Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force
 WikiProject |
|---|
| General information |
|
For those who want to write an article about the Mitsubishi J1M or J3M
Sequence
- Land-based Japanese Navy interceptors
There was NO Mitsubshi J1M or J3M, J1 was used by Nakajima, J3 by Kawanishi. The 'J' sequence was a Japanese Navy designation for land-based interceptors. Mitsubishi did build the J4M and J8M ('M' stands for Mitsubishi). Dirk P Broer (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open
The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open
The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Naming of Russian Airbourne Radars?
Encountered a naming problem when covering a range of Russian airbourne radars, these radars are associated with a group of designations, eg. RP-31, N007, Zaslon, S-800 refer to the same radar on the MiG-31. Currently using the "N007 Zaslon" naming style but earlier radar families like Sapfir use a range of Nx designations while others like the early N011 dont have a name designation to use, RP-x naming would create a huge number of pages that would probably be better grouped. Currently thinking "Zaslon Radar" or "Zaslon Airbourne Radar" would be the best but any input on what style would be the most clear or best to use would be appreciated.Typhoon9410 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Could really use some help with this featured article review (questions on reliability of sources). Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for List of Indian Air Force Bases now open
The peer review for List of Indian Air Force Bases is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Guernica
This may not be the best place to bring this question, and feel free to copy it elsewhere if you think there is somewhere more appropriate. We've had a heck of a time with the section Bombing of Guernica#Casualties; the talk page of the article should explain the difficulties. Good-faith estimates of the casualties appear to vary by at least a factor of five. Whoever is adding the lower-end numbers is obviously a native Spanish speaker with roughly half-decent English, and obviously not good at providing citations that can readily be followed up.
Since this was a pretty famous case of aerial bombardment, I'm hoping that someone who watches this page may have something to contribute to sorting it out. I'm much too busy on other stuff to do the survey of literature that this probably demands. - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it appears that you are all beginning to get the problem well in hand. Señor Error should be able to break the language barrier for you. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I have a bit of a hand with this squadron's pre- and post- World War Two history? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will see what i can find for you --Panth (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol now open
The A-Class review for Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Army Aviation
Just wondering how many different militaries use the term Army Aviation to describe aviation assets used by their armies? The question has come up as a matter of creating a dab page out of a redirect (Army Aviation which currently redirects to Military aviation]]).
So far:
I appreciate any assistance. --Born2flie (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been working on an article for "Army aviation", to which Army Aviationwill be redirected. Alternatively, Army Aviation could be redirected to United States Army Aviation Branch, with a DAB header/hatnote to "Army aviation", when that page is live. I was surprised how many nations actually use the term "Army Aviation" in their army air arm titles (or in the English translation of their names). It's just a stub/list at the moment, and on a sandbox at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Army aviation. I need a good, sourced definition for what the term "army aviation" means and encompasses, and then I'll go live with it. I don't want it just to be a glorified DAB page, but to cover the history army aviation as a separate force from traditional air forces. That will hopefully come in time. - BillCJ (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- PS There's a list of the current army air arm articles at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Army aviation, with a number of them having "Army Aviation" in the titles. - BillCJ (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also check List of air forces. I've tried to ensure accurate translations of air force names. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- BillCJ has moved his sandbox article to the namespace at Army aviation (linked above in his comments). Thanks for the help Mark and Bill! --Born2flie (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Porting over a suggestion from the main MILHIST page: Is there an offensive confusion about offensive counter-air and such?
I was looking through the articles needing expert attention, and found Offensive counter air attack. With a fumbling of fingers on my keyboard, I lost it, searched, and found Offensive counter air. Both are stubs.
Some time ago, I found references to the terms and other related ones in various places, and thought they were inconsistent with one another. Next, I found an article aerial warfare, with its own approach, which struck me as more historical than doctrinal.
As Gene Wilder said in Blazing Saddles, "then we are awake. We are very confused." Mr. Wilder is entitled to the editorial "we", but I shall say that when I am confused about what I read, I may write until I have clarified that which confused me.
In my userspace, I wrote User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, commenting "The Air Campaign is the title of COL John Warden's book, which may or may not be an appropriate title for the article, but gives the flavor. This article will start with principles of targeting (Warden's adaption of Clausewitz's centers of gravity), breakthrough technical advances (PGMs, ground control of PGM in close support, low observability, network, AESA), and then mission families (strike, offensive support to ground operations, counter-air, ISR, transport)."
