Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Pacific Campaign vs. Battle of the Pacific

I would like to the term Battle of the Pacific to refer to the conflict American and other Allied forces had vs. Japan in World War II on the Pacific Ocean and it's islands.

The current term, Pacific Campaign, which was my original suggestion, I think doesn't really fit right and, IMO, is too easily confused the with the all-encompasing "Pacific War" (which also includes the land-based campaigns of the British, Chinese and Soviet forces in East / South East Asia).

The name Battle of the Pacific also seems to me to fit more as a parallel to the Battle of the Atlantic.

I had put this one the discussion page Category:World_War_II_operations_and_battles_of_the_Pacific_Campaign, and, having no dissent, started to make the move.

Are there any objections or suggestions? Oberiko 18:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A general note. If you don't get any replies, that usually means that no-one's read your proposal, not that people read it and liked it. It's your responsibility to try to draw proposals like this to the attention of people who might object, for example by posting a note on the Village Pump or by looking in edit histories to find editors who work on the subject area.

I object to the name "Battle of the Pacific". (1) Whatever it was, the 1941–1945 war with Japan wasn't a battle. (2) I don't see that parallelism with the Second Battle of the Atlantic is helpful, since the Atlantic and Pacific conflicts were so very different. (3) The south-east Asian battles are at Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asian Campaign so where is the risk of confusion? Gdr 19:10, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Gdr. I also think it would be logical to split the category in two, as it was really two theatres: Pacific Ocean Areas under Nimitz and South West Pacific Area under MacArthur. Grant65 (Talk) 10:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grant65. I have never heard of anyone refer to it as the Battle of the Pacific; it was a five-year theater of war... I think Campaign works better than anything, except maybe Pacific Theater of World War II or the like. And there's already a War of the Pacific, so that's out. LordAmeth 10:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

American Civil War

I've been working hard creating campaignboxes, battleboxes, and categories for all of the campaigns and for the existing Civil War battle articles. I just noticed that the campaignbox names were supposed to be shortened versions of the campaign name, but I don't think that really matters. A random newcomer might be less lost if he read "Stones River Campaign" instead of just "Stones River", so I think it's fine the way it is.

For anyone who wants to contribute, I've been getting my information from this government site: http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm . For the categories, I've had to be a little creative with the campaign category names, so that they make sense (eg: "American Civil War Grant's Operations Against Vicksburg" isn't as clear as "American Civil War operations for Grant against Vicksburg", although even that might sound a little weird, as if the "Civil War" was some guy helping you out.....) --brian0918™ 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of the Civil War, I noticed that it's really hard to find the battle you want, save by the search box. Perhaps a better article navigation scheme for the Civil War articles is needed. — 209.66.200.61 20:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Do we still need the progress section here, now that we have Wikipedia:New articles (Battles)? Adam Bishop 19:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably. I don't think campaignboxes and other such things are added to that list. --brian0918™ 20:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Campaign boxes can be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles/Campaignboxes. As long as the edit summary is used, people will be able to tell which was added when. The Progress section is sometimes used to notify of changes to existing articles which perhaps doesn't fit with the concept of "New articles (Battles)" but I've got no problem if people want to report progress there. Geoff/Gsl 05:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brecourt Manor

I'm kinda requesting this, I'm still learning Wiki code and might try to topple it myself but just to let you know. Heres some basic stuff: War fought: WWII Why: disable artillery batteries in France from firing on Utah beach

that's all, thanks in advance

Military Collaboration of the week

I've created a new Wikipedia project for a Miliary Collaboration of the week. Any one who wants to help out is more then welcome. Oberiko 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Warbox

