Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62→Archive 65


Category organization proposals

Since the previous discussions seem to have died down, I thought I'd try to summarize what seems to be the overall line of thought on some of the outstanding issues with category names and such:

By-country categories for military people
  1. Standardize on "Fooish x" (e.g. "French generals", etc.) with the understanding that this refers to country of service, not necessarily country of birth.
  2. (optional) Create a set of "Foreign nationals in the X military" (or some alternate name) and/or "X people in foreign militaries" (or some alternate name) categories to organize people for whom the two countries are not the same.
By-country top-level military/warfare categories
  1. Create a set of "Armed forces of X" categories for each country, to replace the existing "Military of X" categories.
  2. Move the new categories under the "Military history of X" categories, which would now be the highest-level ones for each country.

I apologize if I've missed anything major; please feel free to add it if I have. Thoughts? Can we go ahead with any of these? And which ones still have issues to be resolved? Any other comments and suggestions are, of course, also welcome. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping out of these discussions for the most part as I don't tend to work with modern-style militaries, but it all sounds good to me. I like the "Foreign nationals" ideas; could be quite interesting to have, and useful, as a workaround alongside the notion that "Fooish X" applies to country of service, not country of birth. What's the logic behind "Armed forces" instead of "Military"? Is it because of countries like Japan which have "Self-Defence Forces" and no military, or for some other reason? Just curious. LordAmeth 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly because there appears to be an ambiguity as to whether "military" refers to all armed forces, or only to the army, depending on which flavor of English you look at. Personally, I'm not sure how big of a deal it is; but since some people do consider using "military" for everything to be problematic, we may as well go for a less ambiguous version where an obvious one presents itself. Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with flavors of English (honest). It's an inherent ambiguity. There's a bit about in the military article. ROGER TALK 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not really limited to one flavor, I suppose; but I think it's accurate to say that the ambiguity is more noticeable to BE speakers than to AE ones, as the AE usage of the word tends to follow the more general definition moreso than the BE usage of it. Kirill 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
May I mull this over for a few more days before commenting please? ROGER TALK 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course; the categories have been sitting this way for years, so there's no rush to do anything. Kirill 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
So, anyone else have some thoughts here? :-) Kirill 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we may as well make some CfD proposals to standardize the military personnel categories as "Fooish x" and see what the reaction is. I'm not sure about creating a new set of categories for "Foreign nationals in the fooish military" - some of them will be very, very small, and it may even be a degree of overcategorization.
On the second topic, I think we are safe to move ahead as you initially outlined, Kirill. Do we want to do a set of CfD's to rename the "military of x" categories to "armed forces of x"? Carom 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing navigation templates

In the course of some discussion on how navigational templates should be designed, we've come up with a possible way to style normal navigational templates such that they can be used neatly in conjunction with the various infoboxes present on the articles. The underlying technology here is {{Military navigation}}; a rendering of how a navigational template would look when using it can be found here.

Essentially, the design takes our normal "infobox" styling (as found on, say, campaignboxes) and adds in show/hide functionality and a way to add in view/talk/edit links to the template.

There are, I think, two main questions:

  1. Is this a good approach to designing navigational templates? Do we want to advocate using it for all military-related ones?
  2. Regardless of the above, do we want to apply it to the existing campaignboxes? I think that giving them show/hide functionality would eliminate a lot of the crowding effect at the top of articles when multiple ones are present.

Any other comments are, of course, also welcome. Kirill 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The new design looks sparkly-shiny, but I think it depends very much on how it is meant to be used. I see no direct advantage or disadvantage of placing these sorts of nav templates to the right directly under the infobox (new way) vs. at the very bottom of an article across the bottom of the whole page (old way). It just depends upon taste and personal preferences, I'd say. As for the campaignboxes, I personally do not find them obnoxious or unattractive, no matter how many there are... as long as the default is for "show" and not for "hide", I'm all for implementing the functionality. ... Things that are hidden may make the article more attractive to some people, but it also defeats the purpose of the boxes, I think, as readers may be less likely to notice that they're there at all. LordAmeth 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no reason the new templates couldn't be placed further down in the article, if desired; the only fundamental difference is that the new approach will float them to the right while the old one would float them accross the entire width of the page.
As far as the default goes, that's somewhat complicated. There are two ways of getting show/hide functionality: class=NavFrame and class=collapsible. NavFrame lays out better—the collapsible method causes the title of the box to be off-center due to the fact that the show/hide button itself takes up space in the rendering—but there's no way to control the initial state, and the sitewide JavaScript will force it to default to collapsed if there are more than three such boxes on a page. The other method will allow an initial state, but has the centering problem. I'm not sure what the best approach here would be; is the default state more important than the centering or not? Or is this just going to be a showstopper in terms of getting campaignboxes to use this? Kirill 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a little bit more difficult to read than the traditional style. Wandalstouring 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Would shrinking the font to match the older style improve that, perhaps? Kirill 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I support this adaptation. I think it gives more flexibility in the location of templates, allows us to deprecate some ridiculously large templates. I'm not sure which is the better way to collapse them - I suspect this might be something we can only figure out through experience (after we deploy the templates). Carom 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
May you test these new template on WWI (or another) article to see how it appears with 4 or 5 new templates on the same article ? If I like the flexibility offered by new templates which "allows us to deprecate some ridiculously large templates" I do not like the idea to put many templates on the right. Centering seems me more important than default state for example. And I agree with Wandalstouring; they are more difficult to read than the old style ones. Anyway I cannot give an objective opinion without seeing this concretely. --Mrpouetpouet 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
See User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template3 for a (very, very crude) attempt to use these on a copy of the WWI article. The content & location of the templates are obviously open to be changed; all I did at this point was pulling some of the more obvious clusters from the big template into individual ones. At the least, we'd probably also need an "Overview of World War I" template to get the most general links in a single place.
If you're so inclined, please feel free to play around with the sandbox and see if you can come up with a better place for the templates. One idea might be to place them near related sections (as they're now fairly small, and will align nicely with 315px images), but that may be too complicated. Kirill 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems to work well, although I like the idea of moving them around the page to align with related sections. Carom 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to moving forward with a scheme similar to the one demonstrated in Kirill's sandbox? If not, are there any suggestions as to which templates might benefit from this kind of overhaul? Carom 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it. A few which might benefit from such an overhaul: Template:WWII history by nation, Template:WWII city bombing... Do we have any particular criteria for which ones get overhauled and which don't? That is, is there any real reason to *not* overhaul all those which span the whole width of the page, like the two I nommed? LordAmeth 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the driving factor here (initially, at least), will be to eliminate the large nav templates without sacrificing the functionality they provide. In theory, very large templates could be converted to several smaller templates, which could be "stacked," or moved around the article as neccessary. Smaller templates might simply converted to the new style, without any need for splitting. I think we should probably start with a handful {{World War II}}, for example and see what the reaction is, and if it is positive, expand the scope as we go. Carom 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. We divide up Template:World War II into a number of separate ones (Chronology, Axis, Allies, Aspects etc.) and then apply whichever one(s) are good for a given article. It's like modular templates. Keen. LordAmeth 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks great, and I'm definitely in favour of proceeding. {{WWIISovietAFVs}}, {{PostWWIISovietAFVS}}, and their siblings could also use the same treatment. Of course, I have a few comments.

