Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42

Battles and/or operations

This came up at the stub proposals page recently, but would seem to go far beyond that: there's a panoply of related categories, some of which use the form "battles and operations", some "operations and battles", some just "battles", and yes, some just "operations". (No fooling.) Does this project have (or could it come by) a view as to what the general pattern should be? (Obviously some may be special cases, such as Category:World War II deception operations.) Alai 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The full description of the relevant category structure is up on the project page. Briefly, though:
  • Sub-categories of Category:Battles by country are always of the form "Battles of ..."
  • Sub-categories of Category:Battles by war are usually of the form "Battles of ...", but sometimes take the form "Battles and operations of ..." for modern wars where a substantial number of non-battle articles is present
  • Sub-categories of Category:Military operations by country and its ilk take the form "Military operations of ..." (but use "operation" in the general sense—including all military actions—rather than in the specific usage associated with codenames [e.g. Operation Purple Chicken])
In general, any category named "operations and battles" is mis-labeled, and should be reversed into "battles and operations". Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll haul the latter case (at least) off for CFRing. I think the other usages could stand to be a bit more logical, though: witness that Category:Battles and operations of World War II is a subcat of both Category:Military operations of World War II and of Category:Battles by war. Either "operation" is being used in different senses here, and/or "operations" are being either included or excluded on an inconsistent basis at different subtrees of the category system. Or, one of the above is essentially redundant. Alai 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The best idea in the long term would probably be to eliminate the lower-level usage of "operations" by splitting Category:Battles and operations of World War II into Category:Battles of World War II, Category:Non-combat military operations of World War II, and Category:Canceled military operations of World War II to mirror the top-level division of Category:Military operations. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. I assume that "'combat operations' with 'Operation' in their codename as designated by one of the participants" (i.e. a battle by any other name) would be catted as "battles", nonetheless. Alai 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's what the current guideline is:

Note that, for the purposes of categorization, no distinction is generally made between "battles" and "operations"; all combat operations should be placed in the appropriate categories for battles, regardless of whether "battle" appears in the title of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This presents an obvious difficulty with low-scale military operations that may have no other conventional name. E.g., Operation Entebbe -- what other name would be proposed for this that isn't clunky and inelegant and suceptible to NPOV issues--such as "Israeli rescue of Hostages from Palestinian Terrorists aided and abetted by Idi Amin"; there is currently a debate over Operation El Dorado Canyon/"United States Bombing of Libya". I do not believe this guideline appropriately applies to such low-level operations. Jkp1187 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [EDIT:] Particularly those that do not already have a title commonly ascribed to them. Jkp1187 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How are the issues related? This is a categorization issue, not an artile naming issue; all it's saying is that the articles get filed in the same categories regardless of whether the title is "Battle of X", "Operation Y", or some other variation. Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. The person making the change referred to this page/this discussion thread as justification for the change. (I pressed for further explanation, but no one gave any.) That's why I posted the above. So you would agree that the guidelines do not require independent military operations (such as El Dorado Canyon) to go under some other article title? Jkp1187 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, i apologize for not fully reading the entire thread -- I did not catch that this was just about categorization, not article naming. I think the other person might have misunderstood this as well. Jkp1187 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the relevant naming guideline is on the project page:

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.

In practice, this is not intended as a ban on codenames (and the general trend seems to be to use them in the absence of a decent alternative); whether there is an appropriate alternative in any particular case is something the article's editors generally need to decide on a case-by-case basis, but I would avoid convoluted artificial constructions unless the codename was egregiously unacceptable for some reason.
In your particular case, Bombing of Libya (1986) may be a suitable replacement Operation El Dorado Canyon, in my opinion, as it avoids the codename issue without being particularly unusual (there are plenty of other "Bombing of X" articles). Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WW2 stub subtypes

The WW2 stubs are at five pages again; I've made some (generalised if not somewhat hand-waving) proposals for possible additions sub-cats here. If it's clear how this would bets align with your various task-forces, or anyone otherwise has any thoughts on this, please comment. Alai 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've (re-)proposed German World War II stubs, in relation to the above. Alai 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Theatre section organisation

