Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · full list

News and announcements

Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected.
The October newsletter is now available.
Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.

Current discussions

No major discussions are open at the moment

Featured article candidates: German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution
Featured article review: Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship
Featured picture candidates: Thorsten Nordenfelt
A-Class review: Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr.
Peer reviews: 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark • Battle of Chunj

Good article nominees: Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Ian Morrison (RNZAF officer) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Mordechai Schlein • SMS Fuchs
Good article reassessments: Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty • Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,881) • only work on referencing and citation (43,224) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,266) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (31,971) • only work on structure (348) • work on grammar (8,241) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,019) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (92) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (8) • assessment checklists completed (70) • task forces added (6) • attention to task force coverage (654)

More Task Forces Anyone?

Just kicking around some ideas, see if anyone else is interested in a few other task forces that I think we should add to this project.

Russian Task Force
Ottoman Task Force
Cold War Task Force

--Laserbeamcrossfire 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union and Portal:Belarus, Portal:Russia, Portal:Ukraine, etc. We might not want to fragment too much. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 19:33 Z

Well, that hasn't stopped us before (c.f. WP:CHINA, WP:JAPAN, etc.)—and really shouldn't, as the broader projects are not specifically military in focus. Having said that, the availability of interested editors is, as always, a valid question when creating new task forces. Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would be a better name for a Kievan Rus/Muscovy/Russian Empire/Soviet Union/CIS countries task force? Eastern Europe task force is not right. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 15:17 Z

How much of this could be written off under either "Russian military history" or "Russian and Soviet military history"? Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it. But my interests also include things like Ukraine in 1917–22, and modern Ukrainian AFVs. These subjects have a strong relationship to the Russian Empire and Soviet AFV design, respectively, but are clearly neither Russian nor Soviet. I'm sure there are many less prominent cases like this, which would nevertheless only be controversially called Russian or Soviet in their own sphere. Calling the military history of Kievan Rus Russian would certainly get a number of editors up in arms (Russian architecture had a POV notice on it for many months over such issues).

Just trying to be inclusive and avoid empty arguments, without inventing complicated politically-correct category names. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 17:25 Z

My origional thought was, to be honest, a task force for just Imperial Russia/Soviet Union, which seems to me to be two very close, very intertwined Russian nations. Things do get fuzzy for me if we start talking about the CIS or the Kieven/Rus nations/organizations. --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, this is going to be a powder keg. Is there an all-inclusive term that anyone can think of? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could try using an Eastern European Task Force to cover all of the Eastern European countries (I think Austria-Hungary would be excluded in this case, because I believe some of it extended into Eastern Europe. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a Polish task force, though; having a "Eastern European" one at the same time might be something of a mess. Kirill Lokshin 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Eurasia Task Force? Typically, such a designation includes Russia and all of the former USSR and only those countries. I think it would be less confusing. --ScreaminEagle 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothign wrong with this but as with all things there might be soem edditors that would rather have nation specific TFs of dislike being groups up with neighborring and possibly rival countries. What would be the scope of the task force?--Dryzen 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think, country-wise, that the scope would be Russia, Ukraine, the Batlic states, Belarus and the Caucasus countries. That's what I would do, anyways. --Laserbeamcrossfire 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this for some time, and I think that the right approach is to create "natural" task forces—as they're tools for organizing editors moreso than for formally organizing articles—and just accept that we'll have overlaps and gaps between them. Thus, for example, we could create a "Russian military history" task force or a "Rus, Russian, and Soviet military history task force"; but I would avoid trying to overthink this and create some artificial construct which may cover all the gaps on the edges, but which won't provoke the sort of "Hey, I'm interested in that!" gut feeling from people seeing the task force name that we need for actually attacting contributors to it. Kirill Lokshin 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make just a Soviet task force (it includes many groups who had nothing to do with Russia for some time and it covers heavily the cold war (more militaria). Rus and Russia could run in seperate forces, they are likely to be attended by different people (more historians). Wandalstouring 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a Latin American military history task force? We're talking about a pretty huge area (Central and South American & Caribbean islands) where many major wars have taken place. It's the only part of the world still not specifically attended by any task force, and the articles certainly deserve to be looked after by this project. --Andrés C. 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I'd be up for that as well! --Laserbeamcrossfire 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America sems like a good idea, if we can get enough editors for it to be active. There seem to be two so far; any more that would be interested? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can join a bit, but i don`t know how much I can contribute (time). Wandalstouring 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Task force: Military Music? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that includes all the bands and music written specifically for the military? That's not very much, is it? Or am I missing something? --ScreaminEagle 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you are missing out on something. There's TONS of historical military music out there. Marches, Barracks ballads, Sea shanties, Unit and popular songs. There are entire albums and whole websites devoted to it. Choose one from THIS google search. Music can make history come alive in a way very few mediums can. It is also a large and fascinating topic which deserves its own Task Force. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more unusual ideas to come up, I think ;-) I suppose that we should consider two questions here:

Does including military music segway us to including military art, writing, or similar things?
Do we want to include said things in the project?

Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to both is, why yes:) They are part of history, and while not as important as wars, campaigns or battles, they do help shape the way such events are viewed and remembered. This of course leads to the question; How do we accomplish this? I recommend a single large task force to cover "Military arts and literature". And if it proves successful, then it can spawn off daughter TFs to cover music, painting, movies, writing etc as deemed worthy:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a lot of work on ahead, but as a Military History project we cannot ignore how the arts have shaped our martial world...--Dryzen 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do we want to draw a distinction between the following, though:

Military "art" (painting, etc.)
Military literature (in the work of historians sense; perhaps "military historiography" is a better term here)
Military literature (depiction of real warfare in literature)
Military fiction (depiction of fictional warfare in literature)

The last of these is a massive block of articles that we've traditionally kept away from, so I'm not sure if we would want to include it. Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess htat would depend on the memebrs we would gather, but prestnly I think one group should take care of the Arts, Literature and Music. As for Fiction I dont think we should open that Pandora's Box. As interessting as it is, I think our agenda will be a quagmire with the arts alone... --Dryzen 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Dryzen, that is one box we should avoid opening, no matter how fascinating some of its contents may be ;). But the first three are fair game. The key here, of course, as you point out, will depend on how many interested contributors will join and participate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "literature" include things like Richard Sharpe, in this case? Or am I horribly misinterpreting what's intended? If it would, I wonder if we might not have two distinct task force ideas here:

Military art and literature
Military historiography (historians and formal historical works)

These might be combined, I suppose, but it might be a bit unusual to lump more scholarly works in with the rest. All of this is, of course, contingent on there being more interested editors. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...Leftenant Sharpe, it is with great reluctance I must dismiss you, Sir! Unfortunately works of military fiction, even those heavily based in fact and realism (or "faction") such as Sharpe and his seafairing contemporary countryman, Captain Hornblower, must be excluded. At least for now. But who knows? Once the TF is up and (hopefully) running, maybe enough will demand they be called back to duty. Even then, though, I say we should limit ourselves to works of faction over flights of fancy. In the meantime, having two TFs as you suggest is perhaps better than one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would perfer not to mix Art and Literature with Historiography, if we dont have enough members we might have to make the compromise. As for Sharpe and faction, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) hold my opinion on the subject.--Dryzen 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern European notice board exists, but it seems to be no hit. Poland is considering itself Central Europe, so I doubt they object. Wandalstouring 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle

I've been working on a number of castle-related articles over the past few month (list can be seen at my user page), but it struck me today that Castle, which I've been avoiding because the size of the topic, should really be a featured article.

I'm really only knowledgable about British castles up to about 1400, with a smattering of knowledge of Crusader castles.

I'm prepared to start tackling Castle but could do with some help, particularly beyond the limits of my knowledge. --Dweller 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I would suggest also letting the Middle Ages task force know. Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can help a bit, but the Influence of Castles in Britain section in the article seems a bit Anglocentric to me. Wandalstouring 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglocentric, yes. But does that mean we should remove it, or should we create new sections for the influence and development of castles in other countries? I am considering whether or not to create a summary section for the Japanese castle, but I fear that if we create sections for each country (or each type of castle), this article will get way too long and out-of-hand. What really needs to be expanded and included in this main Castle article? LordAmeth 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've set the ball rolling. It's a real mess. Feel free to get your hands dirty. --Dweller 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First reading, than talking, than writing. Wandalstouring 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the scope? Is there a distinction here between castle and fortification? It would be a shame to exclude Vauban and not to continue to the present day. Would ancient fortresses be included? There is a development thread through the ages. Folks at 137 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a series of articles under the overall umbrella of fortification might be more practical than trying to cram everything into castle; certainly, the trace italienne is an important enough concept to warrant an article of its own. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A related article is redoubt, which could use some expansion. -- Миборо в ский 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fortification also needs some work, perhaps we need to combine some tasks. Wandalstouring 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortification is also a collaboration candidate, if anyone is interested. Kirill Lokshin 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It slowly looks like a taskforce work on military architecture. On the other hand all these beautiful castles have no military purpose. Wandalstouring 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even many of the ones that were never the site of actual fighting are still clearly military structures ;-)

But you're quite right in that we need lots of work here. We don't even have an article on the Citadel of Rhodes, for example. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Kings

Would Alfred the Great and Clovis I be regarded as Military History seeing as warrior kings such as Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun and Alaric I are considered part of Military History? Kyriakos 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First we need a clear definition: What is a Warrior King?

Second we can decide who is one and who not. Wandalstouring 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A warrior King is a king that leads his men into a campaign. For instance, Alexander the Great spent like 10 years in a campaign away from homeland. OTOH, a lot of English kings waged colonial wars without leaving London. (It's just a thought...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last British monarch to lead troops into battle was George II, fwiw. Shimgray | talk | 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good rule of thumb is: if there is a significant amount of military history material that needs to be in the article—whether because someone led troops into battle directly, like Alexander or Caesar, or because they were heavily involved in the conduct of a war as a civilian, like Abraham Lincoln—then they can be considered to be part of "military history". But merely being the ruler while a war was fought doesn't qualify them unless they took some active role in its conduct (and consequently need significant material on it included in the article). Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior King would be to difficult, IMO, to create an accepted definition. Would it apply to every monarch who ever led troops in battle? Would this monarch have to have actually partaken in the combat, or would being on the sidelines count? What if they planned the battles/campaigns, but never set foot on the battlefield? Does it have to specifically be a King? What about Emperors, Queens, Princes and other nobility? If a person was a warrior before becoming King (but not after) would that count? What about the other way around? Would it be purely historical, or would fictional characters (such as Aragorn) be applicable?

Point-in-short, I don't think a universally accepted definition is possible. Oberiko 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points Oberiko, this could lead to multiple forms of militant leaders: Armchair Leaders leading from the back, Warrior Leaders leading from the front as fighters, Soldier Leaders leading as professionnal military men/women, Diplomat Leaders, etc... Now beyond this and looking as to putting leaders in the Military Personnel/people categories, which if I am right is at the basis for this discusion, most heads will have to go in or out. The easiest to include are those leaders with military backgrounds. Following woudl be leaders of influence in military matters, those that set the objectives, worked on the strategies; those rulers that had a hand in war. This of course will of included a majority of leaders, leaving only the figureheads: innefectual and ruled by there councils. --Dryzen 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can make a better defintion: the king is engaged in close combat in the battle he leads. Wandalstouring 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitly be a warrior king in its purest form, including the one I would prefer to use. This though does ingnore other types of Militant leaders. What is the reason behind categorising warrior Kings is my question? From this we can perhaps build a definition that better suits the need.--Dryzen 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allo?--Dryzen 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Europe

I'm planning on starting an article on the Military history of Europe, and I was wondering (given the huge task) who would be interested in joining/helping me?

