Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 30

message: Hello. My name is Nathan Zhang. Some time ago I started a page (using another, lost account) called "Landing Zone X-Ray" in order to present the present-day area and geography of the battlefield, not the actual battle itself (and no, I DO NOT want to put this info in the Battle of Ia Drang page. Now that I have all my research completed, I goto the page and notice that it redirects to The Battle of Ia Drang page. I want this redirect removed so I can write out my originally-intended page. Thank you very much for having given me this time of yours. I do hope you remove the redirect and tell me at User:Shenshuai. Thank you very much. --Shenshuai 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on user's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New: Poorly-Concieved Redirect 

message: There is currently a revert war going on, any outside views, fact checking and additional references would be very welcome. Mieciu K 11:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with "Kosovo War" article 

message: Idea popped into my head to form a taskforce to cover wars between the kingdoms of the Near East (including Ancient Egypt, but obviously NOT including Graeco-Persian wars, which stay within Classical warfare taskforce) to cover wars in that geographical area in the grey area before the Classical warfare taskforce cut-off of 700BC.  Plenty to work from (Category:Battles of Egypt, Category:Battles of Babylonia, Category:Battles of the Canaanites, Battle of Megiddo....), and can draw members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East, which both need revivifying.  Any thoughts? Neddyseagoon 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, if anyone else can be found to work on it.  What's the activity level in that area of the wiki like? Kirill Lokshin 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just looking around for that, by looking on those projects I mentioned, plus any I can find on Holy Land history. Is there some way of getting the same message to various talk-pages?  I'm new at this game! :-) Neddyseagoon 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy-and-pasting, basically ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As ever!  These things are never easy, are they!  Announcements posted up on all users of those Projects, though I baulked at doing everyone in the Classical Warfare Project and so put up something on its talk page. Now the waiting for replies!  Neddyseagoon 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know much about those battles, but I'm interested in biblical-time warfare, so if you decide to go ahead with it, I can help, I guess. -- Миборовский 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Near East taskforce? 

message: I need an admin to step in and examine the postings of a brand new user on the talk page; he is posting multiple copies of his questions and threatening to disrupt the board. I suspect he may be a sockpuppet, or at the least a very inexperienced editor. Here.  Any input into the article itself is naturally appreciated also.Michael Dorosh 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Admin at Ilyushin Il-2 

message: Could members of this project please take a look at Hannibal and respond to the Associated Peer Review. Thanks. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hannibal]] 

message: Anybody know enough about this to write a decent stub?  Some helpful person has created this with a description of the 1428 siege ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Second Battle of Orleans (1870)]] 

message: Hello, I'm not sure if members of this project would be interested in Valiant Shield? Johntex\talk 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made one minor edit already, to the caption on the photo where you used "operation" rather than "exercise" (I corrected it also at the Military exercise page. Otherwise, looks like a good article.Michael Dorosh 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thank you.  I was not aware of the distinction in terms, but I am now.  I have listed this at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates and I am hoping it will make the Main Page.  Johntex\talk 05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: I've created this new category.--James Bond 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would we want to limit it to current MIAs, or include people who were notable for being MIAs but whose fate was later confirmed? Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting question. Maybe we should only list the current ones in that category and add a list of notable MIA's in the Missing In Action article..--James Bond 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIA Category 

message: Not sure what to make of this and this.--James Bond 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging discussion underway 

message: I see that the category for Iraq War Veterans includes fatal casualties from the war (ie Casey Sheehan. How can you be a veteran if you're dead? Should these not be culled out? What purpose does it serve to include them? I'd suggest a separate category for those killed on active duty in Iraq.Michael Dorosh 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest Category: American Iraq War fatalities, keeping in line with :Category: American Iraq War veterans.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general consensus in the category discussion above was that we should abandon using "Veterans" in category names entirely, in favor of the more general "US military personnel of the Iraq War" (or something of that sort); but, due to a whole bunch of other things that have come up recently, we haven't had time to move forward on any actual renaming yet. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can recat these, if there is a consensus as to what the new category should be called.Michael Dorosh 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Iraq War Veterans 

message: 2003 Invasion of Iraq & Iraq War
Same topic, two articles? They seem to contradict themself in some areas. I'm also very concerned about the poor NPOV of the two. --James Bond 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invasion of Iraq covers the first few days of tomahawk rain and bombing, while the whole war article covers that and the resultant suicide bombing, alley fighting etc. That's my guess. -- Миборовский 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks to be the case, at least at the moment.  Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK I'm seriously confused 

message: The new  is now capable of replacing most of the commonly-used weapon infoboxes; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force for more details.  Does anyone have further comments on the design, or should we go ahead and start rolling this out?  (And is there anyone who would be interested in helping to convert existing templates to this form?) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very complete, if I visit any that are unchanged in my wikitravels I'll convert them.Dryzen 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New weapon infobox 

message: I had stumbled upon this article while I was under the impression that Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier was our only article on this particular ship of war. I tried my best to read the guidelines for deletion, but alas I'm tired and quite groggy, thus it is all lost on me. Perhaps someone who knows what he is doing could give me a hand with this, it would be much appreciated. (USMA2010 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask at WP:SHIPS first; they have some standards on how articles on ship classes versus individual ships should be named, so they'll probably be able to determine what the idea behind having separate articles is. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov 

