Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68

message: So far 59 editors have tagged nearly 24,000 articles. The current top ten are:
:FayssalF — 3,500
:Cromdog — 2,200
:Bedford — 2,020
:Maralia — 1,750
:Roger Davies — 1,750
:Jacksinterweb — 1,510
:TomStar81 — 1,400
:JKBrooks85 — 1,250
:MBK004 — 1,028
:BrokenSphere — 1,000
If you haven't yet signed up yet, it's not too late to join!
--ROGER DAVIES talk 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update [[Nov 13]]

message: Summary:
A lot of words have been typed, and a lot of opinions repeated. Let's see if I can objectively summarise. If you disagree with how I have summarised/classified your words, please alter my summary/classification accordingly:
*Proposal 
**(Fram): Let's be consistent, and match the MoS too.
*Comments:
**(JKBrooks85): As long as it doesn't affect searching or linking
**(Kirill): We seem to have a number of separate types of articles that may need to be considered separately. (Followed by a number of "I agree with you.")
*Comments in support: 
**(Leithp): That sounds sensible.
**(wbfergus): I think I would support the proposal I changed my mind (see comments above or in next section).
**(RogerDavies): "You're right Fram" - (No supporting argument, just a statement of support)
*Support:
**(Kevin Myers): This has been discussed and agreed before. (But nobody actually carried out the changes.)
*Oppose:
**(MilborneOne): 1) Military ranks do not use lower capitals. (Followed by lots of comments about various style guides, but not many adressing MilborneOne's statement; those that do address it agree.) 2) I am not sure that the MoS is an authority on this.
**(Mukk): I agree with Kirill. I suppose this means that ultimately I oppose?
**(TomStarr81): I have never met anyone on base who had their rank spelled with lower case letters.
**(Neovu79): 1) no military officer would call himself or herself as a Lieutenant general 2) if you do uncapitalize, then you run into problems with particular ranks and with titles
**(Saevurr):  It's just strange to look at ranks like this in this fashion
**(Pdfpdf): 1) To treat all of the enties in the above list in the same manner is inappropriate. They are not consistent with each other, so you can't make a "consistent" change. 2) Sometimes the MoS does not cover a situation. 3) To say "the real world is wrong because it's different from the MoS" seems (to me) to be a peculiar POV. (Followed by lots of comments about various style guides, but not many adressing the statement.)
**(Wbfergus): mixed case usage in the same 'title' or 'rank' is incorrect. It would never be "Technical sergeant", only "technical sergeant" or "Technical Sergeant", depending on the context of usage. 
*Comments I don't quite know how to classify:
**(Roger Davies): It's a question of whether you regard article names as titles (capitalized) or job descriptions (uncapitalized). ... it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Analysis:
Despite all the text, there are only a few actual points:
*Let's be internally consistent, and be consistent with the MoS.
*The things in this list are not consistent with each other - there are a number of different groups. Some groups could use lower case, but other groups never use lower case. At the least, there is ambiguity between "rank" and "title".
*Independent of what style guides say, the Military do no use lower case. Maybe the MoS is not appropriate for this situation?
And then there's the point:
*No military officer would call himself or herself as a Lieutenant general.
I hope some of you found this useful! Pdfpdf 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very useful, thank you. One point I disagree with. "Independent of what style guides say, the Military do no use lower case. " This is, as far as I can see, not true. This is a military document from 2004, found through a sarch on the army.mil website. It uses only lowercase, even for commander in chief. See e.g. table 2.1 in the document. In fact, looking at thissearch on that website, it looks to me that almost all official military documents do use the lowercase when referencing the rank in general (not a person with the rank). Fram 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue here is slightly clouded by the Wikipedia convention of capitalizing the first letter of an article title. Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, doesn't follow this style and thus articles about generic ranks appear as 'lieutenant', 'admiral', and so forth. This is also how dictionaries handle it. Your point about no military officer calling themself a Lieutenant general (your capitalisation) is correct. It would be "Lieutenant General X is a lieutenant general in the Y Army". --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pause for a cup of tea (or coffee, if you prefer) 

