User talk:Wandalstouring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive for older edits

Contents

[edit] Peer Review Request: Third Servile War

As per my own inclination, and Kirill Lokshin's suggestion, I would like to ask you if you would take a look at the current peer review for the article Third Servile War. Any feedback and suggestions for improvement would be very much appeciated, thank you :) - Vedexent 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fac review

You had commented on here for the FA review of Operation Wrath of God. The article has undergone some changes since then, including more criticism and the addition of comments by some Palestinians. If you get the chance I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks, Joshdboz 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! Joshdboz 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War (redux)

I've revamped the article substantially based on your input, and that of others, in the various review processes. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appeciate it if you could give the article another once-over and add any further comments you might have on the changes and the article's current state to the peer review. Thank you :) - Vedexent 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Ciociara

Quote from La Ciociara....When both are raped by Goumiers serving in the French Army, the daughter suffers a nervous breakdown. It stars Sophia Loren, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Eleonora Brown, Carlo Ninchi and Andrea Checchi.
No comment required. By the way, I wonder if you have seen the movie as I did. Greetings. --Giovanni Giove 14:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. You give a link to a description of the content and I can read. As long as it is no link saying Goumier, it is no source. Simple logic. Wandalstouring 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return of Châlons

Here's a draft I'dd like to know if I'm on the right track for what you had in mind. Suggestiosn are appreciated. Note that the length of time it took to produce had more to do with my searching for individual peoples and leaders involved. Of wich there is scant information for the disposition of forces at Châlons.--Dryzen 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Image:Chalons disposition.jpg hmm rather huge no...? I'll make it smaller in v0.2 .--Dryzen 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I should put the wikibreak template. Well, the size is OK, we can scale it down, but the battle started in the late afternoon and I doubt they camped in battle order the night before, as shown on the map. take a different symbol for the camp (Huns and Germanics round camp, Romans square camp) perhaps you can show the development of the battle with some arrows from position 1 to position 2. The size of the army sign are comparatively huge compared to the landscape size, perhaps they could be tinner. Good job. Wandalstouring 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'm completely changing the style of the map, gone are the army blocks. Hopefully things will stay quiet around me long enough to actully finish it once and for all... --Dryzen 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War (yet again!)

In your original response to the peer review of the article, you stated that you had some ideas as to what social changes were triggered by the war. Do you have any references, or ideas where I could look to track down such changes? - Vedexent 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still have it in my head, because I read it in a history book. I will try to get this info. But at the moment everything progresses very slowly. Wandalstouring 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No rush :) I just had recalled you had mentioned it. If you find it, it would be appeciated, but if you don't have the time, that's OK as well :) - Vedexent 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the source for the Third Servile War. I managed to track down some changes to Roman Law as well, and spun that into a more comprehensive Aftermath section. Hopefully the article won't seem to end so abruptly now. - Vedexent 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomacy

Hello Wandalstouring. Thank you for signing up for Diplomacy. As a fellow player, I would recommend that you input your e-mail address into Wikipedia so that secret negotiations can be made. Starhood` 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Edits

Given the link front and center on your user page, I am somewhat surprised to see you defend anon edits. - Vedexent (talk) - 11:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to request help from WP:MILHIST members?

Crossposted to User talk:Grafikm fr

Hello, I see you are a coordinator on WP:MILHIST so I reckon you are a right person to ask this: I need attention from WP:MILHIST community on Mirko Norac article, where do I request such attention? --Dijxtra 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I didn't ask you this so you would add him to the watchlist, I needed to get the whole MILHIST community's attention, and I did that by posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. So, the issue is settled, I decided to abandon the article after I realised that nobody understands my position (and when nobody understands your position, you are the one who's wrong). --Dijxtra 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong with this conclusion. If nobody understands your position you didn't explain it good enough or the other does not want to understand (happens quite often here). I liked your work. Wandalstouring 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirko Norac

Thanks for your comments to the writer of the above article. I don't know if you saw the originator of the above article comments on finally having enough to do with the American version of what he now considers to be a corrupted article, but I think in all due respect intentionally or unintentionally you prove his point. Here it is less than a day that he's taken the article off of his watch list then you go and move the courtroom image of Norac down further on the page. At top is where it belongs so people can see what he looks like right away. Did that bother you or something? Finally, similar to the article's writer I'm letting it all go, and I'm not going to tell him how today's featured article on Wikipedia is about the tv show Lost, which pretty much matches what I'd told him in my second to last reply; wherefore, I'd said it's pretty sad when the plain truth was, was that good articles don't get GA status (Good Article), but stuff does like video games, tv shows and pop music. Yet, Lost one ups that a whole new level by getting a FA status (Featured Article). Nor, do I see a point in telling him about your choice of moving the image. Thanks again. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the addition to the Mirko Norac discussion page about his image for the article being moved was in referrence or in-part to me thank you for it. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Good article is given for the way an article is written and the information it contains. The topic does not matter. I am not your Brother in Christ. I made it pretty clear that you do not put a picture of someone in a courtroom first, a Christian should know this. The other picture shows him as a young hero, it is less point of view if we put the pictures chronologically and therefore the hero in the header, but already mention the war crimes there. The controversial opinions about this person are quite well presented this way. Personally I would prefer a neutral picture and will try to get one. Wandalstouring 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbow

I responded on my talk page. Beit Or 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: need an expert

The most obvious one that comes to mind is Ghirlandajo; it's not exactly a topic that attracts many editors. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the best of situations. Ghirlandajo clearly knows the material, even if he is highly confrontational over it; while we can bring in outside parties to try and cool the discussion, I doubt we'll be able to find any other editors with enough expertise in the actual topic to have a purely intellectual debate there. Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Potential blue water navies

Are you asking for citation for the term potential blue water navy or you are asking for citation for each navy in the list. If it is each Navy in the list then it is already provided. And if you are asking for citation for the term Potential blue water navy then there exists none, since the meaning of it is future blue water navies or the navies that are working to acheive the blue water status. Another important thing is that you asking for citation to be provided for U.S Navy to be called a blue water Navy. This seems unjustified since the whole world knows the U.S navy is a blue water navy. Also it is not the responsiblity of selected people to contribute to articles. If you wish to contribute to the article by finding and providing source, please do it rather than ask others to do it. Chanakyathegreat 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no verification that the US navy is a blue water navy, so this is OR according to wikipedia standards.

I found the term potential blue water navy nowhere mentioned to describe a navy, so I want a source to show that this term is not OR of some wikipedians. Wandalstouring 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PROVIDED SOURCED COMMENTS. Wandalstouring 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Russia can have the largest submarine force in the world for all anyone cares. The problem is Russia's finances; the Russian Navy is nowhere near as active as the three currently listed. To try and draw similarities is a bit dangerous and unhelpful. Russia simply does not have the money to operate such a large navy; they have a huge navy that they can't use, in essence. Obviously I'm exaggerating by "can't use," but the main thrust is that the very size of Russia's military (generally, not just the navy) does not square well with Russia's financial resources.UberCryxic 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This is OR as long as you give me no sources. I wrote an email to the Russian Navy and asked them for their opinion. Wandalstouring 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources? For this? Gladly if you insist on it, but it's a pretty well-known fact. The Russians have had trouble maintaining the efficiency of their military forces after the fall of the Soviet Union. E-mailing the Russian Navy is unlikely to resolve the problem. A few months ago, another user was very dedicated to labeling the Spanish Navy a blue-water one. It would be like that user e-mailing the Spanish Navy and asking them for their opinion. I mean....they're probably going to say yes, but....so what?UberCryxic 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So they can be quoted here. If they lie to us, you can be sure, that every other military is going to rub them blue water ability in. Or do you want to suggest that the opinion of UberCryxic can be officially quoted on wikipedia?
There are no sources so get them. Verifiability is missing. Wandalstouring 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of my arguments for the current blue-water navy list revolve around this site: [1]. They don't explicitly categorize Russia anywhere, but they do label America, Britain, and France under the ranking, "Major Global Force Projection Navy," then proceed to highlight some of the differences.UberCryxic 19:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the globalsecurity site, not least because it's popup hell and my security software rings itself off the hook over it!
Other than that a number of the articles are inaccurate, some of the material is dated 1994, some of the US systems names are out of date, and some of the UKUSA group stuff is wrong. It also seems to source quite a lot of the UK related material from conspiracy and alien-hunter sites who seem to think that we're hiding ours in a quarry in Wiltshire.
I don't think it qualifies as reliable.ALR 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For our purposes, it's been one of the most reliable and useful sites we have found.UberCryxic 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Major Global Force Projection Navy" is not identical with blue water navy (unless you find a reliable source proving this without the help of Scully and Mulder). Sorry, but as ALR pointed out, this source does not qualify, otherwise we would have to state that there is a major naval Nazi power undermining the Antarctic continent and frequently bashing the US Navy (yes, such sources exist).Wandalstouring 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother linking Brown and Green, I see a lot of value in just redirecting them once we've improve the Blue Water article. although it probably needs a name change afterwards.ALR 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get it encyclopedic first, afterwards there is something to discuss resonably and it can be tossed around. Can you provide a link for EEZ and perhaps make the ref section with small fonts? Wandalstouring 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take another look, I had something yesterday, I'm pretty sure it's in the doctrine publication, but I'll need to have another skim through it and I'm not at the client site until Thursday now.ALR 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wandastouring:
I regret to tell you that contemporary Russian navy issues are an area I know very little about...which perhaps is an irony because a family member of mine was a rear-admiral in the Russian Baltic Fleet under the last tsar.
I'd offer to research the issue for you, but judging from the depth of your remarks here, you are looking for esoteric knowledge on the subject which I probably couldn't find via internet searches.
Concerning current/recent Soviet/Russian military affairs, however, I have read a fair amount about the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Kenmore 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Actually I'm just looking for a proclamation of the RN, like we can reach any shore with our aircraft carrier group within 3 month notice. Such statements are most likely made in Russian. Afterwards I can quote them. Wandalstouring 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue/Green/Brown Water Navies Cont'd

