Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 53

message: The discussion on who were the major allied powers of WWII has maintained its deadlock. However, the argumentation is rather France focused (assessing whether or not it was a major ally) instead of defining what were major participants in the conflict (Italy is as questionable as France). Like most deadlocks people have their opinions and are immune against arguments. To solve this issue, please read the discussion and express your opinion in the vote. Wandalstouring 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lafayette, me voici! Albrecht 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, a vote has been called, though I have initiated a second one after some irregularities in the first.  Oberiko 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imense! I voted on the new poll and will start from there.--Dryzen 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to solve deadlock 

message: Très amusant, n'est ce pas? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I've always wondered why this project wasn't personified by a Japanese schoolgirl... ; ) Carom 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be afraid, be very afraid... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Now I know you have too much time on your hands...Carom 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is one of the very few females in our group, treat her with respect. Wandalstouring 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: SWEET! When did this appear, and who made it? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, and the artist is the one and only User:Kasuga --Valentinian T / C 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good night nurse, what is that? --ScreaminEagle 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is Wikipe-tan who is an Moe anthropomorphism, or a personification and in this case of us. I think we are dead fit. Excuse me thats very confusing, i think i'll have a cup of tea and go back to British military history. Hypnosadist 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I love this to pieces! Hypnosadist 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compiled the stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach#Wikipe-tan, incidentally. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if this qualifies as pin-up girl artwork? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, because it is a naval uniform. This would make her the quivalent of a Commodore in most of the world's Navy's, or a Rear Admiral (Lower Half) in the United States Navy. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, those things on her shoulder flaps are puzzle pieces. ;-) --129.241.126.121 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does she qualify as a member of the Japanese task force? LordAmeth 10:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for her as Virtual Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Maritime Warfare Task Force!! Buckshot06 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-tan 

message: I'm just puffing some steam out here... People, be very careful when you add number of troops participating in a certain battle or a war, as it has turned out that many sources use different methods for counting troop strengths, generally minimizing own troop strength and maximizing enemy's. A common method is using divisional strength for one and all military strength to another. At WWII timeframe this gives a difference of factor 2.
A similar, although not as common, feature is to use word "casualty" in relaxed way. Sometimes it means only KIA, but sometimes in consists all KIA, WIA and MIA together. --Whiskey 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and the same applies for casualty figures which can sometimes be rather odd. It's probably not a bad idea to cite this kind of information. --Nick Dowling 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep; WP:MILHIST#CITE includes numerical data as one of the things that needs to be cited. Kirill Lokshin 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Numbers are usually even less reliable for ancient and medieval warfare. I'd suggest people read Delbrück (for an intro to issues and mothods, but not to regard his figures as final either) and possibly Engels (Donald) or Roth on logistics. Jacob Haller 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Troop figures are the main reason why I keep away from military history and why I hated working on Siege of Vienna (if you read the notes there you will sense an editor going quietly mad). qp10qp 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of number of troops 

message: An article members might want to patrol for a while - Global Guardian. Someone keeps slapping a merge template onto it, wanting to merge it into an article about military exercises on 9/11/2001. However, as an annual major exercise, it deserves its own article. A 9/11 mention in the artcle - no problem. A mention in the propsed merge artcle about Global Guardian, no problem. But I think a seperate article needs to be maintained on the exercise itself.--Nobunaga24 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads Up 

message: If anyone has a suggestion for where to find a map of Babylonian conquests under Hammurabi, I'd very much appreciate a note on my talk page. This is, by the way, an excellent wikiproject. You all are doing great work. Mocko13 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that there's any good source for something like this; given the scarcity of information, most maps of the period tend to look something like blobs ("Sargon's Empire was somewhere around here...").  Van De Mieroop's History of the Ancient Near East has a map of the general situation early in the second millenium (but it's blob-like, and doesn't indicate anything specific to Hammurabi). Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (German)Putzger Historischer Weltatlas page 4 () has a map of Hammurabi's empire at it's biggest extent. You can find out the conquest if you know the size of the territory he started with ;) For more information on maps check our resources. Wandalstouring 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare Mesopotamia c. 1800 BC to Babylon c. 1750 BC to see the consolidation of Babylonia under Hammurabi. He added the territory of the Isin, Eshnunna, Larsa, and souther Amorite nations. Also note the ancient coastline was far further upriver; it has silted up dramatically in the past 4,000–5,000 years. Ur used to be far closer to the Persian Gulf. While these maps are basic starting points, you will likely find more information in a thorough examination of sources. --Petercorless 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another map, showing Babylonian control going as far north as Harran and Nineveh. Your mileage may vary. As I said, read through the sources and compare. --Petercorless 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last one corresponds to the Putzger map I mentioned earlier. Wandalstouring 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thanks for all the help. Will look into the suggestions. - Mocko13 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need map for Hammurabi's conquests 

