Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 36

message: The coordinator election has concluded; we now have six new Assistant Coordinators:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Congratulations to the newly elected, and thanks to everyone who participated in this process, in whatever capacity! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not be the most appropriate place, yet I would like to congratualte my fellow Assistant Coordinators and thank all canditates on there showing and good manners. As well a heartfelt acknowledgement of all participants. And of course a Merci to all those that voted in my favor, I did not think I had made such an impression on my fellow history contributors and enthusiats. I can only hope to live up to your expectations.--Dryzen 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would like to thank everyone who supported me, and everyone who took part in the process, whether running for a position or voting. I will do my best.--Nobunaga24 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New coordinators 

message: * Mothball the cartography and translation departments; they don't seem to have gone anywhere, and it's not clear whether trying to bring them back to activity would actually provide practical benefits in any case.
* Create an automation department to coordinate various bot-driven work; in particular, we should try to arrange for more active bot-driven tagging of articles in our scope.
:: --> I'll create a draft soon enough, I'm really willing to move this one forward. (as I said on your talk page before you posted here :P) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please go ahead.  Just so we don't all go looking in different places later, would Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Automation be a good place to work on this? Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sir, sure thing, sir :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational changes 

message: We have two major categorization cleanup projects (military personnel and military units) that need to actually be completed.  Past experiences suggest that we should pick one of these and take it through to a practical conclusion rather than splitting our attention to both at once; which one we should proceed with first is entirely up in the air at this point, so suggestions would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill Lokshin I humbly offer the thought that we should select one, and finish it ASAP, then do the same to the other.  I have found simple plans are the best.  Select one, throw all our personnel at it, and finish it.  But I will happily do whatever Kirill feels is best.  old windy bear 01:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest starting with military units, as that seems to be the more straightforward one; but I'm open to other preferences on this point. Kirill Lokshin 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of of missing military units as I'm sure you know. Two from the U.S. 4th Infantry Division I'm looking for in particular: 12th ID and 22nd engineers.Marky48 14:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Military units are fine with me, just give me the details of how we are going to do this, and the green light to go! old windy bear 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support divide and conqueror; Lets tackle one of these at a time and see it through to the end.--Dryzen 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Well, elections are now over and I'm now an assistant coordinator elected with a lot of voices :)
Thanks a lot to all of you who trusted me and allowed me to get there. I'll try and not disappoint you during these 6 months! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to all who have supported me :) 

message: I also wish to thank again those who supported me, and I also will try not to disappoint those of you who trusted me during the next six months. old windy bear 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to all who have supported me also! :) 

message: Or the Greek Phalanx, or whatever is the predominate military formation of your ancient nations of choice.
It seems that the Classical Warfare task force has flagged seriously - and needs a jump start.
What should be the set of core articles for this task force (Military history of ancient Rome, Military history of ancient Greece/Military history of Greece, the Roman legion, etc.), are in dire need of cleanup, and in the case of Ancient Greece, don't even exist yet! These at the very least should be brought up to featured article status as a core to work outwards from (probably followed by the Punic Wars, the Greco-Persian Wars, etc.).
All interested ancient historians are strongly urged to pitch in.
We should also look at recruitment. There are some excellent scholars and editors out there that are sort of poking away (albiet it very effectively), who might not even know about this Wikiproject, and should be invited into the fold.
So - its a general call to arms people :) - Vedexent 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I work on the Punic wars, but it is very difficult and I still source. Wandalstouring 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently on the Byzantines and 18th century France, but I can make time to read some edits as I have done with Wandalstouring's excellent work on the Military history of ancient Rome.--Dryzen 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a translation and I still haven`t inserted it yet, because I did not get all German sources to source it. Wandalstouring 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muster the Legions! 

