Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Two task force ideas

Throwing these out for discussion, as I've noticed that we don't have any good place to coordinate work in these areas:

1. Scandinavian (or Nordic) military history. This would presumably cover Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland(?), and Iceland(?).
2. South American (or Latin American) military history. This could cover either region; South America would be somewhat more limited, but also somewhat easier to work with as it would be a purely geographic definition.

Any interest in either of these? Or any other comments? Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the Scandanavian task force lately and I intrested in it and I think there are enough members intrestyed in the subject. Kyriakos 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a need for a Scandinavian task force this area has a long military history and theres a few editors from there floating around. Those are the countries i count as Scandinavia. On the South America/Latin America task force they should be separate the main problem is the number of editors not sure how many but it isn't a lot. Hossen27 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Start to check some topics within the scope of these taskforces whether you find a very active editor and invite him. Wandalstouring 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A Nordic task force might be a good idea, and I'm surely not the only one noticing that it was "missing" from the list. Regarding the name, I would personally prefer "Scandinavia" myself, but since there has been a minor dispute regarding the proper definition of this region, simply sticking to "Nordic" might be better. This will also mean that Finland, Iceland, the Faroes will be included. The latter two hardly have any military history, but anyway. The term Nordic will effectively also include Greenland, although some might see this a stretching the definition a bit. The Nordic dimension could naturally also be included by calling the parameter "Scandinavian-task-force" and use "Scandinavian/Nordic military history task force" as the actual text, but this term is a bit cumbersome. But the Scandinavian / Nordic material is seriously underdeveloped so it will be wonderful if anybody will help out there. Alas, I haven't got the time myself. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And the remark about the "long military history" is definitely true. Both Denmark-Norway and Sweden were strongly militarised and fought numerous wars - most importantly with each other. One of my old professors went so far as to say that "If you draw up a list of Europe's four most militarised countries in the 17th century, you will end up with Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Denmark." That remark might have been half in jest, but there is a lot of potential material here, and the already existing is rather badly covered. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If the task force is going to be made I think that it should include Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes because the Vikings and or Nordic peoples where the first people to colonize these places apart from the natives. As for the Latin American task force I think that it would be possible if a number of people whose intrest are that area are found. I try and find some later tonight. Kyriakos 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support for a Danish, Faroese, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish task force with comments:

• The wars prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union can be characterized as Scandanavian civil wars, or as viking.
• Any conflicts after the breakup of the Kalmar Union had a more international flavor. They tended to center around the Baltic and included Russia, Poland, and various German principalities.
• Finland should be included since between 1249–1809 it was subsumed by Sweden, only to become a Grand Duchy of Russia from 1809–1917. So the term Nordic may be a better choice since Finland's inclusion in Scandanavia has sometimes been controversial.
• The Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland were long Norwegian, even when Norway fell under the Danish-Norwegian union. Although the Treaty of Kiel in 1814 terminated the Danish-Norwegian union, when Norway came under the rule of the King of Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland remained as possessions of Denmark. Their history in most of the historic military period is arguably Scandanavian and certainly Nordic.
• Although there is a long dicussion what is Scandanavian, areas like Scandinavian literature have already accepted this set of countries as the correct one. So whether you call it Scandanavia or Nordic, there is some merit to the task force.
• There is still significant work to be done in Nordic wars...
• Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 15:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be interrested to at least check by on the talk page and discuss a thing or two of such a task force. I do regularly write articles on stuff related to Swedish/Nordic military history so I guess I would benefit from having a task force where I can find other users with the same interrest. Regarding the name; even though Scandinavia arguably is a more commonly used term, Nordic would be more correct. – Elisson • T • C • 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems decent enough. I've gone ahead and created a page for the Nordic military history task force; interested editors are invited to sign up! :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I left some messages at WikiProjects Peru, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay asking if anyone was intrested in helping support this task forces creation. We'll have to wait and see if we get a response. Kyriakos 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the correct place to request for the new taskforce. I would like start a task force for Military History of Myanmar/Burma. Any suggestion? Okkar 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be up for joining a Southeast Asian task force, as I've done a bit with Thailand and Vietnam, and my current work on Ryukyu could, arguably, count as well. But just Burma/Myanmar? Well, let's see how much support it gets. Surprise me ^_^ LordAmeth 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have thought that a somewhat broader Southeast Asia group—covering, presumably, Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia?, etc.—would be more workable (both because of the low numbers of editors involved and because the military histories of the countries there are very heavily intertwined). Kirill Lokshin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute for the broader Southeast Asia Group, especially in the historical parts and battles of Thailand, India, Cambodia 'etc. even though my main area of knowledge is Burma/Myanmar. So Southeast Asia Group it is then :-) Okkar 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would it possible to modify the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner template to allow for an article used in an FA pool for any given portal to displayed? I ask because of the apperence of the {{USN_Portal_Selected}} template and the fact that other Portals like WWII and NATO could (and probably do) draw on our featured articles for their portal FA pool. It seems to me that space could be saved on the page by figuring a way to add them all to the main banner template. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about that. Off the top of my head, I don't see any obvious easy way of doing it; but maybe I can come up with something that's not too convoluted. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What about something similar to the babal boxes? Something like {{portal#|A|B}}, where the # equals the number of portals the article is featured in, and A, B, C and so forth are shot hand for the Portal Names (like War for the War Portal, NATO for thh NATO portal, etc). Would that work? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some potential changes to the assessment system

The coordinators (well, Wandalstouring and myself, mostly ;-) have been bouncing around a few possible improvements to our current assessment department that might address a few long-standing issues. Without further ado, the ideas (which can be implemented pretty much independently of each other):

1. Extending the A-Class review to seven days.
2. Getting rid of the GA-Class level (and thus our dependency on the GA process).
3. Adopting more exact guidelines for B-Class articles, giving us some more practical differentiation between B-Class and Start-Class.
4. A more formal review before assigning B-Class status, in one of several forms:
   • A four-day review requiring more than one endorsement (similar to the current A-Class review).
   • A listing for review requiring a single outside endorsement (similar to the original GA setup).
   • Something else?

Any comments and further ideas on these points are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that extended the A-class review is an excellent idea as sometimes articles are failed as they have a lack of editors voting in time.
• If we got rid of GA class would we replace it with something for example our own GA review or something similar to the proper GA review.
• I think that adopting more exact guidelines for B-class articles are nessacary as they are so much in common with Start-class articles that some times it is difficult to decided which to grade the article to.
• As for the B-class review I also argee with the idea. I am predicting that there will be a lot of requests but I think that it will work and that it is nessacary to help tell apart Start-class articles from B-class articles. Kyriakos 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the time needs to be extended, 7 days seems like the next logical point.
• I think we can probably remove the GA-class from the MILHIST assessment process. We probably don't need to replace it with anything else. Obviously, articles could still be given a GA assessment outside of the project, but we could delete the rating from our own guidelines, and from the banner.
• I think that more exacting standards for B-class is a good idea, but I think a formal review (like A-class) will be to time consuming. It should probably just require a single endorsement. Carom 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that that whatever the grade, we should ensure that the standard of English is maintained in every article - even if the article is only a few sentences long.