We're talking about a truly massive article, from the Greeks at Thermopylae till the European contribution to the lebanon peace force. If you're interested, please add your name below and your interest or country of particular knowledge. Rex 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add name here:

Rex -- Dutch (military) history; and mainly 1450+

Why start with Thermopylae? Why European military history in one box? Wandalstouring 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend any really massive articles. For something as broad as the military history of Europe you should probably segment it out into the eras used in convential Military history (Ancient, Medieval, Gunpowder, Industrial, Modern) and then add summaries in each of them with links to specific main articles for each section. Oberiko 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but given the massive influence europe has had, and how delevopements in it shaped our world ... I'm not looking for some mix of every Europeans country's military history, but more of a broad (massive wasn't the right word) article describing the impact of European countries and empires. Rex 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell in detail what you want to do and show. An overview with links to existing articles about military histpry in Europe? Do you want to exclude North America (Canada, USA) or include? What about theIslamic, the Ottoman and the Mongol Empire which covered large parts of Europe? Wandalstouring 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non including any reference to them would be thoughtless, this isn't a black and white situation. The aim should be to desribe military events and their impact, if that includes colonies, non europe based empires, or foreign allies/enemies during a war than that should not be ignored. Rex 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the idea is here. Are you trying primarily for a chronological presentation (i.e. tracing military events in Europe) or an overview of the development of military science (in which case limiting it to Europe seems rather counterproductive)? I do think there might be some potential for the first option, but it will quickly become very convoluted. Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going for the chronological overview of military events in Europe. Rex 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a chronical overview. It is a more like a summary style article that helps little to inform.

Actually a military history of Europe as an entity is nonexistant till to the division of the Mediterranean between Islamic and Christian rule. Until then it is the Mediterranean (3 continents) and their neighbours.

So we could make a Mediterranean military history (Classic, Rome, Carthage, Greece, Egypt, early and high Middle Ages) that ends some time after the crusades and European dominated military history is the rise of Europe as origin of global powers and their influence on warfare and economics. It starts with the Portugues/Spanish(America silver, India spice, Africa slaves, spreading the Christian religion) and then Dutch, British, French (settlements) and minor colonial powers like Denmark, Prussia, Courland (slavetrade, golden triangle). Later we have Italy and Germany as further colonial powers during Europe´s imperial era, ending after the second world war. In meantime we have the rise of the economic US-imperialism (independence of Panama, war with Spain). How far into modern times we extend it is a point to discuss. Wandalstouring 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather strange way of splitting it. Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic military histories certainly dovetail into that of "Europe"; but, at the same time, a distinctively European military history emerges immediately after the fall of Rome with things like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon warfare in England and Frankish warfare in the Rhine area. Certainly, by the time of the Crusades, it's in full swing. We can't really regard, say, the Guelph-Ghibelline wars as some extension of "Mediterranean" warfare; and northern and eastern Europe are entirely separate by this point.

I would suggest instead an article tracing post-Roman "European" warfare. Granted, some intrusion of material from outside Europe will be inevitable, but I think the majority of the narrative will have a distinctly European focus. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post roman ... alright, how would we start such an article? An introduction how the migration period was its ultimate downfall? Such an introduction would be a stepping stone towards the first European empires. Rex 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why pos-Roman? What about the military history during the Roman-era, or the Classical era in Greece? Are those military events so inconsequential that we can blantantly choose to ignore them? I for one think that such an article should proceed, chronologically from the first record of military history in Europe till August 19, 2006. I think that if that is not the case for the article, a more appropriate name would be European Military History "Lite." --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wandalstouring makes the point that Greek and Roman military history may be better handled in a "Military history of the Mediterranean" article (or something of the sort) simply because it's so entwined with the non-European history of that region. Hence, we'd actually have two articles:

Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else
Military history of Europe (or Military history of post-Roman Europe, perhaps?) discussing things after the first article breaks off (and obviously pointing out that the first article is where information about the preceeding period may be found)

Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Northern Europe going to fall into this? Or parts of Western Europe? Ireland? They all have military history that dates back to even before ancient Greece. Do we choose to ignore that as "non-notable" and be done? --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical military history? ;-)

If there's a substantial amount of material there—and I'm not certain there is, for what it's worth—we could start the Military history of Europe article at whatever date we saw fit, switch to very terse summary style with a {{details}} link when we hit the classical period (allowing the Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean article to pick up the details) and go back to regular narrative once the Roman Empire collapses. Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that way the 2 articles would connect in a certain way, that would be nice. Rex 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. For Gallic military history before the Roman invasion written sources are rare. That is the point with history. Of course we can find a defintion for the history of warfare in Western and Eastern Europe, north of the Mediterranean, but use terms that reflect the existing division at that time and not random defintions like Europe.

I suggest something like this: (little zones of interest with a infobox to move on from one to the next, I saw this as timetables several times)

Classical time

Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else (European-African-Asian)
Military history in the Celtic and Germanic zone of influence(European)
Military history in the Scythian and Sarmatian zone of influence(Asian-European)

End of the Western Roman Empire (late Antiquity, early Middle Ages)

Mediterranean: Islam and Byzantium, crusades, rise of Italian city states(African-European-Asian)
Successor states in the area of the Western Roman Empire (European)
Slavic and Viking (same weapons, etc.) zone of influence military history (European)

Middle Ages

Orthodox Europe (European-Asian)
Catholic Europe (European-African-Asian)

Gunpowder era and Reconquista

European military history and the way to global influence (Europe-World) Wandalstouring 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't some (all?) of these make more sense as sections of a Military history of Europe article, with the breakout articles at a more specific level (e.g. Military history of Ancient Greece, Military history of the Celts, Military history of the Scythians, Military history of the Vikings, etc.)? Particularly given how vague some of these groupings are, I think it might be easier to present them as fluid subdivisions within a consolidated narrative, rather than hard breaks between topics. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem is Europe. We have plentyful of overlaps all the time (as these examples tried to show) and I do not feel confident that a random geographic approach is OK. To seperate for example Viking and Slavic military history is very difficult. What we could do is Military history in Europe and also in other continents shown with overlapping regions. But Military history of Europe sets Europe as an entity that was non-existant (is ahistoric) and neglects the constant overlaps with neighbouring continents (is biased). But we still need a certain form for the presentation of the multiple overlaps. Wandalstouring 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These overlapps do not matter, Europe isn't a fixed concept with the same cultural and political borders how would you ever explain colonialism? Rex 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what colonialism has to do with anything here; but certainly Europe during its colonial heyday (post-1492, anyways) was a more clearly delineated entity than Europe during, say, the Roman period. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was is that you simply cannot write an article solely on Europe. Rex 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the overlaps does matter. The explanation for colonialism is an export of military concepts from Europe (dominant part) to other parts of the world (colonized parts). The native European forces almost never acted without native local forces/supporters and often trained them in the European way of warfare. So we do have a created overlap in military concepts, while the foreign experience also changes the European military (new weapons, new tactics, new military dresscode, etc.). Europe is only a geographic concept which has been given other meanings for our current situation. Wandalstouring 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we're overthinking this a bit. "Military history in Europe" and "Military history of Europe" are both problematic—the first because it will exclude actions outside the continent, the second because it identifies geography as a meaningful area—but the second is more consistent with the other "Military history of ..." articles we already have. I wonder if we cannot simply name the article that and make clear in the introduction that it is a military history of European powers, not necessarily that of "Europe" as an entity in its own right.

Alternately, we could create a split by period—e.g. Military history of Ancient Europe, Military history of Europe in the Middle Ages, and so forth—with the assumption that the character of the entity called "Europe" does follows some identifiable lines depending on the timeframe we consider. Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I tried to point out, that for writing military history of Europe the colonial time is suited best. You have a clear defintion and it is a field of interest to many people why many nations of the same continent succeded each other in power over such a long time and conquered almost the whole globe. Other conquests were carried out by specific groups and with the decline of their power disappeared (Islamic Empire by Arabs, Mongols).

I wonder whether it is a good idea to work with the Europe concept all the time. We could use Europe where it is useful but not force it dogmatic in times where it is less suitable than "Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean". Wandalstouring 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could work if we can get some sort of template giving the proper chronological series of the articles; otherwise, the different names will make them pretty difficult to find. Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this discussion i find myself with several questions and possible suggestions. First of all I'm not quite sure I see the outcome of this possible article or set of articles outweighting the difficulties in preparing them. In any events we should definitly attempt at keeping a form of consistency. I emphysise this with the usage of timelines and regions. Making sure that our articles keep similar "swaths", for exemple that when we speak fo the medieval periode we all speak of year X to year X (such as the 500-1500 stated in the task force). Similarly when we touche the subject of reagions, for what ever purpose, that these expanses be homogenous. as wellin the intrest of faireness and comprehensive knowledge, should we engage in the construction of a military history consised by region and/or powers that it be done for the span of human civilisations. As to the blueprint of such articles, What about divisions by periode, with each sub-article(Periodes) abording a by Power organisation. EX: Military history of Englobing region/powers-->Military history of Englobing region/powers in Periode -power1: -power2 --Dryzen 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its somewhat odd that all talks have stopped, after such a series of postings...--Dryzen 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it does not fit creators intentions any more. Wandalstouring 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks rather maribund wouldn't you say?--Dryzen 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotation templates

What is the consensus here on usage of either {{cquote}} or {{Quotation}}? I'm using the latter in Stephen Trigg and had someone in a peer review question whether I was using it right. Are they only for quotes made by the person the article is about? If so, do I just use the normal blockquote HTML tag instead? plange 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a firm rule. Some people like the formatting, and some don't, but it's just a formatting issue; so long as it's consistent within an article, I don't think it's a big deal. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Trigg article, you're mixing two different types of quotes. "In line" or block quotes, which are part of the flow of the article, should never, ever be used with {{Quotation}}. The blockquote HTML tag produces the format that everyone in the real world uses for block quotes. Some Wikipedians use {{cquote}} with block quotes, although this is non-standard. Probably they've confused block quotes with the second type of quote, the "pull quote". This is when a quote is set off (or "pulled") from the rest of the article for emphasis. Like an image, it's not part of the flow of the text of the main body of the article. Use {{Quotation}} or {{Quote box}} to create pull quotes.

In the Trigg article, the Harwell quote is a "block quote", the end quote from the History of Kentucky book is essentially a "pull quote". Either can be converted to the other, but mixing them is messy and amateurish. --Kevin (complaints?) 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... On a side note, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but please remember that WP editors are not sprung fully-formed and knowledgeable about how to use things. That's why I asked. Seems a little harsh to characterize me as not being part of the real world and that I'm messy and amateurish. It might be so, but I didn't mean it to be that way, so please assume good faith. I've only been an editor for a couple of months now... plange 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. These quotation templates have been widely misused because they've been poorly explained by those who created them, which includes me. So the current mess is my fault, not yours. Kevin (complaints?) 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I've changed it now, is the article now using them right? plange 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good. By the way, I've uploaded a photo of the mass grave at Blue Licks, where Trigg was presumably buried. You may want it for the article. Kevin (complaints?) 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you!!! I just added it to the infobox! There's no photo of him that I know of, so this is great! Do you live near there? plange 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the photo. I live further north in God's Country, but I'm in the Bluegrass State now and then. • Kevin (complaints?) 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian

What about Croatian Military History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.196.166 (talk • contribs)

Well, there's Military history of Croatia; it's not developed, obviously, but I doubt we have many editors here who have an interest in that area. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Military History Task Force

A potential new task force is being conceived and has been approved, but before it can be created a few questions must be faced. Firstly, the new task force will be the Italian Military History Task Force and it will likely include any Italian history after that which would fall into the Classical Warfare task force. However, one of the main topics of discussion here will be whether or not people want to include articles that would qualify as the Roman Republic or Empire or other classical history in Italy.

Secondly, I would like any Military History Project members that would join this task force to go ahead and put forth their support and/or comments on the task force. Please give any comments on the focus of the project you may have.-KingPenguin 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see any problem with including Roman military history in the task force (in addition to having it in the Classical task force, obviously). Double-tagging isn't a problem, the overlap won't form an overwhelming portion of either the Classical or the Italian task forces' scope, and (correct me if I'm wrong on this point) modern Italy does identify with a Roman heritage, so it's reasonable to assume that someone might approach Roman history from the starting point of Italian history.

Conversely, we could start off after the fall of the Western Roman Empire; that would reduce the double-tagging.

