Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 22

message: Is there anyone in this group who has a Bot and would be willing to help me fix a problem? Well, a lot of problems? It has come to my attention that there are many hundreds of links to Confederate, which is an uninteresting page about Confederations in general. I started going through and editing them by hand, but am running out of steam. The task would consist of going to the What Links Here page for Confederate and editing the American Civil War-related links to be either:
*  Confederate or
*  Confederate
as appropriate. If is too much work to differentiate in that way, changing them all to the first would be better than nothing. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think AWB might also work for this.  It would be interesting to know if anyone here has a bot for future reference, of course.  —Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate link 

message: I have this photo here that is bugging me. (Take a look.)
OK so this guy is weird. First of all he's definitely wearing a Wehrmacht uniform. But, he's East Asian. Then his collar and shoulder patches look like a Schütze's. But the German eagle thing on his uniform, that I thought was for officers? And then, his cap. Looks like a Japanese one. AFAIK no Japanese troops directly helped Germany or even went to Germany. That means no Koreans either. Probably not Chinese either, since we sent only officers over (IIRC). I've heard about a bunch of Mongolian soldiers who got captured while fighting in the Red Army and then forced to fight for the Wehrmacht. Could this be one of those guys? Anyone knows who this dude is? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rank appears to be Gefreiter, judging by what is visible of the chevron on his arm. The eagle was for everybody.  I believe there were some Koreans captured in Normandy 1944, but can't remember where I read that. Andreas 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Normandy talk page discusses the presence of Koreans at Normandy, although it isn't mentioned in the article itself. --Loopy e 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like he is an unteroffiziersanwärter on top of it, based on the schulterklappen. See the page on NCO candidates at my website at This URL if you are interested in more info. Those definitely look like tress loops on the shoulder boards indicating he is in the training stream for NCO rank ([[Unteroffizier) Michael Dorosh 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmacht experts? I need your help 

message: A call to any Kiwis here, or anyone who just happens to be quite knowledgable. Over the next week or so I'm going to be working on expanding Military history of New Zealand and I invite any support! It's alright at is it now, but there are some embarassingly lacking sections and it would be neat to get it towards FAC. I'll also post over at the NZ WikiProject. --Loopy e 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiwis? 

message: Any help with figuring out how to label the outcome of this would be much appreciated. —Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually safer to say "More people were dead after this battle than before it" for an outcome...  - Vedexent 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the situation seems to be resolving itself; hopefully the bloodletting won't start up again. —Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid your early optimism was misplaced. Ghirlandajo seems bent on bullying to push his POV. Andreas 08:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The restructuring of the campaignboxes might provide some relief here.  This is a good example of why we should be getting the WWII task force up and running as effectively as possible; they should ideally be able to deal with this sort of thing. —Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Krasny Bor]] 

message: How should we record the the strength size of each side in a battle, taking reinforcements into question?  My suggestion would be to have the initial number of forces and then a "+" for all reinforcements added; something like "500 + 450".  I realize that there is a potential problem with forces being pulled out, but I think that's pretty rare in a battle (as oppossed to a campaign), so I think we can safely disregard that. Oberiko 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this can be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on what role the reinforcements play in the battle; anything from adding them directly to the strength if they arrive early to simply listing them as "20,000 on the way" if they arrive late (or not at all) might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battles: Force size

message: Chausse is among today's selections for "...Did you know?" Durova 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Our project is on Wikipedia's main page

message: Does something like this exist?  To help group e.g. articles like Human Wave Attack or Cavalry Charge etc.  They are currently in the category ground warfare, but maybe deserving of a sub-category? Andreas 16:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Military tactics, presumably.  Feel free to clean up the categorization scheme there as needed; the many sub-categories of :Category:War are a horrible mess, so any attempt at introducing more order is welcome. Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, neither Human Wave Attack nor Cavalry Charge exist as articles if the dead links are any indication.Michael Dorosh 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Human wave attack and Cavalry charge do ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, further, a look at that category seems more like a list of glossary terms than a true encyclopedia.  "List of military tactics" seems awkward.  Would there be a benefit to renaming it "Military tactics terminology" or something more encylopedia-like instead? Just a thought.Michael Dorosh 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military tactics category 

