Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force/Archive 1

message: :I noticed that this project so far is only focusing on English history. If this project is British, and not just English, I would like to join and help with many of the Scottish articles. Thank you. Rshu 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can include Scotland here for the time being; we can always branch it off into its own task force if it gets too crowded here ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, good then. I was just making sure since I did not see Scotland in the categories. Once this project gets bigger, I would suggest a split between the different British military histories. Rshu 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a Scot myself and I don't see the need for a seperate task force, hardly anyone is working on pre-union British military history as far as I'm aware. I tend to work on 20th century stuff myself, where it clearly doesn't make sense to have a seperate task force. Leithp 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was saying that if this project would get extremely huge and work on pre-Union stuff, that seperate task forces would be necessary. I think I am the only one here working on pre-Union Scottish history, so, as you said, right now it does not make sense to have a seperate task force. Rshu 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English or British Military History? 

message: I'm working on a series of articles on :Category:British Service Swords. I'd appreciate any suggestions of how to fit them into the greater context of British Military History, in patticalar, what categories it should fit in. Epeeist smudge 11:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that filing them under both :Category:British military history and :Category:Swords would probably be the best idea, since I don't think we really have a British weapons category.  There might be other ways to handle it, though, depending on how many articles we're talking about. Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment it is under British Army and European Swords (with the 1908/1912 pattern in a WW1 category as well) At the moment there are 2 dedicated articles and a linkm to an existing article I modifed on Marmeluke swords. I'll probably write 4 or 5 more. I'll add British Military History to the categories. Thanks. Epeeist smudge 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Service Swords 

message: I've just uploaded an image of my Oath of Allegiance i swore when i joined the TA. Figured it might come in handy, and I can't see a reason why i wouldn't be allowed to? It's uploaded at Image:UK_Military_Oath_Of_Allegiance_Certificate.jpg, and i've used the Fair Use tag, but i can't find a suitable article for it. I've made a stub for it, but aside from taking it i know very little about it. -- Lordandmaker 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly link image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_army#Oath_of_Allegiance. Davidbober 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Oath of Allegiance 

message: I don't know if either of these are use for work by this project
*
*
At the moment they are identical and I need to add appropiate roundel/ensign/colours to distinguish them plus build in an automatic category. GraemeLeggett 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that they've been abandoned in favor of the more flexible . Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, looks like the templates are actually new; the earlier RAF boxes were hardcoded.  In any case, there's a pretty clear consensus that creating different infoboxes for every type of unit is a rather bad idea; is there some reason why  can't be used here? Kirill Lokshin 22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If nobody else has any good ideas, you could just use the one from the task force notice. Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This gives new meaning to a speedy responce. I'll build it with the suggested image and it can be modified at a later date.Dryzen 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You caught me just as I was refreshing my watchlist ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a single image given the span of British history, but you could do worse than HN from the  for the moment unitl a composite of English archer, kilted Highlander, British Tommy etc can be made. GraemeLeggett 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Consistency I've used the same image as can be found on the task force notice. Dryzen 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good stuff! Longer-term Nelson would be a decent representative for British military history, but I'd also like to throw in my tuppence ha'penny's worth for Kitchener. If we could scale down the classic Kitchener recruiting image then we could have a "British Military History Task Force Wants You!" icon. Davidbober 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh-hem . It's certianly mor iconic than the tri-service badge. GraemeLeggett 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitchener might work.  The Nelson portrait might be a bit too dark to be recognizable at such a small size. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you change the notice I'll change the template. Although Kitchner as a more cultural panache, I side with the Tri-service for a more global signifigance. What do the other participants think?Dryzen 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Hello, I was reading the article on the 33rd Regiment of Foot and then the article on the Battle of Harlem Heights (American Revolution). It looks like a lot of the info about the battle is in the regiment's article, can someone who knows more about it expand the battle article? I would but I don't want to make any errors.  Thanks. --Awiseman 21:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Harlem Heights 

message: If anyone has some free time and might perhaps run through the List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons and convert any articles that still have the old manually-constructed infobox to , it would be extremely appreciated :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a List of Fleet Air Arm aircraft squadrons not much conversion required but a lot of articles to start.GraemeLeggett 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF squadrons 

message: As this was based on change in military thinking (National service, role of missiles) and had an effect on many projects its about time there was an article . GraemeLeggett 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1957 Defence White paper

