Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject

General information Main project page talk  → Discussion archives Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Requests talk  → New articles talk Article showcase Portals Guidelines Naming conventions Notability Article structure Content and style Infobox templates  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Campaignboxes talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military cemetery infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk Categories Featured article advice Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Departments  → Assessment talk  → Automation talk  → Collaboration talk  → Outreach talk  → Peer review talk Project banner talk Project category talk  → Archives talk  → Articles talk Meetup planning talk Task forces African military history talk American Civil War talk Ancient Near Eastern warfare talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Classical warfare talk Dutch military history talk Early Modern warfare talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Maritime warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Military aviation talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk Napoleonic Era talk New Zealand military history talk Polish military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk United States military history talk Weaponry talk World War I talk World War II talk edit · changes

Contents 1 Template 2 How is this different? 3 Spitfire 4 Let me know if I can help out 5 I can kick it off! 6 Aerial bombing 7 Task Force Objectives 8 First RAF victory in WWII 9 Close air support - ground attack aircraft - strike fighter 10 History of military aviation 11 Project directory 12 A-Class review for Operation Commando Hunt 13 Does anyone have any knowledge about this? 14 Strategic Air Command wings 15 Peer review request for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons 16 Peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) 17 A-Class review for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) 18 A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh 19 Convair B-36

[edit] Template

Howdy.

I'm not really a big aviation expert, but I would like suggest regardless that creating a standardized headings template for military aircraft articles should be among the first tasks done. Oberiko 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the WP:AIR group is in the process of creating aircraft templates. Meanwhile, sign up your name! Come on, the water's fine! :) Guapovia 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing Military Aviation? Your help is appreacited.Dryzen 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is this different?

How is this different from what WP:Air is already doing? WP:Air has covered the vast majority of better-known aircraft in good detail with an established (more or less) standardized layout, templates, etc. Please outline in detail what you are planning to do with these aircraft articles or how you plan to expand military aviation history beyond what's already there on Wikipedia.

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not hostile towards this Task Force. I just don't understand what it plans to accomplish. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point in breaking out the military air stuff from the civil — they already are completely intertwined. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's breaking it out. I just think that military aviation can be better blended in with 'the rest of history'. This is a task force, not a new WikiProject. :) The1exile claimed there's a bias against aviation in Wikipedia; oldwindybear had an idea about showing wars and battles in the grand scheme of things. Aviation had a significant role in military history; we can make sure that it's visible. This task force would help coordinate that effort. Guapovia 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; the intent here is not to take over the purely technical descriptions already done by WikiProject Aircraft. Of more interest to the military history project is their use: major pilots and commanders of aviation units, aerial warfare and major battles and campaigns involving it, the role of air power in wars, etc. While we could obviously work on this on our own, we thought some WikiProject Aircraft members might be interested in these aspects of military aviation as well. —Kirill Lokshin 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm. I'm still not entirely convinced but I'll keep an eye on this page and jump in if anything strikes my fancy. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Guapovia 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spitfire

I'm not sure what the Airbox Template is but if it concerns the specs, I disagree with changing them. The Spit variants were different enough that they warrant a side-by-side comparison. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about one of those nice boxes on top? makes the article look nice. We can keep the comparisons in at the bottom. See, my not-so-secret little plan is to start with several famous aircraft and make them FA's. That could kickstart aviation interest in Wikipedia. We can use another aircraft, (say P-51?) Guapovia 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

P-51 needs a lot of copyediting (yes, it takes as long to fix as to complain, yadda yadda). A good infobox with useful links (the WWI one is a start but too brief) would be nice. Yes, it makes sense to start with the famous aircraft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The famous are generally because they are important,eg Merlin engined P51's improved the USAAFs losses over Europe.GraemeLeggett 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's go powerhouse the P 51's. :) Guapovia 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let me know if I can help out

Let me know if I can lend a hand. Have been adding entries for some more obscure aircraft.Winstonwolfe 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can kick it off!

I am a new and bigger aspiring Wikipedian who has been writing and correcting articles on Civil War Ballooning. By far this is the biggest story in the genesis of military aviation as it pertains to aerial reconnaissance, mind you, and not actual air combat warfare.

We all know Pancho Barns who had the tavern on Edwards Air Force Base in California, as seen in the movie "The Right Stuff." And that she is the granddaughter of Prof. Thaddeus Lowe the developer of the Union Army Balloon Corps. There was a time in the 50's when the base kicked her off the property. SHE SUED the Air Force claiming that her grandfather was the founder of the U. S. Air Force. On that premise she won her place back and a $375,000 restitution.

