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. |
In light of the strong support the proposal has received, I have carried out the merger with WikiProject Wars (as described above). A few items of interest:
To sum up, I believe everything discussed above has been done, and we can now continue on to actual history work rather than housekeeping. If nobody has any pressing concerns, I'll try to write up some proposals for categorization and template use in the next few days.
As always, comments on the results of the merge are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Take all the credit why don't ya'? Seriously forks, I think this will do wonders for the war/battle community. I like it already! (not saying that I didn't before)... Spawn Man 23:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have Harbingagonal Support for this change...
I'm not sure this should go here, but as there is no talk page for the actual article, i'll just put this here anyway.
The battlebox(?) for the Battle of Singapore says the Allied strength was about 85 000. It then says that there were approximately 50 000 killed, and 80 000 POWs. However, this makes no sense (50000 + 80000 = 130000). Could we get someone to check the accuracy of these figures?
I think, somehow, he means about 5000 killed but if we want Wikipedia to become a trustworthy resource... -- Spark.1.4 07:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've nominated War of the League of Cambrai for FA status here; any comments would be appreciated. :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Think its possible for the battle to have maps not just pictures. maps tell alot more of what happened than pictures of say the ships or tanks. im sure it would be helpful for a lot of people if they were included in the articles. Lucid 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Gdr Drew the maps on Eastern Front (World War II) see: User:Gdr/Gallery and user:gls did the Image:Waterloo campaign map.png and a lot more User:Gsl/Maps. Perhaps you should contact them and ask for their advise on how they do them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
My dear friends and fellow Wikipedians,
A proposal has been made here which could effect the way all featured articles, and perhaps even eventually all articles, are handled in the future. While it has the well-meaning intention of addressing some real problems, if it is adapted, I fear it will actually create more problems and possibly destroy the wonderfully open and collaborative nature of the Wikipedia we all so love.
I therefore, strongly urge you to join us who OPPOSE this potentially dangerous proposal. Thank you for your time, thoughts and words.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Salut mes camarades! Pardon my French, but how can I fix the Campaignbox for the War of the Sixth Coalition?? There are several battles which it omits that now all have articles or stubs. Battle of Grossbeeren, Battle of Dennewitz, Battle of Katzbach, Battle of Kulm. Also the Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube is out of chronological order. AU SECOURS!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Having previewed its placement on some articles, I've come to the conclusion that the multi-phase warbox is, to put it bluntly, a monstrosity. Even a two-phase war can cause the template to spread to several screen heights, wreaking havoc on the early sections of articles where it is added.
Thus, I present a somewhat revised proposal:
This proposal is due, in some part, to the discussion on "useless battleboxes" above; I'd like to avoid overzealous use of warboxes in articles where they would serve little purpose.
Any comments would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that, actually. Thanks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, which has apparently discovered some neat template tricks while nobody else was looking, I present a very simple, but quite versatile, design:
User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Warbox
The code is as follows:
{{User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Warbox |name=Battle of Foo |partof=the [[Great Foo War]] |image=Casing.jpg |caption=Random violence everywhere! |date=[[January 1]], [[2000]] |outcome=Inconclusive |place=[[Foo City]], [[Foobaria]] |territory= |casus= |combatant1=[[Republic of Foobaria]], <br>[[Unholy League]] |combatant2=[[Fooish Resistance Front]], <br>[[Resistance Front of Foo]], <br>[[Front Fooaise]] |commander1=[[Foo von Bar]] |commander2=[[Foo McFoogan]], <br>[[Foo de Foobar]] |strength1=100,000 |strength2=42 |casualties1=41,000 dead and wounded, <br>20,000 captured |casualties2=7 wounded |campaign=War of the League of Cambrai }}
The fields can be removed just by leaving the parameter blank. Cool, isn't it?
We can add other optional fields as necessary; in the meantime, feel free to play around with this. If nobody can come up with problems after some time, we can write up a more formal guideline and start using it.
As usual, any comments? Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've implemented the new {{ Warbox}}; the usage instructions can be found on the project page and on the template talk pages.
