Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 33

message: Not sure if I went overboard, but I went ahead and created a bunch of categories relating to :Category:Warlordism. I also added it to the scope of the project. I'm also thinking of moving warlord (occupation) to warlordism (conceptual) although if we ever get enough material they might even be separate articles, seeing as one is a system (ie. presidential republic) and the other an occupation (ie. president). There's also possible categorisation into Somali warlords, Afghan warlords, Chinese warlords (although race v. nationality is an issue), etc. There's also an issue as a form of government (I put it under military dictatorship though sometimes they just happen to have lots of power). 
IMO, this area should have a larger scope in military history than its currently given at Wikipedia, so I appreciate some feedback. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that having two articles would be useful, considering that (unlike the president/presidential republic example), there's basically a one-to-one relationship between warlords and warlordism.  The only reason that occurs to me off the top of my head would be that while we might create warlordism as a serious historical article, we may also want a separate warlord article to soak up the never-ending fictional usages of the term. Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Warlord]] 

message: There's an inconsistent use of the citations through wiki. The best I've yet seen is Charles_G._Abrell. I think it would be of some use to put together a template that'll format it a bit more neatly. Thoughts?
By the way, I do think the citation should be included in each article; they are short and usually the best description of the actions. --Mmx1 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea.  Maybe work off a copy of the formatting from ?  Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal of Honor Citation 

message: In my wikignoming thru the CJCS articles, I noticed a lack of consistency in the use of the Summary of service section.  Personally, I liked Bradley's.  Wanted to get some feedback from the project.  Also, would a template help?  Didn't know if an transclusion template would be useful, or maybe just have a shell one to subst and then fill in. — MrDolomite | Talk 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, that's a thorny issue.  While a list-form summary may be easy to construct, it tends to get the article pummeled at WP:FAC and the like, since well-written articles aren't supposed to contain extensive lists.  Thus, it's usually better to simply put the relevant dates and positions into the main body of the article in prose form, at least for articles nearing completion; I'm not sure if having a template to produce a list-form listing would be a good idea in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was thinking of at least the dates of rank list.  After all, an encyclopedia would be the first place I would go for that. :)  But that is a good comment, certainly seen many AfD's get riddled for having too many lists. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of duty stations can be proseified without many problems; it is after all how official bio's often read. However, I see no benefit to turning a date of rank into prose, and it's less useful. Similarly for a list of decorations. If it's relegated to the back, in an appendix-type section (e.g. as with specifications for aircraft), it think it's acceptable. --Mmx1 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, my point was more to the effect that the promotions—and hence their dates—are (or should be) mentioned in the main body of the article; thus, having a separate list of them is somewhat redundant.  As far as decorations go, it's quite possible to turn the list into prose; see, for example, Aleksandr Vasilevsky, a recent FA taking that approach. Kirill Lokshin 22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree with Kirill on this one and say prose is the best way to go.  If we wanted to we could list everything...Promotion dates, duty stations, units,  awards, commands....  The prose version says the same thing and allows for expansion on topics as it is added.  Not much you can do with a list.--Looper5920 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of service section 

message: Though I will most likely not be attending Wikimania this year, I do live and work in Boston. Thus, I am wondering if anyone from the project would be willing, interested, and free to meet up for dinner or the like this coming weekend. (Please, also feel free to ask me anything you need to know about Boston-area touristy stuff and the like; I can't guarantee I'll have an answer, but I'll certainly try.) LordAmeth 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be at Wikimania on the weekend.  The conference schedule is pretty full, so I don't know how much free time I'll have; but if anyone else will be up there and would be interested in doing something, we can certainly try and set something up. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiMania & a Boston meetup

message: The Alpine Front (stub)article seem to handle the same subject as the Italian Campaign (World War I) so they may be in need of merging. By the way shouldn't it be called Italian Front? --81.182.92.192 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always seen it as Italian Front, but maybe someone who knows WWI more can see some subtleties I'm missing.  It might be worthwhile asking at the World War I task force. Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: In German and Polish a difference is made between the Greek de:Triere/pl:Triera and the Roman de:Trireme/pl:Trirema.
According to French wiki fr:Trière and fr:Trirème are interchangeable in French.
In Dutch nl:Trireem and English trireme no difference is made and all ships are called the same.
The German and Polish Triere/Triera describes mainly the Greek and Phoenician early light trireme according to the classification system of counting decks with oars.
But it overlaps with the early Roman trireme and the new classification system of men per vertical section. The heavy trireme was also the heavy Greek "triere" (considered less when refering to de:Trireme/pl:Trirema, but still part of the meaning), similar armored like a quinquireme but with less rowers.
Finally the one and only thing all languages agree upon is the light Roman trireme of the Imperial Roman Navy.
The problem is linking this properly. I don´t know how many other languages we will face with this problem. Man pl and I have been discussing the issue so far. Wandalstouring 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure to what extent this would be a practical problem on our part.  We'll never be able to fully control how articles are organized across languages; often, all we can do is link to what appears to be a sensible interwiki and allow the editors working in the other language to figure out their own disambiguation policies. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this goes on we have a permanent reedit of the links in the English wiki. Wandalstouring 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with linking to other languages 

