Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 57

message: The A-Class review for Russian-Circassian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Russian-Circassian War]] now open 

message: I was hoping that wikipedia may be able to make a section for Holocaust & Genocide as either a project or portal. I thought that it might be part of the Military project of the History section. Looking for assistance with this. Thanks. I would appreciate comments & assistance to be left on my talk page []. I hope to hear from you soon. Eric Rodrigues.
:Well, while there are certainly some military aspects involved, I don't think the broader topic of genocides is really a military one as a whole.  This may be better off as a completely separate project.  Kirill Lokshin 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We currently have a Jewish history wikiproject that seems to include the Holocaust; you may want to bring up a task force proposal over there before firing up an independent project. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to set up your project as part of the larger Wikiproject History. We will certainly support you as far as possible, but quite a lot of killing during genocides is commited by "armed" civilians against unarmed, lesser armed or outnumbered civilians. A really big problem is that the project(under whatever umbrella) as such is in danger to boldly enter into some ongoing POV disputes (Pontic Greek Genocide, Armenian Genocide). Some guidelines might be helpful. Wandalstouring 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning Holocaust & Genocide

message: Article: British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. All opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already noted on  and at WP:MHR#FAC. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British anti-invasion preparations of World War II]]

message: The A-Class review for Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Tupolev TB-3]] now open 

message: Para Commandos currently goes to an article on India’s Para Commandos. As Belgium also has Para Commandos, should Para Commandos be a disambiguation page, with...
: Para Commandos (Belgium) 
: Para Commandos (India)
If people agree, I'm happy to do this. Regards Chwyatt 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that seems like the easiest thing to do. Kirill Lokshin 11:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers Fayssal Chwyatt 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para Commandos 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Russian-Circassian War; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Russian-Circassian War]] needs attention 

message: Hi,
I'm not a member of this wikiproject. Recently, due to the popularity of the movie 300, the Battle of Thermopylae rec'd a high number of visits...
John Woo is making or gonna make a movie about the Battle of Red Cliffs. I'm expecting a similar surge in popularity. I'm thinking it might be proactive if y'all started a collaboration to improve that article, and perhaps a few closely related ones.... just a thought. :-)
Later! --Ling.Nut 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info Ling.Nut. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Red Cliffs]]... 

message: I expanded the nickname part of the infobox and added redirects and also dealed with the nagging "half the intro is the motto" problem a short while ago. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice of you to edit the page. Do you have any questions or is there a need to specifically discuss something here? Wandalstouring 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1st Infantry Division (United States)]] 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Tupolev TB-3]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Benjamin Franklin Tilley is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Benjamin Franklin Tilley]] now open 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Benjamin Franklin Tilley; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Benjamin Franklin Tilley]] needs attention 

message: The current title for the page on the conflict between the United States and Mexico, 1846-1848, is the Mexican-American War.  However, it is argued ("Talk Page:  Misnomer" and "Talk Page:  Name of War = Title of Article") that the "Mexican War" is actually the most common name used to refer to that event. Kraken7 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, because commonly US-Americans do write about that war in English. Likewise the Spanish-American War is the Spanish War. Wandalstouring 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, that's not the case: "Spanish-American War" is standard in the U.S. —Kevin Myers 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments:  Mexican-American War vs. Mexican War 

message: The article Treaty of Craiova apparently is within the scope of this WikiProject, so I will bring this up here: according to the article (Treaty of Craiova), the Treaty was imposed on Romania by Nazi Germany. Why was this? What did Nazi Germany stand to gain with this Treaty? Were they interested in maintaining some sort of peace in the area, or was this in the interest of relations with Bulgaria? Is any information about this available? And if so, could someone with access to that information add it to the article? AecisBrievenbus 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Craiova  

message: Help is needed to monitor Bay of Pigs Invasion, which at present is in very poor shape, and seems to be in freefall due to numerous spurious anon edits over a long period. I have just restored the lead and infobox after they were absent for days due to anon removals.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]]

message: Hi there. I've got a peer review request open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Plains of Abraham/archive1 for an article that I feel has a pretty good shot at FA in the near future, but it's gotten no traffic from WP:PR. Might I ask that any folks here who might be interested drop by and offer some suggestions? Much appreciated. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Peer Review 

