Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 32

message: I think that there's some confusion resulting from the fact that we're discussing two separate issues above without always making clear which one is being referred to.  Let's try to sort this out:
; Operational names as titles
We already have a guideline discouraging the use of operational names as the titles of articles:
:Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.
This has generally been interpreted quite loosely, though, and with deference to the use of most common English names for events.  It seems, from the discussion above, that some people would like to see this guideline changed (or not changed, as the case may be); if they could please make it explicit in their comments that they're discussing article titles, it would make it a lot easier to follow. Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases, e.g. Operation Blue, it is simply impossible to come up with another name for the article, in my view.  This shows also the danger of re-directing.  Before I worked on the article, it was a simple re-direct to Battle of Stalingrad, which is a subset of Fall Blau, so many other battles could not be discussed in a coherent manner. As a guideline the one we have is fine, but it has to be kept clear in any revision that it will be impossible to follow it all the time, just as it states now. Andreas 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that an 'operation' and a 'battle' are related, but not the same thing. In many cases, the operation is a subset of the battle, as it is one side's planing and administration of the battle. So, I can see four (rare) cases where an Operation article should exist: 1) The widely-known name for the battle is "Operation X". 2) There is no corresponding battle, or other article (Operation Sealion). 3) The operation is, instead a super-set of any one battle (or article, really; the Italian Campaign is also a super-set of battles). 4) The battle is important enough that it has a separate page(s) on the planning for it that was done ahead of time ('operation' isn't in the title, but the general case is typified by the Schlieffen Plan). --Rindis 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, maybe the policy should be something along the lines of "Try not to use operation names, especially propagandic operation names, in circumstances where they are avoidable. However, sometimes a given military operation may be known only by its code name and not have a generic name, in which case the operational name is acceptable. Also, if the planning part of the operation is being discussed, the code name may make the most sense." Or something; that's just what I could come up with at the spur of the moment, and it seems compromise-y. UnDeadGoat 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some military events are more easily referred to by their operational names such as Operation Ten-Go which otherwise would be called by a long and somewhat awkward title such as "Last Mission of the Combined Fleet" or "Suicide Mission of Battleship Yamato."  Another example is a stub article I just started, called "Operation Tan No. 2."  I couldn't think of what else to call it except for a literal, long title like "Long-range Kamikaze attack on the US fleet at Ulithi" or something like that.  It seemed to be easier to call it by it's Japanese operational name.  Except for those few events where the operational name is much more concise or more commonly used, then the more historical term is better, like Battle of Guadalcanal instead of "Operation Cactus." Cla68 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting back on track 

message: I haven't been keeping real good tabs on talk over here, but someone said ya'll are still haveing trouble tagging talk page articles.  If so, check out User:WatchlistBot.  I've been told anyone with alittle Python experience can run it.  Contact me or User:Mom2jandk for more info.  Thnx  Joe  I 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issues have been pretty much resolved at this point; all we need are some people to do more tagging (I think the preliminary test for doing this with AWB have been successful, but I'll need to check to see if that's something likely to happen in the near future). Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea is to NOT use a bot (or to feed a bot a presorted list). I'm up still up to it btw, I was just slowed down by that discussion at WP:AN... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, cool. :)  Joe  I 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, because you can get weird pages otherwise. For instance, I run into some paintball guns pages in Category:Military Equipment Little to do with military history :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging Articles

message: Medal of Honor is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the announcement box for some time now ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only comment is that the article should clarify two, related, matters: 1) The date when the MOH was expanded to all ranks; 2) The fact that there were numerous, retroactive awards made of the MOH.  For instance, many people are aware of the fact that Joshua L. Chamberlin received the MOH for his actions at Gettysburg, but few realize that the MOH was actually awarded to Chamberlin in the 1890's.  --Paco Palomo 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there has been little edit activity, the article has now been pushed from minor review to major review. I hope our military award experts will step up.  It would be a shame to see it lose its  Featured Article status. — ERcheck (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal of Honor

message: Does anyone know of this? I seen it in a documentary programme on the History Channel last year?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certain elements of the Japanese military attempted to keep the Emperor from announcing the surrender of Japan.  They invaded the Imperial Palace, killed at least one, perhaps several of the Imperial Household guards, and tried to locate the recording of the Emperor's surrender proclamation.  However, they deigned to invade the Emperor's private quarters, where the record was hidden, which allowed it to be broadcast the next day.  The Wikipedia article "Surrender of Japan" touches a little on this event, but not in great detail. Cla68 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is described in further detail at Kenji Hatanaka, as Maj. Hatanaka was one of the lead conspirators. </self-plug> LordAmeth 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be link to this article in the Surrender of Japan article (perhaps there is already and I missed it).  One thing, the article should state where the Emperor's recording of the surrender proclamation was hidden, as that's one of the most interesting pieces of the story.  The Emperor's staff hid the surrender proclamation recording very ingeniously, if I remember right. Cla68 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Military Coup during [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] 