message: There seems to be some kind of re-classification going on with regard to some of the categories for Royal Navy ships - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. It would seem to me somewhat unnecessary and counter-productive to do this, it would presumably be extended to other classes of ships in history. Royal Navy naturally covers ships before and after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, I can see no point in adherring to a new classification sheme that would end up being historically anchronistic for the sake of someone's desire idea of homogenised consistency. Jooler 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see Talk:Royal_Navy#Categories for my comments GraemeLeggett 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The article Battles of Narvik which is supported by this task force is now the focus of the current collaboration of the fortnight. Please join in improving this article. Inge 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration|Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight]] 

message: I'd like to draw the British Task Force's attention to the above debate, started as a result of a disagreement between GraemeLeggett and myself.  Contributions to the discussion from members of this task force would be most welcome.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Operation Names style question]] 

message: I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at the history section at Royal Marines, it's huge and not specially encyclopedic in its tone.  The history side isn't my strength, so I'm reluctant to butcher it.
Related to that is the overall article size, I'm thinking about breaking off the history section into a different article.ALR 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Marines History 

message: Hi there, could I ask for some help on organising this topic? User:Pratj (new but dedicated) is keen to start an article on Fortifications in Medway, or the like. I'm trying to help him, and want it to fit in with all the other military work. Medway includes fortifications from every period from Roman to WWII, including the Norman conquest, Dutch Wars and Napoleonic Wars (>20 Palmerston Forts). The administrative and, as it were, cultural district of Medway also covers both the River Medway and the Thames Estuary, which is another way to divvy up the fortifications. 
We'd really appreciate some watchful eyes and avuncular advice, to make sure we're meshing nicely with existing projects/material. Discussion at User talk:Pratj. Ta muchly, JackyR | Talk 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortifications in Medway 

message: There's a new peer review request for British nuclear tests at Maralinga that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: This article has been greatly improved and expanded. It still needs help however. Many British and Commonwealth troops fought there and perhaps some of you would like to help further improve and expand the article. Any suggestions or contributions would be appreciated. Periklis* 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Greece]]

message: Thought you all might be interested in knowing that there is still a page out there, the one above, using the name of a group which has now been integrated into your group. Badbilltucker 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been maintained in nearly a year now, apparently; we might as well merge it here, I suppose. Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject British Army/New articles]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hiya folks. I'm working primarily on articles related to the Clan Fraser, of Scotland. There seem to be two Generals who are contemporary to eachother, both names Simon Fraser. One died a "Major General," the other a "General." 
The Maj. Gen. Simon Fraser was also the 19th Chief of Clan Fraser (see: List of Chiefs of Clan Fraser), and commander Frasers at the Battle of Culloden, though this was hidden, after the battle was lost (otherwise he probably would've been executed, like his father). Later, he raised both the 71st and 78th Fraser Highlanders. He died in 1782; the family remained in Scotland; I'm not sure where he died.
Our other General Simon Fraser is the son of an Alexander Fraser of Balnian, born 1729, and died October 7th, 1777, in Saratoga, New York. He was apparently part of the 24th Regiment of Foot. Ironically, he was in General Wolfe's boat at Quebec (a much younger Wolfe was commanded to kill the other Simon's co-commander at Culloden, though he didn't follow through). This Simon Fraser has already got an article on him.
I come to you chaps in order to figure out the naming of the articles. There are two people worthy of an article, both of which Simon Fraser (general) apply to. The Maj. General was older by a few years; I've seen "the younger," and "the elder" used in other articles, though usually only when it has previously been used by historians. Perhaps "Jr." could be affixed to the younger's title? This was tacked onto his name during the siege of Louisburg, as both Simon Frasers were Lieutenants at that battle. What say you?  Canæn  04:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, can we tack some sort of title onto the Major General?  I'm guessing he isn't counted under the Lovat ordinals, but perhaps something like Simon Fraser (Chief of Clan Fraser) would work if nothing else comes to mind.  Kirill Lokshin 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Generals Simon Fraser? 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Caesar's invasions of Britain that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Caesar's invasions of Britain]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Caesar's invasions of Britain that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Caesar's invasions of Britain]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Crawford expedition that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Crawford expedition]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for HMS Dreadnought (1906) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[HMS Dreadnought (1906)]] 

message: There's a discussion at WP:AN/I#Hoax suspected about Marshal of the Empire; I thought I'd bring it here and ask if anyone knows whether this rank exists or has ever existed in the British Army. Demiurge 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to find any mention of the rank in any of the reference works I have close to hand, and I have never heard the term used in the UK before (although I believe similar terms are used in other countries). I think it's a hoax, but I'll do some deeper digging and let you know the results. Carom 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Marshal of the Empire]] a real rank? 

