Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 3

message: I've been working hard creating campaignboxes, battleboxes, and categories for all of the campaigns and for the existing Civil War battle articles.  I just noticed that the campaignbox names were supposed to be shortened versions of the campaign name, but I don't think that really matters.  A random newcomer might be less lost if he read "Stones River Campaign" instead of just "Stones River", so I think it's fine the way it is.
For anyone who wants to contribute, I've been getting my information from this government site:  http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm .  For the categories, I've had to be a little creative with the campaign category names, so that they make sense (eg: "American Civil War Grant's Operations Against Vicksburg" isn't as clear as "American Civil War operations for Grant against Vicksburg", although even that might sound a little weird, as if the "Civil War" was some guy helping you out.....)  --brian0918™ 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: American Civil War

message: Do we still need the progress section here, now that we have Wikipedia:New articles (Battles)? Adam Bishop 19:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  I don't think campaignboxes and other such things are added to that list. --brian0918™ 20:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Campaign boxes can be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles/Campaignboxes.  As long as the edit summary is used, people will be able to tell which was added when.  The Progress section is sometimes used to notify of changes to existing articles which perhaps doesn't fit with the concept of "New articles (Battles)" but I've got no problem if people want to report progress there. Geoff/Gsl 05:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: I've created a new Wikipedia project for a Miliary Collaboration of the week.  Any one who wants to help out is more then welcome. Oberiko 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Collaboration of the week

message: What do you think of :Template:Warbox? Example of use is Polish-Soviet War. I like it quite a lot and think all wars should have something similar. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd have to get rid of the campaign part at the bottom.  Alot of wars are made up of multiple campaigns. Oberiko 22:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I would just base Warbox off the box at American Civil War.  battle_name should be changed to war_name, remove campaignbox section, replace Notable Commanders with Leaders, add a link to the list of battles in the war, add flags (although may be a problem with multiple countries on each side, unless each side had a common flag or symbol of some sort; in any case the flag should be kept cuz it can be left out of a specific box when necessary) , add Strength.  -- BRIAN0918  22:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You should also implement colors for each continent, and one for the entire world. -- BRIAN0918  22:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Warbox

message: In some battle boxes, it's unclear how many commanders there are due to line wrapping.  For instance, look at this old version of Battle of Cannae.  It looks as though there might have been three commanders on the Roman side: Lucius Aemilius; Paullus (a casualty); and Caius Terentius Varro.  Compare to the present version—I've used  to bullet the commanders.  So, my suggestion: for every battle where one or more side has more than one line in their commander box, all commanders should be bulleted.  Comments? —Simetrical (talk) 03:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are quite ugly with bullets. But I see the problem (though it doesn't occur for me on Battle of Cannae unless I increase the font size, it does on some battles with commanders with longer names). Maybe numbers are better? Gdr 09:03, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
Either way works.  Any other opinions on this? —Simetrical (talk) 04:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of commanders 

message: I have noticed that when I try to input more than one date under "date" in the battlebox template code, it comes up blank. Many battles, particularly sieges, lasted more than one day, and so I think there needs to be a way to represent this in the battlebox. If I understood the template programming, I'd try my hand at fixing it, but I really don't have a clue. (for an example of the blank box problem, see Siege of Calais). Thanks. LordAmeth 22:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevermind. I figured it out. There was an extra "|" in the coding. LordAmeth 22:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Battlebox template 

message: Special:Uncategorizedpages has progressed to the point that pages starting with the letter "b" are now listed. This means a great number of uncategorized battles. It would be great if someone who knows the battle categorization system could go through the list and add the missing cats. For convenience I have listed the uncategorized battles below. - SimonP 18:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
:: I've categorized a few battles; I'm tempted to go for all of them, but I think I'm going to have to wait for this debate/vote to be done with. No point in categorizing under Fooish battles if we're all going to switch to Battles of Fooland. Let's just wait and see. LordAmeth 02:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncategorized battles

message: I was surprised to find no article on this famous battle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles) Gdr 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Otterburn]] ([[1388]])

message: I've just created a campaignbox for the Second Sino-Japanese War, appropriated named :Template:Campaignbox Second Sino-Japanese War. If any one is well-versed in this part of the world, or this portion of history, can you please double-check my work, make sure the battles are correctly named (spelled), are in the right order, and that battles that belong are there (and battles that don't belong are not)? I shall continue to do my own research, and if possible, I might like to split this massive list up into separate campaigns. Maybe campaigns before the 1938 Fall of Hankou, and campaigns after, so as to distinguish what does and does not belong to WWII's Chinese Theater. Any help would be most appreciated. LordAmeth 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Sino-Japanese War 

message: Napoleonic War is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article if you are interested in contributing to it to bring it up to featured article standard.--Fenice 13:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive