Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 50

message: So, what do we do with the old draft page?  I've carried over some of the useful notes regarding the inclusion of original unit names in the first sentence, and moved the German translation material over to the German military history task force.  I would argue that the remainder of the old material is either redundant or irrelevant now that the main convention is to use the official names, and that the best course of action would be to either mark the old draft as historical, with a note of where the new guideline is located, or to simply redirect the draft to the new guideline.  What does everyone think? Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best course might be to mark the old guideline as historical - there's no need to delete it entirely. Carom 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else?  Particularly anyone who would object to marking the old page as historical (which is what I'm likely to do if nobody else has any preferences)? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've marked it historical for the time being, with a pointer to the new convention.  At the very least, that ought to make sure we don't have any confusion from back-and-forth moves on the issue. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section break 

message: This article has a severe anti-cluster munition bias... an anonymous editor continues to add uncited claims (Well, occasionally cited, usually followed by a POV statement) about the danger they pose to civilians, and move the "Threats to Civilians" section to the top of the article, above relevant info like the development and types of cluster munitions. ZakuTalk 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the issue is solved now. In case this goes on tell him that you do care about the civilians, but in order to make it understandable how harmful it is you must first explain how it works. Some statistical data would help to improve the article. Wandalstouring 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wish it was solved.  That same anonymous user keeps coming back and doing the same thing. ZakuTalk 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still having a problem here... protecting it for awhile would help... ZakuTalk 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cluster bomb]] 

message: I've nominated the Sukhoi Su-30 article for peer review. Comments please folks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments added at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Sukhoi Su-30. — Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Sukhoi Su-30]] 

message: This has a couple more days left on its GA Hold run and yours is on the only project tag on the talk page, so I though I'd bring it here, seeing as no-one appears to have seen it. Concerns can be found at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse#GA on Hold, mostly just the massive amount of external links, converting links in text to references/fixing references and adding FUR's for two images. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We rated it B-class. Wandalstouring 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a while ago. I was just notifying WPMH to see if anyone wanted to improve it, seeing as its recieved little general attention and with little effort could attain GA status. RHB Talk - Edits 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project has no influence on the GA rating of articles, we only do Start, B-class, A-class and FA. A peer review might help. Wandalstouring 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I thought you did deal with and improve articles in your scope, such as the one above. I was just notifying WPMH that if they wanted to improve the article, it would probably attain GA status. I'm the GA reviewer so far for this specifici article. I know personally very little, and this was only to notify you. Sorry if I was ambiguous. RHB Talk - Edits 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] 

message: Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I've found some redirects where US infantry divisions are redirected to US infantry regiments:  US 22nd Infantry Division  and the US 12th Infantry Division. (NB full stop inside square brackets.) I was doing some copyedits about the units which liberated Buchenwald concentration camp:  my edit. Is this correct? (I've read Regiment and Division (military) without being much the wiser.) Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A US infantry division, in WWII, was three infantry regiments (generally with unrelated numbers) each of which would have three battalions. Unfortunately, some confusion arises because a source will simply refer to the "12th Infantry" doing something, which - depending on context - could be either. Shimgray | talk | 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. In US military usage, "Xth Infantry" always means the regiment, not the division. This is true both in the Army and Marine Corps, thus "1st Marines" refers to the 1st Marine regiment, not the 1st Marine Division. Other non-military sources may not follow that practice and it may be too ambiguous for use here. DMorpheus 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case, it's also pretty moot. In WWII there were no infantry divisions with numbers between the 10th Mountain and the 24th Infantry - excepting the 11th, 13th and 17th, all airborne divisions - so it has to be the 12th or 22nd Infantry Regiment. Shimgray | talk | 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much, I've changed 'Division' to 'Regiment' in the article. I'm glad I didn't have to fall back on 'elements of ...'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference,  gives a list of all numbered divisions active around then, and if you delve a little deeper you get the assignments of regiments to divisions as well. Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regiment = Division in US Army in WWII? 