Hey Wandalstouring, Have been watching this huge Blue/Green/Brown water navy tiff with amusement due to the fact that my Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy, could maybe be considered blue water (we send ships to the other side of the world) yet our deployable force is two rather under-armed frigates!! Saw your suggestion that they all be AfD'd, and insistance on definitions. Are you making any progress? HAve you found any def'ns better thah globalsecurity.org? Cheers Buckshot06 08:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we made some progress. Blue water navy is now based heavily on citations and there is a useable definition. This listing of the worlds blue water navies is a bit of a struggle, because some editors did not like my deleting of future blue water navies (+these intelligence reports on their plans) and turning it into examples rather than a complet listing. Whether the New Zealand Navy is blue water or not can be discussed. It also depends on the size of their enemies, but I think the forces they send around the world are roughly equals what the German Navy sends around the world (delivering a piece of concrete with graffiti on it from Berlin to South Africa) and they have been treatybound to stay a green water navy till 1984 without much progress since, so I wouldn't push it. Let's keep the big ones on the list. Wandalstouring 08:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian-Soviet Military History Task Force

Wandalstouring:

I would like to be part of the Russian-Soviet military history task force. I'm well read on the subject, particularly tsarist military affairs in the 19th century. See my articles on the 1812 battles of Polotsk II, Vyazma, Czasniki, and Smoliani. I did most of the Krasnoi article also, but had to suspend working on it due to a conflict with another editor. When that's resolved, Krasnoi will be a fine, in-depth analysis, including many footnotes, sources, and maps.

For more, see my contributions to the Krasnoi, Borodino, and French Invasion of Russia discussion pages.

Kenmore 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Caspian Expeditions of the Rus

Thanks for the heads up! I'm not sure I'm as familiar with the topic as the two editors already on the job, but I'll have a look and see what I can do. I think I may start an article on the siege of Constantinople for starters. --Grimhelm 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not quite sure whether the article should be kept under that title. Maybe a merger with the siege for example could create Southern Expeditions of the Rus'. Have fun. Wandalstouring 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Reward page

Unfortunately not. And being a poor high skool student I have no money to offer. :( (And even if I did I think I'll keep it.) -- Миборовский 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles de Gaulle R91 - Straw Poll

There is a Straw Poll in the discussion page of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, can you kindly participate and if you have other persons who can provide an unbiased opinion that can help. Thanks a lot. Natobxl

Hey, actually there are no conflicting sources at all, or at least no one has given any so far. The real contention has been about how much, and how decisive, is what the current sources do claim about the event.UberCryxic 23:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget they do not agree upon what kind of operation this was. That is the central point. Wandalstouring 23:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They all agree that it was a patrolling mission between French and American fighters. But you are right in the sense that some have used the word "interposition," others "reconaissaince." However, this can be worked out in the text of the article.UberCryxic 23:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A slight but important difference and where is your atlantique incident mentioned in these sources? Wandalstouring 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Most don't mention it, but I wasn't the one who wrote the current version. I have some disagreements, but wasn't allowed to change anything (for understandable reasons - we were still in the middle of a dispute).UberCryxic 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So what the heck are you telling people? And then you want to remove the dispute tag in the middle of the dispute as you admit??? Wandalstouring 00:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well hang on. Many believe that at this point overwhelming evidence has been provided that this event actually happened. Whether it was an "interposition" mission or one of "reconaissaince" is a matter that can be sorted out in the text, but in light of these beliefs, I wanted to see where people stood on removing the disputed tag. What I'm telling people is this: the JED article, the most prestigious source we have so far, states that the commander of the Charles de Gaulle said that Rafale fighters had participated in a patrolling mission with American fighters, one that was not an exercise.UberCryxic 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey again, I've found what I believe to be an excellent new source. See this, from the Bharat Rakshak Monitor, an Indian military and strategic online, peer-reviewed publication. The relevant quote goes as follows:

This fits with recent Pakistani reports [emphasis mine] that during June, French Rafale fighters and airborne control stations maintained combat air patrols across the probable path of fighters flying between Karachi and Mumbai – probably to stop surprise attacks on Indian nuclear facilities near Mumbai.

It appears, after all, that it was an interposition mission. The Liberation article was right.UberCryxic 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You misssed an essential word: "probably" The point is we are unlikely to ever state for sure so we absolutely have to use a relativation. Wandalstouring 10:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "probable" in there speaks only about the presumed path of Pakistani fighters. The excerpt states, "absolutely," that the Rafales were actually conducting patrols, which is essentially all that matters from our perspective.UberCryxic 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, read again. There are is only one "probably" (I thought it self evident.) "probably to stop surprise attacks on Indian nuclear facilities near Mumbai." Understood that it is not clear whether these are patrols = OR. Wandalstouring 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see now. My fault.UberCryxic 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War of the Grand Alliance

What's wrong with the grammar and spelling of the article? Raymond Palmer 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I said it on the description that the footnotes are a problem. Wandalstouring 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You put a tag to say the article is poor in grammar and spelling - it is not. If you have a problem with the footnotes, fair enough. But do not put a tag saying the article is grammatically poor at the top of the article. Raymond Palmer
It is a usual expression that the article needs copyediting and it is contained under style, as the citation style is needs major work. Save your breath and read. Wandalstouring 18:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what in particular about the footnotes is troubling? They seem fairly standardized to me. The style that Raymond used is fairly unorthodox I must admit, but as long as he's consistent with it, it will not trouble the reader.UberCryxic 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That section could be a lot shorter. Wandalstouring 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By using the named ref tag trick (e.g. <ref name="X"/>), presumably? It's quite controversial, for a number of reasons (chiefly that it [a] produces letter backlinks that look quite absurd if the article is printed, [b] inhibits navigation by preventing the article and the footnotes from having consistently incrementing note numbers, and [c] is a violation of every style guide for formal English that I've seen, at least), and shouldn't be imposed on an article if the main editors don't want to use it.
(Incidentally, the unorthodox style is a bit jarring, and I would encourage switching the title and page numbers, if Raymond doesn't object.) Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, will read the style guide again. Wandalstouring 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: African military history task force

Meh. Normally I'd like at least three comitted people before starting something off; on the other hand, this is a pretty obvious case. It's probably worthwhile leaving the discussion open for a bit; but, if nothing major changes, I'll probably just create the thing sometime tonight or tomorrow. Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace bro

The three revert rule works both ways and anyone can call on an administrator. I will review your changes against other factual sources. However, you obviously don't know squat about horses, though your knowledge of medieval history may be somewhat better. Wikipedia asks that we assume good faith, so I will assume good faith on your part, but suggest that you consider the effect your aggressive tone has on others. Montanabw 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Per your comments on my talk page and within the war horse article, Please note that I only removed the fact template from two areas where I inserted a citation to a reference source that is, per wiki guidelines, acceptable if not perfect. Your other internal comments on War Horse may be well taken and are good suggestions for further research. And you were correct on the date of that armor photo, I make no argument that plate armor was worth a damn against a bullet or longbow, but they must have initially tried it for some reason other than just looks, but that discussion probably would be better placed in one of the articles on armor. Too bad commons doesn't have something better, if you find a good quality illustration or museum photo of something from the 14th century, feel free to add it, it would help.
However, please note that I did NOT create the original article, much of the historic material was already there, I initially just did a bunch of moving around, cleaning up, and generally trying to stylistically whip it into shape. Some of the material that I personally added I am more than willing to look up some references on, the rest of it, like the Iranian cavalry reference (beats me if it's accurate, I didn't put it in there) well, those who care can look up the details and make any necessary corrections and citations, I only have so much time, unfortunately. The article sat around with the fact template in several sections for ages (I put one of those requests in there myself, actually) and no one seemed to care enough to provide any cites...sigh. As for the heavy horses that carried the knights, the modern Shire and other draft breeds are some of their descendants, though so too is the smaller Friesian horse (see Destrier article also). The details on height and weight will take some digging to unearth (I hope someone did skeleton studies, but who knows) and it's safe to presume that the 1800 lb, 18 hand Shire of today is bigger than its predecessor, but a 16 hand, 1200 pound modern Fresian or even a 15.2 Andalusian horse could still carry armor...and they are, even by modern standards, "large" horses that can be intimidating if not well-mannered. At any rate, if you have sources or citations to add, please add them, at least in the form of "some experts say X, but others say Y..." We all have multiple articles here we track, and my interests are more in the horsemanship and horse breeds articles than this one, so work on it has to go into the queue and wait its turn...I'll add what I can when I can. Montanabw 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: war horse

Oldwindybear might know something on the topic, but I can't think of any other (active) editor with a particular interest in that field. Kirill Lokshin 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK guys, see this new article Horses in Warfare as a sandbox to completely rewrite War horse. I created an outline as a basis to start. I think rather than trying to rewrite the old article, let's just start a new one. Later on we can decide whether to keep the new article or boldly paste its contents into the old one. And please, be nice, my interest is in horses as well as cultural and political history. Your background seems to be military stuff. We can work together on this, I think, as long as there is an awareness that there are different perspectives that go into a piece like this. Montanabw 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

<< It is a difference for example if you train soldiers in an army emphasizing Mission-type tactics (US Marines are starting to use it increasingly) or Command and control used by US - and Sovjet forces. Mission type soldiers must be handeld differently, the instructor has to explain a lot what he does, etc. because the soldiers have responsibilities. Command and control means more doing what someone tells you no matter what. >>Wandalstouring 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no argument there...likewise, you handle "hot-blooded" light horses quite a bit differently than "cold-blooded" draft or heavy horses. There is also an eternal debate in the horse training world between the "make the horse your partner" school of thought versus the "break their sprit and show 'em who's boss" school of thought--and that debate crosses all breeds and types. I'm just trying to figure out how all this fits into the war horse article, because these differences aren't so much related to the needs of military tactics as to the types of horses and the cultures that produced them...I mean a lot of what Xenophon was writing about was basically a plea to be nicer and less cruel to horses, then the knights used equipment on their lighter destriers that was so vicious-looking it would curl your toenails, only to have the nobility advocate training the very same type of animals with the gentlest methods 500 years later as Haute Ecole developed, and thus the debate is still not over. My question remains, what is it non-horse people are after here? Montanabw 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

<<Show different methods to prepare a horse for war. Perhaps make a difference between the lighter and heavier horses. I think the heavier types were more likely to face the killing in close quarters, as they were used by the heavy cavalry. It comes to my mind, that I heard the crusaders (heavy with lances) used stallions for their aggression, while the Muslims (light with bows) used mares which were easier to control. So it is perhaps more likely that the stallions faced crueler methods to prepare them for battle and control them in the fight, I assume. Wandalstouring 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)>>

It might be useful to discuss that yes, the crusaders often used stallions (stallions are aggressive, they can also be unpredictable and a pain in the ass, most armies probably used geldings for any real work), while the Muslims valued mares as war horses (Mares would stay quiet when on a raid, more loyal and trustworthy). Relative cruelty or brutality was more cultural than based on the sex of the horse. There IS a temperament difference between different breeds, probably worth noting. Problem is that there is both too much and not enough information on training...the best we can do is really broad generalities because to go into the differences between cultures and times would take several major treatises and the research is quite difficult to do unless you have access to a major university library. There is a problem with source materials. (Have you looked at that Kentucky Horse Park site I noted on the talk page? Maybe do so and see if that clarifies what my problem is in discussing "training.") Sort of like training dogs--yes you train a bird dog to do different things than a show dog or a guard dog or a hound taught to chase game on land. Where to even start, though? VERY complicated to explain! Montanabw 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is getting long for individual talk pages. Let's move it back to the Horse in Warfare talk page. I'm going to add a bit to the training section of the article in a bit. Some of the horse articles have good history and cultural stuff, others are total crap, it's real inconsistent. Your notion of putting things in general terms is probably the only workable solution. Montanabw 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Roman legion ==