Well, I consider myself an authority on that part of military aviation and have written a book Intrepid: an account of Prof. T. S. C. Lowe, Civil War Aeronaut and Hero.

Lemme know Magi Media 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

[edit] Aerial bombing

This subject is a mess, it needs someone to rationalise the articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 18#Aerial bombing and Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Title --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force Objectives

There has been some talk on WP:MILHIST's talk page regarding the kind of articles this Task Force should actually cover. Since articles on military aircraft are already within the realm of WP:AIRCRAFT, it may be a good idea to come up with a new set of objectives for this Task Force, so as to avoid any possible overlapping, and to focus the efforts of the TF on maintaining articles outside the scope of WP:AIRCRAFT. Thus, I propose the following objectives for the Military Aviation Task Force:

Our Goals

• To provide general suggestions for articles dealing with aerial warfare.
• To improve Wikipedia's coverage of military aviation by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles.

Our scope
Articles dealing with any of the following topics:

• Aerial warfare, including air battles or campaigns, air raids, bombing strikes.
• Individuals related to the history of military aviation, including leaders, pilots, crewmen, ground staff, strategists, as well as designers and researchers involved in the development of military aviation technology.
• Air units, air bases, significant individual airplanes or squadrons.
• Air combat tactics, aerial warfare strategies, terminology, technology.

What's being left out: Articles about military aircraft and/or weapons. The former are already being taken care of by WP:AIRCRAFT, while the later may fall within the scope of the soon-to-be-created Weaponry Task Force.
Please add any other items I may have left out, or revise the abovementioned ones. Any thoughts? Andrés C. 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would point out, though, that even when a Weaponry task force is created, there's no reason why this one can't play a role in articles about aircraft weapons; the task forces are meant to have a certain amount of overlap (for example, an article on a British WWII anti-aircraft cannon could concievably be worked on by any of four different task forces). Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree also. The goals and scope above fill a void left in between the Aircraft and Military history projects that is lacking attention. There is alot of things that need improvement. I see no problem with a secondary focus of this task force being the aircraft and weapons themselves as Kirll said. I really look foward to being able to contribute to this task force. --Spot87 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Andrés C. 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First RAF victory in WWII

There are two competing claims for the first RAF victory in WWII; the Fairey Battle (on 20 September 1939 according to the RAF website) and the Lockheed Hudson (on 8 October 1939 according to Terraine's The Right of the Line RAF history and others). Does anyone know which one is right? Gsl 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close air support - ground attack aircraft - strike fighter

Like #Aerial bombing above, this area is mess, it needs someone to rationalise the articles. See Ground attack aircraft#Merge --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of military aviation

What is one supposed to do with this article? Currently it redirects to history of military ballooning, but if we really plan to make a separate article I could do that.-KingPenguin 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I would think there would be enough material on the topic to make a full article worthwhile. I'm a bit surprised we don't have such an article already, though; maybe it's been misnamed somehow? Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Operation Commando Hunt

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Commando Hunt that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone have any knowledge about this?

Sorry to trouble you, but a month ago, I saved List of Cold War pilot defections from an early grave at AfD. I feel a bit responsible for getting it into some sort of readable form, however I have no particular knowledge of or interest in military aviation or the Cold War, and it was only through a fluke that I recognized the article's significance in the first place. I'd originally hoped someone else might find it on their own, but that hasn't happened. So I'm coming here to see if anyone has any knowledge of the subject, I'm at a loss. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Air Command wings

This is a VERY long article, at over 200 kb. Unless anyone has a difficulty (maybe the writer), I'm going to reduce its size by moving the Strategic Wings (mostly the 1000+ numbered MAJCOM wings) to the Strategic Wings page, unless there are better suggestions. Buckshot06 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I suppose that would work as a stop-gap solution, but at least the wings with significant histories probably ought to be split out to their own articles in the long run. Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just split the Strategic Wings out into their own page, but the SAC Wings article is still over 200kb. Appreciate suggestions about how to split out other material in order to bring the SAC Wings article down to a more readible size. Cheers Buckshot06 04:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, is there some reason why just splitting out some of the meatier entries into their own articles won't work here? Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Only the anticipated objections/reverts of the main contributer..Buckshot06 08:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

There's a new peer review request for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Khe Sanh that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convair B-36

Convair B-36 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)