Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 38

message: Based on a number of discussions at FAC, I would suggest putting together a short (10–20 items) list of common conventions, issues, and potential pitfalls that military history articles being moved into FAC can be checked against.  Hopefully, this could provide editors with less FAC experience a good checklist to use before they nominate an article (even if they don't avail themselves of our general peer review process).  It might also be helpful for Proposal II (above) as a list of common potential problems to check articles for.  Comments on this idea would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent idea. Having a "have you done these before you try for FAC status" checklist would be very helpful. Adapting this idea for various other "levels" such as A-class status, GA status, etc. would also be helpful - Vedexent 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that this list will be equally useful for the (more advanced) lower levels, since they're distinguished more by their permissiveness as to whether certain requirements are met than by having different requirements per se.  Of course, this might not turn out to be the case; I suppose we should wait to see what kind of list we put together before debating whether secondary lists for other levels would be beneficial. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A most sound proposal.--Dryzen 13:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's time to contact all the 1FA milhist editors and get them working? -- Миборовский 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made sort of a list like that already on my user page.  I definitely could benefit from the experiences of other editors in the FA process. Cla68 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've made a crude attempt at starting a section on the project page.  Additions to the list, as well as general comments and suggestions, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth mentioning the inclusion of maps and diagrams? While an article could still be FAC without these, articles about wars and battles especially benefit from these. - Vedexent 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good point to include, given that I've seen a number of articles objected to on the basis of not having maps.  Maybe a general point on how to illustrate the article would be worthwhile, too. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal III: Featured article advice 

message: There's apparently some sort of mass attempt to shorten the various talk page header banners going on, and  seems to have caught someone's eye.  I've tried to shorten the main blurb enough to satisfy them without losing too much of the meaning or useful links, but I'd appreciate it if someone could look over the new text and comment on whether it's satisfactory.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you only have one verb that people can do by clicking a link, I prefer "participate" to "join us" . . . UnDeadGoat 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I avoided "participate" was because one need not join the project to participate in editing the article and so forth; I wanted to avoid having claims of article ownership leveled against us.  If people think that it's not a concern, though, we could easily change it. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would interpret "participate" as "do stuff through our project" rather than "do stuff with this article"; also, you technically don't need to join to look around, find something to do, etc. UnDeadGoat 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been our icon for a long time, so there's some sentimental value attached; but, more practically, do you have any good ideas that would work at that small size? Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to {{tl|WPMILHIST}} text 

message: We have a confusing situation with respect to two men named William Ward Burrows.
*First, there is the first official Commandant of the Marine Corps, LtCol William W. Burrows.
*We also have his son, Navy Lt. William Burrows, KIA in the war of 1812, for whom 3 Navy ships are named.
Both have the full name William Ward Burrows (AFAIK the son does not take the suffix Jr.), and the full name seems to be the most common for both; the distinction William W. vs. William Burrows seems to be artificial, the full name William Ward Burrows redirects to the son.
If no compelling evidence is offered that either men favored some form of the name William Ward Burrows, I propose we move them to William Ward Burrows (Marine), and William Ward Burrows (sailor), and make William Ward Burrows a disambig page. The latter should be done anyway, but I think the current naming scheme for the articles is awkward and artificial.--Mmx1 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm opposed to making a disambiguation page when there will only be two pages to chose from. I think it's better to pick whichever page is likely to be the most linked to or searched for, and make it the default page. Then put a disambiguation link on the top of the most popular article to the second most popular page. So, if the sailor is the most popular, keep him at "William Ward Burrows" (and all its variants), and name the other article "William Ward Burrows (Marine)". That way fewer than half of links to the Burrows will need to be piped. —Kevin 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's logical, but I was hoping to avoid the issue of which one gets the name; from my perspective I'm more familiar with the Marine father; but I don't see any compelling argument of which one is more popular or linked to. Both appear to be similarly popular within their own communities --Mmx1 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they seem to have the same number articles that link to them. I'd pick the Marine as the default article, because as one of the relatively few Marine Commandants, he's perhaps a bit more high profile. Both of these article have few links and no talk page activity, so it seems unlikely that anyone will be bent out of shape by your choice. —Kevin 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this a showcase and we are likely to have the same problem a 100 times when working over Punic warfare (tons of Hannibals, Hasdrubals, Carthalos, Hamilcars, etc.). Lets make a more simple rule. In case of identical names, the first one appearing with this name gets the default link and the other ones get a link from it. So the father becomes the standard page, because he was born before his son. Wandalstouring 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll mean that we'll be shuffling articles around as ones for earlier people get written, though.  Wouldn't the easier approach be to simply use the base name as a disambiguation page—despite having only two entries, in this case—and give both of them parentheses? Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting dilemma, in the interest of making a "rule" we should go with making disabiguation pages, this way it will clear the way for future problems of an equal nature. --Dryzen 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, well since we've failed to uncover compelling arguments for the status quo, I'm putting in the disambig.--Mmx1 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice requested on William Ward Burrows 

