Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 54

message: Request for Comments. --Petercorless 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Pacific_War#WP:RFC:_Republic_of_China.2FKuomintang_.28ROC.2FKMT.29_and_Chinese_Communist_Party_.28CCP.29|WP:RFC: Republic of China/Kuomintang (ROC/KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)]]

message: I was going to post at WP:RM, but then wondered if other project contributors were doing the same thing.
I think  has (no doubt with the best of intentions) been moving articles to the "correct" title.  Unfortunately, the moves have been done by cutting and pasting the text, separating the text from its edit history.  It is possible for an admin to move an article correctly, of course, or for another editor to request assistance at WP:RM.  -- ALoan (Talk) 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance of some specific article names here?  I glanced at the recent contributions, but I can't seem to find any copy-and-paste moves. Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that I noticed were First U.S. Army Group   and 3rd United States Infantry Regiment  . There may be others. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll take care of these.  Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These two are done; if anyone finds other ones, please let me know. Kirill Lokshin 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There won't be anymore, I used the move button for every other single one, thanks. --ScreaminEagle 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, interesting.  This page seems pretty ambiguous as to whether the name of the unit is "3d United States Infantry Regiment", "3rd United States Infantry Regiment", or "3rd United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)"; I really have no objections to moving it to whichever one people with more in-depth knowledge consider actually correct.  I'd be very surprised, however, if the official name was "... (TOG)" rather than "... (The Old Guard)", however; in my (admittedly limited) experience, it's usually the full version rather than the acronym that's considered the formal name. Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this is original research and I hope I'm not arrested by the WikiPolice for it, but I did put in a letter to TOG's PA folks to clear this up.  Whichever way they indicate, (TOG) was not adequate for the article title.  Either leave it off entirely or spell it out as it should have been spelled out as (The Old Guard).  If it's part of the official name, then it should be indicated as such, right?  If it's just an official nickname and not part of the Army's complete title for the unit, it should be added in the text, not in the article title. --ScreaminEagle 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the PA office: "The name is correct when (The Old Guard) is left off.  However, whenever we at the public affairs office refer to the unit, we call it the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)."  I've asked for further clarification since their response could be taken a couple of ways. --ScreaminEagle 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: The A-Class review for Operation Barrel Roll is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Barrel Roll]] now open 

message: I got to thinking about this earlier and couldn't come up with an answer, so I will ask here: If an article was promoted to A-Class, then to FA-Class, then loses its status as an FA-Class does the article revert back to an A-Class or does it get knocked down to B-Class or Start-Class? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would usually go down to B-Class, but I don't believe there is an absolute rule, and it would (probably) depend on the article in question. Carom 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think it would really depend on what the circumstances for de-featuring were.  Frankly, I think it'll be quite a while before this becomes something we have to think about, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the  article had an A-class assessment and still fullfils the criteria of this assessment, it is A-class and if not it is B or Start. Wandalstouring 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-Class and A-Class 

message: i dont know where to go guys to request a tamplet that has a map like the one we use on the image for the project. well anyways if that made sence to you (cause it kinda didnt to me) i would like to request a tamplet that says something like (this user plays empire earth and uses the game to recreate historic battles) where can i go and request something like this? Maverick423 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oo nvm i found it guys but thanks anyways =) also what happened to the page it was locked for a whileMaverick423 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably the servers locking to sync up; they do that every so often. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request tamplet 

message: Should this and any similar articles about rules of war be covered by this project? I think it should but came to ask first! Hypnosadist 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the answer is yes. Thanks for the note. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Islamic military jurisprudence]]

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Barrel Roll; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Barrel Roll]] needs attention 

message: The A-Class review for Anthony Eden is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Anthony Eden]] now open 

message: An editor recently suggested that it is appropriate to create articles of the formula "Surrender of Fooville" when a city or position changes hands without being fought for. Is it recommended to do so?
I have sustained the impression, which may be corrected, that it is improper to create articles describing a simple surrender, be they mighty Viennas and Berlins or paltry Villefranche-sur-Mers. Does "Be bold!" warrant the creation of Surrender of Vienna (1805), Surrender of Paris (1815), Surrender of Algiers (1962), Surrender of Berlin (1806), Surrender of Huelva (1936), Surrender of Rocroi (1914), etc? Or should the relevant details be fleshed out in the corresponding war or campaign articles?
Let me have your views. Albrecht 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already commented on the talk page; suffice it to say that I don't see why this particular debate needs to take place here, given the many available alternatives. :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Surrender" articles 

message: Can anyone help identify a possible Napoleonic battle mentioned on a Paris monument? Have a look at Place du Châtelet and in particular at the image there: :Image:Place du Chatelet fountain and memorial.JPG - the inscriptions commemorate at least four battles, but the fifth and top one has me stumped. It looks like Lantzick, but that is drawing a blank on my searches. Possibly the top line is not a battle at all, but maybe it is a contemporary spelling. Also, note the chronological order, with the earlier battles at the bottom and later battles at the top. So, any ideas? Carcharoth 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this image, it's fairly clear that the top word is actually "Dantzick"; I suspect that it refers to the Siege of Danzig in 1807 (for which we don't seem to have an article, unfortunately), but I'm not entirely sure. Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll put that, and maybe someone will write an article one day... Hey, who said that doing original research with photos wasn't allowed? :-) Apologies to those who are turning in their graves at such slipshod 'sourcing'. BTW, where did you find that picture? Was it in the article history? Carcharoth 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fr:Fontaine du Palmier ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't know it was called that, did I! :-) Carcharoth 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, looking here, I've found a 'Battle of Danzig' on 15 May 1807, following the Siege earlier that year, and it is described as part of the War of the Fourth Coalition - and the campaign box there has a red-link to Battle of Danzig. So I linked to that. Carcharoth 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, if you look closely at the image on french wikipedia :fr:Image:FontaineDuPalmier.jpg (slightly different angle) it's even easier to distinguish the spelling Dantzick. I can't confirm it's supposed to be Danzig, but that would make sense.--Caranorn 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This Google search convincd me that Dantzick = Danzig. The precise etymology and history of the spellings woulod be interesting, but that might have to await another day and another article. Maybe it is already in explained in Danzig? In any case, I'm redirecting Dantzick if it is not already a redirect. What is of more concern is that I should really have a source that confirms which specific battles or campaigns are being commemorated here - or find someone who has looked up the original Napoleonic-era designs for the monument and confirmed the reasons for putting those names on the monument. Anyway... Carcharoth 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction. 'C' not 'G'. I need to look more carefully next time. Carcharoth 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleonic battles 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Anthony Eden; please stop by and help review the article!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Anthony Eden]] needs attention 

message: Weird question. I have an article I'm researching (Benjamin Franklin Tilley) where the officer was a cadet midshipman in the USNA in 1863, during the civil war. (When the academy was moved to Rhode Island.) He didn't graduate until 1866, after the war was over. Knowing that midshipmen sometimes get posted to ships during wartime, though not knowing whether this specific person was, is he a "veteran" of the American Civil War? JRP 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so; note, for example, that the various "Surviving veterans of WWI" (and similar) lists include everyone technically in the miitary, regardless of whether they were actually serving in a active unit or only in training. Kirill Lokshin 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've used those categories on the article. JRP 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil War veteran/cadet question

message: The A-Class review for Battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battleship]] now open