Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential task force sign-up

Ok, we now have about a half-dozen task force ideas that have been discussed at various points but never implemented due to a lack of editors signing up. In the interests of getting the feasible ones created in a more reasonable way, let's try simply having open sign-ups for all of the more-or-less obvious ones in a single place.

Please sign up for any of the following task forces that you would like to participate in. I've tried to avoid any ideas brough up that still had significant questions as to the correct scope, in order to simplify matters; hopefully, none of these prove to be problematic in that regard.

Other comments are, of course, entirely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I feel the need to mention that the Vietnam War has probably seen some of the best contributions in the project, and continued improvements upon this coverage, and expansion into related events could be handled wonderfully by a SE Asian task force, devoted to pooling the interests and specialties and attentions of those interested in these conflicts, and helping to separate these subjects out from the US (or French or Chinese) umbrellas. I'm sure there are a number of you out there who specialize/focus on the Vietnam War, on the Khmer Rouge, or other similar topics, and maybe you do so within the auspices of the French, Chinese, or American task forces, or under no task force at all. This is an opportunity to pool our talents and ideas. Thank you. (Of course, all that can be easily handled as well within the Cold War task force, another very valid and important subject.) LordAmeth 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there already a SouthEast Asia task force? I thought I came across one a while back. Richiar 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I don't think there's ever been one, at least not within this project. Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
South america actually had a military force? I'm surprised... (It's only a cameo appearance from me sorry, not staying here for too long, just dropping by...) :) Anyway, how's everyone going? Anything new? Well, c ya... :) Spawn Man 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this a bit: given that the Ancient Near Eastern task force is pretty inactive, might it be a better idea to have the Middle Eastern task force not constrained by date, and to merge the former into it? Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Several new (or restructured) task forces are now available. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Cold War task force (c. 1945–c. 1989)
Middle Eastern military history task force (c. 500–present) → created as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force, with the Ancient Near Eastern warfare task force merged in
  1. LordAmeth (talk · contribs) - I think most Israeli conflicts have been largely taken care of, but I'd be happy to help out in whatever ways I can.
  2. Dryzen (talk · contribs) - I'll be in this task force where Byzantium and the crusades make their entries. Always good to work on both sides of the conflicts, gives a better perspective.
  3. MehmetC (talk · contribs) - I'd love to help out with the Crusades, and anything else in the region for that matter.
  4. Menasim (talk · contribs)
Military law task force
  1. GavinSimmons (talk · contribs) - I'd love to help out as best I can with this task force. I still need to read on about what exactly needs help and work
Ongoing conflicts task force
  1. Menasim (talk · contribs)
South American military history task force → created as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force
Southeast Asian military history task force → created as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Southeast Asian military history task force
  1. LordAmeth (talk · contribs) - most definitely. Particularly pre-modern.
Ottoman military history task force → created as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Ottoman military history task force
  1. Dryzen (talk · contribs) - Mostly within the periode of conflicts with Byzantium, but researching on the Turkish opposition will undoubtably lead to information beyond the that former Empire's downfall.
  2. A.Garnet (talk · contribs) - Mostly Ottoman history.

How about we start up the taskforces discussed in the recently archived section on popular culture (i.e. movies, games, art, poems, ect.). Should re resume the discussion here or on another section? Cheif Captain 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There's another section closer to the bottom of the page; more generally, I think the exact way we'd want to set those up is unclear enough that people will need to make a more specific name/scope proposal before we can really move forward. Kirill Lokshin 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Risk of trivia

There is a risk that articles with almost no connection to warfare can slip in here, with confusion for users who expect guidance. Examples are articles on the Toledo War (it was not a war), and Gerald Ford (he was president after a war). They have to be dropped from our lists.Rjensen 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Our scope does include everything related to military history, even if it's no World War II (or even not related to warfare, per se). The Toledo War is an oversight—as far as I can tell, it has no military connection—but Ford is quite legitimately in-scope as a naval officer (Gerald_Ford#Naval_service_in_World_War_II). Kirill Lokshin 06:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(As a practical matter, the lists on the page should be consistent with the tagging of the article; we shouldn't have any inconsistencies where an article is sufficiently of interest to be tagged but not enough to be listed. So if any that aren't in-scope do show up, the appropriate course of action should be to remove the {{WPMILHIST}} tag from the talk page; the lists should merely mirror that status.) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
routine service in the military should NOT be included, I suggest. It will overwhelm the list with tens of thousands of men. Rjensen 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with taking that stance, if the project as a whole is fine with it; but it is a slight departure from our current practice, so it does warrant some explicit discussion. Kirill Lokshin 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On second thought, maybe you're right: we do have several people listed that were "in the military" (during a war, even), but whose military service is pretty much completely non-notable. We do seem to have taken a quite liberal stance with considering military personnel to be in-scope, but is this really a good idea in the long run? Should we limit it only to those people whose military careers were somehow notable? Kirill Lokshin 06:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Going through the FAs, we've got a couple such cases that would need to be unlisted and untagged:
Anyone I missed? Kirill Lokshin 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Arguably Heinlein was a naval officer and to some extend do his works reflect experiences in the military. Wandalstouring 09:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the question of what exactly qualifies as a notable military career is obviously open to interpretation, and it's quite possible that I was overly strict in Heinlein's case. More generally, though, do we want to take the stance that being part of a military is not in of itself a qualification for being in-scope? Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Heinlein and Tolkien show influences of their military experience in their works. Collins and Ford not. Wandalstouring 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that Ford and Collins come under the scope, but we probably want to tighten our criteria as regards military service. Consider that some countries do have mandatory military service, and we probable don't want to include every notable person from those countries in the project... Carom 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Granted, the inclusion of any particular individual is obviously open to debate, regardless of how we deal with the general case. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. ; ) It might be wise to insert a disclaimer in the main guidelines to the effect (as you mentioned above, Kirill) "military service does not, in and if itself place an individual within the scope of this project; rather, their military service should contribute - either directly or indirectly - to their notabilty." We could still be liberal in our enforcement, but we would be able to screen out individuals whose military service is of little or no consequence as far as their article is concerned. Carom 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The grey zones... I agree that some criteria should be set for the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. A discalmer to watch our backs from overzealous taggers is a must. Taking some writers into accound, their service in itself did not contribute to their notability (they are not known for their service) rather they are known to have been influenced by there time in the armed forces. Perhaps (taking from Carom's good proposal) : military service does not, in and of it itself place an individual within the scope of this project; rather, their military service should contribute or have born influence - either directly or indirectly - to their notabilty. Please reformulate as deemed necissary. I know my addition is purely semantics but I felt something had to be inserted to indicate where notable people have been influenced by there years yet that this time had not of itself made them notable. (Tolkien may well have written his master pieces should he have never gone to war (already before WWI he'd layed the ground work for his passion), of course these would of surely had a different feal to them qould it have been the case).--Dryzen 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems workable. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added this to the scope statement. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

People

hey its been a while i know. I have been keeping up and it seems like this is a little bit of a issue. now i dont want to recite everything typed so ill get to the point. If something like this hasnt already started i suggest a task force based on working with people of military history. basicly a group *part of the project* with a diffrent range on what they do. im not sure if this is something you all might wanna do but if u do decide to do it ill help out in anyways i can. well theres my suggestion. see ya all all later user:maverick423 26 march 2007

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I'm not sure what your suggesting at all...--Dryzen 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a Military workgroup over at WikiProject Biography, which does what you describe. jwillburtalk 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

yes thats exactly what i ment im glad its already running then =D Maverick423 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) now open

The A-Class review for Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Some of the coordinators may be aware of the longrunning revert war going on on the Red Army page where various Ukrainain and Russian editors are fighting over the insertion of a 'Armies of Russia'/'Armies of Ukraine' template. Am very keen to stop this argument & stabilise the page but not sure how. Suggestions / guidance welcome. Buckshot06 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force#Request for Guidance. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class for American Civil War

Kirill, can you re-nom it for me? It just didn't get enough attention the first time. --Pupster21 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. (But, in the future, if you have a request for me specifically, it should really be left on my talk page rather than here.) Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Pupster21 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for American Civil War now open

The A-Class review for American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ribbons

File:HughesAwards.jpg
An example of what I am talking about

I was wondering if there was a chance we could get a group togather for the sole purpose of creating Ribbons for awards given to the various service members, military units, ships, etc. I do believe that this would help improve our military articles by providing readers with the enire ribbon collection earned by units in combat rather than simply descriving the awards and linking to them. Of course, to do this would mean collecting ribbons from all the nations whose military articles we maintain, and finding someone good enough at picture creation to put them all togather. Any thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A few questions:
  1. Is this intended to be purely an image-gathering effort, or are you going for a full-blown military decorations task force and the like?
  2. Is this meant to cover only military awards, or civilian ones too?
  3. And, consequently, what's the intended relationship of this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals?
Kirill Lokshin 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok,
  1. I didn't intend for it to be task force (or department, for that matter); although now that you mention it, that may be the best way to aproach this idea of mine.
  2. I think it would be most effect to cover both, although I see the largest demand for military personel and equipment.
  3. No relation, as far as I can tell. WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals is about the history of the awards hand out by various groups/nations, while mine would be about the awards given to service members and there equipment. My idea is for a simple group to create ribbon bars for awards sections in articles, not for a group to explain the history of the awards. We can link to the articles for in depth descriptions of the material.
TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If the intent is only to gather images, wouldn't working directly with the Decorations WikiProject be a neater solution than trying to do it in-house (but not doing the related article work)? I don't really see the benefit of separating things out by task across project lines this way, particularly given that we're not that heavily oriented towards image-database work to begin with.
(Or, conversely, we could do both image-gathering and article work—a normal task force, in other words—but that may be somewhat broader than what you had in mind.) Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't be so much to gather as it would be arrange, save, and upload. Different military units and such have garnered different awards, so the issue I am looking at would be find a person (or people, as the case may be) to arrange the individual ribbons into one complete ribbon barn as such a barn would appear for the units, groups, and (when aplicable) officers who have articles here. For instance, someone who can take the individual ribbons and create something similar to the photo I put up at the top, and then list in order on the image page the award represent by the ribbon, with a link to the award's respective article here. At the moment, I think it would be best to see what other people have to say about this before I make my next move; depending on whats said it may be better to move this discussion elsewhere or disregard the whole thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in possession presently, with numerous medals of Osnaz and Soviet Navy origin. I would be glad to contribute photos of them and their documents, if this project is beginning going. MVMosin 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just do it and leave us a note where you have uploaded them on commons. If you need any help to improve the graphics I can ask the German or the French graphic lab to take a look and wikify your images (the English lab lacks manpower). Wandalstouring 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for creating the Ottoman task force

I've been browsing lately a few articles related to the Ottoman empire and was astonished by the amount of the articles found at Category:Military of the Ottoman Empire. Any opinions about creating a task force for this subject? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable enough scope; the key question, as always, is whether there's enough interest. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah :) Well, i'll try to sell the idea to some Turkish editors first. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure no problems. In fact we have had a talk in WP Turkey talk, and we would like to take a shot at taking Battle of Gallipoli to FA. There seems to be enough editors who will be devote time to it, however I would like to know if we can get it to the attention of other projects as well. Considering the article's significance, I thought it would be of interest more than just to Turkish editors. What do you guys suggest? It might be a good start to have some sort of a Ottoman task force as well, we are also working on a FA push for Suleiman the Magnificent as well, but that concerns more than military history though. So, does WPMILHIST organize article drives? Baristarim 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There certainly are a lot of articles within that scope, and it does pertain to a single given major nation in history, as most of the other task forces do. However, given the lack of any other Middle Eastern task force (other than the Ancient Near Eastern one), I wonder if we might not be better off to try to create that. In the end, I suppose it simply depends how much support we get for one or the other, and what individual editors wish to see happen. I'm just tossing it out there as an option. LordAmeth 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to add, I came across the Battle of Gallipoli article some time ago and was quite impressed with the state of the article. I mentioned it in WP:Turkey today as a possible FA article. We'd appreciate any involvement from other projects such as this, perhaps your view on what needs to be done to achieve FA. Cheers, --A.Garnet 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A little time ago (in the above discussions) there was a fathoming to see what types of task forces would merrit implementation, of these there was the Middle Eastern military history task force (c. 500–present). I was and still am in support of this Task Force. I also beleive that thouse interested in Turkish History would flock ot this Task force as the Ottoman where unquestionably the a might Power within this reagion.--Dryzen 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They are slightly different, in theoretical terms (the Ottoman Empire was not exclusively a ME power, and perhaps not even primarily one), so having two separate groups might be warranted. I would expect the ME group to focus more on other material. (Which is not to say that there isn't significant overlap, or that Ottoman history couldn't be rolled into a general ME group; but I think it's not the most intuitive way of dealing with the topic.)
All of this is, of course, contingent on what editors are actually interested in working on. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with Lokshin. Bit awkward describing the Ottoman Empire purely in terms of the Middle East, considering its almost continous presence in Europe since its creation in 1299. Furthermore, most Turkish editors would probably be more familiar with the Ottoman Empire's European conflict than those in the Middle East. I, for one, could not name you any famous Middle Eastern encounters, though I'm sure there are some. In Europe however, Battle of Kosovo, fall of constantinople, siege of vienna, malta, battle of preveza, battle of lepanto etc immediately come to mind. --A.Garnet 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry, as an editor in Byzantine affairs I'm well versed in the Europe/Middle-east overlaps. Still, IM sure a number of Ottoman Editors should be informed of a possible ME tF. As to Ottoman, we dont have many task forces named after defunct Empires. Shoudl our other TF be seen as a tendency, we've really only named TF from modern states. Should therefore a Turkey TF be made instead? --Dryzen 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that would make things even more confusing; the Ottoman Empire is a clearly defined scope, but "Turkey" could be anything going back to the Hittites. Personally, I don't think the current/former state distinction is an important one here; we've gone for existing states because there haven't been any real requests for task forces dealing with former ones—there aren't many with both the scale needed for a separate task force and an unclear relationship with precursor and successor states—but I don't think that this couldn't be just as workable. Kirill Lokshin 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Akin to the confusion with the Geman scope? Yes, I see what you mean. Ottoman it is then, I'll add it to the Proposed Task Forces.--Dryzen 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So how many interested editors do we have so far? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Post a link on the Wikiproject Turkey page. Wandalstouring 08:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would join up in an Ottoman task force since it goes hand in hand with some Greek articles. I will post a message at WP:GREECE to see if any Greek editors who have any knowlege on the Ottoman Empire would like to participate. Kyriakos 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also join. --A.Garnet 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll join. --Free smyrnan 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll join as well. If it could be posted at some other projects (I see that it has been done for WPGreece), maybe some Armenian, Bulgarian or Middle Eastern editors would like to join. I hope it doesn't stay dominated by Turkish editors!! Baristarim 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll join, although I don't know how much time and effort I can devote.--Yannismarou 16:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the Ottoman military history task force is now open for business. Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Enlisted

An anonymous IP editor made a number of changes to the colspans today of several of the templates used by that page. I think he was just trying to make things look better, but had no clue of the purpose of those colspans. I left a message for him, but since he was an anon IP he might not ever see it. I reverted the colspan codes in the templates back to what they were and also made some changes in the table so that the purpose of the colspans, to align the NATO rank codes with the ranks is easier to spot. However, since that may not stop this apparently well-meaning editor, or he may have "helped" other rank pages as well, I thought I'd point this out to you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that some judicious use of internal borders and/or column striping would do wonders for that table. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for American Civil War needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for American Civil War; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


A question about WikiProject Military History

Can the subject of para-military government intelligence agencies be considered applicable to WikiProject Military History? It seems to me that they should be, as they do affect military conflicts, in some cases directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMosin (talk • contribs)

To the extent of their involvement in military affairs, yes; but the things they do outside of the military field, not so much. I don't think we really cover espionage in and of itself, for example, if it has no military-related aspect. Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We do cover a lot of espionage activity(reported during wars or the Cold War for example), but not every case of Industrial espionage and the like. Wandalstouring 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable stance, and one which I agree with. Thank you.MVMosin 09:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate? Request opinions

I've just noticed this article, Faye Turney about the female Leading Seaman(Seaman) currently held by Iran following their hijack in the NAG. Personally I'm quite uncomfortable about it, both given the current sensitivities and it's applicability as an article a couple of weeks from now. Grateful for other views as I'm perhaps thinking of it from a strategic info ops perspective more than anything else. Thanks. ALR 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all unsourced material. There are some statements about her biography available in Der Spiegel. It is no problem to mention info that gets broadcasted, but don't forget the official UK and Iranian POV. Wandalstouring 08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My main issue is notability rather than anything else, plus a mild degree of revulsion that she's currently a focus and there are fourteen others involved.ALR 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge it to the main incident article, perhaps? There really isn't enough information there to warrant a separate article, and I doubt there will be. Kirill Lokshin 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree, I've been in London all day today and just got home (2300A) but I think I'll address it on the BLP pages tommorow. They must have dealt with this flash in the pan notability issue before.ALR 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White now open

The A-Class review for Operation Igloo White is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FIFTH deletion discussion for "State terrorism by United States of America"

On four previous occasions, attempts to delete State terrorism by United States of America failed. Part of the article deals with United States military history. Please take a look at this article and add your insight into this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination). Noroton 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This vote needs some attention because POV on the topic and WP article criteria get mixed up. Wandalstouring 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This project is hard to navigate

I'm trying to find articles that need to be cleaned up, and I can't find them. I think there should be some kind of list on the main page like other projects have - "Here are things you can do: clean up such and such, verify this article, etc etc" --AW 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what the whole "Announcements and open tasks" section (and all the things linked in it) is for. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, but even that you have to click 8,000 times. It's seems too compartmentalized to me --AW 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a scale issue, really; we just have too many articles to be able to put them all on a flat list. (The task force pages do have flat lists, though; so if you're looking for something in a particular area, that may be a simpler option.) Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Invasion FAR

Invasion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Igloo White; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons now open

The A-Class review for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


A-Class review for Egyptian Invasion of Mani now open

The A-Class review for Egyptian Invasion of Mani is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

Nuclear weapon FAR

Nuclear weapon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Belgium

Rape of Belgium could use attention from an expert (and a title change?). Olessi 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the WWI task force. It could be made part of larger articles on the whole propaganda issue. Wandalstouring 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Egyptian Invasion of Mani needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Egyptian Invasion of Mani; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle or not a battle?

Operation Wilno, article about a 1919 battle, created by myself under that name, is unfortunately named: apparently 99,9% of sources using this term refer to the 1944 Wilno Uprising. I proposed a move to Battle of Wilno (1919), but the move is disputed by some on the ground that it is not a battle. Their argument is that there is no English-language source about 'battle of Wilno (Vilna, Vilnius)' in 1919. We have however descriptive sources which mention that over 1000 Polish soldiers (1 division and supporting units) fought with Bolsheviks over the city for about three days. I think this is a 'battle' without any doubt. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. "Battle" tends to be a slightly strange term to apply to something that's really a miniature campaign but without any true pitched engagements; the entire post-WWI usage of the term tend to be overly convoluted. Personally, I would suggest something simple and descriptive, e.g.
  • "Capture of Wilno (1919)"
  • "Fall of Wilno (1919)" (although this may be overly dramatic)
  • "Operations in and around Wilno (1919)", or something close (the plainest descriptive version, close to what we've been seeing recently for such not-quite-named engagements, e.g. Actions along the Matanikau)
Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you post that at that page? I like capture of Wilno, but I am afraid if I propose it several users will oppose just because :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to just copy my comments over there if you think they'd be useful. (I'm somewhat hesitant to join the discussion there myself, as I suspect that I won't have time to follow it properly afterwards, and dropping a comment and leaving seems slightly impolite.) Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor FAR

Attack on Pearl Harbor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Military Novels (Task Force) proposal

The scope broadening to include "cultural depictions" suggests that task forces can get envolved in supporting such areas. This highlights the need to get any shared "Task Forces" on the matter proposed and off the ground. How is the best way to do this. Something along the lines of "War novels" or "Military History related novels" task force was what we/I had in mind.

The alternative more encompasing name would be Military History in fictional literature task force, Although broader than our interests ('Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels' which includes all narrative prose regardless of length) this could easiliy become a shared group (as in the style of others). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would do the project better to have only one task force dedicated to "cultural depictions." This would reduce the amount of pages we would have to maintain and provide a more central meeting point for discussions on the topic, collaborations, ect. Comments? Cheif Captain 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it would mean that if we shared the Task Force it would be a slight scope missmatch, as our interests are in prose narratives, i.e. War Stories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranks at the start of military biographies

I have just noticed that articles on British generals usually have the highest rank they attained, right at the start of the article, e.g. "Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery". Am I the only one that finds this jarring? I mean their final rank is not necessarily the one by which they are best known. This doesn't seem to happen so much with other nationalities, e.g. Douglas MacArthur, Erwin Rommel and Hideki Tojo. Do we have a set style for this? Grant | Talk 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally thought that he was best known as a field marshal, but I'm surprised to find that he didn't become one until 1944, according to the article. However, I would agree that it's probably not good policy to give them a rank right at the beginning of the article. Are there a few more examples of this? -KingPenguin 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It does seem a bit strange. I suspect it's mostly an artifact of the use of formal styles; thus we have "Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC" (with or without the prepended "Field Marshal") versus just "Douglas MacArthur". Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm. For living officers, we list either their current rank, or their rank on retirement, in the lead (Colin Powell, for example). I don't see why we shouldn't use the final rank of deceased officers in the lead in much the same way. Although, truth be told, I don't know if this is something that needs broad guidance - the editors of each article can probably decide what works best in each case. Carom 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed this when it started happening with Australian military biographies — and not necessarily by Australian editors — because it just looked wrong to me. I have removed Group Captain from the front of Clive Caldwell's name a few times. IMO we should be consistent in this respect with subjects from all countries, and it's going to look really odd if we have an article on, say Colin Powell, with his rank at the very start. Grant | Talk 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, our article on Gen. Powell does, in fact, begin with "General Colin Luther Powell," and this seems to be the trend for most (if not all) high ranking officers in the US. You are right, however, that we want to be consistent with each national military organization - but again, I don't know if we benefit from any attempt at project-wide guidance. Carom 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have looked first! But if Powell becomes President — a big if, I know — then I presume the rank will be dropped, as it doesn't appear before the names of Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even with British generals, my preferred style would be something like:

"Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC (November 17, 1887–March 24, 1976), often referred to as "Monty", was a British soldier, who rose to the rank of Field Marshal." But I'm not sure that members of the British military task forces would agree.

Grant | Talk 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a data point, the overwhelming majority of military biographies for the American Civil War do not include the title at the beginning of the lead paragraph. (Some of the naval biographies do have them, but I have always assumed that was a Navy affectation.) I guess there are two reasons to support this. First, virtually all of the senior officers were given brevet promotions, so there is imprecision about when to acknowledge that and whether their ranks are in the Regular Army or the volunteer forces. A man could finish the war simultaneously as a brevet major general USV, a brigadier general USV, and a lieutenant colonel USA. Second, many of these men had prominent positions after the war and it is arguable whether being, say, a major general in the Union Army is more important than being a senator or governor. So is cleaner to say "Billy Tentpeg (birth - death) was a farmer, a Union general in the American Civil War, and the governor of New York." Hal Jespersen 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Putting the rank first is standard when referring to British military persons. For example see this obituary. Leithp 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Battleboxes and campaignboxes for these events?

Recently, an editor added a "battlebox" and campaignbox to the Gnadenhutten massacre article. Seems odd to me -- this was not a battle, but a mass murder of noncombatants. It was definitely a military operation, so I can understand why the editor added the box, but I wonder if it is appropriate when only one side has combatants. Have people used the Infobox Military Conflict in similar articles? Looking around, I notice Mahmudiyah incident (rape and murder) uses the infobox, to slightly better effect, since only the "date", "location", and "result" fields are used.

What about these kinds of events in campaignboxes? The Gnadenhutten Massacre was a pivotal event in its theater of war, more so than some small skirmishes that could find their way into the campaignbox, so I think it might be appropriate for the campaignbox. Another example: sometime ago I discussed with another editor whether the Powder Alarm belonged in a campaignbox, since ultimately no shots were fired. Ultimately we left it in, though I don't think either of us was too adamant about putting it in or taking it out.

Other examples? Your thoughts? —Kevin 07:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wounded Knee Massacre would be another example, although the victims fought back. What we call battlebox isn9't that limited to battles and for lack of any specific design for massacres it can be used if it helpsto present theinfo. Wandalstouring
Wounded Knee isn't exactly the type of situation I'm asking about, since both sides fired weapons and the encounter has often been described as a battle. There are literally hundreds of those type of incidents in North American history. I'm wondering about more marginal cases, where there were only combatants on one side (e.g. Gnadenhutten), or a military event which resulted in no violence or casualties (e.g. Powder Alarm). But I understand your point that the boxes can be used if it helps to present the info. —Kevin 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they can be used quite well, but I would simply avoid the combatant/commander/strength parameters in cases where there aren't really two sides engaged in combat; that way, you can have a trimmed-down box that presents the essentials (time, place, outcome) without having to follow a contrived "battle" structure for the rest of it. Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What about the other part of the question: campaignboxes? Should non-battle events go in campaignboxes, such as one-sided massacres? What about the murder of a single individual, which some believe had a pivotal effect on a military campaign, for example the death of Jane McCrea?
Just exploring the margins here. ;-) —Kevin 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If such a ink link is useful in presenting a narrative picture of the campaign, I'd say go for it (within reason). ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested for opinions on a move of Bangladesh Liberation War to Bangladesh War of Independence

Some more opinions on the requested move of Bangladesh Liberation War to Bangladesh War of Independence would be appreciated. (see:Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#Requested move) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of war criminals

I have replaced the words "not acquited" with "convicted" in the definition. Previosly the definition did not agree with the outcommented text. Also, as far as I know, people are legally innocent till proven otherwise. As far as I know simply being formally charged doesn't make someone a war criminal. This of course does not mean I think Mladić or Karadžić are innocent. --Eleassar my talk 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be best to move the category to "list of convicted war criminals". Ther eare plenty of persons that one group of people or another consider war criminals, but who have never faced justice. Emoscopes Talk 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Although it's a list actually, not a category. I have put a proposal to move on its talk page. --Eleassar my talk 10:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

CSS Ship Designation

Now, obviously CSS stands for Confederate States Ship, but I'm looking at some research material for Uriel Sebree and his first command was of the CSS Silliman in 1879. (This is from a navy publication.) On some further digging, I find that this was the United States Coast Survey Ship Silliman, which also is given "CSS" as a prefix. How should I link to these ships? (I'm not sure whether it was usual for USN officers to command USCS ships, but I doubt it was.) Is there a more proper current designation? Or are these ships not considered important enough to link to anyway? (Here's a google book search link to some CSS designations. JRP 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It could well be that CSS is simply a direct abbreviation for Coastal Survey Ship here - that is, it's not intended as a standard prefix, or as part of the name, and we'd just have an article at Silliman (ship) or the like... Shimgray | talk | 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're from different eras, so while the Confederate designation may be the more "recognizable", the Coastal Survey Ship designation is just as proper. For clarity, though, you might introduce it in use as "... served on the Coastal Survey Ship (CSS) Silliman" and then employ "CSS Silliman" in the remainder of the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Medal categories

So, in the last three months, three people have edited names into Category:Recipients of the Legion of Merit and been removed; OTRS has got three emails asking how to add people into "the listing". And that's for just one category of award; I suspect it's much the same elsewhere.

My reply tends to run something like:

In effect, the categories are indexes to our articles - this one is an index for "biographies of people who have recieved the [medal]". As such, this list is not intended as a comprehensive list of all recipients, but rather a listing of those people who have Wikipedia articles (i.e., are listed in Wikipedia for other reasons) who have recieved the award.

Should we have some way of making it clear in the description, some boilerplate text, that this is not a "listing of recipients" but rather a list of those people we have articles on distinguished in that way? If so, how do we phrase it? Can we do it without self-references? Advice appreciated. Shimgray | talk | 09:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like a good idea to have some template for this; but I'm not sure that it's possible without being self-referential to some degree, since we need to explicitly mention the concept of articles existing. I don't think a certain level of self-reference would necessarily be problematic in this case, though. Kirill Lokshin 14:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trigger or pretext

Hi, on your helpful project page we are advised to include "The trigger, if notable. For example, the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered a sequence of events that led to World War I. Take care to distinguish a trigger or pretext from the underlying causes that allowed the event to trigger a war." - my question, I would like to link to a wiki page so that readers could learn what a trigger or pretext is, but neither of these pages is helpful! Is there a good page to link to? I'm not a historian so I don't know what terminology to search for, many thanks, sbandrews (t) 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a full-blown causes of war article, I think, which would discuss both long-term and immediate causes; we could then link to the appropriate section of it as necessary. Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Does Casus belli help? Shimgray | talk | 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
ah perfect - thank you both for your help :), regards sbandrews (t) 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't be List of casus belli by war article a good idea? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, perhaps. The casus belli won't necessarily be what people expect to find there, as it's often not the real cause of the war; but I think it would be an interesting list nevertheless. Kirill Lokshin 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Casus belli" is the "justification" for going to war; it is not necessarily the same thing as the "trigger". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of Navy/Marine officers, 1898

I discovered this while doing other research and this is invaluable for anyone doing research on US Navy officers between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War: The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Every officer in 1898 gets a brief biography, list of ships served on, list of commands. I've found one error in it so far (it has Uriel Sebree's location of birth in the wrong state), but it is otherwise fantastic. If we have a list of recommended resources for this Wikiproject, this should be added to it. JRP 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are recommended source sections on each task force page, I don't know of anything else. Speaking of which, do we have anything we should add to Wikipedia:List of sources, since that's just starting up? I don't think we have a page we can just link it to that would tell what users own certain sources and can give them to others.-KingPenguin 14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think what's being proposed there is really workable; a Wikipedia-wide list of sources will grow to unmanageable proportions very quickly.
As far as the project's internal lists are concerned, though: the best place is, indeed, the applicable task forces, which should all have sections for building bibliographical collections available now. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed as above, that kind of information would get WikiSquished over here so fast, it would make your head spin. However, if that is a document out of copyright status, and my guess is that it is, I know that Wikisource would be a great site for that content. And then we can link to it as needed from WP. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a good title for something which was considered but didn't come close to happening?

The first of the many things which is currently wrong with the Planned invasion of Australia during World War II article is its title. Put simply, the Japanese didn't plan to invade Australia but instead briefly considered doing so before dismissing it as being completely impractical. The best I can think of is 'Japanese consideration of invading Australia during World War II', but that isn't very good either. Ideally the title would also enable the article to encompass Australian fears of invasion during this period. Any suggestions for a better title? --Nick Dowling 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Plan" looks better than "consideration" to me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But there was no 'plan' to invade Australia - the Japanese didn't even reach that stage when they considered the idea. Maybe 'proposed' is the right word? --Nick Dowling 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Risk of the invasion of Australia during the Second World War"? or something like that? Mike McGregor (Can) 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead of the article says "proposed", hence Proposed invasion of Australia during World War II? A proposal doesn't need planning, though it might be implied in some cases. Carcharoth 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, the article later refer to Yamamoto's Invasion Plan, so the article itself is also confused. Need to sort that out as well. If it looks like a plan, walks like a plan and quacks like a plan... Carcharoth 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, Japan's proposed invasion of Australia during World War II might be better as well. FWIW, the equivalent titles would be "Prepared", and "Considered" (not "Consideration"). As for wanting the title to encompass Australia's fears of invasion, you can't have everything in the title! If you really want a vague, general title for an overview article, something like Japanese-Australian strategy during World War II might work. Carcharoth 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
One more. Yamamoto's Invasion Plans could include his plans to attack India. Carcharoth 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I would personally go with Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II, or perhaps even Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia, if there isn't any need to specify which proposed invasion the article is referring to. Carom 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's common in the military to prepare a wide variety of contingency plans, often very provisional, and I suspect the Japanese General Staff must have produced one or more for invading Australia. Accordingly, your title might be something like "Japanese contingency planning for an invasion of Australia" or some similar wording like "Provisional [or Preliminary] planning"; alternatively, "case study" might be better than "plan" — I'm not sure of the exact circumstances in this particular instance. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia appeals to me as a sort and to the point title. Although no direct link is made with WWII, I dont think its all that detrimental to the subject, being that little came of it and generally I beleive most readers will take it for granted that it was considered during the second world war.--Dryzen 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all your suggestions. I've moved the article to Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II as this seemed to be the most popular choice and it strikes me as being the clearest title. Now all the article needs is a near-total re-write ;) --Nick Dowling 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on Falklands Para up for deletion

David A. Wood (British army officer) has been put up for deletion. Wood died at Goose Green, his loss along with two of his comrades led to H. Jones changing tactics, leading the next assault and winning the Victoria Cross. Wood's article has been tagged because he is 'not notable'. I have argued strongly that he is. I don't know the form here, perhaps anyone who knows more about the criteria used and any precedents for inclusion could comment on the delete page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_A._Wood_%28British_army_officer%29 Nick mallory 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the 'keep'. I know its a subjective judgement but for anyone within this project, in the context of some of the apparently trivial articles found in WP, I would suggest this article deserves suppport.21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tabor, Wagenburg and Laager

A merge has been proposed and is discussed at Talk:Tabor (formation) - but we don't know what's the English name for this formation. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

POW Camp Category Suggestion

I came across a gap in categories related to prisoner of war camps that I thought the project might want to know about and correct. There is no category for Category:Prisoner of war camps, or if there is, lots of relevant thing are not linked to it. There is a Category:Lists of POW camps, which includes categories which are not lists (therefore, a good place to start to populate the new category). The new category should be linked up to Prisons (perhaps as part of Category:Internment prisons but probably as its own category, and should be linked to Category:Prisoners of war which lists notable POWs (people only, not the camps themselves), although that category contains some prisons as well.

I've set up the structure, it should be a brief project to populate them. I'm sure users will appreciate a better scheme for POW camps.

I came across this as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized and I just don't have the time to fix it myself.

Scarykitty 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped it into Category:Prisoners of war, which should have a lot more stuff; some shuffling around is probably needed to get all the material about the facilities down into the new category, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I wound up doing a bunch, and linking a bunch of articles from the Prisoner of war camps article (thought lots of those link to cities that have the same name as the camps). Guess I had the time after all. Scarykitty 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support renaming, I have run into that recently when cateogorizing some Poland and POW related articles. Good job, guys.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Updating FAs to current standards

I am slowly working back on FAs I created or contributed to in the past, updating them to current standards (since quite a few of them would fail FAR otherwise) - the primary problem they have is insufficient (or none!) inline citations. Quite a few of my FAs are mil-related. The 'to-do' list contains: Blitzkrieg, Virtuti Militari, Warsaw Uprising, Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618), Polish September Campaign, Władysław Sikorski and Stanisław Koniecpolski. I'd appreciate help from WP:MILHIST members who would like to ensure those articles keep their FA star.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a hand with Warsaw Uprising - if you want to discuss strategy, we can chat on the article talk page. Carom 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, it's always better to work in groups.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Eiríkr Hákonarson now open

The A-Class review for Eiríkr Hákonarson is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help naming war

Could any of you military history buffs offer your opinion at Talk:2006 Lebanon War? -- Kendrick7talk 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a messy discussion. Perhaps you guys should call it something like "2006 war in Lebanon" or "2006 war in Israel and Lebanon" and avoid the whole question of who exactly was fighting it? (But there's likely some issue with that name, too. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try a name that is used in official statements by the Israeli army and the concerning Lebanese factions. [Center For Research & Information Poll finds support for Hizbullah's retaliation] date=2006-07-29 accessdate=2006-08-08 Wandalstouring 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cambodian Campaign now open

The A-Class review for Cambodian Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiCast - Assistance needed with 'Over the Wire' series.

Sirs,

I note with interest your wiki-project aiming to improve the coverage of military history articles on Wikipedia.

I would therefore like to request that if there is anyone in your project or on Wikipedia more generally that would like to assist with a WikiCast series currently in the planning stages, concerning 'escapes'.

Each programme of the series "Over the Wire" would be a 20-30 min programme (perhaps longer if enough material can be found) about a particular 'escape' including not only the actual escape, but the placing of it within a relavnt historical context.

The programmes produced (which would be released under a suitable 'free' license) could make use of content developed with the assistance of your project, as well as orginal research from primary sources(WikiCast unlike Wikipedia allows sutiably sourced reaserch to be included in content it produces.)

However, even a 20 min programme woudl require a considerable amount of material and the assistance of your project in respect of this would be much appreciated. Production of specific programmes could even be delegated if there is interest

I look forward to hearing your views on this idea via my talk page, here on en or on the WikiCast wiki.

Thanks for reading. ShakespeareFan00 10:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Colditz Castle(escape university), Swiss Guard(guarding several escapes) or Napoleon(escape from Elba) and ask some of the editors involved. By the way, there are female editors on wikipedia and possibly among the members of our project (at least our mascot is). If you produce more than just escapes, you can visit our Publication departement and offer your help there.Wandalstouring 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the Sirs was merely an atemmpt to be slightly more formal in a first request,
I am well aware of the female contributions to Wikipedia.
The reason for making an open request was that the series needed a LOT of work, something I cannot acheive on my own. Your suggestions are noted and will be looked intoin more depth. The wikicast page for the series is at: http://www.bitshuffle.org/wikicast/Over_the_Wire. Any interested people you could point in that direction would be much appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What makes me wonder is that you use a copy of wikipedia for this purpose. I can not savely inform people that you do all according to wikiguidelines and have no financial interests. Could you set up such a project within wikipedia? Wandalstouring 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I am planning to use other sources (assuming compatible licenses), but WikiCast was intended to be a 'free' content brodcast, and at present is VERY much an amatuear project, hence the need for volunteers.ShakespeareFan00 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I informed myself about podcasts. Stupid me thought these were little films (images with sound, something like rocketboom). Wikipedia:Media#Audio provides some guidelines how you could operate it within wikipedia. Otherwise I have no objections and would really like to help you with your project. Wandalstouring 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is idea is on hold until issues over content re-use are resolved. It was my understanding that GFDL text-> audio meant the derviative was GFDL as well, and thus usable anywhere else that respected the GFDL terms. ShakespeareFan00 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_56&oldid=1090642950"