Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 63

message: The project coordinator election has now concluded; the new coordinators for the next six months are Carom, FayssalF, LordAmeth, Kyriakos, TomStar81, Cla68, Eurocopter tigre, Roger Davies, and myself.  Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to everyone who participated! Kirill 00:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if this comes out wrong, but can't we have 10 coordinators? DenizTC 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no particular reason why we couldn't have ten instead of nine; but that's presumably a decision that ought to be made before an election.  I don't think that retroactively changing the rules based on the results would be a good idea. Kirill 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clutching at straws (You could always have a vote between the coordinators). Personally i think the project needs ten coordinators considering the increasing scope of the project. ;) Woodym555 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Congratulations to all the coordinators, especially those new ones. Although I lost out by 1 vote to Roger, a vote i made, i am not disheartened. I wish all the coordinators well and i will continue to help the project whenever i can. Thankyou to all who voted for me. Woodym555 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to all of the new coordinators!  Also, it probably would be a good idea to develop a policy for handling "last-place ties". After all, that's what we had for most of the voting period. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Congratulations to those others who were elected, and thanks to all those who supported me. I agree with Askari Mark that we probably want to have some sort of semi-official last place tie-breaker, although I have no real ideas as to what might be the best option. Carom 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced this is the best plan. As it happens, most people in the project (myself included) trust Kirill's judgment, and probably wouldn't mind such a system at the moment. I think, though, we might want to consider something with better long-term implications - for example, what happens if/when Kirill leaves the project? Or we have a different lead coordinator who doesn't have the same widespread approval? Not that I have a better suggestion, though... Carom 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the lines of: coordinators already voted would have double weighting. e.g. if Roger and me were tied, the votes of Carom, Cla68 et al would have double weights?. Although on reflection this discounts those who give so much to the project but do not want to be a coordinator. You would most likely have to extend the voting period/ask those who haven't voted to vote. If it is still a tie, increase the number of coordinators. Croos the bridge if and when you come across it i suppose. 6 months until we could potentially have that problem again, unless the system is changed. Woodym555 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, if all else failed, you could have another quick election between the people who are tied and instruct people to only vote for one rather than as many as they wanted to.  --ScreaminEagle 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already introduced a rule long ago that in really thight cases both become coordinators, however, we have a clear decision in this election. Wandalstouring 10:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I say whats done is done, and that we refrain from picking at this particular issue as it applies to the here and now; however, we the project should decide how we are going to handle these issues so that if they return at some point in the future we know what we agreed to do about it ahead of time. From where I sit I say the number of coordinators should be determine roughly by the number of task forces, one coordinator for every "x" number of task forces. I would also suggest some sort of voting guideline with regards to how coordinators vote, should it be nessicary to break ties; alternatively, we could have run off elections between candidates if that interests anyone. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the way the elections ended or with the number of coordinators voted in. Even if I had not recieved a position with the assistant coordinators I would still be able to contribute as a user of Wikipedia and member of the project, and that is first and formost what I am here to do. If others can not say the same thing then it may be time to reevaluate your reasons for being here. An admin rank and/or a spot with the coordinators is a great thing, but if you are not enough without such special designations then you will never be enough with them. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project coordinator elections concluded 

message: I was away from 31 July-5 September and I have only now become aware of this thread. I have a number of comments. Firstly, because I was travelling and logging on under difficult circumstances, I only voted for people I'd "seen around", rather than voting strictly on merit. Had I researched the unknown-to-me candidates and voted on strict merit, which is what I would have done had I been at home, I would certainly have voted for Woodym555. My vote for him would have resulted in a tie for ninth position. Beyond doubt, Woodym555 has made great contributions to the project and will make even greater ones as an assistant coordinator. Therefore, on the basis of WP:IAR, I suggest that Woodym555 is co-opted immediately as tenth coordinator. Comments? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say whats done is done, and that we refrain from picking at this particular issue as it applies to the here and now; however, we the project should decide how we are going to handle these issues so that if they return at some point in the future we know what we agreed to do about it ahead of time. From where I sit I say the number of coordinators should be determine roughly by the number of task forces, one coordinator for every "x" number of task forces. I would also suggest some sort of voting guideline with regards to how coordinators vote, should it be nessicary to break ties; alternatively, we could have run off elections between candidates if that interests anyone. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the way the elections ended or with the number of coordinators voted in. Even if I had not recieved a position with the assistant coordinators I would still be able to contribute as a user of Wikipedia and member of the project, and that is first and formost what I am here to do. If others can not say the same thing then it may be time to reevaluate your reasons for being here. An admin rank and/or a spot with the coordinators is a great thing, but if you are not enough without such special designations then you will never be enough with them. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-option

