This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It would be nice if events were categorized by year, too. This would be especially useful for battles: for each battle, a new category could be added with the year of the battle, for cross-referencing purposes. -- Ze miguel 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions
I think this needs discussing here and perhapse the article "Naming the American Civil War" should be moved into this area. There was something on this in the old WikiProject Battle page (or at least the talk pages). This also brings up the issue of wars with two different names eg: American War of Independence and American Revolutionary War. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have discovered that there are two Campaignboxes for the War of the Spanish Succession covering the same battles. I have nominated the less complete of the two for deletion after transferring all missing battles to the first. There appears to be no reason why two campaignboxes should exist for this war. If you wish to vote, please do so at Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion. Roy Al Blue 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Campaignbox:Spanish Succession. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Al Blue ( talk • contribs)
This template is to be deleted per a vote held on WP:TFD. The suggestions in the comments mentioned replacing with either campaignbox or warbox. I'd like to ask this group for help in implementing that solution, since you are most knowledgable about how it can be done per your standards. You can note completion either to me or directly on the TFD holding cell. Thanks very much. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Back in 2005 I created the BRAC templete to deal with bases that would be effected. The BRAC processes ended last year with the aproval to go ahead with suggested changes; however several pages here still have BRAC tags, and I have know idea how they were effected. If you would like to help me, go to the Template:BRAC article, click on "what links here", and see what you can do about cleaning up the lose ends. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Battle of the Thousand Islands I'm pretty much done with this (other then adding a battle box and maybe some bacground for the personallities mentioned). It needs proofreading, copy-edit and wikifying. please, take a look and help me polish this. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
I'm sorry to bother everyone, however I was refered to this talk page regarding my post at Portal talk:War. I haven't been able to find much coverage of military biographies and I was wondering if there were any plans to expand coverage of biographies in regards to most wanted articles, etc. Up to this point, I've been trying to clear the red links from List of naval commanders and similar pages. Is there a specific project dealing with this subject ? MadMax 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
to the Wanted list. Although the naval commanders list is faily comprehensive, I'm sure there's quite a bit missing from the others. MadMax 05:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have expanded the Battle of Hohenfriedberg and I would like to know if it is still a stub. Thank you. Rshu 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently WikiProject Ships had to retag its ship name disambiguation pages from {{disambig}} to the non-disambiguation {{shipindex}} to prevent editors from applying the disambiguation manual of style (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Ship index pages). Battle disambiguation pages are going to suffer the same treatment, such as Battle of Antioch (compare [1] with partially-"fixed" [2]). So if this project wants to retain battle disambiguation pages as is, it will have to come retag & recategorise them out of disambiguation. 202.161.124.15 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There are three things that I'm trying to get done:
I would be very grateful for any help with this :-) — Kirill Lok s hin 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard for listing casualties in Infoboxes? I'm sure I read somewhere it should be Dead, Wounded, Captured, Missing as opposed to Killed, KIA, WIA, MIA, but now I can't find where I read that. Cheers -- Loopy e 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope that someone knowledgable will comment on this assertion: [3] -- Ghirla | talk 11:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
My primary focus on the 'pedia has been feudal Japanese battles, and I am now running into something of a dilemma.
The Sengoku period (1467-1615, 'The Age of the Country at War') is not nearly as well defined as a proper war like WWII. It consists of countless battles between hundreds of feudal lords jockeying for position; over the course of this period, a handful emerged as significant and powerful warlords who threatened to control significant portions of Japan or its entirety. Thus, I have chosen to separate the battles out by which of the major warlords fought them. I've created campaignboxes for " Campaigns of the Hojo", " Takeda", " Toyotomi Hideyoshi", and " Oda Nobunaga".
However, sometimes these warlords fought one another, and their battles therefore overlap. It has been decided that it is bad form to have any one battle listed on multiple campaignboxes. (And I agree muchly.) Thus, I am stuck with something of a dilemma. I suppose the only recourse is to decide for each battle, on a case-by-case basis, which campaign to put it in. Does the Battle of Nagashino belong in 'campaigns of the Takeda' because they instigated the battle, and because it marks the end of their power? Or does it belong in 'campaigns of Oda Nobunaga' because it marks a major victory on his part, of his gunners over the famed Takeda cavalry? Or does it belong under 'campaigns of Tokugawa Ieyasu', because it represents one of Tokugawa's first major battles and the beginnings of his rise to power?
