Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 66

message: Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles 

message: Just to let you guys know that WikiProject History has been tottally reorganised. Some of you might like to join seeing as this is WikiProject Military history--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History|WikiProject History]] 

message: Per some comments at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Width and font-size, I've reduced the font size in our infoboxes to 90%, which seems to be the standard value across other infoboxes & navboxes.  If anyone has major problems with this (or has other suggestions regarding the sizing), please drop by the linked discussion.  Thanks! Kirill 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is also getting into the size of the lead image in the infobox, for anyone interested. Kirill 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I made this comment in the discussion on the conflicts infobox, but I'll leave it here as well.)  In my opinion, it is too small. I preferred the easier-to-read size that we've had. — ERcheck (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the decision. The differing font sizes allow for greater style differences between the infobox and the main text, helping a reader's eye track more quickly to the infobox, potentially creating faster access to the article's information. The human eye generally looks for differences, and differing the infobox from the main text is definitely important, IMHO. JKBrooks85 10:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox font size 

message: Tag & Assess 2007 is now underway. The current top four are:
*  1150
*  670
*  620
*  600
However this still leaves well over 150,000 articles to tag and assess. You can help too, please sign up today here. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally FayssalF has come from nowhere to shoot into the lead with 1250 articles tagged. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as your score, no? ;) Ok guys, at work please. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, it's optional though various editors are including them voluntarily. The taskforce structure is rather complicated for people outside the project or without much military history knowledge to get to grips and asking them to add taskforces may cause more trouble than it's worth. The instruction overload involved will also significantly reduce the number of people helping. In any case, taskforce tags can be added later in a second pass of a much reduced list. Kirill is, incidentally, updating the taskforce tags so that they're shorter (to save typing time). Once Kirill has sorted this, the instructions can be updated with a link to the taskforce list for those that want to include them. Hope this helps ... --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. I'll be including the tags from here on out -- I just wasn't sure if I needed to go back and add them to all of the assessments I've already made. Thanks for the clarification. JKBrooks85 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the curious,  now supports short-form task force tags; see the project banner instructions for more details. :-) Kirill 03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kirill. great time-saver. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really was thinking about that yesterday and here's the response. Good job Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess not too. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is rather relative. I believe there are some exceptions. I'd rather include El Alamein while not Dresden. As the article says "El Alamein played a major role in the outcome of World War II. Two extended battles were fought in that area..." There are some places who are notable only because of its military history. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ummm. At a second thought, i think it would not make sense since we already have separated articles for those battles. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking news

message: The airship article is currently undergoing an A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review#Airship. WikProject History has a very small membership so I thought some of you might be interested--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History|WikProject History]] A-Class nomination 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Richard Williams (RAAF officer)]] now open 

message: There's been some discussion started at Template talk:War#New Template about possible ways to redesign the  template; the ideas are all in the extreme prototyping stages now, and any suggestions and critiques would be very welcome! Kirill 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign of {{tl|war}} 

message: Are there editors who would be interested in participating in a task force covering fortifications (notably medieval castles, but other types as well)? Kirill 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the taskforce cover fortifactions in modern times or just medieval and achient forifacations? ForeverDEAD 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All periods, I suppose (although obviously the bulk of the articles will be pre-modern). Kirill 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am. And it might attract editors from other projects. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't this already covered by the Military Technology and Engineering task force? JKBrooks85 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, yes; we're considering creating a more specific group (similar to how the Weaponry task force covers a narrower portion of the T&E scope). Kirill 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been interested in field fortifications. Sounds good to me. --MKnight9989 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, Kirill, this is when the Castles wikiproject is to be merged to? Buckshot06 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the general intent, although the exact specifics of what will happen vis-à-vis WP:Castles are still somewhat hazy. Kirill 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been using the memorials task force to tag fortifications. I support a separate task force since most of the forts and castles aren't considered memorials officially. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I've been putting them into technology and enginerring. Perhaps best is to tag as "fortifications=yes", which the template can pick up in due course, and maybe redirect as necessary if the Fortifications Task Force doesn't go ahead. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, I'd join if one was created--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I defintly join if one was created ForeverDEAD 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I see no problems in why not having it. Kyriakos 21:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortification task force? 