Please have a look at Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Theatre by campaign or chronological order and if you have an opinion add it. If chronological organisation is better then this could be a different way of organising lots of other theatre articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST Navigation}}

I've tried my hand at restructuring {{WPMILHIST Navigation}} with a new layout that gives a few more links to the various sections of guidelines we have up; I think that this will make it a bit easier for visitors to find them. Is this a good idea? Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Making a good tool better. I have no critical feedback, only love. BusterD 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey guys, there is a dispute at the talk page of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier article. Can someone who wants offer their opinions on the relevant sources towards the bottom of the page? A straw poll has also been initiated. Thank you.UberCryxic 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. Why must you do things so complicated? Just state the minimal consent of your sources. Wandalstouring 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? Yes that has been done in the talk page, but that's not what the issue is about anymore.UberCryxic 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this issue has gotten a little sidetracked into debating the validity of the sources in general. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

African military history task force

OK, I want to give it a push and try to establish the African military history task force. The scope is to provide more articles and information on military history in Africa from the past to the present conflicts. There are existing articles on the subject, although a military history group would be likely to add further information from different points of view. Besides providing more information on the subject another central scope is creating a systematic overview and then try to fill the gaps as for now military history of Africa is mostly limited to a few encounters with colonial Europeans and modern wars. Feel free to join. Wandalstouring 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in, but my main effort is on the former Soviet Union for the present. Buckshot06 11:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty obvious idea; let's see if we have enough interest. Kirill Lokshin 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we should definitely have this. Anyone know a contributor (or contributors) who have done work with African military history prior to the meddling of those pesky Europeans? It would thoroughly suck if we started this task force and it ended up being a rehashing of how and why colonialism happened, all Euro-centric and boring.UberCryxic 16:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Off the top of my head, I recall that Llywrch had some interests in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in contact with more editors who have an interest in the topic and did edits in the field before, but who are not yet convinced to join us. It will maybe take a while to establish this. Next on the list are the Americas before Columbus, what is likely to be easier with some written sources from the Maya. Wandalstouring 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do have some interest in that area -- however, my resources are pretty much limited to the Horn of Africa. And when I get my current project about the woredas of Ethiopia completed, my next priority will be to improve Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, an intreguing military -- as well as religious -- figure of the 16th century, then several of the battles he participated in. (One of which poses some problems that I'll ikely need some advice about.) Beyond this, I don't know how much I can commit myself to this taskforce, but I'm always willing to offer advice. ;-) -- llywrch 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm of course also a member of this task force. Wandalstouring 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the African military history task force has been created; please sign up if you're willing to help out! Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

War of the Grand Alliance

Wandalsouring.First of all you suggest the grammar and tone etc is wrong – fine, please let me know where the problems are. Next you tell me to ‘save my breath and read’. I never suggested it was perfect. But your rudeness is unforgivable. If this is the standard of the assistant coordinators then you can count me out. I want nothing to do with the military project of wikipedia. This is disgraceful. If you don’t like the article, fair enough, but you can keep you rude comments to yourself. Raymond Palmer 20:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Read read read. How often does someone has to write you it is about the footnotes? Wandalstouring 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Raymond, I apologize for any perceived slight in Wandalstouring's comments. I'm sure that it was unintentional, and that it was caused by a loss of subtlety of expression due to issues of translation.
More generally, two points:
  • Drive-by addition of nasty banners to articles should be reserved for things that are (a) in quite poor shape and (b) not actively being revised at the time. Adding them to something that's a good article and is clearly being currently worked on is generally unnecessary—a note on the talk page will do just as well—and may be interpreted as a slap in the face. (It should go without saying that anyone who adds such banners should take the time to familiarize themselves with what exactly they're intended for. Adding an inappropriate banner is a very bad thing to do.)
  • In general, we should all try to be as courteous to each other as possible. We're all here for the same purpose—improving the military history material on Wikipedia—and being rude is distincly unhelpful in fostering the collaborative atmosphere we need to do so.
So, please, let's all try to focus on cooperating in a more harmonious manner in the future. Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for disrupting the harmony. My behaviour in just dropping a template was wrong. But I feel the urge to defend myself against some of the mentioned accusations. I pointed out several times what the intention of template was and naturally I wrote a short comment when putting it. Raymond Palmer could read such things before he writes a flood of protests based on a wrong perception and continues in total ignorance of clarifying responses until he gets what he wants. Wandalstouring 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, in any case, this seems to have been mostly a series of misunderstandings. Hopefully everything is resolved now, and we can write this incident off as a heat-of-the-moment type of thing. Kirill Lokshin 16:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Sinbad