message: Albert Lebrun is tagged as part of our project, but someone has questioned this on the talk page. I'm inclined personally to untag him, because his only link to military history is accepting German terms of surrender in WWII, which although a very significant event, doesn't make him a military figure as such. Have I missed or ignored something that should bring him under our remit? Cheers, --Loopy e 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove him, as he doesn't seem to have actually done anything military-related.  I'm guessing that he was tagged because he's under :Category:World War II political leaders, but I don't think that political leaders who didn't play a significant military role (as opposed to those that were actively involved in military affairs, like Abraham Lincoln) need to be included, as there's usually no military-related content in their articles. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Albert Lebrun]] 

message: We're having a not-very-conclusive discussion at the German military history task force about the exact scope it's going to include (in particular, whether—or how—to include Austria).  Given that there are so few people commenting, it's becoming somewhat of a back-and-forth argument; if anybody has any knowledge of the topic and could drop by to comment on the various ideas being put forward, it would be very appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German task force 

message: As it states above, I work on articles about tactics. Often they are unlinked to from any other articles and there is no proper guideline for them, leading to mixed results. Wandalstouring 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for guidelines concerning articles on tactics 

message: Just in case there's anyone who happens to be extremely bored and would like to rack up their edit count:
There are a bunch of obsolete weaponry infoboxes listed here, along with the corresponding parameter renamings that are needed to turn them into .  Any assistance going through the backlog would be very appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 11:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finished. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with converting weapon infoboxes 

message: Until recently, when switched on, the Polish task force stub generated the comment that the article was supported by the "Polish military history task force" or similar, which included all the Polish armed forces. At present it generates "This article is supported by the historical task force of the Polish Army." which for an English speaker would be taken as just Army, excluding Navy and Air Force. Is this correct, if so, I'll remove the tag from a number of articles that don't relate to the Polish Army. Folks at 137 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's always been the wording, going back to the separate task force banner.  I really don't see the point in it, though, as the task force does include everything, so I'll change it to the standard form momentarily. Kirill Lokshin 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I read was: This article is supported by an arm of the Polish Army known as the Polish military history task force. -- Миборовский 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit too much pride in their armed forces. Perhaps they do not know we have standards etc. Wandalstouring 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a remnant of the independent Polish WikiProject, actually.  Before it was turned into a task force of WP:MILHIST, it was, as far as I can tell, a project dealing only with the modern Polish Army; but that was changed when it became a task force, so it now includes everything connected to Polish military history. Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish task force

message: Can I draw your attention to the article Fank that is listed in Pages in Need of Translation. The translation job (from French) is complete now, but there are concerns that the article overlaps with Cambodian Civil War. "Fank" was the acronym for the Cambodian armed forces during the Lon Nol period. I thought it was something that might interest someone from your project. Itsmejudith 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there will be a certain amount of overlap, but the topics are different enough in nature that two separate articles should be justifiable.  I'm not sure who would be the person to go to for help with this, though; do we have anyone working on that region? Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambodia article needs a look 

message: Roman military tactics is an article based very much on inaccurate computergame images.
*delete them all is my opinion. Wandalstouring 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, massive copyvio.  Kill them all! Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't (in legal terms) keep them unless the article specifically discusses the depiction of Roman tactics in the game in question. Otherwise, the images are a violation of our fair use policies, and will need to be removed. Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What about reenactment and drawings out of history books? Tends to be more accurate.Wandalstouring 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not sufficient, unfortunately.  Images used by permission are not generally allowed on Wikipedia, because they don't protect anyone who reuses our content (mirrors, forks, other groups).  Now, if you could actually get the company to release the images under a free license, that would change things. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, that doesn't cover anyone else (which is a bad thing).  (It also introduces an entirely unencyclopedic disclaimer into the top of the article, but that's another point.)  It's regrettable, perhaps, that we can't have these images in the article; but copyright policies generally aren't something we're free to ignore as we please. Kirill Lokshin 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Yet another case for WPISNOT:Fun. I'm sorry, Rex. You obviously put a lot of time and work into setting up those screenshots. I sincerely wish there was a way we could Ignore all rules and include them anyway. But I'm no copyright lawyer, plus the powers that be here have become very anal and unreasonable on such matters. My guess is even if we did get permission from SEGA and the CA on this (which is not unlikely, hey free advertising!:) Das Kommisars would still not allow it under WP:FU.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete The point is, Wikipedia is a free encycolpedia.  That means the content, including the pictures, must be free to use for _any_ purpose.  Everybody who's contributed has done so under these terms, to change the rules now would be to disrespect the wishes of all those who have built Wikipedia.  Speaking for myself, I choose to contribute content to projects that, in turn, make their content available to me.  I gain more than the ability to use Wikipedia content, I'm ensured that my contribution will last.  It may be modifed out of existance but won't disappear in a bankruptcy sale.  Those "powers that be" are all of us who have contributed under the existing terms.  If you don't like the rules, well, nobody's forcing you to contribute.  Didn't understand the rules?  Sorry.  Really.  It's too bad, but now you know. --kop 03:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See for me making those shots would be. I tend to get rather OCD when working on such things: The troops must all be in perfect alignment, the camera angles must be just right. This is the legacy of spending too much time playing with minitures and dioramas.:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computergame images 