I'm not sure if we have enough interested people already in the project to start this off, though; we might need to do some recruiting of editors in this area who aren't already members. Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include ancient Roman stuff - makes more sense to start in 476. I'd be happy to help out, although I'm not sure how useful I'll be at the moment, as I don't really have any books available to me. I'm good at critiquing other people, though! ;) john k 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; 476 is probably a pretty good starting point. We can probably get this off the ground if there's another editor or two who'd join up. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in.UberCryxic 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the task force has been created. Kirill Lokshin 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign within a campaign

Since the Battle of Guadalcanal was more of a campaign than a single battle, with seven major naval battles (that all already have their own entries), and at least three and as many as seven air/land battles, I was thinking of changing it from a single battle article to its own campaign, with its own campaign box. However, it's also part of the Solomon Islands campaign. If Guadalcanal becomes its own campaign, should all of its individual battles still be listed in the Solomon Islands campaign box, or should they only be listed in the Guadalcanal campaign box? Are there any other campaigns within campaign precedents in Wikipedia that I could use as a guide? Cla68 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, {{Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War}} went through some thrashing over these point; it's somewhat mixed, with most things listed only on the sub-campaignbox, but a few of the major ones filtering up to the main one as well. Given that none of the Guadalanal engagements are of Kursk & Stalingrad level, I would go ahead and put all of them only on the subsidiary box, with the outer one linking only to the Battle of Guadalcanal itself. (You should probably include both campaignboxes on the battle articles, though—the narrower one and then the broader one—so as to make navigating up the campaigns easier for readers.) Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thank you. Cla68 11:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have something similar with the Western European Campaign (1944-1945), which contains several smaller campaigns. What we do is list the intra-campaigns in the main campaign box (Normandy, Siegfried, Ardennes, Elbe) and then all the operations of the intra-campaigns in their own box. This means that the intra-campaigns have two campaign boxes (one for parent-self-siblings and the other for self-children). See the Battle of Normandy for an example. Oberiko 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there's also a {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War II)}}; somebody needs to figure out what the overlap scheme here is. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware of that one; looks like we have two seperate campaign schemas going on. I'll put cleaning it up on my to-do list after (if?) I finish my article on Operation Battleaxe. Oberiko 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a (vaguely) related note, I tried to start up a discussion here about how best to construct a top-level campaignbox for WWII as a whole, but nobody else seems to have commented; hence, any additional input on the subject would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky question. As for WWII, I'll promise I'll think about it... as the current subparsing is not quite adequate IMHO... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along this same line, there doesn't seem to be an overall campaignbox for the Pacific War theater of WWII. Unless someone knows of one that I don't, I'll go ahead and create one. Cla68 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Could you also please list them on WP:CAMPAIGN once they're created? Otherwise, they tend to be rather hard to keep track of. Kirill Lokshin

American Civil War

Is there a taskforce or separate wikiproject that coordinates articles about the American Civil War? CQ 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The United States military history task force, presumably? It's almost entirely a topic of U.S. history, so that would seem to be the natural place to discuss it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, for anyone else interested, the discussion is continuing on the task force talk page; additional comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a new American Civil War task force has been created; editors with an interest in the topic (and there do seem to be a fair number) are welcome to join! Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!!! *running over to join* plange 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we wont end up wih a myriad of single war oriented task forces, it could end up rpoducing quite a glut.--Dryzen 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there will be many with both the level of editor interest and the number of articles that the ACW has, at least until the editor demographics on en: shift substantially. Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much to talk about. :P Wandalstouring 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for image department

In peer reviews it is often critised that images are lacking. I have started to google required images, write nice letters and usually obtain legal terms for the use of many pictures on (wikimedia) wikipedia in return. I suggest to formalize this a bit, assemble more interested people and help the ones in need. We may have some overlaps with the cartography department, but there is not much activity, so never mind. Wandalstouring 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the cartography department should be mothballed anyways; it's clear that it isn't something we can actually get practical results from at this point ;-)

However, the same issue comes up with something like this: is there a need for a separate department—or some benefit from having one—and can it be maintained in an active state? I would suggest that, as cataloguing images isn't really needed (and any aspects of that are better handled by the category system on Commons), perhaps a more feasible approach in practice might be to avoid a separate structure here and focus on image work from two sides:

Use the "Images" section on the "Article requests" page (which hasn't seen much activity) to collect requests for images. One issue here is that this page is a mess at the moment; hopefully some of the new coordinators might be willing to clean it up a bit ;-)
Focus more attention on peer reviews and getting any necessary images for an article as it undergoes that process.

I think that this would allow us to help obtain images as needed for use in articles without creating what would probably wind up being another inactive subpage. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a place to request images easily and to distribute larger quantities. The common image departement organisation is suboptimal. Wandalstouring 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, wouldn't the consolidated requests page be a suitable place to request images? Concentrating attention in a single place seems to work better than spreading it out over many different pages for things like that, in my experience. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section already in use is what I was referring to, incidentally. Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have about 1,000 pictures of WW2 (almost always of China though some are American and German aircraft). If anyone's looking for relevant photos tell me and I might have them on my computer. -- Миборо в ский 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know. I think we have more hidden treasure. The problem is people do use pictures they see and are easily accessable and almost no user finds his way to the commons picture gallery. So I have two suggestions:

We make it obvious where you can request images on the request page. Perhaps in a form that a watcher can easily keep record of image requests. I created such a section, but it is a bit hidden for the request page does not show at one look where you can request something.
It would be good for the average user here (they do not browse wiki commons!) to create perhaps our own structured picture gallery. This way we can have an eye on problems with images such as in many Korean military history articles (a whole series, used in many articles was tagged to be deleted). Wandalstouring 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making the existence and use of the request page more obvious is something that's definitely needed, as is making it easier to use. Hopefully the coming cleanup will substantially reduce the level of built-up cruft there, and make it a bit easier to navigate.

As far as picture galleries, I very much doubt doing this systematically would be practical; it would involve thousands (tens of thousands!) of images, all of which would need to be carefully structured, and wouldn't really have much practical benefit, at least as far as I can see. As a long-term solution, I think making it easier to find images on Commons is better, since that's where most of our images are being migrated anyways, and since we can then use the built-in search capabilities to their fullest extent. Kirill Lokshin 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should help our average user to discover the commons more easily. and give perhaps a short introduction how it works. At the moment searching there is often a pain in the ass, especially if you do not know about it`s classification system. Wandalstouring 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few links in the "Resources" section on the project page, but they could probably use some more explanation. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning peer reviews. Kirill writes image needed. Wandalstouring searches, negotiates and gives the user the image required, but I tended to do it silently. Perhaps we could establish some constructive criticism. Wandalstouring 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in particular you have in mind? Kirill Lokshin 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide criticism and some aid like request images here(link), list of sources at taskforce x here(link), tool for making references in the text here(link), etc. Wandalstouring 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Things like that should be somewhat easier with a usable image request area ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator election reminder

Just a reminder to anyone who hasn't yet voted (but intends to do so) that there's about a day and a half left until the end. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Task Forces

I have a few suggestions for new task forces. Here are my suggestions for new task forces, an Ottoman task, a Balkan task force, a Greek task force and a Portugese task force. If anyone has any thoughts leave comment. Kyriakos 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in a Balkan task force, but I was wondering what countries you would include in it? -- Underneath-it-All 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably countries entirely in the Balkans, as well as actions by other countries which occurred in the region? I doubt we'll be able to do this purely on national lines, as much of the military history of the area obviously involves outside powers. Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about an African task force? There's lots of little wars and conflicts that have occurred (and are occurring) in Africa. I suppose this could encompass conflicts from colonial times to present... I'd also like to see a sort of 'Irregular Warfare task force'. I think the idea was kicked around here a while ago inconclusively. I suppose this could cover guerrilla movements, insurgencies and efforts to combat and suppress them. I don't really know what time period this would cover though...Mike McGregor (Can) 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The African one might be a good idea, but would probably be problematic in practice; I only know of one project member that has an interest in that area, so it's not really feasible unless we can recruit more editors into it (which will be somewhat difficult for all the usual systemic bias reasons). Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we could start covering irregular warfare in our existing articles. Sources about irregular warfare and intelligence operations do exist, even for ancient times, and we could start integrating more of them (for example into the prelude of battles and into articles about campaigns. A few sentences about them give the reader a much better picture. So an intelligence or irregular warfare group would be a nice thing to spice up our informing on events. The problem is willing and capable people.

I study the Punic wars at the moment to work over the concerning articles. For the Second Punic War alone we have lots of intelligence and irregular warfare not integrated in the articles. (Punic slaves uprising in Rome; Punic intelligence network in Rome discovered; Numidians faking to go over to the Romans at Cannae and backstabbing them; a Numidian cavalry troop, that had run over from Hannibal to Rome, caused great panic among the Romans, thinking they had been tricked and Hannibal was already in Rome; Scipio gives Hannibal's caught spies a guided tour of his camp and forces; etc., read Livy) Wandalstouring 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to have colonial wars, rather than "african wars" because that's what a lot of them were, and you could then do wars in other areas at the same time, specially if they were related.SpookyMulder 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping to see more coverage of the post-colonial wars and civil wars by proposing this. Obviously wars between colonial powers an independence wars would be included as well, but I think that modern African conflicts are a major aspect of military history which is under represented here on wiki.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGregor (Can) has a very interessting point. Finding the participants though, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out, will be the inevitable deciding factor. I know a fellow who's particularly gifted (and to say the least interessted) in this subject but has yet to join wikipedia. --Dryzen 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish September Campaign renaming

There is a big bunfight at Polish September Campaign ove the renaming. What are the conventions we have set up for consistency? We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....? Yet they are suggesting that as a name. Perhaps some members of the Military History Project need to weigh in there - Talk:Polish September Campaign.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one of those discussions. The convention has generally been that the most common name is usually acceptable, regardless of connotations (e.g. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Sack of Magdeburg, etc.); beyond that, there are some rather complicated issues of (national) politics being played out, so I'm not sure if simply throwing more bodies at the discussion will be helpful, or just serve to inflame people further. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that consensus was best formed by more people, rather than fewer (vocal) ones. Regardless, sourced responses would be appreciated - it seems the most common names in German and Polish both translate as "campaign" and "defensive war" in any event, so invasion seems to have little historical context. In English, most histories seem to use Polish Campaign, admittedly from a German POV. Anyone who claims Poland as their 'bag' may want to weigh in.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Michael on this one. Over here we're interested, but mostly detached, observers. I think if we can get enough of those kind of folks over there, it should help to provide some stabilty to the debate and discussion. Oberiko 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; anybody with knowledge of the period/conflict involved should probably wander on over (preferably with sources at the ready). Just be aware that these discussions do occasionally turn rather nasty ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're enthusiasts of military history. Pointless struggles, aggressive behaviour and meaningless fights are kind of our thing. ;) (That last statement, as indicated by the ";)" is a joke, let's not have anyone taking offense) Oberiko 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, hehe... :D -- Миборо в ский 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot: If any radical is not able to push his POV in his mother tongue, he joins the English wiki. Hopefully nobody there realizes that all the problems they create us are non existant in their mother tongue wiki, because they did exactly the same way as we do. Wandalstouring 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this discussion is coming to a close. The question is hopefully: Do we use popular or scientific standards for naming our articles? Wandalstouring 01:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Task force suggestion (Cold War, New Zealand)

How would you all feel about a New Zealand and a Cold War task force? --James Bond 04:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel ill about it.

Well, honestly we can not appreciate any taskforce simply because it has a hip name. If you want to create a taskforce name the scope of this taskforce and wait for people who are willing to join and contribute. If there is enough resonance you can get a taskforce. Wandalstouring 12:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would be interested in a New Zealand task force since there's a substantial amount of material regarding New Zealand's military background and it's active involment throughout history but it needs improvement. Would appreciate any Australian & British editor help on this one considering the common military roots of these countries.