You have been critizing the Roman legion article and mentioned battlefield deployments we have not yet shown. Are you interested in explaining to one of our graphic inclined editors how such a formation looked like, so we can create pictures of accurate examples. Thank you Wandalstouring 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am more than happy to help out with this, yes. I am fairly new to wikipedia so not sure as to procedure on this though. The existing diagram is OK-ish but not really accurate or showing variations and detail. I am perfectly capable photoshop user myself if it is acceptable to draw up some images myself and upload them? Of more concern to me really is the equation of roman legion with roman army! Would defintiely like t see more comment on that from people. - PocklingtonDan 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Commented on your user page, you mentioned more Roman formations, could you also make images of these. And perhaps give some examples of enemy formations (not just a black bar) to help the reader understand better the interaction. Wandalstouring 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall work on both the new images as suggested, and also revise the existing ones to show the misleading single block of enemy troops. - PocklingtonDan 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: African military history task force

Hi Wandal,

What do you mean by "a template"? An entry in {{WPMILHIST}}? A userbox? Or something else?

Cheers,

Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way too much info

you put way too much detailed info into the Roman military article. Could you try to outsource it to other articles like: Military history of ancient Rome Wandalstouring 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - the history section is very small, and any other info put in, for example, the branches section is the minimum necessary to make sense of the terms and put them in context. I think the Roman military article serves an essential purpose to bring structure to the topic and any notes within it are purely to give it context and make it easier to understand. In my opinion it is pretty much pared down to the bare minimum - let's not forget this is a massive topic covering an entity with 1300 years existence and numerous reforms, and the article is scarcely longer than that for gladius for example. I seem to be ping-ponging at the moment between people telling me to split articles down into smaller articles and people telling me to merge smaller articles into larger ones. As far as I can tell the general agreement between me, yourself and others was to make the Romam military article an "extended disambiguation" page. The disambiguation necessarily entails some small amount of history - it doesn't make sense to mention two different types of army unit without putting into perspective that a reform led from one to the other. I agree that none of the history or detail should go very deep - that would be the job of a specialist page - but I do believe that it is the necessary glue that binds together the various terms and links used. I don't think any article can really be "too detailed" either - that seems a misnomer for an encycolpedia - it seems to me that if a section that briefly summarises a topic gives more information than a dedicated article on that topic, that the dedicated article is lacking and needs work, not that the summary needs to be pared down. I have in front of me on my desk just a few reference book from my colelction on Rome that together amount to over 6000 pages, which are themselves commentary and abbreviated versions of tens of thousands of pages of recorded data from archeology, contemporary sources etc - I really don't think that an article that is barely two pages of A4 on the Roman military can be said to be too detailed! :-) Of course, this is wikipedia, so if there is a consensus it needs to be pared down, or even if one individual is keen to pare it down, then it will happen. I would just always rather see too much information on a topic than too little. - PocklingtonDan 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out in addition that in creating the Roman military article I followed the convention and precedent in setting covered areas and section titles and content of other military articles such as British military and US military. The ROman military section matches these closely and is in fact shorter despite covering a much larger stretch of history. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "this is no reference"

Hi - Sorry, didn't understand your message "this is no reference" on my user talk page. Can you clarify please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "roman military" article

There's some good cited info on the article "Decline of the Roman Empire" that might be of use in the expenditure section of the roman military article to explain the difficulty in the late empire of funding the roman military - PocklingtonDan 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong way, the expenditure section would very well tune in there. Wandalstouring 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Military History and Lists of Related Topics

Hi, I apologize if the TV show note seemed irrelevant. I have begun using the List of Uganda-related topics to make a red-link outline with tentative titles, including the Amin era. I will continue with the other countries as well; List of Angola-related topics, etc. Unfortunately I am not enough of scholar to go ahead and write these articles to full status. The work is under H:History of Uganda. --McTrixie 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Roman military system" - proposed changes

Hi

I've proposed some changes on the discussion page of "Roman military system" given that its contents are currently a misnomer and do not match the title. Could you comment/vote on whether you approve of the proposed action on the talk page please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you also please take a look at the same sort of problem on Military history of ancient Rome - I've started a thread on the talk page but basically the article content has nothing to do with the article title. If you were able to add your opinion on the proposed changes I would be grateful. Many Thanks, PocklingtonDan 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converting lists

I think you are doing ill service by converting list into prose and destructuring the whole. try blockquotes and make the first word in fat print. That is a very old and widespread encyclopedic layout. Wandalstouring 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

hi wandalstouring, I think it is only fair to consider the immediate reactions to those who read and review the article. Whilst the bullet points displayed a clear and strong immediate layout to those of us with knowledge of the subject, every one of the three peer reviews stated that they found them confusing. I think that without explanation around them in prose form people were finding them hard to understand. I think perhaps we were assuming too much about an average reader's knowledge of the terms we were using, and a lot of it didn't make sense to people. I agreed with you initially about the bullet points (they are clearer to me) but it makes sense to write the articles so that they are clearest to the maximum number of people using them. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. None of them was confused by the layout with bullet points. It was considered against established rules.
Take this guideline and we still keep an easy to read layout:
The advantage of the bullet form like this is giving fast and easy to access links (and descriptions have not yet been added to all of them). This has clear advantages in this aspects to pure prose as all the disambiguation pages show. Wandalstouring 02:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's one way of doing it, but it's still basically a glossary. You could accomplish the same thing with easier-to-follow context, I think; for example, something like:

The Roman legion was almost entirely heavy infantry drawn exclusively from Roman citizens of any class. It was made up of Cohorts, which were further divided into Centuriae. Each legion had an associated Equites legionis, a body of Roman legionary cavalry.
The Roman auxilia was a formalisation of the earlier arrangement of using allied troops from the Socii and Latini who had received Roman citizenship after the Social War.

You have so much material that it folds into sentences pretty naturally; I don't really see the benefit of keeping it in bulleted form, given that you're not presenting some complicated hierarchy that needs graphical cues to be understood. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(...)

Well, it's basically up to you how you structure the article. Personally, I (and many other editors) prefer prose to lists, so that's what I'll generally advise; but you're obviously free to do something else if you don't think that my suggestion is sensible here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it is much less clearer. Cheers. None of the peer reviews complained that bullleted lists make it not clear to anybody. It was about established FA rules saying it has to be in prose. As I already answered you, you could do it very differently (read again the suggestion of Kirill Lokshin) and kept a clear structure while using lots of prose to explain things even to the lowest bidder. Think first, edit later. Wandalstouring 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wandalstouring. I don't think this is something to get upset about. I thought it was very clear from the peer reviews that all three reviewers to date commented that they thought that prose would be better than bulleted lists. Expanding to full prose has made things less clear to someone familiar with the terms who is scanning the article (you and me) but much clearer to someone unfamiliar with the terms who is reading it through from start to finish (the reviewers and general readership). I did think first and edit later - I called a peer review, listened to their responses, posted what I was gong to do in response to their reviews, and then did it. I can't think of a more thorough or transparent process than what I did. PocklingtonDan 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I pointed out, you didn't use all input. Prose is not a layout style. The bulleted lists were a layout style, the ellipsis were a writing style. Now you changed the writing style, OK. You also changed the layout and now it is non-functional. That is the point. There was a suggestion considering how to turn the writing style into prose and keep the layout easy to scan. That's the trick with blockquotes. Wandalstouring 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major error

This diagram is wrong from the point you branch of the Eastern Roman Empire (and none in the peer review realized this factual error). At the moment the Eastern Empire branched of the military was divided in half. In your diagram the Eastern Empire started with a few hundred men and rapidly expanded to hundred thousands (thanks to which series of military geniuses?). Wandalstouring 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying - can you give me a quick sketch of how you think this can be better represented? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At the time the Eastern Empire branches out, divide the number of military personal in half and give each one half of the troops, so the graph of the lila area has a sudden discontinuous decline. Wandalstouring 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
can you just draw me a really quick sketch, no matter how rudimentary, to demonstrate what you mean please? Chers - PocklingtonDan 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging articles

Any article related to this task force should be marked by adding African-task-force=yes to the

WPMILHIST This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

project banner at the top of its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). This will automatically place it into Category:African military history task force articles. Greatings Wandalstouring 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:African Military history task force

Very interesting. But I think I have an interest more in modern or ongoing conflicts, especially the Central African War. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musket imagery

Sorry for the delay, didn't immidiately respond and forgot. I can provide raster images of the side of the weapons, would be nice if someone could turn them into unilingual SVGs. Drop me a mail with the address where I should send them. Scoo 07:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbow

I'm surprised I never though of just putting 'faster shooting'. I sat and did a find/replace for 'fire/fired' 'shoot/shot', but then found that it left over 'before the dawn of shootarms' and 'rate of shoot'. So, I sat and agonised for a bit, and decided that 'rate of fire' couldn't be too bad. Hehe. But how did the article sit for so long, pontificating about 'firing'. The Crying Orc 11:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I had corectected all firing, but it seems new edits brought it in again. People can think of nothing but firing a weapon. Hopefully the next step is not:"The Romans fired their pila before engaging in close combat." Wandalstouring 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class reviews

