Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 45

message: It's probably to the credit of this wikiproject, and associated editors, that categorisation is as good as this, but nonetheless there's over a 1000 articles tagged with mil-stub (or sub-type thereof) that have no "permanent" category whatsoever;  see also my comment on the CAT:NOCAT talk page for more such gory details/inane trivia.  If anyone here is interested in mopping up these isolated elements of resistance, I could readily bot-populate an  maintenance category, on the pattern of the wildly-successful .  (I've found if one shoves articles in there, they disappear with impressive alacrity, and I can only assume they're going somewhere good...)  It might as well be called , given that's the ready source of such, but it might possibly see use for non-stubs too, if non-military editors want to pass the buck on an article they spot as uncategorised, and on military stuff.  Or if you'd like to work from a list, that's even more straightforward to facilitate.  In short:  any takers?  Alai 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not... (unless anyone thinks this is a Bad Idea) Carom 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea.  Categories are better than lists for this sort of thing, though, as separate lists generally don't get updated very smoothly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Category created, and I've part-populated it from the mil-stub root category, with somewhat over 100 articles for starters.  Alai 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  I've added a link to the category to ; hopefully it'll get some attention there. Kirill Lokshin 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone isn't going to come along and change that from categorised to categorized, are they? Emoscopes Talk 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, all the "by topic" ones are "uncategorised", and all the "by month" ones are "uncategorized" (including , which I created myself).  So it's sort of consistent, in a completely inconsistent sort of way.  If people prefer that the category be populated from a template, that would logically have a version/redirect from either spelling.  ( / , or something to that effect.)  Alai 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always take care of AE/BE issues. Sometimes it is annoying but you can bet someone will object the spelling. Wandalstouring 05:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by "take care of", you mean...?  As I say, if you want a template-populated category, that can certainly be fed from both, but category redirects are more trouble than they're worth, given that essentially they just let things go to the 'wrong' place (a distinct category), but without the tell-tale of a category redlink.  Alai 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take care means mind that you will constantly encounter both spellings and frequently someone will change them. Wandalstouring 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems much less of an issue with a maintenance category than a "real" one.  Anyone especially upset with BE spelling in the cleanup category on a article can always just, well, add a permanent category instead.  Alai 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation cleanup 

message: Let's begin re-constructing the Battles lists (which are a mess and up for Afd now) ater the AfD process is over. It doesn't really matter if they get deleted now because once we present better structured lists, they are bound to replace the current ones with new ones. Propose ideas now. We got some good ones above. --Ineffable3000 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I think the main set of chronological lists ought to be merged into a timeline.  Other than that, I'm not sure what reconstruction would be necessary (or feasible) if the consensus turns out to be (as I suspect it will) that the lists of types of battles (e.g. List of invasions, List of sieges) ought to be kept; there's not much that can be done with them, other than making sure they're as complete and accurate as possible.  Pretty much the same applies to the lists of battles for each country and war (which are fairly few in number).  For the war ones, the inclusion of more information (e.g. statistics, short summaries) is probably acceptable, given how short they tend to be; for the others, that's probably not practical.  But that's an editorial issue rather than a list structure one, I suppose. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists of battles (geographical, alphabetical) are a mess though and need total res-constructing. --Ineffable3000 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the alphabetical one doesn't get deleted, we may want to look at getting some sort of bot to help maintain it; it should be possible to trawl through the battle categories and create an alphabetical list of the articles there automatically. Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a good bot programmer in WikiProject Military history? --Ineffable3000 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Visit the military history automation departement. Wandalstouring 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that the lists need to be rebuilt.  They provide a very good starting point for future development, and it's much easier to improve an existing list than start one over from scratch.  I think development efforts should be conducted from each list's talk page, and that each list should be focused on individually.  Such an approach would take advantage of editors interested in improving or working on a particular page, rather than forcing them to work on them all, which may be more than most editors have time for.   The Transhumanist   02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List re-constructing 

message: An interesting CFD nomination here that concerns the issue of categorizing wars under a country that didn't exist at the time; comments there would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is evident: we have humour. Wandalstouring 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting CFD nomination 

