Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Archive 1

message: Any thoughts on what's there now?Mike McGregor (Can) 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectives

message: The first thing I'd like to do is merge :Category:Conflicts in Canada into :Category:Wars of Canada, how do I go about doing that? I tried to put up a merge proposal notice, but it only seems to work for articles.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Merger?

message: How do I sign up? :-)
:Just add your name to the list of participants here ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Canadian_military_history_task_force#Participants
done - sorry for not signing that comment earlier - it was in response to an invitation from you guys on my talk page.Michael Dorosh 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: UTC just means universal time. its attached to your signature automaticly (with 4 "~"s) to show when a given post is posted Mike McGregor (Can) 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a such thing as an "univited" edit on wikipedia ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "soul" of the Canadian Army is the RCR?  Ugh. I hope your POV doesn't ooze into the actual article contents.Michael Dorosh 04:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question - should there be a wikilink between RCR & Col Sanders? (Pro Patria - 1st & 3rd 1979-1987) Bridesmill 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never thought I'd say this on Wikiepdia...but LOL.Michael Dorosh 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roles

message: I've just merged two articles into The Royal Regina Rifles. Unfortunately, they disagree on the order of precedence. Anyone know what the correct version is? Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of precedence 

message: Orriginally I was thinking about seperate articles for "the gully", Casa Biardi and San Leonardo, but now I'm thinking that maybe they'd be better as sections of a broader article on all the operations in the Moro River area. What does everyone think?
Why not just go by the official list on Battle Honours? Seems like a great guide to our article names and is the convention I use on my own site. Michael Dorosh 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, should they be seperate articles or sections of a larger article? (i.e. An  article titled "THE MORO" with sections for San Leonardo, The Gully, Casa Berardi, etc? or seperate articles for each?) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a loose proposal--> User:Mike McGregor (Can)/The Moro (battle). Mike McGregor (Can) 13:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your proposal; not sure that the gully would ever become much more than a stub, and it very much 'flows' from San Leo through.  I'm thinking that approach may be required for some of the other (minor) battle honours which where part of a larger Op as well Bridesmill 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice that "The Moro" doesn't seem to catch the other operations on the heirchy of battle honours. Is that a concern? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moro River operations

message: Michael Dorosh suggested above that we use the names of battles and campaings as they appear on Canadian Battle Honours as a guide to naming articles where possible. I think that this is a great idea. What do others think?  Could someone take the responsability of creating a compleat list for refrence in the "wiki resources" section?Mike McGregor (Can) 11:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there's a red link waiting to be filled on the taskforce page if this is a go...Mike McGregor (Can) 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/auth-btlhnrs-1999.htm   http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm Mike McGregor (Can) 17:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle Honours for a guide to article naming?

message: Battle of Arnhem redirrects to Market Garden...this makes sense, but there is no mention of Arnhem actually being liberated by Canadian troops. (Post Market Garden)Take a look and let me know if it should be added there, or perhaps a new article discussing the actual Canadian operation.
Motorfix 16:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, and I don't think it needs to be expanded much from a Canadian standpoint - though if a map can be found, or some histories on the infividual units that fought there, go ahead. Is fine as is.I'll add a bit on the battle honour aspect of the PLF though, as it is interesting to me.  Having said that, the British side of things does need to be explored. And of course the German side of things has been ignored completely, no doubt due to lack of sources.  I think it is a great start, though, well done.Michael Dorosh 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article perhaps be at Second Battle of Arnhem or Battle of Arnhem (1945)?  Offhand, I can't think of any other articles that are named "Liberation of ...". Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The Battle Honour is Arnhem 1945 - if we are going by the naming convention of using battle honours as discussed before, it should probably be a variation on that? Battle of Arnhem (1945) seems to be the most correct. Second Battle of Arnhem sounds too much like a formal convention, and my understanding is that no one has designated it as such?Michael Dorosh 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Arnhem (1945) would probably be a good name to default to, unless something else is predominantly used in sources to refer to it. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnhem 

