Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] question

whats the diffrence between "critique" and "review". is the Battle of the Thousand Islands ready for either of these?

Generally speaking, "critique" refers to articles listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, while "review" refers to articles listed on Wikipedia:Peer review. I would suggest adding your article to the peer review page; it's not always useful, but can often produce some good recommendations.
Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed formatting

I found the taskbox before a bit too cluttered and busy, so I've brought it down to a slightly simpler look with fewer colours, so it's easier to follow, which I personally prefer. Of course, this is only what I feel works best so if anyone objects I don't mind at all changing it back or having it further modified. --Loopy e 01:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the collaboration from a bullet point to an arrow, though; I think it's useful to make a distinction between regular tasks and one-time things. —Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Bolded the whole lot, then =) --Loopy e 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth of Nations

Commonwealth of Nations is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. (Can someone please add it to the article page?) Sandy 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I can't see what that article has to do with military history, as it's entirely political in scope. Kirill Lokshin 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Krill, I probably notified here because it was included in the "What Links here". Sandy 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England expects that every man will do his duty

England expects that every man will do his duty is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Downfall

Operation Downfall is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eureka Stockade

Eureka Stockade is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Leyte Gulf FAR

Battle of Leyte Gulf 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. Sandy (Talk) 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with ww 2 article please

Hi. could some of you guys please go over to the World War 2 article? There's currently a proposal there by only two users to rewrite most of the article, mainly to shorten it. I'm very concernred that only two people could rewrite an entire large article, consisting of dozens of people's work, without any underlying consensus. It seems to me that this would mean the removal of the work of many people by a small handful of users, mainly to attain what they consider the "correct" article length. So I'm disturbed that this is happening without any underlying consensus. i'd feel a lot better if a few more people could come over to the article, and take a look. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picket duty

Many articles refer to "picket duty" or "picket" but it doesn't seem to be defined or covered in an article anywhere. 2nd Vermont Brigade and USS Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) both use this term several times and it appears in dozens more. Is this an article that should be added by someone familiar with the topic? ✤ JonHarder talk 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me like it's a more appropriate candidate for Wiktionary. The "picket" entry there right now is incomplete, leaving off this once-common use of the word. Pickets, as you probably know, are sentries or advance troops whose job it is to warn of contact with the enemy. Not sure if that's enough for an encyclopedia article, but certainly "pickets" and "picket duty" should be mentioned in an article like military terminology, which is currently one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. —Kevin 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, crummy article. There was a brief discussion a few months back about creating some sort of glossary of military terminology to take care of the various topics that needed an easy-to-locate definition, but didn't have enough material for an actual article, but I don't think it really went anywhere concrete. Kirill Lokshin 06:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There is the oddly named List of established military terms, which needs work but would be a good place to start for someone interested in doing the job. —Kevin 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses! I suggest trying to pull together enough information to make an article; the other terms in List of established military terms have one! There must be substantial difference between US Civil War picket duty and the radar picket duty mentioned in USS Mannert L. Abele (DD-733). This appears to be a case where the article writers assume I have a background understanding, but in this case I don't have a clue what is meant! Or I had to go to other websites to figure it out. If the experts here decide to start an article, I'm more than willing to ferret out all the articles that have such a reference and add the link. (I may have started this discussion in the wrong place; if so, please move it!) ✤ JonHarder talk 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Somme FAR

Battle of the Somme 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) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of the Soviet Union FAR

Military history of the Soviet Union 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) 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Alesia FAR

Battle of Alesia 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) 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeppelin FAR

Zeppelin 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) 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Why don't we add to the template the military history good article candidates? It would give them major visibility, and possibly make the evaluating of these articles faster. What do you think?--Aldux 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are various subtle considerations (the GA process is not really highly regarded within the project, for one), but the main practical reason is that it doesn't use individual review pages (or any other standard and long-term place for discussion), so creating links for each article is rather impractical.
(I'd be open to just adding a single link to the section on the nomination page where the articles are listed, under the "Articles needing attention" heading; but I'm not sure how useful that would be.) Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In theory, someone could monitor the GA process and add every article to the banner (using a link to the article talk page, perhaps? a lot of GA discussions seem to occur there), but, as Kirill points out, the GA process is not highly though of within the project, so I'm not sure that nominations would attract a lot of attention from project members even if they were listed in the announcements section. Carom 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with linking to the talk page is that an editor following such a link would have no idea what they were supposed to be doing there, since there's generally no GA-related discussion actually on them until after the nomination has already been dealt with by a reviewer. The advantage of explicit subpages is that you can click on the link and wind up in the place where the review you're trying to participate in is actually happening; I don't really see any good way of linking to GA candidates on a per-article basis and still having the links point somewhere useful. Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - personally, I don't have any desire to add the GA nominations to the announcements template. I was only suggesting a possibility for a link if there was some support for doing this. And of course, this is only one of the problems with the whole GA system... Carom 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire

The Military history of the Ottoman Empire portal is under construction now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Military history of Africa

Military history of Africa Portal has just been created. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire FAR

Byzantine Empire 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) 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq war Portal

I created a portal for the Iraq war Portal:Iraq War but it doesn't appear to be getting much edits. Does anyone have any recommendations for improving the traffic and usability of this portal.--Langloisrg 19:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

User:Casavette has been editing war articles glorifying Ossama Bin Laden and replacing kill numbers with random numers. Not everything has been reverted. Fvdham 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oorah Semper Fi

I was wondering if maybe someone could start an article on Stingray Patrols in Vietnam. I know a little about them, but not enough to actually get an article started. Any takers?--MKnight9989 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Austria

Not being an expert myself I'd like to arouse some interest in this topic. Maybe this could lead to improving some of the existing articles and hopefully creating new ones. And someday establishing a Portal:Military History of Austria. Take a look at Austro-Hungarian Army, Military history of Austria, or Military of Austria. I'd say help is definitely needed. There is a lot that could/should be done. Austro-Prussian War seems to be a little better, but only a little. It is rightfully categorized as an article without any sources. --Catgut 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWII - Atlantic Black Gap ??

I've heard of the "mid-Atlantic Gap" and I know what that is, and I'd presume that anyone who said "Atlantic Gap" in the context of WWII would mean the same thing, but I can find no trace of "Atlantic Black Gap". Is the middle word ancient uncorrected vandalism? Or just something I've never heard of before? CraigWyllie 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Indian/Native American

One of the largest gaps in the subjects is an area for American Indian war or military history. This would include the negotiation of treaties, Management of Native American affairs- which predates the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), The Exploratory Corps (Army) which mapped the Pacific coastline, Fort Astoria/Fort George conflicts, and operations in the Pacific Northwest after the Mexican-American war. Additionally Forts established in Indian Country, each of which deserves a page. Also USA wars against Tribal Nations. Some of this needs to be checked on and referenced under Military history. Coyotez 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of this template at peer review and design issues

At the moment, this template is not suitable for transclusion at peer review because it is too big. When transcluded as {{WPMILHIST_Announcements}} onto another page, the template adds the following to the page size parameters:

Pre-expand include size: 638214/2048000 bytes
Post-expand include size: 739277/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 163058/2048000 bytes.

Even when transcluded in the form {{WPMILHIST_Announcements|pronly=yes}}, as it was at WP:PR, it adds the following:

Pre-expand include size: 501906/2048000 bytes
Post-expand include size: 466657/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 163064/2048000 bytes.

This could easily push the PR page over the transclusion limits, and it nearly did today. See Wikipedia:Template limits for more information on these limits, and also tips for making templates smaller (see in particular the sections on documentation and conditional inclusion).

However, I really think that this template needs a redesign because it mixes form and content. It is not sensible to have to edit a template full of tables to add a peer review to the list or make an announcement. It would be much better if this information were transcluded from separate pages with names like WP:WikiProject Military history/Peer review list. It is easy to provide links on the template to update these lists using the {{fullurl}} parser function. This has the advantage that the list information can be formatted and used in different ways on different pages without any complicated template code. I see that this is already done for the task force lists (but these also partially mix form and content).

I hope these suggestions are helpful. If you need further elaboration of these thoughts, or some help redesigning the template, please let me know.

As one final point, WikiProject banner templates such as this one (which seems to be only transcluded onto a couple of other pages) really belong in Wikipedia space, rather than Template space. They can still be made easy to use via a shortcut. Cheers, Geometry guy 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted; we'll consider how best to redesign this. Kirill 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks much nicer now! It would still have been a large transclusion, but fortunately, the new preprocessor was switched on yesterday. This fixes the bug that #if parser functions expand all their arguments. Anyway, the template is fine at peer review now (it only adds 3600 bytes). Geometry guy 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Australian HMAS list

Hi there. Noticed this page [Her_Majesty%27s_Australian_Ship] was on the list of pages to be tided up, it's a stub article and half the data was wrong. So tidied up and added references. Can someone run it through a bot or something to decide if it needs more work.

thanks 83.105.8.125 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)user 18:28 17 March 2008

[edit] WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing

Dear colleagues—This week, it's all about how reviewing at these locations are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

We're happy for the word to be spread, since we need more reviewers; if you have a mind to review, please drop in. TONY (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)