I created an article and sourced it, was going to add a MILHIST box on the talk page but wa snot clear what to fill in for it. If someone can drop by and put the appropriate military taggings and categories that would be great. Thanks. Its a British military operation in Iraq. --NuclearZer0 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill for the quick reponse. The time you dedicate to this project is much appreciated. --NuclearZer0 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey guys, I'm taking a break from article construction in the following few months and will now begin to focus more on article repair, per Jimmy's advice at Wikimania. I'm going to start copyediting the hell out of everything in Wikipedia, but if you have any specific requests to copyedit articles that fall under our beautiful project, be it prior to FAC or for whatever reason, then make them here. I will check back regularly and give all requested articles a copyedit. Thanks.UberCryxic 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's very generous of you Uber! You did a great job for me and will gladly take you up on it again :-) --plange 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been making pretty huge changes to Peninsular War, much of it involving narrative from Chandler, and I gather a critical look every once in a while can't hurt—if only to make sure I'm being fair to all les beaux sabreurs! Albrecht 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish regiments

Hi. Can someone instruct the bot to stop moving Scottish (kilted) regiments to Category:Regiments of Scotland? The Toronto Scottish Regiment, The Essex and Kent Scottish, et al, are not Regiments of Scotland, but Scottish regiments of Canada. "Scottish" here does not equate with nationality, but on a cultural heritage (kilts, pipes, Gaelic mottoes, etc). Scottish regiment is a type of regiment -- like dragoons, highlanders, or fusiliers. Thanks. --SigPig 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm guessing the bot should be done now, and won't touch the categories in the future. Your point is a valid one, and I have no objection to using Category:Scottish regiments for this type of unit, but it needs to be removed from the regular Category:Regiments by country tree. I created Category:Expatriate units and formations to serve as a parent for the similar case with "Irish" units; but, as these don't appear to necessarily involve actual Scottish soldiers, I'm not sure how suitable the nam would be. Is there some broader term we can use for a parent category for all these? Kirill Lokshin 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest just putting it in Category:Regiments, alongside Category:Irish regiments, Category:Guards Regiments, etc. Also, perhaps, Category:Highland regiments could be merged with Category:Scottish regiments to form Category:Scottish and Highland regiments (as opposed to Highlands being a subcat of Scottish); is there a major difference of tradition? --SigPig 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that might work, but it should probably be under Category:Regiments by type to make it clear that these aren't regular national categories. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a notability guideline for military people?

