Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 73

message: I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force#Þingalið. Kirill 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Þingalið 

message: The following was raised in December and no one responded to it and then someone quite rudely archived it:
::World War II
::Bit of a dispute at Webley Revolver; I was under the impression that British Commonwealth oriented articles would use the terminology "Second World War" rather than World War II, which is the American term for that conflict?68.144.31.71 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, "Second World War" remains more common in CE, but since the actual article is located at World War II, that usage tends to crop up more in articles.  Kirill 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that although the Second World War is correct usage, if consistently applied then edits have to be performed through an article, and this would require me for one to read the lot. I will change in the Eastern front because the Russian alternative and the German one are reflective of the Second World War and not World War II (where Great Patriotic is not used in Russian).--mrg3105mrg3105 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it, but aren't we disagreeing about things that are so minor as to be unimportant? Surely the 0.01% difference between 'Second World War' and 'World War II' is completely unimportant, except that both should be written out in full - 'WWII' is indeed lazy. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat with Buckshot. I use both interchangeably. I must admit, I prefer the tone of 'Second World War' but then, one of my favourite books on the subject is called 'Second World War'.  It is also a term with more consistancy with other historical references. I mean, can you imagine if we called it Punic War 2 (Rome Strikes Back?) or the horriblness of Opium War 2 (now there is a great title for a children's film. Possibly involving animated sheep. I'll let y'all decide). Lets just hope we never do that to the Falklands War. Falkands War 2: Attack of the Zombie Thatcher. Narson (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   WORLD WAR II (revived) 

message: The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Hans-Joachim Marseille]] now open 

message: It's been quite a while since I've touched bases over here, so dropping by to mention some recent work.  I've been surveying huge numbers of historic photographs and nominating the best ones for FPC.  My workshop page is at User:Durova/Landmark images.  A lot of significant material deals with military history, so please give me a heads up if you know of a high quality military history image at least 1000px on its largest dimension.  I'll address artifacts and scratches and other flaws if it has potential.
Been spending most of my writing time lately with the textile arts project, which is seriously undermanned.  Would anyone be interested in a joint project drive to raise Bayeux Tapestry from B-class to FA? DurovaCharge! 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn thing is an embroidery ;) Curse you changeling bishop! Narson (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saying hi

message: I hope this doesn't cross the ethical line about canvassing: a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in Rough Rider uniform is up for FPC. DurovaCharge! 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: In a roundabout way, I've come to make some rather substantial edits to Psychological Operations (United States)‎. In the CIA fracas, even some of the people most offended by not concluding the CIA is the Dark Side of the Force liked a section I put in, defining the colors of propaganda. It was suggested, in a friendly way, that the material might move to the psychological operations page and be linked from a summary in the CIA article. 
Incidentally, there is a fairly recently declassified volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, "1950-1955, The Intelligence Community", which contains a number of historically key documents that had been classified until very recently.  People here may want to look at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/truman/c24687.htm
Anyway, I think I made significant headway on psychological operations, more by adding material and definitions than taking out things. Well -- I did take out the reference to psychological operations at the Waco siege, because I really don't think that kind of law enforcement exercise, fiasco that it was, is simply in the scope of the military, diplomatic, and intelligence/special operations topics usually associated with psychological operations, even as a subset of information operations.
It could definitely stand some additions in the history part, especially in WWII. When I thought about it, however, some of the most fascinating operations were British, and this was defined as a US article. Given the current debate over UK vs. US nomenclature for what I shall call Big Mistake Two, I found that a bit amusing. 
Apropos of that period, I once had what I would have sworn was an MIT Press history of psychological operations in The Time That Has No Agreed Name. In particular, there was a really excellent section on making use of Japanese cultural anthropology during the Battle of Okinawa. I cannot find this book in any search I've done. My recollection is that it was a fairly thick trade paperback with black print on a white cover. Am I bringing up false memories, or does anyone know the book? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I've seen the source, but I have heard an anthro prof of mine criticize the use of U.S. anthro v Japan in the War That has II Conflicting Names. Maybe it's in Gilmore, You Can't Fight Tanks with Bayonets (UoNebraska Press, 1998)?  Trekphiler (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not necessarily peer review, but why not? Psychological operations (United States) 