Layout

  • For short articles, it may be useful to retain the option of using a wide navbox below the text, instead of having an infobox plus navbox taller than the article.

Expansion

  • I think the show/hide functionality is only useful in large lists. Can it be an optional feature?
  • Can an editor choose the default show/hide state?

Design

  • At a quick glance, the navbox looks like another infobox section. There has to be another level of visible hierarchy of elements, whether it be created through the headings' type treatment or graphics. This might be done a few ways, but it should probably be done simply, using only one method.
    1. The first heading in both the infobox and navbox could be graphically more prominent than the subheadings—perhaps in a larger font, but not bold.
    2. A line or two of whitespace could be added below the infobox for separation.
  • The infobox has all of the material left-aligned, in one or two columns, emphasizing strong vertical lines—this looks very tidy. The navboxes have centred headings and groups of links with ragged margins on both sides—they visually clash with the infoboxes. Is it possible to arrange the links in one or two left-aligned columns, or on a grid?

 —Michael Z. 2007-07-09 23:31 Z

Some replies, more or less in the order of the questions:
  • Wide navbox, optional show/hide: it should be possible to implement some options to allow users a bit more control over how the navbox renders. I'll see what I can do once I have a bit of free time to play around with it.
  • Default show/hide state: as mentioned above, there's a method which allows this at the cost of breaking the centering on the heading row. It may pass for full-width boxes, but on the narrower ones the misalignment is really obvious.
  • First heading: we can certainly change the style on the first heading row. As this will involve making some changes to all the infobox templates, though, it'd be nice to decide what we want to do before going off and implementing it.
  • Extra whitespace: I don't think this would be a good idea, as it'll disrupt the visual stacking effect expected of the normal infobox + campaignbox combination.
  • Alignment: this would be practically impossible to do without requiring people to manually align the items in each individual box, which is probably far more trouble than it's worth. Having said that, I personally don't see this as that big of a deal; campaignboxes have been center-aligned for ages, and I haven't seen any complaints about that.
Kirill 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Narrow/wide can be easily changed by using two different templates, and just changing the name of a transcluded template (campaignbox and campaignbox_n?). Perhaps the other options can be accomplished this way too. —Michael Z. 2007-07-10 14:33 Z
That's a pretty clunky way of doing it, though, since we then have to (a) maintain two templates and (b) keep track of how they're used. I think the normal parameter-flag method (e.g. "full_width=yes") would be a cleaner approach. Kirill 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've implemented support for a non-hideable version and a full-width version; see User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template3 for an example and {{military navigation}} for the parameter set. Comments? Kirill 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On the "wide" setting, the header is not expanding to full length, at least on my browser. See the last box at the bottom of your sandbox, or this one in mine. —Kevin Myers 14:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see what's happening; the box is being stretched just wide enough to contain the contents, which may not be full-width on higher resolutions. I'll see if I can figure out what the real width of the typical "full-width" boxes is and force ours to match that. Kirill 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Should be fixed now, I think; hopefully the needed changes didn't break anything else. Kirill 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Another style issue: if you look at the "Participants in World War I" nav box here, the second section in the body (the "Central Powers" section) has wider line spacing than the first section. The becomes really noticeable when a second section has two or more lines, as it does here. —Kevin Myers 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed in anything derived from {{military navigation}} by the simple expedient of not screwing around with the font size in the template. Whether that's an acceptable solution, I don't know; if it isn't, the only other one I know of is to force people to do all internal linebreaks via HTML tags (as normal linebreaks get converted to paragraph tags by the MediaWiki parser, which causes the font settings to not carry over properly). Kirill 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So, does anyone else have comments on this design (particularly on the new display styles)? I'd like to start rolling this thing out, at least tentatively; but if it's horribly broken in some way, it'd be good to know that before it begins getting used in articles. ;-) Kirill 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any other problems myself. Carom 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the lack of opposition, are we set to move forward with this? Should we start with {{World War I}} and see how things go? Carom 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like we can proceed. Should we convert the campaignboxes to use this format? (And, if so, should they be auto-hiding or non-hideable?) That will put the code on a lot of articles, hopefully increasing the chances that any bugs will be spotted quickly. Kirill 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we could convert the campaignboxes as well. If we use class=Navframe, the boxes will default to hide if three or more are stacked together, correct? If so, that would be simplest, as one or two boxes don't really need to be hidden (in my opinion), and big clumps of boxes would be forced to hide (correct me if any of this is nonsense). Carom 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I believe they'll currently default to hidden if there are three or more such templates on the page; it doesn't check whether they're positioned next to each other, though.
Barring any sudden objections, then, I'll go ahead and set the campaignboxes to use this new design in the next day or two; we can see what kind of feedback we get then. Kirill 16:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've converted the campaignboxes to use the new style. There will have to be some manual changes to make full use of it—the v/d/e links won't appear until the new "raw_name" parameter is set—but it should be enough to get a good sense of whether the base structure works or not.

