Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Proposal III: Featured article advice

Based on a number of discussions at FAC, I would suggest putting together a short (10–20 items) list of common conventions, issues, and potential pitfalls that military history articles being moved into FAC can be checked against. Hopefully, this could provide editors with less FAC experience a good checklist to use before they nominate an article (even if they don't avail themselves of our general peer review process). It might also be helpful for Proposal II (above) as a list of common potential problems to check articles for. Comments on this idea would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Having a "have you done these before you try for FAC status" checklist would be very helpful. Adapting this idea for various other "levels" such as A-class status, GA status, etc. would also be helpful - Vedexent 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess would be that this list will be equally useful for the (more advanced) lower levels, since they're distinguished more by their permissiveness as to whether certain requirements are met than by having different requirements per se. Of course, this might not turn out to be the case; I suppose we should wait to see what kind of list we put together before debating whether secondary lists for other levels would be beneficial. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A most sound proposal.--Dryzen 13:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to contact all the 1FA milhist editors and get them working? -- Миборовский 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I made sort of a list like that already on my user page. I definitely could benefit from the experiences of other editors in the FA process. Cla68 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a crude attempt at starting a section on the project page. Additions to the list, as well as general comments and suggestions, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning the inclusion of maps and diagrams? While an article could still be FAC without these, articles about wars and battles especially benefit from these. - Vedexent 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably a good point to include, given that I've seen a number of articles objected to on the basis of not having maps. Maybe a general point on how to illustrate the article would be worthwhile, too. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wars by country categories - Egypt & Cyprus

I've just created three sub-cats of Category:Wars by country which were conspicuously absent. They are Category:Wars of Cyprus, Category:Wars of Ancient Egypt, and Category:Wars of Egypt.

  1. Can people please check my dates, that they are satisfactory as to what counts as "Ancient Egypt" and "Modern Egypt"? I'm no expert on the subject, and wasn't sure to what extent it would or would not be worthwhile to include Ptolemaic/Roman Egypt under "Ancient", or Ottoman and British Egypt under "Modern".
  2. There is the issue of Category:Wars of Africa. I certainly see that there are not enough wars (thank god) in the modern history of most individual African nations to warrant their own separate categories, but where does this place Egypt? Right now it is under both "Wars of Africa" and "Wars by country", which is somewhat redundant, but at least grants it the same category rank as every other country. What do you all think? LordAmeth 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. You might want to split up Category:Battles of Egypt as well, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done all I'm going to do for now. In doing this, I came across the absence of categories for "Wars of Lebanon", "Wars of Jordan", and a few others, which I did not remedy. I have also not populated the Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.
I've created Category:Wars of Ancient Egypt to cover Ancient, Ptolemaic, and Roman/Byzantine Egypt, Category:Wars of Arab Egypt which covers Egypt under the Arab Empire (Islamic Conquests) and Ottoman Empire. This one could probably afford to be renamed, but I'm no expert in the field, and I simply do not have the energy or the inclination right now. Sorry. Also created Category:Wars of Egypt which covers British-controlled and independent Egypt, and the according Battle categories for all three. I may return to this project; hopefully some editors more inclined towards Middle Eastern history will notice these changes and jump on it. I'm gonna go back to writing about Kabuki actors and ukiyo-e painters. Anyone needs anything, please just give a holler. LordAmeth 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed 6th century to 639 the year of the Arab invasion. Time to populate the Wars and Battles of "Arab Egypt"? As I move through the Crusades and Byzantine articles should I tag where I find Egyptian envolvement? --Dryzen 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't see why not. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Dryzen, for finishing what I started. I'm glad that someone with more interest and expertise and patience than myself has seen this through. :) LordAmeth 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You should take all the credit, I just added a few details and put in some content. Speaking of wich I added the Crusades in wich the Fatamids, Ayyubids and Mameluks participated in. This can be found in the Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The following Category:Battles of the Mamluk Sultanate should be merged with Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Battles should be merged with Wars? I'm not sure if that's right, but if you think so, go right ahead. LordAmeth 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I ment Category:battles of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Looksl iek there the category:Battles of the Ayyubids too, since there capital was Cairo as well I'll send the battles towards Category:battles of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Ptolomaic and Pharonic Egypt are quite distinct from each other; in my mind, Cleopatras and Ptolemies don't really count as "Ancient Egyptians", let alone 6th-century North African Christians! Also, I don't know the exact historical state naming conventions for Egypt, I think that having just plain "Egypt" meaning just the modern state, without references to historical states in the category description, is quite confusing, considering that various states/administrative units throughout the past three millennia are referred to as "Egypt". Also, modern Egypt is way Arab. UnDeadGoat 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

These clumpings are of course to have an easier set of categories to administer. The various states have always had an Egypt (or a synonymous term) for the delta region, while the upper parts have held many different names and fallen in many different states or as states themselves. I'm not sure of LordAmeth's complete view on this matter but I understood it as the territorial scope of the categories to involve forces and states originating from Egypt, comprising of the meaning of the term or synonyms at those times. As for modern Egypt it has a signifigantly diffrent culture than the Arab hegemony, while being muslem.--Dryzen 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not presume to know as much about Egyptian history as some of you do, but I was simply trying to find a convenient way to divvy up the wars & battles without creating too many subdivisions. I chose "Arab Egypt" because it represented the time that Egypt was part of the massive Arab Empire, and I have no idea which caliphate or sultanate that was under. I grouped Pharonic into Ptolemaic because Greek & Roman are just as "classical" and "ancient" as Pharonic Egypt, even if they do represent great changes for Egypt. In short, in essence, I was attempting to do for Egypt something comparable to what was done for Japan (my field of expertise) - definining periods to be called Ancient, Classical, Feudal, and Modern History. LordAmeth 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you all think is appropriate is perfectly fine with me - go ahead and discuss, and make changes. I'm just happy that I've initiated the creation of categorization which I thought was necessary, and that it attracted the right attention from those more knowledgable than myself. LordAmeth 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing what's there, the divisions do make sense, although I do think a division between "Pharonic" and "Classical" would make a lot of sense, and I understand the difficulties with the whole "Arab" thing; however, to me it would make a lot more sense if Category:Wars of Egypt was moved to Category:Wars of Modern Egypt, and the original either be deprecated or be an umbrella for all historical periods. I looked at Japan, as well as Category:History of Egypt, and both looked too messy to use as examples. However, if "Modern Egypt" makes people squeamish, I think it would at least make sense for the text at the top of the category to refer people to other historical periods. UnDeadGoat 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We can just put in a see-also for the other periods (e.g. Category:Battles of the United Kingdom). Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like an adaquate solution. Speaking of wich there is still the overlapping Mamluke and Ayyubid categories that fall into our new Arab grouping.--Dryzen 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
We can probably merge them, then; no reason to make things more complicated than they need to be here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added the merge signs.--Dryzen 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to {{WPMILHIST}} text

There's apparently some sort of mass attempt to shorten the various talk page header banners going on, and {{WPMILHIST}} seems to have caught someone's eye. I've tried to shorten the main blurb enough to satisfy them without losing too much of the meaning or useful links, but I'd appreciate it if someone could look over the new text and comment on whether it's satisfactory. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you only have one verb that people can do by clicking a link, I prefer "participate" to "join us" . . . UnDeadGoat 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason I avoided "participate" was because one need not join the project to participate in editing the article and so forth; I wanted to avoid having claims of article ownership leveled against us. If people think that it's not a concern, though, we could easily change it. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I would interpret "participate" as "do stuff through our project" rather than "do stuff with this article"; also, you technically don't need to join to look around, find something to do, etc. UnDeadGoat 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The icon is pretty poor; why not have something more instantly recognisable? Raymond Palmer 08:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been our icon for a long time, so there's some sentimental value attached; but, more practically, do you have any good ideas that would work at that small size? Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested on William Ward Burrows

We have a confusing situation with respect to two men named William Ward Burrows.

  • First, there is the first official Commandant of the Marine Corps, LtCol William W. Burrows.
  • We also have his son, Navy Lt. William Burrows, KIA in the war of 1812, for whom 3 Navy ships are named.

Both have the full name William Ward Burrows (AFAIK the son does not take the suffix Jr.), and the full name seems to be the most common for both; the distinction William W. vs. William Burrows seems to be artificial, the full name William Ward Burrows redirects to the son.

If no compelling evidence is offered that either men favored some form of the name William Ward Burrows, I propose we move them to William Ward Burrows (Marine), and William Ward Burrows (sailor), and make William Ward Burrows a disambig page. The latter should be done anyway, but I think the current naming scheme for the articles is awkward and artificial.--Mmx1 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to making a disambiguation page when there will only be two pages to chose from. I think it's better to pick whichever page is likely to be the most linked to or searched for, and make it the default page. Then put a disambiguation link on the top of the most popular article to the second most popular page. So, if the sailor is the most popular, keep him at "William Ward Burrows" (and all its variants), and name the other article "William Ward Burrows (Marine)". That way fewer than half of links to the Burrows will need to be piped. —Kevin 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That's logical, but I was hoping to avoid the issue of which one gets the name; from my perspective I'm more familiar with the Marine father; but I don't see any compelling argument of which one is more popular or linked to. Both appear to be similarly popular within their own communities --Mmx1 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they seem to have the same number articles that link to them. I'd pick the Marine as the default article, because as one of the relatively few Marine Commandants, he's perhaps a bit more high profile. Both of these article have few links and no talk page activity, so it seems unlikely that anyone will be bent out of shape by your choice. —Kevin 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No, this a showcase and we are likely to have the same problem a 100 times when working over Punic warfare (tons of Hannibals, Hasdrubals, Carthalos, Hamilcars, etc.). Lets make a more simple rule. In case of identical names, the first one appearing with this name gets the default link and the other ones get a link from it. So the father becomes the standard page, because he was born before his son. Wandalstouring 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That'll mean that we'll be shuffling articles around as ones for earlier people get written, though. Wouldn't the easier approach be to simply use the base name as a disambiguation page—despite having only two entries, in this case—and give both of them parentheses? Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting dilemma, in the interest of making a "rule" we should go with making disabiguation pages, this way it will clear the way for future problems of an equal nature. --Dryzen 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well since we've failed to uncover compelling arguments for the status quo, I'm putting in the disambig.--Mmx1 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Giant see-also templates

I'm wondering if there's a good way to deal with the various gigantic footer templates that are being used for a few wars. In particular:

These seem to have no real limit to their growth (there seem to be constant edit wars over which links should be added, though) and are inserted into a wide variety of articles. They are, essentially, gigantic and vague see-also sections; in many cases, the links from the article topic to some of the articles on the template are very tenuous.