Clearly, we do not need two almost identical stubs on offensive counter air. If others agree that aerial warfare is historical, do we need a general article on doctrine? If there is some consensus that is useful, I can move my sandbox draft to mainspace, work on it more in userspace, or forget the whole thing.
Suggestions?
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've put merge tags on the two stubs. OCA is a mission, not airpower in general, but you are correct in that there appears to be no discussion of airpower doctrine, per se (at least none I've found). Your draft is a mix of brief explanations of its practical development, recent theories, operations, and missions. Since those would perhaps best comprise several articles, I think it would be premature to deploy it to mainspace. Might I suggest the MILHIST and MILAIR Projects concerned work on a Series structure of articles related to airpower? A workspace subpage might be appended to the Aviation Task Force for developing a subject and categorization structure. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As can be seen, the piece in my userspace, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-AirCampaign, is more of an essay than an article. Is there a sense here about what to do about it, and, for that matter, about the OCA stubs I found? I suspect there's more OCA material in the essay. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Erich Hartmann now open
The A-Class review for Erich Hartmann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
National Origin
Is it really necessery to have a fighter's nationial origin in its infobox, like in MiG-29? EZ1234 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Questions on the aircraft infoboxes are probably better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#New C-class rating and another update to the project banner for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for Airman Basic now open
The peer review for Airman Basic is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF now open
The A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 11:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone review this article? It still needs some cleanup and spell check though. Cheers--EZ1234 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for F-16 Fighting Falcon now open
The peer review for F-16 Fighting Falcon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986
Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is currently open at MilHist. I've just added a missing section on protection of aircraft and tagged it with this task force. Please comment Viv Hamilton (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Aerial bombing
This subject is a mess, it needs someone to rationalise the articles. See Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Title (2005) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 18#Aerial bombing (2006)
air strike and air raid can also be added to that mix. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#air raid or airstrike--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for Hughie Edwards now open
The peer review for Hughie Edwards is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer review for Hughie Edwards now open
The peer review for Hughie Edwards is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign now open
The A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Lists of accidents involving military aviation
- Moved from newsletter talk. Woody (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
As I now have four sections of the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, I thought I would put my notice here, rather than one of four talk pages. As the latter half of the 20th Century was very busy aviation-wise, as well as very well documented, I have gone ahead and split the 1950-1999 article into two 25-year segments. Even after the break into three parts, this 50-year period was already getting long. Mark Sublette (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, is this supposed to be an encyclopedic list of "notable" accidents or a whole database? There have been many thousands of such accidents. If every one is to be added, even five-year sublists will eventually be as long as the 25-year lists. Should we think more about figuring out a proper encyclopedic basis for inclusion? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Military aviation
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Fighter aircraft article, which is a core topic, could use some improvement if any expert editor has some time to spare. Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a stab at it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments please: Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
Hello!
I am working on taking this article to A-Class (Currently B) and it is currently undergoing a peer review. All comments (and help) will be very much appreciated. perseus71 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review for Stanley Goble now open
The A-Class review for Stanley Goble is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Question on picture in Vietnam war
Not sure if this is the correct place.
- Operation Patio - location = Eastern Cambodia
- Operation Linebacker II - location = Democratic Republic of Vietnam
The picture of the B-52 is the same, but the operations occurred in two different location. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied from WT:MILHIST --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the above article lists the disestablished USN aircraft squadrons in chronological order and differed by helicopter and fixed wing squadrons. I think this is very user-unfriendly, because it is very difficult to find any squadron, let alone to get an overview. Therefore I would recommend to change the lists and sort them by types of squadron (VF, VA, VS, etc.). Cobatfor 14:52, 4 Nov 2008 (UTC)
attention pls.
I don't have the time or specific knowledge to tend to B-52 crash at Thule Air Base and silverplate463 (talk · contribs) right just now. Could somebody look in on it for me plz? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Copied from the Military history talk page. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the interpretation of WP:NPOV and the structure of the section "Post-war debate". There is an open RFC on the talk page in the section "Far-right in Germany" but few have yet expressed their opinions. It would be really helpful if a few more editors would join the debate. --PBS (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)