message: Please see Template:Campaignbox Central Europe and Template talk:Campaignbox Central Europe --Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Support deletion. Buckshot06 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Support deletion. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, seems rather confused.  There's probably potential for an overall campaignbox covering the Allied advance across the Rhine and into Germany (probably pulling in the Siegfried line one as well); but putting bombing raids into it on a chronological basis is overkill. Kirill 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've removed the strategic bombing.  I'm not sure about merging with the Siegfried Line though, as that'll basically divide the Western European Campaign into "Overlord (June - August)" and "Everything else (September - May)".  Right now, I see it broken down into four basic sections "Overlord" --> "Siegfried Line" --> Ardennes Offensive" --> "Central Europe"; the first three already having navigation boxes / categories. Oberiko 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may actually be possible to condense everything post-Overlord into a single campaignbox.  There aren't that many articles, and things tend to follow a nice chronological pacing. Kirill 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This template seems to be a template for template's sake, not to combine related knowledge. Can we agree that templates are the means to show existing knowledge in a structured way, not aims in their own end? Arnoutf 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your argument there. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, something like the following then? Oberiko 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think this version works better. Kirill 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "name=West European Campaign (1944-1945)"
Not sure about the "raw name" field and unless it is a common name (the British campaign name is "North West European Campaign") campaign should start lower case. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Perhaps the alternative would be the Allied North West European campaign? To distinguish it from the 1939 German campaign. But then again, Dieppe Raid should be listed as Allied NW European battle. Mmmm, perhaps 44-45 is not so bad. Arnoutf 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that the English and the French do not like each other very much but they were Allies in 1939 the alliance did not start when the Americans joined it 8-0 -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A template too far 

message: It seems that admins cannot deal with the revert war going on at Continuation War because it is simply a content dispute. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject help? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at it. Wandalstouring 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war at [[Continuation War]]

message: Here are the top assessors, as of about midnight (London time) tonight. 
# FayssalF 2000
# Cromdog 1300
# Maralia 1250
# Colputt 750
# Euroocopter tigre 750
# Woodym555 740
# JKBrooks85 700
Can I remind everyone that there's still a load of work to be done and that all assistance is welcome ....
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MHA07|Tag & Assess progress]] 

message: Achieved GA class....  Oct 2007 help requested with new tag please. See discussion regarding This article's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate.  Thank you.SriMesh | talk 05:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]]

message: *Enemy (military) - the article I created is up for deletion, if you would like to participate there is a discussion on the article talk page. Chessy999 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Enemy (military)]]

message: Hello.  I'd like thoughts on replacing the current WWII theatre/campaign template.
ExistingProposed
I propose this for a few reasons.  First, it looks much cleaner, and, IMO, is easier to navigate.  Second, if we include "campaigns", then we potentially can have dozens of entries, as WWII was notorious for both nested campaigns and each nation having its own definition of what actions constituted a campaign, especially as during the course of the war the boundaries of various command areas shifted with the situation.  I think it'd be better to explain those details within within the theatre articles themselves. 
To facilitate this, I'd create theatre articles for those that don't have them (ie. Balkans theatre of World War II).  If a theatre is adequately explained with a single campaign/battle (ie. North Africa, Italy, Madagascar), I'd just keep it as the link.  Thoughts? Oberiko 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#Thoughts on replacing World War II theatre/campaign template. Kirill 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on replacing World War II theatre/campaign template

message: For reference, if anyone is curious: the "contacts" program and the publication department have been mothballed due to lack of interest.  They can be reactivated if/when the need arises. Kirill 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mothballing 

message: This is outside my area of expertise/interest, but Amnesty Act needs some attention.  It's a stub, but more pressing is at least one sentence that makes little sense.GreenGourd 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It made little sense because it was just original research. Did some cleanup and added a some content w/ ref. I think the appropriate title is the General Amnesty Act of 1872. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty Act

