This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
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'd like to propose the creation of Portal:Military history. It would aid those interested military history immensely. They would be introduced to the subject and shown many important articles within our scope. What do you guys think? If we did create it it would be yet another tedious task for the coordinators but it would be worth it. Maybe we could get other users to maintain it?-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that WikiProject History has been tottally reorganised. Some of you might like to join seeing as this is WikiProject Military history-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Per some comments at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Width and font-size, I've reduced the font size in our infoboxes to 90%, which seems to be the standard value across other infoboxes & navboxes. If anyone has major problems with this (or has other suggestions regarding the sizing), please drop by the linked discussion. Thanks! Kirill 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Tag & Assess 2007 is now underway. The current top four are:
However this still leaves well over 150,000 articles to tag and assess. You can help too, please sign up today here. -- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just been notified that assessments should include a task force tag. Is this the case, and if so, can the instructions be so modified? I've been just putting the regular tag and class into the talk pages. JKBrooks85 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The airship article is currently undergoing an A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review#Airship. WikProject History has a very small membership so I thought some of you might be interested-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how to make this project dept./section work better? I've got some ideas but i'd like first to hear about your opinions and see if anyone is interested in moving forward before we discuss it in detail. For now, at least we can make it explicitly visible at {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion started at Template talk:War#New Template about possible ways to redesign the {{ war}} template; the ideas are all in the extreme prototyping stages now, and any suggestions and critiques would be very welcome! Kirill 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there editors who would be interested in participating in a task force covering fortifications (notably medieval castles, but other types as well)? Kirill 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
While waiting for its creation, i've just started using Fortifications=yes. Is there someone interested in creating it? If not i'll do it but not today or tomorrow. Probably this coming week-end w/ the help of someone else. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the Fortifications task force has now been created; please sign up if you have an interest in the topic. Kirill 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template:Campaignbox Central Europe and Template talk:Campaignbox Central Europe -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to cover everything. Cla68 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Something of a USA bias in that name the West European campaign started in 1939! I think you mean "West European Campaign (1944-1945)". Also I think it should be "West European" not "Western European", and it needs to redirect to Western Front (World War II)#1944-45: the Second Front ie
Not sure about the "raw name" field and unless it is a common name (the British campaign name is " North West European Campaign") campaign should start lower case. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that admins cannot deal with the revert war going on at Continuation War because it is simply a content dispute. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject help? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
'Military of the United States' is simply wikipedia convention for those armed forces which don't have known formal names. 'United States Armed Forces' is not formally defined or used. What do people think about having the page moved to 'United States armed forces', making it clear that there is no single formal title? Please respond at Talk:Military of the United States. Cheers Buckshot06 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes we would have to do that, and I recommend to do that, as we shall respect the official designation of those armed forces. Example: the translation of Forças Armadas Brasileiras is Brazilian Armed Forces. Why not posting the official name? -- Eurocopter tigre 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I still support my opinion that we should change it and respect the official name. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, we should decide ourselves which will be the best name for it here on wiki. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Kirill 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are the top assessors, as of about midnight (London time) tonight.
Can I remind everyone that there's still a load of work to be done and that all assistance is welcome ....
-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Some (likely very rough, and possibly silly) thoughts:
There is, in my opinion, some confusion regarding how "military history" is used in category names that has led to some fairly bizarre category trees. In the broadest sense (e.g. the one used in, say, the name of the project), "military history" includes all aspects of history that deal with warfare and military affairs. In a narrower sense, "military history" is used to refer to the historical discipline of military history—the study of military history, in other words.
For example, one of the areas that military science studies is military history. The development of military science is, however, itself a part of military history. This type of relationship may work (albeit confusingly) in prose, but breaks down when dealing with categories; in the past, it's led to things such as Category:Military history being both a parent and a child category of Category:Military science, and so forth.
"Military", conversely, is always used in an over-broad sense, often referring not only to formal armed forces, but to anything that's related to military history. This has led to a rather peculiar twin-tree model of how the various categories interact with each other
I'd like to suggest something along the lines of the following:
(The category names are somewhat convoluted, obviously; I'd welcome suggestions for better ones.)
