Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 48

message: Would it possible to modify the  project banner template to allow for an article used in an FA pool for any given portal to displayed? I ask because of the apperence of the  template and the fact that other Portals like WWII and NATO could (and probably do) draw on our featured articles for their portal FA pool. It seems to me that space could be saved on the page by figuring a way to add them all to the main banner template. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me think about that.  Off the top of my head, I don't see any obvious easy way of doing it; but maybe I can come up with something that's not too convoluted. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about something similar to the babal boxes? Something like , where the # equals the number of portals the article is featured in, and A, B, C and so forth are shot hand for the Portal Names (like War for the War Portal, NATO for thh NATO portal, etc). Would that work? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I suggest a task force related to "War crimes" or "Atrocities". The obvious problems are the scope of the subject and the scope for edit wars, but topics such as the Nazi death camps need to be covered, in my opinion. Views? Folks at 137 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something more general, like "Military law" or "Laws of war"?  Having things included in a "war crimes" group would be needlessly provocative in cases where they're merely allegations, I think. Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good idea. That would also give a firm, codified basis for the scope. There's no hurry to establish this, better to get it right than spend life arbitrating. However, I'd like some leeway - I don't agree that allied WWII bombing, for example, was a war crime, but others have an arguable point that bears debate. Would an atrocity during an undeclared war, eg the Rwanda massacres or events in Bosnia, be included under a strict interpretation? Perhaps "Crimes against humanity". Folks at 137 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Crimes against humanity" are technically a somewhat different thing—and one not necessarily tied to this project, as they needn't involve either warfare or the military—so that might not be an equivalent thing.  In any case, I think that "Laws of war" could more easily cover such issues regardless of whether they're actually considered crimes, and regardless of whether the war was declared or not; it's much easier to go for a liberal interpretation of the scope if it's "laws" than if it's "crimes". Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid any charges of crime if this task force should work on the behaviour of Japanese troops towards POW during WWII for example. Japan had not signed any legislation on how to proceed with POW. Atrocity is neither a NPOV term as enslavement and rape were common practice in classical warfare and not recorded among the atrocities.Wandalstouring 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Laws of war" is probably the most correct title (I think the task force is a good idea, by the way). Carom 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any legal/law-related projects on Wikipedia?  This would also fall under that category also, I think. Cla68 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Visit WikiProject Law. Wandalstouring 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note on the WikiProject Law page in case any of them would like to join-in this discussion. Cla68 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New task force proposal

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? I have already refered it to peer groups but I am wondering whether the Wikiproject leadership knows anything about it. --Ineffable3000 04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was part of the Anglo-Spanish War of that period (on which we don't seem to have an article, incidentally); lumping it into one of the Coalitions may not be quite correct, in that sense. Kirill Lokshin 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The British project in Southern America was to establish their own rule, compareable to the British takeover of the Dutch Cape Colony in South Africa. Summary of the prelude and interest, flag of the Patricios regiment (1807) that fought against the British invasion while Spain was not able to provide enough support. Wandalstouring 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to update the Campaignboxes. Also, is the Anglo-Spanish war considered to be part of the Napoleonic wars. --Ineffable3000 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be; but it ran from 1796 to 1807?, if I recall correctly, so it fits into both the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic phases. Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might an independent war though. --Ineffable3000 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Montevideo

message: I created the Battle of Montevideo (1863) and found out that we don't have any articles about the Uruguayan Civil War. --Ineffable3000 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that urging you to write or at least start these articles? Wandalstouring 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related note

message: This unit is scheduled to be deactivated on 12 January 2007. I'm actually in the unit, so I'm providing good information. I changed the "active" date, but it's been reverted, and I just wanted to make a note explaining why I added it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botter (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion page to the article. When you make an edit and someone reverts it, write this editor a comment and discuss matters with him on your discussion page or on the discussion page of the article. Furthermore use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Wandalstouring 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having taken a look, I notice the infobox reads as if the entire regiment is to be disbanded in 2007.
I assume D-10, 7-10, and 8-10 CAV will remain in existance??
Cheers
Buckshot06 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Squadron, 10th United States Cavalry 