message: The June issue of the newsletter is basically ready to go; hence, the usual questions:
* Is there anything significant I missed?
* Is anyone available to work on delivering it?
Any other comments are, of course, quite welcome! Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no takers? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably deliver it... but not today. -- Миборовский 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have some time tomorrow or Wednesday, that'd be great!  If not, I'll probably just do it myself, unless somebody else comes forward. Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else interested? Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can help again.  It would be in about 14 hours from now.  I'll check back then to see if my help is still needed.  (Have you started?  A-Z? Z-A?)  —ERcheck (talk) @ 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW... I made delivery of all requested full newsletters; and special non-member requests. —ERcheck (talk) @ 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I haven't had time to deliver any myself, so feel free to pick a place to start according to your own preferences if you do any more deliveries. Kirill Lokshin 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I started at "A".  First 20 done.  Whew! We have a growing membership... this is going to take some time.  I've got some RL commitments, so, I'll be back later to do more.  — ERcheck (talk) @ 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I did the rest of them.  We really should look at getting AWB or a bot for this sort of thing in the future, though; our growth in membership has been quite impressive, and shows no signs of slowing. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for all the work... sorry I didn't get to more of them.  I do agree that a bot would be helpful.  — ERcheck (talk) @ 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Whew! I didn't realize how many Military history members I had corresponded with (and thus added their talk pages to my watchlist) until the newsletter came out! :D - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 07:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think even AWB with speed up things pretty well, actually... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if AWB is supposed to be used for this sort of thing, so we'd probably need to ask.  I definitely don't want to get someone's AWB permissions revoked by asking them to do this. Kirill Lokshin 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can always ask, but why not? They use a bot to deliver WPSIGN why not the milhist newsletter? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the WPSIGN list is composed of people who explicitely requested delivery.  Since we're sending messages to everyone on the project list, it might be viewed as being more spammy by some people. Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I suggest we ask the question :) (though I don't know who we should ask)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No idea ;-)  Does anybody in the project actually use AWB?  They might know more about any restrictions on it. Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I use AWB a bit... That will be an occasion to expand its use even further... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, no problem. ;-)  Would you happen to know anything about the potential for using AWB here, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you have to select a particular category for AWB to put in its worklist? I don't think we have a category of WPMILHIST members, so that might be a problem. Using AWB to deliver messages on the talkpage is certainly doable, but I'm not sure whether it can be used to deliver newsletters and such. Would it not be better to create a milhist bot or something like that? We have what, 10k articles? We can't do all that my hand... A bot would speed things up considerably. In any case, a bot/AWB delivery is no more spammy than a hand-delivery... -- Миборовский 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have to go through a category, you can also have AWB parse a list, which is more interesting... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June newsletter 

message: I recently failed Mirko Norac for GA status, needs more citations and citations summary at bottom of article. Alvin6226  talk  16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: This topic is not in my area, but it is not in Wikipedia yet as an article. It is not in the USMC article and there is not yet a History of the USMC article. So for what it's worth, I just heard about 
* Dr. Gary Solis, the U.S. Marine Corps’ Chief of Oral History 
*U.S. Marine Corps' oral history unit, which has recorded more than 1,500 interviews with Marines in Iraq.
*There is a protocol for each field historian embedded with a unit, according to Colonel Nicholas Reynolds (US Marine Corps, Oral History Unit), author of Basra, Baghdad and beyond: the U.S. Marine Corps in the second Iraq War 
--Ancheta Wis 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's made by the USMC, and contains material from Marines, would the interviews be public domain?  If we could get transcripts of these on WikiSource or something, it might be quite useful. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USMC oral history unit 

message: Our Collaboration of the Fortnight is down to two (about to be one, in a few hours) candidates.  If anyone has some articles they think need to be worked on, now would be a great time to list them! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, plenty... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration candidates needed 

message: Hi, I added the WikiprojectWars label for the Nagorno-Karabakh War. If I did this in the wrong procedure, please inform me, thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added new label on a war

message: Hi all! I am a new member of this encyclopedia, and I just want some more older veteran type influence on this article I posted yesterday.  I am open ears to any suggestions, and I hope my article reaches Wikipedia standards so far.  When I finish the article, I will mostly likely put it under a peer review so it can be up to par.   OMEN 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Military history of Brazil]] 

message: I'm not sure whether this is the best place to raise this, but IMO the frequent inclusion of a "...in fiction and/or popular culture" section in articles on aircraft looks amateur and adds nothing to the articles. For instance, why does the F-14 entry bother to mention that the aircraft "are featured in Stephen Coonts' 1986 novel Final Flight"? and is anyone seeking useful information on the B-1 likely to be interested to know that "In the movie Real Genius, a B-1B is outfitted with an air-to-ground laser weapon"? 
I'd suggest that these sections be removed as they're pointless and make the articles look light-weight. The information they contain would be better located in the entries for whatever book/movie/computer game/obscure Japanese educational cartoon (see: ) they currently refer to --Nick Dowling 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree.  I do think there are times when a piece of equipment being used in fiction would be relevant (as trivia), but that would have to be on a case-by-case basis and require almost unanimous consent. Oberiko 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree.  There are certainly cases where an aircraft's role in fiction is of interest, particularly cases of fictional depictions that had broader reprecussions (the Strangelove bit in B-52 is a good example, in my opinion), but a laundry list of every place a plane has been mentioned isn't really useful. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, and the consensused guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Popular_culture. The problem with persistence is that frequently cases of speculative similarly are inserted (e.g. the Transformer Starscream resembles or was inspired by a particular aircraft). Also, a big problem are Ace Combat fans putting (plane is featured in Ace Combat 4), which happens pretty frequently. Which is fine except that one of 70-odd planes hardly qualifies as "featured", and the modeling is so unrealistic that the only resemblence to the real aircraft is cosmetic. Similarly, people like to insert "plane was featured in a Tom Clancy Novel" (as is every piece of modern military equipment). When there aren't significant pop culture references, renaming it "Simulations" is often helpful.--Mmx1 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks a lot for that Mmx1. That guideline looks very sensible. --Nick Dowling 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft "in fiction/popular culture"