![]() | This 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. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
It's probably to the credit of this wikiproject, and associated editors, that categorisation is as good as this, but nonetheless there's over a 1000 articles tagged with mil-stub (or sub-type thereof) that have no "permanent" category whatsoever; see also my comment on the CAT:NOCAT talk page for more such gory details/inane trivia. If anyone here is interested in mopping up these isolated elements of resistance, I could readily bot-populate an Category:uncategorised military articles maintenance category, on the pattern of the wildly-successful Category:uncategorised albums. (I've found if one shoves articles in there, they disappear with impressive alacrity, and I can only assume they're going somewhere good...) It might as well be called Category:uncategorised military stubs, given that's the ready source of such, but it might possibly see use for non-stubs too, if non-military editors want to pass the buck on an article they spot as uncategorised, and on military stuff. Or if you'd like to work from a list, that's even more straightforward to facilitate. In short: any takers? Alai 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a provisional consensus to me. If I populate the category and the articles just sit there, I shall have my answer about people's inclination to work on same... Alai 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Following on from a conversation with several editors a few weeks back I have just finished writing a new bot called User:PockBot. It can be run for any category and produces a list of all articles in that category, along with the status (FA, Stub etc) of each, and then posts this to the talk page for the category. I made the bot so that I could keep track of articles in certain categories and see for any given category which articles were stubs that I could expand etc, which articles were unclassified and needed classifying.
The bot is currently on trial prior to full approval and it has been suggested that I:
Please leave your comments here. I am happy to answer any questions. Many Thanks. PocklingtonDan 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As an editor who's been a bit overwhelmed by exactly this task when starting work on Military science task force, I'm very excited to hear about such a bot soon available to help organize the category structure for Category:Military science. I'll bet that all of the new task forces would enjoy such a tool. I'd love to see it used on those areas to help us understand what's present; then re-run the bot (let's say monthly or weekly) to verify structure changes. I'll bet most task forces could find some purpose for this bot. I can't see much downside. Very exciting. BusterD 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's begin re-constructing the Battles lists (which are a mess and up for Afd now) ater the AfD process is over. It doesn't really matter if they get deleted now because once we present better structured lists, they are bound to replace the current ones with new ones. Propose ideas now. We got some good ones above. -- Ineffable3000 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
An interesting CFD nomination here that concerns the issue of categorizing wars under a country that didn't exist at the time; comments there would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Our request departement has some troubles. Hardly anybody answers new requests, but it has constantly input. I suggest a solution.
The requested articles receive null attention, so basically they are a big red obstacle to scare anybody who would think about working there. My suggestion is to make a solution like in the Chinese military history task force: each task force receives a their share of specific requested articles. Their pages are at least visited by some editors from time to time and it doesn't get a scary big piece of red ink. The psychological advantage would be to make it seem possible to do something about it. So all in all the deopartement shoul be closed and the conent moved to the appropriate task forces. For future request a disambiguation is to be installed, so user can find the right spot to make their request.
The requested images receive more attention, although this is more input of new request then solution to existing ones. Kirill and me established a new template for external images. This could be used to solve the problem (We received thumbs up for the invention, but work is still down). Basically a rule for proceeding with image requests is needed.
Afterwards you delet the image request from the request page. Wandalstouring 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a little help relolving a dispute. There is a new user named Tu-49, and he created an article on Operation Bolo. The problem is that it is almost a verbatim episode of "Dogfights". I have wikifyed the article but he has simply put all of his stuff back in. And much of it has nothing to do with Vietnam, or belongs in the Vietnam War article. I would like a little bit of help with this.-- LWF 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
whoa whoa whoa whoa hold it read the article first before you make any changes me and LWF are talking on Bolo's dicussion page and im saying that you guys read it first then make your suggestions about the cnages and what needs to be changed hello im the problems Tu-49 i'd like to say read the discussion page talk there then read the article and then on the discussion page put what needs to be changed and ill do it Tu-49 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
ah you right but no no just never mind no comment, cant top him Tu-49 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So should we revert it to an earlier version? With the necessary changes?-- LWF 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
you asking me or them? if u do change it back have a saved verison of what is already there so i can put it back Tu-49 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was asking both you and them. Also, all versions remain in the database. But the problem is that we probably shouldn't put it back the way you had it, for the reasons I already stated. So, do I have everyones' permission to put it back at my version?-- LWF 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) well can we have a second artilce that has LWF's changes or version of we can do that im all for it Tu-49 02:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, please see Revision as of 18:18, 7 December 2006 by LWF, of Operation Bolo. I have proposed reverting to this revision, and making further changes from there, and would like a consensus on if I should.-- LWF 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
loss of a few F-4? no no no it was a 7 MiG dopwned no F-4s Tu-49 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
im a new yorker through and though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu-49 ( talk • contribs)
New problem, there is a section on Robin Olds in the article, and I don't think it should be there. It is a story about a dogfight Olds participated in during WWII, not Vietnam. I'm pretty sure it's the same one from the episode of "Dogfights". I keep saying I think it should be moved to Robin Olds because it is just about him and not Bolo, but Tu-49 disagrees, and implies that the article belongs to him and he should get the final word. By the way, this is the only section that I have much of a problem with now.-- LWF 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but don't be surprised if he tries to put it back.-- LWF 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
ha ha ha Tu-49 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I was a GA reviewer of Lebanon and saw this redlink:
"...After the defeat of the Arab Liberation Army in the Battle of Sasa..."