message: *Liberation of Arnhem  -new artical for review and adjustment
:Looks good, and I don't think it needs to be expanded much from a Canadian standpoint - though if a map can be found, or some histories on the infividual units that fought there, go ahead. Is fine as is.I'll add a bit on the battle honour aspect of the PLF though, as it is interesting to me.  Having said that, the British side of things does need to be explored. And of course the German side of things has been ignored completely, no doubt due to lack of sources.  I think it is a great start, though, well done.Michael Dorosh 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article perhaps be at Second Battle of Arnhem or Battle of Arnhem (1945)?  Offhand, I can't think of any other articles that are named "Liberation of ...". Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The Battle Honour is Arnhem 1945 - if we are going by the naming convention of using battle honours as discussed before, it should probably be a variation on that? Battle of Arnhem (1945) seems to be the most correct. Second Battle of Arnhem sounds too much like a formal convention, and my understanding is that no one has designated it as such?Michael Dorosh 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Arnhem (1945) would probably be a good name to default to, unless something else is predominantly used in sources to refer to it. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from main page

message: In Canadian military history articles, I'd suggest some naming conventions be instituted. 
*I just noticed the division names are backwards in the Scheldt article, and even some articles such as 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division were incorrectly titled as "Canadian 4th Armoured Division". Someone on the talk page suggested the "proper convention" is Canadian 2nd Infantry Division, yet any wartime document, as well as Stacey's official history, or Falconer's book BATTLE FLASHES, shows the format was 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. I think we need to be consistent with these, which will help when wikilinking.
*Also, if an article is focused on Canadian matters exclusively, the title "Second World War" is preferable to "World War Two" or "World War II".  While the latter are generally acceptable, the proper term in use in Canadian military history circles is the former - see any official history.
Just a couple suggestions to tighten up our efforts.Michael Dorosh 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur fully on the "Second World War" or "WWII" issue. It would be the same as me giving up the 'u's in my 'armour's! It is proper Canadian English to call it the Second World War. I also agree about the unit notation... I have always sen it written with the number first, eg. 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division. Easter rising 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Canadian 7th Infantry Division should be renamed to 7th Canadian Infantry Division, correct? Mike McGregor (Can) 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.Michael Dorosh 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions 

message: should 1st Canadian Division and 1st Canadian Infantry Division be merged? Mike McGregor (Can) 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, as the official designations are different - was "Infantry" part of their title from 1914-18? I don't believe there was a need to distinguish them then. In the Second World War, there were infantry divisions, airborne divisions, and armoured divisions. I'm familiar with cavalry brigades in the First World War, but not divisions - hence, in the Great War it was "First Canadian Division" and in the Second World War, "1st Canadian Infantry Division".Michael Dorosh 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point. If that is the case through, then in the 1st Canadian Infantry Division article, it should not date the div back to the Great War... not if they are going to be considered seperate entities.Easter rising 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind... i guess i was seeing things. either that or someone edited it. ANYWAYS, I'm on side, no merger.Easter rising 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merger?

message: I've made some huge changes to History of the Canadian Army. The entire article seemed to be missing the point and was just rehashing stuff from Canadian Military History and other articles. I've drastically altered the focus of the page to actual discuss the history of the institution itself. It will need a lot of additional work.Michael Dorosh 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Canadian Army 

message: Not sure where this stuff fits, but if pre-Confederation stuff back East is part of Canadian military history, then so are events in the Pacific Northwest before BC joined Canada.  So here's a preliminary list, some of which need articles written yet:
*seizure of Fort George (Astoria) during War of 1812
*Fraser Canyon War (1858)
*McGowan's War (1858-59
*Lamalcha War (1863)
*Chilcotin War (1864)
*Wild Horse Creek War (Fort Steele: 1864 I think)
*Pig War (1859-70)
Only those which involved military deployments are listed; the Rock Creek War, for instance, was settled without troops or threat of troops.  The 1818 US despatching of USS Ontario to challenge British claims I'm not sure about, as there was no British military response, rather a diplomatic one.Skookum1 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early BC History stuff