Could we perhaps turn these into portals and replace them in articles with the appropriate {{portal}} link? Or does anyone have any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems appropriate. I cannot speak for the Arab-Israel conflict, but the other three are significant enough to have their own sub-portals of Portal:War. MCG 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There's also {{American Civil War}}, which has been integrated into Portal:American Civil War but hasn't been replaced with a portal link on the articles yes. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion was made to replace the Cold War template with a portal, but unfortunately people didn't seem enthusiastic. Nonetheless, the portal was created. Rather than wholesale conversion of the template to the portal, now the effort is being undertaken to reduce the scope of the template step-by-step, transfering information over to categories, lists and the portal, with the resulat result being hopefully a more manageable template. First step is to remove persons from the template. That discussion is underway at Template talk:Cold War. Skeezix1000 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I suspect that anything short of a total replacement will just leave you to fight the same edit war a few weeks down the road. Maybe if you were to drastically trim the template—down to 10–20 very general links—and add {{portal}} directly into it, that might work. Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of the edit wars have been over names, but point taken. The process is underway, and we'll see what happens. Skeezix1000 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this idea has died or not, but I think turning the two World War templates into portals would be a Good Thing, and would cut off all the heads of that particular hydra in one go. Carom 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for WWI and WWII. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, anybody volunteering to actually create the portals? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

{{RAF Squadron}}

Does anyone know of any problems that would prevent us from replacing this with {{Infobox Military Unit}}? Or is it okay to just fire up the AWB and convert these? Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no apparent reason to warrant retaining that template (though I could be myopic ;-)). May I suggest, however, adding a label garrison field, for alternatives such as "home stations", "depots", etc. SoLando (Talk) 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, will do. Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, added it as garrison-label=. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Airstrike

Ok, you DEFINATELY need to get some people over there. Any brainacs, historians, or military genious who know anything about air strikes? THERE MUST BE!!! Colonel Marksman 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Always with the all-caps and exclamation points. The building isn't burning down, so just be cool. There is a Military Aviation Task Force somewhere...you might think of putting a note on their talk page directly since they are the mostly likely candidates to contribute to such an article. --ScreaminEagle 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations

I've recently been thinking about collaborations, and while the idea is great, I'm wondering about the execution. For example, right now it is Warrior. But as of this posting, only Kirill has done anything with the article. Military tactics, in two weeks, received 3 edits; after collaboration, it had barely any more information than when it started. I think part of the problem might be we vote, one is chosen, but then there is no plan for just how to improve the article. What I'm proposing is this: we vote, one is chosen, then a few days are spent developing a plan of action before anyone touches the page. What do we want to improve? Where is the article weak? Where is it strong? What are some good sources, internet and print? Preferably, the discussion should be on a high visibility page, for instance this one, because judging by the number of voters on the collaboration page, I don't think it would get as much exposure as it would here. I think an assistant coordinator should be assigned to the task of guiding the discussion, making decisions about the focus of the collaboration, etc etc. (and no, I'm not nominating myself or volunteering :-)). I'd be interested in other peoples' opinions on this. --Nobunaga24 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I think you're definitely right insofar as the collaboration has had extremely variable results. In some cases, this is probably due to a lack of publicity more than a lack of planning; the editors who might contribute simply aren't aware that a particular article has been chosen. Ideally, one (or more) assistant coordinator could engage in some publicity work for each selected article, inviting other projects and individual editors who might be able to contribute to do so. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Plublicity is dead on, myself have only ventured to that section of our project twice in the last 3 months. The same wsa true with assesment prior to our elections in which the process was refered to a number of times. Since I have been commenting on article on wich I have some knowledge or inclination of interest.--Dryzen 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree as well that publicity and prior coordination are key to keeping the Collaoration relevant and active. This page is probably the best place for it as well.--Looper5920 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've now had a go at Warrior, but such a general topic is difficult to build up a coherent view of. I suspect Military tactics suffered from the same problem. Perhaps a collaboration on a specific, but important or famous, topic would acheive better results? -- Medains 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Remagen

Could someone please have a look at this article? It looks like a possible copyvio - see its talk page for details.

tia,

TeunSpaans 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sections look a little suspicious (and the information in question was added by an anonymous user with only one edit, which isn't particularly encouraging). Carom 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, some sections look quite suspiciously like a cut and paste from the site linked in the talk page. Worth tagging as a milhist article of interest due to the strategic importance of the bridge over the rhine? -- Medains 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai

I am worried that The Bridge on the River Kwai has been tagged as part of the Military History project, since the film and book are fictional, with only a brief section on why they are travesties of the truth. The true story is in Death Railway and Philip Toosey. JMcC 10:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Langley National Historic Site

Someone just added Fort Langley National Historic Site to this WikiProject. Does your project really include commercial fur trade forts within its scope? To my knowledge, it was never a military fort. Just checking. -- TheMightyQuill 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time?

Something that's been really, really bothering me lately here- on a personal level, as well as a general one- is the feeling that I'm increasingly wasting my time working on articles here, as all I get is criticism and rejection from people. The case in point is the article Webley Revolver, which recently failed an A-class peer review because two people objected based on the vague complaint there weren't enough cites. I'm getting really fed up with this "cite-mania" here- I've spent an inordinate amount of time researching, writing, and citing that particular article, and I just can't see what else needs to be cited there. Certainly, unless you're prepared to go and find the cites yourself- or at least tell me what cites you think are needed, I don't think you should be commenting or critiquing an article. I don't go and critique articles I'm not prepared to contribute to, and I'd expect the same courtesy from others here. This isn't meant to be a personal attack on anyone in particular, but I don't think anyone really understands the frustration of pouring all your energy and time into an article and then having someone with no real knowledge of the topic dismissing your work as irrelevant. It hurts, and I'm at my wits end. If you aren't prepared to help, then don't criticise someone else's work- at least, that's how I feel at the moment. --Commander Zulu 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there Commander Zulu. Your work is excellent and interesting. I didn’t review the article but don’t look on comments made by contributors as criticism – I know we use the words Object and Oppose – but almost all the reviewers make these comments to help the article progress to a higher level - adding citations is difficult if you don’t have the reference material that was used in the writing of the article. My early articles wont get anyway near A –Class (Let alone FA), not because they are inaccurate or badly written, but simply because they are under cited. If you made improvements, there’s nothing stopping you re-nominating it for A-Class – or put it through a peer review if it hasn’t had one. Raymond Palmer 14:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasting your time? You've written and continue to maintenence several of the finest articles in this content area, and consistently produce extremely effective content with extremely low negatives. That makes you a leader around here, an example to all of us who want to watch the wiki process work. I suspect with some patience and continued peer process many of your articles are GA and FA material. I not only use your articles for general reference, I actually often enjoy reading them. I wish more wikipedians would waste time the way you do. I should write so well. I salute you, Commander. BusterD 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In practical terms, just renominate the article and ask for people to be more specific if they want more citations upfront; it's intended that the author of the article participate in the review process, obviously. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, though. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind that, actually; I've relisted the nomination here myself. If everyone could drop by and help with reviewing the article (and the other candidates, of course, but this one especially), it would be extremely appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If you aren't prepared to help, then don't criticise someone else's work I think we had it discussed among coordinators, how to establish constructive criticism. If providing criticism, you should always show or offer a solution. It is intended to help the original editor. At the moment this is more like an idea someone somehow mentioned somewhere with little practical relevance. Wandalstouring 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that A-class review was intended to be a simple yes/no, with reasons why in the case of an objection and that we were not supposed to give lengthy suggestions for improvement. If I am mistaken, that's no problem - I would just appreciate some claarification on this point so that I'm following the guidelines when reviewing. Carom 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the intent was that it not be exhaustive—in the sense that reviewers needn't list every single thing that could possibly be improved—but should still provide specific reasoning for objections. Just how detailed that reasoning is will vary on a case-by-case basis (e.g. "Object, no references" doesn't really need too much elaboration); ideally, once we burn through the backlog of procedural nominations, most will come from people who have some connection to the article, and can ask reviewers for clarification if needed.
(Somewhat more generally: keep in mind that this process is just starting off; I have no doubt that there are cases that we haven't considered yet.) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I'll keep that in mind in future. Carom 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, everyone... I know it probably seems like an over-reaction, but it is frustrating trying to get involved in articles, providing a list of cites as long as one's arm, and then being told there's still not enough cites! Personally, I don't think huge numbers of cites are necessary at all, as long as key reference works on the topic are listed at the end, but apparently I'm in the minority on that one... --Commander Zulu 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should not overdo it with footnotes. Put some of them at the end of a paragraph and it is enough. Critical statements (disputable claims for example) should be provided with clear references. On the other hand there is no other tool in wikipedia to assure reliability of content. Wandalstouring
That's my main point - Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, where articles are exhaustively edited to ensure reliability, and can only be edited by people with impeccable credentials. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and in order to make sure that articles are accurate, should cite whenever possible. At least, that's how I have come to feel from using Wikipedia. Carom 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. I am of the "school" that believes 1 factual claim = 1 reference. This means that you claim A happened you need a reference, If you claim A happened followed by B, because of C you need four references (A, B, C, and the causality), or one reference which says the same thing in its text (i.e. it also makes this "compound claim").
In other words, if you were to break down an article into symbolic logic, there has to be a reference for every atomic statement, or every atomic statement has to be contained in a compound statement which is itself referenced. (whew!).
This means that Wikipedia authors aren't really doing any original writing. What you're doing is digesting, presenting, and organizing data and claims from other sources. This can be creative in itself; working the article to be well organized, engaging, and easy to read is a skill all on its own - but we're not extending knowledge, simply consolidating it. If we want to extend it, we had better be off somewhere doing original research, getting it submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals and published (and then we can be sources for Wikipedia articles! :D ). - Vedexent 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see the point in exhaustively referencing every. single. factual. statement made in a Wikipedia article... if you do have a copy of a referenced text, then you know whether or not the facts mentioned in the article are true or not. If you don't have a copy of the listed text, then adding a cite to the effect that the information for said claim can be found on page 452 of the 1993 Edition is somewhat pointless, since readers still have to take your word on it anyway- especially if the text in question is a "specialist" or "academic" work and not readily available at the local bookshop.
FWIW, I am a published gun writer and firearms historian, but I've always considered it extremely poor form to reference one's own work on Wikipedia- although I may have to re-think that view. ;-) --Commander Zulu 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say, if you are published, you should feel free to cite your own work - it's just as valid as anything anyone else as published. Unless you are prpounding a particular contentious or controversial viewpoint, using your own published work as a citation is, to my mind, perfectly acceptable. On the other count, I don't think that the obscurity of a particular work (or group of works) relieves us from the responsibility of citing our sources. Vedexent put the argument well, and I also agree with Kirill's comments below. Citations are critical to making Wikipedia reliable, regardless of whether or not the cited sources are easily accessible. Carom 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
One point to keep in mind, though, is that when multiple sources are present, it's often difficult to determine which one certain statements are sourced to without explicit citations. Depending on the number of sources and the degree to which their usage in the article is interleaved, more footnotes may be needed in order to avoid confusion in this regard.
(This quite aside from all the other nice things one can do with footnotes, of course! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Having been a participant several times in academic environments, I can say that the emphasis on numerous citations is something that won't go away. You can't cite too much, but you can too little. It's a pain in the you-know-what and time-consuming to cite numerous sources in an article. But, it's necessary. Cla68 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Commander Zulu I understand your frustration, but hope you continue your work, you are one of our finest editors. On citing, I also have taken part in academic forums where the byword is short and to the point, as Cla68 says so eloquently, you can never have too much citation, but you certainly can have too little. Because of the very nature of wikipedia, we need citation even more than print media which has the luxury of footnotes. old windy bear 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is that?

