Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 40

message: Since people seem content with the proposed guidelines (or at least aren't actively complaining!), we may be ready to actually get to the practical part of this: renaming categories.  The following is a (tentative and extremely incomplete) list of changes that would need to be made to conform with the new naming guidelines; additions would be extremely welcome, as would any other comments or suggestions! Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone wishing to comment? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could probably move forward with this - I'll start adding tags tomorrow, provided no-one has any objections. Carom 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Presumably we'll want to do an umbrella nomination on CFD, to avoid having a few dozen separate discussions? Kirill Lokshin 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's probably the best idea. Carom 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft renaming list 

message: The above renaming has been formally listed on CFD here (although much of the tagging still needs to be done); comments from all project members would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, the stub category should be tagged and listed at WP:SFD, the process page, rather than WP:WSS/P, which is (just) a wikiproject subpage.  But any any rate you should should certainly tag it with something, whether with  as part of the mass-nom, or with , to list at SFD.  (Given the theoretical possibility of someone noticing it there, but not being aware of the discussion either here or at WSS.  But at any rate, this makes sense to me:  when I was shoving some members from the permcats into the stub category, it did strike me some of the candidates were a little hefty to be described as "units".  It might be worthwhile creating an additional  template feeding into the same category, for the sake of clarity in such cases.  In theory we might even consider splitting the 'units' and the 'formations' up, though I'd imagine that by country or by era would be more useful, or even by more specific levels of hierarchy.  Alai 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination made 

message: Update: the nomination was successful, so the categories are being renamed now.  There's still a great deal of work remaining both in terms of renaming categories (both the ones that were listed, as well as any we missed, which can now use ) and in arranging the proper nesting and creating the various intermediate categories that are needed to flesh out the tree in some places.  There are also a few manual sorting jobs remaining; :Category:Military units by type and :Category:Military unit types need to be split among :Category:Military units and formations by type and :Category:Military units and formations by size, as appropriate.  Assistance with any of these things would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Category:Military units by type is sorted & empty (except for one empty sub-category)  --  MCG 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapping up 

message: Please come participate on Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, where a survey is being conducted on moving the article to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). It would be very good to get some opinions from people not normally involved in the article, but with some military history background. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Imjin War? Why is it so important to have exactly one of the many names used for this war? If you really can't agree, simply write identical articles for each of the possible names. Afterwards search a solution to save wikipedia some memory. Wandalstouring 21:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I should note that I don't really care where it's at as long as all the proper redirects are in place for any other common names. There are, however, several editors there who want it one way or another, and are very adamant about it. That's why I requested more people to come give an opinion either way. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my opinion on the discussion page, but isn't this issue reappearing more frequent than Nessie? Wandalstouring 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, much to the annoyance of many. I think this particular article has changed names 3-4 times this year alone. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hideyoshi invasion article appears to me to be under heavy watch by a group of POV-pushers that I've encountered in other articles on Wikipedia.  In my experience, that particular group can be very intransigent, stubborn, and difficult to deal with.  How about "Hideyoshi's Imjin invasion war?"  But, of course, then that group would probably argue that word Imjin should come before Hideyoshi in the title. Cla68 07:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a small group each on both the Japanese and Korean side that refuse to compromise (or at least take a whole lot of wheedling and cajoling to admit that they might not always be correct). This is the first place I've been accused of being Korean and Japanese by the opposite side. It's really bizarre how some of them can not seem to figure out how to play nicely together and learn how to come to a compromise that's acceptable and fair (or at least balanced). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am German and have no Japanese or Korean ancestry I know of. I have a Sony and a Samsung monitor of the same size. Maybe I'm neutral. Just keep it at Hideyoshi and link to it from the other names. Wandalstouring 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming survey

message: I've been kicking around a few ideas of late, and one of them that I think has some potential involves setting up a medium-term goal of getting the articles on the major service rifles and pistols of each nation involved in WWII up to FA level. I'm going to try and start adding cites to the Lee-Enfield article, but it's going to be a long process... Anyway, I was thinking a concerted effort to try and lift the level of the major WWII firearm articles might be an interesting project, if anyone's interested. --Commander Zulu 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Cunning Plan

message: A spurious exercise, to say the least. Delete? Albrecht 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete - a military defeat is by default also a military victory; this category inately defies the NPOV policy. Grimhelm 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's necessary. Nominate it at CfD. Carom 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, get rid of it; if it's allowed to stay, it'll soon have a few thousand battles lumped into it, making it useless in any case. Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it over at CfD - feel free to make comments over there. Carom 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It still exists. Ðiện Biên Phủ for example was an outstanding victory of the Việt Minh under the command of general Giap (and with the friendly support of military advisors from China, showing them how to operate modern weapons with low tech communication methods, etc.). Delete this, it is very  centered on the western nations perspective. We could make a list of significant battles or outstanding battles etc. Wandalstouring 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Military defeats]] 