I was gonna request the article in this WikiProject, but am hesitant to do so because it seems that article should already have been written (?). If anyone knows whether there is another article under another name that covers this event, input would be appreciated :-)
-- Ling.Nut 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(undent) OK, after playing with Google & Google scholar; perhaps an explanation for the lack of other references online:
[The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 By Eugene L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim]
.. So I'm guessing the Battle of Sasa was perhaps small, tho of course the defeat of Lebanese forces was significant in their eyes. Is that a reasonable explanation?-- Ling.Nut 07:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I did tack this on to the discussion above, but in case it gets lost in the vastness of this page, I did nominate the category for deletion. Please drop by and make your opinions known. Carom 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am Currently researching information about the Siege of Kolberg. However, I am having a proplem. In the Name of the Article (Its also listed the same way on the 'List of Sieges' Article) its says 1761. Which seems to be not true. All the Information I am getting point say that it happened on 26 April - 2 July 1807 and not 1761. I am getting the wrong information or were there 2 sieges of Kolberg? -- Samantar Abdirisaq 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. By now we have finished the template (both versions right below):
External images | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() |
External images | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() |
External images | |
---|---|
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)
[3] description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2) [8] |
The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links.
The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link:
Wandalstouring 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Following recent discussion on Wikipedia's coverage of the topic of Orders, Decorations, and Medals (both civil and military), I have created a WikiProject which is dedicated to this area.
If anyone would like to help with sorting this area out, whether by writing new articles, improving existing ones, or sorting out article structure and categorisation, we'd be pleased to see you over there.
Xdamr talk 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As a continuation of the broader discussion of the category tree for military personnel above, there are a few more specific issues of terminology that probably need to be resolved before we can come up with a final version of the new structure:
Any comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has made substantial changes to the Tiger Force article, but there a problem: alleged Tiger Force veterans (alleged because we can't prove that they are Tiger Force vets) came to Talk:Tiger Force and spoke about the unit. This editor is quoting them! Check Tiger Force#Charges disputed. I have never encountered a similar situation here on Wikipedia so I'm unsure on what to do-- James Bond 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the bad name (it would need to be "Battles of England and Scotland", or something of the sort, to match the existing naming convention), is this category a good idea? It seems to me that creating categories by pairs of combatants is going to be extremely confusing, and not particularly meaningful (as these battles were not part of the same conflict).
(A "Battles of the Anglo-Scottish Wars" category would be appropriate, obviously; but I'm pretty sure that term is used rather more narrowly than every war involving both countries.) Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Newly created and marked as within the scope of this project: Battle of Mesopotamia. Needs quite a bit of work for cleanup, better page title, expansion. Could someone take care of it? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion about article naming conventions for firearms going on at the Weaponry task force that could use wider input; anyone with an interest in the topic is invited to comment there. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there anybody here who interested in civil and paramilitary uniform? I found a good site for it http://civil-uniform.narod.ru. It includes insignia for Russian and Soviet civil/paramilitary iniform for diplomats [9], civil pilots [10], railway personnel [11], trade fleet personnel [12], bank personnel [13], prosecutors, students, control inspectors and others.-- Planemo 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Many battle articles are missing infoboxes. Does anyone want to work with me on adding them? -- Ineffable3000 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The AfD's have ended and the List of military routs has been deleted. We now need to work on creating good lists to list all battles (by category, alphabetically, etc..) Do we have a plan? -- Ineffable3000 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
It's probably to the credit of this wikiproject, and associated editors, that categorisation is as good as this, but nonetheless there's over a 1000 articles tagged with mil-stub (or sub-type thereof) that have no "permanent" category whatsoever; see also my comment on the CAT:NOCAT talk page for more such gory details/inane trivia. If anyone here is interested in mopping up these isolated elements of resistance, I could readily bot-populate an Category:uncategorised military articles maintenance category, on the pattern of the wildly-successful Category:uncategorised albums. (I've found if one shoves articles in there, they disappear with impressive alacrity, and I can only assume they're going somewhere good...) It might as well be called Category:uncategorised military stubs, given that's the ready source of such, but it might possibly see use for non-stubs too, if non-military editors want to pass the buck on an article they spot as uncategorised, and on military stuff. Or if you'd like to work from a list, that's even more straightforward to facilitate. In short: any takers? Alai 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a provisional consensus to me. If I populate the category and the articles just sit there, I shall have my answer about people's inclination to work on same... Alai 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Following on from a conversation with several editors a few weeks back I have just finished writing a new bot called User:PockBot. It can be run for any category and produces a list of all articles in that category, along with the status (FA, Stub etc) of each, and then posts this to the talk page for the category. I made the bot so that I could keep track of articles in certain categories and see for any given category which articles were stubs that I could expand etc, which articles were unclassified and needed classifying.