message: What exactlt are the rules on the copy writes on photos? I want to start an artical on the Skink (Canadian AA tank). At this link http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/3351/allweps/skink.html
There are photos, but I am under the impression that you can't use anything you find on the net?
Suggestions?
Motorfix 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywrite photos 

message: I was on the main project page looking at the Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and thought somthing similar might be useful here. Perhaps we could tailor it to our needs... Mike McGregor (Can) 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the task forces are meant to be much more work-area-like than the main project page (and as there's little need to transclude the thing everywhere), I would think that simply having an announcement/open task section on the task force page would be sufficient. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, see my comments here for another approach that might be worth considering. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we use our own announcements template?  

message: Finally!! The last remaining Canadian base without a page now has one. Please check it out and help me Iron out the bugs! NRS Aldergrove
Motorfix 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NRS Aldergrove

message: I'm not sure what is wanted for this article. While the army was certainly equipped with Shermans in WWII, Canada did not receive any direct Lend-Lease aid in WWII (ie: no Shermans — or any other kit — were supplied to Canada from the United States via Lend-Lease).--Ggbroad 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lend-Lease Sherman Tanks

message: It looks like the task force could use a boost it's membership. If you browse Canadian Military articals, it seems there are lots of people who share our interest. I have a few ideas, and Welcome yours. For a start, maybe we could create a wikipedia user catagory "Wikipedians who have served in the CF" That would be an easy way to see who else has served, and perhaps shares an interest. I would also like to see a Canadian Soldier userbox. Questions? Problems? difficulties?
Motorfix 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straight invitations of editors on articles of interest might be more effective than creating a category for servicepeople—which would then need to be populated, and which wouldn't necessarily indicate an interest in editing on these topics—but either option is probably workable as a long-term strategy. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you could try going through the edit histories of related articles and soliciting contributers that look like they might be intrested on their talk page, or leave a brief messege/banner on the talk pages of related articles. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Membership in the Canadian Forces doesn't automatically impart an ability to edit articles on Canadian military subjects, either. I don't think we want to give the appearance of excluding those without military experience - some of the leading and prolific military historians out there never served a day in their lives.Michael Dorosh 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the task force

message: Should we start a "Canadian Military History Stub" Category with a template to go with it? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea, but it should be proposed at WP:WSS/P before being created. Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea, I still stumble across Canadian Military History Articals I did not even know about! Hopefully this will help out the membership.Motorfix 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: alright, I made the proposal at WP:WSS/P. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point brought up there: the basic  doesn't seem to be listed on the task force page! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, no slacking and restricting yourselves to "history", just because you have "history" in your title. :)  Alai 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the distinction won't be too much of an issue now that we've done the little scope description dance on the main project page. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stub category? 

message: template has been created. Tagging stubs with this template will place articles in :category:Canadian history stubs, :category:Canadian military stubs and :Category: Military history stubs. The folks (folk?...) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/August felt that there are too few Canadian military history stubs to warrent their own category. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Canada-mil-hist-stub}} 

message: Does any one know where I can find a good refrence of which Churchill variants were used by the Canadian army during the second world war? Mike McGregor (Can) 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  canadian Churchill tank? 