We might then wind up with a top-level category tree along these lines:
Obviously, working out the exact category structure would be a major undertaking; but I think it would be worth it in the end to finally form things into a single tree.
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is better that "Military ..." is the highest category and "Military history" is a sub-category. As current events move into history then articles can be moved from current into history. So "Military" becomes the top level category. (This seems to me to be a re-run of the debate over combining the projects "Military" and "Military history"). -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Achieved GA class.... Oct 2007 help requested with new tag please. See discussion regarding This article's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate. Thank you. SriMesh | talk 05:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like thoughts on replacing the current WWII theatre/campaign template.
Existing | Proposed |
---|---|
I propose this for a few reasons. First, it looks much cleaner, and, IMO, is easier to navigate. Second, if we include "campaigns", then we potentially can have dozens of entries, as WWII was notorious for both nested campaigns and each nation having its own definition of what actions constituted a campaign, especially as during the course of the war the boundaries of various command areas shifted with the situation. I think it'd be better to explain those details within within the theatre articles themselves.
To facilitate this, I'd create theatre articles for those that don't have them (ie. Balkans theatre of World War II). If a theatre is adequately explained with a single campaign/battle (ie. North Africa, Italy, Madagascar), I'd just keep it as the link. Thoughts? Oberiko 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add answering questions about military history on the reference desk, especially the humanities reference desk, to our project goals on the project page?-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We (the coordinators) have come up with a possible system for tagging articles according to the sources used; this would have obvious statistical uses, but would also be helpful in tracking and raising the quality of sources in the entire set of article we work with. (This has been mentioned before, if I recall correctly, but not at a developed stage.)
In more detail: the {{ WPMILHIST}} tag would allow for a set of additional parameters, which would correspond to commonly-used types of sources:
|uses-primary=yes
|uses-secondary=yes
|uses-documentary=yes
|uses-website=yes
|uses-book=no
|uses-journal=yes
|uses-other=no
For cases where specific sources are used across a wide range of articles could have their own tags (which would replace the separate tags currently used); for example:
|uses-source-DANFS=yes
|uses-source-VC=no
All of these tags would, obviously, generate appropriate categories for tracking the articles.
So, the questions:
Answers to these points would be very appreciated, as would any other feedback. Kirill 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The approach as outlined above would not, by itself, make clear which articles are reliable and which are rubbish. Sure, websites are usually questionable sources, but so are many non-scholarly books. And what if the article uses once-reliable but now out-of-date scholarly sources? (This will be a growing problem on Wikipedia, because with Google Book Search, we now have free, easy access to lots of old, public domain history books, which is great but potentially misleading if you don't read the modern works too.) And so the categories created by this approach would not really be a clear indicator of how reliable the sources are.
Perhaps more useful approach (or an addition to the above) might be to create more specific "attention" fields, e.g.:
or combined:
This approach essentially duplicates the functions of Template:Refimprove and Template:Unreferenced, but would put them into this project's categories, so that one might more easily find the poorly referenced articles in your area of interest. — Kevin Myers 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is really great work Kirill. The B-class assessment template is now really really helpful for finding out which things needed to have sources added (virtually everything!) Is it possible to break the 'missing B-class list' (tens of thousands of articles) down by task force? Cheers Buckshot06 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
For reference, if anyone is curious: the "contacts" program and the publication department have been mothballed due to lack of interest. They can be reactivated if/when the need arises. Kirill 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is outside my area of expertise/interest, but Amnesty Act needs some attention. It's a stub, but more pressing is at least one sentence that makes little sense. GreenGourd 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the list of featured articles needing attention to citations for articles that can be moved, Pagrashtak ( talk · contribs) identified Władysław Sikorski as an article that appears to be mostly cited now. It still needs some cleanup, but it should be able to avoid a featured article review. Can folks here please have a look and help with the final cleanup? In particular, I don't know what to do about all those infoboxes in the lead, one seems to be oversized, and their placement leaves a big chunk of white space before the text on my browser. Also, jsut a general checkup, tuneup from MilHist editors would be appreciated. Also, Pagrashtak mentioned that it may have image issues, but I don't really speak Fair Use. Thanks! Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For your information, the recently created article Enemy (military) is under AFD. Please note, this is not an advertisement or solicitation to participate in the process, it is to note the AFD occurrence. Chessy999 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not well traversed in military history, but... I'm reading a book where a Siege of Metz in 1552 is mentioned, shouldn't this event an article?
From the article Francis, Duke of Guise: "He won international renown in 1552 when he successfully defended the city of Metz from the forces of Emperor Charles V, and defeated the imperial troops again at the Battle of Renty in 1554. The siege of Metz is detailed well in Ambroise Paré's "Journey in Diverse Places" (written around 1580)."
From the article Metz: " Francis, Duke of Guise, commander of the garrison, restored the old fortifications and added new ones, and successfully resisted the attacks of the emperor from October to December, 1552; Metz remained French."
The article siege of Metz is about something else.
So shouldn't there be an article siege of Metz (1552)? Punkmorten 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Morotai Mutiny is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started List of military science and technology topics. The list isn't complete but the infrastructure is there. All contributers are welcome-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What does the cross symbol stand for under 'Commanders.' Does it mean they were killed? Surrendered? I'm confused. FinalWish 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So the # means surrender then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinalWish ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we need this category? Just found Survive To Fight, a British NBC manual listed as a piece of military equipment. Could be used for field manuals, Soviet Military Power, etc Buckshot06 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I believe from a couple of searches that the Institute for the Study of War, which appears to be a Washington thinktank [1] operating in conjunction with the Weekly Standard may be copying the Iraq War order of battle article without attributing it to Wikipedia. Their latest OB is here [2], and it and the two previous ones look very similar to the article. Do I understand correctly that citing us without attribution is not looked well upon, despite the GFDL? Buckshot06 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
A proposal to move "Civil war in Iraq" to "Sectarian violence in Iraq" is inconclusive after five days. It has been proposed that outside opinions should be sought in order to further the discussion. You are welcome to comment here. Thank you.-- victor falk 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a new bot, User:Erwin85Bot, that is being used to count articles in categories, specifically to create maintenance backlogs pages. To see what I mean, any how your project may be interested in creating such a list, see the page I recently created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
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'd like to propose the creation of Portal:Military history. It would aid those interested military history immensely. They would be introduced to the subject and shown many important articles within our scope. What do you guys think? If we did create it it would be yet another tedious task for the coordinators but it would be worth it. Maybe we could get other users to maintain it?-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that WikiProject History has been tottally reorganised. Some of you might like to join seeing as this is WikiProject Military history-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Per some comments at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Width and font-size, I've reduced the font size in our infoboxes to 90%, which seems to be the standard value across other infoboxes & navboxes. If anyone has major problems with this (or has other suggestions regarding the sizing), please drop by the linked discussion. Thanks! Kirill 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Tag & Assess 2007 is now underway. The current top four are:
However this still leaves well over 150,000 articles to tag and assess. You can help too, please sign up today here. -- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just been notified that assessments should include a task force tag. Is this the case, and if so, can the instructions be so modified? I've been just putting the regular tag and class into the talk pages. JKBrooks85 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The airship article is currently undergoing an A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review#Airship. WikProject History has a very small membership so I thought some of you might be interested-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how to make this project dept./section work better? I've got some ideas but i'd like first to hear about your opinions and see if anyone is interested in moving forward before we discuss it in detail. For now, at least we can make it explicitly visible at {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion started at Template talk:War#New Template about possible ways to redesign the {{ war}} template; the ideas are all in the extreme prototyping stages now, and any suggestions and critiques would be very welcome! Kirill 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there editors who would be interested in participating in a task force covering fortifications (notably medieval castles, but other types as well)? Kirill 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
While waiting for its creation, i've just started using Fortifications=yes. Is there someone interested in creating it? If not i'll do it but not today or tomorrow. Probably this coming week-end w/ the help of someone else. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the Fortifications task force has now been created; please sign up if you have an interest in the topic. Kirill 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template:Campaignbox Central Europe and Template talk:Campaignbox Central Europe -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to cover everything. Cla68 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Something of a USA bias in that name the West European campaign started in 1939! I think you mean "West European Campaign (1944-1945)". Also I think it should be "West European" not "Western European", and it needs to redirect to Western Front (World War II)#1944-45: the Second Front ie
Not sure about the "raw name" field and unless it is a common name (the British campaign name is " North West European Campaign") campaign should start lower case. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that admins cannot deal with the revert war going on at Continuation War because it is simply a content dispute. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject help? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
'Military of the United States' is simply wikipedia convention for those armed forces which don't have known formal names. 'United States Armed Forces' is not formally defined or used. What do people think about having the page moved to 'United States armed forces', making it clear that there is no single formal title? Please respond at Talk:Military of the United States. Cheers Buckshot06 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes we would have to do that, and I recommend to do that, as we shall respect the official designation of those armed forces. Example: the translation of Forças Armadas Brasileiras is Brazilian Armed Forces. Why not posting the official name? -- Eurocopter tigre 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I still support my opinion that we should change it and respect the official name. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, we should decide ourselves which will be the best name for it here on wiki. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Kirill 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are the top assessors, as of about midnight (London time) tonight.
Can I remind everyone that there's still a load of work to be done and that all assistance is welcome ....
-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Some (likely very rough, and possibly silly) thoughts:
There is, in my opinion, some confusion regarding how "military history" is used in category names that has led to some fairly bizarre category trees. In the broadest sense (e.g. the one used in, say, the name of the project), "military history" includes all aspects of history that deal with warfare and military affairs. In a narrower sense, "military history" is used to refer to the historical discipline of military history—the study of military history, in other words.
For example, one of the areas that military science studies is military history. The development of military science is, however, itself a part of military history. This type of relationship may work (albeit confusingly) in prose, but breaks down when dealing with categories; in the past, it's led to things such as Category:Military history being both a parent and a child category of Category:Military science, and so forth.
"Military", conversely, is always used in an over-broad sense, often referring not only to formal armed forces, but to anything that's related to military history. This has led to a rather peculiar twin-tree model of how the various categories interact with each other
I'd like to suggest something along the lines of the following:
(The category names are somewhat convoluted, obviously; I'd welcome suggestions for better ones.)
We might then wind up with a top-level category tree along these lines:
Obviously, working out the exact category structure would be a major undertaking; but I think it would be worth it in the end to finally form things into a single tree.
Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is better that "Military ..." is the highest category and "Military history" is a sub-category. As current events move into history then articles can be moved from current into history. So "Military" becomes the top level category. (This seems to me to be a re-run of the debate over combining the projects "Military" and "Military history"). -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Achieved GA class.... Oct 2007 help requested with new tag please. See discussion regarding This article's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate. Thank you. SriMesh | talk 05:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like thoughts on replacing the current WWII theatre/campaign template.
Existing | Proposed |
---|---|
I propose this for a few reasons. First, it looks much cleaner, and, IMO, is easier to navigate. Second, if we include "campaigns", then we potentially can have dozens of entries, as WWII was notorious for both nested campaigns and each nation having its own definition of what actions constituted a campaign, especially as during the course of the war the boundaries of various command areas shifted with the situation. I think it'd be better to explain those details within within the theatre articles themselves.
To facilitate this, I'd create theatre articles for those that don't have them (ie. Balkans theatre of World War II). If a theatre is adequately explained with a single campaign/battle (ie. North Africa, Italy, Madagascar), I'd just keep it as the link. Thoughts? Oberiko 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add answering questions about military history on the reference desk, especially the humanities reference desk, to our project goals on the project page?-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We (the coordinators) have come up with a possible system for tagging articles according to the sources used; this would have obvious statistical uses, but would also be helpful in tracking and raising the quality of sources in the entire set of article we work with. (This has been mentioned before, if I recall correctly, but not at a developed stage.)
In more detail: the {{ WPMILHIST}} tag would allow for a set of additional parameters, which would correspond to commonly-used types of sources:
|uses-primary=yes
|uses-secondary=yes
|uses-documentary=yes
|uses-website=yes
|uses-book=no
|uses-journal=yes
|uses-other=no
For cases where specific sources are used across a wide range of articles could have their own tags (which would replace the separate tags currently used); for example:
|uses-source-DANFS=yes
|uses-source-VC=no
All of these tags would, obviously, generate appropriate categories for tracking the articles.