http://www.militaryhistorywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page a site with stubs as content, but in the official wikipedia layout and with several links to other language wikis in some stubs. Unfortunately it does appear in search engines if you run a request on topics like the third servile war. Wandalstouring 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be an (utterly inactive) wiki that somebody started. (The layout comes from the MediaWiki software rather than Wikipedia per se.) As far as I can tell, it has absolutely no connection to us. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
But it gets quite a lot of hits with www.ask.com and it looks so much like wikipedia. Actually our article did not show up. Wandalstouring 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like another clone-Wikipedia site. Found quite a few when looking for Moirae, our own articles comming back over and over on many sites...--Dryzen 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

100th Guards Rifle Division

This article was just created, and I don't know what to make of it (I'm not a military historian). I even googled it but found nothing. Can anyone clarify what country this division was from? Is it article worthy? If anyone can help this article and get it out of a confusing, vague mess, please do so. I don't want this just added to a "wikiproject military history to do list" and ignored; we need to get this article up to even stub quality before anything else is done. =) —EdGl 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The division was Soviet. Whether it is article worthy... I have no idea. Bukvoed 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Division-level units are probably notable by default; this article is in a pretty sorry state, though. Maybe Grafikm will know something about it. Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The same user created a bunch of messy sub-stub articles on WWII-era Soviet divisions within the last 24 hours or so (one of which, the 110th rifle divison, is over at AfD right now). They seem to check out as legitimate, but there is such a paucity of information available that I doubt they will ever be more than stubs. Cleanup is a must, though. Carom 05:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get much. There was a 100th Guards Airborne Division, but no idea if it's the same thing... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The only references I've been able to find are to two generals who commanded the unit in 1944-45, but direct references to 100th guards rifle division seem to be nonexistant. Carom 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you still provide them please? :) Thanks. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure - I'll put them in the article. The website www.generals.dk lists Ivan Makarenko (1945) and Vasilii Leshchinin (1944-45) as commanders of the division. Carom 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Woot, it's 100th Guards Airborne Division all right, the name and theater matches. There is nice web site on the division in Russian. I'm gonna put this one in my to do for cleanup. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I put some info in regarding the commanders, with links to the web page - feel free to clean my edits right out of the article if neccessary. Also, you might want to take a look at some of the other articles created by the same user - they all need cleanup, and I suspect you might be the one for the job. Carom 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added some flesh to the article :) (fortunately there is a website on the division) Feel free to go and correct my horrible English... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there's now sufficient momentum on WP:FAR to systematically go through the old FAs that don't meet curent standards for citation. I think it'll be helpful for us to be somewhat ahead of the game here, as we have a tremendous number that will need to be looked at. Going from our showcase, the following FAs may have issues in this regard:

