Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 58

message: Cristero War 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. Marskell 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cristero War FAR

message: Looking through the above commentary, it seems that there is general support for a category system that classifies various personnel primarily (if not solely) by their country of service, rather than country of birth. This being the case, should we use the existing "Fooish generals" categories, or is there a preference for switching to the "Generals of Foo" that was suggested above?
Secondarily, it was mentioned above that we may want to develop a category system that allows for categorization by country of birth as well, provided the two are different. A number of objections to such a system have also been raised. Is there a great desire to go forward with such a scheme? And if so, what is our best option for doing so? Carom 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: The top flag here keeps appearing in Spanish Civil War articles. It claims to be the "Flag of the International Brigades". I don't think such a flag ever existed though individual units certainly had their own banners (bearing no resemblance to this one). The "Flag of the International Brigades" is a modified version of the (genuine) Spanish Republican Flag, with the arms of Spain replaced by the three-pointed star. Although it's a jolly colourful image, this is an entirely modern construct. In the absence of an authoritative source verifying that it was used at the time, I think it should be deleted. Is this a reasonable assessment? And, if so, how do I go about this? Roger 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first thing to do would be to get in touch with the original uploader, which appears to be commons:User:Ratatosk, and ask them for some clarification about the image (and a source, if they have one). It probably doesn't need to be deleted, per se, but if you're sure it's entirely spurious, you can remove it from all the articles that it is used in. Anything else would have to happen on Commons. Carom 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I've never seen it before either, but Flags of the World shows it. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, on a closer look, it refers to flags used by battalions of the International Brigades (with two examples). I followed these to a Spanish site which has home-made graphics with lettering done in Tippex. I don't think there's enough (any?) evidence to claim this as the generic IB flag. Roger 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unaware that there ever was a generic IB flag (not that this is an area of great expertise for me). The closest I've seen to this particular flag was the flag for El Frente Popular de Madrid, which had the "caltrop" in a circle on a solid field. Have you heard from the uploader? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious "Flag of the International Brigades": what to do? 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Lam Son 719; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Lam Son 719]] needs attention 

message: Is it possible that someone create a tag to allow the free use of images related to the portuguese military? This would greatly enhance my ability to produce good articles. Ill try to find a solution in the meantime.
Thanks in advance,
HKFlash
:What do you mean? Something in contrast w/ Wikipedia Images' policies? I am not sure i got your point. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Image:QP2.jpg and you'll get the idea. It is not a template, and no indication that the content should be free. Valentinian T / C 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the home-made license tag and contacted the author. Valentinian T / C 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military of Portugal tag 

message: We now have a new article series on cannon (see template to right), and the following have or will go through DYK and GA process:
* Cannon
*?  English cannon
*?  Cannon in the Middle Ages
*?  Cannon operation
*?  History of cannon (newest article)
Short articles
*Korean cannon (I haven't really worked on this at all, due to being largely unfamiliar with the subject matter)
Drafts
* User:Grimhelm/Spanish cannon, work in progress.
I hope that eventually all the articles of the series will be GA, but I will need some help with the failed one on Cannon operation. I am also not as familiar with Spanish cannon, so I would like some expansion from other editors. Thanks! :-)  --Grimhelm 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you nominate them for A class afterwards. We are a bit sceptic towards the GA rating that tends to be rather inconsistent. Wandalstouring 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. I think the current GAs - English cannon and Cannon in the Middle Ages - are the most likely A-class candidates at the moment. Could you tell me what you think Cannon operation's status is? I did a complete rewrite of it after it failed, and I think it is at least better than "start"-class at the moment.  --Grimhelm 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article series: [[Cannon]] 

message: The A-Class review for Ronald Niel Stuart is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather a good read. I enjoyed it. Roger 06:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ronald Niel Stuart]] now open 

message: I believe we need a "Military navigational box" placed at the bottom of the main Military articles. Do you agree? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we work from (or clone) ?  I don't know if trying to have a separate "military" box versus the "warfare" box is going to be the best option, since the topics do intersect pretty heavily. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intersection dilemma is the reason why i came here. Otherwise, i'd have delved into it. I think the idea of cloning is interesting but let me first try to work on it at the sandbox and see if we can find room for all templates. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military navigational box

message: The A-Class review for Australian Defence Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Australian Defence Force]] now open 

message: I noticed a banner for this project at the top of Template talk:Infobox Missile, so I thought I should drop a note to say that I have proposed that it be merged into Template:Infobox rocket. This is because the two templates carry very similar content, and the few items that are currently present in Infobox Missile that are not present in Infobox rocket can very easily be added, if and when the pages are merged.
Discussion is located at Template talk:Infobox rocket. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a merge w/ a new component to be added "Type " so one can define whether it is a missile or a rocket. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Missile|Infobox Missile]]/[[Template:Infobox rocket|Infobox rocket]] proposed merger 

message: Hi there!  An anonymous contributor has made a proposal in today's (27 May) entries that I believe requires an expert's opinion.  If this is no longer today, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-27.  I'd appreciate it if you could review the request, and either accept or decline. Alternately, if you are uncomfortable with the process at WP:AFC, please let me know here or on my talk what you recommend and I will do the grunt work!  Thanks again for your help.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide some more details. Which proposal? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] needs your input!

