Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list
News and announcements The May 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 Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal	Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Ernest J. King • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • First Qarmatian invasion of Egypt Good article reassessments Lockheed YF-22 • Galatian War
Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,426) • only work on referencing and citation (43,155) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,548) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,653) • work on structure (31,791) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,184) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,757) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (14) • assessment as lists (115) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (12) • assessment checklists completed (32) • task forces added (283) • attention to task force coverage (657)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. WikiChevrons
2. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
3. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. -- Миборовский 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. -- Миборовский 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Миборовский. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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. -- Миборовский 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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 -- Миборовский 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake: I stolecopied 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)

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)

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)

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

I'm at work right now, so can't help. -- Миборовский 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(decreasing indent)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

The anchor makes it look like a smiley face and that's all I can see now. It's pretty stupid, so nevermind, just pretend I'm not here. ...Stop looking at me like that! --ScreaminEagle 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Version of Grafikm's last draft with blue ribbon, transparent background, and crossed swords behind.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wow you go away from the discussion for a couple days and look what happedens. I like where the designs are going, but seeing i cant draw and my photoshop skill are what they used to be ill stay out of the design side. I am for the five-tiered WikiChevrons (plain/oak/swords/anchor/wings) then the special award badges with TF and contrib clasps. Well keep up the good work Hossen27 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, me too actually. I don't like the idea of a suspended thing for WikiChevrons. For the medal however, Kirill's design is very nice... :) I reckon we should take these two... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Anchor

I have no objections to that; it would probably be a good idea to wait for some more comments. In the meantime, a few thoughts on Grafikm's last chevron design (at right):

• As in the medal, removing the colored background seems to be a bit more natural.
• Maybe lengthen the anchor, so that the horizontal elements at the top & bottom are visible outside the chevron background.
• The swords should be visible through the gaps that result from the first step.
• All of the elements should be cleaned up to give an impression of an actual badge, rather than a painted design. At a minimum, the color of the chevrons might be made a bit darker and more metallic, and the swords can be recolored to a simple gold/silver scheme. The wings can be filled in with a lighter grey for a silver look as well.

All of these require actual image editing skills. Is anyone feeling up to it (as I'm really not) or do we need to find someone?

Finally, what kind of things should the medal be awarded for? The most obvious ideas are tenure (at what intervals?) and article contributions of some sort (but how do we measure this)? We should probably come up with something that won't require a lot of subjective judgement, so that we can hand them out fairly liberally. (And do we want service star-like clasps, horizontal bar clasps, or both?) Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do for the design already.
• For the status of Wikichevrons: It is awarded for great contributions to military history related article and for running the project itself. They're awarded like Legion of Honor, meaning you start with the plain chevrons, then if you get a second award you have chevrons with oak leaves and so on... The first tier is awarded by any user just like a barnstar is. The two next... well we'll have to define some criteria sure. I also suggest that the last two tiers should be awarded through a project vote.
• For the medal, I prefer star-like clasps since they're easier to display on a ribbon bar (which will be prolly be twice a wide as a standard one). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW...I'm blinded by the beauty! Great work Kiril and Graf!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First Draft

Making a subsection considering the size at wich this discussion has grown.

As Kirill Lokshin indicated what kind of things should the medal be awarded for? For a quick run down of what has been proposed so far:

Reasons

• Tenure

• Length of service (suggested time so far was 6 months)
• Office held/holding

• Contributions

Types:

"Achievement":ribboned medals

• 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.

"Distinction":Several levels with regalia

• The multi-grade WikiChevrons (with shiny stuff tacked on!) for actual accomplishments (barnstars, in other words). Somebody needs to draw up some designs, though.

Feel free to add anythign I might of missed in my rapide resume --Dryzen 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit more:

Award process:

"Achievement": awarded primarily at more-or-less objective points, can be given out as a routine matter.

"Distinction": first level remains a pure barnstar (anyone can award at will). The next four levels are open to discussion; it has been suggested that the top two levels be awarded by the consensus of the project as a whole. The middle two can also follow this model, or perhaps just be awardable via some number of editors endorsing (e.g. the award is given out once three members endorse a nomination.

Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I object giving an award for simply holding an office. Let's turn it an election whether a former office holder should be awarded. We could make this while voting on new ones. This way we make sure no sloth-bear gets an award and it expresses more feelings of gratitude.