  1. Abraham Lincoln - now in FARC
  2. A. E. J. Collins
  3. Algerian Civil War
  4. Attack on Pearl Harbor
  5. Attila the Hun - now in FAR
  6. Battle of Alesia
  7. Battle of Cannae
  8. Battle of Hampton Roads
  9. Battle of Inchon
  10. Battle of Jutland
  11. Battle of Leyte Gulf
  12. Battle of Normandy
  13. Battle of Warsaw (1920)
  14. Battle of the Bulge
  15. Battle of the Somme (1916)
  16. Blitzkrieg
  17. Charles I of England
  18. Chemical warfare
  19. Colditz Castle
  20. Convair B-36
  21. Cristero War
  22. Eureka Stockade
  23. First Battle of the Stronghold
  24. First Crusade
  25. Henry VIII of England
  26. Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
  27. Husein Gradaščević
  28. Imperial Japanese Navy
  29. Invasion of Poland (1939)
  30. Iowa class battleship
  31. Isaac Brock
  32. James II of England
  33. Kammerlader
  34. Karl Dönitz
  35. Krag-Jørgensen
  36. Lord's Resistance Army
  37. Louis XIV of France - currently on FAR
  38. Manuel I Komnenos
  39. Mark Antony
  40. Michael Woodruff
  41. Military history of Canada
  42. Military history of France
  43. Military history of Puerto Rico
  44. Military history of the Soviet Union
  45. Nuclear weapon
  46. Operation Downfall
  47. Poison gas in World War I
  48. Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)
  49. Polish-Soviet War
  50. Richard O'Connor
  51. S-mine
  52. Second Crusade
  53. Shrine of Remembrance
  54. Sid McMath
  55. Siege
  56. Stanisław Koniecpolski
  57. Swedish allotment system
  58. Tank
  59. Theodore Roosevelt
  60. Trench warfare
  61. U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program
  62. USS Missouri (BB-63)
  63. USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
  64. Virtuti Militari
  65. War elephant - now in FARC
  66. War of the Spanish Succession
  67. Warsaw Uprising
  68. William III of England
  69. William IV of the United Kingdom
  70. William the Silent
  71. Witold Pilecki
  72. World War I
  73. Władysław Sikorski
  74. Yom Kippur War
  75. Zeppelin

Some of these are admittedly borderline; while they don't have the same level of citation expected of newer articles, they're probably not so deficient as to attract the attention of FAR.

In many cases, the original nominators are no longer around, so we can't necessarily count on their help; but we'll need to try and come up with some way of improving these articles enough that they don't get de-featured. (In some cases, it may be that de-featuring them will turn out to be the only practical option, if suitable references can't be found through a reasonable effort; but that's something to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.) Thoughts on any of the above articles, and on how we should approach this in general, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin much of their history up to the time of their 1980s reactivation is an NPOV toned repeat of material found in the Dictonary of American Naval Fighting Ships. In the case of Missouri, the citations present need to be expanded on below that because three measly points is weak, even for an article largely text dumped from DANFS. This was a problem I tried hard to adress for Wisconsin, with what I thought at the time were excelent results, but having seen the article here I guess it was not enough. Since I feel strongly attached to both of the battleship articles I would ask that if you place those on FAR you do it sometime in December, since that is when I have the most available free time to handle issues brought up TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Henry VIII of England and William IV of the United Kingdom part of the Military History project? If so, why not all the other Kings and Queens of Britain? Most of whom are FA status and are entirley lacking in citation!Raymond Palmer 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Those two are included because they were military leaders directly (Henry fought in the Italian Wars, while William was a Royal Navy officer). This tends not to be the case for all (or even most?) monarchs, though. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Most (not all) kings of England prior to George III have a better claim to be classed as military leaders than William IV; including William I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry V, Henry VII, Richard I, Richard III, James II, William III and many others Raymond Palmer 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
They can presumably be tagged with {{WPMILHIST}}, then; that should make us aware of their presence in the future. Are any of their biographies featured articles? Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind that, actually; I've found the half-dozen or so articles in question, and will be tagging them shortly. Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added them to the list above now; hopefully I didn't miss anyone that had any significant role in military affairs. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a few articles on there that can work on this week when I'm off work, but I think the way to get the most help might be to divide them up by task force. Carom 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tank has changed substantially since it achieved FA status, and is no longer the lean, mean fighting machine it was then. If anything, it probably needs a major weight reduction by splitting off some sections and a merciless editorial polish—could be a good candidate for a collaboration. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 21:08 Z

It's something of a problem with a lot of articles on general topics (e.g. tank, siege, etc.); they're broad enough that a lot of passerby will drop in a few paragraphs here or there that never really get smoothed into the overall structure of the article. Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup: the little details grow into paragraphs and sections. Tank doesn't need more information, just an editorial butcher job and some references. If it can reach a current standard for an FA, then it should be easier to prevent the addition of uncited factoids. I've nominated it for collaboration. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 23:11 Z

