Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 9

message: In light of the strong support the proposal has received, I have carried out the merger with WikiProject Wars (as described above).  A few items of interest:
*The discussions from WikiProject Wars have been archived as archives 6 and 7 (above) for anyone interested.
*The to-do list has been revamped to take full advantage of the list of new articles (credit for which goes to  Geoff/Gsl, who has been keeping it up to date) and the list of wanted articles (in which I've combined the largest battles list formerly in the to-do box and another list of missing encyclopedia battles that I found during the merger).
*I've chosen to organize the instructions on the project page by feature (article writing, categories, templates) rather than by topic (battles, wars) in order to reduce potential overlap and allow easier lookups.  If anyone disagrees with this scheme, feel free to comment.
To sum up, I believe everything discussed above has been done, and we can now continue on to actual history work rather than housekeeping.  If nobody has any pressing concerns, I'll try to write up some proposals for categorization and template use in the next few days. 
As always, comments on the results of the merge are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well conceived and well executed. Marvelous work, fellas. Albrecht 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What, no voting? ;-) I was already thinking out silly phrasings of my magnanimous support! But seriously: good work. I'm eager to start the actual work. The Minister of War 05:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And about bloody time you started, sirs...I never stopped;> But I do hate housework, So thank you Kirill and MoW, for doing such a fine job. This project, this community, this Wiki is much stronger for your efforts. Cheers and see you on the battlefields and wargrounds--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger complete! 

message: I'm not sure this should go here, but as there is no talk page for the actual article, i'll just put this here anyway.
The battlebox(?) for the Battle of Singapore says the Allied strength was about 85 000. It then says that there were approximately 50 000  killed, and 80 000 POWs. However, this makes no sense (50000 + 80000 = 130000). Could we get someone to check the accuracy of these figures?
I think, somehow, he means about 5000 killed but if we want Wikipedia to become a trustworthy resource... --Spark.1.4 07:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number according to my source, the old Encycleopedia of Military History by R.E. and T.N. Dupuy, is  8,700. But still, a very low price to pay for such a strategic port...not to mention the pride and honour of the British Empire. I shall correct this at once. Even though it ain't my BattBox or fault :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Singapore Battlebox 

message: In case anyone is interested, I've nominated War of the League of Cambrai for FA status here; any comments would be appreciated. :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat bemused at the reading comprehension abilities of some of our fellow Wikipedians. I suppose a love of or hatred for history is a matter of inclination as is any subject.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of the League of Cambrai 

message: Think its possible for the battle to have maps not just pictures. maps tell alot more of what happened than pictures of say the ships or tanks. im sure it would be helpful for a lot of people if they were included in the articles. Lucid 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty standard to include maps if any are available — the key is finding some, which, for more obscure battles, can be rather difficult. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also make our own maps. There must be some easy to use, readily avalable software out there. If nothing else, and please forgive if this sounds a bit silly and amatureish, but some of the newer Real-time strategy games such as Rise of Nations have very powerful and easy to use map and unit editors. We could use it to make new maps, show unit deployments, then get screenshots/captures. This would also relieve us of the hassle of dealing with the Image:Copy Vio gestapo or having to ask permission from webmasters. Even though I don't mind the latter so much. I've met some very nice, helpful webmasters/curators. But, as you say, the more obscure battle maps can be VERY hard to find, assuming they exist at all. Plus this would allow us to edit our maps along with our articles and improve them with time and additional research.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt seem to be standard to me. i am in a military history class and am looking up 20 naval battle and i beleive the only one with a single battle map was the Battle of Salamis. There are alot of maps out there on the web that can be searched using google. i just think it would be a great idea if the more visited battles could have a map or so. Even if you cant find a map online it would be excellent to make your own and upload them like R.D.H has said.
User:Gdr Drew the maps on Eastern Front (World War II) see: User:Gdr/Gallery and user:gls did the :Image:Waterloo campaign map.png and a lot more User:Gsl/Maps. Perhaps you should contact them and ask for their advise on how they do them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Maps 

message: My dear friends and fellow Wikipedians,
 
A proposal has been made here which could effect the way all featured articles, and perhaps even eventually all articles, are handled in the future. While it has the well-meaning intention of addressing some real problems, if it is adapted, I fear it will actually create more problems and possibly destroy the wonderfully open and collaborative nature of the Wikipedia we all so love.
I therefore, strongly urge you to join us who OPPOSE this potentially dangerous proposal. Thank you for your time, thoughts and words.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 came out strongly against it, so I think it's fair to say that that little proposal is quite dead ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: HUZZAH for Raul and all who shouted down this hell hound pup.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really want [[Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Yet_another_plan...|'''this?!''']] 

message: Salut mes camarades!
Pardon my French, but how can I fix the Campaignbox for the War of the Sixth Coalition?? There are several battles which it omits that now all have articles or stubs. Battle of Grossbeeren, Battle of Dennewitz, Battle of Katzbach, Battle of Kulm.
Also the Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube is out of chronological order. AU SECOURS!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can just add the links (in chronological order) to Template:Campaignbox Sixth Coalition (which is listed, as all campaignboxes should be, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes.  I assume this is not a question of how to edit the template itself — the format is quite simple, I think ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind...Papa fix. Thanks though:> Finding it was harder tha figuring out how. La Guerre de la Sixième coalition est maintenant effectué! Or at least the main engagements of it are. Unless you count the Russian campaign, which technically WAS part of the war, since when Napoleon invaded Russia joined Coalition number 6 and one can't really blame them. See, this is why I prefer going by year instead of coalition number. Technically the later years of the Peninsular War could be considered part of it too. It is so much easier to go by campaign and years. That is the Soldat's way of doing it by god! The diplomat and meddler's way is the other..the way of Metternich and Tallyrand...grrrrr ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen and the Art Of Campaign Box repair 

message: From the "Pending tasks":
* Replace  with  on all articles where the former is used.
Is there consensus to do this? --Philip Baird Shearer
If there is then I would have thought the first place to start is with the instructions on this article page --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any real objections (beyond the discussion of aesthetics above).  However, since the replacement process will take a great deal of time, I thought it best to retain the battlebox instructions for the time being; you should note, however, that they do state that the battlebox format is being retired. Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, why are we doing this? A warbox should be for a war. A battlebox should be for a battle. They aren't interchangeable. (???) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The warbox template is designed to be used on both, however.  The parameters are somewhat different between the two (some only apply to wars, mainly), but there's no reason to maintain separate templates now that optional parameters work properly. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: replace battlebox with warbox

message: Found some good WW2 aircraft/Navy/Army Air Force related data for you guys...
PDF's of some older Naval Aviation News magazines from the 1940s http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1940s/
hopefully this can help you with some stuff. Also the images inside this magazine can be cropped out and used since they are PD USGov.  ALKIVAR™ 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II

message: FYI: I've put the list of participants into alphabetical order; if anyone objects, feel free to revert it and/or yell at me ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of participants 

message: Can anyone familiar with the Vietnam War verify this battle?  The only place it was linked was from Khoi Vo which has since been deleted as a hoax.  The only Google hit is to the Wikipedia page.  Geoff/Gsl 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly seems like a hoax (minefields? gun turrets?), but I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the war to give a better answer. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not the Napoleonic War, so soldiers don't line up and march into battle. Unless they got REAL lucky, they would step on mines immediately, and they'd be able to retreat with minimal losses. Also, guerillas during the Vietnam War never "poured" out of their hiding places. Just another Korean War/Vietnam War misconception. Suggest AfD. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Dion Nam]] hoax?