Someone left this on my talk page - someone has prodded the article, but I don't feel like I know enough to make a determination. Do we have any guidelines on what military biographies should be included? I see in our goals this statement: "Military personnel, including both commanders and common soldiers, as well as other people involved in warfare" which would lead me to think that we should keep this article since he fought int he Battle of Tippacanoe and was an early pioneer... Thoughts? --plange 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have a notability guideline for military people per se, having gotten away with the normal biography ones in the past; obscure soldiers are not, for the most part, an area where frequent deletion nominations take place. It might be worthwhile to come up with something now that we're moving into having articles on increasingly obscure people, I suppose.
(As far as this specific case, he's admittedly borderline as far as having actually done anything notable is concerned; but I tend to have highly inclusionistic tendencies in cases like this—anyone from the 18th century whose history is known to us tends to be worth having an article on—so I'm not necessarily the best person to ask.) Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'm with you on this too, as my bias is inclusionary too for people who make local history. Another problem is that there's no article linking to this one... --plange 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article in question could probably use a little cleanup, but I tend to agree with Kirill - 18th century persons about whom we have information probably deserve an article. Carom 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'll remove the prod --plange 20:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
On a de-facto basis, we seem content to automatically consider the following notable - flag officers, past holders of a particularly notable position, or winners of $highest_decoration. Beyond that, I'm not sure where we draw the line - but I do note that my article on Temple Hardy was kept, and I'm not sure you get more obscure than him and still have enough material in published sources for an article. Shimgray | talk | 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Family history buffs will like the inclusionist sentiments expressed here. ;-) Americans with ancestors in early America can trace many of them through census records, land records, military records, tax records, marriage records, death and burial records, etc. back to the Revolution or at least to the first national census (1790). Obviously all of these folks are not notable for encyclopedic purposes. Many genealogy hobbyists could write an article equivalent to the article in question—Sanford Ransdell—for a number of their late 18th century forbears. In fact, all of the Sanford Ransdell information appears to this former genealogist to come from standard genealogy sources, rather than secondary sources. The guy was one of a thousand Americans in the battle of Tippecanoe, and one of thousands of early settlers in the Indiana territory. Although his descendants have every right to be proud of him, if he didn't do anything which gets him mentioned in secondary sources, he's not really notable for our purposes. That would be my criteria for military people notability: while millions of military people are listed in published primary sources and archival records, only those who get mentioned in published secondary sources are notable for our purposes. —Kevin 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was beginning to think the article originally mentioned did seem like a nugget of genealogical research, and I'm leaning towards it being on the wrong side of the inclusion line, but it's hard to say why. Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hmm, you make good points. I was struggling with this, as I could see that this would open up having anyone traceable through primary documents notable, which isn't the case. Even saying published secondary sources wouldn't do it, because there are plenty of published family histories. Perhaps we do need to draw up some kind of guideline. If this guy was instrumental in pioneering his state, he'd be mentioned in history books for that state. Kevin, you want to work together on something? And anyone else, of course? I guess I was too hasty in removing the prod. If we do work on a guideline, I'm thinking we should open it to historical figures, and not limit it to military. I recently came across this John Frelinghuysen (1727-1754) and asked the author why we had an article on him... Thoughts? --plange 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I guideline might not be a bad idea - although it goes against my inclusionist sentiments, I do see the point about this article in particular, and the larger argument against allowing anyone traceable through primary documents (I mean, I could get an article on that basis). I'd be willing to help with a guideline, either for this project, or on a broader basis. Carom 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have much more to add, other than agreeing with Plange that whatever guideline is drafted should mention that inclusion in family histories (and genealogical works in general) doesn't count towards notability for our purposes. —Kevin 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yep, and it would mean I could add an article for every ancestor I've found, which should not be allowed. (I'm the family historian/genealogist for our family and so have tons of info on my ancestors). We definitely don't want to go down this road, that's what is for. This might be a peculiarly American thing we have to worry about, as I'm not sure the craze is as big in other countries. I think the example of Temple Hardy is a good one to compare to, since it does have secondary sources, etc. I'm an inclusionist for local history (where it's based on secondary sources) but not family history. I've got to run, but will check back in later... --plange 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