message: I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at Talk:List of crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces and address my concerns.  Thanks.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly replied on the talk page.  One thing that might be an interesting project—if we can avoid having it deleted—would be to create a unified Glossary of military terms or something of the sort.  We already have a few separate glossaries for specific branches or conflicts; a combined one might provide a better resource (as well as allowing us to merge together some of the smaller stubs that seem to infest :Category:Military terminology and its children). Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Start writing it in Wikipedia space, it'll still be useful even if it isn't an article.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That one doesn't offer any definitions, though; my idea of a glossary would be to provide a one- or two-sentence definition even for those terms that had their own articles. Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew-served weapons 

message: It's really a shame that Model 24 grenade (as well as all of the other stielhandgranate articles) don't have any pictures on them.  This really is an iconic, archetypal hand grenade style that will be instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever seen a WWII film, and it's a travesty we don't have any images on the articles.  I hope I'm coming to the right place to find someone who can get the images somehow!  --Cyde↔Weys 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search suggests that the U.S. Army's German Infantry Weapons (May 1943) had both photos and diagrams of the grenades.  Unfortunately, the images I've found online seem to be watermarked in fairly nasty ways by the hosting sites; if anyone can find clean copies, we could probably use them. Kirill Lokshin 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a famous close-up picture of a German soldier rearing up to throw one of those grenades.  It seems like that picture is in at least half of the books published about the European theater of World War II and I think it's a public domain image.  Perhaps someone can scan it out of a book and post to the Commons.  I'm not sure if I have it in my book collection. Cla68 20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This shows contemporary (Chinese-made) stick grenades being laid out for disposal, artfully placed next to a couple of "pineapples", etc. It's not a picture of the German grenade per se, but a cropped version of the larger image might do well on Grenade generally - we have no pictures illustrating that form of grenade at all just now. Shimgray | talk | 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: how about this and this?   Mike McGregor (Can) 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like if we need an image for an article we can look at Wikipedia in the other languages. Cla68 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stielhandgranate - images needed! 

message: Somehow an article hadn't been created on trigger pull until just now (when I went ahead and did it).  It's still a very small stub, so there's significant room for expansion if anyone wants to add a notch to their "Articles I mostly wrote from scratch" belt.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigger pull stubbed 

message: I need some help: either support or rebuttal so long as its objective and informed. I'm getting drawn into an argument with mikkalai in the talk page on Hiwi (volunteer) and I would appreciate a consensus instead. I'm relying on a single source by a respected author, which Mikkalai rejects, so far without his own source. He may be right, I'd appreciate other contributions. Help! Folks at 137 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hiwi (volunteer)]]

message: I don't recall there having been a discussion about this, but apparently one was set up, and it probably needs more people than it currently has, so it's time to get recruiting, who here (besides User:Dangerous-Boy, of course) has the expertise/interest to contribute to this task force? -- Миборовский 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there wasn't a discussion.  Apparently, the note telling people to discuss these things before setting them up isn't getting through.  Maybe we should convert it to a giant flashing banner? Kirill Lokshin 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a more practical level, this task force (like the proposed German one below) needs to define its scope. What is considered "Indian" pre-India? Does it include the Mughals? How about the Sultanate of Delhi? Or the Vijayanagara Empire? Kirill Lokshin 12:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this was a fast creation. The Muslem states... Looks like a new task force to build up. Dryzen 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just directed to this page through a link on the talk page of Indian taskforce project after I signed up there. This is my first visit to this project. Please pardon my ignorance about military history. The reason I had signed up was because I am interested in anything 'Indian'. I also just saw that the task force should have been discussed before being set up. I dont know what happens now, but there is definitely lots of military history that India has to offer. Talking about just the recent history: After India became independent in 1947, it has been involved in atleast three major wars with Pakistan and one with China. Most of those, I just checked, have already been tagged. There are however many others such as Pokhran-II, various awardees of the Param Vir Chakra, Simla Treaty and other relatively little known articles which should probably be a part of the project. You are right about defining the scope of course. I can request some other Indian users who are more interested in the Indian Military history to do that. As for me, I am probably only good at tagging the right articles with the right template. In fact thats what I mentioned as I joined the task force. -- Lost 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Thoreaulylazy contacted me a while ago about starting it up.  I finally decided to do it since there are a lot of Indian battles over the centuries.  It's scope is probably like the chinese one.  It should cover pre-independent India to present.  Plus, there's also a big military weapons section that needs organization.--D-Boy 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the question is this: which of the various pre-independence states that occupied the territory currently known as India would be included?  In particular, would it include the Mughal Empire (which has a lot of military history topics)?  Kirill Lokshin 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course.--D-Boy 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd point you to a related discussion about the usage of 'India' pre independence. Maybe we can take some inputs from there -- Lost 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Somebody should write up a little "Scope" section on the task force page (similar to the ones on the British or Classical warfare ones) to explain the issue for arriving editors. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote something up.  Improve if you want.--D-Boy 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian taskforce? 

