Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 26

message: I've written some material up for this month's newsletter; it's rather brief, though.  There are several questions, then:
* Should we distribute the newsletter on a monthly basis, potentially keeping them brief; or, alternately, condense them to one every two months?  Or perhaps some other arrangement?
* A handful of people have asked either to receive only a link to the newsletter, or to not receive it entirely; we'll need to deal with that as part of our distribution cycle.  Should the default for members who haven't said anything be a full copy or just a link, though?
* As usual, are there any volunteers to distribute the thing?
* Finally, is there anything I've neglected to mention in this issue that should be there?
Given the discussion following the last issue, I'm somewhat hesitant to foist my preferences regarding these points on everybody; so I'd really appreciate some feedback here. Kirill Lokshin 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once a month, that way we dont get a too condenced message (either loosing information of getting an overlong news letter). I would perfer a link, but this is in keeping that each newletter is archived somewhere. What I mean by this is that I perfer to have a list of links within a years time rather than a long series of blocks. Yet should the block be replaced every newsletter, therefore always keeping a similar size on my user page, I have no qualms about that. I hope this helpsDryzen 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm already creating the issues on indivdual subpages, so it would be pretty easy just to leave the link to the current one on everyone's talk page, rather than pasting it in.  I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever everyone else thinks would be most useful. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter: Part Deux 

message: Battle of the Lower Dnieper is on DYK today.  Well done Grafikm_fr for a very much in-depth and informative article right off the bat. Andreas 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, I had never heard of this momentous battle.Dryzen 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be because it is usually called "Battle for the Dnieper" in sources. I believe it should be renamed for that reason. See its talk page. heqs 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, as usual! Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tatsinskaya Raid appeared on the main page under DYK on 28 April. Andreas 09:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project on the mainpage 

message: While looking for Userbox templates to populate my User page I begun to conform the boxes that I found to the ones posted in the WikiProject Military History page. I've since put them in the list in alphabetical order. Not all task forces have a template, should I complete the series?Dryzen 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free.  I didn't bother creating any that weren't requested by the task force; but it might be helpful to have them ready if anyone wants them. Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User box Task force templates. 

message: As you may have noticed, the top-level category map has been coming along quite nicely.  Aside from the major cleanup needed in several areas (military people and military units, primarily), which is a massive project unto itself, there are a number of points I'd like comments on:
# :Category:Military tactics, :Category:Military doctrines, and :Category:Military strategy seem to have massive overlaps (and parts of them need to be moved to the new :Category:Warfare by type).  Might it be a good idea to merge them in some fashion; and, if so, under what name?
# :Category:Military terminology seems rather badly constructed; aside from dictionary definitions, most of its contents should be categorized under actual topics.  Maybe we should merge some of the permanent stubs into some sort of Glossary of military terms?
# I'm hoping to combine :Category:War art and :Category:War novels under a single over-category; what would be a good name for it?  :Category:Cultural depictions of war, perhaps?
# Is there some useful distinction between :Category:War and conflict museums and :Category:Military museums, or can they be merged?
# :Category:Military history and :Category:Warfare, which are redundant with the new structure, have been sitting empty; does anyone have objections to nominating them for deletion?
Suggestions on any of these issues would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody have comments? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seem to be no objections, at least to the last point, I've nominated :Category:Military history and :Category:Warfare for deletion here; comments would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-level categories (Part Deux) 

message: Okay, all the instruction pages that referred to the old-style banners have been updated, and any articles that were in the collaboration or peer review queues have been converted.  If anyone is bored and looking for something to do, here's what needs to be done to wrap this up:
# Transfer the ratings on the old worklist to new tags on the relevant articles.
# Convert all the articles using any of the individual task force notice templates to the new format.
# Replace  with  on any category pages where the latter appears.
# Attack :Category:Unassessed military history articles with wild abandon ;-)
Help with any of these would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, for anyone interested, Mathbot is now generating a worklist and a log of changes for us. Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these the ones that will make it to Wikipedia 1.0, or are these just the ones which have the quality tags? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the ones that have the tags.  I think the WP1.0 people are setting up a separate process for actually deciding which articles get put into the hardcopy version, but I'm not sure if that's active yet. Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the explanation. Anyway, I've started doing some tagging consolidating those with multiple tags into the new format. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  (Sneaking my head in) Nope, they're not active, but the processes Kirill refers to are Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations. There's still a bit of work left to do to set it up... a few more eyes can't hurt.  Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status update 