message: Reviewing the list of featured articles needing attention to citations for articles that can be moved,  identified Władysław Sikorski as an article that appears to be mostly cited now.  It still needs some cleanup, but it should be able to avoid a featured article review.  Can folks here please have a look and help with the final cleanup?  In particular, I don't know what to do about all those infoboxes in the lead, one seems to be oversized, and their placement leaves a big chunk of white space before the text on my browser.  Also, jsut a general checkup, tuneup from MilHist editors would be appreciated.  Also, Pagrashtak mentioned that it may have image issues, but I don't really speak Fair Use. Thanks!  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've summarized the image problems at Talk:Władysław Sikorski#Image problems. Pagrashtak 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a look at it, fixed a few things (namely configuring the one source citing). Took a look at the images too; most of those could be double tagged with . Hope this helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Władysław Sikorski]] 

message: For your information, the recently created article Enemy (military) is under AFD.  Please note, this is not an advertisement or solicitation to participate in the process, it is to note the AFD occurrence. Chessy999 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Enemy (military)]]

message: Hi! I'm not well traversed in military history, but... I'm reading a book where a Siege of Metz in 1552 is mentioned, shouldn't this event an article?
From the article Francis, Duke of Guise:
"He won international renown in 1552 when he successfully defended the city of Metz from the forces of Emperor Charles V, and defeated the imperial troops again at the Battle of Renty in 1554. The siege of Metz is detailed well in Ambroise Paré's "Journey in Diverse Places" (written around 1580)."
From the article Metz: "Francis, Duke of Guise, commander of the garrison, restored the old fortifications and added new ones, and successfully resisted the attacks of the emperor from October to December, 1552; Metz remained French."
The article siege of Metz is about something else.
So shouldn't there be an article siege of Metz (1552)? Punkmorten 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very probably. Why not start putting it together? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a worthy topic; but since there are only a couple of editors working on the Italian Wars, it might have to wait a while before it gets a real article. ;-) Kirill 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We still have a subsequent stub article Peace of Passau. Maybe we can merge and redirect that to the suggested [Siege of Metz (1552)]. It would be an interesting article indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Passau would probably be merged all the way up to Italian War of 1551-1559; there's no particular reason to single out Metz among the other engagements. Kirill 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree since both are stubs. It is better to include all in one for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  03:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Metz 1552 

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

message: I've started List of military science and technology topics. The list isn't complete but the infrastructure is there. All contributers are welcome--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started List of history topics earlier and though it's not as relevant to this project as the former, I could still use some help expanding. We are a history project, after all--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't you achieve the same result with categories? Especially if you added text, images and links to the category headers? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It'd also be a quicker process and you might be able to create a bot to assist, though I'm not sure how it would work. JKBrooks85 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's supposed to be a list for every major topic on wikipedia. All the major portals have a corresponding list of topics and lis of basic topics--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it makes any real practical difference. You can pipe categories so they look like lists, thus:  List of war topics and main articles. I just think it would save a lot of work. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of military science and technology topics]] 

message: What does the cross symbol stand for under 'Commanders.' Does it mean they were killed? Surrendered? I'm confused. FinalWish 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cross means they're deceased, I think--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cross means they were killed in that battle/combat/operation. -Eurocopter tigre 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  (If done correctly, you should be able to click on the symbol and get to an article that explains it, by the way.) Kirill 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about war template 

message: :Suggested use: Significant contributions to  any aspect of the Content Review process:  (such as Military history peer review). --Ling.Nut 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:ContentReviewMedal]]   

message: Do we need this category? Just found Survive To Fight, a British NBC manual listed as a piece of military equipment. Could be used for field manuals, Soviet Military Power, etc Buckshot06 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Official military publications

message: The peer review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Battle of the Gebora]] now open 

message: A proposal to move "Civil war in Iraq" to "Sectarian violence in Iraq" is inconclusive after five days. It has been proposed that outside opinions should be sought in order to further the discussion. You are welcome to comment here. Thank you.--victor falk 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. JKBrooks85 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Civil war in Iraq#Consider seeking more opinions]]

message: There is a new bot, User:Erwin85Bot, that is being used to count articles in categories, specifically to create maintenance backlogs pages. To see what I mean, any how your project may be interested in creating such a list, see the page I recently created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not going to be particularly useful for us, unfortunately; as the progress of the assessment drive shows, there are a lot of non-military history articles that wind up (by one means or another) inside the military category trees. Kirill 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance bot 

message: The A-Class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[USS Kentucky (BB-66)]] now open