Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 9

Merger complete!
In light of the strong support the proposal has received, I have carried out the merger with WikiProject Wars (as described above). A few items of interest: To sum up, I believe everything discussed above has been done, and we can now continue on to actual history work rather than housekeeping. If nobody has any pressing concerns, I'll try to write up some proposals for categorization and template use in the next few days.
 * The discussions from WikiProject Wars have been archived as archives 6 and 7 (above) for anyone interested.
 * The to-do list has been revamped to take full advantage of the list of new articles (credit for which goes to Geoff/Gsl, who has been keeping it up to date) and the list of wanted articles (in which I've combined the largest battles list formerly in the to-do box and another list of missing encyclopedia battles that I found during the merger).
 * I've chosen to organize the instructions on the project page by feature (article writing, categories, templates) rather than by topic (battles, wars) in order to reduce potential overlap and allow easier lookups. If anyone disagrees with this scheme, feel free to comment.

As always, comments on the results of the merge are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well conceived and well executed. Marvelous work, fellas. Albrecht 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What, no voting? ;-) I was already thinking out silly phrasings of my magnanimous support! But seriously: good work. I'm eager to start the actual work. The Minister of War 05:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And about bloody time you started, sirs...I never stopped;> But I do hate housework, So thank you Kirill and MoW, for doing such a fine job. This project, this community, this Wiki is much stronger for your efforts. Cheers and see you on the battlefields and wargrounds--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Take all the credit why don't ya'? Seriously forks, I think this will do wonders for the war/battle community. I like it already! (not saying that I didn't before)... Spawn Man 23:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have Harbingagonal Support for this change...

Battle of Singapore Battlebox
I'm not sure this should go here, but as there is no talk page for the actual article, i'll just put this here anyway.

The battlebox(?) for the Battle of Singapore says the Allied strength was about 85 000. It then says that there were approximately 50 000 killed, and 80 000 POWs. However, this makes no sense (50000 + 80000 = 130000). Could we get someone to check the accuracy of these figures?

I think, somehow, he means about 5000 killed but if we want Wikipedia to become a trustworthy resource... --Spark.1.4 07:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The number according to my source, the old Encycleopedia of Military History by R.E. and T.N. Dupuy, is 8,700. But still, a very low price to pay for such a strategic port...not to mention the pride and honour of the British Empire. I shall correct this at once. Even though it ain't my BattBox or fault :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

War of the League of Cambrai
In case anyone is interested, I've nominated War of the League of Cambrai for FA status here; any comments would be appreciated. :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat bemused at the reading comprehension abilities of some of our fellow Wikipedians. I suppose a love of or hatred for history is a matter of inclination as is any subject.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle Maps
Think its possible for the battle to have maps not just pictures. maps tell alot more of what happened than pictures of say the ships or tanks. im sure it would be helpful for a lot of people if they were included in the articles. Lucid 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pretty standard to include maps if any are available &mdash; the key is finding some, which, for more obscure battles, can be rather difficult. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We could also make our own maps. There must be some easy to use, readily avalable software out there. If nothing else, and please forgive if this sounds a bit silly and amatureish, but some of the newer Real-time strategy games such as Rise of Nations have very powerful and easy to use map and unit editors. We could use it to make new maps, show unit deployments, then get screenshots/captures. This would also relieve us of the hassle of dealing with the Image:Copy Vio gestapo or having to ask permission from webmasters. Even though I don't mind the latter so much. I've met some very nice, helpful webmasters/curators. But, as you say, the more obscure battle maps can be VERY hard to find, assuming they exist at all. Plus this would allow us to edit our maps along with our articles and improve them with time and additional research.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesnt seem to be standard to me. i am in a military history class and am looking up 20 naval battle and i beleive the only one with a single battle map was the Battle of Salamis. There are alot of maps out there on the web that can be searched using google. i just think it would be a great idea if the more visited battles could have a map or so. Even if you cant find a map online it would be excellent to make your own and upload them like R.D.H has said.

User:Gdr Drew the maps on Eastern Front (World War II) see: User:Gdr/Gallery and user:gls did the Image:Waterloo campaign map.png and a lot more User:Gsl/Maps. Perhaps you should contact them and ask for their advise on how they do them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we really want this?!
My dear friends and fellow Wikipedians, A proposal has been made here which could effect the way all featured articles, and perhaps even eventually all articles, are handled in the future. While it has the well-meaning intention of addressing some real problems, if it is adapted, I fear it will actually create more problems and possibly destroy the wonderfully open and collaborative nature of the Wikipedia we all so love.

I therefore, strongly urge you to join us who OPPOSE this potentially dangerous proposal. Thank you for your time, thoughts and words.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Raul654 came out strongly against it, so I think it's fair to say that that little proposal is quite dead ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * HUZZAH for Raul and all who shouted down this hell hound pup.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen and the Art Of Campaign Box repair
Salut mes camarades! Pardon my French, but how can I fix the Campaignbox for the War of the Sixth Coalition?? There are several battles which it omits that now all have articles or stubs. Battle of Grossbeeren, Battle of Dennewitz, Battle of Katzbach, Battle of Kulm. Also the Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube is out of chronological order. AU SECOURS!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You can just add the links (in chronological order) to Template:Campaignbox Sixth Coalition (which is listed, as all campaignboxes should be, at WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes. I assume this is not a question of how to edit the template itself &mdash; the format is quite simple, I think ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevermind...Papa fix. Thanks though:> Finding it was harder tha figuring out how. La Guerre de la Sixième coalition est maintenant effectué! Or at least the main engagements of it are. Unless you count the Russian campaign, which technically WAS part of the war, since when Napoleon invaded Russia joined Coalition number 6 and one can't really blame them. See, this is why I prefer going by year instead of coalition number. Technically the later years of the Peninsular War could be considered part of it too. It is so much easier to go by campaign and years. That is the Soldat's way of doing it by god! The diplomat and meddler's way is the other..the way of Metternich and Tallyrand...grrrrr ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Warboxes: part deux
Having previewed its placement on some articles, I've come to the conclusion that the multi-phase warbox is, to put it bluntly, a monstrosity. Even a two-phase war can cause the template to spread to several screen heights, wreaking havoc on the early sections of articles where it is added.

Thus, I present a somewhat revised proposal:


 * 1) Explicitly state that warboxes are not compulsory (similar to the text currently used for battleboxes) and that they should be used in moderation to avoid harming the overall layout of an article.
 * 2) Get rid of warbox-phase-begin and warbox-phase-end (thus limiting the warbox to being placed on simply structured wars, but also limiting its potential size).
 * 3) Push the remaining warbox components into the Template: namespace to allow them to be tested "in the field", so to speak.
 * 4) Delay any discussion of retiring the existing battlebox templates until we can really evaluate the new warbox design.

This proposal is due, in some part, to the discussion on "useless battleboxes" above; I'd like to avoid overzealous use of warboxes in articles where they would serve little purpose.

Any comments would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why you didnt put it on Cambrai! :-)
 * But I agree, its too damn complex, both in syntax as in execution. We should also be able to make it more intuitive, but how? User:The Minister of War 15:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One fairly easy idea is to make a separate component template for every line, thus removing the need for named parameters. For instance, instead of
 * we would have:
 * This means a few more templates to create, but both allows more fine-grained selection of fields for each article and makes the syntax, in my opinion, somewhat more intuitive.
 * This means a few more templates to create, but both allows more fine-grained selection of fields for each article and makes the syntax, in my opinion, somewhat more intuitive.
 * This means a few more templates to create, but both allows more fine-grained selection of fields for each article and makes the syntax, in my opinion, somewhat more intuitive.


