User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 16

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WWI directory
Hi there. Would you have time to look at this WWI directory I've started in my userspace? I included there the section at the WikiProject Resource Exchange that you started in February 2014. I have seen other such lists in userspaces (I can't remember where now exactly, but plan to contact them) and have a similar list myself on the bottom half of this page. Some people will have very extensive book collections and libraries. Was wondering about the best way to co-ordinate this? Would you have any advice? Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - apologies for my tardy reply. Certainly I can see value in a WWI directory to help coordinate and (hopefully) encourage more work in this important area, and think your idea about housing it at WikiProject Military history/World War I task force is a good one. Unfortunately as the MILHIST project has gotten more mature there seems to have been a decline in overt participation in some of our collective initiatives (not a criticism of anyone just an observation - my own contributions have also dropped off significantly of late). As such if you would like to get more people involved you might consider advertising it in some form, such as in The Bugle, in addition to your posting on the MILHIST talkpage (which I can see you have already done). This might serve to alert more of our contributors to the effort and get some more involvement etc (or at least remind them of it). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Overt participation does seem to be declining (nice way of putting it). I will follow up with the Bugle editors (have made contact already). One thing I would like to do is get a feel for how much activity is going on in this area. I think that can be done by a link to 'changes related' to a page with links to all the articles. Something like that was set up (a very long time ago now) for another WikiProject I was involved in, see here and the set up here and the other pages and related changes links there and on the talk page there. There is also the option of 'related changes' on categories, so something like this gets you a view of the editing going on at the talk pages of FA-level WWI articles, but how do you get the corresponding overview of the editing activity at the articles themselves? I am sure there was a way to do this, but have forgotten? One reason for doing this is to find out who is most active in this area, and to contact those people! Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I've often wondered how to get an overview of editing activity in a certain area myself. Just off the top of my head I know that User:Keith-264 has been contributing a lot to World War I articles (amoung others) consistently for quite a while. Unsure if you have contacted him. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Edward Maurice Lloyd
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Edward Maurice Lloyd you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ted Serong
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ted Serong you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New page Forces Command
Created Forces Command page. No re directs yet. Left Commander Forces Command as is. --Melbguy05 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I must of misunderstood. I thought we were talking about moving the Commander Forces Command page to Forces Command (not having both). We could probably just do a redirect now. I've commented there. Anotherclown (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ted Serong
The article Ted Serong you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ted Serong for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force
As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aust-Army-SSGT.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-SSGT.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested deletion per DB-SELF as this image now seems to have been replaced. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aust-Army-WO1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-WO1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested deletion per DB-SELF as this image now seems to have been replaced. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aust-Army-WO2.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-WO2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested deletion per DB-SELF as this image now seems to have been replaced. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Terrible" maps
Hi. Some maps in the style of your "terrible" efforts would actually be perfect for my next project. Would you be willing to help me get started on my own? Are yours created completely from scratch, or do you start with a base map? What software do you use? Any advice to help me get started would be very useful indeed. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day. Other than some formal training in military map marking, I'm no graphic designer and had to teach myself how to use Inkscape so its certainly achievable. Overall this software is good, but I did find it took a long time to learn and I still do not know how to use all its functions. At the very least I'd suggest reading the manual and maybe finding some online tutorials (if there are any). In terms of what to include in maps etc. there are some good tutorials at Graphics Lab, as well as examples of maps and links to free software (including Inkscape). Depending on the map required I either free hand it from a source in a book (which is not very accurate admittedly at can look amateurish, at least when I do it), or I use terrain / coastal outlines from a public domain source if one is available (such as from a map in an official history etc) and then trace by importing a copy of the map into Inkscape. I suggest also having a look at WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps which is a good resource and even has a template for basic military symbology which you can cut and paste into the maps you make. Hopefully some of this is helpful to you and I'd by happy to answer any other questions you might have. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks for the tips. I'll give it a go when I get the chance. FactotEm (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Italian casualties