A few general remarks:
Any comments, especially from anyone who tries to use this new model, would be very appreciated, as would ideas for field that should be added! Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Its looking good indeed. Decided to skip the info on Cambrai after all? :-) Too much to fit in a box anyway. Personally, i think the small box highlights wonderfully the use of a limited warbox, and it certainly adds to the article imho. Three things still spring to my mind before we start implementing:
User:The Minister of War 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I've more or less finished the warbox instructions. Any comments or corrections would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
From the "Pending tasks":
Is there consensus to do this? -- Philip Baird Shearer
If there is then I would have thought the first place to start is with the instructions on this article page -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting articles of individual divisions in the National Revolutionary Army. But before I start, there's a few questions I want to clear up first.
Thanks.
-- Миборовский
U|
T|
C|
E 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
See:
See also:
The convention for WWII is Country Division even when names like German 27th Panzer Division would be unique without country. In the case of South Africa the name of the country is used but in the case of the US it is abbreviated to U.S. (the full stops are part of the WP:MOS standards). So if you follow this convention either National Revolutionary Army, 1st Division or NRA 1st Division would do. But I would go for the former with a redirect from the latter as the NRA acronym is not as well known to English speakers as US. Also I would start with an article called List of National Revolutionary Army divisions so people have a reference to see if an article on a decision already exists and what the naming convention is.
You may also look at List of British divisions in WWI and List of Australian divisions in World War I to see how lists can be written which handle more than one war with lots of divisions involved: Country division (war) -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Found some good WW2 aircraft/Navy/Army Air Force related data for you guys... PDF's of some older Naval Aviation News magazines from the 1940s http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1940s/ hopefully this can help you with some stuff. Also the images inside this magazine can be cropped out and used since they are PD USGov. ALKIVAR ™ 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI: I've put the list of participants into alphabetical order; if anyone objects, feel free to revert it and/or yell at me ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone familiar with the Vietnam War verify this battle? The only place it was linked was from Khoi Vo which has since been deleted as a hoax. The only Google hit is to the Wikipedia page. Geoff/Gsl 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dion Nam. Geoff/Gsl 04:10, 8 November 2005 (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. |
In light of the strong support the proposal has received, I have carried out the merger with WikiProject Wars (as described above). A few items of interest:
To sum up, I believe everything discussed above has been done, and we can now continue on to actual history work rather than housekeeping. If nobody has any pressing concerns, I'll try to write up some proposals for categorization and template use in the next few days.
As always, comments on the results of the merge are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Take all the credit why don't ya'? Seriously forks, I think this will do wonders for the war/battle community. I like it already! (not saying that I didn't before)... Spawn Man 23:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have Harbingagonal Support for this change...
I'm not sure this should go here, but as there is no talk page for the actual article, i'll just put this here anyway.
The battlebox(?) for the Battle of Singapore says the Allied strength was about 85 000. It then says that there were approximately 50 000 killed, and 80 000 POWs. However, this makes no sense (50000 + 80000 = 130000). Could we get someone to check the accuracy of these figures?
I think, somehow, he means about 5000 killed but if we want Wikipedia to become a trustworthy resource... -- Spark.1.4 07:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've nominated War of the League of Cambrai for FA status here; any comments would be appreciated. :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Think its possible for the battle to have maps not just pictures. maps tell alot more of what happened than pictures of say the ships or tanks. im sure it would be helpful for a lot of people if they were included in the articles. Lucid 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Gdr Drew the maps on Eastern Front (World War II) see: User:Gdr/Gallery and user:gls did the Image:Waterloo campaign map.png and a lot more User:Gsl/Maps. Perhaps you should contact them and ask for their advise on how they do them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
My dear friends and fellow Wikipedians,
A proposal has been made here which could effect the way all featured articles, and perhaps even eventually all articles, are handled in the future. While it has the well-meaning intention of addressing some real problems, if it is adapted, I fear it will actually create more problems and possibly destroy the wonderfully open and collaborative nature of the Wikipedia we all so love.