The award process sounds OK. Wandalstouring 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief note to indicate that if anyone posts one of those horrid yellow things on either my user page or user talk page I will personally hunt them down and choke them. :-) Carry on. Michael Dorosh^Talk 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- Horrid yellow thing on your userpage? Are you talking about this? :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The horror, the horror... --Dryzen 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, looks like all our runner ups have gotten some barnstars for trying. Normally should the participant have been given office he should already hold some measure of respect from his peers, but I concure that gratitude is the basis for all awards.--Dryzen 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"crickets"--Dryzen 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, was somebody drawing up more designs? Or do we want to go ahead with something like what's up now? Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting to get some more input from our comarades, as this still needs some hammering out of the details. I seem to have knack for being the last to post in discussions... --Dryzen 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, anybody else have ideas for the images? :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of us are too busy working on page space to worry much about how fancy an award looks, or who gets one. I'm glad someone does care about it; I just don't have anything useful to say. IMHO, pats on the back are cheap and always a good idea. Folks endorsed with community trust, their reward is responsibility (sometimes for discussing awards). Enjoy! BusterD 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. ;-)

(It turns out that our chief award designer is on break; we'll probably see some more concrete progress here once he's back.) Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Second draft

Okay, it seems that the complicated discussion isn't going anywhere. So (without prejudice in regards to going with the full scheme if there's more interest in that), let me throw out a much simpler idea: a rudimentary two-level setup:

• 
  WikiChevrons (Distinguished Service Award, 2nd Class)
• 
  WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves (Distinguished Service Award, 1st Class)

1. WikiChevrons: as present, can be awarded by anyone for anything; encourage people to use this more liberally.
2. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves: to be awarded by the consensus of the project; will include an officially maintained list of recipients.

This has the advantage of being much simpler to implement, and doesn't require significant additional image work; but obviously loses a lot of the frills of the first draft. Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I know I've been neglecting my duties of designer and stuff, but I have some exams to prepare atm... I'll be back on Sept. 20, can we let it cook until than? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; that's fine with me. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It can wait. At worst this is a great fall back plan.--Dryzen 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any designs yet? Hossen27 13:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the stuff above is the latest we have; hopefully we'll have some more soon, though! Kirill Lokshin 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think simplicity is the best way to go, that's why the barnstars are so successful as the emphasis is on the fact that you have one rather than how ornate it is. These second drafts look very promising! --SGGH 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Recolorized version.

OK, the discussion (sorta) resumes. I've been moderately successful at my attempts though. For the time being: I colored the swords in gold and gray, so it gives this... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looks very nice! Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Draft

Okay, here we go again:

• 
  WikiChevrons
• 
  WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
• 
  WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords
• 
  WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords and Anchor
• 
  WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords, Anchor and Wings

Don't hit me please... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the final image not actually have an anchor? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you just happen to experience hallucinations Kirill :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys have done an amazing job, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here a little bit. Why are we wasting so much time with this? Doesn't seem to be important; it's just an award....over the internet, no less. This project is already phenomenal, but that doesn't mean it can't still be improved. And I doubt we're going to improve it by voting on which award looks better. This whole thing is just silly.....we're mature adults arguing about oaks and leaves on yellow circles.>/s>UberCryxic 23:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, we're neither arguing nor spending a great deal of time on this, I think. But, more generally: awards tend to be a good thing. Having more awards, and community-supported awards, is presumably also a good thing. If it takes a while to settle on a good design: so what? It's not like it's interfering with the project's more serious work. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

These awards are nice - they make us feel good for two minutes - but I don't see how they contribute anything significant. If you were to prove to me that they are somehow a motivational factor in the work that people do, then I might be more receptive to the idea. But right now these look like Christmas decorations. The award we have is already fine in that respect.UberCryxic 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is making people feel good not a motivational factor? (Particularly insofar as the variety of recent flare-ups have shown that we need all the motivational factors—and particularly all the ways of making people feel good about contributing—that we can get our hands on.)

As far as the designs looking like Christmas decorations: well, that may be a fair criticism, but it has more to do with the drawing itself than with the idea of having a multi-level award. We could certainly go for something less ornate—e.g. something like the two-level system that was proposed as a stop-gap measure above—but this would necessarily mean a simpler award system. Whether that's something to be preferred is open to discussion. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically who do you need to make "feel good"? I'd like a username or two. The very idea behind Wikipedia is that you devote your time for a higher purpose. I doubt anyone came here because people offered us awards. If the implication is that we need awards to keep people here, then that does not say much about their dedication. Or even if the implication is that we need awards to make people do more work or better work, then it still flounders. That's what A-class, GA, and FA are there for: they make us feel good about our work. At best awards are redundant. Our biggest motivation already is Wikipedia and what it stands for; awards can't overcome that. And if they can't, then they are unnecessary. And they are especially unnecessary when we assign the job to one of our coordinators, who should not have to bother with such trivialties.UberCryxic 00:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it's best if I disengage from this conversation. I can't see any good coming out of it. Although I think this is all crap, the designs really are nice. That I truly mean.UberCryxic 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Funny how real military arguments infiltrate the military history project. One that always goes back and forth. What good are ribbons and medals for soldiers? Your thank you comes on payday and anything else is fluff. You shouldn't need anymore motivation to do you job. Who is right? I would say both are and that is why this argument has been going for a few hundred years.--Looper5920 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, true enough.