message: Any thoughts about how best to categorize South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command? It's joint, so it doesn't fit the single service structures; and :Category:Commands of the United States armed forces doesn't seem to include any historical articles. Am I missing something? --Mereda 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just create a :Category:Defunct commands of the United States armed forces?  Or are there some subtleties I'm missing here? Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only question would be how far to take it?  Should we keep it at the command level or do we take it down to the tactical level and create categories for defunct battalions and squadrons?  It basically will split every military service in two (active units and inactive units).  Maybe I am taking it a bit far but I thought I would throw it out there.--Looper5920 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that we have articles for defunct units already; are they just lumped in with active units now?  Maybe that would actually be a better approach here?  What would be the problems with putting defunct commands into the same category as active ones?  (This would be similar to putting dead people in the same category as living ones, which tends to be the rule in those categories.) Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the articles that I have been working on I have just lumped them in with the active ones.  I make the distinction known when creating lists but not with categories.  Not sure how the other members have been approaching this.  --Looper5920 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'm happy to use :Category:Commands of the United States armed forces as the best answer.Mereda 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: categorization of defunct commands 

message: I've been working on GA noms and passing/failing some of these and I just failed one that had an A-class designation in our banner. Does that mean I should change it to B? plange 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably so, as the article (presumably) has some quality issues that would make it fail a GA nom. Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing A class 

message: Hello all,
I just finished writing a wholly new version of Battle of Moscow. If there are some editors that happen to be extremely bored, I could use all corrections and comments available... :) Thanks in advance, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New eyes requested 

message: Just a brief reminder: as we'll be starting the formal voting phase on August 12, anyone that hasn't signed up yet but would like to be a candidate should probably do so over the next day or two. :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gonna run this time; have fun. -- Миборовский 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last call for coordinator candidates 

message: An anonymous user recently made changes to Battle of Tel al-Kebir that changed numerical information concerning the battle. I bring this up here because the same user (who has a rotating IP) changed sourced information on the Featured Article of the day, clearly inflating the values. In this case, many other changes were made by the same IP range that aren't necessarily vandalism, but may be POV pushing, but as the page is a part of this Wikiproject I decided to come here and see what you guys think should be done with it. The numerical information is also unsourced, so that also leads to trouble. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers are so precise that it's really hard to see how the changes can be justified without reference to very high-quality sources.  Unless these are cited, of course, we can't verify the numbers given; for all we know, they could have been pulled out of thin air.  Dropping a bunch of  tags on that page is probably appropriate, regardless of which set of uncited numbers we choose to retain for the time being. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Number changing and other subtle forms are a new fashion among the vandals. Wandalstouring 10:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Tel al-Kebir 