message: The Finnish War is a B-class article about a short war close to the North Pole. But for Sweden this was the last major war, and a shocking experience, as Russia grabbed the eastern half of the Swedish kingdom and formed the Grand Duchy of Finland. For Finland it was the roots of national independence, with the 19th century movement leading up to breaking away from Russia in 1917. It all started on February 21, 1808, so this year will be a great chance to improve the related articles. I think we should try to coordinate this activity on the English, Swedish, Finnish and Russian Wikipedia. The war was short enough, that we can reenact it in real time, day by day, over the course of 2008. It should be possible to synchronize this with media attention given to the anniversary. Should we use the talk:Finnish War page for coordination? --LA2 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LA2, could you please check the accuracy of  this edit? Thanks. - FayssalF - Wiki me up®  19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the edit, Kulnev landed in Grisslehamn, which is near Stockholm. --MoRsE (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  200th anniversary of the Finnish War 

message: Hi, guys! I'd like to draw some attention to this article, as a dispute over its name threatens to go out of hand (and into offtopic) there. The article was originally named "Battle of Romania (1944)", but after a sound proposal was renamed to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then a user renamed it to "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" (without a discussion) citing the current names of the cities involved. A proposal (by me) to rename it to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", which I consider the proper English name (based on the majority of English sources), was unexpectedly met with a heated debate. The main arguments of sides are as follows:
*Support move to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation":
# The current name, "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" yields only links to Wikipedia and its mirrors in Google. 
# Google Books provides a 41 to 0 preference for "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", 19 more use the name "Yassy-Kishinev Operation" for this highly successful Soviet operation (all links provided in the discussion).
*Oppose the move:
# Iaşi and Chişinău are currently the most used names of the cities in English.
# These were also the official Romanian names of the cities in 1944.
Note1: As references to this operation are somewhat obscure, I would really appreciate some informed opinion from the regulars of this page.
Note2: The discussion is currently taking a heated tone, so I would like to ask anyone who decides to post there to keep cool in advance. If anyone would also like to improve the article in question - all the better!
The relevant discussion is located here. Also of note is the original renaming proposal. Thanks. --Illythr (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be also useful to read this when considering arguments--mrg3105mrg3105 10:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Romania (1944) aka Iassy-Kishinev Offensive aka [[Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive]]

message: The peer review for Glorious First of June is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Glorious First of June]] now open 

message: Anyone could give out an award. Wikipedia sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.148.226 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your compliment. We hope this made you feel better. We recommend you join the 4th Mazervian Shock Army for a short introductory period of indoctrination into the way WP:MILHIST does things. FORWARD! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last time I checked

message: Hi, there is a proposal to rename Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Bombing of Dresden for the sake of simplicity. If you have any interest in this, your comments would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing of Dresden 

message: I came across this pic which describes the soldier on the left as being Japanese.  However I recall reading in Stephen Ambrose's D-Day that US forces captured some Koreans who were in the German army.  IIRC, they got into the situation as follows: they were conscripted by the Japanese military and were captured by the Soviets when the USSR and Japan fought each other in 1939.  They were conscripted by the Soviets, then captured by the Germans in 1941 or afterwards, then in turn conscripted into the German army and posted to Normandy.  So I'm wondering if the description might be wrong and there's a stronger possibility that the man in the photo may be Korean.  BrokenSphereMsg me 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo caption also says it was taken in Feb 1944: difficult to see how any Americans could be capturing anyone in France in Feb 44. Assuming it was post-D-Day, he might also belong to one of the Siberian races rather tahn being Korean, but I can't tell. The Land (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The DVIC will usually put the first date of the month, usually January 1, for photos which they have listed as "Exact Date Shot Unknown"; if they are sure of the date, this is usually listed in the description.  The caption was also written at the time and ones like these tend to have a propaganda slant to them, so it's possible that the original writer is likely making a guess.  BrokenSphereMsg me 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This soldier can only be a 'Jap' to a US soldier in 1944. He is clearly not Japanese, or even a Korean, but one of the Siberian nationalities (Sino-Tibetian ethnicity).--mrg3105mrg3105 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Japanese troops serve with the German army in France? 