message: Could I request some additional eyes to drop by Battle of the Plains of Abraham and its talk page to consider a claim by another editor that the article is biased towards the British version of events? I had been waiting for some added comments from the other editor, User:Plains2007, who posted a lengthy screed on the talk page that had some nationalist leanings to it. Somehow, I completely missed the posting of a long, and referenced, new section to the talk page in late October in which the editor presents an alternate article - or, he notes, something that could be merged. To my eyes, it's over-long and gets into some minutiae, and many of the points are already covered in the text, but there may be some sections that could be brought in. I'd really appreciate if some other voices could chime in and take a look. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is Anglo-centric. The French side is simply not reported to the same extent. The solution is to try to give equal weight to each side on a section by section basis. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional eyes requested 

message: Attention is needed from project members on these two articles. User:Bandurist is using unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia mirror answers.com and the Ukrainian Wikipedia in order to justify their edits to the article. The user is also removing or attributing to "Jewish sources" the well-sourced material on the involvement of the Nachtigall Battalion and its commander Roman Shukhevych in the massacre of Jews in Lviv in July 1941. Beit Or 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nachtigall Battalion]] and [[Roman Shukhevych]] 

message: Most of Europe is now covered by geographic/ national task forces. Is there a case for similar treatment for the remainder, eg, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (as was), Portugal & Ireland? Folks at 137 22:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those all seem reasonable if/when there's editorial interest.  As things are, there aren't many editors working on those topics; so there's no real need to create such narrow groups until someone actually comes forward and wants to participate in them. Kirill 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And the rest?

message: The A-Class review for Phan Dinh Phung is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Phan Dinh Phung]] now open 

message: See Talk:Battle_of_Krojanty#Requested_move. One or two more comments would be useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was initiated by Uncle Ed more than 4 years ago but only got the attention two weeks ago. Anyway, "Charge of Krojanty" sounds weird. I'd have prefered "Action of Krojanty". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  12:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename a certain battle to charge? 

message: What kind of script/tool did you use to find all of our articles for the assessment drive?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a custom-made Perl script. Kirill 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment drive tool 

message: The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[USS Illinois (BB-65)]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Gebora]] now open 

message: At Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Józef_Piłsudski. Your comments as always appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC review for A-Class [[Józef Piłsudski]] now open 

message: Hi,
I was the originator and author of most of the information in the Afghan timelines from 2000 to 2004. I see that the names of all these articles have been changed to "Timeline of the War in Afghanistan". For example, what was Afghanistan timeline August 2004 is now Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (August 2004).
Although a lot of the information in those timelines deals with the war, there is also a lot of information in those timelines that have to do with democracy, art, health, and culture. It is a misnomer to call them timelines "of the War in Afghanistan". It is really better suited to call them generically timelines "of Afghanistan." That generic title helps cover the other topics covered in these timelines.
I wanted to change these titles back, but I wanted to discuss the matter with you first.
Sincerely, Kingturtle 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan Timelines 

message: I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What to do with WikiProject History--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I recall seeing an external image link template on here some time ago. Would anyone happen to know if it still exists? I need to link to this image, but as things appear now its going to get the axe over fair use compliance. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is possibly the one you're thinking of.  It's still there and still in use, including in some FAs. Carre 09:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Image Linking 

message: The A-Class review for Le Quang Tung is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Le Quang Tung]] now open 

message: From where I sit maybe four of the FACs we currently have open have sufficent support to close as support, and have been open long enough for people to comment on them at length. Whats the holdup out there? Has Raul654 been on vacation or something? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul has a lot of things to do, usually he does it every week or whenevr he can. I don't see the problem with leaving them open, it gives them time to get more supports!!! Woodym555 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, FAC promotions tend to be on a somewhat irregular schedule.  It's not really designed to be a very fast-paced process. ;-) Kirill 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FACs

message: F-4 Phantom II 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. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I put comments on the talk page but they may belong here. This is a clone)
The section on "Flying the Phantom" seems a little thin. Here would be a thought to address that and other points that have been raised: either add another section at the same hierarchical level, or put in two subheads: "Admired Phantom Characteristics" and "Problems (mostly) fixed". As your "Flying the Phantom" section exists, it really has two paragraphs on one and two on the other. Besides smoke and the gun, some of the other variants were made due to perceived deficiencies. The latter could make a section. The positive pilot perceptions could use more content, to emphasize the good characteristics of the aircraft. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This should go on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/F-4 Phantom II page. See how others have formatted their comments on other WP:FARs. Woodym555 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review 