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts

Hi folks, I thought I'd ask here to see if there was anyone interested in trying to resurrect this other project since some martial arts have a related military history... Any takers? -- Medains 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I edit heavily in the Historical European martial arts field, focusing mostly on European martial arts (and weaponry), most specifically the German school of swordsmanship and associated information. I'm not sure where this would be fitted, though. Are you suggesting a 'Martial Arts' Task Force within the Military History Project? -- Xiliquiern 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Meh. Some martial arts clearly have a military-related context; others really don't. I'm not sure to what extent pulling the not-really-military ones here would be a good idea. (On the one hand, we more-or-less do it for weaponry, as there's no separate "Civilian weapons" project. On the other hand, I'm guessing that there's a military association for a much greater proportion of weapons than of martial arts. Having said that, I'm not an expert on martial arts by any means; it would be very helpful if people with more experience could comment on the degree to which they may or may not be related to military history.) Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems now that this post was meant to see if anyone here was interested in also editing over at the Martial Arts Project. Is that correct? Sorry I did not originally draw that from the message - I thought you were trying to incorporate a martial arts section here. -- Xiliquiern 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
My own knowledge of martial arts is only budding and this in itself is geared towards swordhandling. As for a possible absorbtion? Martial arts, as the name implies do and did spawn from military affairs. For an exemple: kenjutsu --> Kendo, Aikido and Jiujitsu-->judo, etc. both these japanese arts where of samurai curriculum and turned towards a sports evolution as this venerable order (I use the term loosely) disapeared. Merging and not merging are not our only options when confronting this project, we could always add it as a liason group.--Dryzen 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct, I wasn't suggesting a MA task force, just seeing if there was anyone whose joint interests might lead them to help out in getting the MA project rolling again. I'm aware that individual users are editting articles, but the project isn't really any kind of center for collaboration and article improvement; which is a problem IMHO - I'd just like to see the standards for MA articles brought up to the standards that are enjoyed here. -- Medains 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review requests

If anyone has some free time, there are a number of new requests that could use some more feedback! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are many articles "rushing" to A-class review that could stand to be run through the peer-review process first? Perhaps I'm just being grumpy :) However, I've found that feedback helps immeasurably in polishing an article, and much improves the chances of being approved for A-class status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point, most of the listings are just procedural reviews of articles that had been tagged as "A-Class" before the review system was introduced; once we finish going through those (and there's only a handful left now), things will probably start coming in more through a full review process. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we're wrapping up the backlog now; assistance with reviewing the remaining handful of requests would be very appreciated! :-) Kirill Lokshin 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2 for 1 proposal

Here's an idea for people involved in the project, especially those of you trying to improve your articles by running them through review processes, or trying to get A-class standing, and the like: why not adopt a "2 for 1" rule?

Simply put, whenever you use a "resource" of the project, contribute back to it (at least) twice. Put your article up for peer review? Review two others! Put your article up for A-class review? Read, vote, and make constructive comments about two other candidates.

Not everyone's cup-of-tea, I'm sure, and there's no way to enforce this, I know - but I think it is a good "rule of thumb" for people to follow - and it would keep the project running quite nicely :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, very good principle to follow; even a handful of additional participants in the various "resources" could cause major improvement in terms of making them more useful for everyone. (The fact that it's impossible to enforce isn't a problem, in my opinion; we generally wouldn't want to do so even if we could, as that would defeat much of the point.) Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Having gone through the process these people would be a great asset as critiques/reviewers. I think its a respectable courtesy. It also helps participating in the reviews even before one writes an article or add to one such for A-, Fa- Class, seeying what other people have done. That way one can eliminate many of the smaller "quinks" prior to review, saving everyone time. --Dryzen 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attention requested on new Gulf War * categories

A new user, User:Vikrant Phadkay, has created the categories

I am not familiar with the categorization scheme, but it appears to set a bad precedent of "equipment by Conflict" --Mmx1 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad precedent per se—we have similar categories for WWII, if I'm not mistaken—but I think it's an entirely useless categorization in any case, as the Gulf War was neither long enough nor significant enough in technological development for equipment used during it to be distinct from merely modern equipment of the period.
(Having said that, the equipment categories are a mess in general, so I can't really fault him for creating the categories; it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.) Kirill Lokshin 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military operations by war

I've added some material to the category guidelines here describing this new category and how it's meant to be used; a sanity check on the additions (as well as any other comments) would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading over this again: it strikes me that there's a certain amount of confusion caused by our use of "operations" to refer to both military activity in general (e.g. Category:Military operations of the United States) and specific "Operation Crimson Chicken"-type events (e.g. Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War). I wonder if we shouldn't try to reduce the ambiguity by adopting a different term for one of these. For example, we could have something like "actions" instead of "operations" for general military activity, which would result in a tree like:
In this case, "operation" would unambiguously refer only to the small battle/campaign-sized events, avoiding the strange nesting of operations→wars→operations that seems to occur now. Thoughts? Does this make any sense, or am I trying to make things too complicated? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if "military action" is a particularly intuitive classification, and I also don't think that the double-nesting of "operations" really presents any problems. Carom 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Meh, "action" was just the first thing that came to mind; I'm sure there's a more appropriate term that could be used. But, as I said, I may very well be overthinking this; if other people don't see it as a problem, then there's no reason to make things more complicated by introducing additional terminology. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Although, the more I look at it, the less contrived "military actions" appears. On the other hand, "action" is a term often used to refer to smaller-scale military happenings. I would say that we could probably leave the organisation 'as is' in that respect, and make changes if it became apparent that it was too confusing. Carom 04:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Could I suggest military Confrontations (following the line of though with military events), mayhaps Designs(holding to plotting events), Directions, Edicts(similar to commands)? Using operations twice in a arboressance is destined for conflict, right away having boht is a bad sign as it creates unneeded ambiguity. Action could do it, yet as Carom pointed, action does seem to connote smaller military opperations.--Dryzen 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"Confrontations" wouldn't really work because some of these are one-sided. Maybe something like "military activities" would be more suitable? Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Activities works for me. Carom 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, won't "activities" cause even more confusion by causing everything done by the military to get lumped into it (e.g. parades, training programs, etc.)? Bleh. I'm not sure if there's a neat answer here. Kirill Lokshin 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, activities, I see Kirill Lokshin's point and it doesm ake a lot of sens... Backtracking, what is the purpose of this category? From there we shoudl find a word that fits to this purpose. --Dryzen 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at Bernard_B._Fall