message: Hello, I'm new to the project (since 9 October 2006). I saw the Byzantine-Arab Wars article under "Expansion Needed" in the Project Page, so I recently expanded it so that its no longer a stub; however, in the process I realised we also needed a First Arab Siege of Constantinople, so I gave a good start to that but I feel it needs more expansion. Thanks for the help! Grimhelm 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Wandalstouring 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice start, a very nice start - go ahead and expand it, it does need expansion.  old windy bear 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Byzantine-Arab Wars]] & [[Siege of Constantinople (674)|First Arab Siege of Constantinople]] 

message: A proposal has been made at the Weaponry task force to change the recommended notation for firearm calibers from "7.62 x 54 mm" to "7.62x54mm"; comments from all project members would be very welcome (and should be made on the task force page).  Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for firearm caliber notation/naming convention 

message: Apparently there's been a change of the rules regarding copyrights for Soviet-era pics, and that they may now all be under copyright! Needless to say, this is A Very Bad Thing for Wikipedia if it's true.  Apparently :Template:PD-Russia applies to WWII era works (ie, they're still public domain), but even so, we're at risk of losing a huge number of photos unless they all get tagged appropriately. --Commander Zulu 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have to be retagged within the week. I will not develop on the speed and thetotal lack of consensus to mark them as no sources, but the rules is roughly the following: For works published before 1954, apply , else they're fair use. And everything that is under article 8 of Russian copyright law (orders, medals, coats of arms and so on) are exempted from copyright and should be tagged with  -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII Era Soviet images now under copyright?

message: Can someone take a look at Pathfinder Platoon, despite attempts at discussion and notification of issues it's turned into a vanity article by a (probably) former member turning it into a we are great and so leet even the leet think we are leet type thing.  He's also now removed a couple of the tags.ALR 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some rewording could reduce these issues. Wandalstouring 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair there have been huge changes since I posted this request, there is a lot less interpersonal stuff, and the language has been tightened up a lotALR 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pathfinder Platoon]] 

message: If any one has any free time can someone please copy-edit the Cretan War. Thanks. Kyriakos 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone needs to take the time to name the <ref> tags to cut a list with 5 references from having 50 entries :) Emoscopes Talk 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger. I didn't see it at first glance. Wandalstouring 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't ready it since the last time it was presented at the assessment, yet there had been a signifigant portion of the opposition dedicated towards the tone of the text.--Dryzen 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-edit

message: A new WikiProject has been started, and may be of interest to members here. It is WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It covers all listings on the Register, in all states and territories. Since there are a number of military sites, structures, vessels and such on the Register, there is already potential overlap, so both projects could benefit. An example would be the List of Registered Historic Places in Florida. Should you be so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties. Thank you all for your time.
-Ebyabe 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are American? Is there a wikiproject about historic places worldwide? Wandalstouring 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a world-wide org-- the National Register is a an American federally funded program that determines historic places in the US and protects them with regulations. I know England has a similar one, I think it's called the National Trust? Can't remember, been awhile since I was involved in all that (oddly it's what I got my Master's in) --plange 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make it clear what you are talking about. There are people from many nations here.  So you want a "Register of Historic Places of the US". Wandalstouring 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a project that deals with the specific topic of the National Register of Historic Places; the name is a function of that term, not a stand-in for historic places in general. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? The US National Register of Historic Places or the Outer Mongolian National Register of Historic Places? ;-) Jakew 17:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the lack of a disambiguation page for it, I'd assume that the US list is the only one to use that particular name.  (It could very well be that there are others for which we don't have articles yet, though; this isn't really a topic in which I have any expertise.) Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to new WikiProject 

message: I think these categories are of very limited use and should disappear or be turned into something useful.
Ancient Roman enemies
Enemies of Rome who committed suicide Wandalstouring 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick helpful note, if you link a category linke this :Category:Ancient Roman enemies, then it appears like this :Category:Ancient Roman enemies. That's my good deed done for the day :) Emoscopes Talk 16:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Wandalstouring 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Category:Enemies of Rome who committed suicide is useless. :Category:Ancient Roman enemies copuld be put to better use, perhaps indicating the states and tribes Rome battled at one time or another? But, if it is to keep its current for, gone with it also is my cast.--Dryzen 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what for 

