Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 43

message: Is there a useful distinction to be drawn between :Category:War and conflict museums and :Category:Military museums?  I suppose there might be some war museums that deal exclusively with civilians (although I can't think of any); but I don't think it would be valuable to break up the categories just because of that.  Perhaps these could be merged into a single :Category:Military and war museums, or something of the sort? Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semanticly they call to mind differences, yet to the layman nothing water tight to waren't haveing to categories. Such as :Category:Military museums deals with museums dedicated ot the military or administered by the military, while :Category:War and conflict museums brings to mind museums dedicated to a single event. i.e. a Civil war museum in the latter and Marine museum in the former. The Marine will talk about war but its not its main function. Now this was simply to be the devils advocate. I'm all for keeping it simple and bunching them together in Kirill Lokshin's suggested :Category:Military and war museums.--Dryzen 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as :Category:Military Museums is already subcatted under :Category:War and conflict museums, the division seems to be intended to specify those museums which deal with branches of the military, rather than wars or conflicts. In practice, though, the division between the parent cat and the subcat seems rather blurry, and I wouldn't think a merge would be troublesome. Carom 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else? :-) Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, should we propose that these two be merged?  Or are there other approaches that people would prefer? Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best course would be to propose the mergers and see what people at CfD have to say about it. Carom 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've nominated the categories for merging here; comments there would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum categories 

message: Curiously enough, we hit 400 active members today. (Just a casual observation, no deep hidden meaning here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a lot of them on the talk page. At 500 we will have a little party. Someone opens the celebration thread and every member writes in a joke (it can concern military and history and wikipedia).Wandalstouring 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to match that quantity there has been an improvement on quality eg:the sourcing required for FAs and the A-Class review. The A-Class review was an excellent idea but I would like to see more articles begin with a peer review first though, and then proceed onto A-Class. Some of the articles need some work before they are up to at least A-Class standard Raymond Palmer 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been getting somewhat better at that, I think; hopefully more people will take advantage of the full review process available once things become more established. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered writing a tutorial on writing/editing articles for WikiProject Military history? We have a fairly complex and specific procedure for doing things: conventions for sources and citation, processes for review, levels of article grading, etc. A handy little tutorial/guidebook (although don't call it "Military History for Dummies" please), might be helpful. I know that this information all exists in various reference pages, but a "user friendly" article with links to those pages for more detailed information might be a good "introduction". - Vedexent (talk) - 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea; the project is definitely big enough now that new members might find this sort of thing useful.  (We do have a welcome template that gives some of the more salient links, but it's necessarily somewhat terse—and probably still longer than it really ought to be.  A tutorial could be linked as recommended reading from the welcome template, and draw off some of the links to various places in the project from it.) Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: True, we seem to be the same little gang with new voices only on specific topics. Still its impressive to see so many members and I have been seeying some increased participation on the articles. I'll get ready for the party.--Dryzen 16:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  400 active members 

message: I vaguely recall that this has been brought up a few times in the past (to little practical effect)...
There are a number of extremely large navigation templates for some major conflicts that I think might be better off being restructured into portals and replaced in articles with  links.  The chief ones that come to mind:
*  → Portal:World War I
*  → Portal:World War II
*  → Portal:Cold War
(I'm sure I've missed some here.)  Thoughts?  Would this be a worthwhile thing to do in general?  (And, more specifically, are there any people that would be willing to help out with maintaining any of these portals if they were to be created?) Kirill Lokshin 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea - I brought this up on the talk page of the WWI article but have not yet had any response. I'd be more than happy to help out by maintaining such a portal, but someone else is going to have to lay the groundwork, as I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start. Carom 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The groundwork isn't too difficult; I could probably put it together in a few hours.  The main thing will be having people to keep the article/picture/whatever queues updated after that. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as someone will explain what to do (slowly and in simple terms), I'm sure I can manage to keep the WWI portal updated...Carom 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to help out the possible WWI and WWII portals, I have a ok base with portals from Mil of Australia portal. Hossen27 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go ahead and begin the World War II portal hope nobody minded. Hossen27 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's off to a good start.  You can probably drop in the contents of  as a decent start for the list of topics; that should save quite a bit of time. Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but it can take days to get ahead theres a lot to do. The intro needs to be done properly, i just stole it from the WWII article to save time. The colours of the portal will also need more attention eventually. Also i was thinking about having a set daily selected battle, one for each day of the year, should this be done or just randomised like the article and equipment. Hossen27 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also created the basic framework for Portal:World War I; if someone wants to take a stab at creating some of the selected article/picture blurbs, you can just copy the formatting used on existing portals (e.g. Portal:War, Portal:World War II, Portal:Italian Wars) to fill out the subpages.  Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting large templates to portals 

message: For those of you who havn't noticed, there has been an explosion of activity around Roman Military topics - mostly due to the energy of PocklingtonDan. See Military of ancient Rome. Given the large central template and heirarchical structure of the articles, does this not also look like a Wikipedia:Portal? Comments, suggestions? Should this be moved to a portal? - Vedexent (talk) - 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a good topic for a portal, I think, if someone can be found to maintain it. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the burst of activity that PocklingtonDan has put into the current linked set of revision pages, maybe we can con him into the job - although I'd be willing to help :) Would that be a sub-portal of the war portal then? The history portal? Both? - Vedexent (talk) - 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a portal, really; the whole idea of "sub-portals" is only conceptual, and doesn't have any effect on actual page construction.  (I'd place it at Portal:Military of ancient Rome, incidentally, to match the article titles.) Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense. I'd create it now, except that given the amount of work and enthusiasm that PocklingtonDan has put into updating the Roman military articles, I'd at least like to give him an chance to log some input :) I know Wikipedia is about being bold, but it just seems rude to redo all someone's work while they're asleep ;) - Vedexent (talk) - 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Military Portal? 