message: Since the various discussions here haven't come up with any real point to this, and the previous incarnation (:Category:British Commonwealth Forces) was deleted, I've nominated Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps for deletion.  Comments there would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commonwealth regiments and corps" 

message: Earlier today, in a couple articles covered by this project, I had moved up References and Notes above "See also", and this change was reverted, apparently according to guidelines I am unable to find.  Anyway, this isn't terribly important to me, but it seems to me that References and Notes, since they apply directly to the article text, should go before "See also", which usually only applies tangentially.  Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a valid point, although from an average user's perspective the 'References' and 'Notes' are of little to no interest while the 'See also' is of some interest for additional information. As soon as the formerly mentioned sections start most readers stop. On the contrary they do pay some attention to the 'See also' if it is prior to the 'References' and 'Notes'. Wandalstouring 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I can see the alternative point-of-view.  Thanks for your quick reply. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the typical ordering comes from Wikipedia:Guide to layout, but I'm not quite certain of that.  It's worth noting that "See also" sections are usually avoided where possible—at least in higher-quality articles—so the issue tends not to come up all that often in practice. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article section ordering

message: Wikipedia:Meetup/Military history doesn't seem to work as there are hardly more than two editors mentioned for the same location. Possibly we could add a new feature to this list similar to the Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service that helps to find locals who take photos. The idea would be to provide links to people who can help with information on a local basis (town history for example). This may help to add some details to our articles and thus improve overall performance. Wandalstouring 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the meetup planning 

message: I propose that a new criteria for A-class has to be added. Any A-class article also has to be a Good Article. --Ineffable3000 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been strongly rejected in the past, and I continue to believe that decision was correct; the GA process is unstable and unpredictable.  There's no reason to tie ourselves more closely to it; if anything, we ought to remove it from our own assessments entirely, and let it function as a completely external process. Kirill Lokshin 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kirill. If an article nominated for A-class has to be a GA first we have to rely on the WP:GA to have articles made A class which is being looked down on especially as there have been move to remove GA from the assessment of the project.  Kyriakos 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Kirill is quite correct in this regard. If anyone is interested in the background to the A-class/GA debate (at least, here at WPMILHIST), you can read some of the discussions here, here,here and here. Carom 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it short: GA didn't have much support in previous discussions and the tendency is towards ignoring this review. It is not integrated into the projects reviews and ratings, unlike B-class, A-class, FAC/FAR and peer review. Wandalstouring 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: GA status seems to be pretty meaningless and our A-class assessment process is very robust and successful so I don't see a need for this change. --Nick Dowling 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class reform 

message: Is there an infobox to use on air force articles? If not, could someone perhaps make one? Thanks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Air Force infobox. Kirill Lokshin 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force infobox 

message: Yesterday I found the article 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery because it linked to an image I uploaded.  I have substantialy improved (I think)Diff the article and added it to the project.  I think the page should be moved to 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery.  Would like any input as well as any help referencing the page beyond what I've done.  Dan D. Ric 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a bit U.S. centric. How many "2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery" are on this planet? 2d and 3d seem to be military orthography. Wandalstouring 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to: 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery (United States). Dan D. Ric 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added in a few links to the article, and arranged the infobox battles with bullet points. Look over the list of citations and decorations and see if there's a way to make the list look more organized. Otherwise, looks fine. --Petercorless 06:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GAH!!! I just read the Global Security page, and this entry is a direct copy-and-paste plagarism of that site. We need to ensure we're not just lifting text and placing it on Wikipedia in violation of copyright. I'll edit the page now. --Petercorless 07:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is looking much better over the last couple days but still needs additional references and yeah, rewriting to remove the copy paste. Dan D. Ric 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. Related, I just spent a fair bit of time rewriting the 4th Infantry Division Artillery (United States), and also added "(United States)" to disambiguate it. I also created a redirect from "Fires Brigade" as that is the formal name referred to at this point. I'm surprised there has been no article on Effects-Based Operations, which the commander of the Brigade authored the study of back in 2002. --Petercorless 08:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, someone with more historical perspective would need to rewrite the plagiarized sections better. --Petercorless 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move for [[2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery]]?

message: Was there any Russian interference in the Sino-Japanese War? The page on the Battle of Idinahui says there was. --Ineffable3000 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian interference in Sino-Japanese War 

message: Just to let everyone know (via boilerplate, no less ;-)...
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!
Kirill Lokshin 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator elections: signup open! 