message: Does anyone object to merging :category:Campaigns of World War I and :category:Theatres of World War I into one single category :category:Campaigns and theatres of World War I? If so, I propose the same exercise with applicable World War II categories. As theatre merely describe the area in which battles are fought, and campaigns are almost always named after the area in which they are fought, the two terms are interchangeable. Roger 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object.  Quite often the two are interchangeable and refer to the same thing in casual discussion. Oberiko 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections as well. It would be an easy job as the cats are not too much populated. Please inform us after it is done so we can delete them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reddundant categories are in :category:Milhist temp (which can be deleted as well). Thanks. Roger 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems here either. Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, the same thing should probably happen to the ACW categories, as that's the only other place where we have separate campaign/theater ones.  If we clean that up, we can have the double name as a standard across the board. Kirill Lokshin 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done.Roger 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems sensible to me, might as well take care of Kirill's point at the same time. Carom 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Roger 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed category mergers 

message: Could someone please work on Fallen Soldier Battle Cross? I don't know its history. And it might need to be moved to Battlefield Cross. --SueHay 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fallen Soldier Battle Cross]] 

message: See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg. See the image. The image, used to illustrate begining of WWII and German invasion of Poland, is being questioned as 'unimportant' and 'unnotable', thus failing fair use rationale. Please share your opinions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important image on deletion review

message: Hello. Yesterday I started the article Theodore S. Westhusing, about a very well respected U.S. Army Colonel who apparently committed suicide when he saw what was really happening in Iraq (he was a West Point Professor of Philosophy and English and had not been in theater until January of 2005). I lack the time and specialized knowledge to do the topic justice. Was hoping someone here might look into it. Thx. JDG 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A single wound could have been suicide or a sniper. What was his rank? If you say highest ranking it is a must. This voluntary section needs expansion. Did he join the Army/Marines/Air Force/National Guard to make the trip to Iraq or did he join the Army/Marines/Air Force/National Guard long ago and did volunteer for a service term in Iraq? What where his subjects as a professor and where did he give lessons. Without such verifiable info provided, I can't determine whether the whole story isn't a hoax. Wandalstouring 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Wandalstouring. I could answer your points one by one, but it would be easier and better for you to simply check out the first of the "External Links" on the Westhusing stub page (that is: http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2440 ). In that newspaper article (it was printed in the Texas Observer the same day it appeared in the web edition) you'll find answers to everything you asked and more. Thx. JDG 15:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonel Westhusing 

message: This article is one of the worse articles I have seen in Wikipedia. It needs to be fixed hard. Yet it has been granted "B" scale in quality, while it doesn't meet several of the criteria for this. For example, it doesn't cite any sources. We need to fix it...--Cerejota 03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratings (up to and including B-class) can be assigned by any user - including you! If the article does not meet the criteria, feel free to assign a different rating. As far as fixing it goes, you might try asking at the World War II or Germany military history task forces - or, if you have the time and resources, making improvements yourself. Carom 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waffen SS]] 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Red Cliffs]] now open 

message: I've proposed subcategorizing the World War II films category by theater and/or front. If you're interested, please offer comments, naming suggestions, or help with recategorizing articles at :Category talk:World War II films#Proposed split. Thanks. --Quuxplusone 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on category talk page. Carom 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of [[:Category:World War II films]] 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Carom 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] now open 

message: I recently came across a doctoral dissertation on the food in the Swedish navy 1500-1800 which also has some info on other contemporary European navies. I'd like to include some information on it, but I'm not entirely sure where it belongs. A separate article seems like too much and there's a jungle of articles about naval warfare and materiel out there. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Peter Isotalo 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A naval rations article may be the simplest approach here, at least for the time being, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the topic to be unsuited for its own article if there's enough material to support one; c.f. Swedish allotment system. Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea rations 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Red Cliffs]] needs attention 