Going forward, we can probably start converting other templates to use this base. I'd focus on those with simple layouts initially; some of the more complex grid-like layouts may require additions to the base template before we can convert them neatly. Kirill 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Using navbox generic

In the interests of not trying to re-invent the wheel too much; I've changed {{military navigation}} to use {{navbox generic}} with some particular styles set. This gives us the full range of grouping functionality from the latter template essentially for free, so we can convert just about anything to the new style without needing to change parameters too much. Comments would be very welcome! Kirill 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming coordinator elections

As people who've been keeping track of the calendar probably realize, the next round of coordinator elections is due to take place in August. Following some discussion among the current coordinators, we'd like to propose the following:

  • The election will be structured identically to the last one; a two-week signup period (running from August 1 to August 14) and a two-week election (running from August 15 to August 28).
  • The total number of coordinators will be increased from seven to nine.

Are there any objections (or other comments) regarding these points? Kirill 13:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. One question though: why the need for two new coordinators? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There's some sentiment that having a few more people would help offset the effect of coordinators becoming less active at times. (For example, we currently have one who hasn't edited since April.) This isn't a particularly pressing need, admittedly, but I do think it'd be a helpful change. Kirill 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the dates and the two extra co-ordinators. Kyriakos 22:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we give each coordinator a set of task forces to keep an eye on? This would provide an obvious 'go-to guy' for any immediate issues for any particular TF. They might well fall into shape pretty well based on each coordinator's personal interests. Cheers Buckshot06 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced this is wise, particularly as it leaves the potential for things to fall through the cracks if a coordinator takes an extended (and possibly unannounced) wikibreak. Carom 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a problem; you'd simply go to someone else if it took a while, or ask Kirill. Are there any other particular reasons you're against it? The other way to do it is have little mini-elections within the TFs for a TF sub-coordinator, I s'pose you'd call it. Buckshot06 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I guess the real question is what exactly would be expected here? Most of the task forces are not given to flurries of activity; while I doubt it would hurt anything to set up a coordinator-task force relationship, it's not at all clear to me what the coordinator would be expected to do on a day-to-day basis (beyond the general looking over of any new discussions that the coordinators do in any case). Kirill 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see any real benefit to this proposal. As Kirill points out, there isn't a great deal to do with regard to the task force, except follow new discussions (which, as Kirill also points out, most of the active coordinators do anyway). At the same time, it opens up the possibilities of a) things getting missed (because the tendency will be to pass over discussions on task forces that are not your responsibility), and b) territorialism (although I'm not terribly concerned about this last one). I suppose that they're really not major objections, but I don't see any really compelling reason for this modification to the coordinator role. Carom 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We've noted recently an increase in task forces creation requests. More requests would be presented i believe and therefore think that 9 coordinators would not be sufficient especially that we already have 38 task forces. What about 12? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think 9 is enough, 38 devided by 9 leaves about 4.2, for coordinater per task force. To me, that should be more than enough. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The workload isn't related to task force requests in any case, as those are one-time things; and I haven't seen any evidence that we're so overworked that we need to double the number of coordinators. Kirill 08:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, for the moment it seems people are against assigning TFs to individual coords; perhaps there isn't the need yet. Another thing I was wondering thorough was can relatively inactive task forces be merged back into existing ones? And finally, what's the procedure now for merging defunct wikiprojects like the Falklands & War of the Pacific into TFs which now exist? Buckshot06 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
These are independent projects and we don't do anything with them unless their remaining members ask us. Wandalstouring 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit to merging inactive task forces. They don't cause any harm by being inactive, and they still serve as a gathering point of sorts for newly arrived editors who are interested in the subject matter. As for defunct projects, Wandalstouring is right - we don't really annex inactive WikiProjects. Carom 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that we have had a great deal of success convincing inactive projects to become task forces in the past; the few remaining ones are just the tip of the iceberg compared to what existed originally. In the long run, I expect that they can eventually go somewhere as well, but it's not really something that I think needs to be a very pressing concern. Kirill 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
So are there any outstanding objections to having nine coordinators? Or can we go ahead and proceed with that number? Kirill 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nine is fine with me. Carom 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Windy Bear's departure