message: The article is pretty bad, overall. It seems to be biased (example: hated Austro-Hungarians , hated Bulgarians ) and presents the entire front only through the Entante POV, without giving any detailed information on the Central Power's armies (unit number and strenght, morale, disposition, casualties) and their overall strategic situation and problems (etc. lack of resources, homefront anti-war opposition). 
The article stresses the importance of Greece entering the war, but doesn't give much info on its army's strenght and disposition, apart from being able to gather 9 divions.
The fighting in Albania is also lacking in detail.
The Battles of Doiran and Dobro pole seem to be mixed up, both being fought around the 18th of September. Dobro pole was major Allied victory, which led to the breaktrough of the Bulgarian front (and consequently to the Solder Rebellion, which should also be covered), while Doiran was decisive victory for the Bulgarians and was used in the diplomatic negotiations to protect the country from occupation.
Hope the article will be revised with more datailed accounts from both sides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.215.65 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Macedonian front (World War I)|Macedonian Front of WWI]] - needs a review?] 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] now open 

message: I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of an earlier article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard framework for multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I see it as a possible prototype for a series of articles on bilateral military relations. I'd be grateful if people could take a look and let me know what you think. -- ChrisO 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far. A fine start. It represents a pretty objective view, not focusing too much on an Israeli view of relations with the US nor on an American view of relations with Israel (I fixed a bit in the intro which had that issue, but the rest of the text is fine). It's pleasantly surprisingly clear of POV bias stuff, as inevitably comes up in Israel-related articles. The big deal now is just to make sure that as it expands, one keeps an eye on those considerations. As for the more general theme of creating bilateral military relation articles, go for it - as foreign relations articles (e.g. Israel-United States relations) tend to be far more political, economic, and even ideological, I think it might not be a bad idea to have a separate set of articles than can include these kinds of technical specs about exactly how much was spent on which types of technology. LordAmeth 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my thought too. It's a bit too specialised for the general foreign relations articles, in any case. -- ChrisO 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your views 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Megapixie 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Military-Insignia}} 

message: Folks, there's currently a proposal to merge Washington's crossing of the Delaware with Battle of Trenton at Talk:Washington's crossing of the Delaware#Merge with Battle of Trenton. I personally oppose merger, but I'm soliciting more views from the Military History WikiProject. Wl219 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, interesting stuff.  The crossing is really part of the prelude to Trenton moreso than an entirely distinct action, but its iconic cultural impact may warrant a separate discussion.  Do we have an article on the immediate surrounding campaign, incidentally?  Merging it to something like New Jersey campaign of 1776-1777, together with summaries of the battle articles, may be another approach worth considering. Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the overall campaign article is New York and New Jersey campaign. —Kevin Myers 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal for Washington's crossing of the Delaware

message: I notice that you have added the following guideline since I was last here: "Depictions of military history in cultural art forms, such as painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose." I was wondering if this would extended to TV shows like Moder Marvels which cover the topic of the show from its orgins to the present, but do not nessicarily focus exclusively on Military Hardware. Would shows of this nature come under this projects umbrella? 129.108.204.3 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as they were involved with depicting actual military history, yes; the list of items is intended to provide examples, not set forth an exhaustive listing.  (I should point out that truly historical—in the academic sense—shows have always been covered, as they are properly the area of historiography rather than cultural depiction.) Kirill Lokshin 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope and TV

message: The A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Zveno project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Zveno project]] now open 

message: Warsaw Uprising 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.
LuciferMorgan 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warsaw Uprising FAR

message: The A-Class review for B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base]] now open 

message: WikiProject Japan is working on incorporating several smaller related wikiprojects as task forces, and since you guys are so very good at this, I'm wondering if one of you might be willing to help me incorporate that into our project banner. I've done a little bit, but I'm not that good at the coding in the banners, so I don't know how well I've done it. Any help would be appreciated. The banner is here: . Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless you're trying to do something quite complex, the easiest thing to do would probably be to copy the sample code here, creating new parameters for each task force in the same manner as the peer review parameter is implemented in the example. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That's an excellent resource. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: btw I like your site. The lists of articles with their status are nice. Wandalstouring 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I (and others) have been trying to make it easier for people to see what needs doing so they can jump right in and help where they wish to help. Hopefully the page isn't too overwhelming what with all the piles of information crammed into it I sometimes worry it may be getting too busy and full of things. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner help 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Zveno project; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Zveno project]] needs attention 