message: Someone started an article recently on the Battle of Ghazni.  It looks like it needs some work connecting it to the proper war, conflict, campaign, etc.  I don't know enough about the subject thus am posting this here. Cla68 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on Ghazni 

message: There's a new peer review request for Angevin Empire that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Angevin Empire]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Ghazni that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Ghazni]] 

message: I have added a list of every article in this category and its subcategories to Category talk:Military history of the United Kingdom as an aid to show which are currently unclassified and need classifying and (probably) the MILHIST banner and taskforce flag set. WARNING: there are hundreds of articles and loading the page might cause a broswer crash on an old PC or handheld device on a slow internet connection. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All articles covered by this task force 

message: I am not a member of the project, I just noticed that the article for Anglo-saxon warfare is up for deletion as original research, which it does look to be. However, as far as I can see, there is little elsewhere in Wikipedia on the subject, and I wondered if anyone here would be able to write a new article, or, more probably, a new section in another article, on the matter. J Milburn 20:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-saxon warfare 

message: Do we have any information about the Danish invasion of Scotland? I created a page about the Battle of Dollar. --Ineffable3000 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another one that I just did: Battle of Bands. --Ineffable3000 06:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish invasion of Scotland 

message: I am a bit confused on the Battle of Montevideo (1807). Is it officially considered to be part of the War of the Fourth Coalition or is it unrelated?  If it is unrelated, what war is it part of? --Ineffable3000 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Montevideo

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Eric Gascoigne Robinson that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Eric Gascoigne Robinson]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Thomas Crisp that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Thomas Crisp]] 

message: I'm creating a couple of templates to manage some of your external links:
* 
* 
These specifically refer to "World War II Orders of Battle" at http://www.ordersofbattle.com and I'm wondering what is the best way to label them.
OrdersOfBattle.com seems unsatisfactory; World War II Orders of Battle would be better if we had a suitable article explaining why that site is reliable and useful.
You will also see that I have included a little link to this project to explain the purpose of the external link.
Maybe this could be adjusted to point somewhere more specific?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for OrdersOfBattle.com 

message: I'm wondering whether the articles in this category should be made to conform with the naming convention which seems to have been agreed in the parent project.
For example, should British 20th Armoured Brigade be moved to 20th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom), or indeed would 20th Armoured Brigade be sufficient?
I'm also noticing some which are using obsolete names: for example, 1st London Infantry Brigade apparently changed its name to 167th (London) Infantry Brigade (or 167 Infantry Brigade according to the entry at OrdersOfBattle.com). Should these not be moved also?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly speaking, the articles should (eventually) be moved to conform with the project-wide naming convention.  Some of them have already been renamed; but there are obviously a lot that still need to be worked through.  Whether the disambiguator is needed is a good question.  For simple numerical designations (e.g. "20th Armoured Brigade"), I'd go ahead and add it; it's fairly likely that some other country has had such a unit, and the guideline does recommend preemptive disambiguation in such cases.  For more complex names (e.g. those including cities, etc.), disambiguation is probably not needed. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They should be renamed. I'd been holding off, as there had been a few questions raised on the main talk page about the wisdom of the new convention; however, those appear to have subsided, so you can probably go ahead. Also, Kirill is correct (isn't he always?) in saying that simple designations should be disambiguated - in general, I have been preemptively disambiguating everything up to about 100, regardless of whether or not we have articles on multiple units. I think this is probably wise, given that WWII-era armies (particularly Germany and the USSR) fielded absolutely astronomical numbers of divisions. Carom 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Battle of the Somme has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Message was left on the Northern Ireland WikiProject's talk page on the 24th of January. --Mal 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of the Somme]] FAR 

message: Anyonoe interested in creating a Battle of Keren article? --Merhawie 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Keren, Eritrea

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Thomas Crisp that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Thomas Crisp]] 

message: Once upon a time the WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration moved a heap of content into wikipedia, the old domain is now being squatted and we are providing heaps of links to it. To clean up this spam I have been removing the This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission from the article space and adding this template on the talk page . When I started there were more than 1300 articles, . I was hoping some people from this project might help out and take the opportunity to add more VCs to the military history project - I've seen a lot that aren't project tagged. Thanks. --Peta 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea how to do it per bot? Then ask our automation departement for help. Wandalstouring 06:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not easily botted, since the links aren't necessarily in the same place or format.  (And, in any case, the automation department has been somewhat in limbo recently; of the two main bot/script-runners, one is busy and the other hasn't edited for a while.) Kirill Lokshin 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we move this somewhere else, please? A task force, a subpage, somewhere? Carom 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want to help clean up some spam and identify more project articles? 