True enough; and, as Wikipedia becomes more prominent, I suspect we're going to start seeing more of such articles appearing, so some guideline would be good. I think a three-level approach (people who are always notable based on precedent/common sense/etc., people who tend to be notable, and people who are probably not notable) might work well and allow us some flexibility in terms of not having t cover every possible scenario. For example:
  • Always notable:
    • Recipients of a country's highest military decoration.
    • People who commanded an army or a significant part of an army in combat.
    • Holders of top-level command positions (e.g. Chief of the General Staff).
    • People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.
  • Probably notable:
    • Recipients of significant military decorations.
    • People who have non-trivial mention in one or more published secondary works.
  • Probably not notable:
    • People who are only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories.
This is obviously a very rough idea, but I think it gets at least a few of the major points correct. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good, I'll work on trying to set this up as a proposal page... BTW, that article above is in AfD. --plange 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to do this in-project, or somewhere else in Wikipedia:-space? (My experience is that guidelines that try to get developed somewhere else don't receive nearly as much attention as those that exist here directly; but your mileage may vary. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we might start with our own guidline and, so to speak, take it for a test drive. If it seems to work here, it might be worth suggesting the same kind of thing be implemented on a Wikiwide basis. Carom 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it would depend on whether we want it to be just for military bios, or historical bios in general. I'm thinking the latter, as the same problems exist for those too... --plange 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The latter would probably be more useful, but significantly more difficult to get agreement on across the board. To what extent that's going to be a problem, I'm not sure. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could post your criteria above to this project page as this project's criteria and then I can incorporate them into a draft off of the Bio project and see if we can get the wider support? Then that way if the latter fails, we still have yours for this project... --plange 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have no problems with that. ;-)
(It would be good to have more people comment on them, obviously; it's quite possible that I missed something obvious in putting them together.) Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, added a rough draft to User:Plange/to do/notabilityhistbio -- feedback and bold edits welcome! Thought final page could be called Wikipedia:Notability (historical figures). Thoughts? --plange 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the guideline is heavily weighted to concerns over military figures (it gives very little guidance on, for example, scientists or merchants). I think trying to expand it to give advice over a large number of different kinds of historical figures will cause the guideline to grow so far as to be unwieldy. It might be better to start with an in-project guideline, and then see how it might be expanded. Carom 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, yep, I know it's heavily weighted to military, because I cribbed Kirill's notes from above and just started it a few minutes ago with the idea that others would help populate it (along with myself). I also noted above, that we should go ahead and adopt Kirill's criteria above as an in-project guideline and that I would then try to do one that has a broader scope and see if it's possible. If it fails, fine, we still have our in-project one, no harm done. --plange 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes. It does help if I read the comments, I suppose. Carry on then. Carom 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be useful to subdivide the guidelines by topic area explicitly (e.g. notability for scientists, notability for authors, etc.); otherwise, we're likely to wind up with an enormous list of every precedent imaginable. Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind :-) The more I looked into this and thought about it, the only reason such a thing should exist is if we're having articles deleted that should, by all rights, stay. As long as we're not having a problem, then the current WP:BIO is covering our needs and we don't need a separate guideline. Sorry for the brain fart :-) --plange 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Although, I don't know if there's anything wrong with adding our own guideline that focuses a little more tightly on military persons, as it might give editors a little more guidance on concerns specific to military history. Or, conversely, we could bury this plan as deeply and as quickly as possible, and hope that no-one notices we tried to create a guideline that already exists. Carom 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I meant the broader one I was attempting to start. I definitely think the purely in-project one is a good idea and have added it to the project page, I hope that's okay? Seriously, you won't hurt my feelings if you guys think this isn't needed and revert it... :-) --plange 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well. Carom 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo War

