Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 65

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed two articles that are still in very good shape but need some assistance to remain GAs. I have put them on hold for seven days until the issues are addressed. I wanted to mention it here so that members of the project, if interested, could assist in improving the articles and helping them remain GAs. The two articles are:
*Hood event-needs just a few inline citations and other minor problems.
*American Civil War-has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates; needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc.
Additionally, so far I have reviewed about 30 of the current 60 "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" GAs and have delisted several of them. The following are the delisted articles if you desire to help return them to GA quality. I've probably made enemies in delisting them, but I'm only delisting them for not meeting the requirements of the GA criteria.
*Wars of Castro, Battle of Sitka, Napoleonic Wars, Norman conquest of England, Dutch Revolt, American Revolutionary War, & World War II
If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I hope members here assist in addressing the issues within the articles, and keep up the good work in improving articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles on hold for GA sweeps review

message: In my research of the Montana class battleships I relised I had forgotten to include the role the Mastiff UAV played in the Pioneer UAV's development with regards to the Iowa class. I added a section for the Mastiff on the main Iowa class battleship page, but I am a little to busy right now to copyedit the entry. If someone could find it in there heart to look over the entry and smooth over the rough spots I would be grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyedited the Mastiff section for you. JKBrooks85 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help please

message: We have a number of open featured article candidacies that haven't received many (or any, in some cases) reviews.  If anyone has a bit of free time and could drop by and comment on some of these articles, it would be highly appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FACs need some attention 

message: I just stumbled across this article after a link was added to it from Military. It looks a lot like an essay and probably violates WP:OR but might be salvagable by someone who knows a bit about military history theory (though I'd suggest that deletion or a redirect to Causes of war might be most appropriate). --Nick Dowling 08:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was apprently nominated and cleared for deletion, why its still here is anybody's guess. I say we burn it, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at the edit history, it seems that the article's apparent author User:Outofthebox simply removed the prod template, and all the other templates for good measure. --Nick Dowling 08:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't we put the article up on AFD again? And this time make sure the template stay on it until the article is deleted (or merged). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and boldly done. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Y'all might want to check out Military Keynesianism also. User:Outofthebox has contributed to the page, which is what caught my attention. THe page was created in 2004, but still has NO soureces whatsover. It appears to be an effort to connenct military spending in certain persiods to economic growth - 1930's Germany, and 1980's USA, but ignores the massive military spending by the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Not really suprising, since Eisenhower is revered for his "military-industrial complex" speech -which one could say he helped create! - and JFK and LBJ, both Democratics. See what you think! - BillCJ 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This page looks like it has potential, but needs cleanup and sourcing badly. I have concerns over the name of the article, since it implies that theis type of spending belongs to one particular country, otherwise this looks salvagable. Thats my take on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[War theory]]

message: Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the Wikichevrons with Oak Leaves. Thank you to everyone who voted/nominated me for the award. I really appreciate it, and just want to say thanks! JKBrooks85 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you! 

message: I just dropped off an article for another Wikiproject at the GA Review page and noticed quite a few war/military articles waiting to be reviewed. If you've got a few minutes to take a look and give your opinion, it can be found at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#War_and_military. I'm sure the editors of those articles would really appreciate it. JKBrooks85 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to this into the announcement template, since we don't seem to have any pointers to it from within the project. Kirill 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review Backlog 

message: There's been (another) proposal to remove the casus belli field from the military conflict infobox; if anyone has an opinion on the matter, please drop by Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Remove casus belli (again)?.  Thanks! Kirill 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current result of the discussion is to delete the casus belli in the infobox. It would be a good thing to hear more voices before such a radical step is done. Wandalstouring 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus belli in infobox 