Regarding a Cold War task force, it would include all military material regarding that era (ie Vietnam War, CIA Operations, Nuclear tests, East Germany, Bay of Pigs invasion) etc. --James Bond 07:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a point in a New Zealand Military Task Force- although I would support a change for the Australian Task Force to an ANZAC Task Force. NZ's military history really isn't that exciting or significant, despite what people in NZ will try and tell you. :-P --Commander Zulu 12:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good amount of imformation on NZ military history but I wonder how many members it would have. The ANZAC task force is an interesting proposal the two countries were deeply joined on military issues in the past, I guess I could work with some Kiwis if I have to :). The Cold War task force would be great so much stuff and no shortage of user who would join. Hossen27 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a Cold War task force sounds reasonable; do we have people willing to sign up? Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will throw my two cents into the fray and say that the ANZAC task force may be the best way to advance the AUS and NZ Mil Hist articles. IMHO I would say that is the way to do it but that is up to Hossen and others intimately involved with those projects to make the final call. The number of contributors will ultimately be the determining factor. As far as the Cold War task force goes I will say that I am not a fan. It will be the same people contributing so I do not see the beginning of a Cold War task force as bringing in a whole bunch of new contributors. Unfortunately, I believe it will just regurgitate info parceled from other task forces. Those that want to contribute to the Vietnam War, East German espionage operations, etc...will do so regardless of this TF. I do not want to be a pessimist and I consider myself an inclusionist here on Wikipedia but I think this TF may be a bit of a stretch.--Looper5920 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can put my name down for an ANZAC task force because several of the battles that I'm currently working on involve military personnel from both of those nations. Cla68 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon bars

I just spent the night making ribbon bars for the ROC army (gallery), so if you happen to have ribbon image requests (or barnribbon requests a la WP:RIBBONS) now's the time to ask (before I lose my photoshop template, fall asleep, or go fishing). -- Миборо в ский 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle stubs images

Who creates the templates for battle stubs? Currently the U.S. stub and British stub have the same image (which looks odd on Battle of Fort Oswego where the French stub has a different image). Can these images be changed? Rmhermen 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to change to a different image if you have one that works better. The images on the various stub tags are so minor a point that I don't think it's worth trying to impose any level of central control over it. Kirill Lokshin 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New coordinators

The coordinator election has concluded; we now have six new Assistant Coordinators:

Dryzen (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: "Grafikm" is not a valid project or language code (help).
LordAmeth (talk · contribs)
Nobunaga24 (talk · contribs)
Oldwindybear (talk · contribs)
Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)

Congratulations to the newly elected, and thanks to everyone who participated in this process, in whatever capacity! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the most appropriate place, yet I would like to congratualte my fellow Assistant Coordinators and thank all canditates on there showing and good manners. As well a heartfelt acknowledgement of all participants. And of course a Merci to all those that voted in my favor, I did not think I had made such an impression on my fellow history contributors and enthusiats. I can only hope to live up to your expectations.--Dryzen 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would like to thank everyone who supported me, and everyone who took part in the process, whether running for a position or voting. I will do my best.--Nobunaga24 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You to users who offered to serve and were not chosen this time

Maybe someone has already done this, but I want to express my personal (and perhaps not just my) thanks to all four members out there who volunteered for service but weren't chosen amongst assistants or leaders. Know that many of us appreciate your courage for offering yourselves for the responsibility, and regard you as leaders without title. So users Geo.plrd, Harlsbottom, Hossen27, and Loopy, thank you for offering to serve in specific roles; I have confidence the community thinks not a whit less of each of you because only some could be chosen. Someone ought to offer those nice users a barnstar just for standing. BusterD 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave those four the epic barnstar. BusterD 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<joking mode>Do I also get one for choosing not to run?</joking mode>

With the new generation of leadership under the direction of our wise leader Kirill Lokshin, I am sure the project is in good hands. Retired generals get more respect, so I'll claim the honour of being the first retired asst coordinator for this project... :D I'll still be around, of course. -- Миборо в ский 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<joking mode>And like all good retired generals Миборо в ский time for you to fade away. Do we get a Shinny too?</joking mode>

Glade to have you around.--Dryzen 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retired generals have lots of time to work on articles. Wandalstouring 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans

I thought this would be a good opportunity to put some thoughts, plans, and ideas for the near future down on paper. They are, of course, subject to modification, and comments and suggestions regarding any or all of them are extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational changes

Mothball the cartography and translation departments; they don't seem to have gone anywhere, and it's not clear whether trying to bring them back to activity would actually provide practical benefits in any case.
Create an automation department to coordinate various bot-driven work; in particular, we should try to arrange for more active bot-driven tagging of articles in our scope.

--> I'll create a draft soon enough, I'm really willing to move this one forward. (as I said on your talk page before you posted here :P) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead. Just so we don't all go looking in different places later, would Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Automation be a good place to work on this? Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, sure thing, sir :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the requests page back to a usable state, and field article/image/map/cleanup/translation requests there (in addition to having them occur through the task forces, of course).
Have a more active rotation of articles needing attention or cleanup through the main open task list, and complete the development of task force sub-templates for the existing task forces. Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Implement the multiple reviewer model for promoting articles to A-Class, and use them as a sort of in-house pre-FAC level.
Put together a section of advice for editors preparing articles for FAC, enumerating some of the more common issues that should be addressed for a successful nomination.
Continue to work on bringing more activity to the project peer review. Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin I have been a strong believer in the multiple reviewer model for not just promoting articles to A-Class, but using them as a sort of in-house pre-posting review for any new article. Personally, I don't put any new article in now without getting multiple reviews from other, respected, editors. I suggest we put panels together of our best reviewers in any given field, like Wandalstouring on weapons, and require they be used before any new article is posted. old windy bear 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too strict, we should allow posting before we get the review of multiple people. The more people you want to involve, the slower it proceeds. Making any user "the authority" for a field of interest is dangerous, because he makes mistakes for sure and it can violate NPOV-policy. We should access all new articles, including stubs, in our field for a basic review. Especially for stubs it is useful to give a review with a brief outline structure for the further development (even if the content is missing), like controlled growth. Perhaps we could import another German model, creating labels (that are easy to understand) for all qualities, while we do only have barnstars here now. A big interest of mine for FAC review is getting people with some profound (for example professional) knowledge on board. I think we should be active in this field, because at the moment our peer review has some weak points in reviewing the factual content of articles. Generaly about critics in peer reviews, we tend towards an executioner style, that can easily demotivate if you don´t get your barnstar at once, while our voluntaries need to be motivated. I suggest coaching them a bit more in such cases. My proposal is a combination of criticism and providing help at same time to solve the problems mentioned (see restructuring requests). Furthermore we need to give them reasons for our demands. We have to handle a high percentage of intellectuals and they work better with reasons that make sense to them, than orders or abiding by the regulations. Wandalstouring 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, requiring reviews before articles are created would be too strict (and probably not enforceable, in any case). I think that, given the number of articles involved, we're naturally going to be in a position to spend more time reviewing the high-end ones (via peer review, and this A-Class model); there are dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of new stubs created each day, so going through all of them formally would be impractical. Obviously, individual project members should feel free to review and critique whatever they find time for, though! Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should think about a possibility to better keep track of stubs, they can grow fast and present dubious content. Wandalstouring 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin Yes, I can see where that would be too strict, and too hard to enforce - there are literally hundreds being created daily. BUT, I still think on major military projects - like the one I am currently working on after Wandalstouring got me into archery research - i. e. a comparison of all the types of bows, that before it is posted, it should be reviewed. I also think right now we do tend to be way too erratic. Some of our reviewers are like Kate used to be, trying to motivate people through positive reinforcement, while pointing out weaknesses in the articles. Contrast that to any number of reviewers who basically redline anything they don't agree with, without in many cases giving the original editor(s) a chance to prove the veracity of what they are writing with good sourcing. I would like to see the Assistant's given particular areas to work on - say assign Wandalstouring to weapon related articles, myself to the Mongols or the Carolingians - and in those areas, post lists of articles being reviewed, and try to come up with a panel to work with us. I also agree with Wandalstouring on the growing problem with stubs. They in many cases present EXTREMELY dubious content with little or no review! old windy bear 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a major project, not a stub! ;-)

My main point is that formal reviews tend to work best when the article already has substantial content to critique; if you try to send a stub through peer review, most responses would be of the form: "It's just a stub, fill it out" rather than offering concrete feedback. (Or, in other words: an article can be so poorly written that trying to identify isolated problem areas will fail, as the entire article will be one big problem area.)

I do have one interesting idea: rather than having a full review process, why not simply use the existing "New articles" page and allow project members to indicate that they have reviewed the (new) article for some basic level of coherence and accuracy. This won't be as rigorous as the endgame review process for high-quality articles, obviously; but that's not a problem, in my opinion, because it would be silly to argue about issues of citation and balance when the article in question is a five-sentence stub. It would, however, allow us to catch the more egregious nonsense earlier.

The main practical problem with this is that the new article page hasn't been maintained very well since Gsl left; to actually make this work, we'd need some way of collecting a meaningful proportion of new articles in our scope, and I'm not sure how best to arrange that. Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on using a major review process on stubs. I like your idea of using the new article page to have existing project members make a stab at a basic review on stubs, just checking for basic coherence, et al. Like you I have no idea how to keep up the new articles page - but assuming that could be done, I like the idea. old windy bear 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

We have two major categorization cleanup projects (military personnel and military units) that need to actually be completed. Past experiences suggest that we should pick one of these and take it through to a practical conclusion rather than splitting our attention to both at once; which one we should proceed with first is entirely up in the air at this point, so suggestions would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin I humbly offer the thought that we should select one, and finish it ASAP, then do the same to the other. I have found simple plans are the best. Select one, throw all our personnel at it, and finish it. But I will happily do whatever Kirill feels is best. old windy bear 01:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting with military units, as that seems to be the more straightforward one; but I'm open to other preferences on this point. Kirill Lokshin 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of of missing military units as I'm sure you know. Two from the U.S. 4th Infantry Division I'm looking for in particular: 12th ID and 22nd engineers.Marky48 14:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military units are fine with me, just give me the details of how we are going to do this, and the green light to go! old windy bear 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support divide and conqueror; Lets tackle one of these at a time and see it through to the end.--Dryzen 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project award upgrade

All this talk of future plans got me thinking about an upgrade of the projects award system. At the moment we have one award the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award or WikiChevron, the award features three stripes with a gold barnstar above it. Seeing this is a military related project why not have several levels of award following a military rank system. I propose keeping the current design with three stripes but creating two lower grades of awards. The lowest would have 1 stripe and the barnstar, similar to the rank of private. The middle with 2 stripes and the barnstar and the highest being the current award. Also some guidlines would be created around each rank outlining the reasons why the awards should be given. This would allow a user to award someone an award for smaller contributions and increase the level of the award as their contributions increase. Any thoughts Hossen27 10:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than tiering the existing award, I was thinking about an additional set of medals for various things, leaving this one as a generic award. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea - make everyone feel like part of a "family/organisation" where they know that their efforts will be recognised in some manner. Of course, one could "promoted" for actions above and beyond the call of duty as well as reaching a specified level of contributions to the Project. --Harlsbottom 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for creating additional awards for other reasons such as article creation, services to the project but I think it should run along side a tiered standard award. It would allow less active members to still recieve the main award along with the more specific but possibly less prestigious medals. The three main awards become increasingly harder to get as you progress. The top award would be like recieving the VC or Medal of Honour (Not meaning to trivialise those awards) the middle would be like winning the Bronze Star and the bottom like winning a DSO (lots of people have it but its still requires a large effort to get). Mixed in with specific less important medals (similar to campaign medals). Maybee im putting to much thought into this :) Hossen27 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not. The subject is very important. There is no project without a community feeling and there is no community feeling without such things (especially when we're talking about a military history project :)

However, I still stand by that Wikichevrons should be kept as an existing first-tier award. Such as:

WikiChevrons
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords

(Yeah I love the Ritterkreutz system :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that but the higher awards must be hard to get, WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords would reqire committment like Krills. The more specific awards could be for things such as.