As far as how we approach this in practice, everything seems entirely flexible at this point. The main ideas that seem to drop out of the lengthy discussions above are twofold:

• Having one or more "higher" levels of the award with more community-driven—and hence hopefully more prestigious—requirements. This could be done as simply as just having one extra level to be awarded by project consensus (although two might be more flexible); if people think the full 4/5 level system is too complicated, we can leave off some of the levels, as there's no requirement that all the potential designs be used.
• Having more frequent and liberal handing out of awards for just doing decent work over time, without necessarily having done something specific for which someone decides to give you an award. This could be done by introducing additional medals/clasps; alternately, we could just be much more liberal in using the first-level WikiChevrons.

None of this is required, of course; but I don't think there have been too many objections to having some sort of awards per se. It's just a matter of settling on something that will be useful for the project. Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Okay, I've made a crude attempt at starting a section on the project page. Additions to the list, as well as general comments and suggestions, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the inclusion of maps and diagrams? While an article could still be FAC without these, articles about wars and battles especially benefit from these. - Vedexent 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good point to include, given that I've seen a number of articles objected to on the basis of not having maps. Maybe a general point on how to illustrate the article would be worthwhile, too. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I like it. .--MCG 30 August 2006
• Looks good, anyone else?--Dryzen 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So, any other thoughts on this? Should we start putting together a list of category deletions and renamings that need to be done? Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll pipe in as categorization has been a pet peeve of mine since the day I created an account. I'm looking through this thread, and I'm still not quite clear where this is going. Is this to make a more inclusive categorization scheme, and if so, I worry that it might be, in some cases, pounding the square peg in the round whole (i.e. Lord Ameth's concern about ancient warriors), although I think it will definately improve upon what exists presently. My big concern is US military units, as this is what I know best, esp. US Army. Are we abandoning the current scheme (x branch units, with various unit sizes as subcategories), or maybe I should ask how far down the category tree are we going with this. I'm almost content with the US Army unit scheme (not quite yet though), and I don't want to mess with them too much until I'm sure there is a better way to do it. The categorization by war also might be troublesome - units as a whole don't always participate in a war - my battalion (2/22nd Infantry) didn't deploy to Desert Storm, but one company did as rear area defense. In a case like that, would it be listed as a unit in War X? Units can also stretch across eras, or even several eras. Do we put it in multiple categories?--Nobunaga24 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Broadly speaking:

• The current scheme is not being abandoned, but some changes in naming may occur. (I'm not sure what the current naming of US Army categories is, but there will be a lot of renaming of things like Category:Soviet divisions → Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union, and so forth.) The scheme is more intended as a way to standardize the naming of potential sub-categories than to massively change the entire structure, and such structural changes as do occur will be mostly at a very high level (the immediate sub-categories of Category:Military units and formations).
• Almost all the possible categorizations via this scheme are optional. We wouldn't require, for example, that you categorize every US Army unit by war, type, era, etc.; all we'll be doing is providing a guideline about how such categories should be named & nested if they are used. Which parts of the category tree are appropriate for particular countries, services, periods, and so forth would still be up to the editors working in that particular area.
• There would be a lot of "filler" categories that will be possible under the scheme (e.g. Category:Regiments in World War II by country) which would be intended only to group related article-containing categories (e.g. Category:Regiments of the United Kingdom in World War II). I'm assuming that the potential for some of these to actually be created wouldn't be a major problem?

Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's more a naming convention thing, then I'm all for it - loooong overdue. I have successfully changed most of the army unit names, and an expanded tree can be found in my sandbox User:Nobunaga24/Sandbox (although due for an update). Is this fairly in line with what we are aiming at?--Nobunaga24 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, assuming a bunch of name order flips (e.g. Category:United States Army units → Category:Units of the United States Army); we may want to create a few intermediate categories (e.g. Category:Units of the United States Army by size and Category:Units of the United States Army by type), but that'll probably be a gradual process that takes place after we get some standard naming conventions in place. The full scheme will allow for many more categories, obviously, but there's no requirement to create any of them unless they're actually useful for the units in question.