Can somebody take a look at this talk page and explain to user:Overhere why it is forbidden to add unreferenced information and original research to wikipedia articles?. Mieciu K 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Former countries

Some of you may be familiar with the old Historical States WikiProject. This project - under the new name WikiProject Former countries - has recently been restarted. Because many entries covered by the Military History project concern countries that no longer exist, I thought it would be a good idea to let you know that we're back in business. The objective of this project is to improve the content and accessibility of information on now-defunct countries, and because the history of most countries is largely defined by their military history, it is clear that our two projects intersect at some points.

Since yours is one of the more active historical projects around, I would like to make the following request to you, regarding former countries: Please be careful when wikilinking to historical states. In many cases there is no problem, but sometimes mistakes are made. This is not really a surprise since many former country entries do not exist yet. For example, the entry on the Austro-Prussian War refered to the Kingdom of Bavaria while linking directly to the modern German state of Bavaria. At the moment, Kingdom of Bavaria redirects to Bavaria anyway, but that will change. Over time, we hope to have entries for all former countries, and the sooner that the correct links and/or redirects are in place on other entries, the less correction work will need to be done later on.

Also, a cartography department of our own has been set up, but this is in an early stage. Of course, I do not wish to poach your cartographers, but in some cases, the work of both of our projects can overlap. For every entry on a former country we need at least a location map of some sort (eg. Confederation of the Rhine), but these location maps can also be adjusted to suit your project. For example, I have just recoloured a 19th-century German map that I have been working on to show the alliances in the Austro-Prussian War. This particular map is a bit of a test for me, so I would appreciate any feedback.

We also have a number of child projects: one for the subdivisions of former countries, and one for Prussia. - 52 Pickup 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Just to warn the project, I just saw this note on FAR's talk page that they're going to start concentrating on our articles next after Beatles to nominate for FAR, so we might want to double-time our efforts on our old FAs. Should we set up a project page listing any of our articles on this list: Wikipedia:Featured_articles_with_citation_problems? --plange 15:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know. If they have objections we will iron them out. Wandalstouring 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We have enough old FAs that need citations that they'll be working on them for a while. ;-)
Quite honestly, though, I suspect that our results with these are going to vary widely based on whether there's any currently active editors interested in the topic (and thus in a position to have ready access to the needed sources). We've been going along with about half the articles sent to FAR getting improved enough to be kept, and the other half being de-featured; I doubt that this ratio is going to change too much, regardless of what we do here. There simply isn't enough time or manpower to get all of these up to par quickly. I don't think it's necessarily something to be terribly concerned about, either; our new FA rate is more than keeping up with the removals, and FA removal isn't a permanent thing either. Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If some old articles get defeatured is not a disaster. Newcomers are also numerous and, in any case, I think that this particular project does not have much to fear from FARC.--Yannismarou 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of priorities—important articles which need attention for FAR? I didn't have the time to contribute to the collaboration on tank, but I still plan to give it some attention in the next week. Michael Z. 2006-10-30 20:08 Z

I don't think we've put together a formal list, per se, but you can see which ones have issues by editing the showcase section on the project page; the FAs that have problems are listed there, just commented out. Not sure if that's quite what you're looking for, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the list from there, for convenience:

Featured articles needing attention

  • The battleships are mine, I will get to them after finals week, probably sometime in early December. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I shall certainly do the WOTSS when I get a chance. Raymond Palmer 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with fixing some page moves

If anyone has some free time, there's a series of a few dozen erroneous moves (of the form X-Y War to X–Y War) that need to be reversed (and the resultant double redirects fixed); any help would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoax check needed