A quick note: I usually find it more productive to put up a reminder note halfway through the four-day review period; doing it so soon after the review is put up may not be the best time for it. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case make it part of the A-class review description. It is advised to do... Wandalstouring 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh, not much point in adding more bureaucracy, in my opinion; trivial issues like that don't really need to be codified. (Plus, not every review needs a reminder message; I've only been leaving them in cases where we don't have at least three reviewers by the halfway point, not for all requests.) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Or putting it in other words, every recent review. Well, in case you get ill, die, go insane or the like we simply should codify such guidelines somewhere. Not bureaucratic of course, but see the efficiency of all the assistants also suffers from the fact that they don't know how to handle things and don't want to mess up things. Wandalstouring 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Planning for my untimely demise? ;-)
(I've added a note to the list of tasks on the coordinator talk page about leaving such reminders; I'll try to put together some boilerplate that can be used shortly.) Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image links

I'd place them below the infobox, rather than on top of it; but that may just be personal preference. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We have not yet a guideline. Usually I place it under the infobox, but in some cases in thought it better on top. Could you change the background of the header to blue? Would look way better. Wandalstouring 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. What do you think? Does this solution improve our little project? (I'm waiting for the first reactions.) Wandalstouring 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it should work well, if used in moderation. We'll need to keep an eye on articles that use it to make sure it doesn't become a link-farm of the sort that regular "External links" sections sometimes do. Kirill Lokshin 06:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat

Thanks for the feedback on the Military brat Peer Review and for taking the extra step in getting another non-American's input. Balloonman 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback on the Military brat Peer Review and for taking the extra step in getting another non-American's input. Balloonman 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbow Rewrite

Could you please help me finish my plan for the main crossbow article? Mostly the types of crossbow section needs work. cyclosarin 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your way to start a new article is a bit odd. I didn't notice you wanted to do it so private. Yes, I will take a look, but wouldn't it be a better idea to shift your suggestion to the talk page of the concerning article so other editors may also join? Wandalstouring 08:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't sure what else to do. The plan is based on the main article and the suggestions discussed on the talk page with a link on the talk page and I wanted to transfer the content from the main article and possibly some extra in order to make it usable before maybe adding it to the main article to be further edited. cyclosarin 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving requests

I'd suggest just adding the links to the requested articles directly to the task force's open task template, rather than putting them on the task page; that just adds more work, as someone now has to move the request again. Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to put this directly on the to do list of task forces I wasn't member. So I left it to the task forces how to proceed. Wandalstouring 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Task force membership is entirely an informal thing; in any case, you're a coordinator—it's part of your job to do organizational things like that. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't mention in my job description. Still, I consider it more invasive to put things on someones to do list (task forces are groups of shared interest) than making it as a proposal on the talk page. Wandalstouring 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Bleh. If you don't add them to the to-do list, chances are nobody will; as I've said, people assume that the coordinators will take care of such things. (And I haven't seen anybody else—task force member or not—making "proposals" before adding items to the to-do list.) At this point, the approach is just adding more work for everyone involved; so please feel free to add things to the task templates directly. :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What do coordinators do needs some expansion. :P But honestly if nobody does the task force doesn't work. Wandalstouring 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Well, in any case, I've taken care of adding things to the templates for the time being. Kirill Lokshin 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: manually created template of task force list

Yep, what you put together worked quite well! (It just wasn't the best solution in the long run, I think. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Viewers' evaluation

It's an idea that's been brought up many times in various forms (see, for example, m:Article validation); the basic issue is that something like that can't really be done (in a halfway-decent manner) through simple templates, but would require actual changes to the software to support reading forms from viewers and putting the results somewhere meaningful—and that's not something the developers seem to want to do, or have time for, at the moment. (The approach is, of course, quite controversial; many people—myself included—think that the signal-to-noise ratio of comments from random readers would make them pretty useless, as the average reader, even if not merely a juvenile vandal entering nonsense, would likely know very little about the topic of an arbitrarily chosen article, and would thus be able to provide superficial comments, at best.) Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a point of view I don't share. I encountered several anonymous editors in recent times who did know their subject. But well, the technical difficulties are an issue. Talking about such things to our developers is pretty pointless for they do whatever they want. Let's leave it at this until I surprise you with the finished product ;) Wandalstouring 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/n/User_talk%7EWandalstouring_a1cf.html"