Heavy contribution to a specific task force (So a medal for each task force)
A medal for 6 months in the project (recieving a bar for each additional 6 month period)
For number of contributions to the project (eg. 500 or 1000 edits)
For number of articles created
Minor edit medal (lowest on order of merit)
Anti vandalism medal
Coordinator and assistant coordinator medal
Feature article medal
Add more here

Each medal could come in a Ribbon format and a medal so medals dont start to clutter user paged. There should also be a defined order of merit or something similar. Hossen27 13:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

No, not a medal for each task force. I would rather go for a clasp on an standard award.
Yes.
No, editcountitis is evil.
I'm not convinced...
There is already the minor barnstar
Redundant with the Anti-vandalism barnstar
What do you mean? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Receive a medal if you get a good number of MILHIST articles up to FA standard, could be redundant with FA medal that already exists. Agree editcountitis can be very bad, how about a joint medal with based on both edit count in the project and articles created, simply a contribution medal (maybe several classes). I like the clasp idea. Hossen27 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm thinking too (on FA thing) I already have a ribbon for that btw and using it :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else got an opinion on the Project award upgrade. Hossen27 13:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should let this thread live for a few days. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This award thing is suspicious to me, it can create tensions. While editcountitis is evil a human factor in distributing medals can not do without being biased. We have some decorated veterans, but other diligent editors have nothing on their userpage. In my opinion favoring articles every day on the mainpage is a better way to award. We could for example feature articles, task forces or editors on our project page once in a while. This way the contributing editor gets positive feedback and most important we should do this featuring to make contact with the featured person easier. The aim is to better integrate their know-how and ideas into the community and inspire others. Wandalstouring 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're not inventing anything here, as barnstars are already there and they can create some tensions, so by adding one or two more, that won't change anything... However, I agree that the thing is not to overdo it by adding a bunch of awards. Four of five versions of Wikichevrons should be plenty enough. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the level of tension from the project award ought to be miniscule, and should generally be worth it for the motivational factor it provides. Maybe one way of approaching this might be having two "lines" of awards:

The multi-grade WikiChevrons (with shiny stuff tacked on!) for actual accomplishments (barnstars, in other words). Somebody needs to draw up some designs, though.
One or more service awards that would be handed out based on time in the project or something like that; since these would be distributed very widely, it might help avoid the feeling that some people aren't getting anything.

I think that awards for specific tasks (vandal-fighting, etc.) would be too much work, and would overlap too much with existing barnstars; I don't really see the need to create our own versions of everything if something suitable already exists. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One further comment: one idea bounced around when the award was first put in place as a possibility for higher-level awards would be to have them bestowed by the project as a whole—following a general consensus—rather than by individual members. This would, of course, potentially limit the number of recipients, but would also provide (a) the idea of an "official" recipient (we could, for example, keep a list on the project page without worrying about missing people) and (b) perhaps more impact to the award if it were seen as recognition from the entire community, rather than from one individual. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thnk having a regimented hierachical order in what is basically an anarchic collaboration could be counterproductive. What if someones throws their weight around: "I'm a General on the MILHIST WikiProject, so I win this edit war. Blocked 24hrs!"? OK, we already do have this problem. But let's not make this any worse.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little something to shows some appreciation for one's work, so maybe we can have a "Editor(s) of the Month" thingy. -- Миборо в ский 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm confused here. I was under the impression that we were merely discussing having a multiple grades of the project awards (which are essentially trinkets—nice morale-boosters, but not bestowing any rank, title, or priviledge on those receiving them) rather than any formal way of grading editors in general (which wouldn't be a good idea, for the reason you menton); is this not the case? Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then instead of general let's make it "I have the WikiChevron with oak leaves, swords and grand cordon, so I win this edit war". Military-style medals of any sort inherently confers rank and privilege. Actually, medals of any sort (including barnstars) confer a sense of privilege, but military ones are the worst. In my humble opinion. -- Миборо в ский 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting perspective on that. The quesion that immediately occurs to me is this: is this actually a practical concern? Or, to put it another way: are the people being given these awards the type that would try to use them in an underhanded manner to win disputes? That certainly hasn't been my impression of the recipients of the current award; is there something specific that you have in mind? Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Миборо в ский. But I still didn´t encounter a tinselstallion showing it off here, on the other hand you should also outrule that admins misuse their powers. If we have these awards in a hall of fame for example it would put a hindrance for prestigious misuse, while we still honor who deserves honor. Defeat the beginnings. Wandalstouring 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By hall of fame, do you mean a listing of recipients on the project page? Or something else entirely? And would this approach (a) necessarily require that these awards be given out by project consensus, rather than by individual editors (b) necessarily preclude having a badge corresponding to the "award" that could be displayed by recipients? Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Miborovsky. The point a lot of people miss is that you don't need any kind of awards or even barnstars to bully editors and to be disruptive. However, people that will be awarded high-ranked awards (above the current wikichevrons) are likely to be long-standing members respected by the project. We can even make the award a project consensus.

Yes, I love ribbons. And I would like to see this system implemented. But I never said anything like that and probably won't regardless of whether it exists or not. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) It contains no requirements who gives the award.

b) It supports to preclude a corresponding badge on the userpage.

c) An own page could be more suitable. Wandalstouring 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what's the point (to put it somewhat bluntly)? It certainly wouldn't be an indication of prestige—since anyone could add names—and wouldn't even have the morale-boosting effect of giving people "awards". What exactly would anyone get out of this, other than a vague list of "nice people"? Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have two factions: the tinselsupporters and the tinselbanners. The tinselbanners see all the possible disadvanteges and dangers. To avoid them, awards are made a vague list of "nice people". The tinselsupporters want to give shiny stuff on the userpages to motivate the troops. This way a positive feedback is created, the user is always reminded about his achievements, hopefully inspiring him to even more, and it is a tool for community integration. Wandalstouring 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. What about Friendship Bracelets style? Nobody has ever been able to intimid someone else with this, no matter how many he had. Wandalstouring 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we create a system that can satisfy both parties (which seem to include about five people at the moment; I'm quite interested in what the remainder of the project thinks of all this)?

The current system combines (1b) informal, anyone-can-do-it awarding with (2a) award badges. The original proposal above was to have a secondary system with (1b) informal awarding and (2a) award badges. My proposal was (1a) formal, project-consensus-based awarding, (2a) award badges, and (3) list of recipients. Your proposal seems to be (1b) informal awarding, (2b) no award badges, and (3) list of recipients. I think we're going around in circles here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycling, two different circles spinning around in one discussion. No, I never referred to informal awarding, I was simply not discussing this matter. It was arguing against award badges that pose the possibility to gain authority and proposing ways to avoid it. Badges are OK in my opinion, shiny big medals less. Wandalstouring 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you think that the size or complexity of the "badge" really makes a difference? They're just pictures, after all (and can be resized as desired).

I'm not convinced that this would a practical issue, though, as I have difficulty imagining that anyone to whom we might give a prestigious award would try to misuse it; or that it would make any difference even if they did. These are, again, mere pictures; unlike the admin metaphor, they don't come with any actual powers. Someone could just as easily try to "pull rank" using any number of other methods (editcount, length of time editing, etc.); I don't really see why awards would make things any more problematic than they would be anyways. Kirill Lokshin 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kirill. The whole argument about "I am XXX, so I win the edit war" is kinda useless. People who are d*cks don't need awards to be d*cks, and will get blocked or banned anyway. OTOH, people that will recieve high awards are likely to be nice people and won't inflate their head... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I agree with Kirill and Grafikm_fr -- Sounds like we're creating a problem that doesn't exist, and if it did, the people doing it would be jerks without the award anyway. I can't see that anyone getting this would then all of a sudden, because they got this award, turn into a jerk. I say, if they're caught using it as a weapon, we take it away. But I feel like it's a non-issue in that the awards don't make already jerky people jerks. I think the benefit far outweighs any potential for this plange 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, carry on. A jerk is a jerk. No more objections. Wandalstouring 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading about, I set of distinctions for awards, somewhat like our own modern medals or badges; breaking up the awards into two types wich I loosly name Acheivement and Distinction. The first would encompass things that need not have a cadre of people discuss about. To take from exemples from Hossen27's original list, tenure: reaching 6 months of activity,coordinator and etc. The second group will be much like the current Wikicheverons given for a distinction. This later group would be voted, to give the weight of the project behind it, it could also go into what Kirill Lokshin's proposition of a list of recipients. In short, one formal and one informal like Kirill Lokshin surmised above. As to what will be incorporated I'll ponder on that one and will post in good order. In either case I beleive that it could do some positive reinforcement and that like it has been concluded:"A jerk is a jerk."--Dryzen 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I still think a tiered idea of Wikichevrons being the best :) I'll try to come up with some drafts to show you though, so I won't be just displacing air... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, fine. If we're gonna have all these awards then might as well make it authentic. We'll need badges, devices, ribbons, clasps, award stars (let's avoid award numerals since they're US-only) and orders of precedence. Let's rock and roll. -- Миборо в ский 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm_fr has a template for transposing award stars on ribbons (and with some tweaking could be used for medals too). User:Grafikm_fr/Ribbon -- Миборо в ский 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake: I ~~stole~~copied it from User:Cool cat. But the clasp rather than the barnstar is my idea, and I made the pic myself :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm not sure how useful it would be for medals; obviously they could be used for medal-with-ribbon setups, but superimposed badges wouldn't really work for larger award badge images.

A few ideas, off the top of my head:

We could make the "achievement" award(s)—the ones for tenure and so forth—normal ribboned medals. These could then take the superimposed stars to indicate multiple/successive awards.
Conversely, the "distinction" awards could have (as Grafikm suggested) several levels, which would have larger badges with added regalia (e.g. award, award with oak leaves, award with swords and oak leaves, etc.) to indicate the level.

Given that I'm not all that good with any kind of drawing work, I'll leave the actual drafting of the designs up to someone else ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side point: it might be nice to use a common "WikiChevrons" element in all the awards, and add various items to the image to create specific ones, such as (large) ribbons for medals or various trinkets for more order-like awards. The main problem with this is that the original WikiChevrons are somewhat inconvenient, as the chevrons are detached from the star, preventing its natural use with other elements. I'm wondering if someone would like to take a stab at rearranging the chevrons; maybe emboss them onto the star? Or overlay them? In addition, retouching the image to some more metallic color than danger stripe yellow might be nice if we'd like to use it in other compositions.

All of this would require some image editing skills, obviously; hence, the call for volunteers ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing this up right now, please wait a few minutes... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work right now, so can't help. -- Миборо в ский 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin as expressed it quite succinctly , with regards to the "Achivements" and "Distinctions"' design. The implementaion of hte Wikichevrons as a mark of the award's origins its an excellent concept.--Dryzen 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sketch

Disclaimer: This is a quickly drawn sketch so we'll be able to get the idea. Don't hit me please (not on the head at least).

It's pretty fast drawn but I think it's a start. Not all tiers will be used (four or five of them only). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice design!

I don't really like the distinction between "dagger" and "swords", though, particularly as the rifles and swords occupy the same visual position; maybe we should go "oak leaves and sword" → "oak leaves, rifles, and sword" → "oak leaves, rifles, wings, and sword" (which also reduces the number of grades neatly)? Or maybe lengthen the swords and change the angle so they can be applied together with the rifles? Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not planning to use them all. I'm personally for "plain" → "oak leaves" → "oak leaves and sword" → "oak leaves, sword and rifles" → "oak leaves, sword, rifle and wings". But rifles are not a standard heraldry symbol, and some people may not like them. So I made both so people can compare. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. A few other ideas:

Flip the single sword so that the hilt can be seen in the gap at the top?
Maybe change the regular image to move the star into the same position it occupies in the other ones?
Could the images be recoloured/modified to look more like metal plaques? Or would that be too difficult?

(This may be moot if people don't like this design, of course; but I'm just throwing things out for comment at this point.) Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guns (cannons) and anchor are missing. Wandalstouring 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill: No prob to flip the sword. Regarding moving the image to its "usual" place, no prob but since you said you did not want a detached star... :) And as for recolouring, as I said, it is a first draft, so let's decide on design first :)

Wandalstouring: do you suggest some more tiers or removing some existing? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I meant moving the star in the original (first-level) image so that it's overlaid over the chevrons (as in the later images) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, slightly clever (maybe?) idea per Wandalstouring:

WikiChevrons
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Sword(s)
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Sword(s), and Anchors
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Sword(s), Anchors, and Wings

One design element for each major service? Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more (I promise I'll stop now...): if we adopt this, maybe we can use the central star + oak leaves as the pendant part of the medal for the achievement awards? Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually more for Swords and Anchor (à-là USMC logo). I'll see what I can do.

As for medals, sure thing, this is all (pseudo)vector, so no problem to add/remove things. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(decreasing indent)

Well, you know what, drawing an anchor is hard. That's my best attempt... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite nice, actually. Two minor points, though:

The anchor (and the swords?) needs to show up through the hole in the barnstar.
Can the swords be made longer? It's difficult to see them when they're entirely contained within the area of the main chevron.

Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to make it show, but it's too small, so you see only gray... As for longer, I'll make a new version... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just gray would be fine; better than a strange white circle where the viewer expects to see something from behind the star, anyways. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For a nitpicker, you surely dress poorly" (c) Dilbert... :))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, V4 done. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't draw, so all I can do is criticize. ;-)

But now that the swords are rotated, they'd need to show through the gaps too. I wonder if it would not be better to simply fill the area behind the star (the gaps between its arms and the leaves) with a lighter shade of yellow, forming a solid disk "behind" the star image? Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of yellow, give an example please :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely up to you; as I said, I can't draw. It just needs to be different enough from the yellow of the star & chevrons that both outlines are distinguishable. Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I can draw, you're heavily mistaken... Anyway, V5's uploaded. Heh, a zero-grade color perception will always be my curse... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm not entirely sure if the filled-in version or the transparent version is better; would anyone else like to comment? :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else think those are some very happy-looking chevrons or is it just me? --ScreaminEagle 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? *scratches head* -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing the rifles with big guns for artillery (guns, siege engines). Cavalry has usually an iron fist as insignia (in Europe). The wings are for flying objects (rockets, planes, jets, starships), the crossed swords are the insignia of infantry, the anchor for naval things or amphibious forces. And mechanized troops get a bicycle (we need some kind of funny award, besides bicycles were used by several militaries, like SS-cavalry or Vietcong) and for nuclear troops a nuclear mushroom. For terrorists I suggest (I do not object if somebody has a better symbol) a derivate of the gun of the Red Army Faction (a German terrorist organization cooperating with several international terrorist groups, especially Palestinian and Libanon groups. fortunately they decided to disintegrate several years ago, so we do not support anybody doing terrorism now) Of course we can mix all of them and add some more signs of recognition. Wandalstouring 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we concentrate on the main 5 tier sequence at the moment. I already have enough stuff to draw :) Then we have to discuss what form would those additional awards take. :)))-- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we just trying to put in an image for everything, or are we trying to make this look like a "traditional" award badge? Some images make sense for one of these but not the other. Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I would go for the following system.

A five-tiered WikiChevrons (plain/oak/swords/anchor/wings) That's the main Wikiproject award. And it's tiered, like Legion d'Honneur or Order of Glory are.
Then, if people want, some special award badges, for contribs to this or that. I'm not discussing their design here, as it is a separate matter, and their list must be decided beforehand. The idea, IMHO, is to not overdo it. I could go with a WikiProject military history medal with clasps on it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with that. My suggestion for the secondary badges would be to have two different "medals": one for tenure/length of activity and one for article-writing (with exact times at which these would be handed out to be determined). The first one would have only award stars to indicate multiple awards; but the second could have any number of specialized clasps to indicate the particular area/topic in which the contributions had occurred. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I had in mind too. Like a medal for contribs with clasps or little colored symbols to go on the ribbon (e.g. a lily for French TF and so on...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vide contra (sorry quality is real crap but I made it in a hurry. So you have a medal with devices on it. The lys stands for French TF and the plane for aviation TF. Just an example. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very neat. The clasps will probably need to be silver, and we can definitely lose the light yellow background here (since there's no missing elements to hide); but the general idea looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this some more: I actually prefer the design of the medal to the chevrons-based ones above. Might it be possible to have a set of medals with the oak leaves (and swords/anchors/whatnot crossed behind the disk) for the graded awards and then have a version without the oak leaves to use with clasps for achievement awards? We'd need to flip the star to allow it to be "attached" to the ribbon, but that doesn't seem too bad. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see two slight objections:

It means abandoning the traditional WikiChevrons design, which is something akin to a symbol by now :)
On the "anchor" version, the anchor sticks higher than the star, so you won't be able to attach the ribbon to the star. Unless of course you scrap the anchor and replace it with rifles :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could do a diagonal anchor, with a sword going the other way. As far as the chevrons: is there any way we could put the chevrons on the ribbon in place of the vertical stripes? Or would that be too tacky? Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like that? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like that. A few more suggestions (which you're no doubt getting tired of by now): change the ribbon background to a silver or steel color to make the chevrons & clasps more visible and remove the background color behind the star. Another thing to consider (which may be too bizarre) would be to use this shape of ribbon? Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own rather pathetic attempt at implementing some of this can be seen at right. It obviously has many problems, but I think the general idea can be seen. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we simply change the color for minor awards and keep all the symbols? silver, bronze, iron, copper? Would be another of the slightly clever (maybe?) ideas from Wandalstouring 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be too complicated, if you mean doing it instead of the medals (with a five-tier "distinction" award, you'd have a minimum of 10 minor awards, each of which would need to have some meaning) or too plain if you mean the main levels (the colors may be too difficult to distinguish; bronze and gold don't look that different). Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thinking simple. What about iron/steel award for duration? Perhaps with a H-iron instead of a star. Wandalstouring 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for regional meetups

I'm wondering in view of the success of Wikimania 2006 that we might consider periodic face-to-face meetups by region organized as best possible by project. I met 500 new friends at the WM conference; I'm wondering about the feasibility/desirablility/appeal of such an idea amongst project members. BusterD 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's amazing to think that a WikiProject is considering some sort of a meetup. I guess this is the largest WikiProject, huh? --Cyde Weys 01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but the last time anyone actually tried to go through and get a sense of WikiProject numbers was a few months ago. We were neck-and-neck with WP:COMICS at the time, if I recall correctly. Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional meet-ups is really an excellent idea. But I donot know if it is realizable.--Yannismarou 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First we must know where our regional editors are. Than we must know how many people will come for sure, big problem. A university or a school could be a suitable host during vacation time, so this is perhaps the smallest problem. Eating and drinking could pose some problems. Wandalstouring 14:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this couldn't be a set of hosted or sponsored events, but at this point, I was envisioning front room meetups, maybe pub meetups. I wasn't envisoning flight time or even extensive travel time, keeping this a local affair. It does introduce issues of potential regional bias and other politics (like more accessability for big city residents), so there are reasons for caution, but I was wondering what people thought. With 345 project members, I'll bet there are a dozen or so in my urban area. At this point I'm more wondering, would folks come, if it didn't take excessive resources? That seems the first question before any discussion of how, where or when. BusterD 15:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"front room meetups"

No official wikipedia meetings in private houses. The host feels bound to let everybody in who says to be from wikipedia. We can be dead sure, that one day this will create problems and can be massively counterproductive for the project.

Pubs are no good idea for meetings if we want to keep the impression of working on something. Besides there are age restrictions in pubs and this way we exclude some editors. Wandalstouring 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private homes are probably a bad idea, as you said. How about something more general, like restaurants/museums/etc.?

(I don't think the "impression of working on something" is all that important; meetups have always focused to a large extent on merely informal discussion and social interaction, rather than on massively productive work.)

No idea if anyone would actually be interested in doing this sort of thing, though. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place must be suitable for discussions and have no restrictions (age, gender, etc.). Favorable would be if we could use laptops, hold lectures and even have internet access. Naturally this depends on size and topic of the meeting.

Delousing each others fur should work on a less official basis outside the wikiproject. Of course we can make contact to such fanclubs. Wandalstouring 21:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pubs, then. What's the location, anyway? If it's in the East (US) I can plan my college visits appropriately. If it's in the West I can simply drive there. :) And on a related note, we can have a project-wide IRC/MSN/AIM/ICQ chat session... -- Миборо в ский 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to be focused on the how, where and when instead of the if. Some excellent concerns expressed however. No private homes, check. Makes total sense. Pubs likewise. How about public library or public college venues? Sponsored or hosted venues (businesses)? And I was thinking very regional at first so as to minimize travel and cost issues. I am still listening for enthusiasm, and I'm not really hearing so much. BusterD 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buster asked for enthusiasm, so I shall voice mine. I think a meet-up would be great. I somehow failed to make it to the conference or to meet up with anyone that weekend despite the fact that I lived in Boston at the time. In any case, if any sort of meet-up does happen, I would be most eager to join in; I am currently in New York, and shall be moving to London in the near future, so one way or another, I imagine I'd be pretty close geographically to a number of you, no? LordAmeth 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'd certainly be interested in having some form of meetup (whether a more formal working one or just an informal occasion to get together and meet everyone in person). The real question is whether there's enough of a concentration of interested members somewhere to make this practical. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can beg/borrow/steal space on the Columbia U. campus up through the first week of October if the NYC area people want to do a meetup. Unfortunately leaving the area then. C'mon; college students out there; I know you guys can liason with a group or professor to secure space. Pubs don't have age restrictions during the day; though 10 guys pulling out laptops might be a bit excessive. In NYC, there's plenty of WIFI parks, too. We can just camp out in Bryant Park. --Mmx1 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm into it, so if anyone's in Atlanta we could meet at any one of the number of WIFI-enabled coffee shops! plange 14:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there is some interest in meetups, perhaps we form local groups like the task forces to organize such events. Wandalstouring 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps follow the Wikipedia:Meetup model and simply have people propose meetups on a central page and go from there? I'm not sure that creating a local bureaucracy will be particularly beneficial in this case. Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure that at least somebody is present at a meeting because several people agreed on the date and location. We are a small departement, so we could start with the last point of the Wikipedia:Meetup model

Create a list of Wikipedians interested in future and regular meetups for a given location where they can sign up (alternatively, userboxes with corresponding categories can be used). Wandalstouring 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the obvious solution simply be to not have a meeting if not enough people express a willingness to come? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about this to start off: create a section on the outreach page where people interested in meetups can indicate their location, and see what kind of clumping we get? Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit this spot for first tally: Wikipedia:Meetup/Military history. I guess I was misreading between the lines. It appears this is interesting to several. I'm glad to see that there's an existing structure and some rule sets established through practice. In order to broaden the base, I wonder if MIL HIST group couldn't host regional wikimeetups (would be an excellent chance to recruit new project members). And ladies and gentlemen, I'm thinking long term, perhaps quarterly. The existing local meetup locations provide a nice starting base. Let's see what we've got. BusterD 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply added myself even thoguh I dont not curently havea meeting location.--Dryzen 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have supported me :)

Well, elections are now over and I'm now an assistant coordinator elected with a lot of voices :)

Thanks a lot to all of you who trusted me and allowed me to get there. I'll try and not disappoint you during these 6 months! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have supported me also! :)

I also wish to thank again those who supported me, and I also will try not to disappoint those of you who trusted me during the next six months. old windy bear 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muster the Legions!

Or the Greek Phalanx, or whatever is the predominate military formation of your ancient nations of choice.

It seems that the Classical Warfare task force has flagged seriously - and needs a jump start.

What should be the set of core articles for this task force (Military history of ancient Rome, Military history of ancient Greece/Military history of Greece, the Roman legion, etc.), are in dire need of cleanup, and in the case of Ancient Greece, don't even exist yet! These at the very least should be brought up to featured article status as a core to work outwards from (probably followed by the Punic Wars, the Greco-Persian Wars, etc.).

All interested ancient historians are strongly urged to pitch in.

We should also look at recruitment. There are some excellent scholars and editors out there that are sort of poking away (albiet it very effectively), who might not even know about this Wikiproject, and should be invited into the fold.

So - its a general call to arms people :) - Vedexent 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I work on the Punic wars, but it is very difficult and I still source. Wandalstouring 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on the Byzantines and 18th century France, but I can make time to read some edits as I have done with Wandalstouring's excellent work on the Military history of ancient Rome.--Dryzen 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a translation and I still haven`t inserted it yet, because I did not get all German sources to source it. Wandalstouring 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automation department

The automation department is now open, courtesy of Grafikm; all project members are invited to propose new tasks and to comment on the suitability of particular proposals for automation. (Anyone with access to a bot or AWB is also cordially invited to sign up to actually implement these things.) Kirill Lokshin 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I: Mothballing two departments

The cartography and translation departments don't seem to have gone anywhere in practice, and aren't likely to, in my opinion. I would propose deactivating them, as follows:

Requests for maps would be taken on the combined requests page.
Requests for translation help would be taken on the combined requests page.
The two department pages would be archived, to be re-activated if or when a need for separate processes develops.