 * Another idea I've been toying around with is removing the coloration entirely and using gray header background for the warboxes. A rather minor issue in comparison, obviously, but one that I think will help the aesthetics a bit :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that, actually. Thanks to WikiProject Computer and video games, which has apparently discovered some neat template tricks while nobody else was looking, I present a very simple, but quite versatile, design:

The code is as follows:

The fields can be removed just by leaving the parameter blank. Cool, isn't it?

We can add other optional fields as necessary; in the meantime, feel free to play around with this. If nobody can come up with problems after some time, we can write up a more formal guideline and start using it.

As usual, any comments? Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I really like it - more compact and clear (for idiots like me!). Who says computer games are bad for the mind? :-D SoLando (Talk) 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC


 * Wow, nive! I've been trying to do that for ages. How does it NOT list it? Does it metatemplate? Hmmm... I'm gonna take a closer look. User:The Minister of War 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow I've never seen that code. "if defined" and "noinclude". Didnt know you could actually do stuff like this. Would you happen to know where to find these commands and stuff? Maybe there's more!
 * For all our purposes, this is purrrrfect! User:The Minister of War 07:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

implemented the new Warbox
I've implemented the new Warbox; the usage instructions can be found on the project page and on the template talk pages.

A few general remarks:
 * 1) At the moment, there seems to be some issue with using footnote templates in the warbox.  If you need to use footnotes in it (you shouldn't, but who knows), use Warbox-old until the bug is fixed.
 * 2) The instructions are located at the WikiProject Military history/Warbox subpage, for anyone who wants to help with them; I'd like to eventually have more detailed notes on parameter usage.

Any comments, especially from anyone who tries to use this new model, would be very appreciated, as would ideas for field that should be added! Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've tried it on a few articles:
 * Full warbox on war.
 * Small warbox on war.
 * Filling in for battlebox.
 * I think this works quite well, no? We could probably retire battlebox altogether in favor of this (unless somebody really wants to keep it around).  Any comments? Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My only concern with making fields optional in the battlebox is that it then obscures the fact that desirable content is absent to editors not familiar with the template. If it is the policy that, say, the signature image and caption should be included, then leaving the fields blank might prompt someone to supply the missing content.  Otherwise, it is a fine piece of work (though frankly the prospect of another revision to the battlebox format makes me feel like a bowl of petunias). Geoff/Gsl 21:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's a question of whether possibly obscuring valid fields that should be added outweighs the ability to remove these fields when they shouldn't be added. I personally think it won't be much of an issue; the obscurity of most of our articles and the level of background knowledge required to update incomplete warboxes is such that the random passerby is unlikely to help, and the ability to remove unsightly rows filled with question marks from, say, medieval wars (where valid casualty figures are often nonexistent, not merely missing) seems, to me, more important than the missing prompt for content.  Others may, of course, disagree. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree but for the sake of argument, at what point then does leaving out fields make the battlebox redundant? Without strength and casualty figures, there is not much left that shouldn't be presented narratively in the lead anyway.  With no image/caption, the battlebox is little more than a housing for the campaignbox.  These are more questions of usage guidelines.  As far as adopting the warbox goes, I can't see any problem with it.  It adds flexibility, provides a consistent appearance, and the change won't be too disruptive. Geoff/Gsl 23:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * True, a minimal box (it can be reduced to just the battle name, incidentally) may be useless; hopefully a bit more information will be available before someone tries adding one.
 * Off the top of my head, though, some of the potential benefits of a box that's missing some fields:
 * The campaignbox is quite important, of course. Even if everything else was gone, it would still be worth including.
 * Combatants and commanders can still be presented in a standard fashion even if raw numbers are missing.
 * The presence of the box in a standard place allows the use of a picture at the top of an article; this position would otherwise, in some cases, be taken by a series box (see some of the comments on Talk:Algerian Civil War, for instance).
 * And, from a purely procedural standpoint: the featured article requirements insist that articles must follow relevant WikiProject guidelines. Looking over past nominations suggests that a battle/war-box will be demanded even though the project page claims one isn't compulsory.  Thus, the possibility of using a stripped-down version to satisfy this requirement without needing to deal with inapplicable or extraneous fields is, in my opinion, a welcome one.
 * In any case, I think the best thing is to present the warbox as a tool and leave the details of its use to the discretion of the article writer(s), rather than insisting on a uniform usage guideline. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see that it would be useful for ambiguous, not-quite-a-battle articles like Race to the Sea which has a campaignbox but nowhere to put it. In ye olden times, before Gdr's campaignbox revolution, I used to roll my own "campaign box" in the style of the ship footers and place them at the bottom of the article.  Anyway, I agree completely with your last paragraph so I shall leave it at that. Geoff/Gsl 01:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Its looking good indeed. Decided to skip the info on Cambrai after all? :-) Too much to fit in a box anyway. Personally, i think the small box highlights wonderfully the use of a limited warbox, and it certainly adds to the article imho. Three things still spring to my mind before we start implementing: User:The Minister of War 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Colors. Personally, I'd support Grey for wars, and blue for battleboxes (they looked pretty sweet). Any other scheme is probably nice in theory but impractical.
 * Icons. I've noticed the "Death" mark in one of the boxes. Do we want to start including this? If so, i think the risk is that we might expand too much in this realm, including surrenders, rank and other too detailed info. Perhaps a small crown for the monarch would be nice, but even that seems a bit too much to me.
 * ?. I am very much opposed to any question marks in any infobox.


 * I think we should stick with a single color, since otherwise we're back to the original question of determining whether Race to the Sea gets blue or gray ;-) The design currently uses gray throughout, since that minimizes the problmes with borders blending in and so forth, but if people want blue, it's not too big a deal to change it.
 * The icons in the boxes are being used irregularly at this point. I can see the benefits of including them, but obviously we don't want a dozen unexplained symbols after every name; I think it would be approprate to discuss each possible type of icon separately, and then include any that we agree on in the warbox instructions.
 * The question marks are, of course, an obvious artifact of having fields with nothing to put in them; since the fields can now safely be left blank, they can probably be eliminated during the battlebox &rarr; warbox conversion process. Kirill Lokshin 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've more or less finished the warbox instructions. Any comments or corrections would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Those who were around during the last round of box-revamping won't be surprised to hear that I favour the existing  Battlebox  layout. Naturally, I can understand using the new code whenever practical, but if we're going to be changing the format as well, I'd rather this be done on a case by case basis.


 * Somehow, I fail to see what we gain from removing existing boxes that have all fields filled-in and that currently perform their function without problem. Perhaps Kirill can fill me in on this point.


 * The Battle of Pavia article might serve as a pause for holistic reflection. What exactly have we accomplished in the switch to the Warbox? "Conflict" has been replaced with a clumsy "Part of" insert. And by the way, didn't "Outcome" used to read "Result"?


 * You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly beaming.


 * When we made the switch from non-templatized boxes, we lost the wonderful margins in the Conflict-Date-Place-Result fields that prevented things like this. Maybe we could work on bringing those back. Albrecht 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some responses to your (very good) points:


 * There is, quite honestly, very little difference between using battlebox and warbox in cases where the former is "complete" (i.e. with all of its fields in use). The major reason to switch, of course, is the use of a standard template, which reduces the necessary maintenance work when changes are made; but I doubt any large-scale replacement will take place in the forseeable future, if only because the process is non-trivial and time-consuming.


 * I must apologize for at least part of the clumsiness on the Battle of Pavia, since I, to my great chagrin, seem to have forgotten to add "the" to the "partof" parameter; the situation has now been remedied, and the warbox is thus grammatically correct. The "outcome" field has been labeled "outcome" (even though the parameter is named "result") for as long as I've been using battleboxes; I honestly don't know when, or why, the switch was made.


 * I'm not very familiar with the non-templatized boxes, having arrived here after they had been largely retired, so I'm not certain wthat the "wonderful margins" you're referring to were. If you know of any surviving examples, or of a particular place in an article's history that demonstrates them, I could probably add them to the templatized format as well.


 * Nevertheless, I am quite cognisant of my own aesthetic failings; my design of the new warbox was concerned more with creating a more modular tool than with its outward presentation. If you have any suggestions for changes that would improve the appearance of the template, I would be glad to implement them; but I really need more specific comments if any improvement is to be forthcoming ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Result" became "Outcome" two months ago. I couldn't follow the reasoning then and I can't follow it now.


 * The margin issue is, I think, that the top section (Conflict, Date, Place, Result) used to be a table so the field names were aligned in one column and the values in another. See here for an example.  (If you look back far enough in that article's history you'll find battleboxes done in HTML table markup.  Ah, those were the days...) Geoff/Gsl 03:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the margins to warbox as described. A more interesting question is whether we need the line separating the field names from the contents; I've omitted it, but perhaps it's useful. Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I should probably note here what we all know but only occasionally state; that Kirill's tireless work on the project has all been beyond any word of praise (we offer feedback always when troubled; never when pleased. It's a human failing.) His answer to my criticism above, with its customary dignity, shows his quality.


 * I guess my only remaining suggestion is this: instead of removing the "Conflict" field in favour of "Part of", why not simply remind contributors in the instructions to include "Conflict" when the Warbox describes a battle and to leave it out when describing wars? Albrecht 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words!
 * As far as removing the "conflict" field is concerned: the basic reason it's gone is because the "conflict" parameter has been used to replace the "battle-name" parameter; in other words, on a battle article, warbox will contain "conflict=Battle of Foo" rather than "conflict=War of Foo" (as it did in the battlebox). If you really want to avoid using "partof" on battles, of course, it could be arranged; either by using "name" instead of "conflict"  and returning "conflict" to its battlebox role, or by introducing a new parameter (named "war", for instance) for use in battles only.  I'm not quite certain whether it's worth doing, since the only change would be moving the name of the war below the image and blanking its background&mdash;any thoughts on the best way  to proceed would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

replace battlebox with warbox
From the "Pending tasks":
 * Replace battlebox with warbox on all articles where the former is used.

Is there consensus to do this? --Philip Baird Shearer

If there is then I would have thought the first place to start is with the instructions on this article page --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any real objections (beyond the discussion of aesthetics above). However, since the replacement process will take a great deal of time, I thought it best to retain the battlebox instructions for the time being; you should note, however, that they do state that the battlebox format is being retired. Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, why are we doing this? A warbox should be for a war. A battlebox should be for a battle. They aren't interchangeable. (???) -- Миборовский U 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The warbox template is designed to be used on both, however. The parameters are somewhat different between the two (some only apply to wars, mainly), but there's no reason to maintain separate templates now that optional parameters work properly. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. -- Миборовский U 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for divisions
I'm thinking of starting articles of individual divisions in the National Revolutionary Army. But before I start, there's a few questions I want to clear up first.


 * What name should I use for them. Since pretty much every country has a 1st Division, the article must tell which army the division is from. Which is the National Revolutionary Army. So would National Revolutionary Army, 1st Division or 1st Division, National Revolutionary Army be a better name for the article? (The other will be a redirect.) Is it recommended to abbreviate things? 1st Division, National Revolutionary Army is really long, so would 1st Division, NRA or NRA, 1st Division be good?
 * Whether divisions are inherently notable. ie. can I write 515 articles for each of the 515 divisions in the NRA, even though some of them didn't see combat/never finished training.
 * Until what military subunit are they considered inherently notable. (If more than division.) Brigade? Regiment? Company? Platoon?

Thanks. -- Миборовский U 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * Naming: Abbreviations are generally a poor place for an article; it's better to redirect from the abbreviation to the full name than vice versa. The actual name should be, in my opinion, 1st Division (National Revolutionary Army).  Some other issues: do divisions in different services share numbers (this is a problem during the Napoleonic Wars, for instance)?  Is National Revolutionary Army ambiguous (I doubt it, but some other nations might use the name)?


 * Divisions: I don't advise creating all 515 articles as stubs; it's better to write a moderately sized article for each in turn. But yes, I think divisions are inherently notable.  On the other hand, you may want to combine some of them (particularly reserve or training units) if there isn't enough material for a good article.


 * Notability: In general, the farther back you go, the smaller the inherently notable unit. Modern divisions are certainly notable, and possibly modern regiments.  Napoleonic regiments are much more obviously notable.  Anything below regiment strength, however, is usually non-notable unless there are other circumstances (e.g. Easy Company, Black Band of Tuscany, etc.).


 * This is just my view, though, so don't necessarily assume it'll help you if someone starts dropping AFD tags on your articles ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I don't plan on writing articles for all of them anyhow. Will probably start with the well-known ones. -- Миборовский U 02:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

See: See also:
 * List of military divisions
 * List of Indian divisions in WWII
 * List of German divisions in WWII
 * List of Soviet divisions in WWII
 * List of South African Divisions in World War II
 * List of United States Army divisions during World War II

The convention for WWII is Country Division even when names like German 27th Panzer Division would be unique without country. In the case of South Africa the name of the country is used but in the case of the US it is abbreviated to U.S. (the full stops are part of the WP:MOS standards). So if you follow this convention either National Revolutionary Army, 1st Division or NRA 1st Division would do. But I would go for the former with a redirect from the latter as the NRA acronym is not as well known to English speakers as US. Also I would start with an article called List of National Revolutionary Army divisions so people have a reference to see if an article on a decision already exists and what the naming convention is.

You may also look at List of British divisions in WWI and List of Australian divisions in World War I to see how lists can be written which handle more than one war with lots of divisions involved: Country division (war) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is Naming conventions (military units) but its instructions don't seem to have been finalised for divisions. Perhaps any decision made regarding naming NRA divisions should be added there as an exception to the "country division" rule. Geoff/Gsl 22:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Naming conventions (military units) page doesn't really address how to name divisions besides saying they should have "arabic" numeral names. List of British divisions in WWI and List of Australian divisions in World War I uses Nation xxth Division format, which isn't really feasible for the NRA because Chinese 88th Division or any similar incarnation is going to open a can of worms with all the usual ROC-PRC squabbles emerging from it. Republic of China 88th Division is not factually accurate since the division belonged to the army not the nation. The army belongs to the nation of course, but I think you get what I'm saying. I'm inclined towards (for example) 88th Division (National Revolutionary Army), though if anyone thinks this is grossly not in accordance with WP:MOS or any conventions, let me know. -- Миборовский U 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

World War II
Found some good WW2 aircraft/Navy/Army Air Force related data for you guys... PDF's of some older Naval Aviation News magazines from the 1940s http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1940s/ hopefully this can help you with some stuff. Also the images inside this magazine can be cropped out and used since they are PD USGov. ALKIVAR &trade; 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

List of participants
FYI: I've put the list of participants into alphabetical order; if anyone objects, feel free to revert it and/or yell at me ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Dion Nam hoax?
Can anyone familiar with the Vietnam War verify this battle? The only place it was linked was from Khoi Vo which has since been deleted as a hoax. The only Google hit is to the Wikipedia page. Geoff/Gsl 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems like a hoax (minefields? gun turrets?), but I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the war to give a better answer. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not the Napoleonic War, so soldiers don't line up and march into battle. Unless they got REAL lucky, they would step on mines immediately, and they'd be able to retreat with minimal losses. Also, guerillas during the Vietnam War never "poured" out of their hiding places. Just another Korean War/Vietnam War misconception. Suggest AfD. -- Миборовский U 05:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Articles for deletion/Battle of Dion Nam. Geoff/Gsl 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)