message: As per the discussion above, Portal:Military of ancient Rome has been created. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Portal 

message: I added the military conflict infoboxs to Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance, but I would apreciate an extra set of eyes to look things over and ensure I got everything right. Also, both of the articles need to be assessed. Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, but I'm not an expert on these topics by any means. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check Please...

message: Would any members of this project be able to help me get this up to WP:GA or WP:FA standards?? I'd appreciate the help if at all possible. --SunStar Net 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this topic so important it needs an article of its own or can it be integrated into other articles about civilian measures during wartime. I doubt the city lights had that great effect on submarine warfare, while it was very important against aerial attacks. Do you have any sources? Wandalstouring 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could probobly be integrated into a large complete article on civillian messure of defence in war. The mention of U-boats in WWII using Coastal Light as guides and ship spotting I'dd heard and read before. Particularly in a documentary called U-Boats, it was remarqued in Operation Drumbeat--Dryzen 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blackout (wartime)]] 

message: Symbol shows left hand. Surely should be right hand? - Kittybrewster 23:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  The symbol per se appears in both varieties, no?  I have no idea which one is correct for the divisional insignia, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ulster seems to be right hand per off-wiki sources. I have changed it but the background is no longer transparent. Is there a graphics expert out there? - Kittybrewster 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: left hand - right hand -switches are quite common for reproduced material. (On reproductions of Medieval images it can often happen that one sees a fight between all lefthanded armies, etc.) Wandalstouring 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British 36th (Ulster) Division]] and [[Red Hand of Ulster]]

message: User:Asams10 removed the list of fictional appearances of the Walther P38, and when I asked him about it, he removed my question without comment. I think this WikiProject's consensus is that fictional appearances of firearms should not be mentioned. I then removed the fictional appearances of the Walther PPK, and Asams10, somewhat ironically, put them back in. I asked Asams10 about it again, and he again removed my question without comment. I am unclear what fictional appearances must be removed on sight, and which must be put back if removed. Based on my experience, these look like totally opposite actions. This wouldn't be such a huge problem if Asams10 would explain his actions. But his summarily removal of my questions is annoying. JIP | Talk 06:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not explaining actions is a bad habit. The cultural reference agreement is about removal of trivia, while significant appearances can stay. In these cases the use of only this specific design of a weapon has to make a difference. For example Heckler & Koch G11, both trivia cases want to show a futuristic gun and take one of the most advanced (not yet very functional) designs. Wandalstouring 10:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not responding to questions is a bad thing.  As far as which appearances warrant inclusion, Wandalstouring is correct; trivial ones should get taken out, while signifcant ones (and we've purposely avoided giving an exact definition of "significant", to let editors of particular articles make that decision) can stay. Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with above. This "fictional appearances" thing is no small problem. As you can see from the prelim cat structure at Military Science (now much improved but intentionally not yet corrected on tf page display), there's lots of this "fictional spies" and "fictional espionage" there too. I wonder if there's a guideline or if we might consider adding one, after all, fiction has a big following here on the eng.pedia, and we may want a strategy in place when things creep in. BusterD 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I cannot explain everything immediately.  You put the question under my talk page rather than the P38 talk page or here. That prevents people like the above from editing or being privy to the conversation. I was neither sniping nor was I trying to be rude.  I was making the edits and then coming back later when I had time to explain my actions.  If you took it a different way and were upset, I apologize for my tardiness.--Asams10 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general point, if you feel that a question should be discussed on the talk page of an article rather than yours, you're expected to copy it there rather than simply deleting it outright.  Doing otherwise is generally considered quite rude, as it suggests that you don't intend to respond. Kirill Lokshin 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Asams10, whilst I appreciate your dedication and enthusiasm, it's not really the done thing to go around arbitrarily deleting chunks of articles without reference to the editors of the article. Put something on the article's talk page and get some discussion going, before wading in with the delete key and a mis-interpreted "consensus". --Commander Zulu 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General media trivia creep in weapons articles, especially, is a major issue; if it is not controlled, then WP (in the case of the weapons articles and Military History articles) will become just a giant trivia list, listing spottings in movies of particular items, contrary to accepted WP policy.  Consensus needs to be widely available to prevent trivia creep in weapons and Military History articles from overwhelming the factual encyclopedia content of WP with lists of trivia.  Yaf 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with that for a moment, I'm just saying that the first course of action shouldn't be to simply highlight the entire section and delete it- especially if there's content in there that could be trimmed down or re-written, for example. --Commander Zulu 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of fictional appearances of firearms 