message: Congrats to those who helped create the article, and my thanks to those who helped review it. --Petercorless 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nagorno-Karabakh War]] reaches FA

message: Okay, trying to boil down the discussion about categorizing battles/campaigns/wars (above) into something practical, I've put together three more-or-less concrete proposals:
1. Change the top-level structure of the military operations categories for each country to be:
:* Military operations involving Foo
:** Wars involving Foo
:** Military campaigns involving Foo
:** Battles involving Foo
:** Non-combat military operations involving Foo
:** Canceled military operations involving Foo
2. Add a two-branch category tree for military campaigns, copying the country & war branches from the category tree for battles:
:* :Category:Military campaigns
:** :Category:Military campaigns by country
:*** Military campaigns of Foo
:** :Category:Military campaigns by war
:*** Campaigns of the Foo War
3. Adopt the following recommendation on classifying conflicts: 
:Definitions:
:* A war is a conflict bounded by periods (however brief) during which the combatants are formally at peace with one another; it generally consists of multiple distinct component operations such as battles or campaigns.
:* A campaign is a coherent series of smaller operations with a defined overall goal; this goal may, however, change over the course of the campaign.
:* A battle is a single, distinct military engagement generally limited to a narrow geographic scope and typically characterized by the opposing forces encountering one another, engaging in some form of combat, and then separating.
:Names:
:* In general, articles should be classified according to what the topic actually is, regardless of the name used.  For example, a series of engagements generally regarded by historians as a campaign should be categorized as one even if it's referred to as the "Battle of X".
:Multiple categorization:
:* Some operations and conflicts may need to be categorized into more than one of the above levels; however, this should generally be done only when it substantially adds to a reader's understanding of the events.  The possible double-categorizations are outlined below:
:** War and campaign: This can occur when a "sub-war" is fought as part of a larger war (for example, the French and Indian War, as part of the Seven Years' War).  A subsidiary conflict is typically a "sub-war" when it includes some participants not involved in the larger conflict; the article can then be categorized as a war involving those participants, but as a campaign involving the participants of the larger conflict.
:** Campaign and battle: This can occur in modern warfare, where a long-term engagement has been treated by historians as either a single battle or a sequence of separate battles (for example, the Battle of Kursk).
:** War and battle: This should generally be avoided, except in the few cases where a war consisted of a single large battle and only a single article covers the conflict.
:* No event that can be classified as all three has been found.
Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. It seems to resolve the problems rather nicely (although I sometimes wonder if we make these problems more complex than they really are). Carom 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Approve - Hey this sounds familiar! --Petercorless 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Peacekeeping operations involving Foo -- should these get a separate article, or would you put them in Non-combat operations? --Petercorless 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put them in Non-combat by country for the most part (aside from the few "peacekeeping" ops that were actual battles and such).  Given that there aren't very many of them, I don't think an entire separate branch would be very useful; a single :Category:Peacekeeping operations (under :Category:Military operations by type) that would collect the ops regardless of country may be a good idea, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Petercorless 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone else?  If nobody has any objections, we can probably implement this in a few days or so. Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, that seems like a reasonable place to put it (although it might be moved down to , if all of the articles themselves would qualify as campaigns). Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign categories and so forth 

message: I think you might like to know that this infobox of yours is being used to describe fictional battles, including outer space dogfights and superhero slapfights. This is an inappropriate usage of a template created to describe non-fiction events per WP:WAF, and I thought you should know. By the way, nice WikiProject; you have really set an example to follow here. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like those infoboxes really help pages like Battle of Yavin.  It's a good way to concisely summarize the battle. - Peregrine Fisher 09:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a standard argumentum ad defactum (Just made that up, golly!): possessives, slapstick and remember never to end with "[..] thought you should know" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you were trying to get across. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these articles make it clear that this is fictional material. If a number of editors feel confused by the use of the same infobox for fiction and real conflicts, we might be able to change the background color for fictional infoboxes(needing someone who carries out all the changes). Wandalstouring 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This doesn't seem to be a real problem - it improves the articles in question, and I doubt that it's generating any kind of confusion about the fictonal nature of the battles. Carom 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't really see the issue here; the template is suited for describing any kind of battle.  If your concern is that fictional events shouldn't be using infoboxes, that's not our problem; take it up with the projects that cover fiction! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox Military Conflict}} 