message: Working off some of the ideas discussed at Wikimania, I've come up with code that will hide the lower portion of the banner inside a show/hide bar here; anyone wanting to test it out can try using  instead of  (the parameters are all the same).  This is somewhat rudimentary, obviously; but is the general idea of any interest, or is this something we don't want to pursue?  As I see it, the main benefit would be that we no longer need to concern ourselves with the ever-growing number of task forces and other things in the banner; the only real drawback would be the extra click needed to see all the information listed.  Any comments would be highly appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I thought I had suggested this when we first started using the collapsible divs for the announcements list, but then you said some browsers are not compatible with it? It's a good idea, one that preferably all such banners will adopt. -- Миборовский 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you may very well have suggested it originally; there have been so many of these ideas that I'm not quite sure who came up with each one now.  I think I was concerned about incompatible browsers when we discussed including the task list because their users would see a much bigger box than normal.  In this case, however, the worst-case scenario is no worse than what everyone is seeing now, and for most users, the result is much more compact. Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, me like! Great idea! plange 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, everyone's saying hmm! -- Миборовский 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Objection, your Honor! The quality rating should by all means be above the navframe, so one can see how rated (and thus how precise and accurate) the article is. To me, it is absolutely fundamental. PR tag should be too (current one, not archived one of course), maybe. As for the rest, it can be dropped in the navframe, yes. A great start so far though, congrats Kirill! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be easy enough to move the quality rating above the frame, if people think that's the better position. Kirill Lokshin 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the assessment rating up above the frame; as a consequence, the show/hide bar will only appear if some other fields are actually enabled (argh, the messy code!).  Does that work? Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that works like a charm. Yay for our Lead Coordinator for Life! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd change the template design better; in fact I've modified 	 specifically for this project. --TheM62Manchester 11:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed to death, and there was a strong consensus that we're not going to use any cartoonish icons in place of . Kirill Lokshin 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, any other comments?  Do we want to go ahead and implement this? Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shoot :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've gone ahead and added the code.  Hopefully, everything still works as expected; please holler if you find anything broken! Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  W00t! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks awesome! --Laserbeamcrossfire 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner size reduction idea 

message: Does anyone know of any that need improvement?? (Note:I won't be here as much due to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles) --TheM62Manchester 12:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian war articles

message: What's the view on the civilian intelligence agencies which have their origins in the military?  In the UK sense all three (SIS, BSS and GCHQ) are derived from military origins although now almost entirely civilian and under a civilian command chain (FCO in the case of SIS and GCHQ, Home Office in the case of BSS)ALR 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's any military-related content that needs to be in those articles, then they're presumably within our scope.  I assume that that was your question?  Or did you mean something else? Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was really the question.  Are they in scope.  I tagged up the DIS and JARIC articles today and was thinking about the UK agencies.ALR 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence 

message: The  are somewhat oversized;  I've suggested a possible , looking back on which, opinion seems to be somewhat mixed.  Further opinions and/or alternative suggestions welcome.  Alai 03:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  has recently been created as well. Valentinian (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversized WW2 stubs 

message: I'm noticing that there are articles on individual UK units down to Company/ Squadron level.  to my mind this will result in a lot of near duplicate articles and I'd question notability at that level of granularity.  Has there been any discussion of this, I'd like to see some work on amalgamating them to at least Battalion/ Regiment.  It may also raise an issue of privacy, the only distinctive thing about some units is the identity of OC, RSM etc.  I'm conscious that at the 2* level upwards individuals are very much public figures and distinctive enough to note, however I'm not convinced that the identity of individuals from 1* down should be noted here, partly for notability and partly for PERSEC reasons.  Again, has there been any discussion of this.  TIA.  ALR 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite an example of a company/squadron article, so we can take a look?Michael Dorosh 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers, 131 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers (Volunteers), 148 (Meiktila) Commando Forward Observation Battery for example.ALR 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support merge tags to merge those squadron articles into their parent regiment(s) articles. As far as PERSEC goes, if official Army websites give the names of OC, RSM, etc., there is no reason they can't be used on Wikipedia - and since all info on WP needs to be referenced anyway....I guess the danger comes from names being put up on "unofficial" sites in violation of PERSEC. I think you were wise to bring this issue up. I know in Canada, we are very loose with our PERSEC, which is odd. If you see any names that are in these articles, I would delete them under WP:VER unless they are footnoted with an official Army website.Michael Dorosh 15:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that there are fairly few units below the regiment level that have enough distinct information to need their own articles.  In most cases, merging up, as Michael suggested, would probably be a good way of avoiding permanent stubs. Kirill Lokshin 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 148 (Meiktila) Commando Forward Observation Battery has a good case for its own article - though it does need some footnotes quite badly. Seems to be mentioned in at least one book, and there is good info on their role in the Falklands.  59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers is a good candidate for a merge though. Well spotted, ALR.Michael Dorosh 15:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisational granularity 

message: Just a note for anyone interested: the Biography WikiProject is starting up a Military workgroup that is intended to serve as a liason point with us on issues relating to biographies of military people.  I am told it will be strictly non-competitive, and will consult with us before breaking things in any major way ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography liason group 

message: There is apparently a sandbox game of Diplomacy that has been there for quite some while... anyone interested in reviving it? Milhist people seem the most likely players... :D -- Миборовский 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomacy, anyone? 

message: We need articles for the previous BRAC rounds (1989, 1991, 1993, 1995). Those should come under our (by which I mean this projects) juristidiction. Anyone willing to help with the work load? TomStar81 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRAC is Back (sort of)