I see you reverted the anon. He was just pulling the numbers from the well-referenced "Casualties" section. Our 6,029 comes from adding 631+616+2631+2151. The last number, which the anon ignored, is frostbite victims. We have no comparable number for the French (perhaps there were no frostbite victims). We also don't know how many Italian POWs there were: one estimate puts it at 1,141. Do you think the casualty numbers for both sides should be broken down in the infobox? In any case, should we include frostbite victims in the total? Srnec (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday Srnec. Thanks for the note. I actually did a quick search of the article to see if the change was backed up by the text but didn't see it so reverted it. That said I seem to have got this wrong as it is indeed there after all (my eyes must be painted on). At any rate it didn't really make sense as "631 casualties  616 lost   2.614 woundeds and frozen to death" but now I look closer I can see they meant to summarize this bit from the aftermath "631 or 642 men killed, 2,631 wounded and 616 reported missing. A further 2,151 men suffered from frostbite." I don't really have an opinion on how detailed the infobox should be, other than if we are detailed for the Italians we should use the same level of detail for the French (and vice versa etc) for consistency. To be honest my main concern here was possible disruption / socking which is why I watchlist a number of articles in this area. Now I can see this wasn't the case here so I'm more than happy with you making the change if you wish per WP:BOLD or perhaps pose the question on the talk page and see if there is consensus for the change and go from there. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there is some uncertainty over exact figures (especially for the French), I'd rather just list total casualties in the infobox, but I'm fine either way. We can use approximate numbers and leave it to the text to sort out. However, the anon's edit made me realise that we are counting frostbite victims as casualties. S/he removed them, thus reducing the overall number of Italian casualties, and by dividing it up (but not the French one) making the conflict appear less lopsided than it previously did. In short, it probably was a sock. But it got me to notice that the frostbite victims were included. In the context (invasion/battle infobox), does it make sense to include non-battle casualties in the total number? That was my main question. Is there Wiki precedent? Srnec (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday again. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any precedent one way or the other and the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict is mostly silent on the issue. As such I'd say this is probably one of those areas where we are expected to apply editorial judgment with a view of including information in the infobox if it would help our readers understanding of the topic. For me I think if frostbite casualties were significant in a campaign (i.e. great in number and / or contributed to the outcome etc) then potentially it could make sense to include them explicitly. That said a minimalist approach to the infobox (i.e. just providing a broad summary, with the detail in the text), is quite common across our articles as well. Long story short I can see both approaches being valid as long as they are applied consistently to both sides etc (so as to compare apples to apples and not to oranges etc). Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam War "battles"
Thanks for your input on the deletion discussions for Battle of Đồng Dương and Battle of Hà Vy. I am concerned that Vietnamese sources seem to be creating more of these "battles" and that they find their way onto Wikipedia. best regards Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday, yes I agree this does seem to be a significant issue. In many ways that is one of the major weaknesses of a platform like Wikipedia. Unfortunately once something gets published it takes on a life of its own (through Wiki mirrors etc.) even if its made up and / or conflated. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Do you know of any way to track the creation of such pages on Wikipedia? regards Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think there is any tool to alert a specific editor to new articles in a specific topic area. We do however have WikiProject Military history/New articles which lists all articles created that might fall within the scope of the Military History Project, but it requires an editor to manually patrol it. There is also New pages patrol and Special:NewPagesFeed but these fulfill a much wider function (listing all new articles created etc). I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thanks! I want to keep a watch for these spurious pages. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom. Anotherclown (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Vác (10.04.1849)
Hi, I noticed that you moved this article, I created to a redirection page named Battle of Vác (1849). The problem is that I noticed that it is another Battle of Vác too, occured in 1849, which also I want to write. So it will be two battles of Vác, both happened in 1849... This is why I put also the month and the day to the title, to avoid confusion. After that I learned, that here in the english Wikipedia they are doing it differently. And I learned that the right way to write such an article in English is "First Battle of Vác (1849)". Actually this is the title I want to change it. So it is ok to delete the Battle of Vác (10.04.1849), because I will give the name: First Battle of Vác (1849). I am sorry for the inconvenience... :( Sylvain1975 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for the note. I've now moved it to First Battle of Vác (1849) - I hope this helps. Also is your plan to write another article called Second Battle of Vác (1849)? I've added a hatnote to the article on the 1684 battle to this effect but will amend if required. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - sorry I'm a bit confused by you putting your own article up for deletion per this edit . Are you sure you want to delete it? I just moved it to First Battle of Vác (1849) per your comment above but will undo what I did if that wasn't what you wanted. I don't think you need to delete it, we can just use redirects to point readers in the direction of the desired article name. Hopefully this makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Its ok with the redirections. Sorry to be such a pain... I do not know all the wikipedia rules.. and I make mistakles. So please if its ok, remove the "deletion sign" from that article. Thanks... Yes I want to make the Second Battle of Vác (1849) too. :) but that will take a while to arrive there, because I plan to make many articles about the Hungarian Independence War of 1848-1849, and the two battles of Vác are parts of it. Sylvain1975 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Just to confirm are you happy with me removing your deletion self-nomination on the First Battle of Vác (1849)? I'd hate to see your work get deleted due to a misunderstanding. Anotherclown (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am happy with removing the deletion self-nomination on the First Battle of Vác (1849). Thanks. Sorry again for my stupidity... Sylvain1975 (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, its really no problem at all. Sorry if I have added to any confusion. Also there are a couple of dates in First Battle of Vác (1849) which might need to be checked. In the article you state that the battle occurred on "10.04.1849", which I'm assuming means 10 April. However, in the infobox the article currently says "6 April". Could you please confirm which date is correct? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Nagysalló
Hi, I am who wrote the previous article about the First Battle of Vác (1849). Now I am writing another article about a battle in that same period, the Battle of Nagysalló, which followed the Battle of Vác. I am not finished it yet. When I introduced it in the campaignbox, I made a mistake, by writing: Battle of Nagysalló (1849), while the articles name is just Battle of Nagysalló, because it is the only battle which happened there. Because of this it appeared a red link. I deleted the "(1849)" from the battles name on the campaignbox, and when I open it separately it appears like that, with a valid link about the battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848. But when I open a battles page which is part of the Hungarian Revolution, in the campaignbox, the Battle of Nagysalló appears still as a red link, with the "(1849)", I deleted from it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isaszeg_(1849). What can it done in order to remediate this situation. I hope you can help me. Thanks. Sylvain1975 (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday I think this is fixed now. It looked like there had been a delay in the template being updated on some of the pages that used it. This sometimes occurs with transcluded templates. For some reason the way to fix this is to make a small edit to the page where the old version of the template is still being displayed, as this seems to have the effect of refreshing it. I'm no technical expert though so I couldn't say why this occurs. There might be some info at Transclusion about this. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies
Ac I sincerely apologise for any offence I have caused you, specifically wrt Battle of Buna–Gona. I have been an inexperienced editor. In mitigation, my academic backgrounding was to hold the reported units as paramount. I was yet to come to grips with the perceptions of the Wiki community to the contrary. I have appreciated your collegiate contributions in the past and, while we might differ in the future, I will hope that the future might continue in a collegiate amicability. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day. Thank you for taking the time to clear the air. I too apologise for my part in this. That said I'm sure this has mostly been a case of misunderstanding on both out parts, rather than anything deliberate, and possibly more due to the limitations of the medium than anything (for instance concise written communication of what is hoped to be "constructive" criticism aimed at improving an article for the benefit of our readers can often seem more pointed than intended). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Pls discuss if you think otherwise"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Task_Force&diff=748732785&oldid=748648958

I was asked to discuss my opinion, or "thought" as it were, that there is value in linking an instance of the word "Hope" to glittering generality. I'm pretty busy otherwise, so I won't treat this as very important. I'm willing to just drop the matter if you want. 130.105.196.100 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Military history
I see you are an active member of WikiProject Military history. May I suggest you give one of your group's awards to RobDuch? Seems to be making a large contribution. I'd give it myself but I'm not in your Wikiproject. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.