message: There's currently a poll on a proposed article move at Wokou.  Poll options include:
*Move to Japanese pirates
*Move to Wakō
*Move to Wōkòu
*Keep at Wokou
Please vote if you have an opinion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll for article move at [[Wokou]] 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917); please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Carom 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Romanian Land Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Romanian Land Forces]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Cannon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cannon]] now open 

message: I don't normally canvass in this manner, but the FAC for the above article is dying due to lack of interest. Nobody has commented on it for a week! Could anybody with an interest in the subject please visit and comment on it if you have the time as any pointers or information to improve it would be gratefully recieved.--Jackyd101 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll review it as soon as i get a chance. Raymond Palmer 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ronald Niel Stuart]] 

message: Hey guys, long time wikipedia reader, first time caller. I was looking for pictures/diagrams of uniforms of the Canadian Navy from circa 1960s today, but was surprised at how little wikipedia has. I then followed my way here, and noticed uniforms are not on the "to-do" list. I would be happy to participate in this endeavour (creating diagrams like this:) if someone could explain to me the process/protocol for starting a new project. I wouldn't know where to source images from, but could happily photoshop them into diagram style gif/png files. Looking forward to guidance, --Matt 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your initiative Matt. But how many military uniform pictures do we have? I'll try later to find an approximative amount through Commons and see if we really need such a task. If it has to be started, it should be part of the existing task forces. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: Having been slightly bored yesterday, I went and dug up a few interesting (in my opinion, anyways) bits for an impromptu timeline of the project: 
* October 21, 2002 - WikiProject Battles is created by TeunSpaans, at the suggestion of ktsquare and Eclecticology.
* April 10, 2003 - WikiProject Military is created by Stan Shebs.
* January 27, 2004 - WikiProject Wars is created by Ilyanep.
* October 23, 2005 - WikiProject Battles and WikiProject Wars merge to form WikiProject Military history.
* January 15, 2006 - The project's first task force, covering Canadian military history, is created.
* January 28, 2006 - The first project worklist is created.
* February 5, 2006 - The first project coordinator election concludes.
* March 10, 2006 - An internal peer review process is created.
* March 12, 2006 - The WikiChevrons are introduced as a project award.
* May 4, 2006 - The project worklist is retired in favor of an automated assessment scheme.
* August 26, 2006 - The second project coordinator election concludes.
* September 1, 2006 - The A-Class review process is instituted; the first article to pass this review is Basiliscus.
* September 8, 2006 - WikiProject Military is absorbed into the project.
* February 19, 2007 - The peer review and A-Class review processes are consolidated into a combined review department.
* February 25, 2007 - The third project coordinator election concludes.
* March 25, 2007 - An ongoing article-writing contest is introduced within the project.
The obvious question then: would this be interesting enough to visitors to be worth putting this on the project page somewhere, or would it be too much navel-gazing? Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's not kid ourselves: that's a considerable amount of navel-gazing ;). That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile putting it on the project page. It gives an idea of how this particular portion of the Wikipedia community has grown and developed over time, and I think that may be interesting to people who happen to stumble across the project page. One note, though. You should probably add the actual creation of the A-Class review process to that list as well; it was one of the first of its kind, after all. Carom 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you ever tested your Wikipediholism degree Kirill? All task forces can be added as well. I think your work above needs to eb templated for reference. :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Membership benchmarks would be of interest too. First time I checked, there were about 12 people signed up as project members. I understand that has increased somewhat. ;-) —Kevin Myers 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking as a Wiki-researcher, this is invaluable piece of history. This should certainly be noted somewhere - perhaps expanded into article for Signpost - after all, MILHIST is one of the oldest and most active wikiprojects, it certainly could do with an article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've taken the liberty of adding this to the main project page; feel free to add to it, write a little introduction for it, move it aorund the page, etc. etc. Carom 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project timeline 

message: This is an utter mess and I'm pretty amazed has not yet been corrected.
Battle of Landshut says there have been two battles called the Battle of Landshut. This is just plain wrong. Battle of Landshut (1809) which occurred in the Napoleonic Wars took place in Landshut, Bavaria.
Battle of Landshut (1760) which occurred in the Seven Years War took place in Landeshut, Silesia now Kamienna Góra in Poland. To rub salt into the wounds Battle of Landeshut refers to the Napoleonic battle only, that article places the battle in Silesia despite the engagement occuring just after Battle of Abensberg in Bavaria!
German Wikipedia appears to have all these battles placed correctly.
My suggestion? Move Battle of Landshut (1809) back to Battle of Landshut and Battle of Landshut (1760) to Battle of Landeshut removing the duplicate page that already exists. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and add a disambiguation because both names are almost similar. Wandalstouring 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep the dates in the corrected page names as an aid to disambiguation. Barliner 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an acceptable solution. Wandalstouring 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Landshut/Landeshut 

