Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 52

message: I'm not well up on Federal conflicts, but the articel on the Battle of Miami Beach looked so completely suspicious that I had to ask someone knowledgeable: Is that real?! Is there any such battle by that name? 68.39.174.238 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax, hoax, hoax. And not even a good one. Carom 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth checking the user's other contributions... Shimgray | talk | 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even a good hoax :( I was looking forward to seeing something really strange, but all they've created is an infobox. --Nick Dowling 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking htis user'S contribs I've foudn that most of the article created are all link to information gathered from the works of author John O'Shea. There is thus a strong chance that this hoax is a ficticious battle from one of this later's books (wich I've never read, anyone knowledgable on this ?). --Dryzen 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request a second opinion 

message: Can someone from this project take a look at the contributions of this user? S/he seems to be an enthusiastic creator and contributor to various WWII articles that would fall under this project's scope. However, s/he doesn't seem to be a native speaker of English, and seems to be either translating literally or using a machine-translator, with results that are basically gibberish. I also wonder whether the numerous lists that this user has created are necessary. I've tried contacting the user, but I don't think the user does much in interacting with other editors. Thoughts? BuddingJournalist 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Some curious stuff here; a lot of the lists don't seem like they're particularly useful. Kirill Lokshin 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. I also moved, for now, List of WWII foreign aircraft captured by German forces from "foreing aircraft". I'm not sure it's a notable entry, and it does not cite its source. --Petercorless 06:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with {{User|Torb37}} 

message: The A-Class review for Edwin Taylor Pollock is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Edwin Taylor Pollock]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Operation Igloo White is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] now open 

message: In my attempts to find images and maps for so many of my articles which are missing them, I've come across a number of pretty nice tactical maps of various battles, created by Japanese Wikipedians. Obviously, with enough work I could edit the images to translate them... but for now, what do people think about the inclusion of foreign-language maps in articles? Is it alright for now? Should it be avoided? etc. LordAmeth 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information on them is illustrative sufficient to show locations of troops, lines of advance or control without having to know the foreign language, then they are useful. Try to ensure you provide translations of key text if you can. If, however, even with a partial translation the user might be confused by the foreign language text, then we can wait for their full translation. --Petercorless 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would wait for translated versions, personally. Maps are nice additions to articles about battles, but not so neccessary that we need to include those in a foreign language, particularly if there are users willing and able to translate. Carom 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a precedence level, having foreign maps is acceptable. Just look at the number of francophone maps to be found in our articles. As already mentionned If the reader can understand the point of them ap and disern knowledge from it then its, in my mind, ok, perferable though to have translations.--Dryzen 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also try to turn them into bilingual maps. This might be helpful for someone who wants to inform himself via Japanese sources. Wandalstouring 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only use maps from a different language as a las option. Kyriakos 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Maps 