message: What to do? 
How do you handle a situation in which reference to an event from one source is completely repudiated in another. Case in point;  In my research and entries on the HMCS Prince David page, I used information from a source which I assumed to be reliable. The event was originally told to me by my father who served on the ship during that period and although the details differed somewhat, the facts were confirmed from the source material. I entered a shorted version (just the facts, mamm) and carried on. Recently I have discovered an excellent document from the Canadian Forces History and Heritage Archive. Judging by the document's contents, it's wonderful detail and official status, one would have to assume that this document is, if nothing else, accurate. 
So now what? Here is the abbreviated version from my original source:
From early 1941, HMCS Prince David served as convoy escort from West Indies Station in Bermuda. In the spring of 1941, while steaming alone, a heavy upper mast of a major warship appeared on the horizon. As there were no friendly forces in the area, it was decided to alter course and make a hasty retreat. Fortunately, the other ship made the same decision and turned away toward the north. It was later reported that the ship was a German pocket battleship. The enemy's decision to turn away may have been influenced by Prince David's resemblance to an 8-inch cruiser.
The author also stated that an American patrol plane had later confirmed the the ship was a pocket battleship. I did not include this statement because given the location of the event, I found it inconceivable that a shore base plane would be in the region, maybe that could be called doing original research by omission.
Here is my paraphrased version of the same event from the new source (note the discrepancy in date):
At the end of August, Prince David was ordered to rendezvous with the HMS Circassia, an 11,000 ton AMC. Their task was to patrol the central Atlantic  to intercept enemy supply ships and raiders. At dawn, 29 August, before the rendezvous had taken place, Prince David sited an unknown vessel The vessel, which was seen stern on, in poor visibility, at a range of 12,000 yards, was reported by Prince David to be a heavy cruiser, steering Southeast at 25 knots. She did not reply correctly to Prince David's challenge and steamed off after 50 minutes.
Some rather fanciful stories arose from this brief encounter, and authorities were hard pressed to counter newspaper reports that Prince David had forced the Admiral Hipper to turn tail and run, some even classified the encounter as a shooting engagement.
   A press clipping from a British newspaper: "`We took after her at
   once, emitting loud yaps from our six-inch guns,' said Prince David's
   captain, describing the action, and, deceived by the aggressive spirit
   of the small ship, the powerful German fled at high speed." pg41
The identity of this ship remains a mystery. The Admiralty considered that she might be the auxiliary cruiser Thor, but this raider had returned to Breast.
Considering the location of German raiders at this period, it's unlikely that it was a ship of this kind and despite newspaper articles claiming otherwise, was not the Admiral Hipper. HMCS Prince David probably sighted the U Boat supply ship Python or a supply ship for disguised raiders.
The interesting thing about this, to my mind is, that the first version clearly illustrates the power of propaganda. In those very dark early days of the Battle of the Atlantic, good news was hard to come by. In fact this version almost takes what sounds like shipboard scuttlebutt and adds the reference to the American patrol plane.
The second version states the events in a more reasonable manner and shows how a small story can be blown out of proportion
I am re-writing this section so I'd like some direction on this matter.
Thanks Elusive/Alberg22 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMCS Prince David 

message: There's a new peer review request for HMCS Prince David that may be of interest to editors here; any input would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Per the new naming guidelines, I've begun moving unit names around, but I came across 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division, and was unsure how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know if this was the official name of the division? Or should it be moved to 5th Armoured Division (Canada)? Or something else entirely? All comments welcome. Carom 16:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there! I think the official designation was 5th Canadian Armoured Division. hopefully someone with more knowlage can confirm that. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret your comment to mean that the article should be moved to remove the parentheses - that is, the article should exist at 5th Canadian Armoured Division, rather than that simply being a redirect. Is this correct? (Thanks for the prompt response, by the way) Carom 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Question 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] 

