Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 15

message: KI added  to Battle of Cable Street. I am not sure that the article is appropreate for the Military history WikiProject as it is not about a battle in the military sence rather it is about a street controntation between facists and anti-facists. It was not part of a war in the traditional sence.--JK the unwise 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably just a mistake based on the name.  I'd go ahead and remove the tag; otherwise, we risk getting War on Drugs in the next round ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont forget the War on Christmas!! :-) The Minister of War (Peace) 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, clearly the greatest war of all time was the one detailed in the Chappelle show - the battle of the New York street gangs, as led by General Cornrow Wallace. Raul654 14:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Cable Street 

message: Folks, I've created a stub on Joseph H. Harper. He was a Colonel in the US 82nd Airborne Division during WWII, but made it to Major General after the war. Thus far, I have nothing on his background (other than that he wasn't a ring-knocker) and no knowledge of his ascent to stars. Any help appreciated. (Am working on articles on US paratrooper and glider regimental commanders and their regiments.) --Habap 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really much to find on Harper online. Odd, really, but maybe he just wasn't famous enough. (Yes, he delivered the "Nuts" message, but he didn't write it or anything. He fought, true. So did a lot of other people. Guapovia 09:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bud Harper

message: Not a big edit, but added some details I found on a BBC site. Added a link, put in a subheader, a few explanatory sentences. Question: Should "Cavaliers" be expanded to encompass ALL of King Charles I's supporters? or should it just stick to the traditional explanation of what a cavalier is? Cheers, Guapovia 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to Cavalier Article 

message: The article traditionally featured the following sentence: "Betrayed by the Austrians but still undefeated, Suvorov heroically retreated across the Alps, performing a military feat unheard of since the time of Hannibal." Claiming this was an "unsourced POV pushing", User:Pecher repeatedly deleted it. Please comment on the issue. --Ghirla | talk 15:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on Talk:Second Battle of Zürich. —Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moi aussi...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Second Battle of Zürich]]

message: Advanced Search Tools for WikiProject or user?  Any know? 
I am familar with many differnet ways to search Wikipedia articles using Google, in-line search, or WhatLinksHere.  Is there a tool, process, or Robot to do advanced searches?  Example:  Tiguex War is a new stubby article,  but not tagged on the talk page as a WikiProject Military history, so it is hard for that group to know about it.  However two editors mildy debated the correct stub classification.  A search of all articles in a category of Military History (and all sub-categories underneath) to find those articles that do not have the WikiProject notice on their talk page would be helpful.  Google cannot do that, that I know of.  Another example, a search to find all the articles in the WW2 categories and sub-categories that are also in a WWI category or sub-category would be very helpful.  That type of article should be very rare.  No automated changes, just advanced search.  Wendell 06:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to do something like that would be to grab a database dump and search it offline.  The drawbacks of that approach, though, are that (1) it's not up-to-date and (2) it requires being able to search a database dump ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asked at [[Wikipedia:Help_desk]] 

message: I am trying to update the Campaign list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes.  Wendell 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected  to , as it's clearly an incomplete duplicate.  The other three (the second one isn't used anywhere, incidentally) should be merged into a single campaignbox; I'll do it in a little while if nobody gets there first. —Kirill Lokshin 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Campaign Boxes 

message: The History of India WikiProject was created a while ago, but no one knew about it. The project has been discovered and revived. Hopefully history enthusiasts from this project will help support this derivative project. deeptrivia (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I broadly welcome any cooperation between WikiProjects, I'm not really sure how India is derivative from Military history ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that india's fought quite a few wars and battles. I'm sure we could drop them a line if we ever cover wars in India. Actually, I see that the Kargil War is one of this week's projects, so we may have more to do with India than previously suspected. :) Guapovia 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of India WikiProject

message: Nifty idea, don't know if it's been suggested before. Anyway, in addition to campaign campaign boxes, at the bottom of the battle page we could have a modified succession box: "Previous battle" and "next battle", instead of the once and future kings, respectively. Makes the reading more linear - when' you've scrolled to the bottom, just click the next link.
Interesting? 
Guapovia 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the way campaignboxes were implemented, originally.  The approach was abandoned when it was discovered just how badly WWII suffered under it; it breaks down rather obviously when multiple battles occur concurrently. —Kirill Lokshin 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe on a campaign-by-campaign basis, then? Guapovia 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still too difficult to be worth it, in my opinion (and that is aside from all of the other problems with using succession boxes); the really old discussion here provides some examples of problems with such an approach. —Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Guapovia 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession Boxes for Campaigns 

