Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 56

message: Ok, we now have about a half-dozen task force ideas that have been discussed at various points but never implemented due to a lack of editors signing up.  In the interests of getting the feasible ones created in a more reasonable way, let's try simply having open sign-ups for all of the more-or-less obvious ones in a single place.  
Please sign up for any of the following task forces that you would like to participate in.  I've tried to avoid any ideas brough up that still had significant questions as to the correct scope, in order to simplify matters; hopefully, none of these prove to be problematic in that regard.
Other comments are, of course, entirely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - I feel the need to mention that the Vietnam War has probably seen some of the best contributions in the project, and continued improvements upon this coverage, and expansion into related events could be handled wonderfully by a SE Asian task force, devoted to pooling the interests and specialties and attentions of those interested in these conflicts, and helping to separate these subjects out from the US (or French or Chinese) umbrellas. I'm sure there are a number of you out there who specialize/focus on the Vietnam War, on the Khmer Rouge, or other similar topics, and maybe you do so within the auspices of the French, Chinese, or American task forces, or under no task force at all. This is an opportunity to pool our talents and ideas. Thank you. (Of course, all that can be easily handled as well within the Cold War task force, another very valid and important subject.) LordAmeth 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there already a SouthEast Asia task force? I thought I came across one a while back. Richiar 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I don't think there's ever been one, at least not within this project. Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: South america actually had a military force? I'm surprised... (It's only a cameo appearance from me sorry, not staying here for too long, just dropping by...) :) Anyway, how's everyone going? Anything new? Well, c ya... :) Spawn Man 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thinking about this a bit: given that the Ancient Near Eastern task force is pretty inactive, might it be a better idea to have the Middle Eastern task force not constrained by date, and to merge the former into it?  Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several new (or restructured) task forces are now available. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's another section closer to the bottom of the page; more generally, I think the exact way we'd want to set those up is unclear enough that people will need to make a more specific name/scope proposal before we can really move forward. Kirill Lokshin 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential task force sign-up 

message: hey its been a while i know. I have been keeping up and it seems like this is a little bit of a issue. now i dont want to recite everything typed so ill get to the point. If something like this hasnt already started i suggest a task force based on working with people of military history. basicly a group *part of the project* with a diffrent range on what they do. im not sure if this is something you all might wanna do but if u do decide to do it ill help out in anyways i can. well theres my suggestion. see ya all all later user:maverick423 26 march 2007
:Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I'm not sure what your suggesting at all...--Dryzen 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Military workgroup over at WikiProject Biography, which does what you describe. jwillburtalk 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: The A-Class review for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)]] now open 

message: Some of the coordinators may be aware of the longrunning revert war going on on the Red Army
page where various Ukrainain and Russian editors are fighting over the insertion of a 'Armies of Russia'/'Armies of Ukraine' template. Am very keen to stop this argument & stabilise the page but not sure how. Suggestions / guidance welcome. Buckshot06 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force#Request for Guidance. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Guidance

message: Kirill, can you re-nom it for me? It just didn't get enough attention the first time. --Pupster21 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  (But, in the future, if you have a request for me specifically, it should really be left on my talk page rather than here.) Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class for American Civil War 

message: The A-Class review for American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[American Civil War]] now open 

message: An anonymous IP editor made a number of changes to the colspans today of several of the templates used by that page.  I think he was just trying to make things look better, but had no clue of the purpose of those colspans.  I left a message for him, but since he was an anon IP he might not ever see it.  I reverted the colspan codes in the templates back to what they were and also made some changes in the table so that the purpose of the colspans, to align the NATO rank codes with the ranks is easier to spot.  However, since that may not stop this apparently well-meaning editor, or he may have "helped" other rank pages as well, I thought I'd point this out to you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some judicious use of internal borders and/or column striping would do wonders for that table. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Enlisted]] 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for American Civil War; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[American Civil War]] needs attention 

message: Can the subject of para-military government intelligence agencies be considered applicable to WikiProject Military History? It seems to me that they should be, as they do affect military conflicts, in some cases directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMosin (talk • contribs) 
:To the extent of their involvement in military affairs, yes; but the things they do outside of the military field, not so much.  I don't think we really cover espionage in and of itself, for example, if it has no military-related aspect. Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do cover a lot of espionage activity(reported during wars or the Cold War for example), but not every case of Industrial espionage and the like. Wandalstouring 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about WikiProject Military History 