message: There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for air forces 

message: What should I list Garibaldi's forces on the Uruguayan Civil War page? Please see talk page for more info. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on article's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uruguayan Civil War 

message: Okay, getting back to a topic that was previously discussed (albeit briefly), but not fully implemented: I'd like to propose a set of category renamings and merges that will eliminate the "Military veterans" and "Soldiers" trees:
; Military veterans
Rationale: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was involved with it in the past; thus, there's no :Category:Retired scientists, :Category:Former monarchs, or :Category:Footballers who no longer play.  Thus, military veterans should be categorized in the normal categories for military personnel:
* :Category:Military veterans → :Category:Military personnel
* :Category:Fictional veterans → :Category:Fictional military personnel
* :Category:Lists of veterans → :Category:Lists of military personnel
* :Category:British World War I veterans → :Category:British military personnel of World War I
* :Category:British World War II veterans → :Category:British military personnel of World War II
* :Category:Korean War veterans → :Category:Military personnel of the Korean War
* :Category:United States military veterans → :Category:American military personnel
* :Category:American World War I veterans → :Category:American military personnel of World War I
* :Category:American World War II veterans → :Category:American military personnel of World War II
* :Category:Gulf War veterans → :Category:Military personnel of the Gulf War
* :Category:American Iraq War veterans → :Category:American military personnel of the Iraq War
* :Category:Native American veterans → :Category:Native American military personnel
* :Category:Vietnam War veterans → :Category:Military personnel of the Vietnam War
* :Category:British Korean War veterans → :Category:British military personnel of the Korean War
; Soldiers
Rationale: "soldier" is a very ambiguous term; it can refer either to all military figures, or only to figures serving in the land forces, or only to enlisted ranks; thus, using it in category names is unnecessarily confusing.  The current categories fall into two broad groups: those that are used only for enlisted personnel, and those that are used for all military personnel.  In the former case, the proposal is simply to rename the categories; in the latter, the proposal is to merge them into the military personnel categories, and allow enlisted personnel categories to be split out if/when they are needed (to avoid having large numbers of articles incorrectly categorized, as they would be if these categories were renamed to enlisted personnel).  Thus:
* :Category:Soldiers → :Category:Enlisted personnel
* :Category:Fictional soldiers → :Category:Fictional military personnel
* :Category:Soldiers by nationality → :Category:Enlisted personnel by nationality
Categories that are already intended for enlisted personnel:
* :Category:Australian Army soldiers → :Category:Australian Army enlisted personnel
* :Category:British Army soldiers → :Category:British Army enlisted personnel
* :Category:British Indian Army soldiers → :Category:British Indian Army enlisted personnel
* :Category:Canadian soldiers → :Category:Canadian enlisted personnel
* :Category:Chinese soldiers → :Category:Chinese enlisted personnel
* :Category:French Army soldiers → :Category:French Army enlisted personnel
* :Category:Japanese soldiers → :Category:Japanese enlisted personnel
* :Category:United States Army soldiers → :Category:United States Army enlisted personnel
Categories that do not appear to already be intended for enlisted personnel:
* :Category:Australian soldiers → :Category:Australian military personnel
* :Category:Austrian soldiers → :Category:Austrian military personnel
* :Category:Belgian soldiers → :Category:Belgian military personnel
* :Category:Soldiers from Bosnia and Herzegovina → :Category:Bosnian and Herzgovinan military personnel
* :Category:British soldiers → :Category:British military personnel
* :Category:Burmese soldiers → :Category:Burmese military personnel
* :Category:Croatian soldiers → :Category:Croatian military personnel
* :Category:Cuban soldiers → :Category:Cuban military personnel
* :Category:Czechoslovakian soldiers → :Category:Czechoslovakian military personnel
* :Category:Dutch soldiers → :Category:Dutch military personnel
* :Category:Egyptian soldiers → :Category:Egyptian military personnel
* :Category:English soldiers → :Category:English military personnel
* :Category:Eritrean soldiers → :Category:Eritrean military personnel
* :Category:Fijian soldiers → :Category:Fijian military personnel
* :Category:French soldiers → :Category:French military personnel
* :Category:Ghanaian soldiers → :Category:Ghanaian military personnel
* :Category:Greek soldiers → :Category:Greek military personnel
* :Category:Hong Kong soldiers → :Category:Hong Kong military personnel
* :Category:Hungarian soldiers → :Category:Hungarian military personnel
* :Category:Israeli soldiers → :Category:Israeli military personnel
* :Category:Italian soldiers → :Category:Italian military personnel
* :Category:Liberian soldiers → :Category:Liberian military personnel
* :Category:Luxembourgian soldiers → :Category:Luxembourgian military personnel
* :Category:Mexican soldiers → :Category:Mexican military personnel
* :Category:Montenegrin soldiers → :Category:Montenegrin military personnel
* :Category:Norwegian soldiers → :Category:Norwegian military personnel
* :Category:Paraguayan soldiers → :Category:Paraguayan military personnel
* :Category:Peruvian soldiers → :Category:Peruvian military personnel
* :Category:Polish soldiers → :Category:Polish military personnel
* :Category:Portuguese soldiers → :Category:Polish military personnel
* :Category:Puerto Rican soldiers → :Category:Puerto Rican military personnel
* :Category:Ancient Roman soldiers → :Category:Ancient Roman military personnel
* :Category:Rwandan soldiers → :Category:Rwandan military personnel
* :Category:Scottish soldiers → :Category:Scottish military personnel
* :Category:Serbian soldiers → :Category:Serbian military personnel
* :Category:Spanish soldiers → :Category:Spanish military personnel
* :Category:Sri Lankan soldiers → :Category:Sri Lankan military personnel
* :Category:Sudanese soldiers → :Category:Sudanese military personnel
* :Category:Swedish soldiers → :Category:Swedish military personnel
* :Category:Venezuelan soldiers → :Category:Venezuelan military personnel
* :Category:Welsh soldiers → :Category:Welsh military personnel
Comments?  (I'd also appreciate if someone could poke through these to make sure I didn't miss any "veterans" or "soldiers" categories.)  Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Carom 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. It will make things more formal. --Ineffable3000 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here. Hossen27 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And already people complain! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category cleanup proposal: veterans and soldiers 