message: I've added functionality to  to allow the sections of the template to collapse; none of them do so by default, but it would be possible to change that if anyone feels strongly about it.  Comments would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a button to collapse them all at once? Wandalstouring 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so; each sub-table is separate, and there's no real way to get them all to do the same thing. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice.--Dryzen 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible sections in navigation bar 

message: I am working (albeit slowly) on overhauling the Iowa class battleship article, and have found this outstanding source gun measurements and history, but I have hit a roadblock and need help some help with an abreviation. The section below deals with the 16in guns from the class, and is quoted from navweapons.com:
When first introduced into service during World War II, the barrel life was 290 ESR, the lower of the two values given above.  At that time, Nitrated-Cellulose (NC) was the standard propellant.  HC rounds at 2,690 fps (820 mps) were 0.43 ESR and at 1,900 fps (579 mps) were 0.03 ESR.  The Target rounds at 1,800 fps (549 mps) were 0.08 ESR.  Following World War II, Smokeless Powder Diphenylamine (SPD), a cooler-burning propellant, was adopted in order to prolong barrel life to about the second value given above.  In the 1967 and 1980s deployments, the use of "Swedish Additive" (titanium dioxide and wax) greatly reduced barrel wear.  It has been estimated that four AP shells fired using this additive approximated the wear of a single AP shell fired without the additive (0.26 ESR) and that HC rounds fired with the additive caused even less wear (0.11 ESR).  Later developments during the 1980s deployment led to putting a polyurethane jacket over the powder bags, which reduced the wear still further.  This jacket is simply a sheet of foam with a fabric border around the ends that is tied to the powder bag.  When the jacket burns during firing, a protective layer forms over the surface of the liner which greatly reduces gaseous erosion.  This wear reduction program was so successful that liner life can no longer be rated in terms of ESR, as it is no longer the limiting factor.  Instead, the liner life is now rated in terms of Fatigue Equivalent Rounds (FER), which is the mechanical fatigue life expressed in terms of the number of mechanical cycles.  The 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 is now rated at having a liner life of 1,500 FER.
In the paragraph the author deciphers FER into Fatigue Equivalent Rounds, but does not unabreviate ESR. Anyone have any ideas what that could mean? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It stands for "Equivalent Service Rounds." Carom 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Carom 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help for the Abreviatedly Challenged

message: The third project coordinator elections have now concluded.  Seven coordinators have been selected to serve for the next six months:
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to all the candidates who put themselves forward for this responsibility! Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator election results 

message: Can someone tell me what 1100 km translates to in miles? (Math never was my strong point) :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Google, 1100 kilometers = 683.508311 mile --Kusunose 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah. Thank you for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always keep a site like Online Conversions in your bag of tricks. --Petercorless 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crunching the Numbers 

message: I have found while reading about the Napoleonic wars that there are two articles that seem to be describing the same war. I have added a merge tag. The two articles are the following: Neapolitan War and Austro-Neapolitan War. They seem to be describing the short-lived conflict that took place between the Kingdom of Naples and Austria in 1815. In the Neapolitan War article it also states that there was another Neapolitan War in 1494-1495 when the French king Charles VIII captured Naples. If someone could have a look at these two articles, I think there is a bit of confusion. Thanks. --Francisco Valverde 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1494 one is definitely the First Italian War. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge proposal is an interesting one.  My books have let me down I'm afraid, in none of them can I find any reference to the 1815 war between Austria and Naples.  Neither of the articles give any references either, which doesn't help!  The Austro-Neapolitan War article is apallingly written and very unclear.  I can't make out whether it is referring to the 1821 Neapolitan Insurrection or the 1815 "war" which the Neapolitan War article discusses with much more clarity and eloquence.  If we can work out which one the A-N War article is referring to and it is describing the same event as the Neapolitan War article, then they should be merged.  As for the title of the merged article, that depends too!  If they are the same, then I would suggest that Austro-Neapolitan War is best since it is less vague than Neapolitan War.  Whether one side marching practically unopposed into a city-state can be called a war at all would be a consideration, but probably one outside the scope of our discussion here. Chrisfow 11:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles, one war 