message: :Can we move this somewhere else, please? A task force, a subpage, somewhere? Carom 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary coordination table

message: For Royal Navy aficionadoes, I've just finished with List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, which now has the complete list of Lords of the Admiralty from the Restoration through the abolition of the Board in 1964. (I'm still missing the exact dates of some turn-of-the-20th-century commissions that apparently didn't make it to the London Gazette, for whatever reason.) If you're interested in senior RN officers, there's now an ample supply of redlinks available. Choess 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice! Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lords of the Admiralty 

message: There's a new peer review request for John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough]] 

message: The UK naval ships stub type has become very large;  I've made a proposal here to create a number of more specific stub types to help bleed off some of them...  Please comment there if you have any thoughts.  (Duplicate of message to WP:SHIP.)  Alai 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK naval ship stub types 

message: So, of late, I've been writing a lot of stubs on British Army regiments (one of my side-goals is to try and get an article on every numbered regiment of foot), and this has meant looking at a lot of very, very similar introductions.
:The 186th (Borsetshire) Regiment of Foot was an infantry regiment of the British Army, raised in 1743 and amalgamated into The Royal Loamshire & Borsetshire Fusiliers in 1881.
It occured to me that this could be a little more helpful.
:The 186th (Borsetshire) Regiment of Foot was an infantry regiment of the British Army, raised in 1743 and amalgamated into The Royal Loamshire & Borsetshire Fusiliers in 1881.
...letting us write an article on the British regimental system, what a regiment "meant" over time, etc, which is more useful than a generic pointer to infantry and regiment. Any thoughts? I've written a similar one at Cavalry regiments of the British Army, though the history section has probably grown a bit more than I anticipated... Shimgray | talk | 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a great idea.  I would suggest two articles, though: a general one on the British regimental system as an institution, and a more focused one on Infantry regiments of the British Army as individual formations. Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairy nuff. I've spammed it across the existing cavalry articles (with the exception of Yeomanry and RTR, special cases). Will hack into the infantry later... then one for Yeomanry, probably. I can see this taking up some time. Shimgray | talk | 12:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regimental articles 

message: There's a new peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[HMS Royal Oak (1914)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Anthony Eden that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Anthony Eden]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for King's Regiment (Liverpool) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[King's Regiment (Liverpool)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Waterloo that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Waterloo]] 

message: Anyone good at creating these??
Weggie 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanted VC infobox

message: There's a new peer review request for HMS Kelly (F01) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[HMS Kelly (F01)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Marston Moor that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Marston Moor]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Treaty of Versailles that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Treaty of Versailles]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of the Plains of Abraham that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Ronald Niel Stuart that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ronald Niel Stuart]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Carom 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: The AFD on Squaddie may be of interest to editors here. Leithp 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on [[Squaddie]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope]] 

message: If you see 1709 in literature, you will notice that we have no article on the Battle of Malplaquet.  It was a significant engagement.  If there is an article on this battle by another name, I urge whoever you folks are to create a redirect, as "Malplaquet" is virtually the only name the battle had in literature.  Geogre 18:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was only a spelling mistake in the literature article. Raymond Palmer 18:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed article 

message: There's a new peer review request for Victoria Cross that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Victoria Cross]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for HMS Ledbury (1940) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[HMS Ledbury (1940)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Royal Navy that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Royal Navy]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Ramillies that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Ramillies]] 

message: The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Attack on Sydney Harbour]] now open 

message: There's a new peer review request for Enfield revolver that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Enfield revolver]] 

message: Further to the numerous discussions, largely on Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, a proposal has been made attempt to neutrally categorise individuals imprisoned during The Troubles. Your comments are welcomed at:
*Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 14#Category:People imprisoned for terrorism
Thanks. Rockpocket 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising prisoners from The Troubles 

message: The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Military history of Gibraltar during World War II]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Enfield revolver]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] now open 

message: There's a new peer review request for Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 08:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven]] 

message: The British South Africa Company Medal is featured on the Main Page's Did you know? section.
-- Ctatkinson 11:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK Announcement 

message: I've been reduced to asking people on Wikipedia for information regarding this subject but I hope someonewith genuine knowledge can help me.  I doubt the claims (from the site in particular) that the Lee-Metford was the British Army's first repeater or (in some cases) the first repeater designed in Britain.  When the testing of various designs for this weapon began in 1879, I presume some must have been British made.  Can anyone offer information?      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.181.147 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeaters 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Barrosa that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Barrosa]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Operation Battleaxe that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Operation Battleaxe]] 

message: I have created a stub article of the Burma Rifles as requested. Please expand if anyone has further military knowledge etc. LordHarris 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub of Burma Rifles