<poor taste> I presume the election will use the traditional method of one vote per sockpuppet? </poor taste> Leithp 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor taste indeed. Whatever else may have happened, oldwindybear was always a diligent and helpful member of the project; mocking him now that he's gone would be an unworthy gesture on our part. Kirill 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Geez, wow. How did I miss all of this? I hope OWB turns around and rejoins us after things have cooled down a bit or whatever. He was a quite dedicated and hardworking contributor. LordAmeth 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ye, it would be great if OWB rejoins. Kyriakos 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't help be feel partially responsible for his depature. I wonder if he would still be here with us editting if I had not accepted his offer of nomination for adminship and thus set into the motion that horrible series of events on my rfa. To be frank, its to the point now where the guilt is starting to keep me up at night. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we clarify what happened, step by step. + I want a hotline for wikistress because all permanent or temporary departures are connected to some very emotional decisions, whatever the reasons. Wandalstouring 08:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Relevant threads to read are (and I'm afraid I really don't know what order is best to read them in):
There are also numerous WP:RFA threads, but the WP:ANI links should give you the idea. Suffice to say that this was clearly a very complicated issue and Proabivouac should be commended for preparing an extremely detailed report following the inconclusive sockpuppet report (there is also a previous sockpuppet report). Leithp 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing seems to have started during oldwindybear's rfa, which I refiled on behalf of Stillstudying after he incorrectly filed it. When oldwindybear asked if I would help him with his new admin tools I politely informed him that I was not an admin, but that others from this project who were admins would probably be more than willing to help him. He then asked why I wasn't an admin, to which I responded I would rather wait to be nominated, so he then nominated me. Unfortunetly, my rfa disentigrated into chaos after allegations from New England that the timing of the nom was supicous (my having refiled OWB's rfa after the Stillystuding botched it) which led to an edit war in which OWB blocked New England, (and New England (from what I gathered) used his admin tools to unblock himself This part incorrect. Sorry.) The whole thing escalted to the point of both Still Studying and OWB giving serious thought to leaving Wikipedia, so I resigned my 1st rfa to end the edit war there in hopes that the absence of fuel would cause the edit war to burn out and keep OWB and SS here. Unfurtunetly, during the edit war on my rfa, a usercheck regarding Stillstudying and OWB was filed; from what I gathered, it was becuase of the similar edit styles both employed and their habit of backing each other up on things; some users suspected a sockpuppet. That lead to this most recent round in which some users, having compiled what they believe is evidence against him (I word it like this because I have not thoughly reviewed it, nor am I particularly familar with how the word evidence is used in this context) and were debating on whether or not to open an arbcom case against OWB and/or block his account for suspected sockpuppetry. Frankly, I think this is bullshit; we (by which I mean Wikipedians in general, not us here specifically) have succeded in driving off another contributer. This...just doesn't seem right or fair. I feel I am to blame since it was my nomination of OWB thats seems to have inadvertently started the whole thing. I'm sorry, for what its worth. If I had the slightest idea that my rfa would start something that ended like this I would have never accepted it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, New England did not unblock himself. Leithp 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
M'bad. I gathered from earlier conversations that he had. I'll watch that from now on. Thanks for the catch. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason for you to feel responsible for this mess; there's really no way you could have predicted it would turn out like this. I don't think anyone who has worked with OWB here could have suspected that he might be engaged in sockpuppetry. It's unfortunate that it blew up this way, but such things tend to come out sooner or later; it's mere coincidence that the conflict which happened to provide the spark here took place on your RFA. Kirill 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Wandalstouring's idea is definitely a good one, although I'm not sure what the best way of setting it up would be. We should definitely be making an effort to reach out to those of our members who are experiencing WikiStress; otherwise, we're going to be losing a lot more editors. (For what it's worth, Esperanza started out as an effort to do this on a Wikipedia-wide basis, but wound up getting dismembered after becoming "unproductive"; perhaps a WikiProject-centered approach—where this outreach work would be accompanied by our normal content work—would be safer from such depredations.) Kirill 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still studying this case. As far as the hotline goes I would appreciate if we entrust some members of the project to run the departement, for example former coordinators who proved to be active. That's quite a self nomination since I won't run again. Wandalstouring 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I certainly have no objections to drafting former coordinators to do stuff, but I'm not sure at this point how much "running" (beyond normal page maintenance, archiving, etc.) this effort would take. I see basically two variants that could be easily constructed:
  • A simple discussion-type area where people suffering from WikiStress could come to talk to people and get support. This has the advantage of being simple and low-maintenance, and basically would run itself. (Granted, we'd need to make sure people were showing up at that discussion area.)
  • A system where people who complained would receive more personal support (e.g. directly on their talk page). This may be more effective, but would require more maintenance work; here, for example, somebody would need to direct support to the user who needed it.
The most practical approach may be some combination of the two; have a public discussion area devoted to the issue, but also put into place a system that ensured more personal outreach would occur where it would be necessary.
Granted, all of these ideas need some critical mass of the project behind them to function. Do people generally like the idea of an outreach program for stressed editors, in some form? Kirill 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea. I think a combination of the two suggestions will work best (provided editors are willing to "staff" this endeavor). Carom 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please give me the executive summary version of what happened with Oldwindybear? Raul654 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Short story, he left the project after being accused of sockpuppetry. At least one user compiled a fair amount of data comparing Oldwindybear's editing patterns with those of User:Stillstudying. Consensus opinion at AN:I seems to have been that the evidence was convincing (although I believe Checkuser was inconclusive), and Oldwindybear left the project rather than become involved in protracted litigation over the allegation, which he denied. Carom 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB's userpage has been deleted and his talk page blanked by Deskana, apperently dane after OWB sent an email request. It would appear that he has left for good with no intention of returning. Such a shame. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact and Notability in Lee-Enfield

