Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 4

message: I've been working for some time on updating Battle of Prestonpans and just found this project. So I converted the article to use the new infobox and I've created a campaignbox for the Second Jacobite Rising. But I believe the list of battles on that campaignbox to be incomplete and would appreciate help in filling it out, as well as creating a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising, which I know less about. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising.  I've chosen to list Glen Shiel there for the sake of completeness, even though it's probably not part of the 'Fifteen rising per se.  Feel free to remove it if you think it doesn't belong there. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've got the new infobox on all of the Second Rising articles. As for the articles themselves, Prestonpans and Culloden are in fairly good shape, but Battle of Falkirk (1746) needs work. I don't have any personal knowledge of this battle, but could eventually get around to doing research if no experts turn up in the meantime. I haven't touched the First Rising at all, but I'll at least do the infoboxes when I get the chance. --Craig Stuntz 18:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobite Risings 

message: User:Jaknouse has placed a WP:RM request to move Battle of the Granicus (334) to Battle of the Granicus (334 BC). He had to do this because he accedently made a mistake when moving it from Battle of the Granicus. 
I have just checked the Special:Contributions/Jaknouse listing and I see that he has moved a number of other battles. 
* 16:00, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC) (Battle of the Hydaspes River moved to Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC))
* 16:01, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Issus (333 BC) (Battle of Issus moved to Battle of Issus (333 BC))  (top)
* 15:43, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC) (Talk:Battle of Gaugamela moved to Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC)) (top)
* 15:42, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Tyre (332 BC) (Siege of Tyre moved to Siege of Tyre (332 BC)) 
My understanding is that battles should only have a year if there is a need for wikipedia:disambiguation eg Battle of the Dunes. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the date is only necessary for disambiguation. The only one there that could use a year in the title is the Siege of Tyre, although we don't have articles about any of the other sieges at the moment. Adam Bishop 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in battle page names 

message: Hi, I would love to join this "group", as I have already started a few WWI battles. If you could please edit them etc, it would be most appreciated. Anyway, visit my user page & tell me if I can join or not.
Thanks,
Spawn Man 05:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Plus if anyone wants to (not wanting to sound too demanding), my articles on the battles of St. Quentin & Le Cateau are a bit lacking, (both of which you can find links to on my user page), so it also would be awesome if someone could fix them up (especially the battle boxes). Thanks, Spawn Man 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plus: 

message: If you go to my Le Cateau article, you will see that in the battle box, down the bottom, the list of battles in the Retreat to the Marne campaign. One of them is the battle of Maubeuge. In my knowledge (& a few books seem to agree with me too), the Allies retreated straight to Le Cateau from the Battle of Mons. I have read a few books & none of them seem to mention this battle, & there is practically no usable info on my google search. Should I simply delete it from the battle list? If there is no info about it, & nothing on it on here, what use is it? The only other option is to keep it there? If you have any opinions (please do), please let them be heard so I wont offend anyone's thoughts. Also, if you are actually familiar with this battle, please send any info to my user page, as we wouldn't want to delete what could be a vital part in our world's history. If no one has any objections to me deleting it, I will continue on my merry way with the campaign (as I'm eager to go). Thanx. Spawn Man 09:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first google result  seems to suggest it's an alternate name for the Battle of Mons (possibly an issue of French v. English v. German naming of battles).  You can probably remove it; if it's actually a separate battle, it can always be re-added to the campaignbox when we get an article on it. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it was the siege of Maubeuge (see Western Front (World War I)). Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I would include it for the sake of completeness; it could probably be argued to be part of the campaign from the German perspective. Kirill Lokshin 01:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm tending to agree with you there...................Spawn Man 01:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: 

message: Just so you know, I have finished creating the First Battle of the Aisne & Michel-Joseph Maunoury articles, & have finished expanding the Battle of Mons. I would love feedback on them from you, because I'm pretty proud of them Spawn Man 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know your facts and have presented them in your own narratives. I would mainly suggest some wording changes. If you wish I'll go in and "polish" them for you:) Also, if possible, include your references at the bottom.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I would love for someone to "polish" them for me (use turtle wax instead of normal wax please), but without changing too much... Oh, I also don't know how to put down references at the bottom, could you explain for me how to? Spawn Man 02:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, shall do! Now where'd I put that year's supply of Turtle Wax....--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh in answer to your question on references-there are no hard rules. Some prefer numbered footnotes, others (hello:) prefer to simply list their sources at the bottom with author, title and page numbers if relevent. Or if the source is online just cut and paste as an external link. On course, since this isnt a school book report, you are not required to include references, but it helps lend it, and you, greater credibility and authority. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you know: 

message: Yes! I have finally completed The Great Retreat. All must admire it, worship it... Well not actually. 
But I would love everyone to give me loads of feedback on it!! And if anyone would please please please please pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaseeeeeee put a picture or map on the article, I would be forever in debt to that person. 
I really want this to be a FA some time in the future. Please help this dream happen. So get out your turtle wax (I know R.D.H has a year's supply of it...) & start polishing my article & I'll jump up & down & woot woot alot. Thank you! Bye!!!! Spawn Man 09:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good! Nice and informative, though its sometimes hard to keep track of the red line. Maybe a small box would be nice, listing the battles fought during the retreat (would go nice hand-in-hand with a map!). Good work! --The Minister of War 10:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the now spunky-new Great Retreat article, I've put it up for a peer review. I have to thank of course Kirill & R.D.H. for their maps/pics/rewrites that got the article to this stage. Anyway... Spawn Man 04:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Retreat (finally): 

message: I've created a campaignbox for Georgian-Seljuk wars / Crusades containing the Battle of Basian and the Battle of Didgori, I made it because I thought that these two battles were part of the same conflict, and they didn't seem to fit into any of the current campaignboxes, I don't know a lot about the Crusades, so any input would be appreciated. Ben D. 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job!  I'll just note that, in general, "Battle of Foo" should be shown simply as "Foo" in the campaignbox, since otherwise they become rather long. Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Georgian-Seljuk wars, they are kind of separate from the crusades...I know Didgori had some crusader presence, but the Georgians did not participate in the crusades to the south, and they already had an ongoing war with the Seljuks which wouldn't have changed whether there were crusaders in the area or not (kind of similar to the Byzantine-Seljuk wars). Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox