title. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've taken a look, and I strongly suggest other editors also bring their opinion on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Just made a couple articles for some minor RNZN ships, could someone give me some feedback/advice for the future?
Howdy, new to wikipedia editing but decided to try create a few articles for RNZN ships that haven't had articles created yet, so far I've done the HS Maunganui and HMNZS Mako. As I'm new I tried to look at some other articles before contributing but if there's any structure I missed or just something I could do better I would appreciate feedback, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiwiSpike1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome KiwiSpike1, and thanks for your work on these ships! Great to see someone working on Kiwi navy articles. We have a few resident gurus on warship articles, including Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66, who I’m sure will give you a steer in the right direction. In the meantime, take a look at the guidance at WP:SHIPMOS and take a look at some of the Featured ship articles listed at WP:MARITIME to see the standard we are striving towards. When you have developed the articles a bit more, added some more sources and a structure, I recommend you ask for an assessment and feedback at WP:MHAR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to put a fly in the ointment, but is HS Maunganui the same ship as TSS Maunganui? They were both the same length. Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whoops, thanks for pointing that out.KiwiSpike1 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- The article (I assume based on the NMRNZN source) says HS was 30 yrs old, and the age of TSS matches, but the other details seem different, in addition to the fact TSS is said to have been a troopship... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think they're the same vessel. This book has the same construction date/builder and post-war career as our troopship article and looks to be the same from the photo (some of the dims are different though). It states that the troopship served as a hospital ship in WWII - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- See also here: "In January, 1941, the Maunganui was taken over by the New Zealand government for conversion into a hospital ship, primarily to serve the needs of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary force. This fine old shup, then thirty years of age, had served throughout the First World War as a troopship" - Dumelow (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the gross tonnage numbers match from my source to the TSS Maunganui article. I might try merge them soon.KiwiSpike1 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @KiwiSpike1 and Dumelow: Then a merge between the two articles should be done... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikolai Vasilyevich Travin
User:Slatersteven, User:Kges1901, User:Buckshot06: Following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 158#Is WW2 general Nikolai Vasilyevich Travin notable? I cleaned up User:Leaftree1 a bit. There are still issues (mostly a lack of sources) which are difficult for me to fix. The article should be moved to article space before the bots find out that the fair use rationale for the image references an article that doesn't exist yet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Belgian SOR
Hi all. Can a military expert look into Special Operations Regiment (Belgium) and Immediate Reaction Cell? There are a couple things that are confusing about their lineage: Both articles cover the Light Brigade, (the infobox of) the second article mentions the SOR but does not mention 'Immediate Reaction Cell'. 7th Brigade (Belgium) redirects to the SOR article but this old version content is gone... Thanks in advance, cheers LittleWink (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LittleWink:, I think you are right that they overlap. The SOR is one of the two surviving brigades of the modern Land Component and is the direct successor of (i) the Para-Commando Brigade, (ii) Immediate Reaction Cell and finally the (iii) Light Brigade. A merger seems sensible. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've been aware of this for a while, but with lots of other things on, did not actually merge the two. Go ahead, making sure that all worthwhile content under all designations of the organisation is maintained in the final result. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LittleWink:, I think you are right that they overlap. The SOR is one of the two surviving brigades of the modern Land Component and is the direct successor of (i) the Para-Commando Brigade, (ii) Immediate Reaction Cell and finally the (iii) Light Brigade. A merger seems sensible. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors trying to revise articles to state that the USSR was part of the Axis
Some editors are trying to revise Allies of World War II and Axis powers (here as well) to state that the USSR was one of the Axis powers, rather than the Allies. FYI. François Robere (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- My first reaction was "Oh well, just mundane vandalism". But then I looked and some names of rather experienced editors there: don't tell me there's an actually serious discussion being had about this? In which case everybody involved should get a WP:TROUT for what must surely be an excessive amount of WP:SYNTH... - Soviets might have been in negotiations for a short moment with the Nazis (Ribbentrop-Molotov et al.), but really they were never part of the Axis and there's no serious history book which suggests otherwise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think Soviet Union from 1937 to 1941 didn't have consistent policy toward Axis. If you see, Soviet Union supported ROC in Second Sino-Japanese War, and they had battle with Japan at Khalkhin Gol and with Romania during occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. We cannot conclude which side Soviet was before 1941, because its policy was dueled, and that is the reason why we cannot put Soviet Union as Axis power and Co-belligerent of Axis power. -- Wendylove (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just people trying to push Polish nationalist POV at all cost.--Catlemur (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- How about you stop it with offensive and obnoxious personal attacks Catlemur? Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Do any RS say they were actually part of the axis powers?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand the discussion, it is a question of whether the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis for part of the war, before becoming a member of the Allies, eg not unlike Finland. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Gog the Mild. Yes, that's what the discussion is about. It is NOT about what Francois Robere is pretending it's about. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian:, @웬디러비: User:François Robere characterization of this disagreement is 100% false. NO ONE IS TRYING TO CATEGORIZE USSR AS AN AXIS POWER. Sorry for the all caps but it's extremely frustrating to watch FR repeatedly keep trying to frame the disagreement this way, asking them to stop since that is not the disagreement, then him do it again and again and again. The persistence in portraying it at this point has become disruptive.
The discussion is about whether the Soviet Union can be described as an "ally" or "co-belligerent" of Nazi Germany in the period 1939-1941.
Francois Robere, stop it. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what the disagreement is about just to win an argument on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- ------------->diff, the Soviet Union was added as a State that adhered to the Tripartite Pact to the infobox of Axis powers.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: The title of Piotrus's message is
Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?
.[1] He then states multiple times that the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. You then state thatthe Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact
.[2] If it seems like your point is misunderstood, then next time instead of casting aspersions in ALL CAPS try checking what you did wrong. François Robere (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Merging of Podporucznik to Podporuchik
Please express your opinion in Talk:Podporucznik#Merge_to_Podporuchik about merging similar ranks in Slavic militaries. Does this wikiproject have any regulations for this kind of issue? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is time to discuss about WW2 belligerents problem.
There are two problems which has a conflict in users.
1. Whether USSR is Axis or not in WW2
2. Big Three& Big Four problem
I think many users have quite reasonable to explain their thoughts, but this doesn't seem to end, so we need to put our efforts to get this argue done. I think user of WikiProject Military history can give their own view, especially who is working for WW2 articles. By hearing from others we may get another view or we can find facts that was clouded by discussion. Why don't we talk these topics at this agora? Let's show what collective intelligence is! -- Wendylove (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Already discussed above. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)