message: An idea that the coordinators have come up with: a consolidated review department that would include peer reviews, A-Class reviews, and FACs/FARs, all transcluded onto a single page for easy watchlisting and browsing.    The obvious benefit is a better centralization of activity (particularly to things like the FARs, which haven't traditionally been directly visible anywhere in project space); the potential drawbacks are a larger page size and a more complex layout.
Comments?  Would this be a good approach? Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the increased visibility of external peer reviews and FACs/FARs would be a huge benefit; however, I also think that transcluding everything on a single page may be unworkable, given the number of discussions that are usually going on at one time. It might be better to simply provide a list on the main review page - something like "the following articles are currently Featured Article Candidates," with a link to each discussion. On the other hand, it wouldn't be as bad as, say, AfD, in terms of length, so that may not be a real concern. Carom 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The total size of the page is about 400K, and we have rather more FACs/FARs active than we usually do; for comparison, the actual WP:FAC page is upward of 900K.  Given that people aren't complaining about the latter, I don't think the size will be a technical problem here, at the least. Kirill Lokshin 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking (at least, by the time I finished typing). At any rate, I think the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. Carom 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially I thought it perfect, but now I have an idea for a different approach: Just make a watchable list of review titles with links to the specific reviews. Wandalstouring 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically what  does already; the question is whether the full-transcluded page offers additional benefits beyond the simple link-list. Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea to me. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But the announcement page isn't that much suited for keeping on a watchlist. Improving this might be helpful.Wandalstouring 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, why not?  The only changes made directly to it are (a) changes to the list of currently open reviews and (b) occasional project-wide announcements; that seems exactly suited for watchlisting. Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So, anyone else have an opinion?  Should we implement this and see how it works in practice, or are there outstanding concerns that haven't been considered yet? Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already palced my opinion in the original discussion, basicly: might be too big/bulky, better visability will benifit the less participated review types, Annoucements already a generic rieview visibility. Pretty much what eveyrone's already had in there minds. I dont think there are any outstanding concerns to stop the implimention for a trial run. Might be harder to keep both the old pages and this new one running though. Should the consolidate page function to expectations what is to become of the old review pages?--Dryzen 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for the purposes of the trial run, we can just redirect the old page to the new one and see how everyone reacts; if the reactions are positive, we just keep the redirect and go on, and if not, we simply revert the redirect and get the old structure back. (I'm not sure that a test with the old pages still fully active would really show anything, since people wouldn't have any reason to visit/try working with the new page.) Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'dd completely forgotten about redirects. With this in mind I support the initiative for a trial run as you proposed. With the redirects in place we should get an excellent idea of the Cosolidated Reviews potential as well as the attention of all the reviewers who may not be up to date with this disscussion.--Dryzen 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, on that note: the new review department is open for business.  Let's see how things go! :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated review department 

message: List of military disasters has been listed on AfD. My suggestion is to move the article to 'military disaster' and use the current content to provide examples of such disasters. Given that there's a large literature on the topic of the causes and nature of military disasters I think that this is an article well worth keeping in some form. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that an article on the general topic would be useful, but I'm not sure that the current list is going to be of any value as a foundation.  The list currently uses an overly broad definition of "disaster", adn seems to conflate "military disasters" with "decisive defeats"; it may be easier to just start over, focusing on the more canonical examples covered in literature on the topic.  Kirill Lokshin 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a tricky list since a decisive defeat wich became a disaster for one party certainly wans't a black day for the victors. The definition of Disaster will definitly have to be explained and carefully followed... --Dryzen 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it. It is no more than a marketing site for two books. Wandalstouring 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of military disasters]]

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Igloo White; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still needs attention, if anyone has a bit of time to comment. Kirill Lokshin 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] needs attention 

message: Poison gas in World War I 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. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poison gas in World War I FAR

message: Llywelyn the Great has an image of a toy soldier that seems to be intended to serve as a kind of portrait, however, this could nevertheless be Duke Igthorn with his shiny new shield. There has been so far agreement to ban trivia and I stick to enforcing it. Naturally an article about the marketing of Llywelyn the Great can be created, but this is not part of the biography as long as he himself was in no way involved with this toy line. Wandalstouring 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a toy soldier. It's the statue of Llywelyn in the town square of Conwy, Wales. The statue looks to have been done in the 19th or perhaps early 20th Century to me, and apparently is painted on to make it look more life-like. See: Image:LlywelynFawr.jpg, or Llywelyn Fawr (Llywelyn the Great) for a picture of the statue in context of buildings and streetlights. You can also see Llywelyn Fawr (Llewelyn the Great) for a shot from directly below. --Petercorless 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my fault. But the image still looks like a action figure distributed by a fastfood company in addition to the kid's menu. Wandalstouring 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  It's an interesting style for a statue, that's for sure! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of a toy soldier in FA 