(On a side note: would we want to rename it to Category:Units and formations of the United States Army, or is everything considered a "unit"?) Kirill Lokshin 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposed way seems fine to me. Units and formations would be fine as far as I can tell. My concern, to be honest, was more with the structure than anything else. As it stands for the US military categories, I think equipment/weapon categories should be the next major hurdle to jump.--Nobunaga24 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. There's also the long-standing personnel category conventions to sort out; but the US ones are probably a bit cleaner in this regard than some of the European trees. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward with the new structure

Okay, I've written up a draft guideline that basically follows along with the last version above; comments would be very appreciated. If this structure is satisfactory, we can start putting together a list of categories that will need to be renamed. Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"By type: units with special roles (such as airborne, artillery, or armored units) can be placed under the appropriate sub-category of Category:Military units and formations by type;"

How many layers down do you see this going, or will it be controlled to a top level? For example, an infantry unit could be placed under Category:Infantry units and formations, but maybe it would fit into Category:Parachute infantry units and formations, Category:Mechanized infantry units and formations, Category:Naval infantry units and formations, or Category:Light infantry units and formations.

Multiple levels of functions add to possibilities. Does parachute artillery go into Category:Artillery units and formations, Category:Airborne units and formations, or Category:Airborne artillery units and formations?

MCG 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'd still follow the general principle of using only the most specific categories (e.g. a unit in Category:Mechanized infantry units and formations need not be added to Category:Infantry units and formations, as that would already be a parent of the first category). Other than that, though, I see no issue with having multiple "by type" labels on a unit, or with creating intersection categories within the "by type" tree (e.g. Category:Horse artillery units and formations would be the intersection of Category:Cavalry units and formations and Category:Artillery units and formations). Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then Category:Mechanized units and formations would not be outside the scope of top level categories? I wonder if this is not grouping units & formations more by mobility than by type. Same thoughts for Category:Airborne units and formations or Category:Foot units and formations. -- MCG 17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should interpret "type" quite broadly to avoid having dozens of very specialized top-level categories. I see no problems with having the "by type" tree combine types based on equipment ("Artillery units and formations"), mobility ("Airborne units and formations"), finances ("Mercenary units and formations"), or tasks ("Medical units and formations"). Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just wanted to confirm a common understanding of intent. -- MCG 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good, the exemples helped work over all the questions I had wen reading the first section. Normalisation of categorisation will greatly aid in cleaning up the myriade of categories out there will keping things simple, just what we want. As usual a great job Kirill Lokshin.--Dryzen 17:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the proposed category guidelines a bit, since I think the description of how intersection categories work will apply to more than just military units; I'd appreciate if someone could look it over and tell me if the result is too confusing. Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, as with the other sections' growth intersections will and do occure. The only improvement I can see for the moment would be some exemples for the other large categories:Personnel, Operations, etc. --Dryzen 14:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft renaming list

Since people seem content with the proposed guidelines (or at least aren't actively complaining!), we may be ready to actually get to the practical part of this: renaming categories. The following is a (tentative and extremely incomplete) list of changes that would need to be made to conform with the new naming guidelines; additions would be extremely welcome, as would any other comments or suggestions! Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Top-level

• Category:Types of military → delete
• Category:Individual military units → Category:Military units and formations
• Category:Military units by conflict → Category:Military units and formations by war
• Category:Military units by nationality → Category:Military units and formations by country
• Category:Lists of military units → Category:Lists of military units and formations
• Category:Military unit stubs → Category:Military unit and formation stubs (will need to go through WP:WSS?)