message: The peer review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident]] now open 

message: After a lot of effort, this article is going to be an FA. But we asked for a peer review before nominating. Please participate in peer review. As Kirill says  all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! --Seyyed(t-c) 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Hezbollah]]

message: As of noon (GMT), the top ten are:
:Bedford — 4,010
:FayssalF — 3,500
:Cromdog — 2,200
:BrokenSphere — 2000
:Maralia — 1,750
:Roger Davies — 1,750
:TomStar81 — 1,520
:Jacksinterweb — 1,510
:JKBrooks85 — 1,250
:MBK004 — 1,046
Two more editors signed up over the weekend. The more the merrier, huh?--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some pretty impressive counts there! :-) Kirill 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just come back as an editor after some time off but I had assessed almost 10,000 articles before I left.  Ther was a time prior to the project existing.--Looper5920 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose you would consider reprising this, would you? :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MHA07|''Tag & Assess 2007'']] Top ten

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Le Quang Tung; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Le Quang Tung]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Vaslui is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Vaslui]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -- Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang]] now open 

message: Word on ABC-7 tonight is that three USN ships are heading off the Bangladesh to aid with the relief effort. A check of the cyclone article reveals that five ships from Bangladesh are also involved in the recovery effort. I cannot speak for the five Bangladesh ships, but Tarawa, USS Kearsarge, and USS Wasp are bringing roughly 3,500 Marines to aid in the recovery efforts. Since this part falls in our scope me thinks the material will need to be integrated in to the article eventually. For now though it would probably be best for us to keep an eye out there to make sure no vandalism creaps into the articles unnoticed. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bangladesh relief effort

message: User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js is great for assessing articles. You guys doing the assessment drive could use it--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool script for all assessors 

message: I'd like to start this list with what I think is a good source.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You all can add some that you find too.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Information Sources 

message: The A-Class review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident]] now open 

message: There are two issues being discussed:
# A user proposes to require that any content deletion be put to consensus on the talk page first (but not hold additions to that standard)
# Another user proposes renaming the list to "List of Mass Killings". 
--Mmx1 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on [[Talk:List of massacres]] 

message: A slightly interesting fact: as of today, we have more than 50,000 articles tagged as part of the project, in large part due to the success of the tagging & assessment drive. :-) Kirill 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy warfare, Batman, that's a lot of articles! —Kevin Myers 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50,000 

message: The peer review for Barrage (artillery) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Barrage (artillery)]] now open 

message: Your ideas are welcome at: Talk:Afghan_Civil_War#What_needs_to_be_done.3F. Thanx to you. --victor falk (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Input request: Afghan Civil War

message: The peer review for Francis Harvey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Francis Harvey]] now open 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 02:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang]] needs attention 

message: I came across this article and it seems oddly named. The article is Battle of Petersburg I. I think it should be moved to First battle of Petersburg. Comments?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Roman numerals in battle article names. Kirill 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Did a major cleanup, although there are still things to do. Help is welcome in going through historical examples -- perhaps making them a table as in the primary document -- and being sure all meet the definition of swarming, rather than just being convergent.
It could use naval examples with light craft, especially with the buzz about light boats in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the Battle of Surigao Strait would serve as a historical example -- the PT's and DD's did swarm and do significant damage; Oldendorf's capping the T was the finishing touch.
Anyone know of a good public domain picture of an RAF Sector Station, or something showing reasonable air defense coordination? I'm afraid more recent displays have symbology that takes experience to read -- maybe that is a point worth making about the kind of soldier needed for swarming 
I still don't really grok the article class system, and would welcome information on where this article, and indeed my intelligence and special operations series (also did direct action (military) and foreign internal defense), fit. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of Swarming (Military)

message: Where can I find the template for Infobox Military Unit ? Chessy999 (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At Template:Infobox Military Unit, presumably?  Or are you looking for something other than what's on that page? Kirill 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Military Unit