message: The automation department is now open, courtesy of Grafikm;  all project members are invited to propose new tasks and to comment on the suitability of particular proposals for automation.  (Anyone with access to a bot or AWB is also cordially invited to sign up to actually implement these things.) Kirill Lokshin 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automation department 

message: Some additional eyes at Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Tartans? would be extremely helpful! Kirill Lokshin 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: issue has been (more or less) amicably resolved. :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox Military Unit}} 

message: Do the in line citation numbers needs to be so large? They disrupt the line spacing within the article whenever they are used Raymond Palmer 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are smaller it is hard to read them. Perhaps you can use different citation techniques like adding a list of notes at the end of a paragraph in some cases. Wandalstouring 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It works fine on my computer. Maybe emptying cache and/or logging out then in would help... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Many people reported that problem around the same time as you. I had it too. There is or was a glitch in the system somewhere. • Kevin (complaints?) 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it today also but it worked itself out...weird.Michael DoroshTalk 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I had that same problem. Purging the cache did it for me though. Or maybe someone just fixed it on the other end. -- Миборовский 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In line citation 

message: Has anyone actually read this article?  Seems to be the work of a single Italian editor; there is a list of sources at the bottom, but no footnotes in the text and a few weasel words. Also stuff like "Goumiers were considered the diamond point of the French Army" seem to be badly translated into English.  The article doesn't seem encyclopedic at all, even if one believes the stuff about male on male rape and bestiality. Other opinions?Michael DoroshTalk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the film mentioned. I seems to be written by other editors and refers to the rape. But it is not clear where what information comes from and how reliable the sources are. Wandalstouring 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A Google search was not particularly helpful, as most of the results are in Italian or French, neither of which I speak, so it was difficult to assess the reliability of any of them. The article itself obviously needs cleanup, but it really needs an editor who can read either or both of those languages. Carom 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have also had problems with the matter on the Alphonse Juin article. The only references I found so far is in Douglas Porch The French Foreign Legion which says that "the Moroccans especially were often accused of being more dangerous to Italian civilians than to German soldiers." But the book is about the legion not the rest of the French force. Carl Logan 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to take the project banner off the talk page until a review can be made? I agree the article needs to be fact checked from the sources provided, if anyone can speak those languages. The guy has obviously put a lot of work into the article, but some of the claims defy belief without a solid source.Michael DoroshTalk 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to review it, but taking the banner off seems slightly petty; it's not like there aren't other dubious articles tagged with it. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if they are dubious, why tag them?Michael DoroshTalk 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bad articles are no less under our purview than the good ones are; indeed, the bad articles probably need more attention from us.  Untagging them would be sort of pointless, no?  The tags make no assertions of accuracy; and if somebody does decide to work on such articles, we would want to make it easier for them to find their way here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are likely to have lots of fun. The editor has been accused of extreme Italian nationalism, violating verifiability and unsourced claims on his talkpage without ever giving response there. Well, I asked him to help us. Wandalstouring 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it is on our radar shouldn't we at least rate it as Start?Michael DoroshTalk 01:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well given my experience dealing with these kinds of people (ok, not a lot, but enough) it seems unlikely he will be cooperative. -- Миборовский 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since most of the information seems to be unverifiable (at least through reliable sources), and the article is almost completely unformatted, I'm inclined to tag it as a stub, at least until someone produces confirmation of the claims made. Carom 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean Giovanni Giove with the extreme Italian nationalism, I beg to differ, when I removed the Marocchinate section from Juin article and left a note on his talk page, he didn't revert it and answered polite on my talk page. I for one think we can debate and discuss with him. Carl Logan 07:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Next procedure would be a dispute tag on the page, I believe, with your reasons on the Talk page.Michael DoroshTalk 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marocchinate]] 

message: Burma Road and Ledo Road would much be served with the addition of maps showing the route.  Is there a World War II task force of MILHIST that can handle this request?  Thanks!  --Cyde Weys 01:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is: WP:WWII.  No guarantees that any maps will be forthcoming quickly, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded this map of the lines of communication in that theater; the Ledo and Burma roads are at the far right, but are somewhat difficult to see, so somebody may want to do some cropping and highlighting of the map. Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I get home I will look through my stack of maps and see if I can find one of these. -- Миборовский 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. :( -- Миборовский 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting two maps 

