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. |
I've proposed several new stub types to help reduce the excess size of the {{ battle-stub}}s. Kirill's pointed out that there are large overlap issues here: the typical use of stub templates on Napoleonic battle stubs is about four (battle-, NW-, and two countries on average). The new types would reduce this to a mere three, but it's worthwhile considering whether this many tags should be being used, and whether the current scheme is entirely appropriately. I've made an analysis of the distribution of the current tags here. Alai 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it used? It is linked to, but it's talk page is empty - it doesn't even have link to this WikiProject, as is customary. This lost soldier needs help :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As of today, {{ Battlebox}} has been completely replaced with the new {{ Infobox Military Conflict}}. In light of this, I've nominated it for deletion, along with a few related templates. — Kirill Lok s hin 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohooo! -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Farewell and godspeed! ;-) SoLando ( Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hurrah! Send it straight to Hell! Albrecht 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Bye bye =) -- Loopy e 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the response seems to have been minimal, I'll ask again: could anyone with any experience working on unit articles please comment on the issues noted here? — Kirill Lok s hin 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have started working on the requested articles Battle of Bialystok-Minsk and Battle of the Baltic (1944). Would somebody be able to produce dedicated maps for these battles, since I am unfortunately singularly untalented? I can probably provide map examples to work from. Cheers. Andreas 10:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Now also started the requested Battle of the Crimea (1944), same request and offer. Andreas 12:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Military.com has a range of maps available online that are scanned maps from the US GPO. This would mean that there is no copyright attached to the original maps. Would downloading the scanned maps and inserting them into articles be a copyright violation of the rights of Military.com? Thanks for any help on this. Andreas 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This was raised by [User:Michael_Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]. When creating or editing an article I usually change the terms for formations into German (I focus on World War II articles). The reason for this is that I believe it aids understanding, since many armies had a 4th Army, so it would be possible that we have to write e.g. "German Fourth Army attacked Soviet Fourth Army, which then had to retreat". I find the solution "4.Armee attacked Fourth Army" more elegant in terms of the flow of writing and easier to understand. I would prefer to stick to this, but if it is against the guidelines, I will of course change my approach.
Cheers. Andreas 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the feedback - I will continue the way I have done, but put a note behind the first mention of a German formation explaining the correct form to non-German speakers to avoid the confusion that Habap pointed out. Andreas 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In English military writing, names of operations are usually in all-capitals, ie Operation OVERLORD. Would there be an advantage to using the same in wikipedia military articles, or would the use of all-capitals seem too intrusive? Michael Dorosh 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any naming conventions for battles that aren't already named. I'm looking to create a series of articles about the battles associated with the restoration of democracy in Athens after the Peloponnesian War, but only one of the engagements has anything like a standard name. I'm thinking of creating the articles under the names that seem most obvious, so Phyle campaign, Battle of Phyle, Battle of Munychia etc. (for anyone looking to find out what I'm talking about here, see Thrasybulus#The_Thirty_Tyrants). Is it ok to just sort of name these battles myself when no one else has? Also, there's one battle in the campaign that doesn't really have a specific location, and "Battle of Athens" would just sound dumb, so what could I do about that? Robth Talk 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found this text box on the US Rangers page. How does it compare with the Unit Text box we have here? SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
75th Ranger Regiment
Rangers
Airborne Rangers
Army Rangers
U.S. Army Rangers
Special Operations Force, rapidly deployable light infantry force.
Each battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours' notice.
Conducting conventional or special light-infantry operations, conducting direct action operations, conducting raids, infiltrating and exfiltrating by sea, air or land, recovery of personnel and special equipment.
Rangers Lead The Way! (RLTW)
Sua Sponte ("Of their own accord")
Equipment
84 mm Ranger Anti
tank Weapons System (RAWS), (
Carl Gustav)
60 mm
Mortars M240B
machine guns,
81 mm Mortars
Mark 19 RP MM
grenade launcher,
120 mm Mortars stinger.