message: I've noticed the main page lists several categories related to this task force, but there is no presentation of organization.  Would it be helpfull to develop a more structured & complete list such as this:
*:Category:Canadian military history task force articles
* :Category:Military of Canada 
*:Category:Military history of Canada
**:Category:Conflicts in Canada
**:Category:Wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America
**:Category:Wars involving Canada
**:Category:Military history of Canada during World War I
**:Category:Military history of Canada during World War II
**:Category:Battles involving Canada
***:Category:Naval battles involving Canada
***:Category:Battles of the French and Indian War
***:Category:Battles of the North-West Rebellion
***:Category:Battles of the War of 1812
**:Category:Canadian military memorials and cemeteries
**:Category:Naval history of Canada
**:Category:Royal Canadian Air Force
**:Category:Forts in Canada
*:Category:Military equipment of Canada
**:Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of Canada
**:Category:Canadian military aircraft
**:Category:Military Equipment of the British Empire
**:Category:World War I military equipment of Canada
**:Category:World War II military equipment of Canada
**:Category:Cold War military equipment of Canada
**:Category:Current military equipment of Canada
*:Category:Military units and formations of Canada
**:Category:Regiments of Canada
**:Category:British colonial regiments
**:Category:Divisions of Canada
**:Category:Brigades of the Canadian Army
**:Category:Military units and formations of Canada in World War I
**:Category:Military units and formations of Canada in World War II 
**:Category:Military units and formations of Canada in the Cold War 
**:Category:Military units and formations of Canada in the present
*:Category:Canadian military personnel
**:Category:Canadian military personnel of World War I 
**:Category:Canadian military personnel of World War II
**:Category:Canadian military personnel of the Korean War
**:Category:Canadian military personnel of the Cold War
**:Category:Canadian Victoria Cross recipients
**:Category:Canadian military leaders
**:Category:Canadian military personnel by rank
***:Category:Canadian generals
***:Category:Canadian admirals
***:Category:Canadian air marshals
***:Category:Canadian officers 
***:Category:Canadian non-commisioned personnel
*:Category:Canadian people of World War I
*:Category:Canadian people of World War II
*:Category:Canadian Forces
**:Category:Canadian Forces bases
**:Category:Canadian Forces Enviromental Commands
***:Category:Canadian Forces Air Command
***:Category:Canadian Forces Land Force Command
***:Category:Canadian Forces Maritime Command
**:Category:Canadian Forces Operational Commands
***:Category:Canadian Special Operations Force Command
***:Category:Canadian Expiditionary Force Command
***:Category:Canada Command
***:Category:Canadian Operational Support Command
- MCG 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea.  A number of the military unit categories are misnamed, incidentally; they're all supposed to be of the form "X of Canada" (or similar) rather than "Canadian x". Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: :Category:Canadian Forces is up for merging with :Category:Military of Canada, which is odd, since :Category:Royal Canadian Air Force and :Category:Royal Canaadian Navy are not being considered, even though CF is a force structure just like the RCAF, RCN, and CA it replaced. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18#Category:Canadian_Forces
70.51.8.140 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the decision was to keep it.   -   MCG 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Canadian Forces]] 

message: This is user climie.ca.  I've started to work on the Battle of Verrieres Ridge.  Nobody panic that it isn't good.  I will continue to work on it when I have more time, likely over the next week.  If anyone can give me any help at all that would be much appreciated.
Climie.ca 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force by Kirill Lokshin 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Verrieres Ridge 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: I've been thinking...and looking on a bunch of other wikiproject task forces....
Should we have a task-force co-ordinator/administrator?  Many of the other task forces I'm on do.....maybe we should too.
Climie.ca 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm?  I'm not aware of any task forces (at least in MILHIST) that have dedicated coordinators.  To be quite honest, I don't see the point; the bulk of the maintenance work is already done by the project coordinators, and there's no shortage of admins around to do anything that requires those tools. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  task force admin 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of the Plains of Abraham that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Carom 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Arras (1917)]] 

message: For those who are interested, there's a new category, :Category:French Canadians in the American Revolution, which also includes some requested biographies. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Canadians in the American Revolution 

message: Just to let you all know that there is a GA Class Review Request for my article, the Battle of Verrieres Ridge.  If any of you have time, please review it.  Thanks!
Cam 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Class Review for [[Battle of Verrieres Ridge]] 

message: The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] now open 

message: Just a courtesy note - I've corrected a typo in , where Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History was referred to as WikiProject MIlitary history. Maralia 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template fix 

message: There's a new peer review request for John Babcock that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[John Babcock]] 

message: :Just a general question about photographs.  I have a large collection of photographs that a cousin left to me, mainly WW2 era, and then later on he spent time in Germany after the war.  If I were to upload these photos to add to articles, how do I treat them as far as licensing and all that stuff goes?  Thanks, and pending the answer I will look around to see what I have and where they could be added.  Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Question

message: This article has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the article can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of France]] [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]]