message: Working from a suggestion by Wandalstouring about a month back, we've created a rudimentary "stress hotline" for the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Hotline.  The hope is that having a calm discussion area available will help editors deal with Wikistress a bit more easily and reduce the burnout of project members.
Comments, both on the general idea and the specific format, are of course welcome, as is participation in the hotline itself! :-) Kirill 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good start, let's see if/how it gets used. Carom 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we assign/appoint/promote people to keep an eye on the page while it gets going? Expereince tells me that we should (otherwise everyone assumes everyone else is handling it), but I wouldn;t mind here what other people think about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinators can probably keep an eye on things initially; whether we need anything more than that will probably depend on the sort of turnout we see. :-) Kirill 08:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright then ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project stress hotline 

message: Hello.  As a heads up, a request for comment has been made at the history and geography area in regards to World War II image. Oberiko 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on WWII image made

message: I thought I'd put this on the main talk page because I doubt anyone would see it at the TF talk page- it´s a bit inactive.
Having created a number of Soviet army articles, above 10, like the Thirty-Fifth Army, I am about to change them to a style like 22nd Army (Soviet Union) because all the Soviet sources seem to list them as such. The proposed cutoff would be 10, so the Ninth Army (Soviet Union) would stay that way, but Eleventh Army (Soviet Union) would go back to the original style of 11th Army. Thoughts? Violent disagreement? Cheers Buckshot06 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm! I'd say use numbers for all of them. WP:MILHIST#UNITNAME, though dealing w/ disambig, states that the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs are the ones to be used (Soviet sources seem to list them as such). Don't forget that you can still use teh "redirect". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FayssalF that "9th" is preferable to "Ninth", simply for consistency's sake – especially since it takes fewer keystrokes to type into Search. Add a redirect for complementary styling(s) and you're covered. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet armies

message: It shouldn't be Operation Blue. Fall Blau is "Case Blue", not "Operation Blue"; it's not an operational codename, it's a war plan. (Think War Plan Orange or Rainbow 5.) If it was OpBlue it'd be Unternehmen Blau.  Trekphiler 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It can be compared to Fall Weiss/Case White. Wandalstouring 10:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I [[Groo]]?

message: The A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 14:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[George Jones (RAAF officer)]] now open 

message: I've been making a list of Wikipedia articles on paintings depicting battle, death and war. See User:Carcharoth/Paintings depicting battle, death and war. I'm after more articles on paintings like those ones. Not just any old painting, but ones we have articles on, or ones you think we should have articles on. I found those ones in :Category:Paintings and its subcategories. Can anyone think of, or find, any other painting articles on these themes? (NB. This question has also been asked at the reference desk here). Carcharoth 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintings depicting battle, death and war 

message: The A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Barton S. Alexander]] now open 

message: I would appreciate opinions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Painting, to discuss whether or not Jacques de Molay was part of a force which re-took Jerusalem in 1299. Most books agree he didn't, but there is evidently a painting hanging in Versailles, which says that he did.  Opinions are requested. Thanks, Elonka 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols?  (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled?  "Franco-Mongol alliance"?  Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300?  (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols?  (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300?  Opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: This article has been the subject of dispute for months now, usually over the occurrence of atrocities during the war and the amount of space that should be given to each. Unfortunately, this dispute has deteriorated what was once a fairly good article on the war. I'd appreciate some third party involvement in getting this article back up to standards. --A.Garnet 10:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed at [[Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)]] 

message: There are a number of small definition articles on military subjects which will never go anywhere and are more definitions than articles. How does one get them moved? Buckshot06 09:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transwiki them. Transwiki is a process of moving info on one of the wikis to a more apropriety wiki (in this case, Wikipedia to Wikitionary). More info on how to do this can be found here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, not all stubs, even if they are unlikely to expand, might fit in Wiktionary; so some care maybe needed. Arnoutf 10:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How does one get stub definition articles moved to Wikitionary?