message: "I know of no featured biography that lists all the letters its subject wrote (full length books, yes, but not short correspondence).  The main article links to Joan of Arc facts and trivia twice: at the start of the legacy section and at the "See also" section.  It would go against Wikipedia convention to add a list of section headings to a Wikilink."
From the Joan d'Arc peer review. Wandalstouring 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that seems pretty commonsense, actually; as she's not primarily known as a writer, devoting a substantial portion of the article to listing out everything she wrote would be inappropriate.  (It might be different for articles about writers; but even those usually don't discuss letters, except where a collected edition of them has been published.) Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her letters are not without political meaning. She claims the divine right to tell people what to do. She wrote a letter to the Hussites and on the Great Schism. These were not minor issues, especially concerning her position in the French military. Well it is not undisputed, whether she wrote these letters or one of her close associates wrote them. Her letter to the Hussites (in English): http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_letter_march_23_1430.html Wandalstouring 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm familiar with the letter to the Hussites (I vaguely recall that I brought it up at some point when the article was originally going for FA).  My point is that, while isolated letters may be mentioned as appropriate, it's unnecessary to provide an exhaustive list of everything she wrote, as letter-writing was not her primary role. Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I never suggested to make a list of her complete known correspondance. I think some letters should be reflected to better show her position and self-perception. Wandalstouring 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Responded on the review page.  Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are looking good.--Dryzen 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is such a restriction existing? 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joan of Arc has taken several days already and is getting nowhere.
It is very hard to remain polite. Wandalstouring 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on the review page.  Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are looking good.--Dryzen 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I just looked over the Biography WikiProject's core biographies page; out of two hundred entries, thirty-eight (perhaps more, but I didn't look through the list exhaustively) are within our scope:
# Abraham Lincoln 
# Adolf Hitler
# Akbar
# Alexander the Great
# Attila the Hun 
# Augustus
# Benito Mussolini
# Charlemagne
# Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
# Constantine I
# Cyrus the Great
# Franklin D. Roosevelt 
# Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
# Frederick II of Prussia 
# Genghis Khan
# George Washington
# Hannibal
# Henry VIII of England 
# Heraclius
# Hernán Cortés
# Hirohito
# Ivan IV of Russia
# Joan of Arc 
# Joseph Stalin
# Julius Caesar
# Mao Zedong
# Napoleon I of France
# Otto von Bismarck
# Peter I of Russia
# Philip II of Spain 
# Qin Shi Huang
# Saladin
# Simón Bolívar 
# Shaka
# Suleiman the Magnificent
# Timur
# William I of England
# Winston Churchill
No idea what, if anything, we should actually do with this list; but I thought it might be an interesting data point to bring up. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: War is humanity's favorite hobby?--Dryzen 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true (if a bit morbid). Another interesting point is the overwhelming number of national leaders-as-military leaders versus purely military personnel. We should probably try and push a few of these (Napoleon? Genghis?) towards FA status. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  War FAs make 10% of total FAs, so yes... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hannibal is in Punic as common as John is in English and there are several Hannibals jumping around in each war. Wouldn't his full name Hannibal Barca be a better choice. There are not quite as many Hannibal Barca. Wandalstouring 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the placement is due to the fact that the average reader would probably associate "Hannibal" with Hannibal Barca, rather than the other Hannibals. Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the average reader does, but he wants to be informed here. His brother Mago Barca (there was also the explorer Mago Barca, crossing several times the Sahara), his other brother Hasdrubal Barca and his father Hamilcar Barca are all listed with their family name. Wandalstouring 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the naming convention calls for the most common name, even if it's not the most accurate one (e.g. Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, etc.).  I doubt trying to fight this would be particularly productive (especially given the extent to which this project relies on that particular convention for its own use). Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in case of Hamilcar Barca it was made to distinguish between him and a Hamilcar commanding the fleet at the Battle of Drepanum. While Hannibal Barca had a staff officer Hannibal Monomachus, who advocated ideas like training the troops to eat human flesh to solve the provision problems in war. I am still working on this, but it seems there are some major errors in several books about Hannibal, because they were confused. Wandalstouring 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, George Washington is a current AID if we want to help pitch in.... plange 17:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres another biography thats in our area, Sun Tzu i'm some people here have read his book The Art of War. I think his biography should be added to the list.Hypnosadist 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to focus stronger on important personalities in the specific taskforces. Yes, Sun Tzu receives lots of credit and his book contains basics on warfare, so he is a notable person. Although personally I felt not very inspired after reading it. Perhaps too many people quote it. Wandalstouring 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core biographies 