The bot is currently on trial prior to full approval and it has been suggested that I:
Please leave your comments here. I am happy to answer any questions. Many Thanks. PocklingtonDan 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As an editor who's been a bit overwhelmed by exactly this task when starting work on Military science task force, I'm very excited to hear about such a bot soon available to help organize the category structure for Category:Military science. I'll bet that all of the new task forces would enjoy such a tool. I'd love to see it used on those areas to help us understand what's present; then re-run the bot (let's say monthly or weekly) to verify structure changes. I'll bet most task forces could find some purpose for this bot. I can't see much downside. Very exciting. BusterD 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's begin re-constructing the Battles lists (which are a mess and up for Afd now) ater the AfD process is over. It doesn't really matter if they get deleted now because once we present better structured lists, they are bound to replace the current ones with new ones. Propose ideas now. We got some good ones above. -- Ineffable3000 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
An interesting CFD nomination here that concerns the issue of categorizing wars under a country that didn't exist at the time; comments there would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Our request departement has some troubles. Hardly anybody answers new requests, but it has constantly input. I suggest a solution.
The requested articles receive null attention, so basically they are a big red obstacle to scare anybody who would think about working there. My suggestion is to make a solution like in the Chinese military history task force: each task force receives a their share of specific requested articles. Their pages are at least visited by some editors from time to time and it doesn't get a scary big piece of red ink. The psychological advantage would be to make it seem possible to do something about it. So all in all the deopartement shoul be closed and the conent moved to the appropriate task forces. For future request a disambiguation is to be installed, so user can find the right spot to make their request.
The requested images receive more attention, although this is more input of new request then solution to existing ones. Kirill and me established a new template for external images. This could be used to solve the problem (We received thumbs up for the invention, but work is still down). Basically a rule for proceeding with image requests is needed.
Afterwards you delet the image request from the request page. Wandalstouring 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a little help relolving a dispute. There is a new user named Tu-49, and he created an article on Operation Bolo. The problem is that it is almost a verbatim episode of "Dogfights". I have wikifyed the article but he has simply put all of his stuff back in. And much of it has nothing to do with Vietnam, or belongs in the Vietnam War article. I would like a little bit of help with this.-- LWF 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
whoa whoa whoa whoa hold it read the article first before you make any changes me and LWF are talking on Bolo's dicussion page and im saying that you guys read it first then make your suggestions about the cnages and what needs to be changed hello im the problems Tu-49 i'd like to say read the discussion page talk there then read the article and then on the discussion page put what needs to be changed and ill do it Tu-49 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
ah you right but no no just never mind no comment, cant top him Tu-49 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So should we revert it to an earlier version? With the necessary changes?-- LWF 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
you asking me or them? if u do change it back have a saved verison of what is already there so i can put it back Tu-49 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was asking both you and them. Also, all versions remain in the database. But the problem is that we probably shouldn't put it back the way you had it, for the reasons I already stated. So, do I have everyones' permission to put it back at my version?-- LWF 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) well can we have a second artilce that has LWF's changes or version of we can do that im all for it Tu-49 02:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, please see Revision as of 18:18, 7 December 2006 by LWF, of Operation Bolo. I have proposed reverting to this revision, and making further changes from there, and would like a consensus on if I should.-- LWF 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
loss of a few F-4? no no no it was a 7 MiG dopwned no F-4s Tu-49 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
im a new yorker through and though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu-49 ( talk • contribs)
New problem, there is a section on Robin Olds in the article, and I don't think it should be there. It is a story about a dogfight Olds participated in during WWII, not Vietnam. I'm pretty sure it's the same one from the episode of "Dogfights". I keep saying I think it should be moved to Robin Olds because it is just about him and not Bolo, but Tu-49 disagrees, and implies that the article belongs to him and he should get the final word. By the way, this is the only section that I have much of a problem with now.-- LWF 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but don't be surprised if he tries to put it back.-- LWF 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
ha ha ha Tu-49 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I was a GA reviewer of Lebanon and saw this redlink:
"...After the defeat of the Arab Liberation Army in the Battle of Sasa..."