message: I need a little help relolving a dispute. There is a new user named Tu-49, and he created an article on Operation Bolo. The problem is that it is almost a verbatim episode of "Dogfights". I have wikifyed the article but he has simply put all of his stuff back in. And much of it has nothing to do with Vietnam, or belongs in the Vietnam War article. I would like a little bit of help with this.--LWF 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject has tons of potential, but the article is in some dire need of restructuring and editing. I really think it could be a feature article IF we could get in there and make some edits without them being reverted constantly.--Nobunaga24 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has read the page, and the discussion, but there is a problem, you are practically taking ownership of Operation Bolo, which is a bad thing. If a person controls an article then it can create severe problems with editing. See WP:OWN--LWF 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: LWF's revision is a considerable improvement. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi LWF, I've got a 12:04, and an 18:56 on 7 December, but no 18:18. From what I read of this debate I prefer your version though, and I support another editor's suggestion to Tu-49 that he puts his preferred version up on another internet forum - myspace or whatever, and then watches what happens to the Operation Bolo article. Cheers Buckshot06 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was essentially the current edit, except the old one didn't have that brief thing about Olds. But I think the time dif may have something to do with it.--LWF 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give version numbers, any problems with time stamps don't really matter - just a suggestion. Carom 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: time? whats time got to do with things?Tu-49 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tu-49, don't know where you guys are, maybe in the USA, but i'm in New Zealand, and the time difference is significant. More than that, our various computers may be feeding different time stamps into wikipedia when we make edits. Buckshot06 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article needs a rewrite to even begin resembling an encyclopedia entry. The informal tone has to go (sorry Tu-49), and style and grammar need major work. (Yes, complaining is easy, but I'm reluctant to put effort into it right now because I'm not convinced the changes will endure). - Emt147 Burninate! 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It should definitely be removed; the article isn't a biography of Olds, so material that has nothing to do with Bolo shouldn't be there.  It'd be like discussing Rommel's WWI service in the article on Alamein. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed the World War II section. Buckshot06 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Operation Bolo]] 

message: Hi,
I was a GA reviewer of Lebanon and saw this redlink:
"...After the defeat of the Arab Liberation Army in the Battle of Sasa..."
I was gonna request the article in this WikiProject, but am hesitant to do so because it seems that article should already have been written (?). If anyone knows whether there is another article under another name that covers this event, input would be appreciated :-)
--Ling.Nut 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone either wikilinked it pre-emptively, or just didn't check to see if the article existed. You can go ahead and request it, but there's a gigantic backlog of needed articles, so no promises anyone will get to it soon... Carom 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only mention of this battle I could google now was in this wikipedia. Wandalstouring 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. the whole reason I posted this was 'cause names can be so very tricky. I'm pretty sure I played with various search terms and  came up with some ghits earlier for a battle at Sa'sa (not Sasa); will retry...--Ling.Nut 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa'sa' has a link to an IDF operation when it was occupied. Cheers Buckshot06 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the other article should probably be at Battle of Sa'sa'? Kirill Lokshin 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already called Operation Hiram. I'm not 100% sure the two articles are talking about exactly the same thing though.  Buckshot06 07:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you can go ahead and link it to Operation Hiram without too much trouble, until someone wants to improve the coverage extensively.Buckshot06 07:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Lebanese forces were committed in the eastern galilee, near kibbutz Malkiya, quite far from Sasa (by Israeli standards :)). Apparently it's the "battle for Malkiya" Rogan/Shlaim talk about. I am pretty sure that "defeat of the Arab Liberation Army in the Battle of Sasa" can only refer to Operation Hiram. As far as I know, the operation is not commonly (if ever) referred as "Battle of Sasa", but I simply can't come up with another event that fits the description. Bukvoed 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fawzi Al-Qawuqji was the only article mentioning a battle of Sasa. I changed it to battle of Sa'sa' and linked it to Operation Hiram like suggested here. Wandalstouring 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Sasa]] 

message: I did tack this on to the discussion above, but in case it gets lost in the vastness of this page, I did nominate the category for deletion. Please drop by and make your opinions known. Carom 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:British Commonwealth Forces]] (CfD) 