message: Greetings!  A request for comment/discussion has been started on Talk:World War II, in an attempt to help resolve an ongoing debate over the inclusion of specific countries in the World War II infobox.  A wide range of input is sought to help bring fresh perspective to the debate, so, please, if you have interest or knowledge on World War II, please stop by, read the discussion, and provide your input.  Thanks! ——Krellis (Talk) 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does not appear to be reachable in the above so I have initiated a vote. Oberiko 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on World War II 

message: I’m being accused by the editor Carajou of participating in an edit war in the article Ironclad warship over trying to identify the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia by its historical name instead of long-popular but incorrect USS Merrimack.  I would appreciate knowledgeable editors from this project visiting article, reviewing in the edit history the key pair of changes I made on February 16 & 17 that he reverted, and the “debate” on the talk page, and commenting on the issue neutrally and constructively.  I myself will be out of town on business travel for most of the week, so I probably won’t be on Wikipedia until next weekend (or possibly later).  Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on article's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your contributions. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merrimack vs Virginia 

message: I have collected a list of missing topics related to military and military history. I have tried to check if there are any similar articles but I'd appreciate if others could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long list, but I doubt it has any use. The more general you keep things and the more topics you lump together the less attention it will receive. People do write articles because they want to inform about a topic or people write long lists and store them in some dark corners of wikipedia. The best you could do is split this list and adress the requests directly to a specific editor with an interest in the topic or specific task forces within this project. However it can take years or forever until the issues get solved. Another criticism is that there are more and better search engines than google. Wandalstouring 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, all of those topics were copied into  a few weeks ago. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you better update it, because I updated the page two days ago. As for the use of Google, I mainly used the standard  - Skysmith 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the sheer numbers involved, there's probably no point in spending too much time on synchronization.  Once we get a decent proportion done, then we can start looking for stragglers. Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really shows dedication to keep such lists updated, although it would be more beneficent if you tried to provide these lists with specific material that can be used to write articles, a google search is not sufficient and hardly helps. Write 3-5 sentences what the topic is about or why the guy was notable, etc. Wandalstouring 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had 3–5 sentences for each, we could presumably just produce stubs for them, no?  Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do that, but several stubs grouped in an article with redirects to these chapters might keep things more manageable. Wandalstouring 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending full articles we could bunch up these stubs in themed articles(Generals, Battles, etc..), somewhat like the editors did for Minor characters. That way all the stubs are in one place, easier to find and travel as well as reducing the amount of independant articles to keep an eye on pending devellepment. ?--Dryzen 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently missing topics 

message: Looks like we have someone who's enthusiastically renaming articles to include acronyms in the title; can somebody please go through Special:Contributions/Aeh4543 and revert the things?  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I didn't notice he'd moved United States Army Special Operations Command twice so reverted his first move first; it needs an admin to fix. Really sorry. Trebor 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there are several in there that are chain moves through three or four different pages.  If you can just list the ones that wind up needing an admin here, I can move those myself.  Thanks for your help! Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible to correct them, but it has to be done in order of moves (which is rather confusing at times). He edited the redirect for Military District of Washington (MDW), so I can't do that myself. Trebor 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed all three. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: United States Army Acquisition Support Center and Installation Management Command have edited redirects, and I think U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Signal Command (Army) (NETCOM/9thSC(A)) is empty and can be speedied along with its redirect here. I think that's all of them but I'll double-check (and am going slightly crazy with all the abbreviations). Trebor 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) is also empty, redirect is here. Trebor 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think that's all of them (again!). Trebor 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that looks like all of them now.  Thanks a lot! Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This brings something else to mind--something that's been bugging me for a while now.  The article was changed from U.S. 3rd Infantry Regiment to 3rd United States Infantry Regiment (TOG).  Is the (TOG) really necessary at the end there?  Can I remove it without there being a hubbub over it? --ScreaminEagle 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so; looking through their webpage, it seems that "The Old Guard" isn't technically part of the unit's official name.  (And even if it is, I'm sure somebody will point it out once you move the article. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass moves to revert