message: Since this is a featured article I think this needs attention. An annon IP has added a large section giving "An Alternative View" of the battle. I don't know enough as to whether there is any serious historical debated about the battle to justify this section, and in any case there are serious NOPV issues and a lack of sources cited in this section. Help! Tomgreeny 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Gregory Daly Cannae (The experience of battle in the second Punic War) here and can find no mention of any alternative views. What is is discussed are such details like numbers of dead and POW (disputing the traditional view that so many Romans were really killed, more like 45k dead 'only'), discussing the equipment and tactics of the African troops (urging that they did not attack in a fashion similar to the Macedonian phalanx, but rather a mixture of Phoenician/Iberian/Roman influences made them swordfighters, probably charging like the Romans) and what role the javelins and slingshots played in the killing (citing different sources with differing views on the effectiveness and pointing out influences like dust and reduced sight that helped a massive bombardement of these missiles to cause casualties) Wandalstouring 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that theory (also citing Livy, though stating that information is inconclusive) before, though it was not in a history book but in the design/historical notes for a wargame (Richard Berg's SPQR (GMT Games)). The analysis was rather good (certainly better then the annon's addition) but I'm not sure how much weight such a non scientific source has. In any case Berg (assuming he wrote that analysis and not an editor or co-designer) comes to the conclusion that the traditional view is more probable.--Caranorn 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aforementioned book reflects the current research on the topic. Wandalstouring 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Cannae]] --"An Alternative View" section

message: Please help save a campaignbox from deletion. Please read my Strong Keep vote first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Campaignbox_Jemaah_Islamiyah --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh.  Aside, even, from the issue that it's not a military-related campaignbox, really, which makes it sort of tangential to this project, please don't make appeals in such a form; if you want to invite comments, great, but asking for votes for a particular side is generally looked on rather dimly by the community. Kirill Lokshin 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox for deletion 

message: The Castle article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive by Dweller. As the main article for the related Castles WikiProject, and a key article for this project, I would encourage people to get involved.  --Grimhelm 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to revive this topic, the article will fail the nomination today if we don't get another three votes - please contribute!  --Grimhelm 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to thank User:Catalan for that last vote. I'll be logging off shortly, and there are only two more votes needed before midnight!  --Grimhelm 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ACID#Castle]] 

message: I recently updated the following articles. I'd welcome the participation of others:
* World War II: Sub-Saharan Africa (July 1940 – September 1943)
* West Africa Campaign (World War II)
* Battle of Dakar
* Battle of Gabon
Articles that needs more work:
* African campaigns of World War II
* East African Campaign (World War II)
--Petercorless 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Africa in World War II

message: The A-Class review for Japanese castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Japanese castle]] now open 

message: Richard O'Connor 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 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading through the article and found that an entire section was basically lifted from an online source. It would be great if anyone from the project that has access to the print sources would be able to check the article against those. Gzkn 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard O'Connor FAR

message: hey there what can i do to become a member of this project? i have always been into wars and study about them quite a bit. my personal fav wars are WWII WWI and medevil warfare. im also keeping uptodate on recent war tactics and weapons. Maverick423 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any requirements; just add yourself to the list of members at your discretion. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a good project to "cut your teeth" on. The term enfilade is defined in Wikipedia, but it is lacking citations from books or from web resources. Familiarize with the Wiki citation (WP:CITE) methods, and add a few citation to the article. From that, you will get an idea of what the work generally entails. --Petercorless 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to come in, but now that I see that article, I realise I can provide some sources for that. Will I go ahead or hold off until Maverick423 starts on it (assuming he wants to)?  --Grimhelm 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to dig in! No one "owns" Wikipedia articles, so you are free to edit what you like. It was just an example of an article that could use some work. There are zillions more. --Petercorless 11:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that, but I didn't want to intrude on a newcomer. ;-)  --Grimhelm 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Admission 