Two other editors have taken it upon themselves to delete any reference to the Lee-Enfield in film; regardless of notability. For example, one user as removed references to Breaker Morant invoking "Rule .303" as it "might refer to a Bren Gun or a Lewis Gun" (despite the fact that neither gun existed during the Boer War), and references to the incorrect use of the Lee-Enfield in film (only citing two examples, The Blue Max, and Lawrence of Arabia, in which the inaccuracies are blatantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with WWI firearms, have also been deleted for being "Trivia". My understanding of the "Popular Culture" consensus is that lists of every. single. appearance. of a gun in films is to be avoided, but discussion of a firearm's notability (or, in this case, blatantly incorrect use, and also near total absence from WWII themed computer games) is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Some outside opinions would be appreciated, especially since some people seem to have twitchy delete button fingers and are deciding ALL Cultural Impact sections are delete worthy, which isn't helping article quality or stability. --Commander Zulu 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MILHIST#POP guidelines, discussions of cultural notability need to be well cited. That section on Lee-Enfield is currently unreferenced. Until you can cite published experts who discuss the cultural impact of the rifle, you cannot even begin to make an argument for inclusion. Certainly those sort of references can be found for such a well-known rifle. Until then, you're firing blanks. —Kevin Myers 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena de Indias

The notability, importance and general factual accuracy are being discussed in an occasionally heated debate on the Royal Navy talk page. This started off as a debate about the inclusion of this battle in the hostory section of the Navy article. It has since become a long debate about the accuracy of the information contained within the main Battle article. As such the debate is no longer relevant to that talk page but is highly relevant to the Battle talk page and also the History of the Royal Navy page. I think the discussion should be moved to the Battle page but don't know whether it needs a special procedure to preserve the edit history. Also i think it would be useful to have some outside opinion on the whole matter. Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i suggest you just copy and paste it and leave the original at the Royal Navy talk page. You may add a small note about the continuation of the discussion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be out of line to move the whole discussion with a note (this is sometimes done on this page when a line of discussion is more appropriate to a task force). Carom 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article rename

Hello, I think some of the articles of category:Cruisers of the Soviet Union have an odd title. For example, IMHO the article Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky should be renamed to something like Maxim Gorky (cruiser), isn't? In fact its lead section starts with "Maxim Gorky was a Soviet Red Banner light cruiser…" I can help with the renaming process. Best regards, —surueña 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's really something that should go through WP:SHIPS; some of the reasons for the naming conventions for ships aren't immediately obvious. Kirill 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I don't know if there is any established naming convention for none-US/UK warships, although the country-type-name formation seems to be fairly common (c.f. the contents of Category:World War II battleships of Japan and others). Admittedly, this is not universal, but that may be a function of "nobody has got to it yet." I also don't know if parenthetical disambiguation would be better here, other than for consistency with military units and personnel. Carom 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right: it is the naming convention documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships. If I only have read the Manual of Style! Sorry for this silly question, thank you —surueña 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have post my doubts about this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#No ship prefixes, maybe you want to participate in the discussion. Bye —surueña 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GA categorization drive

If anyone here is not busy writing military history articles, can you please help the Uncategorized Good articles task force by adding the |topic=History to the GA templates on history articles along with the |oldid= from the date the article was reviewed? Thanks. Tarret 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HMS Invincible (R05)

An anonymous IP has just deleted over half of the comments on the Talk:HMS Invincible (R05), link provided here: [1]. The stated reason was foul and abusive language. I have not checked it thoroughly enough to see whether there is yet. I can see "Argie" used a lot and i can see how this is being construed as foul language. I don't think however that it warrants the deletion of a long discussion; I think that just the offending comment should be deleted or censored. I think it would be useful to have the argument reinstated, if only to see who was acting improperly and then reprimand them for their conduct. What do people think? Woodym555 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing or refactoring the comments of other editors from a talk page is generally frowned upon. I think it would be appropriate to restore the deleted comments, gently remind any editors using offensive language to observe the civility guidelines and advise the IP responsible for deleting the comments that such actions are not usually appropriate. Carom 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that is what i intended to do but thought i should discuss it first. The discussion itself was over a year old and i couldn't find any specific personal attacks although it did get heated. I have left a "Calm talk" header at the top for what it is worth. I have commented on the IP's talk page about the deletion and referenced the guidelines, an amended copy of it was placed on the talk page. Thanks for your quick response. Woodym555 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these Military history books?

I have created articles on four volumes of autobiography by Dan Raschen. The author was an officer in the Royal Engineers retiring with the rank of Colonel. The books are lighthearted; one is concerned with wartime activity (during the Korean War), the other three with peacetime military activities. I have added them to Category:Military history books, but am not sure if they belong there. Any advice would be gratefully received. HairyWombat 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You would have started by creating an article about the author first but that's only my opinion though i am not sure if he would be notable enough as a military man to have a Wikipedia article. As for the books, they can be considered as autobiographical military books istead of military history books. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, the author is not really notable. The category Autobiographical military books does not currently exist, so I will create it and move the four books there. Not sure how useful this new category will be. The only other books I can think of that belong there are the war memoirs of Spike Milligan (Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall, etc). HairyWombat 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problem?

