Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 19

message: So, should we go ahead and try it out, or does anyone have any major objections to the present setup? —Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here. We can iron out anything else once we've started. Leithp 18:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've listed it on the main collaboration list.  Some initial nominations would be very helpful ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking it live? 

message: To start this off, I've created skeletons for the British military history task force, the United States military history task force, and the World War II task force, which can serve as merge targets for the relevant projects.  I'll try to migrate some resources and such to the new task force pages a bit later tonight; in the meantime, anyone interested should feel free to sign up :-) —Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Army has migrated over to a task force as well. —Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task forces 

message: I just finished writing Operation Opera; I like it but I need input. Ha... Thanks. -- Killioughtta 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nice work on a timely topic. I like that you included a lot of pictures, and discussed the prelude, the negotiations, etc, and not just the attack. Sorry I have nothing to contribute to the article myself. LordAmeth 11:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Formatting is a little off, I'll sort that for you. --Loopy e 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have seen some books written on this air raid, and I would suggest adding those in a reference section. TomStar81 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good idea; I added two books I found at Amazon.com to a new heading "Publications." -- Killioughtta 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks good...so much so, in fact, an FAC might be in order. It has my support:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Opera (suggestions?) 

message: 
I found this infobox over on the World War II page. Is it useful?
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to the custom boxes we go, I see ;-)  Could somebody convert the thing to a normal ?  —Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World War Two infobox

message: I see this site in the external resource area. Please remember that is is a Secondary Source site, and all of its information is available at primary source sites that often are linked on its pages.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's a good reference but usually it's necessary to dig into the primary sources. Hmm... like Wikipedia, no? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Security Dot Org

message: Maybe these two could be merged? At least the British Generals should be renamed English generals? With the current naming one seems redundant to me. Yes, I am aware of the difference between England, Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the special status of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, just in case someone is wondering. Andreas 08:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not to. Take Glubb Pasha or Peake Pasha, both of these are British generals who were not generals in the British Army. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are quite a few other examples. Also, :Category:English generals and :Category:Scottish generals exist for pre Act of Union generals and I actually removed a heap of incorrect entries from them at the weekend, which is probably why they look de-populated at the moment. I'll make an attempt at adding legitimate entries when I get the time. Leithp 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken Andreas 09:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:British Army generals]] & [[:Category:English generals]] 

message: It's mentioned above, but I thought it was worth a new thread to get your attention: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration is now up and running. Nominations and votes are being taken up until Sunday evening (server time). Leithp 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Fortnight is now live 

message: The Joan of Arc article is under consideration for featured article status.  Since it's officially part of the military history project I'd like to invite the other participants to join the FAC discussion.  Best wishes, Durova 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also listed in the announcement/open task box, along with all the other FACs of interest ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Is that automatic or something I should add?  My contribution to this project has been pretty narrowly focused and I don't participate in project talk much. Durova 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it yourself if you want; but I usually go through and update the lists at least once daily, so you don't have to. —Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy 

message: Today I stumbled across something that other project editors should try: I reviewed the incoming links at Joan of Arc.  More than half of the date and year event pages contained mistakes.  They often specified the wrong date for battles and sometimes named commanders who were not involved in an engagement.  So if you need a change of pace while editing a battle that happened on April 4, take a look at April 4, etc. and make sure the basic facts are correct.  Durova 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was once a project that was focused on maintaining the date pages, but I suspect it died at some point. —Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it a relaxing way to do something useful while my brain cells checked out for a break. Durova 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and dates 

message: Hi, since no one's going to vote for it by themselves (or at least I don't think they will) , I've decided to put a notice here! Anyway, on this page Catapult voting section, is where you can vote for Catapult. I nominated it mainly because it was a kinda crappy article with only 1 picture & lacking masses of information, despite how important the subject is. Please vote, as who really wants something like food to get to the main page before an important article like Catapult does. Honestly, why is food sooo important? Its not like everyone uses it! And the other half eat it before heaving it up again anyway......... :) Spawn Man 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Catapult]] is on AID!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: Is it worth adding a "slot" in the military action info box for notable units? This would be useful when it is used for battles. For example: Legio XIII Gemina was at the Battle of Gergovia. This could be mentioned under Combatants, I suppose, but it might be helpful to seperate nations and specific units. - Vedexent 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would make the boxes far too long for many battles (consider, say, the Battle of Austerlitz, which included dozens of famous units).  In any case, a proper order of battle usually requires some extensive description of unit strengths and so forth, and thus is probably more appropriate for a section of the article than for inclusion in the infobox (which is meant to be a short summary, rather than a complete description of the battle). —Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, the practice of listing army names and other formations in battleboxes (a la 3rd Kharkov) needs a sharp rebuff. Nothing but unreadable clutterings result from it. A short statement on the project page here would work wonders, allowing us to tag edits in this sense with something like "Cleaning up Warbox (please see WikiProject Military history)." Without the Project's authority to back them I find such efforts only lead to ruthless reverts from people who don't know any better (Bigger battles are an absolute evil. I bloodied my head on the keyboard trying to get the Kursk infobox looking normal). Albrecht 03:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do have "Convention is to use the names of countries, rather than those of specific units" and "It is generally not useful to provide unit names without giving an indication of numbers" in the warbox instructions already; I'm somewhat hesitant to push anything stronger than that, since there are probably special cases where it's a valid option.  Is there some particular wording you think would be more helpful? —Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I sure look stupid: Hadn't actually checked the Project page to see if something had already been added to that effect. Present guideline is perfect. Albrecht 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units in a Millitary action?