What do you think of Template:Warbox? Example of use is Polish-Soviet War. I like it quite a lot and think all wars should have something similar. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you'd have to get rid of the campaign part at the bottom. Alot of wars are made up of multiple campaigns. Oberiko 22:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would just base Warbox off the box at American Civil War. battle_name should be changed to war_name, remove campaignbox section, replace Notable Commanders with Leaders, add a link to the list of battles in the war, add flags (although may be a problem with multiple countries on each side, unless each side had a common flag or symbol of some sort; in any case the flag should be kept cuz it can be left out of a specific box when necessary) , add Strength. -- BRIAN0918  22:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should also implement colors for each continent, and one for the entire world. -- BRIAN0918  22:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was some discussion at Talk:Military history of the United States on this subject, including an expanded colour scheme. I don't know whether it ever took off. Geoff/Gsl 23:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most wanted

I took out the contents of the section "Progress" and added a new section, Most wanted listing the largest 20th century battles for which we don't yet have an article. Gdr 23:10, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC) (I hope no-one minds about the "Progress" list; if anyone does, say so and I can restore it or make a new page for it.)

Disambiguation of commanders

In some battle boxes, it's unclear how many commanders there are due to line wrapping. For instance, look at this old version of Battle of Cannae. It looks as though there might have been three commanders on the Roman side: Lucius Aemilius; Paullus (a casualty); and Caius Terentius Varro. Compare to the present version—I've used <ul> to bullet the commanders. So, my suggestion: for every battle where one or more side has more than one line in their commander box, all commanders should be bulleted. Comments? —Simetrical (talk) 03:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think they are quite ugly with bullets. But I see the problem (though it doesn't occur for me on Battle of Cannae unless I increase the font size, it does on some battles with commanders with longer names). Maybe numbers are better? Gdr 09:03, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Either way works. Any other opinions on this? —Simetrical (talk) 04:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battles vs operations

Does battles include operations (being that they are almost, but not always, battles)? It seems pretty tedious for us to have "Battles and operations of..." when often the parent category (a campaign for example) does not contain anything other then battles. Oberiko 16:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battles and operations are not the same thing. But many articles titled Operation X also describe the battle that resulted from the operation. Such articles certainly deserve to be in Category:Battles along with sieges, raids, offensives, attacks, etc etc. However, the categories under Category:World War II operations and battles include plenty of operations that didn't lead to battles, e.g. Operation Fortitude. So I think the name "operations and battles" is appropriate for this kind of category. Gdr 16:56, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

If a campaign category contains nothing but battles (and operations), could we not simply list the campaign itself instead of having to create a seperate daughter "Battles and operations of" for it? Otherwise most our campaigns will be just an empty road. Plus it might look a bit strange when the campaign itself is called "Battle of..." (Such as the Battle of France or the Battle of Normandy) Oberiko 17:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proper Names

Please have a look at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) there is a debate going on there about naming place names with diacritics which effects battle names like the Second Battle of Zürich. Now it is being proposed to extend this to "proper names" and including "technical transliteration". Please have a look at these proposals because it can effect the naming of many aspects of military history. For example many battle and operation names etc Belorussian, Battle of Kharkov (see Talk:Kharkiv), Battle of Hurtgen Forest etc. Please consider voting on the issue.

The Talk:Calcutta->Kolkata debate threw this up with the Black Hole of Calcutta perhaps it is time that military history branched its own naming conventions as a specialised area. EG for the naming of articles on military history use the most common name used in military history literature written in English, or something similar.

If the current proposals become guide lines then it will have an effect on the naming of articles about military history. Particularly in areas where people are still fighting the battles for one reason or another. Philip Baird Shearer

Error in Battlebox template

I have noticed that when I try to input more than one date under "date" in the battlebox template code, it comes up blank. Many battles, particularly sieges, lasted more than one day, and so I think there needs to be a way to represent this in the battlebox. If I understood the template programming, I'd try my hand at fixing it, but I really don't have a clue. (for an example of the blank box problem, see Siege of Calais). Thanks. LordAmeth 22:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. There was an extra "|" in the coding. LordAmeth 22:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

New Battle categories

I have noticed a major move to new category titles, e.g. Battles in Japan rather than Japanese battles. I really must say I liked it the old way better, because the old title incorporated battles a country has fought abroad. The Battle of Crecy is a "Battle in France", but it's also an "English battle" despite not being a "Battle in England." Do you see what I'm saying? Are we to consign a battle like Midway to some category like "Battles of the Northern Pacific Islands", not acknowledging it as both a "Japanese battle" and an "American battle"? LordAmeth 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#To be emptied or moved for a wholesale list of proposed renamings and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14#Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland for the wholly inadequate discussion that led to the proposal, which seems to be based on a misconception about what the categories are for. I'll see if I can get them moved back. There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Moved from main page (Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland). Gdr 11:20, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like I'll have no luck. So I'm proposing that the moved articles be moved back, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 23#Battles in.... Gdr 14:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Ah, I couldn't find that discussion at all before...thanks. I first noticed this when Battle of Nechtansmere was moved from "English battles" to "Battled in England", despite the place not being in England at all. Then I noticed "Athenian battles" was changed to "Battles in Athens", which makes absolutely no sense. I'll comment there later when I have time. Adam Bishop 15:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Ugly battleboxes

Who's been popularizing these ridiculous new battleboxes? What was wrong with the old ones? More and more, I'm seeing familiar setpieces like Lake Erie's replaced with eyesores like Las Guasimas.

Does anyone else see a problem with the latter's overabundance of colour; its lack of clearly defined space between combatants, etc.? It was my impression that battleboxes had been standardized long ago and that they worked. This recent trend is most disquieting. Albrecht 20:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

You're seeing a difference between non-templatized battleboxes and ones using Template:Battlebox. They used to look the same until the template was changed by User:Ed g2s. He hasn't explained the reason for the change (User talk:Ed g2s#Template:Battlebox) so I'm going to revert it. Gdr 21:20, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) P.S. I hope we don't into an edit war over this.

Thank you. I also want to avoid any unpleasantness, but to be frank, the changes are unnecessary and aesthetically displeasing. Albrecht 02:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I kind of like the new ones, although it is true that sometimes combatants run together...and there is too much colour. But otherwise they look nice, I think. Adam Bishop 03:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, have the changes been undone yet? Albrecht July 4, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Yes, they've been undone. (Can't you tell?) Gdr 4 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Oh. I imagined we'd be returning to the November 7 version. My bad. Albrecht July 4, 2005 21:34 (UTC)

What's the difference? Gdr 4 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Is there none? Didn't your "nicer battlebox" edit introduce some of the changes that frustrated me above? Not that I'm going to demand any more reversions. If you like the new ones better you can keep them, and I'll object no further. Albrecht July 4, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand what you object to about the new-style battleboxes.

It's mostly a matter of taste; beyond what I've already explained, I find it difficult to provide any solid justification. I'm also reluctant to press it further because you haven't done anything wrong, and I don't want to hassle you over trivialities.

I can see the following differences between Lake Erie's and Las Guasimas:

• Background colour behind "Commanders", "Strength" and "Casualties"

I find this visually distracting.

• Lines are 1 pixel wide instead of 2 pixels.

Previous incarnations had better spacing. I'm a big fan of the cells.

• A little more space between the text and the lines.

While there's nothing wrong with this in principle (or practice, I guess), I find that the older ones looked more solid and compact; the newer ones seem to droop down the page and suffer from a lack of direction. This may of course be my own idiosyncratic perception.

• A line between the picture and its caption.

Not a problem.

• Uses campaign box instead of battle before/after.

A good thing, of course.

Can you explain which of these changes you object to and why? Gdr 5 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

If nothing else, maybe the Las Guasimas box would be more pleasing with white fields for "Commanders", "Strength", and "Casualties" and pink in "Santiago Campaign". Albrecht July 6, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Also, "commanders", "strength" and "casualties" are no longer centred, at least for me. Adam Bishop 5 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Further to this, which box are we supposed to be using, anyway? Template:Battlebox, or Template:Infobox Battles?

I've always used Template:Battlebox; looks nicer, and I like the idea of listing all the battles of a campaign, rather than just the previous and next ones. Not all campaigns (or wars) are fought in such a linear fashion. LordAmeth 00:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me summarize my understanding of what people object to.

1. The lines are 1 pixel wide.
2. Subheadings have coloured backgrounds.
3. Subheadings not centered.

My response:

1. This matches other infoboxes in Wikipedia and distracts less from the text. I don't propose to change this.

I wasn't aware that you had other concerns in mind. Obviously, if people desire uniformity, then it overrides my objections. But I disagree that slightly wider lines distract from the text. I maintain the opposite.

1. I agree that these coloured backgrounds are too strong but I don't like the versions with a mixture of coloured and white backgrounds — that just looks to me as though someone forgot to colour in the boxes. I think that a solution would be to desaturate all the battlebox colours. Comments, please.

I see no practical solution. I do enjoy some colouration in principle, though.

1. This seems to be a problem in some browsers (or maybe some style sheets?), so I forced the subheadings to be centered. Let me know if this doesn't work for you.

I don't understand User:Albrecht's comment: "droop down the page and suffer from a lack of direction". What does this mean? Gdr 11:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Stronger lines offered more solidity. The current "box" is hard to see on white backgrounds and imperceptible on black, and without clearly-defined spacing, it appears (to me) to be a collection of text that, well, "droops" next to the article's body. Albrecht 16:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You wrote, "I see no practical solution". Does that mean you don't like my suggestion of desaturating the colours? Please explain. Gdr 22:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, by all means, please try it. I just meant that I saw no sure way to please everybody. Albrecht 02:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome the suggestion to adjust the battlebox colours. I dislike the Mary Kay Pink for North American battles, as some of you know, and I'm not crazy about the vague relationship between stereotypical "skin colour" and some of our battlebox colours. (As others have noted, we've got brown for Africa, pink for America, yellow for Asia). It's not the worst thing in the world, but I find it a little odd. I do heartily agree that the colours ought to be more muted, less saturated. They're too strong, and often detract from an image in the battlebox. Take, for example, the Battle of Iwo Jima. You have the iconic black and white photo offset with vibrant orange stripes even my three year-old niece (she of the Dayglo purple pants) might find too garish. :-) Kevin Myers 02:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why do we even have colours in the first place? I can't imagine they are helpful for the average reader passing through...and sometimes they are completely ignored anyway (see Star Wars battle articles, for example). Why don't we just get rid of them entirely and use something neutral like the current European grey? Adam Bishop 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How about like this? Gdr 09:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Adam Bishop 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got no aesthetic objection to it, but maybe we ought to let others debate the merits (or lack thereof) of colouration-by-Continent before doing away with the scheme entirely. Albrecht 19:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The gray looks good to me as well. If someone misses the continental color scheme and wants to experiment with a more subdued palette, that's fine with me too. --Kevin Myers 01:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Centring is fine now, thanks. Adam Bishop 16:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing a glitch on my browser: the first word of the caption is often next to the picture, and not below with the rest of the caption. Examples: Braddock Expedition, Battle of Iwo Jima. Does there need to be a "<br>" or something put into the template between image & caption? --Kevin Myers 13:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I added the <br/> but it means that battleboxes with no picture now have a big blank space at the top... Gdr 13:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the margin aligning Conflict, Place, Date, and Result has disappeared. Albrecht 19:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Again, maybe we should address the missing margin. It produces some especially awkward results in articles like Battle of Valcour Island. Albrecht 23:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Uncategorized battles