message: I've just noticed this article, Faye Turney about the female Leading Seaman(Seaman) currently held by Iran following their hijack in the NAG.  Personally I'm quite uncomfortable about it, both given the current sensitivities and it's applicability as an article a couple of weeks from now.  Grateful for other views as I'm perhaps thinking of it from a strategic info ops perspective more than anything else.  Thanks. ALR 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete all unsourced material. There are some statements about her biography available in Der Spiegel. It is no problem to mention info that gets broadcasted, but don't forget the official UK and Iranian POV. Wandalstouring 08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main issue is notability rather than anything else, plus a mild degree of revulsion that she's currently a focus and there are fourteen others involved.ALR 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge it to the main incident article, perhaps?  There really isn't enough information there to warrant a separate article, and I doubt there will be. Kirill Lokshin 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, I've been in London all day today and just got home (2300A) but I think I'll address it on the BLP pages tommorow.  They must have dealt with this flash in the pan notability issue before.ALR 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate?  Request opinions

message: The A-Class review for Operation Igloo White is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] now open 

message: On four previous occasions, attempts to delete State terrorism by United States of America failed. Part of the article deals with United States military history. Please take a look at this article and add your insight into this discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination). Noroton 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote needs some attention because POV on the topic and WP article criteria get mixed up. Wandalstouring 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FIFTH deletion discussion for "State terrorism by United States of America"

message: I'm trying to find articles that need to be cleaned up, and I can't find them. I think there should be some kind of list on the main page like other projects have - "Here are things you can do: clean up such and such, verify this article, etc etc" --AW 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the whole "Announcements and open tasks" section (and all the things linked in it) is for. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but even that you have to click 8,000 times. It's seems too compartmentalized to me --AW 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a scale issue, really; we just have too many articles to be able to put them all on a flat list.  (The task force pages do have flat lists, though; so if you're looking for something in a particular area, that may be a simpler option.) Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This project is hard to navigate 

message: Invasion 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.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion FAR

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Igloo White; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons]] now open 

message: Nuclear weapon 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.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear weapon FAR

message: Rape of Belgium could use attention from an expert (and a title change?). Olessi 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the WWI task force. It could be made part of larger articles on the whole propaganda issue. Wandalstouring 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape of Belgium 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Egyptian Invasion of Mani; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Egyptian Invasion of Mani]] needs attention 

message: Attack on Pearl Harbor 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.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on Pearl Harbor FAR 

message: The scope broadening to include "cultural depictions" suggests that task forces can get envolved in supporting such areas.
This highlights the need to get any shared "Task Forces" on the matter proposed and off the ground. How is the best way to do this. Something along the lines of "War novels" or "Military History related novels" task force was what we/I had in mind. 
The alternative more encompasing name would be Military History in fictional literature task force, Although broader than our interests ('Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels' which includes all narrative prose regardless of length) this could easiliy become a shared group (as in the style of others). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it would mean that if we shared the Task Force it would be a slight scope missmatch, as our interests are in prose narratives, i.e. War Stories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Novels (Task Force) proposal

message: I have just noticed that articles on British generals usually have the highest rank they attained, right at the start of the article, e.g. "Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery". Am I the only one that finds this jarring? I mean their final rank is not necessarily the one by which they are best known. This doesn't seem to happen so much with other nationalities, e.g. Douglas MacArthur, Erwin Rommel and Hideki Tojo. Do we have a set style for this? Grant | Talk 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally thought that he was best known as a field marshal, but I'm surprised to find that he didn't become one until 1944, according to the article. However, I would agree that it's probably not good policy to give them a rank right at the beginning of the article. Are there a few more examples of this? -KingPenguin 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem a bit strange. I suspect it's mostly an artifact of the use of formal styles; thus we have "Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC" (with or without the prepended "Field Marshal") versus just "Douglas MacArthur". Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm. For living officers, we list either their current rank, or their rank on retirement, in the lead (Colin Powell, for example). I don't see why we shouldn't use the final rank of deceased officers in the lead in much the same way. Although, truth be told, I don't know if this is something that needs broad guidance - the editors of each article can probably decide what works best in each case. Carom 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, our article on Gen. Powell does, in fact, begin with "General Colin Luther Powell," and this seems to be the trend for most (if not all) high ranking officers in the US. You are right, however, that we want to be consistent with each national military organization - but again, I don't know if we benefit from any attempt at project-wide guidance. Carom 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a data point, the overwhelming majority of military biographies for the American Civil War do not include the title at the beginning of the lead paragraph. (Some of the naval biographies do have them, but I have always assumed that was a Navy affectation.) I guess there are two reasons to support this. First, virtually all of the senior officers were given  brevet promotions, so there is imprecision about when to acknowledge that and whether their ranks are in the Regular Army or the volunteer forces. A man could finish the war simultaneously as a brevet major general USV, a brigadier general USV, and a lieutenant colonel USA. Second, many of these men had prominent positions after the war and it is arguable whether being, say, a major general in the Union Army is more important than being a senator or governor. So is cleaner to say "Billy Tentpeg (birth - death) was a farmer, a Union general in the American Civil War, and the governor of New York." Hal Jespersen 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Putting the rank first is standard when referring to British military persons. For example see this obituary. Leithp 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks at the start of military biographies

message: Some more opinions on the requested move of Bangladesh Liberation War to Bangladesh War of Independence would be appreciated.  (see:Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#Requested move) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested for opinions on a move of Bangladesh Liberation War to Bangladesh War of Independence

message: I have replaced the words "not acquited" with "convicted" in the definition. Previosly the definition did not agree with the outcommented text. Also, as far as I know, people are legally innocent till proven otherwise. As far as I know simply being formally charged doesn't make someone a war criminal. This of course does not mean I think Mladić or Karadžić are innocent. --Eleassar my talk 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be best to move the category to "list of convicted war criminals". Ther eare plenty of persons that one group of people or another consider war criminals, but who have never faced justice. Emoscopes Talk 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although it's a list actually, not a category. I have put a proposal to move on its talk page. --Eleassar my talk 10:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of war criminals]]

message: Now, obviously CSS stands for Confederate States Ship, but I'm looking at some research material for Uriel Sebree and his first command was of the CSS Silliman in 1879. (This is from a navy publication.) On some further digging, I find that this was the United States Coast Survey Ship Silliman, which also is given "CSS" as a prefix. How should I link to these ships? (I'm not sure whether it was usual for USN officers to command USCS ships, but I doubt it was.) Is there a more proper current designation? Or are these ships not considered important enough to link to anyway? (Here's a google book search link to some CSS designations. JRP 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could well be that CSS is simply a direct abbreviation for Coastal Survey Ship here - that is, it's not intended as a standard prefix, or as part of the name, and we'd just have an article at Silliman (ship) or the like... Shimgray | talk | 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're from different eras, so while the Confederate designation may be the more "recognizable", the Coastal Survey Ship designation is just as proper. For clarity, though, you might introduce it in use as "... served on the Coastal Survey Ship (CSS) Silliman" and then employ "CSS Silliman" in the remainder of the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS Ship Designation

message: So, in the last three months, three people have edited names into :Category:Recipients of the Legion of Merit and been removed; OTRS has got three emails asking how to add people into "the listing". And that's for just one category of award; I suspect it's much the same elsewhere.
My reply tends to run something like:
:In effect, the categories are indexes to our articles - this one is an index for "biographies of people who have recieved the [medal]". As such, this list is not intended as a comprehensive list of all recipients, but rather a listing of those people who have Wikipedia articles (i.e., are listed in Wikipedia for other reasons) who have recieved the award.
Should we have some way of making it clear in the description, some boilerplate text, that this is not a "listing of recipients" but rather a list of those people we have articles on distinguished in that way? If so, how do we phrase it? Can we do it without self-references? Advice appreciated. Shimgray | talk | 09:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like a good idea to have some template for this; but I'm not sure that it's possible without being self-referential to some degree, since we need to explicitly mention the concept of articles existing.  I don't think a certain level of self-reference would necessarily be problematic in this case, though. Kirill Lokshin 14:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal categories 

message: Hi, on your helpful project page we are advised to include "The trigger, if notable. For example, the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered a sequence of events that led to World War I. Take care to distinguish a trigger or pretext from the underlying causes that allowed the event to trigger a war." - my question, I would like to link to a wiki page so that readers could learn what a trigger or pretext is, but neither of these pages is helpful! Is there a good page to link to? I'm not a historian so I don't know what terminology to search for, many thanks, sbandrews (t) 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a full-blown causes of war article, I think, which would discuss both long-term and immediate causes; we could then link to the appropriate section of it as necessary. Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Casus belli help? Shimgray | talk | 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ah perfect - thank you both for your help :), regards sbandrews (t) 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't be List of casus belli by war article a good idea? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, perhaps.  The casus belli won't necessarily be what people expect to find there, as it's often not the real cause of the war; but I think it would be an interesting list nevertheless. Kirill Lokshin 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Casus belli" is the "justification" for going to war; it is not necessarily the same thing as the "trigger". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trigger or pretext