So, the questions:
Answers to these points would be very appreciated, as would any other feedback. Kirill 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The approach as outlined above would not, by itself, make clear which articles are reliable and which are rubbish. Sure, websites are usually questionable sources, but so are many non-scholarly books. And what if the article uses once-reliable but now out-of-date scholarly sources? (This will be a growing problem on Wikipedia, because with Google Book Search, we now have free, easy access to lots of old, public domain history books, which is great but potentially misleading if you don't read the modern works too.) And so the categories created by this approach would not really be a clear indicator of how reliable the sources are.
Perhaps more useful approach (or an addition to the above) might be to create more specific "attention" fields, e.g.:
or combined:
This approach essentially duplicates the functions of Template:Refimprove and Template:Unreferenced, but would put them into this project's categories, so that one might more easily find the poorly referenced articles in your area of interest. — Kevin Myers 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is really great work Kirill. The B-class assessment template is now really really helpful for finding out which things needed to have sources added (virtually everything!) Is it possible to break the 'missing B-class list' (tens of thousands of articles) down by task force? Cheers Buckshot06 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
For reference, if anyone is curious: the "contacts" program and the publication department have been mothballed due to lack of interest. They can be reactivated if/when the need arises. Kirill 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is outside my area of expertise/interest, but Amnesty Act needs some attention. It's a stub, but more pressing is at least one sentence that makes little sense. GreenGourd 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the list of featured articles needing attention to citations for articles that can be moved, Pagrashtak ( talk · contribs) identified Władysław Sikorski as an article that appears to be mostly cited now. It still needs some cleanup, but it should be able to avoid a featured article review. Can folks here please have a look and help with the final cleanup? In particular, I don't know what to do about all those infoboxes in the lead, one seems to be oversized, and their placement leaves a big chunk of white space before the text on my browser. Also, jsut a general checkup, tuneup from MilHist editors would be appreciated. Also, Pagrashtak mentioned that it may have image issues, but I don't really speak Fair Use. Thanks! Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For your information, the recently created article Enemy (military) is under AFD. Please note, this is not an advertisement or solicitation to participate in the process, it is to note the AFD occurrence. Chessy999 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not well traversed in military history, but... I'm reading a book where a Siege of Metz in 1552 is mentioned, shouldn't this event an article?
From the article Francis, Duke of Guise: "He won international renown in 1552 when he successfully defended the city of Metz from the forces of Emperor Charles V, and defeated the imperial troops again at the Battle of Renty in 1554. The siege of Metz is detailed well in Ambroise Paré's "Journey in Diverse Places" (written around 1580)."
From the article Metz: " Francis, Duke of Guise, commander of the garrison, restored the old fortifications and added new ones, and successfully resisted the attacks of the emperor from October to December, 1552; Metz remained French."
The article siege of Metz is about something else.
So shouldn't there be an article siege of Metz (1552)? Punkmorten 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Morotai Mutiny is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started List of military science and technology topics. The list isn't complete but the infrastructure is there. All contributers are welcome-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What does the cross symbol stand for under 'Commanders.' Does it mean they were killed? Surrendered? I'm confused. FinalWish 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So the # means surrender then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinalWish ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we need this category? Just found Survive To Fight, a British NBC manual listed as a piece of military equipment. Could be used for field manuals, Soviet Military Power, etc Buckshot06 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I believe from a couple of searches that the Institute for the Study of War, which appears to be a Washington thinktank [1] operating in conjunction with the Weekly Standard may be copying the Iraq War order of battle article without attributing it to Wikipedia. Their latest OB is here [2], and it and the two previous ones look very similar to the article. Do I understand correctly that citing us without attribution is not looked well upon, despite the GFDL? Buckshot06 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The peer review for Battle of the Gebora is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
A proposal to move "Civil war in Iraq" to "Sectarian violence in Iraq" is inconclusive after five days. It has been proposed that outside opinions should be sought in order to further the discussion. You are welcome to comment here. Thank you.-- victor falk 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a new bot, User:Erwin85Bot, that is being used to count articles in categories, specifically to create maintenance backlogs pages. To see what I mean, any how your project may be interested in creating such a list, see the page I recently created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)