message: I have started an article about the Uruguayan Civil War‎. Please check if there is no article like this at the moment. I want to make this a very good article. --Ineffable3000 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Battle of Montevideo (1863) is related but it's not considered to be in either Uruguayan Civil War or War of the Triple Alliance. Where does it belong? --Ineffable3000 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the Blancos and Colorados were shooting each other so check the respective articles for consistency. A very important issue is that you source your article. Take some of the featured articles on the project page as an example how a good article might look like. Wandalstouring 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that help me determine which war the battle was in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ineffable3000 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that there was only one Uruguayan Civil War, and that the dates on that article are correct?  (It is possible, incidentally, for a battle to not be part of any broader war.  In other words, the single battle could be the entirety of the conflict, so there's no separate name used for the war.) Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were several wars in this region until the border conflicts between Paraguay, Uruguay, Brasil and Argentina and their inner conflicts were halfway settled. It possibly helps you to get an overview about this era first rather than focus on one participant.Wandalstouring 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did and found out that there was the War of the triple alliance and Uruguayan Civil War‎ in which Uruguay participated. Can that battle be just a skirmish not part of any major war? --Ineffable3000 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the History of Uruguay page, In 1855, new conflict broke out between the parties. There was some conflict but it does not seem to have a name and the previous conflict "Guerra Grande" is usually called the Uruguayan Civil War. What should I do? Should I just continue calling the "Guerra Grande" the Uruguayan Civil War. --Ineffable3000 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but on the other hand it isn't clear when there was war and when there was peace because the bands of "soldiers" continued to do what they usually did. Just go on read more material on it. You will at least need it to write a well sourced article. If you have read to write a good article you will also know enough to tell in which war it happened while here you ask people who hardly know the basics of what happened in this region. Wandalstouring 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the legitimate sources I have read, I found out that the main war was in the fact during the time period I thought it was. It was a big war and is called "Guerra Grande" on the Spanish Wikipedia. However, there continued small 'wars' afterwards. --Ineffable3000 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uruguayan Civil War‎ 

message: Looks like the deleted Category:British Commonwealth Forces wasn't the only category trying to lump together all the Commonwealth's various militaries; we also have the bizarrely named :Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps (which includes a number of things that are neither regiments nor corps; but the curious combination of two formation sizes is baffling regardless).  Does anyone see a use (and alternate name) for this, or should it go to CFD like the last one? Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Regiments' and 'Corps' are both names for British historical regiments, thus Army Catering Corps and the Black Watch can both be seen as 'regiments' though service organisations usually get called 'corps'. I hope I'm not teaching people to suck eggs here - they're administrative, not operational, organisations. I think it has merit possibly under a title something like 'Indigenous (local?) forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth' ?? Thoughts?
Cheers
Buckshot06 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really see a use for it - as was discussed in the previous case, there is no real military connection amongst the armed forces of the various countries that are members of the Commonwealth. Carom 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If this category is retained it should at least be limited to actual regiments and corps. Many of the units sub-categories such as 'Military units and formations of New Zealand' are neither and these aren't valid sub-categories. --Nick Dowling 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To forestall the creation of such categories and possibly articles. The respective names should be linked to a chapter in the Commonwealth article that explains how "their military" worked. Wandalstouring 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the Army Catering Corps would fall into the same kind of 'classification' as the :Category:United States Army Corps of Engineers, which itself could probably be better defined. How about something along the lines of (using the Corps of Engineers as an example), making a new category called (bad example) :Category:Adminstrative/Service Corps of XYZ Army, so that they have a distinct category separate from the operational Corps which people usually relate to term Corps? Just an idea. wbfergus 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a (mis-named) :Category:British administrative corps. Kirill Lokshin 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about renaming that to :Category:Administrative corps of the United Kingdom? And adding categories into the other national trees where neccessary? Carom 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible (and speedyable); the question is whether we would want to explicitly rename the other "Corps" categories to "Operational corps" or some other term, to discourage people from trying to nest them in unusual ways? Kirill Lokshin 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Or maybe "Field corps" (c.f. :Category:British field corps, :Category:Field armies, etc.); or is that only valid in British terminology? Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think :Category:Field corps of the United Kingdom is better, but I don't know how many other countries use that nomenclature. Carom 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth military units again 

message: A possible application of the ability to redirect to chapters within articles would be to collect stubs as chapters of "articles" with a fitting categorization(not category) that describes one of their common traits. The idea is to better keep an eye on stubs and find a form for topics that are unlikely to ever make a whole article. These stub collectors can later be turned into summary articles with many redirects to their respective chapters or some chapters can become seperate articles if they have enough information. Wandalstouring 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad idea, particularly for topics that gather large amounts of permanent stubs due to a lack of available information (e.g. ancient & medieval military figures, etc.).  Having said that, we need to make sure that what we're collecting actually make sense as combined articles (due to having some common theme) and are not merely extended disambiguation pages. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as disambiguation pages they would be by far easier to maintain and have more use. Wandalstouring 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the theme-based organization is more meaningful, when both are possible.  For example, I would argue that combining a bunch of stubs into Punic figures of the First Punic War, Punic figures of the Second Punic War, etc. would be better than combining them into disambiguation pages by name. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub collectors 

