Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 35

message: What about Croatian Military History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.196.166 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, there's Military history of Croatia; it's not developed, obviously, but I doubt we have many editors here who have an interest in that area. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian 

message: Is there a taskforce or separate wikiproject that coordinates articles about the American Civil War? CQ 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States military history task force, presumably?  It's almost entirely a topic of U.S. history, so that would seem to be the natural place to discuss it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, for anyone else interested, the discussion is continuing on the task force talk page; additional comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And a new American Civil War task force has been created; editors with an interest in the topic (and there do seem to be a fair number) are welcome to join! Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!!! *running over to join* plange 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt there will be many with both the level of editor interest and the number of articles that the ACW has, at least until the editor demographics on en: shift substantially. Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Much to talk about. :P Wandalstouring 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War 

message: Just a reminder to anyone who hasn't yet voted (but intends to do so) that there's about a day and a half left until the end. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator election reminder 

message: There is a big bunfight at Polish September Campaign ove the renaming. What are the conventions we have set up for consistency? We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....?  Yet they are suggesting that as a name. Perhaps some  members of the Military History Project need to weigh in there - Talk:Polish September Campaign.Michael DoroshTalk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, one of those discussions.  The convention has generally been  that the most common name is usually acceptable, regardless of connotations (e.g. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Sack of Magdeburg, etc.); beyond that, there are some rather complicated issues of (national) politics being played out, so I'm not sure if simply throwing more bodies at the discussion will be helpful, or just serve to inflame people further. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that consensus was best formed by more people, rather than fewer (vocal) ones. Regardless, sourced responses would be appreciated - it seems the most common names in German and Polish both translate as "campaign" and "defensive war" in any event, so invasion seems to have little historical context. In English, most histories seem to use Polish Campaign, admittedly from a German POV. Anyone who claims Poland as their 'bag' may want to weigh in.Michael DoroshTalk 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with Michael on this one.  Over here we're interested, but mostly detached, observers.  I think if we can get enough of those kind of folks over there, it should help to provide some stabilty to the debate and discussion. Oberiko 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; anybody with knowledge of the period/conflict involved should probably wander on over (preferably with sources at the ready).  Just be aware that these discussions do occasionally turn rather nasty ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're enthusiasts of military history.  Pointless struggles, aggressive behaviour and meaningless fights are kind of our thing. ;) (That last statement, as indicated by the ";)" is a joke, let's not have anyone taking offense) Oberiko 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, hehe... :D -- Миборовский 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot: If any radical is not able to push his POV in his mother tongue, he joins the English wiki. Hopefully nobody there realizes that all the problems they create us are non existant in their mother tongue wiki, because they did exactly the same way as we do. Wandalstouring 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish September Campaign renaming 

message: I just spent the night making ribbon bars for the ROC army (gallery), so if you happen to have ribbon image requests (or barnribbon requests a la WP:RIBBONS) now's the time to ask (before I lose my photoshop template, fall asleep, or go fishing). -- Миборовский 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribbon bars 

message: Who creates the templates for battle stubs? Currently the U.S. stub and British stub have the same image (which looks odd on Battle of Fort Oswego where the French stub has a different image). Can these images be changed? Rmhermen 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to change to a different image if you have one that works better.  The images on the various stub tags are so minor a point that I don't think it's worth trying to impose any level of central control over it. Kirill Lokshin 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle stubs images