message: A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. By now we have finished the template (both versions right below):
The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links.
The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link:  Wandalstouring 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement of new template 

message: Following recent discussion on Wikipedia's coverage of the topic of Orders, Decorations, and Medals (both civil and military), I have created a WikiProject which is dedicated to this area.  
If anyone would like to help with sorting this area out, whether by writing new articles, improving existing ones, or sorting out article structure and categorisation, we'd be pleased to see you over there.
Xdamrtalk 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement of new WikiProject - [[WP:ODM|Orders, Decorations, and Medals]]

message: As a continuation of the broader discussion of the category tree for military personnel above, there are a few more specific issues of terminology that probably need to be resolved before we can come up with a final version of the new structure:
* "Soldiers" - Should this term be used in category names?  It's often interpreted as being synonymous with all members of the military, as opposed to either (a) members of the land forces or (b) enlisted personnel; but, even if it's not, it's pobably still ambiguous.  I would suggest replacing it everywhere with "enlisted personnel", to remove the ambiguity.
* "Veterans" - Same question.  I don't really see the need to categorize people as "veterans", since the categories aren't supposed to be tied to any particular point in their life; I would suggest disposing with this terminology, and just using the regular "military personnel", etc.
* "Warriors" - Same question.  The choice of using "warriors" seems entirely arbitrary; I think we should dispense with it and merge these back into the regular tree.  The breakdown by era should provide enough separation of modern militaries from ancient ones (which seems to have been the intent of this system).
Any comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all three (although the last one will undoubtedly lead to some odd-sounding category names). Carom 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply say military personnel instead of warriors, the composition of ancient armies could also be  very complex and just giving them the warrior label would do ill service. Wandalstouring 07:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. My point was more that some of the category names will sound strange (particularly to the uninitiated), not that they will be strange. Carom 14:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I can see what Carom'S talking about: Viking Enlisted Personnel. Strange sounding, but the idea is all the same true. --Dryzen 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some terminology issues with categorizing people 

message: An editor has made substantial changes to the Tiger Force article, but there a problem: alleged Tiger Force veterans (alleged because we can't prove that they are Tiger Force vets) came to Talk:Tiger Force and spoke about the unit. This editor is quoting them! Check Tiger Force#Charges disputed. I have never encountered a similar situation here on Wikipedia so I'm unsure on what to do--James Bond 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some similiar situations like this problem.  If you look at the talk pages for First Battle of Fallujah and Second Battle of Fallujah you will see that many veterans of these conflicts have weighed in on the subjects.  I think there is some good/heated dialogue between the two camps and they are still in the process of working them out, but they are talking.  As someone who has both read the Tiger Force book and been in combat and seen how bad reporters butcher things I can feel for both sides.  All I can say is that you need to stick with the guidelines for WP.  They will keep you headed in the right direction.  My best example is that I know that A-10 Warthogs have not been in Iraq since the end of the invasion in 2003.  If you go to the 1st Battle of Fallujah page you will see they are talked about as having been there because some reporter who was sitting on the outskirts of town just decided to mention them.  Thus it becomes fact.  The Air Force is pretty tight lipped on deployments so it is hard to come up with references to revert it.  I have learned to put up with it until someday a ref pops up that refutes it.  As much as I would love to delete it and tell them to ....  I don't.  Stick with what is verifiable. If there is controversy then qualify it and present both sides.  Also, it is good from time to time to take a step back and take a deep breath.  It works wonders.  Just my opinion.--Looper5920 10:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are veterans and can present their point on wikipedia they could also create an "official" veteran site where they mention their claims and we quote this site among our sources. Wandalstouring 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure how to approach this, need help 

