Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 41

message: The WW2 stubs are at five pages again;  I've made some (generalised if not somewhat hand-waving) proposals for possible additions sub-cats here.  If it's clear how this would bets align with your various task-forces, or anyone otherwise has any thoughts on this, please comment.  Alai 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've (re-)proposed German World War II stubs, in relation to the above.  Alai 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 stub subtypes 

message: Please have a look at Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Theatre by campaign or chronological order and if you have an opinion add it. If chronological organisation is better then this could be a different way of organising lots of other theatre articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre section organisation 

message: I've tried my hand at restructuring  with a new layout that gives a few more links to the various sections of guidelines we have up; I think that this will make it a bit easier for visitors to find them.  Is this a good idea?  Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a good tool better. I have no critical feedback, only love. BusterD 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|WPMILHIST Navigation}} 

message: Hey guys, there is a dispute at the talk page of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier article. Can someone who wants offer their opinions on the relevant sources towards the bottom of the page? A straw poll has also been initiated. Thank you.UberCryxic 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Why must you do things so complicated? Just state the minimal consent of your sources. Wandalstouring 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry? Yes that has been done in the talk page, but that's not what the issue is about anymore.UberCryxic 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this issue has gotten a little sidetracked into debating the validity of the sources in general. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: OK, I want to give it a push and try to establish the African military history task force. The scope is to provide more articles and information on military history in Africa from the past to the present conflicts. There are existing articles on the subject, although a military history group would be likely to add further information from different points of view. Besides providing more information on the subject another central scope is creating a systematic overview and then try to fill the gaps as for now military history of Africa is mostly limited to a few encounters with colonial Europeans and modern wars. Feel free to join. Wandalstouring 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in, but my main effort is on the former Soviet Union for the present. Buckshot06 11:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty obvious idea; let's see if we have enough interest. Kirill Lokshin 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we should definitely have this. Anyone know a contributor (or contributors) who have done work with African military history prior to the meddling of those pesky Europeans? It would thoroughly suck if we started this task force and it ended up being a rehashing of how and why colonialism happened, all Euro-centric and boring.UberCryxic 16:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Off the top of my head, I recall that Llywrch had some interests in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in contact with more editors who have an interest in the topic and did edits in the field before, but who are not yet convinced to join us. It will maybe take a while to establish this. Next on the list are the Americas before Columbus, what is likely to be easier with some written sources from the Maya. Wandalstouring 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, I do have some interest in that area -- however, my resources are pretty much limited to the Horn of Africa. And when I get my current project about the woredas of Ethiopia completed, my next priority will be to improve Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, an intreguing military -- as well as religious -- figure of the 16th century, then several of the battles he participated in. (One of which poses some problems that I'll ikely need some advice about.) Beyond this, I don't know how much I can commit myself to this taskforce, but I'm always willing to offer advice. ;-) -- llywrch 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of course also a member of this task force. Wandalstouring 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, the African military history task force has been created; please sign up if you're willing to help out! Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African military history task force 

message: I created an article and sourced it, was going to add a MILHIST box on the talk page but wa snot clear what to fill in for it. If someone can drop by and put the appropriate military taggings and categories that would be great. Thanks. Its a British military operation in Iraq. --NuclearZer0 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kirill for the quick reponse. The time you dedicate to this project is much appreciated. --NuclearZer0 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Operation Sinbad]]

message: Hey guys, I'm taking a break from article construction in the following few months and will now begin to focus more on article repair, per Jimmy's advice at Wikimania. I'm going to start copyediting the hell out of everything in Wikipedia, but if you have any specific requests to copyedit articles that fall under our beautiful project, be it prior to FAC or for whatever reason, then make them here. I will check back regularly and give all requested articles a copyedit. Thanks.UberCryxic 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very generous of you Uber! You did a great job for me and will gladly take you up on it again :-) --plange 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been making pretty huge changes to Peninsular War, much of it involving narrative from Chandler, and I gather a critical look every once in a while can't hurt—if only to make sure I'm being fair to all les beaux sabreurs! Albrecht 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement

message: Hi. Can someone instruct the bot to stop moving Scottish (kilted) regiments to Category:Regiments of Scotland? The Toronto Scottish Regiment, The Essex and Kent Scottish, et al, are not Regiments of Scotland, but Scottish regiments of Canada. "Scottish" here does not equate with nationality, but on a cultural heritage (kilts, pipes, Gaelic mottoes, etc). Scottish regiment is a type of regiment -- like dragoons, highlanders, or fusiliers. Thanks. --SigPig 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm guessing the bot should be done now, and won't touch the categories in the future.  Your point is a valid one, and I have no objection to using :Category:Scottish regiments for this type of unit, but it needs to be removed from the regular :Category:Regiments by country tree.  I created :Category:Expatriate units and formations to serve as a parent for the similar case with "Irish" units; but, as these don't appear to necessarily involve actual Scottish soldiers, I'm not sure how suitable the nam would be.  Is there some broader term we can use for a parent category for all these? Kirill Lokshin 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest just putting it in :Category:Regiments, alongside :Category:Irish regiments, :Category:Guards Regiments, etc. Also, perhaps, :Category:Highland regiments could be merged with :Category:Scottish regiments to form :Category:Scottish and Highland regiments (as opposed to Highlands being a subcat of Scottish); is there a major difference of tradition?  --SigPig 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that might work, but it should probably be under :Category:Regiments by type to make it clear that these aren't regular national categories. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish regiments 

message: Can somebody take a look at this talk page and explain to user:Overhere why it is forbidden to add unreferenced information and original research to wikipedia articles?. Mieciu K 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Kosovo War]] 

message: Some of you may be familiar with the old Historical States WikiProject. This project - under the new name WikiProject Former countries - has recently been restarted. Because many entries covered by the Military History project concern countries that no longer exist, I thought it would be a good idea to let you know that we're back in business. The objective of this project is to improve the content and accessibility of information on now-defunct countries, and because the history of most countries is largely defined by their military history, it is clear that our two projects intersect at some points.
Since yours is one of the more active historical projects around, I would like to make the following request to you, regarding former countries: Please be careful when wikilinking to historical states. In many cases there is no problem, but sometimes mistakes are made. This is not really a surprise since many former country entries do not exist yet. For example, the entry on the Austro-Prussian War refered to the Kingdom of Bavaria while linking directly to the modern German state of Bavaria. At the moment, Kingdom of Bavaria redirects to Bavaria anyway, but that will change. Over time, we hope to have entries for all former countries, and the sooner that the correct links and/or redirects are in place on other entries, the less correction work will need to be done later on.
Also, a cartography department of our own has been set up, but this is in an early stage. Of course, I do not wish to poach your cartographers, but in some cases, the work of both of our projects can overlap. For every entry on a former country we need at least a location map of some sort (eg. Confederation of the Rhine), but these location maps can also be adjusted to suit your project. For example, I have just recoloured a 19th-century German map that I have been working on to show the alliances in the Austro-Prussian War. This particular map is a bit of a test for me, so I would appreciate any feedback.
We also have a number of child projects: one for the subdivisions of former countries, and one for Prussia. - 52 Pickup 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Former countries 

message: * A. E. J. Collins (citation problems)
* Air Force One (citation problems)
* Algerian Civil War (citation problems)
* Attack on Pearl Harbor (citation problems)
* Battle of Alesia (citation problems)
* Battle of Cannae (citation problems - no page numbers)
* Battle of Hampton Roads (citation problems)
* Battle of Inchon (citation problems)
* Battle of Jutland (citation problems, unusual sections)
* Battle of Leyte Gulf (citation problems)
* Battle of Normandy (citation problems, trivia lists)
* Battle of Warsaw (1920) (citation problems, poor formatting)
* Battle of the Bulge (citation problems)
* Battle of the Somme (1916) (citation problems)
* Blitzkrieg (citation problems)
* Charles I of England (citation problems)
* Chemical warfare (citation problems)
* Colditz Castle (citation problems)
* Convair B-36 (citation problems, poor intro)
* Cristero War (citation problems)
* Eureka Stockade (citation problems)
* First Battle of the Stronghold (citation problems, length, questionable references)
* First Crusade (citation problems, no clear references)
* Henry VIII of England (citation problems)
* Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (citation problems)
* Husein Gradaščević (citation problems)
* Imperial Japanese Navy (citation problems)
* Invasion of Poland (1939) (citation problems)
* Iowa class battleship (citation problems)
* Isaac Brock (citation problems)
* James II of England (citation problems)
* Kammerlader (citation problems)
* Karl Dönitz (citation problems)
* Krag-Jørgensen (citation problems)
* Lord's Resistance Army (citation problems)
* Manuel I Komnenos (citation problems)
* Mark Antony (citation, structure problems)
* Michael Woodruff (citation problems)
* Military history of Canada (citation problems)
* Military history of France (citation problems)
* Military history of the Soviet Union (citation problems)
* Nuclear weapon (citation problems)
* Operation Downfall (citation problems)
* Poison gas in World War I (citation problems)
* Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) (citation problems)
* Polish-Soviet War (citation problems)
* Richard O'Connor (citation problems)
* S-mine (citation problems)
* Second Crusade (citation problems)
* Shrine of Remembrance (citation problems)
* Sid McMath (citation problems)
* Siege (citation problems)
* Stanisław Koniecpolski (citation problems)
* Swedish allotment system (citation problems)
* Tank (citation problems)
*: I'll work on this one in the next week or so, but feel free to add citations. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 22:38 Z
* Theodore Roosevelt (citation problems)
* Trench warfare (citation, structure problems)
* U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program (citation problems)
* USS Missouri (BB-63) (citation problems)
* USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (citation problems)
:*The battleships are mine, I will get to them after finals week, probably sometime in early December. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall certainly do the WOTSS when I get a chance. Raymond Palmer 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles needing attention 