Could you please click on "show" at the banner placed at Talk:Berber Revolt? The large blue area is bothering and this is not the first case i've encountered (see Talk:Caprivi Liberation Army, Talk:First Sudanese Civil War, etc...). Do you have any idea about that problem? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Which blue line, the one with the magnifying glass in it. If it is that one you need to enter the B Class tags as i have done to Talk:First Sudanese Civil War. If it isn't this, i can't see any other blue line so cant see the problem. Woodym555 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That's the one. But i still see it after your edition! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It just means more information, it is bigger if you don't enter the tags. It is currently part of the template and is meant to highlight the information. As such there is no problem, it is intentional. I see you have started a discussion on the Template talk:WPMILHIST already, so if anyone else doesn't like it they can talk about it there. Short of that there is not much else that can be done. Woodym555 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly obvious explanation: the template is designed in a two-column format. The first column will hold an image or other marker, and the second will contain extended text; thus:
AAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

AAA BBBBBBBBBBBB

AAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
If the text in the second column requires multiple lines, the first column will stretch:
AAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
AAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
AAA BBBBBBBBB

AAA BBBBBBBBBBBB

AAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(A secondary issue is the color of the first column. A while back we decided to color-code things; e.g. reviews are blue, portals are purple, etc. It would be possible to remove these colors and just have everything on the plain background, but I'm not sure if that would be an improvement.) Kirill 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed a similar problem with the {{WikiProject Terrorism}} template by taking out the width="50", I think something simple can be done to fix this template. That template was working if it was stand alone but it went to a big box at the left if it was nested. {{WPMILHIST}} seems to work if it is nested but not if it is used standalone. See Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp for example. 199.125.109.122 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been staring at it, and for the life of me I can't see what the problem on that page is. Could someone please describe it a bit more exactly? Kirill 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

out of a job...

BUT WILLING TO WORK. If anyone has any uses for me here on wikipedia (help with an article or something like that), just drop me a line. --MKnight9989 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...I've already been given two tasks, one of which was promised to be a pain in the ass, so sorry folks, I'm unavailable for now. --MKnight9989 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Espionage

Hi everyone, today I stumbled on the new Template:Espionage. It seems nice but is currently not categorised and not handled by any WikiProject. After a quick look around I think it should either be handled by WikiProject Military history (talk) or WikiProject Cryptography (talk) or perhaps even jointly handled? So what do you guys think?

I left this message on the talk pages of both WikiProjects. (I am a participant in the WikiProject Cryptography but not the WikiProject Military history.)

--David Göthberg 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a military topic, for the most part; "espionage" is not (necessarily) related to military intelligence. Given that the popular perception of it, in particular, tends towards the civilian aspects, this would really be a job for WikiProject Espionage (if we had one). Kirill 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It should not be handled by Cryptography because that would be like WikiProject Cars handling an article on steam engine locomotives. They're both forms of transport, but not in the same category. Ideally, there should actually be a WikiProject Intelligence, underwhich both Espionage AND Cryptography would be handled. Unfortunately, we don't have one. Randomly assigning it to an existing WP just to give it some place to go doesn't seem like the best way to solve the problem and would only create issues later on down the line should something like WP: Intelligence ever take off. My two cents. --ScreaminEagle 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OTOH I do see HUMINT as a military activity, espionage being an aspect of that.
It's not out of the question that the template is A about F. It includes elements of HUMINT which aren't espionage, like interrogation.
I also agree that the crypto project is inappropriate, in the HUMINT world crypies do have a role, mainly related to the product of the activity, but again it's a subset.
ALR 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, I did not mean that any wikiproject needs to "own" the template. I just wanted to sort it into some template category under our projects so some people can keep an eye on it. Instead of leaving it out in the cold totally unattended. If there ever will come a more appropriate wikiproject I think we won't mind handing it over to that project. Why would we mind? But anyway, your answer is clear. So I sorted it under our cryptography templates category for now, so we'll keep an eye on it. --David Göthberg 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Plattsburg

Great article with no references or citations. please help. Blueboar 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Try the do-it-yourself approach. Wandalstouring 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
These sources may help you:
  • Pierre Berton: Flames Across the Border. 1813-1814, Anchor Canada 2001, ISBN 0385658389
  • Theodore Roosevelt: The War with the United States, in: William Laird Clowes: The Royal Navy. A History from the earliest times to 1900, Vol. 6, Chatham Publishing 1997 (reprint of the edition London 1901), p. 1-180, hier p. 130-142, ISBN 1861760159
Greetings Wandalstouring 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim

Hello ! There are neutrality concerns about Battle of Bir Hakeim ; and the french article is a featured one, so i started a translation from the French article for a replacement/merge : See User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim.

I'll translate the two last paragraphs tomorrow morning, but since i do think that my military jargon is weak and that i must have done a lot of langage mistakes, if some of you could please read the translated part (until User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim#L'évacuation as per of now), and correct me, i'd be very, very, grateful !! Especially, I do believe that the translations of my quotations are particularly weak since i tried to stick to the translation of the original French words on these. I think that some improvements can be found.

Since it's long, if you have only the time to correct one paragraph, please do so, and state it here ! Thanks a lot ! NicDumZ ~ 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also created Radomir Pavitchevitch, I'd like to have your read and comments on it, please. Thanks again !! NicDumZ ~ 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
update

I'm done with translating the article. I'm waiting for your corrections/comments. Thanks ! :) NicDumZ ~ 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. Are you sure you translated the complete French article? Even the intro isn't completely translated. Wandalstouring 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the French article slightly changed during my work ([2]). I added the Bir Hacheim second spelling, was it about this ? Thanks for checking ! NicDumZ ~ 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

Hello, I know this is a pretty active project so I thought I would drop this message here in case anyone was interested. User:Kranar drogin and I have been embarking on a pretty serious collaboration involving northern Illinois related content. The collaboration has already netted about 10 GAs and we are soon aiming for an FA. This aside part of the next phase of our collaboration concerns the Black Hawk War, fought in Illinois and Wisconsin in the United States in 1832. I have already done some work on Battle of Kellogg's Grove and created a companion article about the grove as well. I have a collaboration page in my user space, User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War where I am collecting sources and making other notes. Anyone interested should stop by there. Discussion can occur on that talk page as well. Thanks for your time. IvoShandor 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep watching the main page for updates on our progress as all of my new articles are nommed for DYK and usually appear within a few days. Currently, Battle of Kellogg's Grove, St. Vrain massacre, Kellogg's Grove and Felix St. Vrain are all nominated and should appear soon. So look for that. : ) IvoShandor 11:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fighting vehicle templates

After #Standardizing navigation templates, above, the different AFV navigation templates could use some guidelines and work on visual consistency.