message: I'm wondering if there's a good way to deal with the various gigantic footer templates that are being used for a few wars.  In particular:
* 
* 
* 
* 
These seem to have no real limit to their growth (there seem to be constant edit wars over which links should be added, though) and are inserted into a wide variety of articles.  They are, essentially, gigantic and vague see-also sections; in many cases, the links from the article topic to some of the articles on the template are very tenuous.
Could we perhaps turn these into portals and replace them in articles with the appropriate  link?  Or does anyone have any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems appropriate.  I cannot speak for the Arab-Israel conflict, but the other three are significant enough to have their own sub-portals of Portal:War.   MCG 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also , which has been integrated into Portal:American Civil War but hasn't been replaced with a portal link on the articles yes. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion was made to replace the Cold War template with a portal, but unfortunately people didn't seem enthusiastic.  Nonetheless, the portal was created.  Rather than wholesale conversion of the template to the portal, now the effort is being undertaken to reduce the scope of the template step-by-step, transfering information over to categories, lists and the portal, with the resulat result being hopefully a more manageable template.  First step is to remove persons from the template.  That discussion is underway at Template talk:Cold War.  Skeezix1000 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I suspect that anything short of a total replacement will just leave you to fight the same edit war a few weeks down the road.  Maybe if you were to drastically trim the template—down to 10–20 very general links—and add  directly into it, that might work. Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the edit wars have been over names, but point taken.  The process is underway, and we'll see what happens.  Skeezix1000 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support for WWI and WWII. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant see-also templates 

message: Does anyone know of any problems that would prevent us from replacing this with ?  Or is it okay to just fire up the AWB and convert these? Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no apparent reason to warrant retaining that template (though I could be myopic ;-)). May I suggest, however, adding a label garrison field, for alternatives such as "home stations", "depots", etc. SoLando (Talk) 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, will do. Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, added it as garrison-label=. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|RAF Squadron}} 

message: Ok, you DEFINATELY need to get some people over there. Any brainacs, historians, or military genious who know anything about air strikes? THERE MUST BE!!! Colonel Marksman 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always with the all-caps and exclamation points.  The building isn't burning down, so just be cool.  There is a Military Aviation Task Force somewhere...you might think of putting a note on their talk page directly since they are the mostly likely candidates to contribute to such an article. --ScreaminEagle 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Airstrike]]