message: Based on some suggestions from Mrg3105, I've created a prototype auxiliary infobox to use with named operations as .  It's designed to be used either in conjunction with  or alone.
Feedback would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good template. For the sake of consistency, i'd like to see 2 options for the outcome; failed/succeeded (with no editorializing). Any comment? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the template and agree with Fayssal that it would be more uniform if we had set options for "outcome". Woody (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how usable that would be with operations with more complex outcomes; fore example, for operations that have multiple objectives, if some of them were met but others were not, would that be a success or failure overall (and how would we avoid veering into original research territory on that question)?  For what it's worth, the "result" field on the main infobox doesn't have a major problem with editorializing in practice, even though it's technically freeform; I can't think of any reason why this template would be fundamentally different. Kirill 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, thinking about it, I am sure that a set of "standardised" headings would appear as they have for other infoboxes; in effect, organic growth. The OR question is a reasonable one as well, yet, given that the infobox is summarising the text anyway, it should be reinforced by the text. Woody (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. My intent was to try to reduce the level of edit warring but your POV convinced me. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a great idea Kirill, and it's nicely executed. Could you expand the template to allow provision for a 300px image? - operational maps and well chosen would work well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. Kirill 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The new version looks fine, apart from the typo (which I'll fix). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxiliary infobox for operational plans 

message: Can someone please have a look at this and see if "stalemate" is still appropriate or not? I am just unsure. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version looks fine, apart from the typo (which I'll fix). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Unrelated''

message: Seeing as we've had a number of proposed guidelines from various editors that haven't achieved the needed consensus to be part of the (enforceable) style guide, I'm wondering if it would be useful to create a page (or set of pages) within the project for essays containing editors' personal views on guidelines, best practices, terminology, etc.  These wouldn't actually be binding, obviously; but I think it would be convenient to have them in one place for other editors to read, should they desire to do so.  
Would this be something worthwhile to set up? Kirill 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely can't hurt, and could be useful as a reference or the creation/evolution of de facto standards. Plus, it could be useful for debates on an unrelated article (as can be seen, 75% of the WP:MilHist community think such-and-such.) Oberiko (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Took the word right out of my mouth. Yes, why not? Essays are already a part of the greater WP and this might have the added effect of being a repository for philosophical meanderings off-topic that, although worthwhile, could otherwise clutter this project page or MILHIST article talk pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good enough for me; Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays is now available.  Please feel free to add stuff! Kirill 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history essays? 

message: I'm just getting started, after being frozen for awhile.  Not sure why, but I can access the pages now.  I would like to help with military aviation.  I need to learn the rules though.  Where should I start reading?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a welcome message on your talk page; that should help you find the most useful spots to start from. :-) Kirill 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need advice 

message: The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Italian War of 1542–1546]] now open 

message: I started by expanding the Farewell Dossier article from some brief mentions in the CIA articles, and I actually think it's in decent shape.  
Perhaps not knowing when I should leave things alone, I tried to update the rather sparse TECHINT article, both in terms of conventional "tactical" technical intelligence, but also dealing with national-level things such as the Farewell Dossier. At this point, I'm not sure that the strategic and technical work in the same article, and would like opinions. If the strategic should go somewhere else, there's no obvious place. It involves intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, so doesn't fit neatly into the Intelligence Cycle series.
Thoughts?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-peer review for two related articles 

message: The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Hans-Joachim Marseille]] now open 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Polish Navy}}]] 

message: Can I join you people? What should I do before I can join?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to [ add your name] to the list of project members and then get editing. That is all you have to do! Woody (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I join? 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Shining Path and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shining Path GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: Out of curiosity, do people find the list of campaignboxes useful?  It doesn't seem to be very well-maintained (mostly because trying to keep track of hundreds of templates by hand is quite a bother); so I'm wondering if there's actually any benefit to trying to do so, or if we could just dispense with the list and use categories and Special:Whatlinkshere instead. Kirill 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for categories. Perhaps build the category identifier into the campaignbox template itself; that way you will always have an up to date list. Arnoutf (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be doable; it's possible to put a category on the base  such that it shows up on the templates using it, but not on the articles that include them. Kirill 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But do you need a list, or would a category be sufficient? ;-) Kirill 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes, I think category would be enough--mrg3105mrg3105 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of campaignboxes 

message: The A-Class review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[United States Army]] now open 

