Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 60

message: In the interests of not trying to re-invent the wheel too much; I've changed  to use  with some particular styles set.  This gives us the full range of grouping functionality from the latter template essentially for free, so we can convert just about anything to the new style without needing to change parameters too much.  Comments would be very welcome! Kirill 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using navbox generic 

message: Two other editors have taken it upon themselves to delete any reference to the Lee-Enfield in film; regardless of notability. For example, one user as removed references to Breaker Morant invoking "Rule .303" as it "might refer to a Bren Gun or a Lewis Gun" (despite the fact that neither gun existed during the Boer War), and references to the incorrect use of the Lee-Enfield in film (only citing two examples, The Blue Max, and Lawrence of Arabia, in which the inaccuracies are blatantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with WWI firearms, have also been deleted for being "Trivia". My understanding of the "Popular Culture" consensus is that lists of every. single. appearance. of a gun in films is to be avoided, but discussion of a firearm's notability (or, in this case, blatantly incorrect use, and also near total absence from WWII themed computer games) is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Some outside opinions would be appreciated, especially since some people seem to have twitchy delete button fingers and are deciding ALL Cultural Impact sections are delete worthy, which isn't helping article quality or stability. --Commander Zulu 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MILHIST#POP guidelines, discussions of cultural notability need to be well cited. That section on Lee-Enfield is currently unreferenced. Until you can cite published experts who discuss the cultural impact of the rifle, you cannot even begin to make an argument for inclusion. Certainly those sort of references can be found for such a well-known rifle. Until then, you're firing blanks. —Kevin Myers 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Impact and Notability in [[Lee-Enfield]]

message: The notability, importance and general factual accuracy are being discussed in an occasionally heated debate on the Royal Navy talk page. This started off as a debate about the inclusion of this battle in the hostory section of the Navy article. It has since become a long debate about the accuracy of the information contained within the main Battle article. As such the debate is no longer relevant to that talk page but is highly relevant to the Battle talk page and also the History of the Royal Navy page. I think the discussion should be moved to the Battle page but don't know whether it needs a special procedure to preserve the edit history. Also i think it would be useful to have some outside opinion on the whole matter. Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i suggest you just copy and paste it and leave the original at the Royal Navy talk page. You may add a small note about the continuation of the discussion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would be out of line to move the whole discussion with a note (this is sometimes done on this page when a line of discussion is more appropriate to a task force). Carom 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Cartagena de Indias]]

message: Hello, I think some of the articles of :category:Cruisers of the Soviet Union have an odd title. For example, IMHO the article Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky should be renamed to something like Maxim Gorky (cruiser), isn't? In fact its lead section starts with "Maxim Gorky was a Soviet Red Banner light cruiser…" I can help with the renaming process. Best regards, —surueña 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really something that should go through WP:SHIPS; some of the reasons for the naming conventions for ships aren't immediately obvious. Kirill 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict) I don't know if there is any established naming convention for none-US/UK warships, although the country-type-name formation seems to be fairly common (c.f. the contents of :Category:World War II battleships of Japan and others). Admittedly, this is not universal, but that may be a function of "nobody has got to it yet." I also don't know if parenthetical disambiguation would be better here, other than for consistency with military units and personnel. Carom 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right: it is the naming convention documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships. If I only have read the Manual of Style! Sorry for this silly question, thank you —surueña 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have post my doubts about this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#No ship prefixes, maybe you want to participate in the discussion. Bye —surueña 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rename 

message: If anyone here is not busy writing military history articles, can you please help the Uncategorized Good articles task force by adding the |topic=History to the GA templates on history articles along with the |oldid= from the date the article was reviewed? Thanks. Tarret 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA categorization drive

message: An anonymous IP has just deleted over half of the comments on the Talk:HMS Invincible (R05), link provided here:
. The stated reason was foul and abusive language. I have not checked it thoroughly enough to see whether there is yet. I can see "Argie" used a lot and i can see how this is being construed as foul language. I don't think however that it warrants the deletion of a long discussion; I think that just the offending comment should be deleted or censored. I think it would be useful to have the argument reinstated, if only to see who was acting improperly and then reprimand them for their conduct. What do people think? Woodym555 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing or refactoring the comments of other editors from a talk page is generally frowned upon. I think it would be appropriate to restore the deleted comments, gently remind any editors using offensive language to observe the civility guidelines and advise the IP responsible for deleting the comments that such actions are not usually appropriate. Carom 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is what i intended to do but thought i should discuss it first. The discussion itself was over a year old and i couldn't find any specific personal attacks although it did get heated. I have left a "Calm talk" header at the top for what it is worth. I have commented on the IP's talk page about the deletion and referenced the guidelines, an amended copy of it was placed on the talk page. Thanks for your quick response. Woodym555 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[HMS Invincible (R05)]]

message: I have created articles on four volumes of autobiography by Dan Raschen. The author was an officer in the Royal Engineers retiring with the rank of Colonel. The books are lighthearted; one is concerned with wartime activity (during the Korean War), the other three with peacetime military activities. I have added them to :Category:Military history books, but am not sure if they belong there. Any advice would be gratefully received. HairyWombat 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have started by creating an article about the author first but that's only my opinion though i am not sure if he would be notable enough as a military man to have a Wikipedia article. As for the books, they can be considered as autobiographical military books istead of military history books. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these Military history books? 

