Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 10

message: This article has been nominated for Featured Article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618). It would be nice to know what the military history community, in their expert analysis, thinks of the article and whether it is deserving. --maclean25 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As a follow-up, the article was successful and is now a Featured Article.  --maclean25 11:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)]] 

message: Being a "newbie" I am not sure if this is the correct place to place this request but...
I noticed that Wikipedia has two articles about the same battle with the titles battle of the metaurus and battle of the metaurus river. Regrettably, I don´t know how and where i can request a merger of the two articles. Perhaps this is the correct place? Thanx
:Turns out that Battle of the Metaurus River was a copy violation from .  Thanks for pointing it out.  As for requesting a merger of two articles, see the "Mark current duplicates" section of Wikipedia:Duplicate articles for instructions. Geoff/Gsl 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  battle of the metaurus + battle of the metaurus river 

message: Not the most appropriate page for this but I guess wikipedia's military minds are all congregated here so, I was wondering if it is appropriate/convention/allowed to use APP-6a for historical battles and armies? Say, WW2? Also, wouldn't it be a lot easier (after the initial learning curve) to use this in wikipedia articles/maps? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's really an existing convention; APP-6a seems fine, provided it's only used for "modern" conflicts.  I don't want to see divisonal symbols on Battle of Hastings, for example ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as if they had divisions back then... no, I'm talking about WW2, maybe WW1. Mapmaking can be a lot easier if we implement APP-6a as a standard for battles. Just a thought. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[APP-6a]]? 

message: Could a more experienced editor add basic warboxes to the new articles Battle of Jargeau, Battle of Meung, and Battle of Beaugency?  These were part of Joan of Arc's 1429 Loire offensive following the Siege of Orleans.  I've been having trouble getting the warbox template to load. Durova 18:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added one to Battle of Beaugency; I don't know when I'll have time to do the others, so you might just want to copy the code and change the names as appropriate.  It looks like the campaignbox will need to be updated to include these new articles as well. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the help. Durova 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting assistance with warboxes

message: For a battle, like say the Battle of Tsuntua, which was between two now-defunct states (Gobir and the Fulani Empire, before it was really the Fulani Empire)--how to categorize that?  Geographically ("Battles of Nigeria") or by state ("Battles of Gobir")?  I'm having the same problem at Marracuene; advice is welcome.  --Dvyost 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely by historical state; in this case, you would have :Category:Battles of Gobir and :Category:Battles of the Fulani Empire.  (Take a look at some of the other sub-categories of :Category:Battles by country for some examples of how to create these).  Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what concerns me is that, for example, Battles of Gobir is going to sit as a useless, one-article category for years--possibly forever.  I could be wrong, but I think there just aren't enough named, recorded battles in pre-colonial African history to fill out a category for each of hundreds of city states.  Any thoughts on a more useful way to lump these, or should I just go ahead with the one-article categories?  --Dvyost 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I didn't realize that.  You could try something like :Category:Battles of Sub-Saharan Africa (it's a bad name—maybe someone with a bit more knowledge of the region can suggest a better one).  Generally, though, we don't want to lump battles into the modern country categories; single-article categories are bad, but still better than incorrect ones.  Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'll do it by regional divisions then--I'll poke around and see what Africa battle articles are already out there.  Maybe :Battles of pre-colonial West Africa, etc.?  Thanks for the advice!  --Dvyost 23:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle categories 

message: If there's a spot reserved somewhere around here to post notices of military history-related articles currently up for peer review, I don't see it, so I'll plop it right here:
*Wikipedia:Peer review/Pontiac's Rebellion/archive1
Thanks! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for [[WP:PR|peer review]]: [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] 

message: Can anyone confirm "the Battle of Taringham Acres" stub, supposedly part of the Napoleonic wars?  No hits on Google, only three hits for "Taringham".  I also couldn't find any mention of "the modern day city of Elberg, in Germany".  Geoff/Gsl 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like utter nonsense—the Second Coalition didn't include Prussia! —Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of it in Chandler's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars so I shall put it up for speedy deletion. Geoff/Gsl 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now deleted. Geoff/Gsl 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Battle of Taringham Acres 