message: I've removed the WikiProject Military history template from  some pages about star wars battles. I believe this project is not for fictional events. Am I wrong ? --Melaen 17:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure that's right.  Given that the fictional battles sit under :Category:Battles and use a lot of the project's other templates (infoboxes and such), you might forgive us for the occasional over-tagging ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus I'm not a fan of the "New Jedi Order" series of books anyway. ;) Guapovia 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star wars battles

message: I was asked to add an infobox to this article; could someone with more knowledge of this period please look it over to fill in the missing fields (and make sure that what I put in is correct)? —Kirill Lokshin 17:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check it out. --Loopy e 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Operation Shingle]] 

message: I've fiddled with the headings on the project page slightly in an attempt to make the layout easier to navigate.  Any feedback would be appreciated! —Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question: if we keep the new arrangement, do we want the announcement/task list box at the top, or further down the page? —Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep the announcement on top, myself. Easier to read, don't need to scroll down to find it. I like the changes. Subtle, yet effective. Guapovia 09:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page layout 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_26#U.S._civil_aircraft
Vegaswikian has nominated a bunch of categories for renaming from "U.S." to "American". I think the change is unwarranted, but could you folks take a look at his proposal and see if he has a point? I know it's not Military History, but y'all are more experienced than I am in this case. Thanks! Guapovia 09:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming A Category 

message: I noticed that a majority of the battles of the Hussite Wars were stubs. I edited all of them except one, and I would like to know if they are still stubs. Thanks. Rshu 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like most of them are still stubs, I generally agree with the current markings. Oberiko 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles of the [[Hussite Wars]]  

message: I vaguely recall that the question of what the largest WikiProjects were came up a week or two ago.  Being slightly bored, I decided to take a look.  Note that the numbers may not be quite accurate, due to some projects not listing members and so forth, and that I only looked at subject-area projects (obviously some of the Wiki-cleanup projects are quite large).
# Comics (209 members)
# Mathematics (110 members)
# Military history (97 members)
# Harry Potter (91 members)
# Philosophy (87 members)
# Melbourne (85 members)
# Cricket (72 members)
# Professional wrestling (72 members)
# Films (66 members)
# Tree of Life (64 members)
# Beer (61 members)
# Doctor Who (58 members)
Quite interesting—especially from a systemic bias perspective ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 07:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we beat Harry Potter. I have a sense of accomplishment now. :p Guapovia 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a sad state of affairs that nourishing, life-giving Beer only appears as number 11. Leithp 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Melbourne threatening to surpass Philosophy - one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry! --Loopy e 08:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get 4 blokes and join Melbourne, just to show those Philosphers who's boss! :p Guapovia 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative WikiProject sizes 

message: Further attempting to simplify the layout of the project page, I present, for your approval, :
Comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! —Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice. Palm_Dogg 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it. :) Guapovia 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Any way we could throw the current discussions in there as well? (cat map, co-ordinator elections etc. etc.) Oberiko 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. —Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! —Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks Krill. Oberiko 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New navigation template 

message: I've (tentatively) created a skeleton here.
I've asked Guapovia if he could recruit some people from WikiProject Aircraft; anyone reading here is, of course, encouraged to join as well. —Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help where I can, though firearms and AFV's are more my thing.  I know little about the task forces, are they going to have a structured heirarchy among the users? Oberiko 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The plan so far is to leave it up to each task force (within reason, obviously).  While they're small, there's probably no need; but we can leave the option of introducing hierarchies open if they grow large enough. —Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military aviation task force 

message: Sorry to bother everyone again. I know I post on this here talk page a lot. But I'm curious for people's opinions on a small issue. The article on the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) has been renamed First Sino-Japanese War.
I'm really not sure how much I like the idea of this article title being "First Sino-Japanese War." Firstly, I do not believe I have ever seen any historical text refer to this as the "First ...", only "the Sino-Japanese War". The event presumably labeled as the Second Sino-Japanese War is, in my view, an element or a theater of World War II, and not a war unto itself. In any case, it just feels wrong to me. I'd be curious what others' opinions on this are. Thank you all. (I am contemplating posting this on the Japanese wikipedians' noticeboard as well, but I don't want to be seen as a flooder/spammer sort...) LordAmeth 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on the talk page. —Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-Japanese Wars 

message: For those interested in World War II, military biographies and detailed analysis of just how a complete and utter disaster can be allowed to occur, Nickhk's rather good bio of Arthur Ernest Percival has just been listed on peer review for your comments. Leithp 15:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Percival