message: Quick suggestion here - for the military unit infobox, I think a subordinate unit parameter would be a good idea. Obviously, we wouldn't include lettered companies (A Company, B Company, etc) or sequentially numbered battalions (1/501st, 2/501st, etc), but I think it would be quite helpful for showing which units fall under which units, instead of having to search through the text.--Nobunaga24 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Suggested new parameter for military unit infobox Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new parameter for military unit infobox 

message: Major battle between Roman and Briton peoples probably, maybe, could have taken place near this present day street; even the sources, such as they are, are hedging, and no one actually refers to it as the Battle of Watling Street.  I think this article should be renamed, but to what?  Is anyone on this project very knowledgeable about this period/subject?  --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be great if this page could get archived soon.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - Debate over where the site of the battle occurred does exist and is noted in the article. But the name "Battle of Watling Street does exist as the de facto name to give to Boudicca's Last Battle. Even if you rename the article to something like "Boudicca's Last Battle," akin to "Custer's Last Stand" for the Battle of Little Bighorn, people would still likely look up the Battle of Watling Street. --Petercorless 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit strange name for an ancient battle. Sounds more like some street gangs having a violent encounter. Since this name is really used there are no reasons to object. Wandalstouring 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for providing that source, is that in the article somewhere?  I read several of the sources and none of them actually used the term, which is why I was skeptical/confused.  Additionally, the article makes it sound like the battle actually took place on Wattling Street, like it was there at the time.  I guess that is fixable, though.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watling Street was there at the time. But it was the Roman road "Iter III" or possibly called "Via Claudia" to celebrate Claudius's victory. The first part was laid down in 44 AD. The Saxons came along later and renamed the road to what we call Watling Street today, but the road itself was built by the Roman army. --Petercorless 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay okay but the article says things like "The Romans proceeded down Watling Street."  This is confusing, as your points about its history are not in the article.  I personally don't like it when articles present confusing info that you must click through wikilinks to figure out (for example, a reader could alleviate the confusion of the Battle article by looking at the article on Watling Street, but the Battle article doesn't then become less confusing in and of itself.)  I will edit the Battle article slightly to reflect this. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It does say at the top "now known as Watling Street." I'll add clarifying text regarding the Street itself. --Petercorless 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Watling Street]] 

message: I just "adopted" the disambiguation page for Mortar. I've gone through probably 200 of the 250 "links here" pages and changed mortar links to mortar for articles where the weapon was being referred to. The culprits undoubtedly know who they are — and can save a lot of work for other folks later on if they will remember there's more than one meaning for the word. (For penance, you guys can fix the masonry "mortar" references on the Mortar disambig page!) On the enlightenment side, I've learned from correcting the citations that just about every 20th century US Medal of Honor winner was involved on either the receiving or delivering end of mortar fire! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. When I work on articles in the future, I will try to remember that. Thanks for catching it and making the corrections. Regarding the Medal of Honor recipients, it's also amazing how many of them used their entrenching tool as well. They must have already had it pulled it out of it's carrier, as anybody that's been in the Army knows how difficult and time-consuming it is to get the dang thing out, at least from the old canvas carriers. The newer plastic carriers are a bit easier (in warm weather). wbfergus 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic. If you are in danger of close combat attacks you keep that thing ready beside you. Wandalstouring 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please disambiguate "Mortar" early and often! 

message: Any thoughts on which tag we should use for present day Russian formations which have a long and distinguished Soviet history? Some, like the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya MR Div, have honour titles which serve to mark them out from any future E German or Hungarian or anybody else's Motor Rifle Divisions etc. But what about the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Division at Totskoye, or others like it? (Soviet Union)? {Soviet Union/Russia)? Thoughts?
Buckshot06 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They still use the red flag as far as I know.Wandalstouring 10:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're still present (under those names) in the Russian military, I'd use "Russia"; the other ones would presumably be just "Soviet Union". Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country Tags for Sov/Russian formations