message: I have a concern about the Campaignbox for the battles of the Hojo.  Immediately before the 1590 Siege of Odawara, there is listed a Siege of Hachigata.  However, I found a reference to a Siege of Hachigata on the article Hojo Ujiyasu, which appears to indicate that it preceded the 1569 Siege of Odawara.  Neither link (both are "red-links") has a date index.  Is Hachigata listed in the wrong place, or are there two such battles? Roy Al Blue 23:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LordAmeth would probably be able to tell us if there were two battles; it's certainly possible, given the period.  Another funny thing, though—the 1590 Siege of Odawara is listed on two separate campaignboxes: the Hojo and the Hideyoshi ones.  It's obviously a bad thing to do, as a user browsing the battles via the campaignbox will suddenly be switched to another campaign; but I'm not sure how to fix this.  Possibly the campaignboxes should be broken up by period?  —Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hachigata was actually sieged twice, in 1568 and 1590. I have very little on either battle, but I suppose just enough that it should be listed twice. I'll go fix that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As for duplicating battles across multiple campaignboxes, I realized it might be a problem, but I don't know of any better way to do it. LordAmeth 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hachigata and Odawara 

message: "Template:Infobox Battles" has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Battles". Thank you. Geoff/Gsl 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now deleted. Geoff/Gsl 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Battles 

message: Hello, can we get a stub created specifically for the War of 1812.  Thank you Battlefield 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for [[War of 1812]] Stub

message: Some odd titles popping up in the New Articles listings: Battle of Chile, Battle of Virginia, Battle of Great Britain, etc. These were for the most part frigate v. frigate actions and the article names ought maybe to reflect this. Google testing suggests zero correlation between the titles as they are now and the events the articles describe. 
Have we a standardized naming convention for small naval actions? Albrecht 16:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a lot of existing "Action of Day Month Year" articles, but I don't believe we've ever discussed a standard for naming. —Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not terribly high priority for me, mind you; I just thought I'd give a heads-up before I forgot about it. I'm generally a proponent of being as flexible as possible with the word "battle" (NPOV and all that; plus, Canadian history is full of battles that foreigners would find comically small-scale), but seeing it applied to entirely bloodless events (Guam, 1898) or places that were merely surrendered or abandoned on account of an earlier defeat (Montreal, Ticonderoga) is sometimes too much. Albrecht 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, I believe these names are coming from List of battles 1801-1900 and its ilk.  I have no idea how they got on that page, though. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the original version of List_of_battles_1801-1900 most of these were originally "Battle off XXX" (eg. "Battle off Great Britain") which might, or might not, make more sense.  Perhaps all such articles could be renamed "Naval action off XXX", if the location is meaningful, otherwise use the date.  Or perhaps if it's a two-ship action, "Naval action between XXX and YYY". Geoff/Gsl 03:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I messaged the person that started all of these dubious articles.  He simply clicked on all the "List of Battles" links that did not have an article and he started one.  He does not know anything about any of the battles.  I advised him the names for the battles is wrong as no one uses those terms, he replied to change them.  The names of naval actions are going to vary depending on the action, for example if it involves just two ships the precident naming convention is Chesapeake-Leopard Affair Little Belt Affair.  Perhaps, changing "Affair" to "Naval Action" would be better though.  There were many small naval battles in the War of 1812 so I think we should come up with a Wiki naming policy for all small naval battles. This article might help guide us: List of naval battles Cordially Battlefield 13:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the word "affair" is used in those cases because they were political/diplomatic incidents rather than wartime actions – in the American consciousness, therefore, they became part of the casus belli against Britain. But any standardized solution suits me fine. Albrecht 17:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious [[War of 1812]] naval actions 

message: Thanks to the efforts of Netoholic, the funny meta-templates have been eliminated from the  code.  There are some minor changes in appearance that have resulted from copying code over; I'll try to nudge the border alignments and such back to the older style in the near future. 
As an aside, we've been asked to rename "Template:Warbox" to "Template:Infobox War" for consistency with the other infobox templates.  Are there any objections (or suggestions for a better name than "... War")? —Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The minor changes are actually intentional, so as to allow people to configure their personal CSS setting to adjust certain aspects.  Be careful not to hard-code too much for appearance purposes, unless those things are critical to the template's function.  As far as renaming, you'll not notice any difference.  A redirect will be left in place, so there is no immediate need to edit all the articles to change the reference.  You can do that incrementally over time.  "Infobox Xxx" has become a standard naming convention for infobox templates. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having looked over the template more carefully, the only change to the appearance I'd like to make is removing the blank space between the "conflict" and "partof" rows.  It's a minor issue, though. —Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I kinda liked it myself. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warbox implementation and naming 

message: I have started assembling a List of Continental Forces in the American Revolutionary War. This is not a straightforward task, so any help and input would be appreciated. I have also made a proposal for an infobox on the Talk page. --Leifern 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a general infobox for military units would be more appropriate?  —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Continental units for the American Revolutionary War