Would this be an acceptable approach? Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wandalstouring 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, aye aye, sir. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, too few cartographers with the time needed (I haven't forgotten Chalons!). Both are technically trequests, so its a logical demotion.--Dryzen 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH. Is there not some way to salvage them? Say demote them to task forces or merge them into a single department? Or a single TF even...there is some overlap, maps come in many different languages and often require translation. Likewise placenames change over time. These two departments could be very useful, if people would only use them. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves."--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "to be re-activated if or when a need for separate processes develops". It's clear that they're not being used in practice, and no amount of bureaucratic handwaving on our part will change that. The most practical part—the requests—will be retained; as far as the cataloguing, I'm not convinced that we even need to do it here, rather than on Commons—but, even if that were the case, there hasn't been any interest in actually working on it in the many months that this has existed. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What harm is there in simply leaving them as is? Are they really that much of an administrative burden? We already have a small, but impressive, library of maps and a fairly large corps of translators. The simple fact we have such departments is a demonstration of this project's level of organization and professionalism. To me, it would seem more of a pain to mothball just to possibly reactivate them later, than to make like the Beatles and "Let it be" :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't looked at the navigation box recently, have you? ;-)

We've sort of reached the point where trimming some of the excess "stuff" that has been found not to work has actual (small but perceptible) benefits in terms of simplifying the overall structure of the project (which is important for newer members, of course, but would not, perhaps, be entirely unwelcome even among the "regulars").

More to the point: is there any actual benefit to leaving these departments in place? As far as I know, the cartography department stopped actually doing anything a few weeks into its life, and the translation department still hasn't done anything other than providing another place where people must remember to add their name. Maybe the answer is simply that a separate process for these things isn't the best approach (at this time, or even entirely), and that the only way we'll see practical results is by absorbing them into a larger process? Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, we should mothball them because it will make the navigation bar look smaller? By the same criteria then, why not also mothball the Collaboration and Outreach departments? From what I see they have done even less and are less directly useful to our main goals of article building/improvement. And if you really want the nav bar to look slim and sleek, we could mothball or merge about half dozen or so inactive TFs (TaskForce bloat anyone:). Now that, dear friend, would be simplification:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the outreach department and the collaboration are active (outreach highly so; but most of its activity does not involve posting to the department page itself); cartography and translation are not. And, again, what's the benefit of having them? At what point would you be willing to entertain the question of whether the creation of these departments may not have been the best approach to actually getting something done?

(I feel that task force are a subtly different matter, since (a) they serve as recruitment and tagging points, even if their actual work isn't all that great; (b) they have well-defined groups of participants; (c) they help funnel stuff off the main project page; and (d) a few more subtle and obscure reasons. You may, of course, disagree.) Kirill Lokshin 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from making the navigation bar look "prettier" to some, and easier for newbies to navigate, what are the real advantages to mothballing them? You still havent provided any compelling rationale apart from they havent done anything recently ("What have you done for me lately?";). I will acknowledge that they are not the best approach to actually getting something done, when someone comes up with a better way of accomplishing the same tasks. Thus far I've not seen this. So let's leave them be AND try your idea of a combined requests page. If it proves more effective, or less inactive, then you will have my blessing to mothball both departments perminately.

BTW, subtle and obscure reasons aside, task force bloat is a bad thing, for the very same KISS principle you invoke above....which I agree with you on;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my main reason for wanting to see the cartography department gone, in particular, is because I'm convinced that trying to catalogue maps—as oppposed to simply adding them to the appropriate articles—is something best done on Commons rather than locally on en:. But, fair enough; if you wish to see the combined request page in action, so be it. Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Sir, our proceedings here are closed...for now;>. Here's to finding a better, or at least more active, mousetrap.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always saw them more as a request area myself.--Dryzen 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal II: A-Class review

(This is separate from the ongoing discussion in regards to reviewing stubs or new articles above.)

Based on my sense of what people liked in the various preceding discussions that touched on this topic, I would propose some variation on the following process:

An article is nominated for an "A-Class" rating by being listed in a section (to be created) of the assessment department page.
The review is open for some minimum time (24 hours?) to make sure that people have a chance to comment.
Reviewers will check the article for substantial problems, and either support or oppose its promotion (naming specific issues if they oppose).
After the minimum time has passed, an article will be promoted (by an uninvolved coordinator?) if it has (a) no substantial problems and (b) at least two (three?) reviewers supporting it. Otherwise, it will be failed, and the nomination archived.
There is no limit on good-faith renomination; thus, an article in which problems were found can be renominated as soon as they have been fixed.

This would, in my opinion, ensure a review that, while not as rigorous as the formal FAC, would provide a better assurance of quality than the more unpredictable GA process. The major point to note is that it would involve a somewhat vague sense of what a "substantial" problem was; this can be left to the closer or defined explicitly, but the basic idea is to focus on major issues of content and avoid (at this level) the more pedantic wrangling over writing style or formatting that happens at FAC. Comments? Would this be (a) beneficial and (b) feasible? Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that there should be some kind of more stringent review process for "A-Class" articles, especially as the GA process is, as you mentioned, somewhat haphazard. I would personally vote for a longer window for review, given that some editors may be better equipped than others to review articles in certain fields, and we shouldn't necessarily assume that they can access Wikipedia once per day. It also might be useful to come to a general consensus on what constitutes a "substantial problem," although I rather expect that the result will be "we know it when we see it, but we can't define it." Also, I would propose a slightly more explicit wording for the number of reviwers, namely that there must be some kind of clear consensus about the article (i.e., even if an article receives five "support" votes, if it also receives three "oppose" votes, there is something that needs to be resolved, and the article is not ready for "A-class". Carom 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review time should be one week. This is wikipedia and things work slowly. For A class there should be no more than one objection. Wandalstouring 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we make it that long, won't people simply go straight to FAC? This has to be some sort of "FAC-lite" if it's going to be at all useful. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a week seems a little excessive - perhaps a compromise window of 72 hours, or something of that nature? I also tend to agree with Wandalstouring that if there is more than one objection (or the objections are not frivolous), the article should fail, unless it is apparant that someone has attempted to manipulate the results. Carom 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering myself as an exemple, wiht my innactivity over week ends, a time frame should there fore be greater than from friday night to monday morning. What about four days time? A compromise halfway mark between a week and a day, while still being close ot 72 hours? I also agree with Wandalstouring's objection meter rather than aprouval meter, with Carom's specificatiosn of course.--Dryzen 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four days might work, with the proviso that the nominations will be closed after four days. I'd like to avoid the month-long debates that sometimes occur on FAC; and, given that there's no limit on renomination, I think it's reasonable that we simply close a nomination where an article is still undergoing substantial work after four days and have it re-nominated when the changes are complete, rather than waiting for everything to be completed while the nomination is running.

Another consideration if we have longer time: would it be easier to create a subpage for each article's discussion (as occurs with peer review and FAC), or to have it occur directly on the main assessment page? Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - four days would be workable, provided that a decision one way or another is made at the end of four days. I don't think the traffic is going to be very high, but the main page might get a little clogged - subpages might be a better alternative. Carom 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is only 43 A class articles, so there is no need to set up a gigantic structure for so few articles... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are hoping to get some more! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We sure do, but that shows that the volume per week (or month or whatever) will be quite low as well... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally vote for a three-day time period, but four days is ok. Sounds like a simple, effective process to me as described above. Our "A" class review process, plus our peer review, along with the FA review forum, are lot of good resources for editors to utilize to ensure that their articles are truly ready before nominating as an FA candidate. Cla68 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal III: Featured article advice

Based on a number of discussions at FAC, I would suggest putting together a short (10–20 items) list of common conventions, issues, and potential pitfalls that military history articles being moved into FAC can be checked against. Hopefully, this could provide editors with less FAC experience a good checklist to use before they nominate an article (even if they don't avail themselves of our general peer review process). It might also be helpful for Proposal II (above) as a list of common potential problems to check articles for. Comments on this idea would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent idea. Having a "have you done these before you try for FAC status" checklist would be very helpful. Adapting this idea for various other "levels" such as A-class status, GA status, etc. would also be helpful - Vedexent 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that this list will be equally useful for the (more advanced) lower levels, since they're distinguished more by their permissiveness as to whether certain requirements are met than by having different requirements per se. Of course, this might not turn out to be the case; I suppose we should wait to see what kind of list we put together before debating whether secondary lists for other levels would be beneficial. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A most sound proposal.--Dryzen 13:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to contact all the 1FA milhist editors and get them working? -- Миборо в ский 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made sort of a list like that already on my user page. I definitely could benefit from the experiences of other editors in the FA process. Cla68 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal IV: Categories for military units

Okay, a (brief) summary of what seems to have been the last idea being worked on in the previous discussion, together with some other points that have been brought up since:

The (extremely) high-level view:

Category:Military organization ← the top-level category for this entire tree
- Category:Military units and formations ← renamed from Category:Individual military units
- Category:Military ranks
- Category:Military branches ← the five categories (Army, Navy, Air force, Marines, Coast Guard) for the top-level system that seems to be prevalent in many countries. More could be added here if there are other branches or services used world-wide; I'm not sure what these would be, though.
- Category:Types of forces ← not the best name, perhaps; intended to collect a few top-level categories (Artillery, Cavalry, Armour, etc.) that represent the various broad types of troops that have existed.
- A few other miscellaneous categories that will need to be looked at later

Going down a level, military units are split by five different characteristics:

Category:Military units and formations
- Category:Military units and formations by country ← mostly from Category:Military units by nationality; these can be broken down by branch as needed
- Category:Military units and formations by war ← specific conflicts (e.g. WWII, ACW)
- Category:Military units and formations by era ← broad periods (e.g. Ancient, Middle Ages)
- Category:Military units and formations by type ← special forces units, armored units, airborne units, etc.; will be a child of Category:Types of forces
- Category:Military units and formations by size ← divisions, regiments, corps, etc.

These would follow some naming conventions:

"Military units of Foo" for "by country" (e.g. "Military units and formations of France" or "Military units and formations of the United States Army")
"Military units of the Foo War" for "by war" (e.g. "Military units and formations of World War II")
"Fooish units" for "by era" (e.g. "Ancient units and formations") and "by type" (e.g. "Airborne units and formations")
"Foos" for "by size" (e.g. "Regiments")

Various combinations of the five could then be done to create more specific sub-categories:

Country and war: "Military units and formations of France in World War I" (note that the second "of" changes to "in", to allow a more natural wording; this could alternately be left as "of")
Size and type: "Airborne regiments"
Size and war: "Regiments of World War II"
Type, size, country (with branch), and war: "Airborne regiments of the United States Army in World War II"
Era and country: "Medieval units and formations of France"

The approach used for wars and battles could be followed in regard to general articles; for example, Regiment would be placed under Category:Regiments, while specific unit types that don't have their own categories would be directly under Category:Military units and formations by type.