message: The article for Omaha Beach was peer reviewed a few months back (see ). I have accommodated the resulting comments as best I can and now wonder where next? Should I resubmit it for another peer review, or is it worth trying for GA, or even A/FA? Thanks. --FactotEm 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why you couldn't nominate it for GA or A-Class, at this point. Kirill 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll see how it gets on with an A-Class review. Cheers. --FactotEm 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post peer review course of action 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of Dak To is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Dak To]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Omaha Beach is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 17:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Omaha Beach]] now open 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Barton S. Alexander]] needs attention 

message: Just created a basic stub on Naval Academy dropout and B-26 Marauder / B-10 designer Peyton M. Magruder to remove a redlink from a few articles. Could someone template/categorize this appropriately and help bring it up to standards? I've had a hell of a time finding web references other than stuff dating back to 1945. Any and all help would be appreciated.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you can do for his father Brig. Gen. Marshall Magruder would also be appreciated.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peyton M. Magruder]]

message: The A-Class review for Operation Passage to Freedom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Passage to Freedom]] now open 

message: Hi, we are having a little edit-war over at the Battle of Kadesh article. I've decided to keep out of it for a while, but I would appreciate if someone who is not involved could review the WP:RFC(s) that have been raised. Any feedback or help editting the disputed content would be great. Thanks Markh 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Request for Comments 

message: Hi!
I am looking for a German pilot who servered in the First World War and was killed either near the end of the war or between the World Wars. He was killed when piloting either a bomber or cargo plane carrying the body of a German General and friend of his who had died of a heart attack. He was also flying to Berlin through storm--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if it would be easy to get his name as, according to your description, it appears that he is non-notable. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although if he was carrying the body of a German General you may be able to locate your name by checking out articles on German Generals, high ranking officers of this nature are typically important enough to warrent an article here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help me somebody 

message: Hey Kirill.  I don't know any other admins who would know about this, hence why you've been pegged.  A concerned editor has moved 3rd United States Infantry Regiment to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States).  From past experience, I know I can't move it back without causing some sort of meltdown in Wikipedia's main reactor, so could you please do it for me?  In the mean time I will leave a note for the editor explaining the issue (even though the unique unit's name has been discussed to death even inside the article itself).  Many, many thanks.  --ScreaminEagle 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwise Move 

message: Oh no, not again! ;-)
But I think I'll let the discussion on WT:MILHIST play out for a bit before moving it back, so as not to risk devolving into a revert war on the thing. Kirill 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it seems that someone else has moved it back anyways, making the point rather moot. Kirill 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Unwise Move 

message: In order to create less confusion, I recommend that all future comments please be refered to the article's talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3rd_US_Infantry
Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while
I would also remind Wikipedians of the WP:NPOV policy.
-TabooTikiGod 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Given that there doesn't seem to be any real disagreement over the guidelines, but only over a factual point specific to the article in question, the article talk page is probably the better forum for any further discussion on the topic. Kirill 12:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, however, this isn't a NPOV issue. It's reality, and the only bias I have is towards accuracy. Switching the article name would be inaccurate. May as well change the name of the article on the USA to The America (United States of). That would be inaccurate and look silly right? Ryecatcher773 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Comments 