message: What are you talking about?Michael Dorosh 19:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP 1.0 project plans to do a DVD release of a limited subset of Wikipedia articles (possibly as early as late this year). Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a pretty terrible idea. Lots of headaches all around; little practical purpose. Albrecht 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, it's something that's been in the works for a long time.  Probably won't come to much on a practical level; but, from a PR standpoint, being able to distribute Wikipedia(tm) on DVD will probably be a good thing. Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and who gets the money from that? I suspect the contributors will not be being paid since they've so "generously" donated their work into the public domain. Now I can see why some dude freaked out when I put a limited copyright notice on some images I created and uploaded.:-)Michael Dorosh 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia Foundation, presumably?  I believe that's the way the German Wikipedia has done it (they've done a DVD release before; I have no idea how successful theirs was). Kirill Lokshin 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the costs would be much more than production - the first German CD was sold for 3 Euro and was also distributed for free with an issue of some computer magazine (as well as the iso being up for free download). The subsequent DVD release sold for 9.9 Euro - "this price included 16% taxes and a 1 Euro donation to Wikimedia Deutschland; production costs were about 2 Euro. The DVD image can also be downloaded for free." The rest probably went to the distributor. --Loopy e 04:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard Copy Release

message: Does anyone have the slightest idea why "Battle of Passchendaele" was moved to "Passchendaele"? Gsl mentioned that "that is where the community has decided the main article should be," but I have trouble believing such a bizarre move was borne of a consensus. More importantly, does anyone object to changing it back? Albrecht 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems utterly bizarre; should we move Battle of Stalingrad to Stalingrad, then?  I have no objections to moving it back, but it might be best to go formally through WP:RM on this one, just in case there's something obvious we're missing. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Passchendaele was originally at Passchendale and was cut-and-paste moved to Passchendaele back in March 2002.  I cannot recall it ever having moved to or from anywhere else.  Battle of Passchendaele has never been moved either that I am aware of.  Gsl 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passchendaele? 

message: I've submitted Defense of Sihang Warehouse for WP:FAC here. It was on our MILHIST Peer Review a while back so if you read it, please hop over and give some some precious comments (hopefully to support, but criticisms are of course welcome). Well if you haven't read it, please do, then comment! :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sihang Warehouse, Round 2 (what's up with the "Part Deux" deal :D ) 

message: This Indian Maj. Gen. is up for deletion as non-notable; the article is also very poorly referenced. If anyone has opinions on the notability of military people, or information about Jetley specifically, pls comment at the AfD. JackyR 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated Harold Marshall for deletion but was shouted down by some teenagers who felt that because he was the subject of a famous photo, he merited an entire article. Perhaps, but the article is dull as dishwater since there is nothing in the historical record about him. I ought to know, anything that does exist about him on the Internet, I put there as part of the research for our regimental website. I would love to see some guidelines on military notability drafted.Michael Dorosh 20:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jetley's survived and is in the capable hands of User:AshLin (Indian military officer). But I'm glad I didn't know about Howard Marshall when I was scrabbling to find criteria and verification: I can feel myself bleeding from the ears when up against the teenagers and people who can't tell the difference between web-presence and notability... Please, draft some criteria. For all our sakes! :-) JackyR 01:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ranjit Lal Jetley]] 

message: Hello, I am from Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru and we are doing our May collaboration project on the Peruvian Army. I know that there are alot of military buffs around here so if anyone is interested you can come and help us out with the article. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Peru-Peruvian Army

message: I have rewritten the article on Battle of Kettle Creek but I need some hlep.  First, please read over it and tell me if it is okay.  Second, I am having trouble with my footnotes.  I do not understand HTML very well, but I tried.  I used the Reference code.  The numbers appear but not footnotes. Help Please. (Steve 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Kettle Creek]]