I therefore, strongly urge you to join us who OPPOSE this potentially dangerous proposal. Thank you for your time, thoughts and words.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Salut mes camarades! Pardon my French, but how can I fix the Campaignbox for the War of the Sixth Coalition?? There are several battles which it omits that now all have articles or stubs. Battle of Grossbeeren, Battle of Dennewitz, Battle of Katzbach, Battle of Kulm. Also the Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube is out of chronological order. AU SECOURS!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Having previewed its placement on some articles, I've come to the conclusion that the multi-phase warbox is, to put it bluntly, a monstrosity. Even a two-phase war can cause the template to spread to several screen heights, wreaking havoc on the early sections of articles where it is added.
Thus, I present a somewhat revised proposal:
This proposal is due, in some part, to the discussion on "useless battleboxes" above; I'd like to avoid overzealous use of warboxes in articles where they would serve little purpose.
Any comments would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that, actually. Thanks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, which has apparently discovered some neat template tricks while nobody else was looking, I present a very simple, but quite versatile, design:
User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Warbox
The code is as follows:
{{User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Warbox |name=Battle of Foo |partof=the [[Great Foo War]] |image=Casing.jpg |caption=Random violence everywhere! |date=[[January 1]], [[2000]] |outcome=Inconclusive |place=[[Foo City]], [[Foobaria]] |territory= |casus= |combatant1=[[Republic of Foobaria]], <br>[[Unholy League]] |combatant2=[[Fooish Resistance Front]], <br>[[Resistance Front of Foo]], <br>[[Front Fooaise]] |commander1=[[Foo von Bar]] |commander2=[[Foo McFoogan]], <br>[[Foo de Foobar]] |strength1=100,000 |strength2=42 |casualties1=41,000 dead and wounded, <br>20,000 captured |casualties2=7 wounded |campaign=War of the League of Cambrai }}
The fields can be removed just by leaving the parameter blank. Cool, isn't it?
We can add other optional fields as necessary; in the meantime, feel free to play around with this. If nobody can come up with problems after some time, we can write up a more formal guideline and start using it.
As usual, any comments? Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've implemented the new {{ Warbox}}; the usage instructions can be found on the project page and on the template talk pages.
A few general remarks:
Any comments, especially from anyone who tries to use this new model, would be very appreciated, as would ideas for field that should be added! Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Its looking good indeed. Decided to skip the info on Cambrai after all? :-) Too much to fit in a box anyway. Personally, i think the small box highlights wonderfully the use of a limited warbox, and it certainly adds to the article imho. Three things still spring to my mind before we start implementing:
User:The Minister of War 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I've more or less finished the warbox instructions. Any comments or corrections would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
From the "Pending tasks":
Is there consensus to do this? -- Philip Baird Shearer
If there is then I would have thought the first place to start is with the instructions on this article page -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting articles of individual divisions in the National Revolutionary Army. But before I start, there's a few questions I want to clear up first.
Thanks.
-- Миборовский
U|
T|
C|
E 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
See:
See also:
The convention for WWII is Country Division even when names like German 27th Panzer Division would be unique without country. In the case of South Africa the name of the country is used but in the case of the US it is abbreviated to U.S. (the full stops are part of the WP:MOS standards). So if you follow this convention either National Revolutionary Army, 1st Division or NRA 1st Division would do. But I would go for the former with a redirect from the latter as the NRA acronym is not as well known to English speakers as US. Also I would start with an article called List of National Revolutionary Army divisions so people have a reference to see if an article on a decision already exists and what the naming convention is.
You may also look at List of British divisions in WWI and List of Australian divisions in World War I to see how lists can be written which handle more than one war with lots of divisions involved: Country division (war) -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Found some good WW2 aircraft/Navy/Army Air Force related data for you guys... PDF's of some older Naval Aviation News magazines from the 1940s http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1940s/ hopefully this can help you with some stuff. Also the images inside this magazine can be cropped out and used since they are PD USGov. ALKIVAR ™ 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI: I've put the list of participants into alphabetical order; if anyone objects, feel free to revert it and/or yell at me ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone familiar with the Vietnam War verify this battle? The only place it was linked was from Khoi Vo which has since been deleted as a hoax. The only Google hit is to the Wikipedia page. Geoff/Gsl 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dion Nam. Geoff/Gsl 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)