Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 16

message: I started this discussion because I started one under Future Plans, and got some interest. in addition, I went looking at existing examples, and found that this is a problem in search of a solution. There is NO coordination for this group of items under the Military heading. I've tagged some of them as Military project Categories, but stopped when I saw how many there are out there, many of them duplicating efforts.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started work on a draft of  (with accompanying documentation).  I'd appreciate if somebody could come up with more parameters; I'm not quite sure what we need in that regard. —Kirill Lokshin 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Installation Categories, templates and Infoboxes

message: Does anyone have a problem with me putting this on the "Announcements and open tasks" template?  I consider it a classic of military literature, which is on the reading lists of both the US Army and Marine Corps, as well as all of the service academies.  However, some people on this project might view it as either science fiction or literature, and therefore inappropriate to a Military history Wikiproject.  Anyways, I did it, but feel the need to give my rationale in case of objections. Palm_Dogg 07:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me; it's not like we're running out of space there ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Starship Troopers]]'' ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starship Troopers|Nomination]]) 

message: For anyone not watching the various template pages:
*  is close to completion; a few remaining issues to sort out.
*  is starting to be usable, but still needs substantial work.
*  has just been started.
Any feedback on these templates would be extremely helpful right now, since they are starting to be used, and we should try to work out the major issues before they become too ingrained to change.  Comments should ideally be directed to the appropriate template talk page, but may be left here if you don't want to bother ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox development update 

message: I've started to plant project tags on suitable categories over on The Comons so that image categories over there can be recognized as important to this project. To facilitate this, and to make the project icon universal on Wikimedia, I converted its format to :Image:Waricon.png, and deposited it over on The Commons. That means that it is now available on all the Wikimedia sites.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! —Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spread of this project to The Commons

message: *I was just curious if any project member has had a chance to review the proposal for the deletion of List of people associated with World War II ? While I don't nessessarily agree with its reasoning, particularly implying the deletion of the "List of people associated with..." series, I thought I would mention it on the talk page if only to hear the projects opinion on the matter. MadMax 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people associated with World War II]]

message: *Just to let everyone know, I've cleared the Infobox sections from the Wanted page however I'm unsure weither those are the remaining articles or if an updated list should be compiled. MadMax 06:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work!  I think that's all of them; certainly any others can be cleaned up as we find them, so there's no real need to keep another list. —Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes cleared

message: Hello. I've recently created an article on RSTA units in the US Army. I was wondering if someone could come in and help write a section on history of cavalry reconnaissance units in the US Army (RSTA especially), maybe wikify the article a bit, etc. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 17:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with a little help this article could easily become a FAC...mainly cause there's next to no opportunity for POV to mess it up. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSTA 

message: The article defeat in detail is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeat in detail. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. I think we have defeated this wrong-headed Afd in detail. Damn deletionists...we are supposed to be BUILDING an encyclopedia here, not dismantaling one!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, thanks for you're help. And a special thanks to  Georgewilliamherbert for his work on the article. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to do it! Maybe we need an "AfD Patrol" to alert us when military articles get put on the chopping block.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe WikiProject Deletion sorting used to do something similar, but is now pretty much defunct.  At this point, military articles are quite rare on AFD (and tend to be hoaxes when they do appear), so I'm not sure if a dedicated deletion patrol would be worth the effort.  If deletion nominations start to come more often, though, we could certainly set something up. —Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mathematics project has setup this bot-maintained page Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity, which among other things tracks mathematics article on AfD (via article categorization). Don't know whether something like this would be appropriate here. Paul August ☎ 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[defeat in detail]] on AfD 

message: Now forming. We shall be covering the wars of the French Revolution also as well as other, related and contemporaneous conflicts. You don't want to miss a moment of the action! So sign up early and often for a recruitment bonus!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! I'll join up. I dont know much about the era, but i'll be glad to learn. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By popular request → here we are. —Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We will be glad to have you! Interest is the primary qualification....knowledge is secondary;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Napoleonic Era Task Force

message: Two users (or perhaps one with two names?) have been busy moving files around, changing battle names. For example, First Battle of Bull Run is now First Battle of Manassas. (I actually don't object much to that because it is what the National Park Service calls it and we have been using their categorization pretty consisently.) Others are changing the Roman-numeral file-naming convention on multiple battles in the same place. I am more concerned about the file-redirection aspects of this. Bull Run has hundreds of articles linking to it and I don't see evidence that these people are cleaning up after their changes. And while I am happy to revert changes I don't agree with, file moving is very difficult to deal with. Do any of the long-time battlebox, campaignbox, admin folks who put this whole structure together have any comments? Hal Jespersen 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general convention has been to avoid Roman-numeral naming in favor of "First", "Second", etc.  I'm not quite sure why the ACW battles are different. (Perhaps someone with more experience in that field can comment?  Is Roman-numeral naming the accepted way to refer to them in literature?)  Having said that, provided the double redirects are fixed, there's no reason to change references in articles following a page move. —Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The ACW was one of the first wars to have extensive numbers of articles on Wikipedia written for it, so most of them predate the development of real naming conventions.  I suspect that whoever added the links initially (Brian0918, maybe?) just decided on an approach that he liked and used it throughout. —Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For something like the American Civil War, I'd imagine there were probably many battles in the same places within a short time. But for other battles, that happen in the same place many years apart, I've found the year to be the most useful. For example, Battle of Uji (1180), Battle of Uji (1184), Battle of Uji (1221). Just a thought. If they're within the same war, I'd use whatever is most common for that particular war or period's historical literature. LordAmeth 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACW battle names