message: Probably more of my countless stupid questions here. 
*1. As I've been working on creating stubs for various units of the Korean War, I've pretty much just been copying the text I've found (with references). Eventually there may be enough information that somebody can start going through it and rewording/rephrasing as appropriate to make a regular Start-class article. I try to remember to double-single quote it as appropriate, so it appears italicized as well. However, doesn't that usually signify that's a copy from somewhere? And if I do that, should I still make an effort to eliminate the wording of "enemy" or "friendly", as that connotes a POV, and replace it with other appropriate wording, like "South Korean", "North Korean", "Chinese" or whatever? Depending on what time of the day it is, sometimes I feel that by doing that I'd be changing what I've quoted.
:If you use direct quotes make it visible ("...quote...") and state whom you quote. Any rewording of a direct quote must also be clear by using brackets. If you use a source and write things with your own words such measures are not necessary, but in case you feel this could be a POV issue it is advised to mention in the text who stated that opinion. In all cases replacing enemy is a good start, as it is clearly a POV and can lead to misunderstanding.Wandalstouring 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that makes sense and clarifies how I should be doing it. Thanks. wbfergus 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it is absolutely not advised to create a great amount of stubs. Since there is material lacking on certain topics this is probably the result of lacking noteability. In such cases think more about a way to combine your information into complete articles, for example by creating "US units of WWII (from 1939-1943)", "US units of WWII (from 1943-1945)" and branch of longer(=real) articles on specific unitX by using the template . Wandalstouring 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a lack of notability, but more of whoever was working on it at the time didn't have enough to work with. If there was a "working area" (like a sandbox?), then as people found something they could add it and eventually there may be enough for a decent editor to create cohesive article, or at least a better section for the main article. An (poor) example would be X Corps (United States). The article itself it rather sparse, with no references or notes. However, I ran across  which details a lot about the X Corps in the Korean War. For other units, especially ones that have participated in numerous campaigns/wars, imagine how much information is out there that the Army/Military didn't include in their standard unit bio? wbfergus 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said "probably lack of noteability" or public interest. Still the advice is not to create stubs, but to try to keep cases in which one is not able to make a complete article on his own as a part of a summary on certain topics. Wandalstouring 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just add it to the unit articles directly?  There's no prohibition against taking a "work in progress" approach to such pages, and it's simpler than trying to shuffle sandboxes around. Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if you are taking the approach suggested by Kirill, you can always add  to let other editors/readers know that the article isn't intended to be complete (and that work is ongoing), but I wouldn't recommend leaving that template up for any extended period of time. Carom 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. The  template sounds like it might work pretty good. What sort of time contraints are there on using it? Until somebody complains or changes it? A month or two? I'm probably not the best writer to try and condense the information into something intelligible. wbfergus 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until somebody cares enough to remove it" is usually a good rule of thumb. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and other Unit History questions

message: First of all, I apologize if this issue has been raised before. I'm finding a great deal of frustration dealing with the combatants section of infoboxes. It appears like people are including or trying to include every conceivable combatant in any struggle. This is fine and dandy for the historical record, but it is also slightly ridiculous when we include states, tribes, or countries that played virtually no notable role. The result is that some combatant lists (ie. the one for the Napoleonic Wars) is a piece of crap. Thoughts??? I don't have much time to clarify everything I wanted, but I'll write more on this later.UberCryxic 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has indeed been raised before (although I can't remember exactly when); that's why the whole bit about large numbers of combatants was added to the template instructions.  It's obviously still up to the editors of individual articles to decide exactly what should and shouldn't be in the infobox, though; we can't really impose a one-size-fits-all rule here. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This tends to be pretty colourful. Well, if it is really urging to mention them all we could set an example and use large tables which also provide a better connection between the commander, the country he served and what he commanded. Such tables shouldn't be anywhere near the head of the article, mor at the bottom, above the "See also" and "References" section. Wandalstouring 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to create an "expand" button [+] Allies (full list), and if you clicked on it, it would expand, otherwise, it would be collapsed? The same might be do-able with units involved, so you could expand US Third Army to see sub units. You could then have a list of the main forces or units, and then have an "Additional Countries" or "Additional Forces" system. Just a thought. --Petercorless 09:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real way to do it cleanly; MediaWiki doesn't support arbitrary tree controls. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How about a guideline then, to have only primary combatants listed, and then a "Full list" link at the bottom to "List of combatants in (Conflict name)". On that separate page you can have the full panopoly of flags, and perhaps a paragraph or so on their entry into, participation in, or exit from the conflict. Also, a "Full list" link to "List of forces in (Conflict name)." That can allow people to go to a separate page where more exhaustive Order of Battle pages can be broken out by nationality, force types (ground, air, naval) and sizes, the days/times forces arrived, etc. --Petercorless 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, "List of combatants in X" would be a permanent stub, in most cases; we don't really want to create extra articles if they have no long-term potential.  (Plus, the inevitable fighting over which combatants are the "primary" ones would cause more trouble than it would solve, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Forget guidelines. There is none out there reading them. As long as you have a possibility for something to be listed easily in an infobox you will have the maximum possible input. Shortening it to the rest of Europe except Sveden vs France and its puppet republics wouldn't survive three days. But there may be a trick to make your suggestion practice, we do only list troops engaged in this conflict. so in case someone tries to list the complete army of the Holy Roman Empire it becomes pretty evident that not shortening is insane. Wandalstouring 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  People usually will read guidelines if you point them out specifically (if only to find out where to complain about them).  In any case, though, it's not that big a deal in practice; any truly absurd cases can be dealt with, and articles will tend to stabilize on something that the major editors consider reasonable, in the long run. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MGRILLO's been hard at work these past few days conducting the Warbox equivalent of IED attacks. My guess is he's upset at the execution of Saddam Hussein. Anyway, I'll admit that some vigilant reverting's in order, but I hardly think one man's mania is reason for all this soul-searching and second-guessing. Almost everyone here uses the Warbox correctly. The storm will pass. Albrecht 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Has anyone pointed him to the template instructions?  (He may not listen to them anyways, of course—but it's worth trying as a very low-effort solution to the issue if it works.) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right away I was writing to him. Wandalstouring 02:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok; thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatants

message: Having recently completed the overhaul of USS Wisconsin I have turned my attention to the article Iowa class battleship, but I am having a guideline crisis and need some advice: The infobox lists a butload of numerical quantities which should be cited, but I am not sure if I should create independent sections for each of the areas that need to be cited or simply add inline citations to the numbers stated in the infobox. Thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually each numerical quantity is cited expect one is a simple logical result of others listed with references. Wandalstouring 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Of course, anything that's already cited elsewhere in the article doesn't need a second citation; so if the numbers are mentioned in the text, it may be easier to just cite them there. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is best not to cite infoboxes. They just summarize the article. --Ineffable3000 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sometimes not quite true for infoboxes that include technical data, though; it's not uncommon to see numbers that appear in an infobox but aren't repeated in the body of the article. Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't you want to include them in the article? --Ineffable3000 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some of the numerical data (e.g. weapon measurements, cemetery statistics, etc.) would need to be given in table form anyways—as there's rarely a good way of turning a bunch of numbers into nicely-flowing prose—so there's no real benefit to having it repeated. Kirill Lokshin 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for battles, it's best to repeat. Right? --Ineffable3000 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably; I can't think of anything in  that couldn't be put neatly into the text. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had people blow away information in my infoboxes, complaining that it was "unfounded" or "wrong" unless I put a citation right there on the factoid. Even when the same factoid was in the article text. People are very impatient. YMMV. --Petercorless 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictatorship of the Littlereaders ;) It is best to cite things where one can see them without overusing the reading ability. Wandalstouring 12:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and Infoboxs

message: I started writing the page on the Uruguayan Civil War. How does it look so far? --Ineffable3000 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off to a good start, I think.  (We really ought to look at getting some sort of South American military history task force together to take care of articles like this, incidentally; it's not an area where we have very good coverage.) Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am reading more on this so that I can make it better. I have also made it a collaboration nominee. And I think we do need a task force. --Ineffable3000 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. Though I'm not a great S America specialist, it'd be very good to form a TF to bring in the two inactive wikiprojects in the area and provide a focus for future work on S America. Meanwhile, what about a Middle East TF? That area sure needs work as well!! Buckshot06 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Middle East gets more focus on due to increased tensions. So does Africa. --Ineffable3000 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case for some hi profile conflicts like Somalia and Iraq at the moment, but the pages for the armed forces of the various countries are pitiful. They could use the attention a task force would provide. Buckshot06 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey the task force is working, 10 men on thousands of years covering a whole continent. 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still nominate the Uruguayan Civil War for collaboration. --Ineffable3000 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uruguayan Civil War 

message: This Portal has been up for feature status for a few weeks now. The majority of the objections have been fixed but the nomination process has become stagnant. It would be good if a couple of editors here could drop by and add their opinions. Regards Hossen27 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Poral Nomiation for [[Portal:Military of Australia]]