message: BUT WILLING TO WORK. If anyone has any uses for me here on wikipedia (help with an article or something like that), just drop me a line. --MKnight9989 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  out of a job... 

message: Hello !
There are neutrality concerns about Battle of Bir Hakeim ; and the french article is a featured one, so i started a translation from the French article for a replacement/merge : See User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim.
I'll translate the two last paragraphs tomorrow morning, but since i do think that my military jargon is weak and that i must have done a lot of langage mistakes, if some of you could please read the translated part (until User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim#L'évacuation as per of now), and correct me, i'd be very, very, grateful !! Especially, I do believe that the translations of my quotations are particularly weak since i tried to stick to the translation of the original French words on these. I think that some improvements can be found. 
Since it's long, if you have only the time to correct one paragraph, please do so, and state it here ! Thanks a lot ! NicDumZ ~ 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also created Radomir Pavitchevitch, I'd like to have your read and comments on it, please. Thanks again !! NicDumZ ~ 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a look. Are you sure you translated the complete French article? Even the intro isn't completely translated. Wandalstouring 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the French article slightly changed during my work (). I added the Bir Hacheim second spelling, was it about this ? Thanks for checking ! NicDumZ ~ 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Bir Hakeim]] 

message: Hello, I know this is a pretty active project so I thought I would drop this message here in case anyone was interested. User:Kranar drogin and I have been embarking on a pretty serious collaboration involving northern Illinois related content. The collaboration has already netted about 10 GAs and we are soon aiming for an FA. This aside part of the next phase of our collaboration concerns the Black Hawk War, fought in Illinois and Wisconsin in the United States in 1832. I have already done some work on Battle of Kellogg's Grove and created a companion article about the grove as well. I have a collaboration page in my user space, User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War where I am collecting sources and making other notes. Anyone interested should stop by there. Discussion can occur on that talk page as well. Thanks for your time. IvoShandor 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep watching the main page for updates on our progress as all of my new articles are nommed for DYK and usually appear within a few days. Currently, Battle of Kellogg's Grove, St. Vrain massacre, Kellogg's Grove and Felix St. Vrain are all nominated and should appear soon. So look for that. : ) IvoShandor 11:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Hawk War

message: I've gone through the project page and its rules briefly, but haven't found anything much on this. When doing a random article search, I came upon a series of pages looking like this. Now, my question is: should these separate batallions, ... be listed separately? It seems fairly superfluous to me to create an individual article for every subdivision of a larger part (damn, I really need to brush up on my terminology :/) or army for that matter, when it doesn't have significant importance. Else, we could start listing every lowest division and naming their members :) I don't really imagine the xth brigade of the yth regiment being very encyclopedic.Jack the Stripper 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what "brigade" means in the Romanian military, so I'm not certain what level of formation is being described here.  In the past, though, the consensus seems to have been that formations at the divisional level and above are automatically "notable", while smaller units (e.g. regiments, battalions, etc.) only get articles if there's something significant to say about them; thus, things with long histories (e.g. British regiments) are all going to have individual articles, whereas units without that history typically won't. Kirill 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regiments etc.

message: It seems we're getting away from consensus on naming articles according to the designations used by the country of origin, not NATO designations. I came across SA-19/SA-N-11, the "new" renaming for this article. More members may wish to weigh in on the talk page. I haven't gone through the other Soviet SAMs, but it might be worth a run-through for fixing up any others. I have gone through the NATO code lists and this particular article correcting the codename for the SA-19 to "Grison" from "Grisom" – an ancient FAS mistake still being propagated by Global Security. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support keeping them by their proper Russian designations; redirects can assist people looking for them by their NATO names. Do you really mean Grison->Grison? Buckshot06 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is 'Grison', not 'Grisom'. I posted a number of sources giving the correct code name. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do people think about moving the Soviet naval ship designations from their DOD pseudo-Russian names to the Russian project numbers, as per the missiles and aircraft, etc? Buckshot06 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian SAMs & NATO code names 

message: I'm starting what I hope will be a major expansion and improvement of Military history of Australia during World War II and was wondering if any of the other national military histories of the war are considered particularly good? - a model to use to develop the article would be great. --Nick Dowling 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best national military history of World War II?