I was assessing the article, and it struck me that it is a quite good piece of prose - with very few alterations from the initial creation... wondering if it was a cut-and-paste from somewhere. The initial editor has a number of biographical articles under his belt, so I could be wrong - he could just be a good biography writer. Anyone able to check? -- Medains 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are the references? Wandalstouring 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Possible 'about the author' on any of his books. amazon list or a short biography from contemporary authors also amazon. Just struck me as a really good piece of prose for an uncited article. -- Medains 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, someone is up to a rewrite. He is too important, though relatively unknown, to the Vietnam War to be deleted as a copy-vio.--Nobunaga24 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA process and inline citations

Recently GA added a requirement for inline citations. This is now being contested and I thought I'd post a note here for people to comment. A straw poll is up for voting whether they should be required and using WP:CITE as the guideline for implementation, and there's a debate on the talk page of WP:CITE on what should or should not be cited. I invite your participation no matter what side of the debate you may fall on --plange 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, it's spreading! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't personally want to get involved with GA - I'd be more than happy to sort out an answer internally. Also, it seems that the disagreement over there centers on science articles, and I don't know if one criteria can necessarily be applied to all projects. Carom 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I've tried to move the argument over to WP:CITE since it's this guideline that is the sticking point, so if perhaps GA isn't something you're interested in, the questions on what not to cite on WP:CITE might be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by plange (talk • contribs)

Warfare by era

There's been some work done recently on extending the by-era categorization trees (e.g. the new Category:Battles by era). I notice, though, that Category:Warfare by period has a name that doesn't really match its children (or its purpose); would there be any objections to renaming it to Category:Warfare by era? Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Carom 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Support-Dryzen 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've listed it for renaming. Kirill Lokshin 08:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

General category principles

Since they seem to repeat throughout the category guidelines, I've split out the guidance on using the "most specific" categories and on categorizing entire sub-categories into the section on general principles and trimmed it from the specific battle & unit guidelines; hopefully this will reduce the redundancy and reduce the possibility of different trees being inconsistent in this regard. Any comments (as well as a sanity check on the new content) would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Categorizing entire sub-categories, if I understood its messare correctly, the term on should be replaced by above, to better indicate its position in the arborescence.As there is already a Military "activities" exemple, perhaps putting in a units or tacking a chance with personnel, to better present that this is a pan-category guideline.--Dryzen 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded it to eliminate the in/on/above issue and added another units example. I've been avoiding personnel in these general examples primarily because we haven't really figured out how that category tree is supposed to look; once we go through with that, we can add them. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've also added a paragraph to the section on most specific categories explaining that having muliple paths from a category to some ancestor is okay and giving an easy example; hopefully that will avoid some confusion down the line. Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Mirko Norac

Hello. I'm here to request some help with Mirko Norac article. I never interacted with WP:MILHIST before, so pardon me if I asked at wrong place. Anyway, the thing is that I spent more than 9 months on trying to write a sourced out article on a controversial Croatian general. It seems from comments on failed GA nominations that I'm quite close to making this article GA, but there are still some problems with the article, most important of which is NPOV. And now User:DavidWJohnson turned out and deleted a bunch of info from the article. Since I considered the article to be fairly NPOV before the "rewrite", of course I have some complaints about his actions, so I didn't just revert him since I just detest edit warring. But, I have brought out a bunch of complaints here: Talk:Mirko_Norac#Rewrite_of_this_article and I'd like to ask you guys to take a look at the article and comment on my complaints, because I feel that quality of this arcile has imensly detoriated after the rewrite. --Dijxtra 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conflict

List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons#Attack Squadrons uses links of the form "VA-X". But this is also an abbreviation used for Virginia state highways. Is there a fuller name that can be used, so that "VA-X" can be a disambiguation page? --NE2 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Should I start moving them and changing links, and hope no one minds? --NE2 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the correct form for USN attack squadrons seems to be "VFA-X." The links on the page simply redirect to the correct name. I would say that the links on the page should probably be changed to the correct form (i.e. the name of the page that they link to). There is probably no need for a disambig page. Carom 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I grew impatient and did the disambiguating already. But "VA-X" does seem to be used, for instance by [1]. --NE2 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with an A-Class review

If we could have a few more people voice their opinions on this review, it'd be much appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for check

Hi all,

An anon IP, 219.78.51.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been changing figures in some WWII-related articles. On Eastern front battles, his additions were deliberately misleading, however I can't tell for other articles. Could someone familiar with Western-front battles look into his figures and revert them if needed?

Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the changes and left a message on the user's talk page. I do not fully know whether they were misleading or not, but the user gave no evidence either way, so I feel like my actions were justified.UberCryxic 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_38&oldid=1190097807"