message: I've recently been thinking about collaborations, and while the idea is great, I'm wondering about the execution. For example, right now it is Warrior. But as of this posting, only Kirill has done anything with the article. Military tactics, in two weeks, received 3 edits; after collaboration, it had barely any more information than when it started. I think part of the problem might be we vote, one is chosen, but then there is no plan for just how to improve the article. What I'm proposing is this: we vote, one is chosen, then a few days are spent developing a plan of action before anyone touches the page. What do we want to improve? Where is the article weak? Where is it strong? What are some good sources, internet and print? Preferably, the discussion should be on a high visibility page, for instance this one, because judging by the number of voters on the collaboration page, I don't think it would get as much exposure as it would here. I think an assistant coordinator should be assigned to the task of guiding the discussion, making decisions about the focus of the collaboration, etc etc. (and no, I'm not nominating myself or volunteering :-)). I'd be interested in other peoples' opinions on this. --Nobunaga24 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, I think you're definitely right insofar as the collaboration has had extremely variable results.  In some cases, this is probably due to a lack of publicity more than a lack of planning; the editors who might contribute simply aren't aware that a particular article has been chosen.  Ideally, one (or more) assistant coordinator could engage in some publicity work for each selected article, inviting other projects and individual editors who might be able to contribute to do so. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plublicity is dead on, myself have only ventured to that section of our project twice in the last 3 months. The same wsa true with assesment prior to our elections in which the process was refered to a number of times. Since I have been commenting on article on wich I have some knowledge or inclination of interest.--Dryzen 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll agree as well that publicity and prior coordination are key to keeping the Collaoration relevant and active.  This page is probably the best place for it as well.--Looper5920 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now had a go at Warrior, but such a general topic is difficult to build up a coherent view of.  I suspect Military tactics suffered from the same problem.  Perhaps a collaboration on a specific, but important or famous, topic would acheive better results? -- Medains 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations 

message: Could someone please have a look at this article? It looks like a possible copyvio - see its talk page for details.
tia,
TeunSpaans 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sections look a little suspicious (and the information in question was added by an anonymous user with only one edit, which isn't particularly encouraging). Carom 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, some sections look quite suspiciously like a cut and paste from the site linked in the talk page.  Worth tagging as a milhist article of interest due to the strategic importance of the bridge over the rhine?  -- Medains 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Remagen]] 

message: I am worried that The Bridge on the River Kwai has been tagged as part of the Military History project, since the film and book are fictional, with only a brief section on why they are travesties of the truth.  The true story is in Death Railway and Philip Toosey.  JMcC 10:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Bridge on the River Kwai]] 

message: Someone just added Fort Langley National Historic Site to this WikiProject. Does your project really include commercial fur trade forts within its scope? To my knowledge, it was never a military fort. Just checking. -- TheMightyQuill 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Langley National Historic Site 

message: http://www.militaryhistorywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page a site with stubs as content, but in the official wikipedia layout and with several links to other language wikis in some stubs. Unfortunately it does appear in search engines if you run a request on topics like the third servile war. Wandalstouring 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be an (utterly inactive) wiki that somebody started.  (The layout comes from the MediaWiki software rather than Wikipedia per se.)  As far as I can tell, it has absolutely no connection to us. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it gets quite a lot of hits with www.ask.com and it looks so much like wikipedia. Actually our article did not show up. Wandalstouring 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like another clone-Wikipedia site. Found quite a few when looking for Moirae, our own articles comming back over and over on many sites...--Dryzen 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is that? 

message: This article was just created, and I don't know what to make of it (I'm not a military historian). I even googled it but found nothing. Can anyone clarify what country this division was from? Is it article worthy? If anyone can help this article and get it out of a confusing, vague mess, please do so. I don't want this just added to a "wikiproject military history to do list" and ignored; we need to get this article up to even stub quality before anything else is done. =) —EdGl 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The division was Soviet. Whether it is article worthy... I have no idea. Bukvoed 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Division-level units are probably notable by default; this article is in a pretty sorry state, though.  Maybe Grafikm will know something about it. Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same user created a bunch of messy sub-stub articles on WWII-era Soviet divisions within the last 24 hours or so (one of which, the 110th rifle divison, is over at AfD right now). They seem to check out as legitimate, but there is such a paucity of information available that I doubt they will ever be more than stubs. Cleanup is a must, though. Carom 05:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't get much. There was a 100th Guards Airborne Division, but no idea if it's the same thing... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only references I've been able to find are to two generals who commanded the unit in 1944-45, but direct references to 100th guards rifle division seem to be nonexistant. Carom 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you still provide them please? :) Thanks. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - I'll put them in the article. The website www.generals.dk lists Ivan Makarenko (1945) and Vasilii Leshchinin (1944-45) as commanders of the division. Carom 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woot, it's 100th Guards Airborne Division all right, the name and theater matches. There is nice web site on the division in Russian. I'm gonna put this one in my to do for cleanup. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put some info in regarding the commanders, with links to the web page - feel free to clean my edits right out of the article if neccessary. Also, you might want to take a look at some of the other articles created by the same user - they all need cleanup, and I suspect you might be the one for the job. Carom 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[100th Guards Rifle Division]] 