message: Ted W. Lawson, Dean Davenport, Charles McClure, Robert Cleaver, and David Thatcher all currently exist as standalone articles and are all currently stub except for Lawson.  Since these men's notability largely lies in being crewmembers on the Ruptured Duck I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to merge all of them into that article with the exception of Lawson, as he is notable as the author of Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo which was also adapted into a film starring Spencer Tracy.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruptured Duck (aircraft) doesn't look very notable either. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the notability is with Lawson and it should all be merged into his article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of crewmembers of the B-25 "Ruptured Duck" into the [[Ruptured Duck (aircraft)]] article 

message: The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I've just edited the List of Liberty ships articles to consolidate what was 22 alphabetical lists and 21 hull-number lists into just 4 sortable chunks.  I hope this is received well. doncram (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Liberty ships by hull number articles 

message: The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Cold War]] now open 

message: The peer review for United States Army Special Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[United States Army Special Forces]] now open 

message: There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army.  Could a few editors take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input?  Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible edit warring on project article 

message: The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Constitution]] now open 

message: This article has been rescoped to be just the assault phase (thought this was Operation Jupiter?) - I think this is incorrect. The actions to Sept 1944 are now in Normandy Campaign. I've added a comment at Talk:Battle of Normandy#Article Name. I'd appreciate more knowledgeable heads than mine. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#Battle of Normandy. Kirill 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Normandy]]

message: Has just passed FPC on Commons.  Please ping me if you know of other potential candidates.  I do restorations.  Cheers, DurovaCharge! 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture 

message: The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Matanikau Offensive]] now open 

message: Please help expand it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a little.  Why the tenth century in particular? DurovaCharge! 19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 10th century... because of this but i am not sure if that covers just the Islamic world. Any comments? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't bet on that. Seriously, I think it needs abit more quality sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already changed that to 'for centuries'. Anyone interested to work on expanding the article? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New article stub [[Military historiography]] created

message: Listing current military-related material:
===Commons===
*:commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Minard.png
===Wikipedia===
*Picture peer review
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Waldenburg, Germany 1945
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Approaching Omaha
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/M3 tank, 1942
*Featured picture candidates
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Minard chart of Napoleon's Russian Campaign
DurovaCharge! 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other featured picture nominations and peer reviews 

message: *Picture peer review
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Waldenburg, Germany 1945
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Approaching Omaha
*Wikipedia:Picture peer review/M3 tank, 1942
*Featured picture candidates
*Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Minard chart of Napoleon's Russian Campaign
DurovaCharge! 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: The peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[51st Army (Soviet Union)]] now open 

message: The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Bridgeport (AD-10)]] now open 

message: I moved the Ontos to M50 Ontos to stick with the usual standard I've seen of AFV articles being titled by their designation, then name. Jtrainor (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just as a heads up

message: The peer review for Operation Camargue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 13:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Operation Camargue]] now open 

message: I have compiled additional info into the Parrott rifle article, including an info chart on the various guns themselves (I used only Union models).  I can't locate range, munitions, and size/weight for a few pieces, though.  Any chance someone has that information handy?  Thanks!  --BizMgr (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Parrott Gun specs (Civil War-era) 

message: Okay, our articles on these siege engines are very bad. It appears that the onager and mangonel are the exect same thing, yet they have two seperate articles. They don't tell the casual reader what the difference between them is, and I don't know so I can't fix them. Just what is the difference? Also, I requested some diagrams from the greenspun illustration project here. Others might find that project very useful for drawings of guns and vehicles.--Phoenix-wiki 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An onager has a sling at the end of the bar; a mangonel has a bucket. I believe that a mangonel fires with greater velocity (because the projective is expelled more violently) while an onager lobs missiles over a longer range (relying on the gravity of the fall to do the damage). Please correct me if I'm wrong: this is from memory. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed very similar. The most important difference is that the Onager is the late Roman empire siege engine; the Mangonel is the Medieval version. The Onager had a slightly different "sling basket" comared to the mangonels "bucket" but there are bound to have been other differences. Whether the Mangonel developed from Onager, or that they were redeveloped from scratch in the middle ages is an interesting issue; I don't know. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, thanks, I'll cleanup the articles a bit tomorrow.--Phoenix-wiki 22:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onager and Mangonel