message: Effects-Based Operations (EBO) is now an article. Feel free to add to this, as it is an emerging part of modern operations doctrine. Examples of it being employed would be welcome, as would be additional organizational changes related to it (such as the Fires Brigade). --Petercorless 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a coined term by a professor someplace. Do some research to determine its notability. --Ineffable3000 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems notable (enough) for our purposes from the fact that the U.S. military is using it. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more than just a "professor." The US is re-organizing its artillery brigades in light of the new doctrine, and the officer who wrote the thesis (a Lt. Col. at the time) is now the Colonel of the re-organized Fires Brigade. --Petercorless 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it somehow derive from the flexible response concept of the Cold War? Would be interesting to show if we know sth. about its origin. Wandalstouring 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects-Based Operations

message: English is not my native language. I struggle with structure of sentences. Please help and review my work. I created new article called Japanese aircraft carrier Ryuho. This article was a feature on Wikipedia Main Page "Did you know?" I also expanded the Japanese cruiser Abukuma from a stub. I also worked on many other articles about Imperial Japanese Navy. I added information about aircraft carried by the aircraft carriers. Shibumi2 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, Shibumi2! Do not worry too much about the structure of sentences. Other editors will fix anything they see that is not correct. A more difficult challenge is knowing what statements need to be cited with the source. The formatting of such footnotes is not easy to learn, so don't hesitate to ask project members for help. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am new at Wikipedia

message: This came up on media copyright questions Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Source_of_claim_in_Template:Military-Insignia. Please add your comments there. Megapixie 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on copyright of military insignias 

message: This reminds me of Maximillian I of Mexico, where an Austrian prince ended up Emperor of Mexico. What were these French Civil War generals up to!? Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac is a great story. But what I came here to ask is whether anyone knows who these other French Civil War generals were? Bored European aristocrats seeking excitement in a war half a world away? Or what? Carcharoth 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#French Civil War generals. Kirill Lokshin 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Civil War generals 

message: Once upon a time the WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration moved a heap of content into wikipedia, the old domain is now being squatted and we are providing heaps of links to it. To clean up this spam I have been removing the This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission from the article space and adding this template on the talk page . When I started there were more than 1300 articles, . I was hoping some people from this project might help out and take the opportunity to add more VCs to the military history project - I've seen a lot that aren't project tagged. Thanks. --Peta 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force#Want to help clean up some spam and identify more project articles?. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Want to help clean up some spam and identify more project articles?

message: Although the nation no longer exists, I'm surprised there's no article for Prussian military history. -Emiellaiendiay 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is a good point. Maybe a step towards the creation of the article is requesting that an article under the name of Military history of Prussia at the German task force at this project. If you place a request there you might be able to find a few editors who might be intrested in the subject. Kyriakos 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Prussia and Prussian Army article. What in particular are you looking for not covered therein? --Petercorless 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prussia

message: The Roman-Spartan War has been up for FAC and has not recieved many comments. Could some editors read the article and leave their opinion at the article's FAC page. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC