Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 4

Jacobite Risings

I've been working for some time on updating Battle of Prestonpans and just found this project. So I converted the article to use the new infobox and I've created a campaignbox for the Second Jacobite Rising. But I believe the list of battles on that campaignbox to be incomplete and would appreciate help in filling it out, as well as creating a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising, which I know less about. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've created a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising. I've chosen to list Glen Shiel there for the sake of completeness, even though it's probably not part of the 'Fifteen rising per se. Feel free to remove it if you think it doesn't belong there. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've got the new infobox on all of the Second Rising articles. As for the articles themselves, Prestonpans and Culloden are in fairly good shape, but Battle of Falkirk (1746) needs work. I don't have any personal knowledge of this battle, but could eventually get around to doing research if no experts turn up in the meantime. I haven't touched the First Rising at all, but I'll at least do the infoboxes when I get the chance. --Craig Stuntz 18:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Battle stub

A new stub type ({{battle-stub}}) with an associated category (Category:Battle stubs) has been created. Any feedback on the text used would be much appreciated. -- Kirill Lokshin 22:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Battle help for the clueless

I came across Action of 4 July 1805 by some random means, and in trying to expand it found I could not find info on it outside wikipedia. Perhaps you guys might be able to point me in the right direction. Perhaps it has a different name? Sabine's Sunbird 22:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

One page 5 of this: http://www.cmhweb.org/news/c200507.pdf there's a mention of it, but that newsletter is pretty recent (July) and could easily have got its info from the Wiki article (created back in April). Perhaps ask the original author on his talk page? Loopy 19:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dates in battle page names

User:Jaknouse has placed a WP:RM request to move Battle of the Granicus (334) to Battle of the Granicus (334 BC). He had to do this because he accedently made a mistake when moving it from Battle of the Granicus.

I have just checked the Special:Contributions/Jaknouse listing and I see that he has moved a number of other battles.

• 16:00, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC) (Battle of the Hydaspes River moved to Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC))
• 16:01, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Issus (333 BC) (Battle of Issus moved to Battle of Issus (333 BC)) (top)
• 15:43, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC) (Talk:Battle of Gaugamela moved to Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC)) (top)
• 15:42, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Tyre (332 BC) (Siege of Tyre moved to Siege of Tyre (332 BC))

My understanding is that battles should only have a year if there is a need for wikipedia:disambiguation eg Battle of the Dunes. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the date is only necessary for disambiguation. The only one there that could use a year in the title is the Siege of Tyre, although we don't have articles about any of the other sieges at the moment. Adam Bishop 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

I've finished fixing some of the battle categories, to the effect of:

1. Categories of the type "Fooish battles" have been moved to "Battles of Foo".
2. Categories of the type "Battles in Foo" have been removed.
3. Articles in Category:Battle stubs are all categorized somewhere under Category:Battles by country.

Some of the resulting categories are vague with regard to different historical states under the same name (e.g. Category:Battles of China); I'd appreciate any advice on how to best break them up.

Another issue that came up during this process: the subcategories of Category:Battles of the American Civil War are a mess, since many of the campaign categories only contain 1-2 battles. Would it be better to combine some of the smaller ones, or is the more "correct" scheme to be preferred in this case? -- Kirill Lokshin 07:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I would love to join this "group", as I have already started a few WWI battles. If you could please edit them etc, it would be most appreciated. Anyway, visit my user page & tell me if I can join or not. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pics & Particles:

I was looking through some of the battles on here, & noticed that most of them are lacking in pictures & photographs. As my expertise ends at adding pictures to battleboxes, I was wondering if there was anyone that already had that job or knew how to load on pics so as to remedy the photolessness? I would love to help if someone told me how to load on pics. I would also be willingly eager to do research or tidy-ups on any articles if you want. If you want me to do anything just message me. Spawn Man 12:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Loading images onto Wikipedia is as simple as entering the Upload Files function below the search bar. Copyright issues are a bit trickier as most websites insist on copyrighting everything.

Which brings up a point that's haunted me for a while: is the digitization of an image eligible for copyright? That is, if a website claims rights to images of old artwork, can we ignore them on the grounds of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? I've been working under the assumption that no, we can't.

Unless the website in question has somehow modified the image (in which case it probably wouldn't be of interest to us anyway), it should qualify as a photograph of a two-dimensional artwork under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. There's nothing special about a photograph stored digitally (at least under the assumption that the digitization format is a standard one) as opposed to one on paper. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Plus:

Plus if anyone wants to (not wanting to sound too demanding), my articles on the battles of St. Quentin & Le Cateau are a bit lacking, (both of which you can find links to on my user page), so it also would be awesome if someone could fix them up (especially the battle boxes). Thanks, Spawn Man 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Tagging battle articles

Having noticed the templates some WikiProjects are using, I've created the following template, which could (possibly) be used to tag battle articles:

{{WPMILHIST}}

As I see it, increasing the visibility of the project would only be beneficial. However, I'd appreciate getting some comments on whether this is a good idea before I start transcluding this all over the place. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

No objections, then? Kirill Lokshin 09:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well.... I feel fine with the battle-stub that's currently use (see my Battle of Le Cateau), as it already conveys all the wording that is on your thingy magig (template I think), but in less wording. But I think the colour is good & will catch people's eye (& the other eye too). So my only concern is that it is too long, but other than that I think it's a good idea. If you could shorten the length I think everyone will like it hands down, unless of course you are going for the longer wording look. Anyway....Spawn Man 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I intended this not as a replacement for {{battle-stub}} (which is placed on the article page) but as a tag for the talk page similar to those used by other WikiProjects (e.g. here). Kirill Lokshin 13:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think... But just one honest question, why would we want to put one of those on the talk page if we want people to expand the article? Sorry if I sound a bit slow, it is 1:30 am here...Spawn Man 13:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, just as I finished saving my last excerpt I relised what you were talking about...Ok, I now fully get it. But still, is there anyway you can make it shorter, just as my opinion, since you asked for one? Spawn Man 13:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened the text somewhat; I'm afraid anything shorter will be too cryptic, but if you have any suggestions on the wording, they would be very welcome. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that was my only concern, thanks for taking it seriously...Spawn Man 13:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed one of these tags just pop up on the Battle of Kirina Talk Page. Though it's not really doing any harm there, isn't it going to be a bit redundant to mark every battle in Wikipedia as part of Wikiproject:Battles, or are there some that qualify and some that don't? Why not just use the category lists? Though I see the value of increasing the visibility of the project (and I'd be really happy to see some Battle-minded editors take a look at that article), I'm also not sure I want to see every Wikipedia article start getting tagged as one project or another (for example, this could also be WProj:History and WProj:Africa; I've also been noticing every film getting labelled as WProj:Film, which seems similarly self-evident). But then, I'm working without a lot of sleep, too, so perhaps my concerns shouldn't be taken very seriously. Thoughts? --Dvyost 23:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the point of these tags is twofold:

1. To attract interested editors to the project.
2. To link to a place where questions are more likely to be answered promptly than on the talk pages of obscure articles (which often function like an echo chamber, since few people will have them on their watchlists).

Thus, they are primarily intended for the benefit of editors rather than the articles they are placed on; this is the opposite of the category system, which organizes articles but does not necessarily give editors access to any resources.

As far as potential conflicts between WikiProjects, it's a valid concern, but a somewhat premature one. As far as I know, there are a fairly small number of active projects, and they work in rather distinct areas, or are directly associated with one another (e.g. this project is a descendant of WikiProject History). In any case, I see no reason (except for aesthetic concerns about banners on talk pages) why multiple projects couldn't tag the same article; the tags are not "official", and do not give the members of the project any particular rights to the article.

But, since I'm the principal creator of these tags, I could just be biased. Kirill Lokshin 23:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree in some aspects with both of you here. I don't think that the battle-stub should be placed on every article page, as some are pretty informative. But I think it's a great idea to slap this new wikiproject battles banner on every talk page that has a battle article. I agree, I get more responses from listing questions on here than on an article's talk page. But aside from that...How the heck do I vote on the next featured article page?? I put my name down, but didn't do a thing!! I did the instructions, but it didn't work. Spawn Man 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it pays to advertise...I saw Kirill placed one of his stubs on one of my articles so now I'm here. Hello all:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, participation, which was stagnant for months, has skyrocketed. Kirill Lokshin's tags, whatever concerns others may raise about them, have accomplished marvels. Albrecht 03:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'll double that indeed... Excellent work Kirill. Now all our talk pages look all glossy & cool... But you'll still need to do a heck more battle's talk pages before you're done. I'll try & help of course... Hip hip hooray!! Hip hip hooray!! Hip hip hooray!!!!!! Spawn Man 04:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for all the kind comments! I've tagged a little over 1500 articles so far; aside from Category:Battles of the American Civil War and Category:Battles and operations of World War II, everything that's in our category tree is tagged (or should be). I suspect, however, that there could be a thousand or more battles that are completely uncategorized; they can be found only through Special:Allpages, and require both tagging and (more importantly) categorization. It seems this could take a while longer than I expected. Kirill Lokshin 05:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Retreat to the Marne

My next project will try & be the Retreat to the Marne campaign article. If anyone wants to help, complain (especially if they wanted to do it, cause I don't wanna rock the boat), hand over notes, say they'll give a peer review in the future or wishes words of encouragement, send it to my user talk. Other than that, I thought I'd let you know. Spawn Man 13:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't all answer at once......

Sorry. This seems to have become a pagina non grata for some reason – my calls for better margins on the battlebox template, for instance, have gone unanswered (although I suppose a suitable answer might be, "Do it yourself, you lazy...").

Although I consider myself something of a student of the First World War, I doubt I'll have time to do more than review some of the articles and maybe contribute a few meager scraps. I'm busy being variously accused of anti-Lusitanianism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Éirism in the various articles to which I contribute. Albrecht 17:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

My knowledge of the period in question is basically limited to a reading of The Guns of August, so I suspect I'll be unable to help with any significant addition of material. I'll be happy to assist with general revisions once the articles begin to take shape.

As far as the lack of activity on this page, it's most likely due to the fact that more than half of the (listed) project participants are inactive/rarely active/preoccupied with administrative work. I'll be making some attemtps to increase the projects visibility in the near future, so the problem will hopefully resolve itself. Kirill Lokshin 17:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll look forward to you guys reviewing it. Plus someone said my cat is insane & plots my death.... P.S I thinkit's a great idea to increase project numbers. Spawn Man 06:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question:

If you go to my Le Cateau article, you will see that in the battle box, down the bottom, the list of battles in the Retreat to the Marne campaign. One of them is the battle of Maubeuge. In my knowledge (& a few books seem to agree with me too), the Allies retreated straight to Le Cateau from the Battle of Mons. I have read a few books & none of them seem to mention this battle, & there is practically no usable info on my google search. Should I simply delete it from the battle list? If there is no info about it, & nothing on it on here, what use is it? The only other option is to keep it there? If you have any opinions (please do), please let them be heard so I wont offend anyone's thoughts. Also, if you are actually familiar with this battle, please send any info to my user page, as we wouldn't want to delete what could be a vital part in our world's history. If no one has any objections to me deleting it, I will continue on my merry way with the campaign (as I'm eager to go). Thanx. Spawn Man 09:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The first google result [1] seems to suggest it's an alternate name for the Battle of Mons (possibly an issue of French v. English v. German naming of battles). You can probably remove it; if it's actually a separate battle, it can always be re-added to the campaignbox when we get an article on it. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was the siege of Maubeuge (see Western Front (World War I)). Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I was up all night searching through all my books that I have & only found two mentions of Maubeuge. It was on a map, half way between Le Cateau & Mons. The other mention was that it was a place that troops passed as they retreated to Le Cateau. Not very informative... But I'll wait another 24 hrs for more comments before deleting it, (as Kirill said, it can be re-added). Spawn Man 23:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just found new info. It seems that the town of Maubeuge Was never passed through in the Great Retreat. Instead the Allies passed by it, (never actually going in). Subsequently, with the town cut from allies, it was sieged & eventually surrendered. Now a whole other matter occurs. Now that I have the info, do I include it in the Retreat To The Marne campaign? It has not real significance in the actually retreat other than that the Germans sieged it before moving on to chase the Allies. I'm amiss, please help! Spawn Man 01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I would include it for the sake of completeness; it could probably be argued to be part of the campaign from the German perspective. Kirill Lokshin 01:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with you there...................Spawn Man 01:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we decide the "fictiveness" of a battle

If we have a look at battles such as Battle of Brávellir, Battle on the Ice and Battle at Finnsburg, we have battles where the fictiveness/historicity is impossible to decide. Since the principle of Wikipedia is NPOV, how do we decide whether they were fictitious or not?--Wiglaf 16:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

We can look at historical research; if any (mainstream) historians argue that the batles were historical, then we can list them as historical (with references to the historians in question). I think that the "Fictional battles" labeling should be reserved for the obvious cases (i.e. battles from Star Wars) rather than getting used for merely "doubtful" battles. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you suggestion to reserve the "Fictional battles" to the obvious ones, such as the star war battles.--Wiglaf 17:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

By "fictive" are we referring to (1) whether the battle did happen, or (2) whether the battle is entirely a creation of the imagination? I think legendary battles are a different catagory entirely from imaginary ones, & whereas most legends have some seed of truth in them, imaginary ones rarely do. -- llywrch 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Legendary battles should be included & so should fictional battles, as they are a work of art, either by film making, artistry or writing. But I'm not saying we should include "Neo VS Agent Smith" as one of them. But battles such as Lord Of The Rings Battles or as Wiglaf said, Star Wars battles. But my other thought is, should these battles fall in our hands? Shouldn't they be created by people working on the films/novels which hold them? Such as the Starwars Group? I think Wikiproject Battles should only expand legendary & actual battles, not battles relating to movies or books. Spawn Man 00:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know:

Just so you know, I have finished creating the First Battle of the Aisne & Michel-Joseph Maunoury articles, & have finished expanding the Battle of Mons. I would love feedback on them from you, because I'm pretty proud of them Spawn Man 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to know your facts and have presented them in your own narratives. I would mainly suggest some wording changes. If you wish I'll go in and "polish" them for you:) Also, if possible, include your references at the bottom.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I would love for someone to "polish" them for me (use turtle wax instead of normal wax please), but without changing too much... Oh, I also don't know how to put down references at the bottom, could you explain for me how to? Spawn Man 02:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well, shall do! Now where'd I put that year's supply of Turtle Wax....--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh in answer to your question on references-there are no hard rules. Some prefer numbered footnotes, others (hello:) prefer to simply list their sources at the bottom with author, title and page numbers if relevent. Or if the source is online just cut and paste as an external link. On course, since this isnt a school book report, you are not required to include references, but it helps lend it, and you, greater credibility and authority. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

More categorization

Category:Battles by country is almost standardized. There are two "meta-categories", Category:Battles of Ancient Greece and Category:Roman battles, that don't fit the actual categorization scheme (each category being a single historical state/group) but instead collect several other categories related in some way. Should we

1. Delete the categories?
2. Keep the categories but remove them from Category:Battles by country?
3. Expand the categories to cover other related groups of states (e.g. Category:Battles of the Crusader States) and keep them as a special subset of Category:Battles by country?
4. Do something else with them?

On another note, Category:Battles by war is divided between "Battles of ...", "Battles and operations of ...", and a few other options. Should we standardize on a single wording, and, if so, which one? Kirill Lokshin 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is made somewhat more tricky because Roman Battles have now been further divided up into Category:Battles of the Roman Republic and Category:Battles of the Roman Empire. A sensible division, given the great span of Roman history but they should be SUBcatigories instead of separate ones. With regard to battles vs operations, most of the Operation XXX articles relate to WWII. In fact, it is almost impossible to discuss certain campaigns without using an operational codename at some point. So no, I don't think the wording should be, or really can be, standardized without wreaking havoc and unleashing the dogs of war :) So why don't we try, instead, to simply order battles into campaigns and campaigns into wars? Then have the wars by nation and time period. For instance, the America Civil War, would fall under both American Wars and 19th Century Wars categories.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Roman battles were split (into Roman Republic and Roman Empire), deleted, then re-created and used as a parent category for the two. I have no objections to a single category (hopefully renamed to something like "Battles of Ancient Rome" to avoid breaking the naming scheme) instead of two, but I think sub-categories of Category:Battles by country should, in general, be kept only one level deep to avoid over-complicating the scheme.

As far as categorizing wars, we don't actually have a standard, for the simple reason that this project isn't "officially" concerned with wars. I would have no problems with expanding the scope (becoming "WikiProject Wars and Battles" in practice if not in name), but considering it's pretty major scope creep, I think it would need some sort of consensus from everyone here. Kirill Lokshin 12:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad the whole mess of with Roman battles has been sorted out. I agree, mission creep is to be avoided. At least for now, until after we have standardized, organized and filled in enough articles on battles to work our way up to wars:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So, if we're going to keep "Roman battles" as a super-category to link the various "Battles of the Roman ..." sub-categories, should we rename it to something like "Battles of Rome" or "Battles of Ancient Rome" for consistency? Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Battles of Rome sounds good. Ancient goes without saying. Besides, many (myself included) consider the era of Roman ascendancy to be a bridge between the truly Ancient and the proto-Medieval ages. If you really want a descrptive, though, then perhaps Battles of Classical Rome. But since Classical is often used to refer to the Greeks as well, this might only confuse things. On a somewhat related subject- There are a number of naval battles, particularlly during the 16 through 1800's, which are not called battles at all but Actions. Since most battles are named for some nearby geographical location and these took place in the wide open sea, they are named by the date or year they took place. For instance Action of 5 November 1813. Do you think we need a special catigory, or sub-cat for these? Of just try and file them under misc Naval Battles for now? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think they can be kept directly under Naval battles; they're not a class of battles unto themselves, but rather improperly named articles. For (almost) all of them, the only thing preventing a move to "Battle of ..." is that the location isn't given in the article. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. These need to be renamed and reclassified as "Battles" whenever possible, or, if information is truly insufficient, we should incorporate them into the "Naval operations" sections of the relevant war articles. Albrecht 19:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We didn't come up with the names...they did. Anyway, I kinda like ACTION. It evokes the age of Nelson, Hornblower, Decatur and Perry. "Action this day, gentlemen!"--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Capture/surrender icon

A minor, modest proposal- We have the neat lil dagger † icon for battleboxes to show when a leader was killed. How about one to indicate a leader being captured and/or surrendering. Maybe a small flag (as in white flag:). Thoughts? comments?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No objections from me, provided that a suitable icon of the appropriate size can be found. (I'll note that the usage of the dagger icon has never been inserted into the battlebox instructions, so it's pretty inconsistent across battles). Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My main concern is the possible redundancy of undertaking such a task. I find the obelus useful because it denotes a sort of striking exception; it's generally uncommon for the commander of an army to die in battle. Conversely, isn't it kind of the norm for a battle to end in the surrender and/or capture of one of the commanders? Moreover, whereas the dagger denotes an outcome directly affecting the person of the commander (loss of life), it's generally understood that the one in charge of the losing side will have authorized his retreat/surrender/capitulation and will have suffered the consequences accordingly.

I'm also somewhat of a "battlebox minimalist"; I like to keep things relatively simple aesthetically. I just hope this doesn't lead to an oversaturation of "wounded" tags, "promotion" tags, etc.

But if, having given these thoughts due consideration, you think it's worthwhile and want to go ahead, and don't fear the slippery slope, I won't object either. Albrecht 23:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my suspicion is that commanders are captured far less often than they are killed, simply because most historical battles were not battles of annihilation; defeated armies, even decisively defeated ones, generally had the opportunity to withdraw.

I certainly agree that this should not be taken as an invitation to create other tags, at least not without further discussion. I think, if no serious objections present themselves, we should begin inserting this on a trial basis (assuming, of course, the availability of a suitable icon). If we find that too many battles require this, we can always remove the icons and forget the whole idea. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Gents. My philosophy on battleboxes is they should convey the maximum amount of info in a minimal amount of space. A commander's death, capture or surrender is certainly a relevent and important note, which can be easily and quickly conveyed by a simple symbol. Moreover, readers seeing that might be made curious and want to read the article further for more info. I don't see where it would be abused...and if it is, well we can always exercise our editorial perogatives:) So a small flag (presumably white) should do nicely. Not if we can only find someone who know how to make one? Anyone?.....Anyone? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm no graphics artist, but here's one I put together: File:White flag icon.jpg. Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I envisioned! Well done!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Great Retreat (finally):

Yes! I have finally completed The Great Retreat. All must admire it, worship it... Well not actually. But I would love everyone to give me loads of feedback on it!! And if anyone would please please please please pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaseeeeeee put a picture or map on the article, I would be forever in debt to that person. I really want this to be a FA some time in the future. Please help this dream happen. So get out your turtle wax (I know R.D.H has a year's supply of it...) & start polishing my article & I'll jump up & down & woot woot alot. Thank you! Bye!!!! Spawn Man 09:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking good! Nice and informative, though its sometimes hard to keep track of the red line. Maybe a small box would be nice, listing the battles fought during the retreat (would go nice hand-in-hand with a map!). Good work! --The Minister of War 10:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

With the now spunky-new Great Retreat article, I've put it up for a peer review. I have to thank of course Kirill & R.D.H. for their maps/pics/rewrites that got the article to this stage. Anyway... Spawn Man 04:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Campaignbox

I've created a campaignbox for Georgian-Seljuk wars / Crusades containing the Battle of Basian and the Battle of Didgori, I made it because I thought that these two battles were part of the same conflict, and they didn't seem to fit into any of the current campaignboxes, I don't know a lot about the Crusades, so any input would be appreciated. Ben D. 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also created boxes for Clone Wars (22-21.7 BBY) and Clone Wars (21.6-19 BBY). Ben D. 12:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Great job! I'll just note that, in general, "Battle of Foo" should be shown simply as "Foo" in the campaignbox, since otherwise they become rather long. Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

For the Georgian-Seljuk wars, they are kind of separate from the crusades...I know Didgori had some crusader presence, but the Georgians did not participate in the crusades to the south, and they already had an ongoing war with the Seljuks which wouldn't have changed whether there were crusaders in the area or not (kind of similar to the Byzantine-Seljuk wars). Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and name-shortening, I don't know how I missed that, I removed the "/Crusades" from Georgian-Seljuk wars, also about The Clone Wars campaigns, I just divided the battles at in half so one campaign box wouldn't have 22 battles. Ben D. 03:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)