All of this is completely open to further discussion, of course; but I think this could serve as a suitable starting point. Any comments and suggestions would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks great to me. I would just like to poke my nose in here... One of my personal pet peeves, as one might have noticed, is the categorization of pre-modern warriors (knights, samurai, Vikings, what-have-you) under the same categories as proper military units and personnel. I'm very happy you've proposed including Era as one of the distinguishing characteristics for categories; I hope that whatever organization and structure we work on enforces these distinctions. LordAmeth 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that might be more of an issue when we move over to personnel, actually. In any case, my take on that is that we'll see some intersection in the country categories—groups of samurai and IJN fleets would both be somewhere under Category:Military units and formations of Japan, for example—but the categories will be kept mostly distinct by the other four types. Hence, we could have Category:Medieval units and formations of Japan and Category:Fleets of the Imperial Japanese Navy; aside from both being derived from the same "of Japan" tree, the low-level categories wouldn't really intersect, giving you the distinction you're looking for. Does that work? Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that works exactly as I'd like. Thanks once again for a quick and thorough response. Craziness. Yeah. I just remember running into the problem of having, say, Minamoto no Yoritomo (12th century), Oda Nobunaga (16th century), and Hideki Tojo or Isoroku Yamamoto all under "Category:Military leaders of Japan". Not cool. But with these nicely separated and delineated categories, I'm quite happy. LordAmeth 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it makes for a expansive arborescence, wich could trouble users, its extensive demeanor does enable use to better catalogue the veriaty of information to be placed herein. Like LordAmeth I find that will be the better methode to follow.--Dryzen 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Category:Military units and formations by type, I propose Category:Military units and formations by branch with the sub-categories

Category:Army units and formations by type (infantry units, armoured units, airborne units, etc.; will be children of this)
Category:Air units and formations by type
Category:Navy units and formations by type
Category:Special Forces units and formations

I recognize that this may cause some confusion due to modern & historic inconstancies in following traditional branches, but as long as this matches the sub-structure given to Category:Military branches, the confusion will sort itself out.--MCG 29 August 2006

Aside from introducing the sort of anachronistic usage LordAmeth was concerned about, this would also cause issues with cross-branch types. Special Forces, for example, aren't a separate branch in most militaries; you also have air units (often present in all branches), artillery units (present in multiple branches if the marines get their own "branch"; if not, their presence in the navy causes many overlaps as well), engineer units, mercenary units (often not even part of a branch), irregular units (ditto), and so forth. I think the better approach to branches would be something like this:

Category:Military branches
- Category:Navies
  - Category:United States Navy
    - Category:Units and formations of the United States Navy (also a child of Category:Units and formations of the United States

This keeps the "type" category much more flexible, which is necessary for the vast variety of more unusual historical situations. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then could the cat be expanded to Category:Military units and formations by type and branch? It adds a layer of complexity ("Infantry" can be found in the parent category & the subcategory of "Army") but it makes the logic convenient for both those with a deeper historical perspective & those working off a rudimentary understanding of contemporary force organizations.--MCG 29 August 2006

Well, wouldn't simply creating a separate Category:Military units and formations by branch be the better solution, in that case? Not all infantry units are part of (an/the) army, for example; we need to have a system for categorizing by branch that will allow us to collect the lower-level branch categories, rather than merely trying to clump the "type" categories into what seems to be the closest branch. Kirill Lokshin 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont quite see the need to indicate branch since it seems to be creating more problems than solving them. Type responds to our needs and acts admirably in the face of ambiguous forces.--Dryzen 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're going to split by branches at a low level (inside the country categories; e.g. Category:Regiments of the United States Army versus Category:Regiments of the United States Marine Corps); the question is more one of whether we need to group branches across countries using some auxiliary categories. I don't really think it's a big deal either way; but I'm not really sure what problems we'd have one way or the other. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disrupt you, but it seems we Germans are still a creative nation in military aspects. Besides the traditional branches Luftwaffe (airforce), Marine (navy), Heer (army) the Sanitätsdienst (ambulance) und the Streitkräftebasis were created as independent branches, but overlapping with the existing traditional division of branches in the German army. Russia could also pose some fun with lots of units in between military and police forces. Wandalstouring 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most practical way around that might be to create some sort of "non-standard branches" (the name being open to ideas) sub-category of Category:Military branches in which all of the more unusual separate branches could be collected. This would allow us to be flexible with regards to more unique national circumstances while at the same time having all the specific national services (e.g. Streitkräftebasis, United States Army, Royal Navy, etc.) at the same level of nesting relative the root category. Kirill Lokshin 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be desireble, keeping the branches as another delimitator while keeping the type as a main body, considering the broad ranges of troops that have existed.--Dryzen 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then we could add it and have six, rather than five, possible category types:

Category:Military units and formations
- Category:Military units and formations by country ("Military units and formations of Foo")
- Category:Military units and formations by war ("Military units and formations of the Foo War")
- Category:Military units and formations by era ("Fooish military units and formations")
- Category:Military units and formations by type ("Fooish military units and formations")
- Category:Military units and formations by size ("Foos")
- Category:Military units and formations by branch ("Military units and formations of bars" → "Military units and formations of the Fooish Bar", which is also a sub-category of "Military units and formations of Foo")

Does that work? (And is my notation comprehensible?) Kirill Lokshin 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. .--MCG 30 August 2006

~~Some additional eyes at Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Tartans? would be extremely helpful!~~ Kirill Lokshin 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: issue has been (more or less) amicably resolved. :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line citation

Do the in line citation numbers needs to be so large? They disrupt the line spacing within the article whenever they are used Raymond Palmer 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are smaller it is hard to read them. Perhaps you can use different citation techniques like adding a list of notes at the end of a paragraph in some cases. Wandalstouring 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an inline citation problem, which isn't specific to this project - but maybe someone here can sort out what is going wrong? The footnotes on Third Servile War seem to have "broken", with the first <ref></ref> pair being labeled 22, not 1, and linking to the 21st footnote. All following footnotes are labeled 22,23, etc., mismatching the notes and the citation numbers. Reverting to an earlier version doesn't seem to fix this. Any ideas what is going on? - Vedexent 08:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine on my computer. Maybe emptying cache and/or logging out then in would help... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - thank you. I'm guessing that the reversion did work - I just had a stale cache copy then. Thanks :) - Vedexent 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people reported that problem around the same time as you. I had it too. There is or was a glitch in the system somewhere. • Kevin (complaints?) 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had it today also but it worked itself out...weird.Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I had that same problem. Purging the cache did it for me though. Or maybe someone just fixed it on the other end. -- Миборо в ский 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colditz Castle/Oflag IV-C

For the last two months I have been writing articles about Stalags and Oflags and adding to existing ones.

In the Discussion of "Colditz Castle" on August 25 I added the following:

Within Category:World War II POW camps there is a growing body of articles about Oflags and Stalags. I propose to split this excellent article into its two logical parts:

   * Colditz Castle - description and history.
   * Oflag IV-C - during WW II

possibly there should be a third article about the escape attempts as suggested above.

There has been no response. As the subject article is included in the CD Project and the 0.5 Project I hesitate to make the changes, even though I think they are badly needed.

Syrenab 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Colditz Castle is renown for the stories of trying to escape during WWII. I think the structure is quite good. Wandalstouring 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think splitting the article might be a bad approach, as Colditz is notable primarily for being a POW camp. As a castle per se, its career was rather less illustrious, and probably not significant enough to need an article of its own. Given that ~80% of the existing article is about Oflag IV-C, you'd basically be turning a (somewhat longish) FA into a high-quality—but not FA-level—article on the POW camp, and a short, lower-quality article on the castle itself.

(As a practical matter, splitting an FA in half is not something to be undertaken on a whim; as neither of the resulting articles are likely to be as polished as the original, this tends to produce a (sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent) loss of quality.) Kirill Lokshin 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marocchinate

Has anyone actually read this article? Seems to be the work of a single Italian editor; there is a list of sources at the bottom, but no footnotes in the text and a few weasel words. Also stuff like "Goumiers were considered the diamond point of the French Army" seem to be badly translated into English. The article doesn't seem encyclopedic at all, even if one believes the stuff about male on male rape and bestiality. Other opinions?Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the film mentioned. I seems to be written by other editors and refers to the rape. But it is not clear where what information comes from and how reliable the sources are. Wandalstouring 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search was not particularly helpful, as most of the results are in Italian or French, neither of which I speak, so it was difficult to assess the reliability of any of them. The article itself obviously needs cleanup, but it really needs an editor who can read either or both of those languages. Carom 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also had problems with the matter on the Alphonse Juin article. The only references I found so far is in Douglas Porch The French Foreign Legion which says that "the Moroccans especially were often accused of being more dangerous to Italian civilians than to German soldiers." But the book is about the legion not the rest of the French force. Carl Logan 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to take the project banner off the talk page until a review can be made? I agree the article needs to be fact checked from the sources provided, if anyone can speak those languages. The guy has obviously put a lot of work into the article, but some of the claims defy belief without a solid source.Michael Dorosh^Talk 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to review it, but taking the banner off seems slightly petty; it's not like there aren't other dubious articles tagged with it. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if they are dubious, why tag them?Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bad articles are no less under our purview than the good ones are; indeed, the bad articles probably need more attention from us. Untagging them would be sort of pointless, no? The tags make no assertions of accuracy; and if somebody does decide to work on such articles, we would want to make it easier for them to find their way here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are likely to have lots of fun. The editor has been accused of extreme Italian nationalism, violating verifiability and unsourced claims on his talkpage without ever giving response there. Well, I asked him to help us. Wandalstouring 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is on our radar shouldn't we at least rate it as Start?Michael Dorosh^Talk 01:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well given my experience dealing with these kinds of people (ok, not a lot, but enough) it seems unlikely he will be cooperative. -- Миборо в ский 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the information seems to be unverifiable (at least through reliable sources), and the article is almost completely unformatted, I'm inclined to tag it as a stub, at least until someone produces confirmation of the claims made. Carom 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Giovanni Giove with the extreme Italian nationalism, I beg to differ, when I removed the Marocchinate section from Juin article and left a note on his talk page, he didn't revert it and answered polite on my talk page. I for one think we can debate and discuss with him. Carl Logan 07:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he gave response on my talkpage and is cooperative. I checked the sources: Bimberg, Edward L. The Moroccan Goums: Tribal Warriors in a Modern War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999 ISBN 0-313-30913-2 (152 pages) is in English and seems a decent sourced book on the whole topic. The covertext contradicts the essence of this article, because it says: "Unfortunately for the Goumiers, their military success did not prevent their fearsome reputation from taking its toll as exceptional numbers of Moroccans were executed—many without trial—for allegedly murdering, raping, and pillaging their way across the Italian countryside." Wandalstouring 12:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are located on one homepage: http://www.dalvolturnoacassino.it/ .Several of the articles there used as sources contain racial material. Other sources are from one one newspaper, "la stampa". The only profound work is the English source mentioned above and it contradicts the Italian sources essentially whether French military did react against these warcrimes. I could find no claim for mass rape of Italian men any of the sources, the Italian sources are mostly concerned about the rape of children. Further procedure? (No I am not going to research and rewrite this) Wandalstouring 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next procedure would be a dispute tag on the page, I believe, with your reasons on the Talk page.Michael Dorosh^Talk 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting two maps

Burma Road and Ledo Road would much be served with the addition of maps showing the route. Is there a World War II task force of MILHIST that can handle this request? Thanks! --Cyde Weys 01:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is: WP:WWII. No guarantees that any maps will be forthcoming quickly, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded this map of the lines of communication in that theater; the Ledo and Burma roads are at the far right, but are somewhat difficult to see, so somebody may want to do some cropping and highlighting of the map. Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is such a restriction existing?

"I know of no featured biography that lists all the letters its subject wrote (full length books, yes, but not short correspondence). The main article links to Joan of Arc facts and trivia twice: at the start of the legacy section and at the "See also" section. It would go against Wikipedia convention to add a list of section headings to a Wikilink."

From the Joan d'Arc peer review. Wandalstouring 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems pretty commonsense, actually; as she's not primarily known as a writer, devoting a substantial portion of the article to listing out everything she wrote would be inappropriate. (It might be different for articles about writers; but even those usually don't discuss letters, except where a collected edition of them has been published.) Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her letters are not without political meaning. She claims the divine right to tell people what to do. She wrote a letter to the Hussites and on the Great Schism. These were not minor issues, especially concerning her position in the French military. Well it is not undisputed, whether she wrote these letters or one of her close associates wrote them. Her letter to the Hussites (in English): http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_letter_march_23_1430.html Wandalstouring 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with the letter to the Hussites (I vaguely recall that I brought it up at some point when the article was originally going for FA). My point is that, while isolated letters may be mentioned as appropriate, it's unnecessary to provide an exhaustive list of everything she wrote, as letter-writing was not her primary role. Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I never suggested to make a list of her complete known correspondance. I think some letters should be reflected to better show her position and self-perception. Wandalstouring 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joan of Arc has taken several days already and is getting nowhere. It is very hard to remain polite. Wandalstouring 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the review page. Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King William's War campaign box

I'm currently rewriting the War of the Grand Alliance. I would like to see the North American actions of the war get their own campaign box called King William's War; the Irish campaigns of the War of the Grand Alliance, the Williamite war in Ireland, have been seperated into their own campaign box. If we are to seperate the war's theatres, Ireland, N.America and Europe, they should have their own campaign box. Does anyone agree/disagree? Raymond Palmer 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about campaigns within a campaign. We had this as a problem several posts earlier, I think it is solved by now. Wandalstouring 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will come up here, as the war isn't that complicated. I would suggest the following:

Have a separate campaignbox for each theater (America, Ireland, Continental Europe).
Create a fourth campaignbox linking the three theater articles (similar to, say, {{Campaignbox World War II}} or {{Campaignbox Punic Wars}} in setup).

Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where's 'setup'? Raymond Palmer 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, sorry if I was unclear; I just meant that the conceptual idea of linking to the high-level articles would be the same as in those campaignboxes. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]