message: I would like to create the Romanian Military History task force in the very near future, and I'd like to know if somebody doesn't agree with this, or has any complaints. I've already talked with some Romanian users which will help me and become the future members of the task force. Thoughts?? --Eurocopter tigre 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope they are reliable. Wandalstouring 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, or what, do you hope will be reliable; and why wouldn't they, or it, be reliable? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume he's hoping that the editors that sign up will stay consistently active. Kirill 20:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not such a big problem, as i'm convinced that on our way we'll gather more members. --Eurocopter tigre 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to object guys but is it really necessary to have a task force for every country? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing, actually... --Commander Zulu 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that every country should have a task force. Only countries that matter should have it, such as UK and USa. Romania is a shitty country and should therefore not have one. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get upset, please; this is merely a polite discussion. Kirill 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking you'd support it as you are a Romanian yourself ;) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is supporting it indeed, but he's explaining about what you actually think about Romania, and why you don't agree with the RO task force. --Eurocopter tigre 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's please avoid getting into accusations and such.  I am confident that everyone here has only the best interests of the project at heart.  There haven't been any actual objections to the task force, in any case, so I doubt continuing a purely academic debate on the topic is worthwhile. Kirill 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize guys if my intervention wasn't clear enough. It wasn't about the country at all. It was about the project and its expansion. I am not objecting at all but simply discussing ways to enhance this excellent project. You'll find me helping the task force indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure Anittas was thinking that you wouldn't say such things if we were creating the UK/US task forces now, that's why he was so angry and replied in such incisive terms. So, I think you're welcome to add your name in the Participants list :D. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UK was militarly involved at almost all parts of the world and still is (Falkland islands, Afghanistan, Iraq). US are 50 states w/ a large military history (in terms of quantity) and only the Iraq war would make a WikiProject itself. It was about quantity and not quality. I got no idea about how New Zealand task force was created. Re Romania, i'd have said the same if it was about Morocco where i am coming from. See you at the task force guys and sorry again for this mess :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why shouldn't we have a task force for each country with significant history? I mean, for example, the Romanian Military History is quite much wider than the New Zealand one. --Eurocopter tigre 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every country, certainly, but I'd think that any country with a significant military history is probably a suitable natural focus for a group of editors. Most European countries are going to qualify if we include their predecessor states; here, for example, the amount of material on Wallachia, Moldavia, etc. is probably larger than that on modern Romania itself. Kirill 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and then the Balkan task force would become obsolete. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which wouldn't necessarily be unacceptable, I think; the main reason we went with regional task forces has been that we couldn't get the needed level of editorial interest for more specific ones.  But this is really a matter for long-term consideration rather than anything in the forseeable future. Kirill 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Romania is not part of the Balkans... --Eurocopter tigre 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not 100% true. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks Eurocopter tigre. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! Best, --Eurocopter tigre 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I've already suggested the NZ task force be merged with the Aussie TF, but the task forces are now evolving, they're not task forces per se(groups temporarily created for working on a specific activity), rather permament departments and contact points for each area. Buckshot06 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian MilHist task force proposal 

message: The A-Class review for Alexandru Averescu is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Alexandru Averescu]] now open 

message: We seem to have guidelines for retiring MilHist participants, do we have any procedures about retiring task forces? Oberiko 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need any?  Task forces are essentially harmless even if they're not very active; and, given the amount of infrastructure created for them, bouncing between "active" and "inactive" states is likely to be more trouble than it's worth in any case. Kirill 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retiring task forces

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared.  Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up! JKBrooks85 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[British and United States military ranks compared]]

message: For anyone that hasn't seen this, we are the topic of a story in this week's Signpost. :-) Kirill 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project is clearly setting the standards. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely one of the best Wikiprojects around. JKBrooks85 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost story 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed Battle of Thermopylae and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention it here since the article falls under this project, and if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning inline citations and other general fixes. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.
If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Battle of Marathon is currently on hold as it needs some more inline citations for several facts and quotes. You can see the statements that should be addressed on the talk page of the article. --Nehrams2020 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Thermopylae]] [[WP:GA|GA]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|sweeps]] review: On Hold

message: Is an article such as 1985 in the Irish Republican Army under the scope of the Milhist project. I am torn about whether to tag it or not. Thoughts? Woodym555 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely yes. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a stretch or inflaming to add the "British military history" task force tag? It does relate to British Military History due to the loss of British Army soldiers. Yet i can see how could this could inflame certain groups of people and spark an edit war. Woodym555 14:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because they often acted on British territory, even if they were headquartered in Dublin. --Eurocopter tigre 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  By convention, task forces covering a certain country include all military activity within that country, even if the country's own military was not necessarily involved. Kirill 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. I have added the tag and given the article a spring clean. Thanks for your comments, backed up where i was leaning really. Woodym555 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRA 

message: The A-Class review for Wallachian Revolution of 1848 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Wallachian Revolution of 1848]] now open 

message: Can you spare a few hours to help the project? We're looking for volunteers to process 165,000 articles and we've introduced a special award structure to reward them. 
Image:Wiki-stripe1.svg|One stripe (250 articles)
Image:Wiki-stripe2.svg|Two stripes (500 articles)
Image:Wiki-stripe3.svg|Three stripes (1000 articles)
Image:Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif|Tireless Contributor Barnstar (2000 articles)
Image:Working Wikimedian's Barnstar.png|Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
Image:Barnstar_of_Diligence.png|Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
You can find out more, and sign up here. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job Roger. By the way, in the instructions it says that if it is not part of the project, strike it out using .... Does that refer to the article talk page or to the worklist? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind i found the answer. Thnaks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tweak the instructions to clarify this. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing ... [[WP:MHA07|Tag & Assess 2007]] 

message: The A-Class review for Tet Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's misspelled on the page header. JKBrooks85 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... forgot this is Wikipedia. Fixed. JKBrooks85 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Tet Offensive]] now open