message: Two ideas that the coordinators have been discussing and would like to propose to the project:
; Award clasps : There's been some concern expressed that our present WikiChevrons are underused, possibly because they're too generic, and thus don't offer a "suggested usage" as an award for particular areas of work.  A separate issue, but related, is the lack of any distinct award for said areas of work.  One idea that would help in both areas would be creating more specific versions of the general WikiChevrons by some means similar to campaign clasps; in other words, some (presumably bar-like) addition to the image that could indicate a specific area of work for which the award was being made.  Is this something people would like to see, and, if so, is there anyone that would like to try their hand at creating some prototype images?
; Reference desk : On a completely unrelated note, the idea has come up of setting up some sort of in-house reference desk that would provide a forum where questions on military history (content questions, not editorial ones) could be asked and answered.  Without delving too deeply into the mechanics of how this could be set up to interoperate with the main reference desks, do people think this would be a good idea?  And would members here be willing to help answer such questions if a desk were set up?
Comments and suggestions on these points would be very appreciated! Kirill 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think these are excellent ideas. For the bar idea maybe a bar can be awarded for good work in a specific task force. Kyriakos 02:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For the WikiChevrons, maybe award it to people who worked to bring MILHIST articles on featured-quality? Maybe do it retroactively too. "Task force clasps" would also be useful I think... As for the reference desk, support it all the way. Миборовский 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 4 articles within this talkpage as of this moment that could/would be moved over to a RD-like page, if one is set up... Although it's hopeful that the number of articles would grow if we have a decently-staffed, individual page for it. But the best thing would be to integrate it to the main RD platform... which those guys don't seem to want to do? Миборовский 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award clasps and reference desks 

message: With many thanks to Kirill for the boilerplate, the War films task force is now up and operational. All interested participants are welcome to join both this task force and the Films WikiProject. Girolamo Savonarola 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Task force now open

message: A bit off-topic, but I thought perhaps the Coordinators (or others who could be involved in future dispute resolutions) and others in this project might be interested in at least reading the series of discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I kind of accidentally stumbled into it a few weeks ago, and after being involved in the discussions, I now see that I have inadvertently, even though in good faith, violated this policy on occasions. 
Anyway, there is currently much discussion on changing the policy, though the policy itself won't be watered down, primarily just a "better wording" of some points, and much discussion on the issue of "Sources". Since any changes (or proposed changes), could have an impact on some articles here, or the project iteself, I thought that perhaps some of the coordinators might be interested in at least following the discussions, even if they wish not to participate, or offer insights on things that may impact this project. wbfergus  Talk 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info mainly for Coordinators

message: For those few who still have ethics, perhaps this is useful?
Fleet Submarine Succession
Trekphiler 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navboxesetc

message: The A-Class review for Fort Corcoran is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Fort Corcoran]] now open 

message: I know other portals have templates that will send out a call for experts on a topic.  I am lost as how to find the same for military history on Wikipedia.  Any guidance will be appreciated. Typing monkey 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On any given talk page you will should find the Military history Wikiproject template at or near the top of the page. Within the template add the line |attention=yes exactly as it appears here and the page in question will be added to our Category of Military history articles needing attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or one can use , which feeds into :Category:Military history articles needing expert attention. Kirill 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to request expert for a military history article?

message: User:Ceriy, who is doing great work on Ukrainian units, has just created 17th Armored Brigade (Ukraine). However I believe the better translation would be 'tank', as per former Soviet units; I doubt the actual name in Russian or Ukrainian has changed. What do others think? Cheers Buckshot06 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no worries; if that's the Ukrainian standard when they use English, nous dovons change (er, we must change to that). But I believe we should name the units 'Guards' if they are Guards, as the 17th is. Thus producing '17th Guards Armored Brigade', like the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division. What do people think? Buckshot06 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank or Armoured for Ukrainian formations today?

message: Currently, English Wikipedia is missing articles on the main Austrian generals in the Neapolitan War, Frederick Bianchi, Duke of Casalanza and Adam Albert von Neipperg. However, the French Wikipedia has two decent articles at :fr:Frédéric Bianchi and :fr:Adam Albert de Neipperg. I would be grateful if anyone who is fluent in French could translate the pages from the French Wikipedia. Thanks. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My French is a bit sketchy but looking at Bianchi I shouldn't have too many problems doing the translation. I'll give it a bash in my sandbox. Buckshot06 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Neipperg's done. It needs referencing with English-language sources --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from French 

message: I've been trying to develop guidelines on the capitalisation of military terms, on the relevant manual of style page. So far, there's been little interest, but since this heavily affects the work of this WikiProject, I was hoping that some of you might want to contribute. There are links to various other style guides' policies on this in the posts I put on the talk page , . -Kieran 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied there; the proposals as stated seem uncontroversial. Kirill 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation guidelines for military terms