message: Thanks to Nobunaga24 for reviving the idea of starting a Japanese task force. The only reason I suggested a Far East task force to begin with was (a) I wasn't sure we'd find enough editors by doing just Japan, and (b) I personally have begun to be interested in Southeast Asia of late, and was hoping to subsume that into it therefore. But if we have enough support (how many is enough?) to do just Japan, I am more than up for starting that up. LordAmeth 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, just sign up here and save some time ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Thanks, Kirill. I had planned to wait and see how much support there was before I asked you to formally create it, but I guess we're off and running. Arigatou! LordAmeth 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, none of those should have anything to do with the project, as we don't generally deal with fictional depictions of military matters.  Have they been tagged or something?  Kirill Lokshin 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you go to the Task force project page here then go to the section named Categories, then category:Military History of Japan,then category:Japanese warriors,then category:Ninja. I checked a few articles but so far they haven't been tag with the project banner yet.--Oldwildbill 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a flaw in the category system, really.   (See also :Category:Fictional battles, for example.)  As a general rule, we just ignore the presence of fictional categories in the tree. Kirill Lokshin 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't ninjas more assassins and spies than warriors... -- Миборовский 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they were used as a weapon of war in medieval Japan. I think they qualify. --Woogums 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese task force 

message: It's been brought to my attention that Aleksandr Vasilevsky, which was promoted to featured article status today, is our one hundredth featured article.  Congratulations are in order to everyone who has contributed to the various FAs under our purview (and, more specifically, to Grafikm fr for his tireless efforts with this article in particular).  Cheers! Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one! --Loopy e 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have 1/10 the FAs in WP... Nice. -- Миборовский 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100th featured article 

message: If anyone has a bit of free time, we've got a bunch of new peer review requests that could use more attention; having me being the only one to answer is probably limiting the feedback there somewhat ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to help out by emulating the approach you take to doing effective peer reviews.  However, it may be a couple of days before I can do one. Cla68 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with peer reviews 

message: A few weeks ago we had an interesting debate about this issue. If I am not mistaken, we came up with a couple of interesting ideas. Still, things are pretty much the same. Any thoughts on how we can help to put those ideas into practice? Back then, my attempt to create cat: Military people of France, as per our discussions, came to nothing when another editor sent it to CFD. --Andrés C. 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion about why we need more coordinators up above. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of military people? 

message: I was wondering if a Dutch military task force could be created? 
I don't really know which way to go though; although the Netherlands have more than enough military history of their own, the concept of "Dutch", as in people of the Netherlands, could also be used in the context of "people who speak Dutch" which in that way would also include the military history of Flanders or even the Low Countries, this context is already used to some extent in the Military history of the Netherlands article:
::The Dutch-speaking people have a long history, the Netherlands as a nation-state dates from 1568. Belgium (a country with a Dutch speaking majority) became an independent state in 1830 when it seceded from the Netherlands.
Generally I'd say the Dutch task force could cover anything fought on Dutch territory (or the low countries) and anything fought by Dutch troops (or Dutch speakers) around the entire world. This would/could provide the taskforce with about 2000 years to cover, from the battles of Germanic tribes to Operation Enduring Freedom.
Could such a task force be created?
 Rex  15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason why not in principle, but do we have enough editors interested in working on it? Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, ask them first.  (Or better yet, have them drop by and join the conversation here.)  ;-)  Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good enough for me; here is your new task force.  Enjoy! :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch task force 

message: I originally created the article Siege of Beirut using a single source, Paul Davis' "100 Great Sieges." As many of you probably already know, this is by no means my field of expertise. Some changes have been made recently that seem quite plausible, but also biased, and my knowledge of the details of these events is, admittedly, lacking. I have no desire to get into an edit war or flamewar with someone (particularly an IP editor), and so I am asking the wider community to take a look at the changes, and to keep an eye on the article. It is a touchy subject, but that is all the more reason that it should be as accurate and NPOV as we seek all articles to be. Thanks for any help anyone might provide. LordAmeth 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Beirut (1982) 

message: I added a Military equipment section to the list of article requests. Mike McGregor (Can) 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article requests...new section added