message: I added the WPMILHIST template to these pages and decided they were solid B-class articles.  However, White House is a GA-class.  Just wanted to notify you.  Thanks, Meldshal42 17:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shay's Rebellion]], [[Blade]], & [[White House]]

message: Alright, I'm finally satisfied with the state of Stanley Internment Camp, and I've nominated it for GA status.  Hopefully the images won't be a problem.  I had to tag 2 out of 3 of the images as fair use, justifying that since the camp was only in existence from 1942 to 1945, a new version of the images cannot be produced.  The third image, fortunately, should be public domain since it was Crown copyrighted more than 50 years ago.  I've uploaded it to Commons instead.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination for [[Stanley Internment Camp]] 

message: The A-Class review for Ironclad warship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Ironclad warship]] now open 

message: I'm trying to clean up :Category:2003 Iraq conflict, but I think the category name itself needs to be changed. It is currently being used for articles relating to both the initial invasion and the ongoing occupation and insurgency. I don't see the point in trying to seperate out the invasion from the occupation, since most articles would fall under both, so I suggest renaming it to :Category:Iraq War to match the article Iraq War. Several subcats would have to be renamed also. I thought I would mention it here before bringing it to WP:CFD, in case there are any objections. jwillburtalk 23:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that officially the US president declared that the war was over several years ago. Wandalstouring 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the conflict is ongoing. jwillburtalk 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that a rename to :Category:Iraq War is a sensible option at this point. Carom 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I put it up at CFD here. jwillburtalk 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War categorization 

message: I didn't get my May 2007 letter until June 9th. That makes it somewhat late, so if there's anything I can do to help with the newsletter, I'd be glad to do so. --MKnight9989 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the newsletter now covers certain events that occur at the end of each month, so it's going to be sent out the next month in any case.  In some sense, it's a "newsletter covering May 2007" rather than "newsletter sent in May 2007"; I don't know if there's some way of making that clearer. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Cape Esperance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Cape Esperance]] now open 

message: This page is completley unreferenced. none of the numbers of ships,planes, and tanks for any country cites any sources. Plus the info on troop numbers is already on other pages. The page is quite old, and no-one has attempted to reference any of the figures. Do you guys agree the page should be nominated for deletion? Willy turner 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use Austria's ministry of defence to source most claims(excluding South America) and to some extent the cia factbook to source expenditures. Wandalstouring 07:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A better approach would be to delete it or merge it with List of countries by number of active troops which is fully referenced and seems to cover the same topic. --Nick Dowling 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of countries by size of armed forces]]

message: Admitting that I am very green here, but when going through the "War" portal to look up articles on WWII fighter aircraft, I discovered that under :Category:World_War_II_American_aircraft there was no listing for fighter aircraft, though trainers, transports and other types of aircraft were listed. I did finally locate what I was looking for through other means, but it seemed to me that a category in this area would be useful. Someone created the category since I mentioned this, but there are no entries in it. I realize that there is a List of U.S. World War II Aircraft., but this contains all of the aircraft, not just fighters. And there are lists dividing US fighter aircraft by decades, but that is not a necessarily intuitive way for searchers to find these aircraft. It seems to me that :Category:WWII American fighter aircraft would be a useful cross-reference, which could perhaps be linked to the same :Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1940-1949. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but since I had trouble finding the planes I was searching for, it occured to me that others might as well.  Magysty 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had this discussion with the Aviation project a while back and they wanted to keep it at sorting by decade to synchronize with other, non-military aircraft.  Personally, I think we can have both by decade and military period (WWI, WWII, Cold War, Modern).  Your best bet would be to take this to the Military aviation task force. Oberiko 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category link needed in WWII American Military Aircraft? 

message: The A-Class review for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope]] now open 

message: I was wondering if someone could read the article King Armored Car and tell me what all needs to be done for it to be upgraded to 'start' class. thanks all. --MKnight9989 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already there, all that need be done is to change the rating in the infobox. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Feedback 

message: See here. Maybe somebody could ilink it before I get to it - you can do it easily while reading :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of major Eastern Front WWII operations 

message: I've just created House demolition as a completely rewritten version of an earlier article (which wasn't one of the WPMILHIST portfolio). Feedback would be welcomed! -- ChrisO 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House demolition 

message: there is alot of vandalsim on this page and the countries that are currntly lised are finsihed, what should we do about it.(Esskater11 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common world war two infrantry weapons