message: I just looked at the articles on Camouflage and noticed a metric buttload of different categories; I took Military camouflage and put it in the category :Category:Military camouflage because it was in :Category:Military technology but surfing around the various categories, it seems like a lot of duplication - there are categories for personal equipment, military equipment, military, technology, military technology...yikes.Michael Dorosh 16:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Technology

message: What do the different coloured letters in the signature blocks represent?Kirill Lokshin Leithp Michael Dorosh 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case it's a link to my talk page, it's only a different colour to make it clearer. In Kirill's case it's a link to his Esperanza sub-page. Leithp 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The green "e" is a trademark of Esperanza. ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is somewhat unfortunate for those of us lacking that letter in our names ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, green "e" and "s" then, I suppose. :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In corporate world that would be called trademark diffusion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature blocks

message: Just an announcement that someone has put the Battle of Cannae article up for FAC consideration. - Vedexent 14:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed in the announcements box already ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the terms on there could use some improvement.  If you have any better ideas, please don't hesitate to suggest them. Kirill Lokshin 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Peer Review" and "Featured Article Candidate"?  Just thought I'd suggest the obvious. :) --Palm_Dogg 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAC line also includes FARC, FLC, and so forth, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Cannae FAC 

message: I recently made in inquiry to Osprey, as I know a lot of our articles use either text or artwork from them.  Here is the response I got.  Palm_Dogg 19:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stealing stuff from Osprey is despicable and unfortunately rampant among "amateur" websites. Let's hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Osprey has good stuff; but simply scanning it in is illegal and the mark of an amateur.  We can definitely do better than that. Michael Dorosh 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how relevant this is in any case.  What kind of artwork are we talking about here?  Osprey's stuff probably isn't fair use, but any actual (old) artwork used in their books is fair game as . Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are these images? Which articles contain them? Who has lifted text from Osprey? This is the first I've heard of all this. Albrecht 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I ran a search and came up with the following list.  There are also these images: :Image:Horagai-conchtrumpet.jpg and :Image:Horo-Japaneseheraldry.jpg.  I originally contacted Osprey regarding using some of their work for the Battle of Badr article (I ultimately didn't) but in the process found this page on potential copyright violations.  Because there are a lot of Osprey works used as references, and because I couldn't find any specific policy regarding them, I asked them for a clarification.  For the record, I am not lodging a complaint.  I simply posted this here as an FYI.  Palm_Dogg 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on your part, Palmdogg.  As I posted earlier in my spiel on maps, if someone with artistic talent takes, say, a map from an Osprey book and reworks it, it become original work. Newer Osprey titles are valuable sources of info (older titles very in quality a lot more), but as with any source, the info should be independently verified and corroborated in any event. Osprey is simply the most convenient source, not necessarily the best. We're free to use their info, as long as the source is quoted, we aren't simply copying entire tracts of text verbatim (credited or not), and aren't scanning anything onto WP unaltered - unless it is public domain info that is reproduced in Osprey and identified as such.Michael Dorosh 21:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good to know. Anyone thinking of getting the Osprey Publishing Website Artwork package?Dryzen 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. Those two Japanese images were scanned and posted by me. The horagai picture should be deleted, as it is obviously new. But the horo picture, despite being photographed and cropped and published by Osprey, is of an original work originally older than copyright law. If you feel it appropriate, feel free to delete that image as well. I just wish there were a place to find copyright-free images to use... and not WikiCommons; we need to find a font of copyright-free images to populate WikiCommons with first before it can become useful. LordAmeth 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osprey Publishing 

message: Please comment on this article, thank you. Joaquin Murietta 00:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Request [[Uriah P. Levy]]