Or should I do something really silly, and ignore entirely whose battles are whose, dividing the entire Sengoku period by decades, or by geography? Thanks for your input and ideas. LordAmeth 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It would be nice if events were categorized by year, too. This would be especially useful for battles: for each battle, a new category could be added with the year of the battle, for cross-referencing purposes. -- Ze miguel 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions
I think this needs discussing here and perhapse the article "Naming the American Civil War" should be moved into this area. There was something on this in the old WikiProject Battle page (or at least the talk pages). This also brings up the issue of wars with two different names eg: American War of Independence and American Revolutionary War. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have discovered that there are two Campaignboxes for the War of the Spanish Succession covering the same battles. I have nominated the less complete of the two for deletion after transferring all missing battles to the first. There appears to be no reason why two campaignboxes should exist for this war. If you wish to vote, please do so at Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion. Roy Al Blue 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Campaignbox:Spanish Succession. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Al Blue ( talk • contribs)
This template is to be deleted per a vote held on WP:TFD. The suggestions in the comments mentioned replacing with either campaignbox or warbox. I'd like to ask this group for help in implementing that solution, since you are most knowledgable about how it can be done per your standards. You can note completion either to me or directly on the TFD holding cell. Thanks very much. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Back in 2005 I created the BRAC templete to deal with bases that would be effected. The BRAC processes ended last year with the aproval to go ahead with suggested changes; however several pages here still have BRAC tags, and I have know idea how they were effected. If you would like to help me, go to the Template:BRAC article, click on "what links here", and see what you can do about cleaning up the lose ends. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Battle of the Thousand Islands I'm pretty much done with this (other then adding a battle box and maybe some bacground for the personallities mentioned). It needs proofreading, copy-edit and wikifying. please, take a look and help me polish this. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
I'm sorry to bother everyone, however I was refered to this talk page regarding my post at Portal talk:War. I haven't been able to find much coverage of military biographies and I was wondering if there were any plans to expand coverage of biographies in regards to most wanted articles, etc. Up to this point, I've been trying to clear the red links from List of naval commanders and similar pages. Is there a specific project dealing with this subject ? MadMax 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
to the Wanted list. Although the naval commanders list is faily comprehensive, I'm sure there's quite a bit missing from the others. MadMax 05:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have expanded the Battle of Hohenfriedberg and I would like to know if it is still a stub. Thank you. Rshu 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently WikiProject Ships had to retag its ship name disambiguation pages from {{disambig}} to the non-disambiguation {{shipindex}} to prevent editors from applying the disambiguation manual of style (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Ship index pages). Battle disambiguation pages are going to suffer the same treatment, such as Battle of Antioch (compare [1] with partially-"fixed" [2]). So if this project wants to retain battle disambiguation pages as is, it will have to come retag & recategorise them out of disambiguation. 202.161.124.15 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There are three things that I'm trying to get done:
I would be very grateful for any help with this :-) — Kirill Lok s hin 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard for listing casualties in Infoboxes? I'm sure I read somewhere it should be Dead, Wounded, Captured, Missing as opposed to Killed, KIA, WIA, MIA, but now I can't find where I read that. Cheers -- Loopy e 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope that someone knowledgable will comment on this assertion: [3] -- Ghirla | talk 11:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
My primary focus on the 'pedia has been feudal Japanese battles, and I am now running into something of a dilemma.
The Sengoku period (1467-1615, 'The Age of the Country at War') is not nearly as well defined as a proper war like WWII. It consists of countless battles between hundreds of feudal lords jockeying for position; over the course of this period, a handful emerged as significant and powerful warlords who threatened to control significant portions of Japan or its entirety. Thus, I have chosen to separate the battles out by which of the major warlords fought them. I've created campaignboxes for " Campaigns of the Hojo", " Takeda", " Toyotomi Hideyoshi", and " Oda Nobunaga".
However, sometimes these warlords fought one another, and their battles therefore overlap. It has been decided that it is bad form to have any one battle listed on multiple campaignboxes. (And I agree muchly.) Thus, I am stuck with something of a dilemma. I suppose the only recourse is to decide for each battle, on a case-by-case basis, which campaign to put it in. Does the Battle of Nagashino belong in 'campaigns of the Takeda' because they instigated the battle, and because it marks the end of their power? Or does it belong in 'campaigns of Oda Nobunaga' because it marks a major victory on his part, of his gunners over the famed Takeda cavalry? Or does it belong under 'campaigns of Tokugawa Ieyasu', because it represents one of Tokugawa's first major battles and the beginnings of his rise to power?
Or should I do something really silly, and ignore entirely whose battles are whose, dividing the entire Sengoku period by decades, or by geography? Thanks for your input and ideas. LordAmeth 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)