message: The editor who first created the proposal for the Cold War History project has not edited since early January. It has had roughly 8 members since March. I figured this project, given the amount of overlap, would probably be the best one to contact about possibly setting the project up. Thank you for your time. John Carter 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall that someone proposed a Cold War task force in the fairly recent past; that might be a viable option here, if anyone is interested. Kirill Lokshin 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War History project proposal 

message: There's a survey over whether we should move Battle of Lawrence to Lawrence Massacre (or another name). Talk:Battle of Lawrence#Requested move. -Will Beback · † · 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War: [[Battle of Lawrence]] to [[Lawrence Massacre]] 

message: Hello,
I just joined the American Civil War task force.
Before I joined this task force, I already made some articles about Civil War soldiers and the wives. 
Here they are:
Soldiers
*Thomas Chamberlain
*TJ Goree
*Leonard A. Abercrombie
*Henry M. Elmore
Wives
*Elizabeth Goree
*Lavinia Chilton
Unfortunately, many of these articles are only stubs. Any additional information in these articles would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Psdubow 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Expand... 

message: I nominated :Category:Sixty Years' War for deletion. I could be wrong. Please visit the nomination page to determine if I have any idea what I'm talking about. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A category for deletion 

message: Preliminary research for my overhaul of USS Iowa has turned up enough information to spin the 1989 turret 2 explosion into its own article, but I am not sure what to call it. I thought about 1989 Gun Turret Explosion aboard USS Iowa or 1989 Explosion in Turret #2, but figured I would ask here before doing anything definitive with this. Any other suggestions for a name? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply Turret explosion aboard the USS Iowa, perhaps?  I don't really see a need to disambiguate here—no other explosion would have an article of its own—and I'm not a fan of starting the title with a year in any case. Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Kirill. Sometimes using a year in an article title is helpful, sometimes not. I think this is a case where it is not needed. Make sure you add the article to :Category:Non-combat accidents involving military and :Category:Explosions. Carcharoth 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per those above. Since there are only a handful of USS Iowas (maybe only one, can't be bothered checking), I don't think a year is nescescary to disambiguate. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been a total of four USS Iowas, only two have been comissioned as such though. More imporatantly, I write to you concerning another wikiproject that has ties to the turret explosion and there naming convention for such incidents. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>, and it would seem to me that an article dedicated exclusively to the incident within the turret would be more under the disater managment wikiproject then the Military history wikiproject. Does this change the nature of the discussion any, or should TomStar81 stick with the naming conventions here? --Jesus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.108.205.3 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the DM project doesn't really have "more" of a claim to deciding the title than this one does; but, if there is already an established naming convention for these, I have no objections to simply following it.  It's not really a big deal either way, I think, given the low number of articles affected. Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from the above project and generally support the year, but don't view it as nescescary this time per above. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then how about Gun Turret explosion aboard USS Iowa? Would that work, or should I include the hull number too? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Though I must ask you, as the miltary experts round here - any reason for capitalising "Gun Turret" in these suggested names? I assume there is a very good reason, just checking. As for the hull number, if there's only four of them, no need IMO. Go for it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, I was about to start this article myself (I've recently started editing military accident and friendly fire articles) and was going to use USS Iowa turret explosion but the other suggested titles seem fine to me. Cla68 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support Cla68's suggestion. "Turret explosion" is not immediately obvious to a general reader who does't know what a turret is. USS Iowa is more recognisable as a ship name, and it would also explicitly class this article as a descendant article from USS Iowa. Carcharoth 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, DefenseLINK has a lot of good photos related to the incident, including several photos of the explosion itself: , then type "Iowa turret explosion" into the search box. Cla68 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link. When my fever breaks I will see about getting started on the article, and I will add some of those images. Right now though, I need more Tylenol (my head is killing me...) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just started the article:  USS Iowa turret explosion.  Hope you feel better soon. Cla68 02:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming a military disaster 