message: The editors here might be interested in several new userboxes devoted to the glories of the U.S. military's finest culinary achievement, the MRE:
*   (Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and lived to tell the tale.) Code: 
*  (Caption reads: This user has eaten MREs and earned a Purple Heart as a consequence.) Code: 
*  (Caption reads: This user will dine on MREs as soon as they offer varieties such as "Foie gras de canard aux truffes".) Code: 
*  (Caption reads: This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.) Code: 
:Wavy gravy. BusterD 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :o)--Dryzen 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can eat worse.Wandalstouring 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRE-related Userboxes 

message: I added some 18th century material to Cannon and help is needed.  Some of the implements were not labeled well and I'm not sure I properly identified some.  Text needs polishing, particularly some obscure phrasing.  (SEWilco 06:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannon needs work 

message: Hi, the :Category:German military personnel stubs seem to be only related to the Bundeswehr, not the WWII organizations. Is this so? Should nazi officier stubs be in :Category:Nazi Germany stubs only? If this is true, the former category page (if not the template itself) should clearly state this. Wipe 18:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the intent of WP:WSS with that stub type was; but :Category:German military personnel includes WWII figures. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also :Category:German World War II stubs, which, while not solely devoted to the military, is probably the lowest level stub category for Germany military stubs from that era. Carom 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I took this question to the WP:WSS: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Nazi stubs. Wipe 23:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi stubs 

message: :Hello. I just created the stub Ivan Mihailovich Sidorenko, but I don't know what kind of stub it is. Since I think it falls under this category, I'm asking this here. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed fall under Military History, with particulars to Russian and Soviet military history task force. Looksl iek Buckshot06 already took care of things--Dryzen 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Who else here would support bringing NZ into a Task Force through renaming and expanding the scope of the Australian Task Force?
Buckshot06 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has comments, please make them here, to avoid splitting up the discussion.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any support for an ANZAC Task Force?

message: If anyone has some free time, the A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh could use some more editors commenting!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you simplify things and create a bot who writes this message every time a new A-class review appears? Besides if we constantly have these reminders despite the existence of the alarming red header, it would be an argument for complete removal of this whole section from the talk page and move on the project page for example. Wandalstouring 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page actually gets more attention than the main project page, in my experience; and these messages aren't so frequent that a bot would be worthwhile—I can certainly handle putting them up once or twice a week. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Khe Sanh]] needs attention 

message: Hi folks,
A working group for military history has recently been formed in WikiProject Korea.   Just thought I'd mention it in case there are any participants here who might care to join, or have some useful advice.  Cheers, -- Visviva 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Milhist. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean military history 

message: Anyone know if Italian military photos, such as official Air Force photos or Army, are public or fair use?--James Bond 11:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Search the website of the Italian ministry of defence and ask them. Wandalstouring 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian military photographs 

message: Someone refresh my memory - what's the convention for tagging political appointees who, although not members of the military, and not involved in commanding troops, contributed significantly to a conflict? I'm thinking specifically about Speer and whether or not he should be tagged by us. Carom 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic principle in such cases is to tag an article if there's significant military history content that needs to be in it, and to not tag it otherwise.  In Speer's case, I think his work as the head of armaments production qualifies him to be tagged. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Carom 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Albert Speer]] 

message: User:Cerejota has made a speedy move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) with no consultation whatsoever! How do we go about reversing this situation, which, despite being in order to adhere to WP policy, breaks any number of other policies in doing so. I have asked the user concerned to join the debate here. Please voice your opinions and support! Emoscopes
:Pfft forget debate. Something like that requires a cyber slap-upside-the-head for that dude and an immediate revert. It's already been taken care of I see.UberCryxic 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the move might have been silly (and needed to be reverted), but there is an underlying concern about ethnocentricity that needs to addressed. Personally, I think the article is fine where it is, but there should be some kind of disambiguation, as Royal Navy is a fairly common usage. Carom 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your help is needed

message: A user has mover The Parachute Regiment to The Parachute Regiment (British Army). I think, if my understanding of the naming conventions is correct, it should instead be at The Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom), and the unit from the Indian Army (which necessitates the disambiguation) should be at The Parachute Regiment (India). Am I correct? (Normally I would just be bold and move it, but I want to make sure that I'm on the right page as regard the recently updated guideline). Carom 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought the only reason to include "Army" in the disambiguation, too, would be if it was unclear what serice component the unit belonged to.  But in this case, parachute regiments are army by nature, yes?  The editor is very new, like from today actually, so he may not be privy to this whole discussion.  I would inform him and see if he'll be amiable to changing it per the consensus here. --ScreaminEagle 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that looks right; the only reason to use the service name would be if the UK had another "Parachute Regiment". Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, its fine if you want to move it to The Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) rather than The Parachute Regiment (British Army). The only reason I had the British Army listed was that there is another Parachute Regiment in the Indian Army and when I searched for the The Parachute Regiment I got directed to the British Army unit directly. Whatever you want to do with the page after that I am fine with it.--Rakeshsharma 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Shimgray | talk | 15:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Parachute Regiment]]