message: The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Attack on Sydney Harbour]] now open 

message: Could someone with a bit knowledge on templates take a look at  it seems to be acting up. I don't know if it was something I screwed up when I made some additions to it but currently when you go to one of the pages its on only a few of the battles delink in the box, so say if your on the page Buffalo Grove massacre you can still click the link to Buffalo Grove massacre in the campaign box but if your on Battle of Wisconsin Heights its just bold text for the link to that page in the campaign box. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like the page your on to be bolded for all them btw, I think that is how its supposed to be. : ) IvoShandor 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed now, I think; there were a bunch of redirects in the box that were causing the problem. Kirill 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, so quick too. I suppose that should have been obvious, I forgot I moved those pages, I feel dumb. : ) IvoShandor 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign box issues

message: The sign-up period for the fourth project coordinator election has now begun, and will continue until August 14.  Members interested in becoming a coordinator should make a statement on that page, and all editors are encouraged to ask questions of the candidates. Kirill 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thought I've had - maybe not for this election but for the next - is maybe we ought to nominate a 'deputy' or 2IC lead coordinator to shadow the lead coordinator. (Just to clarify; I'm not going to run this time). We're all very grateful for Kirill's extensive work so far, but if for any reason he or another successor lead coord became unavailable, we'd find very quickly at the moment I think a lot of the project processes ground to a halt; we're too personalised and not enough institutionalised at the moment. Thoughts? Buckshot06 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, maybe just list the second-place vote-getter as a "deputy lead", then?  It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, personally (but, admittedly, I might not be the most unbiased person on such issues. ;-) Kirill 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This doesn't seem particularly pressing, but I don't have any objections to creating such a designation in the future. Carom 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign-ups for the project coordinator election now open 

message: Comments appreciated; I believe a name with a date is more common then with named side.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A RM at [[Talk:Polish_Expedition_to_Kiev#Requested_move_.28take_two.29|Polish_Expedition_to_Kiev -> Kiev Expedition (1018)]] 

message: The Featured Article Candidacy for Confederate government of Kentucky has been restarted by Raul654. Editers are invited to recomment on the FAC page. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confederate government of Kentucky|Confederate government of Kentucky]] 

message: Checkout the addition I put for Order of battle for Union forces in Kentucky in the Kentucky in the American Civil War article. I basically copied it from Civil War Battle Flags of the Union Army & Order of Battle, from a copy of an 1887 text I own. It lists every brigade, division, district, department, etc., in all 25 Corps through the entire war. 
I'd love to put all the info online since its not copyrighted--the only problem I have is with formatting. I tried to put into a table similar to the one in the book, just as a small example. The basic heirarachy is Corps over division over brigade, with sublevels in each box for the Commander, the date they were assigned, their rank, and the unit they came from. If getting the organization of all 25 corps sounds interesting to anyone that could help me with formatting, perhaps some kind of template, send me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mrprada911 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do check Help:Table, at the bottom it lists - among various useful tools - a html to wiki table converter.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting OOBs for all 25 Union ACW Corps on Wikipedia 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Attrocities_during_military_operations. How much detail should articles about military ops pay to listing of atrocities and other grievances? When should such articles be split off? When is such an info a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE? Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attrocities during military operations

message: The validity of the statement: "The French became heavily involved in repelling Japanese army assaults, since they were now being helped by Siam, whose air force included seconded Japanese pilots (in much the same way as German pilots flew aircraft on behalf of Francisco Franco’s Nationalist air force during the Spanish Civil War, which had ended a year earlier)." has been questioned.  I will tag this for citation needed.  --Kevin Murray 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've read what I could find on the net and don't see any mention of Japanese pilots flying for the Siamese AF; however, there is a fair amount of discussion about the use of Japanese planes by the RTAF in that period.  --Kevin Murray 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed fact [[History of the Armée de l'Air (colonial presence 1939-1962)]]

message: Can anyone help with some of the sourcing?  I started at the bottom, and six hours later I'm only about halfway through.  Any help in supplying the missing sources would be appreciated.  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II. It already had six Supports by the time I got to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to copyedit this article, but don't know military terminology very well.  I haven't yet tackled the lead, but I've done several of the first sections.  Would anyone mind having a look to see if I'm doing anything wrong in terms of military terminology, abbreviations, capitalization, manual of style, etc?  Please, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help at [[Hispanic Americans in World War II]] 

message: The Featured article nomination of Cunningham has become stuck over the issue of commas. Would anyone with a knowledge of punctuation, or just an interest in this article, please take look at it. I have tried to fix the reviewers User:Tony1s concerns but i think it may need another pair of fresh eyes. Thanks Woodym555 11:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC of [[Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope]]