M4 Carbine,
M24 SWS Sniper Rifle,
SR25 Sniper rifle,
AT4 Rocket Launcher
June 19, 1942
America's entry to WWII. American's needed an elite force of soldiers to participate in clandestine operations in the ETO
Does anyone else have problems with browser-accessing the new Infobox Military Conflict followed by Campaignbox? I find that the campaignbox is disrupting graphics that follow. When I look at Battle of Shiloh in Mozilla Firefox, I get the first graphic overlapping with text and the [edit] button. I just tried it with Internet Explorer and there is excessive whitespace before the first section after the boxes. Any ideas on how to fix this? Hal Jespersen 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a seperate image (Image:ACW Belmont2Shiloh.jpg) that needed to be moved. I added a few blank lines and a <:br> (without the ":") to move it off the text. I find this seems to work for most images I find like this. you mentioned the problem with other pages, if you add them here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/image problems, I'll try to fix them is spare moments. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 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. |
I've proposed several new stub types to help reduce the excess size of the {{ battle-stub}}s. Kirill's pointed out that there are large overlap issues here: the typical use of stub templates on Napoleonic battle stubs is about four (battle-, NW-, and two countries on average). The new types would reduce this to a mere three, but it's worthwhile considering whether this many tags should be being used, and whether the current scheme is entirely appropriately. I've made an analysis of the distribution of the current tags here. Alai 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it used? It is linked to, but it's talk page is empty - it doesn't even have link to this WikiProject, as is customary. This lost soldier needs help :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As of today, {{ Battlebox}} has been completely replaced with the new {{ Infobox Military Conflict}}. In light of this, I've nominated it for deletion, along with a few related templates. — Kirill Lok s hin 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohooo! -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Farewell and godspeed! ;-) SoLando ( Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hurrah! Send it straight to Hell! Albrecht 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Bye bye =) -- Loopy e 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the response seems to have been minimal, I'll ask again: could anyone with any experience working on unit articles please comment on the issues noted here? — Kirill Lok s hin 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have started working on the requested articles Battle of Bialystok-Minsk and Battle of the Baltic (1944). Would somebody be able to produce dedicated maps for these battles, since I am unfortunately singularly untalented? I can probably provide map examples to work from. Cheers. Andreas 10:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Now also started the requested Battle of the Crimea (1944), same request and offer. Andreas 12:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Military.com has a range of maps available online that are scanned maps from the US GPO. This would mean that there is no copyright attached to the original maps. Would downloading the scanned maps and inserting them into articles be a copyright violation of the rights of Military.com? Thanks for any help on this. Andreas 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This was raised by [User:Michael_Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]. When creating or editing an article I usually change the terms for formations into German (I focus on World War II articles). The reason for this is that I believe it aids understanding, since many armies had a 4th Army, so it would be possible that we have to write e.g. "German Fourth Army attacked Soviet Fourth Army, which then had to retreat". I find the solution "4.Armee attacked Fourth Army" more elegant in terms of the flow of writing and easier to understand. I would prefer to stick to this, but if it is against the guidelines, I will of course change my approach.
Cheers. Andreas 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the feedback - I will continue the way I have done, but put a note behind the first mention of a German formation explaining the correct form to non-German speakers to avoid the confusion that Habap pointed out. Andreas 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In English military writing, names of operations are usually in all-capitals, ie Operation OVERLORD. Would there be an advantage to using the same in wikipedia military articles, or would the use of all-capitals seem too intrusive? Michael Dorosh 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any naming conventions for battles that aren't already named. I'm looking to create a series of articles about the battles associated with the restoration of democracy in Athens after the Peloponnesian War, but only one of the engagements has anything like a standard name. I'm thinking of creating the articles under the names that seem most obvious, so Phyle campaign, Battle of Phyle, Battle of Munychia etc. (for anyone looking to find out what I'm talking about here, see Thrasybulus#The_Thirty_Tyrants). Is it ok to just sort of name these battles myself when no one else has? Also, there's one battle in the campaign that doesn't really have a specific location, and "Battle of Athens" would just sound dumb, so what could I do about that? Robth Talk 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found this text box on the US Rangers page. How does it compare with the Unit Text box we have here? SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
75th Ranger Regiment
Rangers
Airborne Rangers
Army Rangers
U.S. Army Rangers
Special Operations Force, rapidly deployable light infantry force.
Each battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours' notice.
Conducting conventional or special light-infantry operations, conducting direct action operations, conducting raids, infiltrating and exfiltrating by sea, air or land, recovery of personnel and special equipment.
Rangers Lead The Way! (RLTW)
Sua Sponte ("Of their own accord")
Equipment
84 mm Ranger Anti
tank Weapons System (RAWS), (
Carl Gustav)
60 mm
Mortars M240B
machine guns,
81 mm Mortars
Mark 19 RP MM
grenade launcher,
120 mm Mortars stinger.
M4 Carbine,
M24 SWS Sniper Rifle,
SR25 Sniper rifle,
AT4 Rocket Launcher
June 19, 1942
America's entry to WWII. American's needed an elite force of soldiers to participate in clandestine operations in the ETO
Does anyone else have problems with browser-accessing the new Infobox Military Conflict followed by Campaignbox? I find that the campaignbox is disrupting graphics that follow. When I look at Battle of Shiloh in Mozilla Firefox, I get the first graphic overlapping with text and the [edit] button. I just tried it with Internet Explorer and there is excessive whitespace before the first section after the boxes. Any ideas on how to fix this? Hal Jespersen 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a seperate image (Image:ACW Belmont2Shiloh.jpg) that needed to be moved. I added a few blank lines and a <:br> (without the ":") to move it off the text. I find this seems to work for most images I find like this. you mentioned the problem with other pages, if you add them here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/image problems, I'll try to fix them is spare moments. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)