Replace GA with a new grade – ‘Failed Classification’. There are too many articles (including B-Class articles) with appalling standards of English and are classified mainly due to the article’s size – not its quality.

Printed Encyclopaedias wouldn’t tolerate it, why should Wikipedia? : ) Raymond Palmer 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. While some basic attention to readability is needed, of course, the finer points of style and language are quite subtle, and are probably better suited for the peer review/A-Class review level than anything below that. We don't want to create a system that's too heavily dependent on a limited number of available copyeditors, I think. Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything that clarifies the difference between ratings and their application is useful. I find that unmoderated ratings seem to vary greatly in classification, but that may just be my own lack of discernment. Which is why I suggested that raters could/should give a brief explanation of their reasons. Kirill disagreed, and I bowed to his experience, but one editor has done this, and it does help. I think it's also recommended in the biographies project. Folks at 137 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A more precise standard (particularly with, say, numbered criteria) might be quite helpful in this respect; one could say, for example, that an article wasn't B-Class yet because it didn't meet criteria 2, 4, and 5, and editors would have a pretty decent idea of what to work on. Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My idea is to establish three major points in the B-class review

• verifiability of content(citations)
• broad coverage of the topic(no stub)
• acceptable English grammar(no grammatical errors)

In my opinion style is an issue for the A-class review. It can be improved by any native speaker, even if he is not familiar with the subject, if the content is OK. Wandalstouring 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My input: Yes, get rid of the "Good Article" level, which fits uncomfortably into the FA-A-B-start-stub hierarchy. More precise criteria for B-class is fine, but adding another assessment process is spreading an important resource—peer input—too thin. I would recommend simply having one place for assessment where project members rate the article as A or B (or even start or stub, if really underdeveloped articles are submitted, which should generally be avoided). I think articles can be rated as "B" without peer input, however, because the distinction between B-class and start-class does not seem important enough to expend much project manpower on. If a few articles listed as "B-class" should really be listed as "start" class, so what? Both labels simply mean that the article is still a work in progress. If you find an article listed as a "B" which you feel is improperly listed, simply submit it for assessment. —Kevin 08:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, that only means skipping the GA and nothing else changes in effect.

To explain a bit better why a simple B-class review helps to speed up the review process:

• The idea of the B-class review is to keep at bay all candidates with serious problems. If an article in the A-class review has major citation problems(verifiability=telling the truth?), the stylistic and NPOV problems also get analyzed. This is time consuming. On the other hand there is a huge amount of possible B-class candidates on various topics. So a fast B-class review must be kept very simple. Once reading the article has to be enough, however, we have to make this review profitable, that's the reason for finding necessary and simple to verify criteria.

The problem with free deassessment and assessment of classes is in my opinion that hardly anyone cares. Furthermore it's a possible open door for bad blood between editors what seriously hampers our progress(POV issues). A public process involves different people and thus helps to avoid a clash of the usual main editors of an article or self-assessments.

• One of my further ideas is a common sense rule to avoid so many hopeless candidates consuming the time of high level reviews. If an article is nominated at an obviously too high level review and for this reason is unlikely to pass the coordinator(currently = maintainance crew) can justify why he moved the nomination to a lower level review. Naturally if the article passed at a lower levelreview it can move up step by step.

Only objection to the next nomination at a higher level review can be if there was a specific criticsm. Than the nomination can be kept at a hold until the explicitly mentioned(word for word citation) issues of the last review have been worked over.

In case an editor feels this measures are unjustified he can consult another coordinator of his choice to take a look and possibly let the nomination go on as intended by the editor.Wandalstouring 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that, if we want a fast and simple B-Class review, the point to focus on is developing straightforward criteria. The question of whether we need one editor, two editors, etc., to apply these criteria is somewhat secondary; personally, I think that, with very clear criteria, it will be possible to use the existing system of having any (outside?) editor make the B-Class/Start-Class decision, since it will be obvious whether the article meets them or not. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a simplified, but more carefully "documented" classification system. Kirill's suggestion above, with numbered criteria and Wandalstouring's suggestions for three major points for the B-class seem perfectly logical and easy to understand. There should also be a simplified way of flagging articles that didn't meet a specified grade due to lack of editors within the time frame. wbfergus 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably we can just downgrade them? Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbered criteria sounds like a good idea... I always come up with my own criteria on the fly, often quite different for different types of articles, and admittedly quite dynamic. The same article might strike me differently based on what other articles look like, or by my mood, or any number of things. I've never worried about this much, as it is meant to be only a rough guideline, not a hard-and-fast rating system. One of the main difficulties I have come across is assessing the depth or length of an article relative to the importance of its subject; I would not expect any of us to have such an encyclopedic knowledge of history as to be able to look at an article and know whether or not there's a lot left out. Some battles take up thousands of words, others only a hundred or so. In any case, if we do end up tightening up the criteria, I would very much like to contribute to that effort; let me know if I can help out in some way. LordAmeth 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just my own opinion, as one who has assessed an article or two...No big deal if the GA assessment goes by the wayside. I like it as an interim assessment but am not really invested enough to be truly concerned whether it stays or goes. As for a formal process for "B-class" articles... I believe this is a mistake. It is merely adding a level of bureacracy to the project that does not belong. Sometimes the difference between "Start-class" and "B-class" articles is very small. Is it subjective at times? Absolutely. Is there enough animosity to create more bureacracy just to get a "B-Class" rating? Absolutely not.--Looper5920 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a more detailed set of criteria for B-Class that would be applied by the existing system, without a new formal process? Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A possible organization of the classification:

There is a limited number of strict criteria for B-class that can be verified by any viewer. In case an article fulfills all criteria it can be rated B-class.

"Stub" is content that is too short to be an article, "Start" is anything that has not been rated B-class or higher. A reason may be that it has not yet been rated or does not fulfill the criteria.

Rating can be done by any viewer who was not heavily involved as editor in the respective article.

In case some viewers disagree about the classification the next step is to nominate it for a public review.

I hope this is unbureaucratic enough. What criteria should be established? (Keep it short and simple) Wandalstouring 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unbureaucratic enough for me. Let me think about the criteria, though. Carom 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I like Kirill's suggestion of clear criteria which can be cited. A big advantage for someone like me who has not had to produce this type of documentation (never went to uni), is the guidance on standards it could offer. I have found myself puzzled and discouraged by some of the current ratings and I don't have the time to pursue every rater for an explanation. The criteria will surely evolve as "work in progress", so let's get a first-cut proposal for comment. Folks at 137 18:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, off the top of my head, a couple of things that might be suitable as a check for B-Class:

1. The article has suitable references (and perhaps some rudimentary citation?). We don't necessarily want to require exhaustive citaion at this point, but a minimal standard of referencing should be workable.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. The article has (some) categories.

Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. First (picky) reactions: "minimal standard of referencing" - does this mean "in-line" or just some refs to books, sites, etc in a separate section?; "does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies" - does this imply that rating should only be done by knowledgeable editors (I would agree if it does) and such inaccuracies need to be noted or corrected; should the importance of a topic be considered? ie, should we be more lenient if a minor issue is dealt with briefly but adequately? Also, IMO, the article should be in a readable style (not just grammatical) with appropriate (define!) links to other articles. Might be worth running the criteria, as they develope, against some start and B articles. Folks at 137 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comment above about "a simplified way of flagging articles that didn't meet a specified grade due to lack of editors within the time frame." I was thinking of something slightly different than just a downgrade procedure, where they would presumably get lost in the lower class, but something that would flag it as not making the review due to not enough editors reviewing or something. Still not sure if I'm explaining this properly or not, but say an article gets submitted for an B-class review. With a 7 day period to be reviewed by xx number of reviewers, what if the arcticle itself is good, but not enough people reviewed it? It just gets denied and lost in the multitude of Start-class articles with no further indication that it is still a good article? Maybe something like B-class (expired) or something to highlight articles that somehow may have slipped through the cracks? Still not fanilar enough around here to know all the ins and outs, so I'm probably overlooking obvious. wbfergus 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We always had enough feedback to avoid such cases (in the A-class review) even if we had to invite/carry some people to the review. It is not clear whether such requirements will be established for the B-class review as a majority seems to oppose a formalized approach that would impose such a regulation.Wandalstouring 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I recall correctly, there was one A-class review that was closed with two support votes and no oppose votes - I think the article was Pontiac's Rebellion, but I could be wrong. However, I think this was the only case, so it's not really a major problem. At any rate, the banner on the talk page links to A-class discussions, so you can always check to see why an article failed its nomination. Carom 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pontiac's Rebellion was the article that "failed" A-class review with 100% support votes (two of them). As the author of that article, I found that result amusing. I value peer input, but I don't consider any rating below "Featured" to be worth making a fuss about. I won't bother submitting it for B-class review either, so go ahead and mark it as "start"! ;-) —Kevin 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was a slightly embarassing episode (although, to be fair, it took place right when we first started the A-Class review, so we were flailing about a bit trying to figure out how to run it). :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac is running for A-class again.

A slightly different checklist for B-Class:

1. The article has complete citation. (We do require exhaustive citation at this point to keep things cited from the beginning because it is much harder and a lot more work to reference an established article. Such a task usually equals a complete rewrite.)
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. The article has no grammatical errors.

So far my suggestions. Wandalstouring 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "complete" citation? It should be pointed out that truly exhaustive citation (by which I mean that every statement is directly cited) isn't required even at the FA level; imposing such a requirement here would be draconian, in my view.

The grammatical error issue doesn't seem like a good place to focus on either, unless the errors are so gross that the article is substantially unreadeable. Fine-grain copyediting is something done when preparing for a FAC; are we going to bump articles down to Start-Class because somebody finds a misplaced comma?

More generally, I was under the impression that we were looking to have B-Class be a "pretty good, but still needs improvement" category. What would be the difference between B-Class and A-Class under such criteria; just comprehensiveness of coverage? That doesn't seem like something that we can readily evaluate, in most cases. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete citation isn't meant to be quite the same as exhaustive and perhaps this wasn't the best choice of words. It is about citing the basic structure of statements and thus giving the article a completely verifiable matrix. Your rule wasn't specific enough so things would have been likely to end up in a wash again.

An alternative formulation would be: all major claims have citations for verifiability

Quite a lot of editors have raised the language issue as a criteria for the B-class review. Naturally style is very controversial to assess while if I understand their intent correctly it is about English grammar. An article without is often prone to misunderstanding. Your issue was to focus on style in the A-class review and none raised an objection against that.

The central problem is whether to make them strict or more open for personal interpretation(what I strongly disfavor). In my opinion if we have an assessment without much comments it must have strict and simple to verify criteria however drakonic this may sound. The alternative would be a broad degree of interpretations(+quarrels) and thus quality. In effect this leads pretty much to the status quo - the whole criteria discussion would have been pointless. Wandalstouring 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that seems a bit more reasonably worded; how about this, then:

1. The article is suitably referenced, and major points are appropriately cited. (Slightly different wording from what you meant, maybe? My intent here was to show that we don't need the FA-level hundreds-of-footnotes approach here yet.)
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. The article is free from major grammatical errors.

Is that anywhere near what you had in mind, or am I wandering off again? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Make it "all major points are appropriately cited" and I agree. Wandalstouring 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording we can obviously play with somewhat, but here's my two cents as to an additional point:

1. The article contains appropriate support materials (e.g. infoboxes, maps & images when available, specifications for a weaponry/vehicle article, Medal of Honor citation for a Medal of Honor recipient).

I, personally, have always preferred good writing, form, style, detail, and accuracy over nitpicky attention to citations, and in any case, I think there should be a way for articles that fulfill those criteria (long, detailed, thorough, well-written, with supporting information) to be able to be classified as B-class or perhaps better even without extensive citations. Accuracy is more important than verifiability, I think. LordAmeth 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could work that point into the structure clause (e.g. "including a lead section and one or more sections of content, as well as appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, etc.)" or something of the sort)?

As far as citations, I think the reference to "major points" would probably be enough to keep this from being truly nitpicky. Encouraging more citations is generally a good thing; the ideal article is both accurate and well-cited. The question is how much to stress each aspect at different levels; while I agree that we needn't be excessive here, Wandalstouring is right in that articles that don't make any headway on citations early on usually need to be rewritten afterwards. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that eliminating the GA level would be a good idea, as a Good Article should have something to distinguish it over a mere B-class tome. If a category is to be eliminated, I'd probably support the removal of the A-class instead, as I'm not sure I understand the need for something between GA and FA. - Aerobird 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with GA is that it's not something the project can really control, being subject to the whims of arbitrary GA reviewers. This doesn't mean we need to remove it, of course; but it's becoming an issue in that we can't set our own standards for that level. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we are losing touch with the ground right now by introducing this "structure clause (e.g. "including a lead section and one or more sections of content, as well as appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, etc.)" or something of the sort)?" Finding such material can be very difficult if done right. Unfortunately the tendency isn't towards improvement in many cases because if this is a strict clause anything that happens to be on commons or can be externally linked to is going to find its way into the article indiscriminate of factual accuracy, usefulness or concern to the topic.

Let's make a clear defintion of what function the B-class article should have before we complete our wishlist what an article should be. My concept aims at making the B-class a green body for the A-class. Central to this idea is that the B-class can be modified by an editor without too deep knowledge of the topic to get somewhere near A-class/achieve A-class.Wandalstouring 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note...the guidelines that have been laid down are about exactly what I have been using to assess articles. Usually the difference between Start and B class is an onfobox or number of references. I don't think it is a bad thing if some general guidelines are laid down for everyone in the community to know what a certain assessment takes. As always there will be individual cases that differ from the norm but for 98% of the articles I think these guidelines will suffice. Should they be codified into some sort of formal assessment or Wikiproject rule? I would lean against that. I do still like the GA article class. While not used that much right now, from what I have seen the difference between B and A class can sometimes be massive so having a step in between might be a good thing to keep for the future. Cheers--Looper5920 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So, the major outstanding question: do we want to require structural or layout elements (infoboxes, images, some particularl sectioning, etc.) for B-Class, or not? And, if so, which ones? Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New task force proposal

I suggest a task force related to "War crimes" or "Atrocities". The obvious problems are the scope of the subject and the scope for edit wars, but topics such as the Nazi death camps need to be covered, in my opinion. Views? Folks at 137 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something more general, like "Military law" or "Laws of war"? Having things included in a "war crimes" group would be needlessly provocative in cases where they're merely allegations, I think. Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. That would also give a firm, codified basis for the scope. There's no hurry to establish this, better to get it right than spend life arbitrating. However, I'd like some leeway - I don't agree that allied WWII bombing, for example, was a war crime, but others have an arguable point that bears debate. Would an atrocity during an undeclared war, eg the Rwanda massacres or events in Bosnia, be included under a strict interpretation? Perhaps "Crimes against humanity". Folks at 137 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Crimes against humanity" are technically a somewhat different thing—and one not necessarily tied to this project, as they needn't involve either warfare or the military—so that might not be an equivalent thing. In any case, I think that "Laws of war" could more easily cover such issues regardless of whether they're actually considered crimes, and regardless of whether the war was declared or not; it's much easier to go for a liberal interpretation of the scope if it's "laws" than if it's "crimes". Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoid any charges of crime if this task force should work on the behaviour of Japanese troops towards POW during WWII for example. Japan had not signed any legislation on how to proceed with POW. Atrocity is neither a NPOV term as enslavement and rape were common practice in classical warfare and not recorded among the atrocities.Wandalstouring 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Laws of war" is probably the most correct title (I think the task force is a good idea, by the way). Carom 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any legal/law-related projects on Wikipedia? This would also fall under that category also, I think. Cla68 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Visit WikiProject Law. Wandalstouring 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the WikiProject Law page in case any of them would like to join-in this discussion. Cla68 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Montevideo

I am a bit confused on the Battle of Montevideo (1807). Is it officially considered to be part of the War of the Fourth Coalition or is it unrelated? If it is unrelated, what war is it part of? I have already refered it to peer groups but I am wondering whether the Wikiproject leadership knows anything about it. --Ineffable3000 04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was part of the Anglo-Spanish War of that period (on which we don't seem to have an article, incidentally); lumping it into one of the Coalitions may not be quite correct, in that sense. Kirill Lokshin 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The British project in Southern America was to establish their own rule, compareable to the British takeover of the Dutch Cape Colony in South Africa. Summary of the prelude and interest, flag[1] of the Patricios regiment (1807) that fought against the British invasion while Spain was not able to provide enough support. Wandalstouring 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to update the Campaignboxes. Also, is the Anglo-Spanish war considered to be part of the Napoleonic wars. --Ineffable3000 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be; but it ran from 1796 to 1807?, if I recall correctly, so it fits into both the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic phases. Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It might an independent war though. --Ineffable3000 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Related note

I created the Battle of Montevideo (1863) and found out that we don't have any articles about the Uruguayan Civil War. --Ineffable3000 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that urging you to write or at least start these articles? Wandalstouring 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Siege vs. Battle

All sieges are battles but not all battles are sieges. Is that correct? --Ineffable3000 05:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am uncertain whether the battle is historically considered to be a siege or not, should I just leave it titled as a battle? --Ineffable3000 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, you should title articles in accordance with the conventions used in the literature. If most historians refer to a particular event as a battle, call it a battle. If most historians refer to it as a siege, call it a siege. If you don't know, do your best to find out - if there is a particular article you have in mind, it's useful to provide a link, so that other editors can provide their opinion. Carom 05:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For example all the battles in WWI trench warfare could be technically considered assaults in a big siege operation(and to some extend historians do call it a "siege"), but the German western front of WWI is never revered to as the Western siege of the German Empire. Wandalstouring 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all sieges are battles. They might be bloodless affairs where an army camps outside a fortified area or city, followed by a long period of waiting, followed by a bloodless capitulation or negotiated settlement. It would therefore be incorrect to say that "all sieges are battles." They are all military events, but not "battles," in the sense that combat is joined between two opposing forces. The original word "siege" is a form of "seat" -- it literally means to sit around your target, i.e., to invest it. Many sieges were simply sitting and waiting, while terms of surrender or settlement of issues was conducted. There were many cases where armies simply threatened hostilities, and separated without an assault. If a siege did lead to a bombardment (remote attacks, without a direct assault), or a sally (defenders issuing forth), or a relief (external forces coming to rescue the besieged locale), or to an assault (besiegers trying to take target by force), those would be the "battle" phase(s) of the siege. But do not presume all sieges progress through those stages. Eg: the recent "siege" of Mogadishu led to the capitulation of the city without bombardment or assault. The defenders simply capitulated and left the city. --Petercorless 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And that would be why the article is titled "Fall of Mogadishu" rather than "Siege of Mogadishu", incidentally. ;-)

More generally: while it is, in theory, possible to have something that is described as a "siege" by historians but doesn't involve actual fighting, such events are so extremely rare as to be more of a statistical anomaly than a significant type of siege. The overwhelming majority of sieges involves some form of fighting; so, while it is, indeed, possible to draw exact semantic distinctions here, doing so in an encyclopedia for the general reader is somewhat counterproductive. It is more useful, I think, to merely say that sieges are types of battles and handle the occasional exception on a case-by-case basis. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nay, perhaps say sieges were their own kind of military engagement and battles were battles in the open field. In modern times the usage of the word changed, so that battles can include sieges and elements of sieges such as assaults leading to house-to-house fighting, but also the doctrine of battles of encirclement and annihilation is nothing else but isolating and besieging the enemy. So things got mixed up a bit as the traditional siege became rare with the increase of territory each soldier is able to defend. Wandalstouring 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's another way of looking at it; certainly, modern warfare has jumbled the naming considerably (e.g. Battle of Berlin, etc.). In any case, it seems like this would be an interesting matter to discuss in the siege and battle articles, but not necessarily something to worry about too much outside of them. Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was actually not uncommon in olden days to simply march forth with your laddies, threaten your enemies, see if they'd toss you any gold or treasures, or ask if they had any likely marriageable women, all to ensure you'd go away in peace. Sometimes you might even hold a contest of champions to determine the outcome, or, in more chivalric times, tournament between the besiegers and the besieged. In that case, most of the army was there as your personal rooting section. Starvation -- simply surrounding a place and waiting for the defenders to weary -- was also common. This might be done if the castle or manor wanted to be captured intact. For instance, in a conflict over succession. Why would you assault your ancestral manor if you could starve the defenders into submission? Consider that history tends to record the massive, spectacular siege-assaults far more often than the run-of-the-mill sieges. A more common social historical analysis would show local conflicts often resolved without a battle. It's also not very glorious to record the times when you went up to a big fort, shook your fist, and then left empty-handed, or if you had to surrender because you wanted something to eat. But it happened a lot. --Petercorless 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be true; but it's fairly common to see such events referred to as something other than "sieges" (e.g. "raids", "expeditions", etc.) in works of military history (those that cover them, anyways). As a practical point, just about everything that's been the subject of enough material to make it into Wikipedia will be one of the violent sort of siege, so the issue doesn't really come up that much. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A "raid" or an "expedition" is not a "siege." A raid is generally an attack with a planned withdrawal thereafter, or to make a hurried or light attack to take a place or claim some goal or objective generally before defenses can be mounted. That's sort of the opposite of a siege. As I said, siege comes from "seat" or "sitting." It's where you decide "this is going to take a while." A siege generally required an investment -- the purposeful, planned surrounding (or partial surrounding) of a place, before, after or instead of a direct assault upon it. If there is no investment, if you just assault it, then there is no siege. You are proceeding directly to an assault. On a more modern, campaign-wide contrast, one could compare "siege" and "sitzkrieg" (sitting war) and contrast them with mobile battles and "blitzkrieg" (lightning war). "Expedition" is a more general term not necessarily aimed at investing a fortified strongpoint or population center, and in fact, many not even be a military event at all. --Petercorless 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an issue of scale here. If I march up to your castle, sit outside the walls for a few days, then get paid off and go away, that might be referred to in a historical work as a "siege". If I move through a region exacting tribute from a dozen castles in such a manner, the entire sequence may be termed a "raid" or "expedition". The expedition might involve sieges, in other words; but, if the sieges are sufficiently uninteresting that they're never discussed in isolation, the entire event can be referred to by the broader name (e.g. "in the course of his raid on Flanders, he camped outside Bruges for two days" rather than "in the course of his siege of Bruges, he camped outside the city for two days").