message: As part of discussions with WP:SHIPS concerning infobox standardization, I've developed a draft auxiliary infobox, , that can be used with the primary infoboxes for people/ships/units/etc. to give a summary of the subject's military service history.  At right are two examples, for a ship and a person.  Comments would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! However, this might be covered in other infoboxes for ships and military personnel.  Or am I mistaken? --Petercorless 11:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in any of the ship infoboxes; that's the main reason for creating this, in fact.  (Certain parts of it are present in the people/unit infoboxes already; if we adopt the auxiliary box for general use, we could concievably migrate those over to it and remove the fields from the primary infobox, in the long run.) Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. However, i think it be cluttering the top right of the articles especially when using other templates. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ooops. I've just read carefully your last comment. I agree about merging the content w/ the main infobox used in articles. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? I didn't say anything about merging; this would continue to use a primary/auxiliary box layout. (But that's nothing new, as that's how campaignboxes have worked for more than a year now; see, for example, the primary/auxiliary structure on Battle of Edson's Ridge.) Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should merge all boxes into one box per article header only. Into this main box it is possible to integrate different subboxes. Wandalstouring 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. This case makes me remember Einstein's case back on October 2006. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be more of a question of trivia fields in infoboxes, not one of one box/two box approaches, if I'm not mistaken. Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That was the approach attempted with campaignboxes until December 2005. It's not really workable, in the long run; it makes the primary infoboxes themselves more complicated, is difficult to work with when multiple auxiliary boxes are used, and prevents editors from positioning the auxiliary boxes elsewhere in the article. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service record box 

message: A contributor has replaced the old Canadian ensign with the current Canadian flag, which was not used until the 1960s. He has argued his case at Template talk:World War II#Canadian Flag, and I request opinions on the talk page so we can have a consensus on the issue. Folks at 137 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II Template

message: This is a military history article that is currently nominated for deletion. Much work has been done to it recently. Please help work on it to keep it from being deleted. Also it is rated as a Stub. Please change the rating. Shibumi2 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a somewhat more technical Salients, re-entrants and pockets article that would probably be a good merge target here. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Shibumi2, it's generally bad form to point out any vote along with a opinion of which way we should vote on it.  Oberiko 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definit merge, the Salients, re-entrants and pockets article could use a larger Pockets section.--Dryzen 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pockets of resistance]]

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese castle; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Japanese castle]] needs attention 

message: Given that the navigation template has become quite large, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a useful to set some of the sections to default as collapsed rather than expanded.  There are three obvious possibilities, I think:
# Default the "Infoboxes" section to hidden, all others shown.
# Default the "Infoboxes" and "Task forces" sections to hidden, all others shown.  (It would also be possible to have each sub-section of task forces hidden individually, in this scenario.)
# Default the "General information" section to shown, all others hidden.
Would any of these be a good idea (and, if so, which one do people prefer)? Kirill Lokshin 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Set all values at default = collapse Wandalstouring 12:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like so?  Do people like the result? Kirill Lokshin 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works; the task force links especially were getting pretty long. Carom 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation box show/hide defaults 

message: So I'm trying to sort out US Army Groups at this point and I'm running into some problems as I know less about Army Groups than I do about Armies.  I know that all Armies are spelled out, never numbered (First United States Army vs. 1st United States Army), much like Corps use roman numerals, never arabic, etc.  I also know the pattern for naming U.S. Armies is number first, then "United States Army," not mixed up like "U.S. First Army" or whatever.  Given that, I am only assuming the same pattern follows for US Army Groups as well since that would be the most logical thing to do and the Army is somewhat particular about conformity like that.  I also know that FUSAG is a well known acronymn as it stands for First United States Army Group.  Given that, I would assume the rest of the Army Groups would follow that pattern.  However, I see more hits on Google for Twelfth Army Group or US Twelfth Army Group or 12th Army Group or US 12th Army Group, all of which go against the set pattern--I can find hardly any references for the assumed correct name of Twelfth U.S. (United States) Army Group.  I've asked all the "experts" I know about this and they tend to agree with me that logic would dictate it be spelled out how I expected, but none know enough about the Army Groups to confirm it.  Any thoughts?  --ScreaminEagle 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the form used in official dispatches (e.g this one from Montgomery), so I think it's the one we should use.  Google hits are a bad thing to look at in cases where the name is commonly shortened in context, and don't really mean all that much in any case. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember that FUSAG was a dummy deception formation and may not (in my view, doesn't) set the pattern for the others. Buckshot06 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Set the pattern," no.  But if I were making a dummy army group I would certainly want it to be as believable as possible, right down to how it is named based upon US Army naming conventions.  --ScreaminEagle 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Army Groups 

message: A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.
Per requests, myself and  have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.
Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.
*The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
*Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
*Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.
I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingbotk Plugin