message: A Seminole War related article that you may have been involved in editing, Alexander George Arbuthnot, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot.  Thank you. Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Alexander George Arbuthnot]]

message: I noticed that we've made a Middle Eastern Military History Task Force [I'm in it] and I think that's great.  However, there's one other task force I'm wondering why we don't have.
We have military history task forces for all the big countries [Canadian Military History, British Military History, etc.].  Should we have an Israeli Military History Task force, because even though their military has only really been around for sixty some odd years, they've had an extremely lively history in that time period.  
Just a thought..
If this would fall under the juristiction of the Middle Eastern Military History Task force, then I'll be fine, but I'm just thinking that it might be good to have a task force entirely devoted to the IDF history [an extremely busy one, mind you].
Just a thought....
Cam 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it is basically a subset of the ME one, I'm not particularly impatient to start a separate one unless there's a lot of interest in working on Israeli military history specifically.  Given the turnout so far, I doubt if there's enough editors involved to need—or want—yet another group.  (I could be wrong about this, of course.) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is part of ME for now. As per Kirill, once editors start to be interested on it than we can create it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point Kirill.  I'm really dissapointed in the turnout for the Middle Eastern Military History Task Force myself.  I agree with FaysallF.  Once we can get a lot of people on ME task force, then maybe we can start one.  It's a fair point.  Thanks.
Cam 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force? 

message: The A-Class review for First Command Financial Planning, Inc. is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[First Command Financial Planning, Inc.]] now open 

message: The following articles are those that I have started, but cannot finish alone do to a lack of expertise:
#One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer
#Cavalry saber
#King Armored Car
#Canon de 155 mm GPF 
PLEASE HELP
--MKnight9989 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reformatted your question to make it easier for people to check out your work. —Kevin Myers 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To make a numbered list, just put a # before each item. (You can see how I did it by editing this section and see how your question is now formatted.) To make a list without numbers, use * or : for different types. Eventually you'll figure it all out by playing around with it. Good luck! —Kevin Myers 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You created several stubs and want someone else to turn them urgently into articles. A better solution is merging Cavalry saber into sabre and to leave a redirect. If there is enough information for an article on its own, create it. Same for King Armored Car, make it a subpage of Armored car and the problem is solved. The French gun can be grouped with other guns of the same calibre. If there isn't much to say about it, it doesn't matter. Wandalstouring 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section, not subpage... :-) Carcharoth 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added merge suggestion tags to Cavalry saber and sabre. Emoscopes Talk 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles I've Started that I need help finishing 

message: The A-Class review for Sino-Indian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 07:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Sino-Indian War]] now open 

message: I have noticed what I think is a missuse of the battle categories. For example the :Category:Battles of the Western Front (World War I) contains not only battles but also Iron harvest, Hartmannswillerkopf, National War Memorial, Islandbridge, Polygon Wood, Zonnebeke etc. I have nothing against this articles but there aren't battles and shouldn't be in that category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carl Logan (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Created :Category:World War I memorials for the puropse and removed the them from the Battles cat. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category abuse

message: User:The Rambling Man and I are pushing this toward FA. Please help. Thanks. --Dweller 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harlech Castle]] 

message: An article about a General who was Commander in chief of the Madras Army, namely Charles George Arbuthnot, has been listed by ElimintorJR for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles George Arbuthnot.  Thank you. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Charles George Arbuthnot]]

message: An article about a General namely Charles George James Arbuthnot, has been listed by ElimintorJR for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles George James Arbuthnot.  Thank you. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Charles George James Arbuthnot]]