Grouped by appearance:

Have I missed any?

There is probably a need for a general Cold War or Post-WWII tank template. —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 06:45 Z

Also Template:ModernFrenchAFVs, Template:ModernUKAFVsNav and Template:ModernUKNonAFVNav(not about AFVs but similar).Raoulduke47 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, in the long term, it would be good to change all of these to use {{military navigation}} as a base template, which will ensure standard formatting (if not necessarily standard internal layout). It'll probably require a few additions to it to handle the pre-made grid layout (i.e. the groupX/listX parameters) gracefully; once we get that put together, it should be possible to change these over with minimal fiddling with the actual contents. Kirill 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Is there a best place to list all of these and conduct future discussions? —Michael Z. 2007-08-02 19:56 Z
WT:WEAPON would probably be as good a place as any for something like this. Kirill 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regiments etc.

I've gone through the project page and its rules briefly, but haven't found anything much on this. When doing a random article search, I came upon a series of pages looking like this. Now, my question is: should these separate batallions, ... be listed separately? It seems fairly superfluous to me to create an individual article for every subdivision of a larger part (damn, I really need to brush up on my terminology :/) or army for that matter, when it doesn't have significant importance. Else, we could start listing every lowest division and naming their members :) I don't really imagine the xth brigade of the yth regiment being very encyclopedic.Jack the Stripper 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "brigade" means in the Romanian military, so I'm not certain what level of formation is being described here. In the past, though, the consensus seems to have been that formations at the divisional level and above are automatically "notable", while smaller units (e.g. regiments, battalions, etc.) only get articles if there's something significant to say about them; thus, things with long histories (e.g. British regiments) are all going to have individual articles, whereas units without that history typically won't. Kirill 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian SAMs & NATO code names

It seems we're getting away from consensus on naming articles according to the designations used by the country of origin, not NATO designations. I came across SA-19/SA-N-11, the "new" renaming for this article. More members may wish to weigh in on the talk page. I haven't gone through the other Soviet SAMs, but it might be worth a run-through for fixing up any others. I have gone through the NATO code lists and this particular article correcting the codename for the SA-19 to "Grison" from "Grisom" – an ancient FAS mistake still being propagated by Global Security. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fully support keeping them by their proper Russian designations; redirects can assist people looking for them by their NATO names. Do you really mean Grison->Grison? Buckshot06 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is 'Grison', not 'Grisom'. I posted a number of sources giving the correct code name. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about moving the Soviet naval ship designations from their DOD pseudo-Russian names to the Russian project numbers, as per the missiles and aircraft, etc? Buckshot06 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Best national military history of World War II?

I'm starting what I hope will be a major expansion and improvement of Military history of Australia during World War II and was wondering if any of the other national military histories of the war are considered particularly good? - a model to use to develop the article would be great. --Nick Dowling 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I up for deletion

This article is up for deletion here [3]

A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour now open

The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaign box issues

Could someone with a bit knowledge on templates take a look at {{campaignbox Black Hawk War}} it seems to be acting up. I don't know if it was something I screwed up when I made some additions to it but currently when you go to one of the pages its on only a few of the battles delink in the box, so say if your on the page Buffalo Grove massacre you can still click the link to Buffalo Grove massacre in the campaign box but if your on Battle of Wisconsin Heights its just bold text for the link to that page in the campaign box. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like the page your on to be bolded for all them btw, I think that is how its supposed to be. : ) IvoShandor 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
All fixed now, I think; there were a bunch of redirects in the box that were causing the problem. Kirill 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, so quick too. I suppose that should have been obvious, I forgot I moved those pages, I feel dumb. : ) IvoShandor 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign-ups for the project coordinator election now open

The sign-up period for the fourth project coordinator election has now begun, and will continue until August 14. Members interested in becoming a coordinator should make a statement on that page, and all editors are encouraged to ask questions of the candidates. Kirill 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

One thought I've had - maybe not for this election but for the next - is maybe we ought to nominate a 'deputy' or 2IC lead coordinator to shadow the lead coordinator. (Just to clarify; I'm not going to run this time). We're all very grateful for Kirill's extensive work so far, but if for any reason he or another successor lead coord became unavailable, we'd find very quickly at the moment I think a lot of the project processes ground to a halt; we're too personalised and not enough institutionalised at the moment. Thoughts? Buckshot06 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, maybe just list the second-place vote-getter as a "deputy lead", then? It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, personally (but, admittedly, I might not be the most unbiased person on such issues. ;-) Kirill 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem particularly pressing, but I don't have any objections to creating such a designation in the future. Carom 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A RM at Polish_Expedition_to_Kiev -> Kiev Expedition (1018)

Comments appreciated; I believe a name with a date is more common then with named side.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky

The Featured Article Candidacy for Confederate government of Kentucky has been restarted by Raul654. Editers are invited to recomment on the FAC page. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting OOBs for all 25 Union ACW Corps on Wikipedia

Checkout the addition I put for Order of battle for Union forces in Kentucky in the Kentucky in the American Civil War article. I basically copied it from Civil War Battle Flags of the Union Army & Order of Battle, from a copy of an 1887 text I own. It lists every brigade, division, district, department, etc., in all 25 Corps through the entire war.