message: The first of the many things which is currently wrong with the Planned invasion of Australia during World War II article is its title. Put simply, the Japanese didn't plan to invade Australia but instead briefly considered doing so before dismissing it as being completely impractical. The best I can think of is 'Japanese consideration of invading Australia during World War II', but that isn't very good either. Ideally the title would also enable the article to encompass Australian fears of invasion during this period. Any suggestions for a better title?  --Nick Dowling 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Plan" looks better than "consideration" to me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there was no 'plan' to invade Australia - the Japanese didn't even reach that stage when they considered the idea. Maybe 'proposed' is the right word? --Nick Dowling 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Risk of the invasion of Australia during the Second World War"? or something like that? Mike McGregor (Can) 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead of the article says "proposed", hence Proposed invasion of Australia during World War II? A proposal doesn't need planning, though it might be implied in some cases. Carcharoth 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, the article later refer to Yamamoto's Invasion Plan, so the article itself is also confused. Need to sort that out as well. If it looks like a plan, walks like a plan and quacks like a plan... Carcharoth 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Japan's proposed invasion of Australia during World War II might be better as well. FWIW, the equivalent titles would be "Prepared", and "Considered" (not "Consideration"). As for wanting the title to encompass Australia's fears of invasion, you can't have everything in the title! If you really want a vague, general title for an overview article, something like Japanese-Australian strategy during World War II might work. Carcharoth 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more. Yamamoto's Invasion Plans could include his plans to attack India. Carcharoth 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would personally go with Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II, or perhaps even Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia, if there isn't any need to specify which proposed invasion the article is referring to. Carom 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common in the military to prepare a wide variety of contingency plans, often very provisional, and I suspect the Japanese General Staff must have produced one or more for invading Australia. Accordingly, your title might be something like "Japanese contingency planning for an invasion of Australia" or some similar wording like "Provisional [or Preliminary] planning"; alternatively, "case study" might be better than "plan" — I'm not sure of the exact circumstances in this particular instance. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia appeals to me as a sort and to the point title. Although no direct link is made with WWII, I dont think its all that detrimental to the subject, being that little came of it and generally I beleive most readers will take it for granted that it was considered during the second world war.--Dryzen 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for all your suggestions. I've moved the article to Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II as this seemed to be the most popular choice and it strikes me as being the clearest title. Now all the article needs is a near-total re-write ;) --Nick Dowling 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a good title for something which was considered but didn't come close to happening?

message: David A. Wood (British army officer) has been put up for deletion.  Wood died at Goose Green, his loss along with two of his comrades led to H. Jones changing tactics, leading the next assault and winning the Victoria Cross.  Wood's article has been tagged because he is 'not notable'.  I have argued strongly that he is.  I don't know the form here, perhaps anyone who knows more about the criteria used and any precedents for inclusion could comment on the delete page?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_A._Wood_%28British_army_officer%29
Nick mallory 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with the 'keep'. I know its a subjective judgement but for anyone within this project, in the context of some of the apparently trivial articles found in WP, I would suggest this article deserves suppport.21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on Falklands Para up for deletion

message: A merge has been proposed and is discussed at Talk:Tabor (formation) - but we don't know what's the English name for this formation. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabor, Wagenburg and Laager 

message: I came across a gap in categories related to prisoner of war camps that I thought the project might want to know about and correct.  There is no category for :Category:Prisoner of war camps, or if there is, lots of relevant thing are not linked to it.  There is a :Category:Lists of POW camps, which includes categories which are not lists (therefore, a good place to start to populate the new category).  The new category should be linked up to Prisons (perhaps as part of :Category:Internment prisons but probably as its own category, and should be linked to :Category:Prisoners of war which lists notable POWs (people only, not the camps themselves), although that category contains some prisons as well.  
I've set up the structure, it should be a brief project to populate them.  I'm sure users will appreciate a better scheme for POW camps.    
I came across this as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized and I just don't have the time to fix it myself.
Scarykitty 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped it into :Category:Prisoners of war, which should have a lot more stuff; some shuffling around is probably needed to get all the material about the facilities down into the new category, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wound up doing a bunch, and linking a bunch of articles from the Prisoner of war camps article (thought lots of those link to cities that have the same name as the camps).  Guess I had the time after all. Scarykitty 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POW Camp Category Suggestion

message: I am slowly working back on FAs I created or contributed to in the past, updating them to current standards (since quite a few of them would fail FAR otherwise) - the primary problem they have is insufficient (or none!) inline citations. Quite a few of my FAs are mil-related. The 'to-do' list contains: Blitzkrieg, Virtuti Militari, Warsaw Uprising, Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618), Polish September Campaign, Władysław Sikorski and Stanisław Koniecpolski. I'd appreciate help from WP:MILHIST members who would like to ensure those articles keep their FA star.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you a hand with Warsaw Uprising - if you want to discuss strategy, we can chat on the article talk page. Carom 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, it's always better to work in groups.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating FAs to current standards 

message: The A-Class review for Eiríkr Hákonarson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Eiríkr Hákonarson]] now open 

message: Could any of you military history buffs offer your opinion at Talk:2006 Lebanon War? -- Kendrick7talk 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a messy discussion.  Perhaps you guys should call it something like "2006 war in Lebanon" or "2006 war in Israel and Lebanon" and avoid the whole question of who exactly was fighting it?  (But there's likely some issue with that name, too. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could try a name that is used in official statements by the Israeli army and the concerning Lebanese factions. [Center For Research & Information Poll finds support for Hizbullah's retaliation] date=2006-07-29 accessdate=2006-08-08 Wandalstouring 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help naming war 

message: The A-Class review for Cambodian Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cambodian Campaign]] now open