message: Having done a fair amount of categorising over the last couple of days, I've been struck by how complicated the WWI sub-categories are. Firstly, they're a real mouthful of type; secondly, they're not easy to remember; so all in all it's an unnecessary inconvenience. How do people feel about very broad sub-categories directly under Cat:World War I (sub-cat: France and World War I, sub-cat: United States and World War I etc) with the more specific stuff (sub-sub-cat:Military history of the United Kingdom during World War I, sub-sub-cat:Military personnel of the USA, etc) under them? There's a lot of good material and it's getting lost by over-specific categorisation and there are also way too many categories with very little stuff in them. This simplification would also give editors really obvious but relevant sub-categories for initial categorisation of their articles. The articles can always be moved/copied to better sub-categories later. Thoughts? Roger 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force#War World I: sub-category thoughts Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War World I: sub-category thoughts 

message: I've written an article about Zhou Tong, the archery teacher of Song Dynasty General Yue Fei. For some reason, it is listed as being within the scope of you project. Why is that? I guess it could be since he taught archery to a future general, but he never fought in any wars are anything like that. (Ghostexorcist 11:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is related to this project because he is believed to have trained soldiers. This is what i could get from the Monk or soldier? section. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't train soldiers. He Just trained Yue Fei. (Ghostexorcist 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly possible that it was tagged by mistake, of course; if you don't believe it's within the project's scope, please feel free to remove the tag. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please clarify that delisting this article from the military history project's scope has nothing to do with a personal POV on the disputes about his being a monk or soldier. Else, I have no objection against removing the tag. Wandalstouring 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV? The tag was on the page long before I added the Monk or Soldier section. I removed it because the oldest record that mentions Zhou's name does only that, mention his name. There is not enough historical info to support the claim he was a soldier or monk. I'm about to update the page anyway.(Ghostexorcist 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV is wikispeak for Point Of View. Wandalstouring 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I just didn't understand where the POV issue came from. I'm the one who wrote the page, so I'm more familiar with the material. It's not a matter of me liking one possibility over another. It's a matter of historical evidence. (Ghostexorcist 18:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok it was removed by you so no big deals. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about my article 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Sino-Indian War; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Sino-Indian War]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] now open 

message: As the Rus & Sov TF talk page is not very active, I thought I'd make the request here for the Russian language references at Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 to be translated into English. My Russian is just enough to recognise refs to units, but not more. Thanks !
Buckshot06 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation Request

message: After a very long discussion the image copyright template has been depricated. New uploads to the template will be speedily deleted after 48 hours - older images will be given a long grace period to be migrated to free templates for example , . Please take any discussion to Template talk:Military-Insignia. Thanks. Megapixie 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright template {{tl|Military-Insignia}} is now depricated 

message: The article List of special forces units is a predominantly unreferenced bag of the proverbial.  It seems to attract all kinds of contributions, indeed some countries seem to have more SF than anything else!
I've already tried to can it once, but the majority opinion was to keep it, with only one of those offering an opinon actually doing anything about it, and his edits were decimated in pretty short order afterwards.
With only a couple of people watching it and the majority of additions being fly-by it seems pretty unmaintainable.  I do have an inclination to cite request every entry then delete the majority in a week or so, but I don't believe it'll sort the maintainability problem.
I'd welcome views on the best approach to deal with it, leave it as is or migrate to category.
Cheers
ALR 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Forces and self aggrandisment

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

message: Could you please have a look at some issues going on at that article? Some third party comments are badly needed at the talk page. Please refer to wikipedia gets gamed. I've already gave my 2¢ but i think if there are some other views it would be better. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can also give 2¢, but I think finding someone familiar with this stuff is more helpful. Will report in a few days. Wandalstouring 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some problems at [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] 

message: Hey, do we have some sort of consensus that winning a Silver Star is not a noteworthy act, or does it warrant its own Wikipedia entry?  Either way, please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Boada. Palm_Dogg 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the existing practice has been that only the top military award (e.g. the MoH) confers automatic "notability", FWIW. Kirill Lokshin 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Silver Star]] recipients 

message: I just created a userbox for the Military History Wikiproject and I was wondering if you would like me to put it on the page that shows you what you have to type for the Military History Wikiproject banner. I made it because some people don't like banners and prefer userboxes!
Here is a preview of it: 
Dreamy 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we already have a few of those...here. Carom 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay! Just thought I'd put it out there because I didn't know we had that page. Dreamy 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: The A-Class review for Operation Lam Son 719 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Lam Son 719]] now open