I'd love to put all the info online since its not copyrighted--the only problem I have is with formatting. I tried to put into a table similar to the one in the book, just as a small example. The basic heirarachy is Corps over division over brigade, with sublevels in each box for the Commander, the date they were assigned, their rank, and the unit they came from. If getting the organization of all 25 corps sounds interesting to anyone that could help me with formatting, perhaps some kind of template, send me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mrprada911 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do check Help:Table, at the bottom it lists - among various useful tools - a html to wiki table converter.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Attrocities during military operations

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Attrocities_during_military_operations. How much detail should articles about military ops pay to listing of atrocities and other grievances? When should such articles be split off? When is such an info a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE? Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unit Designators

Hi all. I've been going through adding Chinese, north Korean, and South Korean units that fought during the Korean War, and I ran into a semi-confusing issue with the Chinese units. Up through Division level everything matches up approximately with similarly sized units from other countries. But, above Division level, many references I've run across called the next unit an Army (only a few actually called it a Corps), which in turn is part of a Group Army. To keep things familar, and easier to identify with similarly sized units, I was wondering if there is any preference or not on renaming these "Army" units to "Corps", even if the terminology may not be 100% accurate. For examples of the units I've created and am working with so far, see category:Field armies of the People's Volunteer Army or Category:Infantry Divisions of the People's Volunteer Army. BTW, if anybody wants to help add, expand upon, or correct any of the articles, I won't object. wbfergus 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

From both the standpoint of both naming conventions and historical accuracy, I'd avoid arbitrary renaming; we ought to, I think, follow whatever translation is most prevalent among published historical works on the topic. If the formations are generally called "Armies" rather than "Corps" in published literature, it would be better for us to retain that usage, even if it doesn't necessarily match the structure of some other combatant's military. Kirill 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill. If a unit is called an 'Army' then that's the name which should always be used, no matter what size it actually is. Developing your own name for the unit would be inacurate and confusing and could be considered orignal research or speculation. Anyway, it's not unusual for military units to be a different size from whatever their name suggests they should be - for instance, the Eighth United States Army currently only consists of a single divisision and a few independent brigades, Soviet tank corps of WW2 were basically large armoured divisions and the 57,000 strong Military of Paraguay is organised into three corps, six infantry divisions, three cavalry divisions and a navy. --Nick Dowling 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


To add to Nick's comments, Soviet divisions in WW2 were (from 1942 onwards) generally grouped directly into armies, skipping the corps level entirely -- just have a look at any article related to the Eastern Front, and you'll see very few Red Army corps, and lots of armies. The exceptions were some (horse) cavalry and tank units, but they were rare. The PLA in the 1950s followed the Red Army's lead in this regard. -- Hongooi 10:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comments. They are pretty much what I was originally thinking, but as I go along, I begin to wonder if maybe the terminology changed over the years, and therefore I'm possibly using the old terminology. Here's the main sites I've been using for references and how they order the units, top-down. China Defense:
XXX Field Army
XXX Army
XXX Corps
XXX Division
Sino Defence:
XXX Military Region
XXX Group Army
XXX Division
Global Security:
XXX Military Region
XXX Group Army
XXX Division
Many of the US Military refs (that I've run across) for the Korean War list the structure as:
XXX Army Group
XXX Army
XXX Division
I have run across a few others that also use the structure from China Defense. While Sino Defence and Global Security seem to be updated (at least parts of them) periodically, the China Defense site seems to be updated more regularly, and Global Security (in a link to the site) even said "these guys are real smart". So, as you see from the above examples, there really isn't a clear concensus, and the "Army" naming gets a tad confusing, especially to someone not familar with the change in terminology (I've become immersed in it over the last few weeks, and I still get confused). At the very least, I think somewhere I should make a note of the Chinese nomenclature, but I'm not sure where. Buried in a separate article would probably be overlooked, including it in each article (at the appropriate level), would probably be best, but entails a lot of additional edits. I think either way, I'm also going to have a few minor changes to the categories, to get those "linked" in the correct order (I need to go back someday and double-check). wbfergus 10:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It's definetly worth noting in all the articles that a Chinese 'army' is equivalent in size and organisation to a western 'corps' to avoid confusion. --Nick Dowling 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fact History of the Armée de l'Air (colonial presence 1939-1962)

The validity of the statement: "The French became heavily involved in repelling Japanese army assaults, since they were now being helped by Siam, whose air force included seconded Japanese pilots (in much the same way as German pilots flew aircraft on behalf of Francisco Franco’s Nationalist air force during the Spanish Civil War, which had ended a year earlier)." has been questioned. I will tag this for citation needed. --Kevin Murray 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've read what I could find on the net and don't see any mention of Japanese pilots flying for the Siamese AF; however, there is a fair amount of discussion about the use of Japanese planes by the RTAF in that period. --Kevin Murray 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Help at Hispanic Americans in World War II

Can anyone help with some of the sourcing? I started at the bottom, and six hours later I'm only about halfway through. Any help in supplying the missing sources would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II. It already had six Supports by the time I got to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to copyedit this article, but don't know military terminology very well. I haven't yet tackled the lead, but I've done several of the first sections. Would anyone mind having a look to see if I'm doing anything wrong in terms of military terminology, abbreviations, capitalization, manual of style, etc? Please, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
On it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC of Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

The Featured article nomination of Cunningham has become stuck over the issue of commas. Would anyone with a knowledge of punctuation, or just an interest in this article, please take look at it. I have tried to fix the reviewers User:Tony1s concerns but i think it may need another pair of fresh eyes. Thanks Woodym555 11:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_60&oldid=1232550574"