message: On the basis of some comments at the stub-type proposal page, I'm minded to CFR  and , to "personnel", and "enlisted personnel" respectively.  (In the first case, on the same basis as similar renamings of per-county "military people" type, and in the second, to clarify the scope, as that usage of soldier is not universal.)  Thoughts?  Alai 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one makes sense just as an application of the existing name pattern.  The second one is somewhat more complex, as we haven't really figured out how to deal with the various "soldier" categories in general; I expect that we'll return to a general cleanup of all military personnel categories (which has been in the works for quite some time now) once the unit category renames are wrapped up. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there's a proposal for a stub category with the same scope, and that you objected to the use of "soldier" in that case, a resolution sooner rather than later would be desirable, one way or the other.  Personnally I'm pretty easy as to which...  Alai 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't particularly care what the category is named at this point; I'm just pointing out that any new name may wind up being quite temporary, depending on what the final structure is. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted.  Anyone else able to generate an opinion about what they care about at present, or imagine they'll care about in the foreseeable future?  The stub type is the easier to correct, so if the apathy is all-pervading, I'll go with following the current permcat for that (which is where we came in).  Alai 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no distinction to be made within the personnel (both sodlier and military people in this category). That was my position on the earlier draft if I remember correctly.--Dryzen 18:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible category renames 

message: Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Hbdragon88 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson]] 

message: Talk:Caspian expeditions of the Rus needs some attention. We have a nice edit war there and in this case more eyes and minds would be helpful. Wandalstouring 18:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really an edit war per se—the editing itself seems to be pretty cooperative—but more eyes there would probably be helpful in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Caspian expeditions of the Rus]] 

message: A thought: it's become somewhat more common for people to link directly to task forces without any comment related to military history; in most cases, this isn't an issue, but for a few of the older ones, the names give no indication that there's anything military about them.  I'm thus wondering if it might not be a good idea to change their names to the forms used by the more recent ones:
* "Ancient Near East" → "Ancient Near Eastern warfare"
* "Memorials and cemeteries" → "Military memorials and cemeteries"
* "Middle Ages" → "Medieval warfare"
Comments?  Is this something worth doing, or am I just being overly pedantic? Kirill Lokshin 04:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea. It would show that the task forces are under our particular umbrella, rather than having anons and newbies guess at whose running the show. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Wandalstouring 09:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normalisation is generally always good, so I se no problem with this.--Dryzen 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a standard naming scheme ("MILHIST Ancient Near East", etc) would help indicate the relationship to the wider project? Jakew 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be unnecessarily complicated, since most of the names already include either "military history" or "warfare". Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to have set general guideline in wich  [Faction] Military History and [Perdiode/area] Warfare are the precedent. I think it good as it is, rather than MILHIST + [guide line] or MILHIST [Faction, Periode or Area]. --Dryzen 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've renamed the pages.  I think I've caught all the places where the names needed to be changed, but please let me know if I've missed anything!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming task forces? 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to know, even more interesting to note that there are several Projects that fall within the Mil-Hist scope out there, such as: Hellenic Army, Vikings, War of the Pacific,  Victoria Cross Reference Migration,  Falklands War,  Arab-Isreali Conflict, Australian Defence Force.--Dryzen 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah i wasnt aware of all of them, just ADF and VC. I think there is a chance to merge some into our project especially the VC which could be merged with the Military memorials and cemeteries taskforce, and Australian Defence Force into Australian task force. Merging the ADF project and the Aussie taskforce was brought up when the Aussie taskforce was first created and was not well taken. The main opposition has lef the project out of protest and most of the ADF members are part of the taskforce. thoughts Hossen27 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, those are probably good merger possibilities (although the VC one might make more sense in the British task force, perhaps?).  The War of the Pacific and Falklands War ones could presumably be merged into some manner of Latin America task force, if/when we get that off the ground.  Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these are innactive or single participant groups (VC), merging shouldn't be a problem. I'd put the VC in Military memorials and cemeteries taskforce, as it is foremost a registry of medal holders and medal certification.--Dryzen 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave alone some of these groups in case they are not cooperative. Wandalstouring 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the ADF and A-IC are not innactive or marked as such. These are the groups we can cooperate with and extend our thoughts on merger, but the innactive ones are probobly not going to cooperate due to innactivity.--Dryzen 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even inactive ones will often have somebody watching them, so it's always polite to ask (even if we get no response). Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's any harm in asking if a merge would be acceptable. As Kirill points out, it would be polite, and if they say "no thank you," we haven't really lost anything. Carom 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as we work with War, we are rather polite and diplomatic people. That is the best way. Yet, I do beleive that most will not be saying anything at all.--Dryzen 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory