Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 11

message: I've just finished creating Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia and am considering putting a warbox in. But seeing as I couldn't provide details for strengths, casualties, 2 out of 3 commanders or even a picture, would it just be waste of space? Opinions appreciated, cheers --Loopy 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only "date", "place" and "result" are mandatory.  The rest can be left out.  You might want to include desirable fields for which you have incomplete data to encourage others to fill in the blanks. Geoff/Gsl 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warbox? 

message: Would the Bear River Expedition be the same as the Bear River Massacre?  Just want to know before I try and create the former.--Kross | Talk 00:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my friend, both events are different. I'll make a stub for the Expedition asap. Phaedriel 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear River Expedition 

message: Citation information was recently deleted from Battle of Singapore (diff).  You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V  examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation deletion 

message: I've attempted to condense the mess of category diagrams and guidelines on the project page into a more concise form.  Any comments would be very appreciated! —Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category guidelines 

message: Hey, is the article on the Battle of Vaslui good enough to be considered for being featured article? Thanks. --Anittas 01:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good job! You've made many improvements on it, and with a few minor tweaks I would have no problems supporting it this time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Vaslui 

message: Hi, new MH user. I put up a few articles on WWI Albatros fighters. Hope they're ok. I'll be working on adding more in the future, extending to other nations and air forces. Should I finish that I'll move on to WWII.
Cheers,
Guapovia 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine :-)  Some pictures would be great, but I'm not sure how difficult they would be to obtain. —Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI Fighter Aircraft 

message: Just a heads up. Oberiko 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II is on the Article Improvement Drive

message: As another heads up, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s excellent FA on the WW2 general Richard O'Connor will be on the main page on Boxing Day (26th December). If people could put it on their watchlists to help combat the inevitable torrent of vandalism that would be great. Leithp (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page

message: Anyone want to try and replace that bloated box with a one of the more conventional boxes?  I tried and it didn't work all that well.--Kross | Talk 12:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wait before the meta-template mess (see above) is sorted out before replacing any more boxes.  —Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox on the korean war article 

message: In many battles positions and ranks are constantly described, but not wikified. It may sometimes be overwhelming for the reader, especially if they are continously abbreviated, not formalised and if the reader isn't particularly knowledgable about military ranks in general. I propose that like dates, mention of military ranks should be wikified....even to the extent of re-wikifying it if the rank is mentioned again, but that could be considered a separate, optional manner. For example, Lt. Gen. Arthur Percival, rather than just. Lt. Gen Arthur Percival. Natalinasmpf 11:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable to wikify ranks (although dates are increasingly de-wikified—this is probably a poor comparison).  On the other hand, we shouldn't over-wikify; an article like Battle of Gettysburg will mention dozens of generals, so there's no need to wikify the same rank on each of them. —Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the first instance could be wikified and formalised (Lieutenant General Arthur Percival) and then everything after that abbreviated and unwikified (Lt. Gen Arthur Percival)? --Loopy 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both ways are fine, although I think the reader might be confused if he or she skips over the first mention of the link. Anyhow, yes, it's a current habit for people not to wikify the links for ranks, so I am proposing this be a standardised guideline. -- Natalinasmpf 13:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal about ranks  

message: Given that we already have :Category:Aftermath of War, I'm populating a new category, :Category:Causes of War, with a few articles that I found with a quick search. I figure the category can cover articles on the causes of specific wars as well as articles on general causes of war.
This move is partially motivated by a desire to better categorize International crisis, but I think it makes sense anyway. Melchoir 11:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Causes of War 

message: Excuse my ignorance but I've just finished sorting the battles all lumped together in :Category:Boer War battles into :Category:Battles of the First Boer War and :Category:Battles of the Second Boer War and now the original one needs to be deleted. Where should I be heading to get that done? Cheers, --Loopy 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. Fantastic work, by the way! SoLando (Talk) 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, just added it to the list. The Boer War articles were horribly disorganised so I've also created Template:Campaignbox First Boer War and Template:Campaignbox Second Boer War to make life easier for anyone trying to understand the wars... Loopy 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting categories?