Hey everyone,

I'd like someone knowledgeable on the Teutoberger Wald era of Roman and Germanic history to have a look at Heinz Oberlinger. He's not mentioned in any of my sources, and google only finds him on Wikipedia and its knockoffs. I left a message for the page creator as well. While I like to assume good faith, my warning buzzer went off. What does anyone think? Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty questionable to me too. I added {{unsourced}} and {{hoax}} tags to the article, and made a comment on the talk page. Crockspot 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good: thank you. Antandrus (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't believe that is real. It simply doesn't sound like a name that would be cited in ancient sources, as Roman historians generally Latinized the spelling of foreign names. Suggest you mark the page for AfD review.--Caliga10 18:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is an AfD even necessary? It would seem speedy deletable. Crockspot 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Heinz Oberlinger is a hoax. Such names did not exist in Germany back than and no German feudal lord would be simply called Oberpollinger. Wandalstouring 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is German wiki on the topic: de:Heinz Oberpollinger does not exist
de:Oberpollinger is the second biggest German shopping center (in the Neuhauserstraße in Munich).
de:Heinz (Sänger), Heinz Henry George Burt was an English singer and musican from Germany.
The name Oberpollinger in the above example would be a family name, but family names in German have their origin in the 14th/15th century, before there existed additional names like: "Randal the small" or "Karl from Kissing" Familiennamen entstanden im deutschsprachigen Bereich erst relativ spät und setzten sich erst im 14./15. Jahrhundert durch. Vorläufer der Familiennamen waren Beinamen die eine eindeutigere Zuordnung von Namen und Person ermöglichte als Personennamen. Wandalstouring 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to speedy it, based on this discussion, but since there doesn't appear to be a criteria covering consensus hoaxes at WP:CSD, prodding it is OK with me. If if forget to kill it in five days just give me a nudge on my talk page. Thanks all for your prompt replies. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Like Wandalstouring pointed out, the name is an achronym. The creator's history also points ot other suspiscious articles and minor vandalism. Reads like a hoax to me. Delete--Dryzen 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Meyers Konversationslexikon has no entries for "Oberlinger" [1] and no Germanic nation used "surnames" back then. The phrase quoted by Wandalstouring confirms this (surprised though that such use started already in the 14th / 15th century. (The average Dane got a surname around 1830.) Hoax. Delete. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
'Tis slain, put to the sword. I left the talk page, at least for the time being. While normally I'd wait the full five days for the WP:PROD, the discussion here was unanimous, and it's harmful to have knowingly false information in the encyclopedia. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to all: I received a response from the author of the article. Uhh... enjoy. It's quite a load. User_talk:Antandrus#Heinz_oberlinger I'd be very interested in seeing the language in which these "finds" were composed, and the script, since they predate the Elder Futhark inscriptions by 500 years! But I'll stop now. Enjoy. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even a particularly clever hoaxer - how disappointing. Carom 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles need to be fixed

These articles misinform and need to be fixed:

Flanking maneuver telling nonsense

Cavalry lists of doubtful use

Can someone help? It is about military basics and really a mess. Wandalstouring 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You can get these added to the project "articles needing attention" list by altering the "|attention= " category in the project header template on the relevant article's talk page. Emoscopes Talk 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt this is helpful for getting the work done asap. Wandalstouring 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AFV navboxes

Raoulduke47 came up with a good new navigation template for modern Soviet AFVs, and we've been developing it further at Template talk:PostWWIISovietAFVS. It incorporates some techniques that could really reduce the clutter of all the humongous WWII AFV navboxes, but needs some refinement. Please have a look at the latest version and comment. Michael Z. 2006-10-31 04:38 Z

Comments should, ideally, be directed to the Weaponry task force talk page, to avoid having the discussion split too much. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox requested

Could someone add the military history infobox to the talk page for the article Zumwalt class destroyer? I'd handle it, but that thing is so large it scares me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done - but don't be intimidated, there really isn't much to do. Carom 02:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox documentation layout

David Kernow and myself have been having some discussions about how infobox documentation should be formatted; there are two basic possibilities:

I'm not entirely certain which of the two is more convenient to use; any feedback on which one people prefer would be extremely helpful! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much to choose between them, at least as far as interpreting the material is concerned. I would say that a table might be a bettter option for excessively large infoboxes - that is, if there are a lot of terms to explain, the table might read a little better. For most of the infoboxes, however, I think it's pretty much a wash. Carom 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In a nutshell, I was suggesting that a table format made it easier to scan the list of parameters. But if consensus is happy with status quo, fine!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The table form is a bit overloaded if it were just a matter of style I would prefer it. Wandalstouring 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The list form is simpler, and with the parameters in boldface it scans just fine. It would be nice if the required/optional status showed up a bit more prominently, perhaps with something like bold asterisk marking required parameters, which might be better grouped at the top of the list. Michael Z. 2006-11-02 17:49 Z