message: If anyone has some free time, there's a series of a few dozen erroneous moves (of the form X-Y War to X–Y War) that need to be reversed (and the resultant double redirects fixed); any help would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with fixing some page moves 

message: These articles misinform and need to be fixed:
Flanking maneuver telling nonsense
Cavalry lists of doubtful use
Can someone help? It is about military basics and really a mess. Wandalstouring 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get these added to the project "articles needing attention" list by altering the "|attention= " category in the project header template on the relevant article's talk page. Emoscopes Talk 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt this is helpful for getting the work done asap. Wandalstouring 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles need to be fixed 

message: Raoulduke47 came up with a good new navigation template for modern Soviet AFVs, and we've been developing it further at Template talk:PostWWIISovietAFVS.  It incorporates some techniques that could really reduce the clutter of all the humongous WWII AFV navboxes, but needs some refinement.  Please have a look at the latest version and comment. —Michael Z. 2006-10-31 04:38 Z
:Comments should, ideally, be directed to the Weaponry task force talk page, to avoid having the discussion split too much. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFV navboxes 

message: Could someone add the military history infobox to the talk page for the article Zumwalt class destroyer? I'd handle it, but that thing is so large it scares me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - but don't be intimidated, there really isn't much to do. Carom 02:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox requested 

message: David Kernow and myself have been having some discussions about how infobox documentation should be formatted; there are two basic possibilities:
* List form (current)
* Table form
I'm not entirely certain which of the two is more convenient to use; any feedback on which one people prefer would be extremely helpful!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's really much to choose between them, at least as far as interpreting the material is concerned. I would say that a table might be a bettter option for excessively large infoboxes - that is, if there are a lot of terms to explain, the table might read a little better. For most of the infoboxes, however, I think it's pretty much a wash. Carom 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, since people seem to prefer the list form (however weakly), I've switched it back to that for the time being.  If anyone would really like a table of some sort (or has some other layout idea we haven't tried yet), please don't hesitate to speak up! :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox documentation layout 

message: Whew a lot of work to fix the renaming category project! as per the renaming discussion have nominated the following at Speedy Rename
*:Category:Indian World War II divisions → :Category:Divisions of India in World War II
*:Category:British World War II divisions → :Category:Divisions of the United Kingdom in World War II
*:Category:Australian World War II divisions → :Category:Divisions of Australia in World War II
*:Category:French World War II divisions → :Category:Divisions of France in World War II
*:Category:World War II army corps → :Category:Corps of World War II
Unfortunately that is the extent of my ability at this time for renaming --Oldwildbill 18:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category re-naming/re-organization 

message: Dear Gentle Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing you to point out a historical inaccuracy in your use of the terms "Culture and History" in regards to units of the U.S. Army.  The U.S. Army uses the terms "Lineage and Heraldry."  Please see the U.S. Army Heraldry Website for more information: [].  I am compelled to add that these two terms are routinely used for many years in dictionaries of Military History, historical literature, and official publications of the U.S. Army.  I hope you will consider changing your terminology to reflect this.  The "LIBERATORS" of the 14th Armored Division thank you. Best Regards  14thArmored  1800 Hours 2 November, 2006
:Replied on editor's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology: Lineage and Heraldry vs Culture and History

message: Pseudociations are references to a source which doesn't or doesn't fully support all statements made by the text which seems based on it. An example in the crossbow article was:
Most probably, the crossbow first appeared at an unknown date among the tribes of South-Eastern Asia, where it is still used by the hunter-gatherer and nomad tribes both for hunting and warfare, as well as a toy. 
For at least over a year this very reference was cited to state that the crossbow was invented in China and further reading suggested that it meant invented in historic China. The inhabitants of South-Eastern Asia are not all Chinese up till now and were neither back than. Credits to Beit Or for correcting this error.
I want to make aware of it. While we keep an eye on the number and density of citations, we still may have such cuckoo's eggs among them. This is probably only of concern for high-level reviews, while in basic reviews it would consume very much of our limited capacity. Wandalstouring 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudocitations 

message: How do I discover which regiments served in the Second Opium War please? - Kittybrewster 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try This  Raymond Palmer 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Second Opium War]]