I was gonna request the article in this WikiProject, but am hesitant to do so because it seems that article should already have been written (?). If anyone knows whether there is another article under another name that covers this event, input would be appreciated :-)
-- Ling.Nut 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(undent) OK, after playing with Google & Google scholar; perhaps an explanation for the lack of other references online:
[The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 By Eugene L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim]
.. So I'm guessing the Battle of Sasa was perhaps small, tho of course the defeat of Lebanese forces was significant in their eyes. Is that a reasonable explanation?-- Ling.Nut 07:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I did tack this on to the discussion above, but in case it gets lost in the vastness of this page, I did nominate the category for deletion. Please drop by and make your opinions known. Carom 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am Currently researching information about the Siege of Kolberg. However, I am having a proplem. In the Name of the Article (Its also listed the same way on the 'List of Sieges' Article) its says 1761. Which seems to be not true. All the Information I am getting point say that it happened on 26 April - 2 July 1807 and not 1761. I am getting the wrong information or were there 2 sieges of Kolberg? -- Samantar Abdirisaq 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A while back some editors started to develop a new way to implement external images. By now we have finished the template (both versions right below):
External images | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() |
External images | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() |
External images | |
---|---|
description with link to image 1(additional unlinked text1)
[3] description with link to image 2(additional unlinked text2) [8] |
The link to the image is always given with a description of its content. This description is basically an interpretation and for this reason it has to be sourced with a link to the website(in accordance with all guidelines for the use of websites as sources). Both reference styles are possible. It is optional to affix additional unlinked text after the linked description, possibly a legend for maps in foreign languages and so on. It is advised to use redundancy (2-3 links for the same subject) so we don't loose information in case we have to face troubles with the image link of a website(it can get blocked, the url changes or the site shuts down,...). It is possible to add up to 20 image links with the templates on the right side. If you have more, start a new template and please let it be known here that there is an article with more than 20 external image links.
The older version on the left is still functional and the same rules apply to it, but it is advised to use the new version with its significant icons. The old version has no limit to the number of image links. The specific icon for external image links can also be inserted manually prior to the link:
Wandalstouring 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Following recent discussion on Wikipedia's coverage of the topic of Orders, Decorations, and Medals (both civil and military), I have created a WikiProject which is dedicated to this area.
If anyone would like to help with sorting this area out, whether by writing new articles, improving existing ones, or sorting out article structure and categorisation, we'd be pleased to see you over there.
Xdamr talk 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As a continuation of the broader discussion of the category tree for military personnel above, there are a few more specific issues of terminology that probably need to be resolved before we can come up with a final version of the new structure:
Any comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has made substantial changes to the Tiger Force article, but there a problem: alleged Tiger Force veterans (alleged because we can't prove that they are Tiger Force vets) came to Talk:Tiger Force and spoke about the unit. This editor is quoting them! Check Tiger Force#Charges disputed. I have never encountered a similar situation here on Wikipedia so I'm unsure on what to do-- James Bond 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the bad name (it would need to be "Battles of England and Scotland", or something of the sort, to match the existing naming convention), is this category a good idea? It seems to me that creating categories by pairs of combatants is going to be extremely confusing, and not particularly meaningful (as these battles were not part of the same conflict).
(A "Battles of the Anglo-Scottish Wars" category would be appropriate, obviously; but I'm pretty sure that term is used rather more narrowly than every war involving both countries.) Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Newly created and marked as within the scope of this project: Battle of Mesopotamia. Needs quite a bit of work for cleanup, better page title, expansion. Could someone take care of it? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion about article naming conventions for firearms going on at the Weaponry task force that could use wider input; anyone with an interest in the topic is invited to comment there. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there anybody here who interested in civil and paramilitary uniform? I found a good site for it http://civil-uniform.narod.ru. It includes insignia for Russian and Soviet civil/paramilitary iniform for diplomats [9], civil pilots [10], railway personnel [11], trade fleet personnel [12], bank personnel [13], prosecutors, students, control inspectors and others.-- Planemo 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Many battle articles are missing infoboxes. Does anyone want to work with me on adding them? -- Ineffable3000 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The AfD's have ended and the List of military routs has been deleted. We now need to work on creating good lists to list all battles (by category, alphabetically, etc..) Do we have a plan? -- Ineffable3000 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)