Okay, since people seem to prefer the list form (however weakly), I've switched it back to that for the time being. If anyone would really like a table of some sort (or has some other layout idea we haven't tried yet), please don't hesitate to speak up! :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Category re-naming/re-organization

Whew a lot of work to fix the renaming category project! as per the renaming discussion have nominated the following at Speedy Rename

Unfortunately that is the extent of my ability at this time for renaming --Oldwildbill 18:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Lineage and Heraldry vs Culture and History

Dear Gentle Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing you to point out a historical inaccuracy in your use of the terms "Culture and History" in regards to units of the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army uses the terms "Lineage and Heraldry." Please see the U.S. Army Heraldry Website for more information: [[2]]. I am compelled to add that these two terms are routinely used for many years in dictionaries of Military History, historical literature, and official publications of the U.S. Army. I hope you will consider changing your terminology to reflect this. The "LIBERATORS" of the 14th Armored Division thank you. Best Regards 14thArmored 1800 Hours 2 November, 2006

Replied on editor's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This Page

Am I the only project member who;

  • never reads the template at the top
  • wishes that the top template had a collapse function, so those that want to read it can, and those who don't want to don't get annoyed every time they have to scroll through it.

Emoscopes Talk 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, failing that, the contents navbox was displayed above the project template, to allow rapid navigation through the topics of discussion Emoscopes Talk 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh. A collapse function would probably be rather hairy (as there are already collapsible lists within the template), and it's probably too big at this point to move below the TOC, but I could see an argument for removing it entirely. Whether that's something we want to do depends on how useful people find having it on this page, I suppose.
(But please do read the template occasionaly! It's got some quite important things in it! :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I do scan it once or twice a week, but when you tend to check this page multiple times a day to see what's going on it just gets tedious... Even setting the font size smaller might help! Or 1 show / hide button to cover all the template? Emoscopes Talk 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
A show/hide for the entire template will be rather ugly, but I suppose it might be possible. Whether that's a better idea than simply removing it from here is something open to dicussion. Significantly smaller font size would probably be a bad idea, as it would make the thing unreadable, but I'll see if I can bump it down a bit without losing too much readability. Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tried bumping the font size down to 95%; I don't know how significant the visible impact is. We could go to 90% (the size used in the navigation box) if people wanted to, I suppose, but these might just be band-aids, as the template is likely to keep growing in the future. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Or we could add {{skiptotoctalk}} to the top? --plange 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be done, I guess; it's all up to what people prefer. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
whatever helps to get it away. Wandalstouring 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a skip-to-TOC bar; does it seem to help? Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
One happy punter :) Thanks! Emoscopes Talk 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Pseudociations are references to a source which doesn't or doesn't fully support all statements made by the text which seems based on it. An example in the crossbow article was:

Most probably, the crossbow first appeared at an unknown date among the tribes of South-Eastern Asia, where it is still used by the hunter-gatherer and nomad tribes both for hunting and warfare, as well as a toy. [1]

  1. ^ Needham, Joseph (2004). Science and Civilisation in China, Vol 5 Part 6. Cambridge University Press. pp. p. 135. ISBN 0521087325. 

For at least over a year this very reference was cited to state that the crossbow was invented in China and further reading suggested that it meant invented in historic China. The inhabitants of South-Eastern Asia are not all Chinese up till now and were neither back than. Credits to Beit Or for correcting this error.

I want to make aware of it. While we keep an eye on the number and density of citations, we still may have such cuckoo's eggs among them. This is probably only of concern for high-level reviews, while in basic reviews it would consume very much of our limited capacity. Wandalstouring 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes this happens by the text being editted without checking that the changed meaning is still valid in the reference. See Battle of Fei River where I added referenced information, only to have a quotation changed (and is thus different from that in the reference) and information added (and that information is not in the reference). (As a note, I've not had a reply to comment I made on the talk page on this, so I'll revert it soon). -- Medains 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Opium War

How do I discover which regiments served in the Second Opium War please? - Kittybrewster 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Try This [3] Raymond Palmer 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)