This is mostly an issue of semantics, of course; as I said, it's not really a practical matter for most of the actual historical activity that's written about. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like we have too much spare time. Is the question sufficiently answered whether a siege is a battle or not? Wandalstouring 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein

The article for Erich von Manstein has a rant in the introduction about "the dual myth of German military genius and moral correctness" which basically is some strange Slavic or Soviet supremacist attack on the skill of general Erich von Manstein, and Third Reich generals as a whole.

I'm concerned, because there's no serious basis behind the argument - the central theme appears to be that Erich von Manstein was defeated by Nikolai Vatutin several times, giving no regard to circumstances, such as relative strengths of the armies involved. I tried removing it, but there are at least two people reverting to the version with the rant.

It seems to me that there's no valid basis for the claims contained in the rant, but if there were, it should not be a badly written chunk of text in the introduction anyway, but a whole edit of the article. I don't think there's any point prolonging an edit war, so I thought this seemed the best place to turn for mediation? 139.168.40.202 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason the change was reverted probably has very little to do with the validity of the information; deletions of large chunks of text by an anonymous user (without an edit summary) tend to be reverted as vandalism, without any real consideration for the merits of the changes themselves.

Whether or not the text belongs in the article, I can't really say. However, it should definitely be moved from the lead, and also needs to be cited. Carom 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly other user with a login had just done the same delets as you. Well, we are very open and there are some people in the world who think they have a useful contribution. This contribution they keep reinserting at all cost. Such ideas often violate the NPOV. One approach to this problem is to ban user with no or a new login from editing while editors with an older login doing such edits can be handled by the administration. The other possibility is to wait some time before deleting this stuff. The people maintaining it are often very anxious and keep daily watch. If their edits aren't attacked for some time they think them safe and pay no more attention to the article. I moved this whole section into an own chapter and put a big question for references on it. Good work of yours to pay attention that unsourced claims got inserted into an important WWII biography. Unfortunately we can't award people like you without a login. Wandalstouring 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a login from back when I expanded a handful of Stargate articles (history articles tend to be very well done, and have no need for further contributions, whereas Stargate, being far less important to an encyclopedia, had a lot of articles requiring a lot of work) and contributed to a few WWII military articles, but I haven't logged in for a while because I don't have time to contribute whole Stargate episode articles anymore, the only contributions I was ever really doing were the occasional correction of typos and such. I'm happy without getting an award, I didn't do anything more than the average wikipedia user would.

I deleted the section when I visited the article because I assumed - incorrectly it seems - it was vandalism that sensible users would delete, I did provide an edit summary the first time, though after that I didn't bother. I ended up drawn into a debate and an edit war, so I thought logging in was closing the gate after the horse had bolted, as well as providing a user page to be vandalised. There seemed to be two or three people backing the section, I checked the history briefly but didn't notice anyone else removing the section, so I thought I should find a method of mediation. It's fair to say that Western historians have been unfair to the Red Army, but that doesn't necessarily mean Erich von Manstein was a poor commander, nor does that assertion stand up to scrutiny, and, more than that, if it were true, throwing a section into the introduction that criticises the rest of the article, without any serious sources, isn't the right way to do things. 143.238.54.249 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1st Squadron, 10th United States Cavalry

This unit is scheduled to be deactivated on 12 January 2007. I'm actually in the unit, so I'm providing good information. I changed the "active" date, but it's been reverted, and I just wanted to make a note explaining why I added it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botter (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

There is a discussion page to the article. When you make an edit and someone reverts it, write this editor a comment and discuss matters with him on your discussion page or on the discussion page of the article. Furthermore use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Wandalstouring 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a look, I notice the infobox reads as if the entire regiment is to be disbanded in 2007.

I assume D-10, 7-10, and 8-10 CAV will remain in existance?? Cheers Buckshot06 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War‎

I have started an article about the Uruguayan Civil War‎. Please check if there is no article like this at the moment. I want to make this a very good article. --Ineffable3000 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Battle of Montevideo (1863) is related but it's not considered to be in either Uruguayan Civil War or War of the Triple Alliance. Where does it belong? --Ineffable3000 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the Blancos and Colorados were shooting each other so check the respective articles for consistency. A very important issue is that you source your article. Take some of the featured articles on the project page as an example how a good article might look like. Wandalstouring 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How does that help me determine which war the battle was in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ineffable3000 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure that there was only one Uruguayan Civil War, and that the dates on that article are correct? (It is possible, incidentally, for a battle to not be part of any broader war. In other words, the single battle could be the entirety of the conflict, so there's no separate name used for the war.) Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There were several wars in this region until the border conflicts between Paraguay, Uruguay, Brasil and Argentina and their inner conflicts were halfway settled. It possibly helps you to get an overview about this era first rather than focus on one participant.Wandalstouring 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did and found out that there was the War of the triple alliance and Uruguayan Civil War‎ in which Uruguay participated. Can that battle be just a skirmish not part of any major war? --Ineffable3000 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the History of Uruguay page, In 1855, new conflict broke out between the parties. There was some conflict but it does not seem to have a name and the previous conflict "Guerra Grande" is usually called the Uruguayan Civil War. What should I do? Should I just continue calling the "Guerra Grande" the Uruguayan Civil War. --Ineffable3000 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but on the other hand it isn't clear when there was war and when there was peace because the bands of "soldiers" continued to do what they usually did. Just go on read more material on it. You will at least need it to write a well sourced article. If you have read to write a good article you will also know enough to tell in which war it happened while here you ask people who hardly know the basics of what happened in this region. Wandalstouring 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the legitimate sources I have read, I found out that the main war was in the fact during the time period I thought it was. It was a big war and is called "Guerra Grande" on the Spanish Wikipedia. However, there continued small 'wars' afterwards. --Ineffable3000 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I'll just work on the article. If someone creates an article about another Uruguayan civil war, we'll just move and disamb. --Ineffable3000 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth military units again

Looks like the deleted Category:British Commonwealth Forces wasn't the only category trying to lump together all the Commonwealth's various militaries; we also have the bizarrely named Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps (which includes a number of things that are neither regiments nor corps; but the curious combination of two formation sizes is baffling regardless). Does anyone see a use (and alternate name) for this, or should it go to CFD like the last one? Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

'Regiments' and 'Corps' are both names for British historical regiments, thus Army Catering Corps and the Black Watch can both be seen as 'regiments' though service organisations usually get called 'corps'. I hope I'm not teaching people to suck eggs here - they're administrative, not operational, organisations. I think it has merit possibly under a title something like 'Indigenous (local?) forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth' ?? Thoughts?

Cheers Buckshot06 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a use for it - as was discussed in the previous case, there is no real military connection amongst the armed forces of the various countries that are members of the Commonwealth. Carom 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this category is retained it should at least be limited to actual regiments and corps. Many of the units sub-categories such as 'Military units and formations of New Zealand' are neither and these aren't valid sub-categories. --Nick Dowling 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To forestall the creation of such categories and possibly articles. The respective names should be linked to a chapter in the Commonwealth article that explains how "their military" worked. Wandalstouring 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the Army Catering Corps would fall into the same kind of 'classification' as the Category:United States Army Corps of Engineers, which itself could probably be better defined. How about something along the lines of (using the Corps of Engineers as an example), making a new category called (bad example) Category:Adminstrative/Service Corps of XYZ Army, so that they have a distinct category separate from the operational Corps which people usually relate to term Corps? Just an idea. wbfergus 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We do have a (mis-named) Category:British administrative corps. Kirill Lokshin 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How about renaming that to Category:Administrative corps of the United Kingdom? And adding categories into the other national trees where neccessary? Carom 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible (and speedyable); the question is whether we would want to explicitly rename the other "Corps" categories to "Operational corps" or some other term, to discourage people from trying to nest them in unusual ways? Kirill Lokshin 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe "Field corps" (c.f. Category:British field corps, Category:Field armies, etc.); or is that only valid in British terminology? Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Category:Field corps of the United Kingdom is better, but I don't know how many other countries use that nomenclature. Carom 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sinclair (soldier)

Hi! I am not affiliated with this project, but I noticed the project template on the talk page and was wondering if anybody could assist or comment on my work on the article Michael Sinclair (soldier) (also redirected from Mike Sinclair).

In particlular:

• I am using a rather "different" referencing style - do you think it is O.K?
• I am (so far) using a single book as reference. Is this acceptable?
• What are your thoughts on using web pages as sources for this kind of material? This kind of information generally tends to be third or fourth generation and, in my opinion, unreliable.

The web page point is interesting. I have used Pat Reid's Colditz book as a reference for most of the article, but I am having trouble with the "Sixty Second Escape", since Reid states the attempt was launched from the British Quarters, which is impossible! A web page states it started from the sick-ward, which makes more sense, but the web page is unsourced, so how do I know where they got their information from?

If anybody has any Colditz books, please leave a note at my talk page. I would like to reference this a fully as possible since I would like to try and elevate it to Featured Article status. Michael Sinclair was a hero, and I think he deserves to be featured!

-- Qarnos 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your reference style is OK as long as you make it clear that these comments are all quotes from the source. Use ("...quoted text...") for them.
• You can use as many books as you want. Naturally if you use only one book one may question the noteability of this person.
• There are quite a lot of different types of webpages just like there are quite a lot of different types of books. The article shouldn't be based entirely on content of dubious books or webpages. For example you can quote with little doubt the websites of official groups like a Coldlitz Castle veteran group or the British Ministry of Defence.

Take a look at the sources for the Colditz Castle article to find sources you yet didn't use. Possibly some of the involved editors can help you.

There are quite a lot of heroes without a featured biography on wikipedia. Wandalstouring 11:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask the maintainers of the website where they got their information (they may not respond, or their response may not be useful, but you can always ask). Carom 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub collectors

A possible application of the ability to redirect to chapters within articles would be to collect stubs as chapters of "articles" with a fitting categorization(not category) that describes one of their common traits. The idea is to better keep an eye on stubs and find a form for topics that are unlikely to ever make a whole article. These stub collectors can later be turned into summary articles with many redirects to their respective chapters or some chapters can become seperate articles if they have enough information. Wandalstouring 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, particularly for topics that gather large amounts of permanent stubs due to a lack of available information (e.g. ancient & medieval military figures, etc.). Having said that, we need to make sure that what we're collecting actually make sense as combined articles (due to having some common theme) and are not merely extended disambiguation pages. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even as disambiguation pages they would be by far easier to maintain and have more use. Wandalstouring 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But the theme-based organization is more meaningful, when both are possible. For example, I would argue that combining a bunch of stubs into Punic figures of the First Punic War, Punic figures of the Second Punic War, etc. would be better than combining them into disambiguation pages by name. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new parameter for military unit infobox

Quick suggestion here - for the military unit infobox, I think a subordinate unit parameter would be a good idea. Obviously, we wouldn't include lettered companies (A Company, B Company, etc) or sequentially numbered battalions (1/501st, 2/501st, etc), but I think it would be quite helpful for showing which units fall under which units, instead of having to search through the text.--Nobunaga24 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Suggested new parameter for military unit infobox Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Title, rank, rate, and rating capitilaztion naming conventions

I have came across numerous instances where military ranks, rates, and ratings aren't adhering to any rule when it comes to their capitalization for instance; Rear admiral on its article page just has the first letter of the title capitalized but, on the list United States Navy officer rank insignia the entire rank is capitalized. There is no difference in context between the title on the article page and its section in the list, in both instances it's the subject and therefore a noun. WP:MOS#Titles helps out a little here but isn't defined in great detail. I believe there should be at the least a mention in the WPMILHIST naming convention on how one is to proceed when faced with this predicament. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In the US Navy all ranks are capitalized if they are part of the name (Else they are capitalized you discovered an orthographic error). Compare it to doctor. In case it is part of the name you have for example "Dr. med. Foo". If you go to Doctor Foo you are going to the doctor. In this case the function is not capitalized.

Naming convention:

• In titles all words of the title start with a capital letter except minor words such as "of", "in", "the" or "from"
• Functions are not capitalized, but all wikipedia article names start with a capital letter. Titles not directly connected to a person are a social functions and thus the mentioned rule for functions applies. Wandalstouring 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Watling Street

Major battle between Roman and Briton peoples probably, maybe, could have taken place near this present day street; even the sources, such as they are, are hedging, and no one actually refers to it as the Battle of Watling Street. I think this article should be renamed, but to what? Is anyone on this project very knowledgeable about this period/subject? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be great if this page could get archived soon.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Debate over where the site of the battle occurred does exist and is noted in the article. But the name "Battle of Watling Street does exist as the de facto name to give to Boudicca's Last Battle. Even if you rename the article to something like "Boudicca's Last Battle," akin to "Custer's Last Stand" for the Battle of Little Bighorn, people would still likely look up the Battle of Watling Street. --Petercorless 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit strange name for an ancient battle. Sounds more like some street gangs having a violent encounter. Since this name is really used there are no reasons to object. Wandalstouring 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source, is that in the article somewhere? I read several of the sources and none of them actually used the term, which is why I was skeptical/confused. Additionally, the article makes it sound like the battle actually took place on Wattling Street, like it was there at the time. I guess that is fixable, though.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Watling Street was there at the time. But it was the Roman road "Iter III" or possibly called "Via Claudia" to celebrate Claudius's victory. The first part was laid down in 44 AD. The Saxons came along later and renamed the road to what we call Watling Street today, but the road itself was built by the Roman army. --Petercorless 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay but the article says things like "The Romans proceeded down Watling Street." This is confusing, as your points about its history are not in the article. I personally don't like it when articles present confusing info that you must click through wikilinks to figure out (for example, a reader could alleviate the confusion of the Battle article by looking at the article on Watling Street, but the Battle article doesn't then become less confusing in and of itself.) I will edit the Battle article slightly to reflect this. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It does say at the top "now known as Watling Street." I'll add clarifying text regarding the Street itself. --Petercorless 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please disambiguate "Mortar" early and often!

I just "adopted" the disambiguation page for Mortar. I've gone through probably 200 of the 250 "links here" pages and changed [[mortar]] links to [[Mortar (weapon)|mortar]] for articles where the weapon was being referred to. The culprits undoubtedly know who they are — and can save a lot of work for other folks later on if they will remember there's more than one meaning for the word. (For penance, you guys can fix the masonry "mortar" references on the Mortar disambig page!) On the enlightenment side, I've learned from correcting the citations that just about every 20th century US Medal of Honor winner was involved on either the receiving or delivering end of mortar fire! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I work on articles in the future, I will try to remember that. Thanks for catching it and making the corrections. Regarding the Medal of Honor recipients, it's also amazing how many of them used their entrenching tool as well. They must have already had it pulled it out of it's carrier, as anybody that's been in the Army knows how difficult and time-consuming it is to get the dang thing out, at least from the old canvas carriers. The newer plastic carriers are a bit easier (in warm weather). wbfergus 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Off topic. If you are in danger of close combat attacks you keep that thing ready beside you. Wandalstouring 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Country Tags for Sov/Russian formations

Any thoughts on which tag we should use for present day Russian formations which have a long and distinguished Soviet history? Some, like the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya MR Div, have honour titles which serve to mark them out from any future E German or Hungarian or anybody else's Motor Rifle Divisions etc. But what about the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Division at Totskoye, or others like it? (Soviet Union)? {Soviet Union/Russia)? Thoughts? Buckshot06 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They still use the red flag as far as I know.Wandalstouring 10:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're still present (under those names) in the Russian military, I'd use "Russia"; the other ones would presumably be just "Soviet Union". Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and other Unit History questions

Probably more of my countless stupid questions here.

• 1. As I've been working on creating stubs for various units of the Korean War, I've pretty much just been copying the text I've found (with references). Eventually there may be enough information that somebody can start going through it and rewording/rephrasing as appropriate to make a regular Start-class article. I try to remember to double-single quote it as appropriate, so it appears italicized as well. However, doesn't that usually signify that's a copy from somewhere? And if I do that, should I still make an effort to eliminate the wording of "enemy" or "friendly", as that connotes a POV, and replace it with other appropriate wording, like "South Korean", "North Korean", "Chinese" or whatever? Depending on what time of the day it is, sometimes I feel that by doing that I'd be changing what I've quoted.

If you use direct quotes make it visible ("...quote...") and state whom you quote. Any rewording of a direct quote must also be clear by using brackets. If you use a source and write things with your own words such measures are not necessary, but in case you feel this could be a POV issue it is advised to mention in the text who stated that opinion. In all cases replacing enemy is a good start, as it is clearly a POV and can lead to misunderstanding.Wandalstouring 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense and clarifies how I should be doing it. Thanks. wbfergus 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2. Since I've been doing the above on mainly South Korean, North Korean and Chinese units, I've also run across a ton of information on various U.S. and U.N. units as well, but they already (for the most part) have articles. However, the articles are usually pretty scarce on details of the units actions during the Korean War. Would it be useful to also start listing the historical stuff as I find it, maybe as a "sandbox" type page (i.e. "3rd Infantry Division (United States)/Korean War")? It appears that most of the 'historical' stuff on various unit's pages is pretty much what the military says, without much information from other sources, and usually sparse. If it would be desirable/useful to do this, it could be expanded as well for the various other battles, like WWI, WWII, etc. Just an idea I was wondering about, but not quite sure how the linking would work from the unit page to the sandbox (sub) page, since I haven't used them yet.

wbfergus 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not advised to create a great amount of stubs. Since there is material lacking on certain topics this is probably the result of lacking noteability. In such cases think more about a way to combine your information into complete articles, for example by creating "US units of WWII (from 1939-1943)", "US units of WWII (from 1943-1945)" and branch of longer(=real) articles on specific unitX by using the template {{main article|unitX}}. Wandalstouring 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a lack of notability, but more of whoever was working on it at the time didn't have enough to work with. If there was a "working area" (like a sandbox?), then as people found something they could add it and eventually there may be enough for a decent editor to create cohesive article, or at least a better section for the main article. An (poor) example would be X Corps (United States). The article itself it rather sparse, with no references or notes. However, I ran across [2] which details a lot about the X Corps in the Korean War. For other units, especially ones that have participated in numerous campaigns/wars, imagine how much information is out there that the Army/Military didn't include in their standard unit bio? wbfergus 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said "probably lack of noteability" or public interest. Still the advice is not to create stubs, but to try to keep cases in which one is not able to make a complete article on his own as a part of a summary on certain topics. Wandalstouring 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add it to the unit articles directly? There's no prohibition against taking a "work in progress" approach to such pages, and it's simpler than trying to shuffle sandboxes around. Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And, if you are taking the approach suggested by Kirill, you can always add {{underconstruction}} to let other editors/readers know that the article isn't intended to be complete (and that work is ongoing), but I wouldn't recommend leaving that template up for any extended period of time. Carom 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The {{underconstruction}} template sounds like it might work pretty good. What sort of time contraints are there on using it? Until somebody complains or changes it? A month or two? I'm probably not the best writer to try and condense the information into something intelligible. wbfergus 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Until somebody cares enough to remove it" is usually a good rule of thumb. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