Special:Uncategorizedpages has progressed to the point that pages starting with the letter "b" are now listed. This means a great number of uncategorized battles. It would be great if someone who knows the battle categorization system could go through the list and add the missing cats. For convenience I have listed the uncategorized battles below. - SimonP 18:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've categorized a few battles; I'm tempted to go for all of them, but I think I'm going to have to wait for this debate/vote to be done with. No point in categorizing under Fooish battles if we're all going to switch to Battles of Fooland. Let's just wait and see. LordAmeth 02:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Battle of Athens
2. Battle of Auldearn
3. Battle of Baghdad (2003)
4. Battle of Barrosa
5. Battle of Big Mound
6. Battle of Burnt Corn
7. Battle of Camas Creek
8. Battle of Carabobo
9. Battle of Carlow
10. Battle of Chekiang-Kiangsi
11. Battle of Chingshanli
12. Battle of Contreras-Churubusco
13. Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake
14. Battle of Dynekilen
15. Battle of El Mazuco
16. Battle of Emmaus
17. Battle of Gilboa
18. Battle of Glenmalure
19. Battle of Hanau
20. Battle of Hsuchou
21. Battle of Hypori
22. Battle of Inonu
23. Battle of Kilcullen
24. Battle of Kilsyth
25. Battle of Kjöge Bay
26. Battle of L'Espagnols-sur-Mer
27. Battle of Liegnitz (1760)
28. Battle of Lund
29. Battle of Madagascar
30. Battle of Malaya
31. Battle of Maldon
32. Battle of Malta
33. Battle of Myeongnyang
34. Battle of Naas
35. Battle of Narva (1944)
36. Battle of New Orleans (song)
37. Battle of New Ross
38. Battle of Osel Island
39. Battle of Oulart Hill
40. Battle of Prosperous
41. Battle of Pulkkila
42. Battle of Puná
43. Battle of Ramelle
44. Battle of Rappahannock Station
45. Battle of Rhen Var
46. Battle of San Juan
47. Battle of Sehested
48. Battle of Stony Lake
49. Battle of Valverde
50. Battle of Winceby
51. Battle of the Beanfield

Question for battle geeks

Question: do you think the Braddock Expedition and the Battle of the Monongahela should be one article (as it is currently), or two different articles? --Kevin Myers 02:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I dunno. The main thing is that the battlebox is there. I'm not familiar with the event, so I really couldn't say, but I like to take things on a case for case basis. For example, I've been thinking for a while of incorporating the Battle of Uji (1221) into the Shokyu War, as it's the only battle of the war. As it stands, it looks (at quick glance; I didn't read the whole thing) like a nice, long, comprehensive article, complete with battlebox, pictures, and well-defined sections. Whether or not you ultimately split it off or not, I say 'good work.' LordAmeth 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been thinking about this after writing Tecumseh's War, which is also essentially a conflict with only one battle, but writing about the conflict separately from the battle itself allows for more exploration of the cultural and political issues. --Kevin Myers 04:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is fantastic as is. Splitting it would be both counterproductive and arbitrary - to talk of one without the other is a meaningless distinction; the Braddock Expedition is defined by its culmination, and the Battle of the Monongahela is defined by its context. By the way, I recently added a modest contribution of my own: the second attempt on Fort Duquesne in 1758. Albrecht 06:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Someday someone will get around to writing the Forbes Expedition, which would be certainly be a different article than your new one on the Battle of Fort Duquesne, since of course the Forbes Expedition is not defined by Grant's defeat in the way that Braddock's defeat defines the Braddock Expedition. --Kevin Myers 05:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Battle categories

Some time ago, there was a discussion over at Categories for Deletion over how Battle by Country categories should be named. They were originally named 'Japanese battles', 'English battles', 'American battles' and so on. Then someone changed a large number of articles to the model 'Battles in Japan', 'Battles in England', 'Battles in the United States', which was not a useful distinction to my mind, and articles were often misplaced as well. I tried to propose a vote to switch everything to the model 'Battles of Japan' 'Battles of England' 'Battles of the United States', but got a very weak response in terms of voting. I'm hoping I can get more of a response here, so we can get moving on reorganizing the Battles. My basic argument follows.

*Battles in X Country is not a useful category, because, more often than not, it is not where a battle took place that's important, but who participated. Should the Battle of Midway be placed in a category for 'Battles in the North Pacific' or should it be placed in 'Battles of Japan' and 'Battles of the United States'?

• The Fooish categorical naming creates problems for several reasons, greatest of all being the fact that people cannot necessary be expected to know the proper adjective forms of nations. Sure, most people know words like Japanese, Israeli, French, and American. But what about Monagasque? What happens when we try to make battle categories for smaller countries that don't have common names? Luxembourgish battles, Fijian battles, New Zealandish battles, Zairean battles... is this a pattern we want to have to follow?

What's the policy on patterns? Couldn't we strive for general uniformity while dealing with bizarre countries on a case-by-case basis?

Secondly, using the noun form of the nations, e.g. '..of the United States' as opposed to 'American', allows for easier and better searching. Searches for 'China' will come up with 'Battles of China' or 'Battles of the People's Republic of China' but it won't necessarily come up with 'Chinese battles' as easily.

Thirdly, I just think it looks more formal and more academic.

*Here's an important one - after much debate, the History by nation categories have (almost all) been changed from the 'Xish History' model to the 'History of X' format. Wouldn't it be great if we could have some uniformity of format within the sub-cats of History by nation?

What's ultimately important is not my position, but just that we hear voices and votes. Please please let me know what you think. I don't know how many votes constitutes consensus; I don't know who has authority to decide when consensus has been reached. But one way or another, I'd like this to be settled once and for all, so that I can categorize my own articles, and all those above which have yet to be properly categorized. Thank you! LordAmeth 7 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

I previously voiced a minor objection here. My concern was that "Battles of" can be a bit odd and cumbersome grammatically (in context, "of" can also mean "for" or "at"; "Battles of Britain", "Battles of Athens" don't sound quite right either, do they?). However, your newer arguments all have merit. I very eagerly support your initiative as long as it erases all traces of the "Battles in" blunder. As of today, some categories are in this blasphemous state. I just ran into "Battles in Canada", and it's killing me. Albrecht July 7, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Battle of Otterburn (1388)

I was surprised to find no article on this famous battle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles) Gdr 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-templatized battleboxes

I made a partial list of articles with battleboxes that use HTML or wiki table markup instead of {{Battlebox}} or {{Battlebox no campaign}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles/Old style battleboxes. Please help to convert the battleboxes in this list. (It's not a 100% straightforward process as you have to work out a suitable campaign containing the battle and create the campaign box.) Gdr 22:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work! --Kevin Myers 01:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that... thanks for the effort, and for the side-project. I shall endeavor to make a list of Campaignbox Templates that will be needed as I start upgrading these battles to the new Battlebox template. (Where should I put the Campaign list?) LordAmeth 01:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If you find that a campaignbox is needed but you can't work out what battles belong to it, make a stub campaignbox containing only the battles you know about, add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles/Campaignboxes as usual, and then mention it here so that other editors can complete it. Gdr 10:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gdr. Thus far, I've created stub campaignboxes for the War of the Spanish Succession and First Barbary War. I'm sure I'll be coming across more. LordAmeth 13:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work. But try not to put blank lines at the end of the campaign template — these turn into whitespace in the battlebox. Gdr 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now created a campaignbox for the East African Campaigns of World War I; if anyone would like to double-check the spelling and accuracy of the battles listed, I'd appreciate it. LordAmeth 12:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War

I've just created a campaignbox for the Second Sino-Japanese War, appropriated named Template:Campaignbox Second Sino-Japanese War. If any one is well-versed in this part of the world, or this portion of history, can you please double-check my work, make sure the battles are correctly named (spelled), are in the right order, and that battles that belong are there (and battles that don't belong are not)? I shall continue to do my own research, and if possible, I might like to split this massive list up into separate campaigns. Maybe campaigns before the 1938 Fall of Hankou, and campaigns after, so as to distinguish what does and does not belong to WWII's Chinese Theater. Any help would be most appreciated. LordAmeth 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Napoleonic War is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article if you are interested in contributing to it to bring it up to featured article standard.--Fenice 13:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)