message: Hi folks, I thought I'd ask here to see if there was anyone interested in trying to resurrect this other project since some martial arts have a related military history... Any takers? -- Medains 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit heavily in the Historical European martial arts field, focusing mostly on European martial arts (and weaponry), most specifically the German school of swordsmanship and associated information. I'm not sure where this would be fitted, though. Are you suggesting a 'Martial Arts' Task Force within the Military History Project? -- Xiliquiern 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. Some martial arts clearly have a military-related context; others really don't. I'm not sure to what extent pulling the not-really-military ones here would be a good idea. (On the one hand, we more-or-less do it for weaponry, as there's no separate "Civilian weapons" project. On the other hand, I'm guessing that there's a military association for a much greater proportion of weapons than of martial arts. Having said that, I'm not an expert on martial arts by any means; it would be very helpful if people with more experience could comment on the degree to which they may or may not be related to military history.) Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems now that this post was meant to see if anyone here was interested in also editing over at the Martial Arts Project. Is that correct? Sorry I did not originally draw that from the message - I thought you were trying to incorporate a martial arts section here. -- Xiliquiern 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My own knowledge of martial arts is only budding and this in itself is geared towards swordhandling. As for a possible absorbtion? Martial arts, as the name implies do and did spawn from military affairs. For an exemple: kenjutsu --> Kendo, Aikido and Jiujitsu-->judo, etc. both these japanese arts where of samurai curriculum and turned towards a sports evolution as this venerable order (I use the term loosely) disapeared. Merging and not merging are not our only options when confronting this project, we could always add it as a liason group.--Dryzen 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct, I wasn't suggesting a MA task force, just seeing if there was anyone whose joint interests might lead them to help out in getting the MA project rolling again.  I'm aware that individual users are editting articles, but the project isn't really any kind of center for collaboration and article improvement; which is a problem IMHO - I'd just like to see the standards for MA articles brought up to the standards that are enjoyed here. -- Medains 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts]] 

message: If anyone has some free time, there are a number of new requests that could use some more feedback! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me, or are many articles "rushing" to A-class review that could stand to be run through the peer-review process first? Perhaps I'm just being grumpy :) However, I've found that feedback helps immeasurably in polishing an article, and much improves the chances of being approved for A-class status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, most of the listings are just procedural reviews of articles that had been tagged as "A-Class" before the review system was introduced; once we finish going through those (and there's only a handful left now), things will probably start coming in more through a full review process. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Current requests|A-Class review requests]] 

message: Here's an idea for people involved in the project, especially those of you trying to improve your articles by running them through review processes, or trying to get A-class standing, and the like: why not adopt a "2 for 1" rule?
Simply put, whenever you use a "resource" of the project, contribute back to it (at least) twice. Put your article up for peer review? Review two others! Put your article up for A-class review? Read, vote, and make constructive comments about two other candidates.
Not everyone's cup-of-tea, I'm sure, and there's no way to enforce this, I know - but I think it is a good "rule of thumb" for people to follow - and it would keep the project running quite nicely :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, very good principle to follow; even a handful of additional participants in the various "resources" could cause major improvement in terms of making them more useful for everyone.  (The fact that it's impossible to enforce isn't a problem, in my opinion; we generally wouldn't want to do so even if we could, as that would defeat much of the point.) Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gone through the process these people would be a great asset as critiques/reviewers. I think its a respectable courtesy. It also helps participating in the reviews even before one writes an article or add to one such for A-, Fa- Class, seeying what other people have done. That way one can eliminate many of the smaller "quinks" prior to review, saving everyone time. --Dryzen 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 for 1 proposal 