First of all, I apologize if this issue has been raised before. I'm finding a great deal of frustration dealing with the combatants section of infoboxes. It appears like people are including or trying to include every conceivable combatant in any struggle. This is fine and dandy for the historical record, but it is also slightly ridiculous when we include states, tribes, or countries that played virtually no notable role. The result is that some combatant lists (ie. the one for the Napoleonic Wars) is a piece of crap. Thoughts??? I don't have much time to clarify everything I wanted, but I'll write more on this later.UberCryxic 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It has indeed been raised before (although I can't remember exactly when); that's why the whole bit about large numbers of combatants was added to the template instructions. It's obviously still up to the editors of individual articles to decide exactly what should and shouldn't be in the infobox, though; we can't really impose a one-size-fits-all rule here. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This tends to be pretty colourful. Well, if it is really urging to mention them all we could set an example and use large tables which also provide a better connection between the commander, the country he served and what he commanded. Such tables shouldn't be anywhere near the head of the article, mor at the bottom, above the "See also" and "References" section. Wandalstouring 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create an "expand" button [+] Allies (full list), and if you clicked on it, it would expand, otherwise, it would be collapsed? The same might be do-able with units involved, so you could expand US Third Army to see sub units. You could then have a list of the main forces or units, and then have an "Additional Countries" or "Additional Forces" system. Just a thought. --Petercorless 09:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no real way to do it cleanly; MediaWiki doesn't support arbitrary tree controls. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I am getting frustrated with infoboxes in general. People are spending so much time modifying those that they are often, though obviously not always, neglecting the article itself. Combatant lists are literally becoming info dumps just in case John Q. Historian needs to know 500 years from now all the sides who "fought" in the French Revolutionary Wars (just take a look at how the combatant lists ballooned for that article in a day, mostly thanks to a guy who can't fight anything better to do than add nominal combatants to any and all military conflicts). I guess I'll learn to ignore it, but it is distracting to see some humans acting this robotic.UberCryxic 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a guideline then, to have only primary combatants listed, and then a "Full list" link at the bottom to "List of combatants in (Conflict name)". On that separate page you can have the full panopoly of flags, and perhaps a paragraph or so on their entry into, participation in, or exit from the conflict. Also, a "Full list" link to "List of forces in (Conflict name)." That can allow people to go to a separate page where more exhaustive Order of Battle pages can be broken out by nationality, force types (ground, air, naval) and sizes, the days/times forces arrived, etc. --Petercorless 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "List of combatants in X" would be a permanent stub, in most cases; we don't really want to create extra articles if they have no long-term potential. (Plus, the inevitable fighting over which combatants are the "primary" ones would cause more trouble than it would solve, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget guidelines. There is none out there reading them. As long as you have a possibility for something to be listed easily in an infobox you will have the maximum possible input. Shortening it to the rest of Europe except Sveden vs France and its puppet republics wouldn't survive three days. But there may be a trick to make your suggestion practice, we do only list troops engaged in this conflict. so in case someone tries to list the complete army of the Holy Roman Empire it becomes pretty evident that not shortening is insane. Wandalstouring 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. People usually will read guidelines if you point them out specifically (if only to find out where to complain about them). In any case, though, it's not that big a deal in practice; any truly absurd cases can be dealt with, and articles will tend to stabilize on something that the major editors consider reasonable, in the long run. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

MGRILLO's been hard at work these past few days conducting the Warbox equivalent of IED attacks. My guess is he's upset at the execution of Saddam Hussein. Anyway, I'll admit that some vigilant reverting's in order, but I hardly think one man's mania is reason for all this soul-searching and second-guessing. Almost everyone here uses the Warbox correctly. The storm will pass. Albrecht 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Has anyone pointed him to the template instructions? (He may not listen to them anyways, of course—but it's worth trying as a very low-effort solution to the issue if it works.) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right away I was writing to him. Wandalstouring 02:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok; thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Infoboxs

Having recently completed the overhaul of USS Wisconsin I have turned my attention to the article Iowa class battleship, but I am having a guideline crisis and need some advice: The infobox lists a butload of numerical quantities which should be cited, but I am not sure if I should create independent sections for each of the areas that need to be cited or simply add inline citations to the numbers stated in the infobox. Thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually each numerical quantity is cited expect one is a simple logical result of others listed with references. Wandalstouring 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Of course, anything that's already cited elsewhere in the article doesn't need a second citation; so if the numbers are mentioned in the text, it may be easier to just cite them there. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is best not to cite infoboxes. They just summarize the article. --Ineffable3000 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sometimes not quite true for infoboxes that include technical data, though; it's not uncommon to see numbers that appear in an infobox but aren't repeated in the body of the article. Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you want to include them in the article? --Ineffable3000 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because some of the numerical data (e.g. weapon measurements, cemetery statistics, etc.) would need to be given in table form anyways—as there's rarely a good way of turning a bunch of numbers into nicely-flowing prose—so there's no real benefit to having it repeated. Kirill Lokshin 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But for battles, it's best to repeat. Right? --Ineffable3000 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably; I can't think of anything in {{Infobox Military Conflict}} that couldn't be put neatly into the text. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had people blow away information in my infoboxes, complaining that it was "unfounded" or "wrong" unless I put a citation right there on the factoid. Even when the same factoid was in the article text. People are very impatient. YMMV. --Petercorless 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the Littlereaders ;) It is best to cite things where one can see them without overusing the reading ability. Wandalstouring 12:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War

I started writing the page on the Uruguayan Civil War. How does it look so far? --Ineffable3000 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)\

Off to a good start, I think. (We really ought to look at getting some sort of South American military history task force together to take care of articles like this, incidentally; it's not an area where we have very good coverage.) Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am reading more on this so that I can make it better. I have also made it a collaboration nominee. And I think we do need a task force. --Ineffable3000 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Though I'm not a great S America specialist, it'd be very good to form a TF to bring in the two inactive wikiprojects in the area and provide a focus for future work on S America. Meanwhile, what about a Middle East TF? That area sure needs work as well!! Buckshot06 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle East gets more focus on due to increased tensions. So does Africa. --Ineffable3000 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case for some hi profile conflicts like Somalia and Iraq at the moment, but the pages for the armed forces of the various countries are pitiful. They could use the attention a task force would provide. Buckshot06 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey the task force is working, 10 men on thousands of years covering a whole continent. 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Still nominate the Uruguayan Civil War for collaboration. --Ineffable3000 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Feature Poral Nomiation for Portal:Military of Australia

This Portal has been up for feature status for a few weeks now. The majority of the objections have been fixed but the nomination process has become stagnant. It would be good if a couple of editors here could drop by and add their opinions. Regards Hossen27 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Does this article belong to MilHist (knives used in branches of the military)? The editor is working his tail off on it; thought you all would want to tag it if it's a fit, and keep on eye on his progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

These knifes seem to be used by some armed forces and are potential weapons. Further devices with the same classification would be entrenching tools. Ask the weaponary task force about their opinion. Wandalstouring 13:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I guess the question is how related to the military a weapons designer has to be in order to be of interest to us as a person. Maxim & Kalashnikov certainly qualify, but does Emerson? Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As a main editor on that piece, I may be a bit biased. Many of Emerson's knives were designed specifically for Navy SEAL teams with input from SEALs, themselves: CQC6, Specwar, SSDS(a blade designed solely for sentry elimination), ESM-1, etc. Emerson continues to teach classes to military units and he was one of the first civilians to teach martial arts at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg.

I'd considered making weapon infoboxes for the CQC6 and the NSARK (Navy Search and Rescue Knife) as well as the NASA knife. The NSARK and NASA knife are sold only to the Navy and NASA.

Read the article and see if it warrants inclusion in the project.

He's been cited in several military books and is known to have extermely close ties to the Naval Specwar community.

Although, I do agree, knife design is not on par as gun design for the winning of battles, etc.

--Mike Searson 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems related enough for our purposes, then; I've gone ahead and tagged the article. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)