message: Aside from the bad name (it would need to be "Battles of England and Scotland", or something of the sort, to match the existing naming convention), is this category a good idea?  It seems to me that creating categories by pairs of combatants is going to be extremely confusing, and not particularly meaningful (as these battles were not part of the same conflict). 
(A "Battles of the Anglo-Scottish Wars" category would be appropriate, obviously; but I'm pretty sure that term is used rather more narrowly than every war involving both countries.) Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have thought it was all that useful - but then, given the flak we ran into over Military of Cornwall, what do I know? Carom 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I created this because I think a category detailing the myriad of battles fought along the Anglo-Scottish frontier between 1066 and 1745 would be very interesing, given the importance of this series of wars in both countries, but I agree it is badly named and I don't have time to properly categorise it now. If others think its a bad idea then please remove it.--Jackyd101 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be more manageable to cover this in a single overview article (e.g. Warfare between England and Scotland) rather than trying to do it with categories.  My main concern here is the potential proliferation of such categories; if we leave this one, I suspect we'll shortly wind up with :Category:Anglo-French battles, :Category:Anglo-Spanish battles, :Category:Franco-German battles, :Category:Franco-Spanish battles, :Category:Anglo-Franco-Spanish battles, :Category:Franco-Russo-German battles, and so forth, ad infinitum. Kirill Lokshin 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having slept on the issue, I agree. An article (perhaps a list) detailing the history of Anglo-Scottish warfare is a much better idea than a category. I'll sort out the categories for the articles I put in there and can somebody delete the category (I'm a little hazy on the procedure for deleting categories). If nobody else fancies it, I can make a start on the article, but it won't be until January, otherwise please help yourselves.--Jackyd101 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good; I can take care of deleting the category once it's been emptied.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anglo-Scottish battles]] 

message: Newly created and marked as within the scope of this project: Battle of Mesopotamia. Needs quite a bit of work for cleanup, better page title, expansion. Could someone take care of it? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, maybe Invasion of Mesopotamia (87-85 BC)?  It's not really a single battle, as far as I can tell. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian conquest of Mesopotamia? Wandalstouring 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they conquered all of Mesopotamia; I'm not even sure they actually conquered anything so much as forcing the local kingdoms to acknowledge their overlordship.  (The article is, admittedly, pretty sparse on the exact details. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the Parthian Empire is labelled as the Armenia's enemy, what about the Parthian-Armenian War? Kyriakos 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the trick would be to try and dig up some scholarly perspective - but, failing that, Kyriakos' suggestion works for me. Carom 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could work, I think.  We probably ought to disambiguate it, though; I'm pretty sure there was more than one war between Armenia and Parthia. Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parthian-Armenian War (87-85 BC)? (And by the way, what's our general preference for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE?) Carom 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BCE's more prevailent among articles but I dont think we have any actual convention.--Dryzen 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. And I suspect any attempt at convention would be doomed to failure, due to the amount of heat generated by that particular discussion. Carom 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind like for Commonwealth English there is a "democratic" control system. Wandalstouring 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Mesopotamia 

message: There's a discussion about article naming conventions for firearms going on at the Weaponry task force that could use wider input; anyone with an interest in the topic is invited to comment there.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names for firearms 

message: Is there anybody here who interested in civil and paramilitary uniform? I found a good site for it  http://civil-uniform.narod.ru. It includes insignia for Russian and Soviet civil/paramilitary iniform for diplomats , civil pilots , railway personnel , trade fleet personnel , bank personnel , prosecutors, students, control inspectors and others.--Planemo 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting stuff.  The topic is sort of on the fringe of the "military" aspect of things, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create a library for such image links. Wandalstouring 10:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil/paramilitary uniform 

message: Many battle articles are missing infoboxes. Does anyone want to work with me on adding them? --Ineffable3000 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you write our automation departement a suggestion how they could help you. Wandalstouring 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure there's no good way of automating the actual creation of the boxes—bots can't really parse articles and extract useful information too well—but we might be able to do something clever for a to-do list by getting a list of every article that transcludes  but not  and then tagging each with "needs-infobox=yes".  That won't get all of them, granted, but it should get a lot to start with. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is best done manually. --Ineffable3000 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: The AfD's have ended and the List of military routs has been deleted. We now need to work on creating good lists to list all battles (by category, alphabetically, etc..) Do we have a plan? --Ineffable3000 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, first we need a system. What are possible criteria for "lists" afterwards we discuss how to order and organize them. Possibly a list approach is in most cases no good idea if it isn't bot maintained. Wandalstouring 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories fills this roll generally quite adequately. The keep track of the pages, are in order and are updated easily.--Dryzen 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List restructuring (continued)