message: Is there any agreed standard format for discussion of individual units?  Articles don't appear to have a coherent shape at the moment, some leading with extremely text dense histories before a short section on current role, with others opening on current role before moving on to history.
My own inclination is to have current information up front, wupported by historical and contextual information, but if there is an agreed standard then I'll stick with that.
cf Royal Marines and Special Air Service to see what I'm getting at.
ALR 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your proposal and if there is no standard, I strongly argue to make this standard. Wandalstouring 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are some basic guidelines on the project page; but I don't think that trying to impose a more rigorous rule will be productive.  Just go with whatever makes sense given the history and role of the particular unit in question; so long as the result is well-written, nobody will complain. Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units format 

message: I need some volunteers to answer the image requests. Usually it is enough to copyedit the name into a search-engine for images. Afterwards you send a request to the administrator of the site (email is usually under "Contacts"). The request must contain:
*use on www.wikipedia.org
*upload on www.wikimedia.org
*clear request to name the appropriate license (for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/)
  	
*It works better if you name the website's url or the url of the images and if you offer to provide a link to the source.
It is a good idea to copyedit your request letter instead of writing a new one each time. If somebody needs help, I have written several letters. 
A hidden  request page for images is here: Wikipedia:Requested_pictures/Military
You could help me a lot, so I can concentrate on more difficult image requests. Wandalstouring 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  volunteers for image requests 

message: I have resigned myself to the fact that I will have to manufacture several maps that I require to "flesh out" several articles that I'd like to bring up to FA status.
Does anyone know of any "base maps" that can be built off of, or tools that might generate these? Ideally I'd like a topographically-shaded set of maps, with no cities, or borders (these I can add myself). Ultimately I'd like a set for most of the "classical world" - and online or software tools would be able to generate these - although right now I'd settle for a map of the Italian peninsula.
Any ideas?
Vedexent 11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Dryzen, he is our professional in this field. Wandalstouring 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard back from, Dryzen yet, but I managed to find the Demis map server, which allows public use of the maps produced by their system, and has a "demo" flash client on their website here. I managed to create some maps for the Third Servile War article by using their maps as a base and adding in details with SmartDraw. You'll have to judge the results yourself :) - Vedexent 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon for my late reply, it is notoriously dificult to geta hodl of me on wikipedia over the weekends and this one had a national holiday as well.  As for the maps, I am a professionnal (as in it is my profession) yet I've had the pleasure of working with some rather expensive and specialized software. Currently our licences extend only over the databases holding information on our local region. For freeware, things get harder. This Demis seems to be high grade stuff (I`dd heard of their work with Worldwind). If you have the cash to spend I would suggest geting MapInfo, not too user friendly but its information is sound and clear. Another cheap but powerful graphics editor is CorelDraw suite, but you can get just as good with some of the freeware available like GIMP or  Inkscape. Like you've already found out the cheapest is to meld representative data (attained from free groupes such as Google Earth) and home made graphics (drawing over a screen capture). Its not much but I hope this helps. If you have any questiosn on conventions or some such send a message.--Dryzen 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map bases? 

message: I've completely written the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment page. It used to be classified stub. What is the process for re-classifying? Sorry, I'm not TOO involved with the wikiproject, though I know most of you from my work in the genre.⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 10:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You go to the assessment department and you add in the list of requests for assessment. But don't worry I have assessed it. Kyriakos 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you can just rate it yourself, if you're comfortable doing so; I very much doubt it would be regarded as problematic for the lower ratings (up to B-Class). Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rating?