message: I was assessing the article, and it struck me that it is a quite good piece of prose - with very few alterations from the initial creation... wondering if it was a cut-and-paste from somewhere.  The initial editor has a number of biographical articles under his belt, so I could be wrong - he could just be a good biography writer.  Anyone able to check? -- Medains 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the references? Wandalstouring 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible 'about the author' on any of his books. amazon list or a short biography from contemporary authors also amazon.  Just struck me as a really good piece of prose for an uncited article. -- Medains 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, someone is up to a rewrite. He is too important, though relatively unknown, to the Vietnam War to be deleted as a copy-vio.--Nobunaga24 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyvio at [[Bernard_B._Fall]]

message: There's been some work done recently on extending the by-era categorization trees (e.g. the new :Category:Battles by era).  I notice, though, that :Category:Warfare by period has a name that doesn't really match its children (or its purpose); would there be any objections to renaming it to :Category:Warfare by era? Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Carom 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support-Dryzen 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've listed it for renaming. Kirill Lokshin 08:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warfare by era 

message: Since they seem to repeat throughout the category guidelines, I've split out the guidance on using the "most specific" categories and on categorizing entire sub-categories into the section on general principles and trimmed it from the specific battle & unit guidelines; hopefully this will reduce the redundancy and reduce the possibility of different trees being inconsistent in this regard.  Any comments (as well as a sanity check on the new content) would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Categorizing entire sub-categories, if I understood its messare correctly, the term on should be replaced by above, to better indicate its position in the arborescence.As there is already a Military "activities" exemple, perhaps putting in a units or tacking a chance with personnel, to better present that this is a pan-category guideline.--Dryzen 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it to eliminate the in/on/above issue and added another units example.  I've been avoiding personnel in these general examples primarily because we haven't really figured out how that category tree is supposed to look; once we go through with that, we can add them. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also added a paragraph to the section on most specific categories explaining that having muliple paths from a category to some ancestor is okay and giving an easy example; hopefully that will avoid some confusion down the line. Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General category principles 

message: Hello. I'm here to request some help with Mirko Norac article. I never interacted with WP:MILHIST before, so pardon me if I asked at wrong place. Anyway, the thing is that I spent more than 9 months on trying to write a sourced out article on a controversial Croatian general. It seems from comments on failed GA nominations that I'm quite close to making this article GA, but there are still some problems with the article, most important of which is NPOV. And now User:DavidWJohnson turned out and deleted a bunch of info from the article. Since I considered the article to be fairly NPOV before the "rewrite", of course I have some complaints about his actions, so I didn't just revert him since I just detest edit warring. But, I have brought out a bunch of complaints here: Talk:Mirko_Norac#Rewrite_of_this_article and I'd like to ask you guys to take a look at the article and comment on my complaints, because I feel that quality of this arcile has imensly detoriated after the rewrite. --Dijxtra 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with [[Mirko Norac]] 

message: List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons#Attack Squadrons uses links of the form "VA-X". But this is also an abbreviation used for Virginia state highways. Is there a fuller name that can be used, so that "VA-X" can be a disambiguation page? --NE2 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Should I start moving them and changing links, and hope no one minds? --NE2 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the correct form for USN attack squadrons seems to be "VFA-X." The links on the page simply redirect to the correct name. I would say that the links on the page should probably be changed to the correct form (i.e. the name of the page that they link to). There is probably no need for a disambig page. Carom 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I grew impatient and did the disambiguating already. But "VA-X" does seem to be used, for instance by . --NE2 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conflict

message: If we could have a few more people voice their opinions on this review, it'd be much appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with an A-Class review 

message: Hi all,
An anon IP,  has been changing figures in some WWII-related articles. On Eastern front battles, his additions were deliberately misleading, however I can't tell for other articles. Could someone familiar with Western-front battles look into his figures and revert them if needed?
Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted all of the changes and left a message on the user's talk page. I do not fully know whether they were misleading or not, but the user gave no evidence either way, so I feel like my actions were justified.UberCryxic 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for check