Subsidiary

• Category:Ancient military units → Category:Ancient military units and formations
• Category:Australian army corps → Category:Corps of Australia
• Category:Australian divisions → Category:Divisions of Australia
• Category:Australian military units → Category:Military units and formations of Australia
• Category:Australian regiments → Category:Regiments of Australia
• Category:British corps → Category:Corps of the United Kingdom
• Category:British divisions → Category:Divisions of the United Kingdom
• Category:British military units → Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom
• Category:British regiments → Category:Regiments of the United Kingdom
• Category:Canadian divisions → Category:Divisions of Canada
• Category:Canadian military units → Category:Military units and formations of Canada
• Category:Canadian regiments → Category:Regiments of Canada
• Category:Corps by conflict → Category:Corps by war
• Category:Corps by nationality → Category:Corps by country
• Category:Danish regiments → Category:Regiments of Denmark
• Category:Divisions by conflict → Category:Divisions by war
• Category:Divisions by nationality → Category:Divisions by country
• Category:French Corps → Category:Corps of France
• Category:French Regiments → Category:Regiments of France
• Category:German divisions → Category:Divisions of Germany
• Category:German military units → Category:Military units and formations of Germany
• Category:Medieval Armies → Category:Medieval military units and formations
• Category:Military units of France → Category:Military units and formations of France
• Category:Military units and formations of World War 1 → Category:Military units and formations of World War I
• Category:Military units and formations of World War 2 → Category:Military units and formations of World War II
• Category:Military units of the Italian Wars → Category:Military units and formations of the Italian Wars
• Category:Military units of the United States → Category:Military units and formations of the United States
• Category:New Zealand divisions → Category:Divisions of New Zealand
• Category:New Zealand military units → Category:Military units and formations of New Zealand
• Category:Norwegian regiments → Category:Regiments of Norway
• Category:Pakistani regiments → Category:Regiments of Pakistan
• Category:Polish corps → Category:Corps of Poland
• Category:Polish Air Force squadrons → Category:Squadrons of the Polish Air Force
• Category:Polish divisions → Category:Divisions of Poland
• Category:Polish military units → Category:Military units and formations of Poland
• Category:Polish regiments → Category:Regiments of Poland
• Category:Regiments by nationality → Category:Regiments by country
• Category:Republic of Singapore Air Force squadrons → Category:Squadrons of the Republic of Singapore Air Force
• Category:Russian military units → Category:Military units and formations of Russia
• Category:Scottish regiments → Category:Regiments of Scotland
• Category:South African divisions → Category:Divisions of South Africa
• Category:South African military units → Category:Military units and formations of South Africa
• Category:Soviet divisions → Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union
• Category:Soviet military units → Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union
• Category:Squadrons by nationality → Category:Squadrons by country
• Category:Swedish regiments → Category:Regiments of Sweden
• Category:United States Air Force squadrons → Category:Squadrons of the United States Air Force
• Category:United States Air Force units → Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force
• Category:United States Army units → Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army
• Category:United States Marine Corps armor battalions → Category:Armor battalions of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps artillery battalions → Category:Artillery battalions of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps battalions → Category:Battalions of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps divisions → Category:Divisions of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps infantry battalions → Category:Infantry battalions of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps logistics groups → Category:Logistics groups of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps Marine expeditionary units → Category:Marine expeditionary units of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States Marine Corps regiments → Category:Regiments of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:United States National Guard units → Category:Military units and formations of the United States National Guard
• Category:Units of the United States Marine Corps → Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps
• Category:World War I military units → Category:Military units and formations of World War I
• Category:World War II forces and units → Category:Military units and formations of World War II

Complicated sorting

• Category:Military unit types → split into Category:Military units and formations by type and Category:Military units and formations by size
• Category:Military units by type → split into Category:Military units and formations by type and Category:Military units and formations by size

Wars by country categories - Egypt & Cyprus

I've just created three sub-cats of Category:Wars by country which were conspicuously absent. They are Category:Wars of Cyprus, Category:Wars of Ancient Egypt, and Category:Wars of Egypt.

1. Can people please check my dates, that they are satisfactory as to what counts as "Ancient Egypt" and "Modern Egypt"? I'm no expert on the subject, and wasn't sure to what extent it would or would not be worthwhile to include Ptolemaic/Roman Egypt under "Ancient", or Ottoman and British Egypt under "Modern".
2. There is the issue of Category:Wars of Africa. I certainly see that there are not enough wars (thank god) in the modern history of most individual African nations to warrant their own separate categories, but where does this place Egypt? Right now it is under both "Wars of Africa" and "Wars by country", which is somewhat redundant, but at least grants it the same category rank as every other country. What do you all think? LordAmeth 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. You might want to split up Category:Battles of Egypt as well, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done all I'm going to do for now. In doing this, I came across the absence of categories for "Wars of Lebanon", "Wars of Jordan", and a few others, which I did not remedy. I have also not populated the Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.

I've created Category:Wars of Ancient Egypt to cover Ancient, Ptolemaic, and Roman/Byzantine Egypt, Category:Wars of Arab Egypt which covers Egypt under the Arab Empire (Islamic Conquests) and Ottoman Empire. This one could probably afford to be renamed, but I'm no expert in the field, and I simply do not have the energy or the inclination right now. Sorry. Also created Category:Wars of Egypt which covers British-controlled and independent Egypt, and the according Battle categories for all three. I may return to this project; hopefully some editors more inclined towards Middle Eastern history will notice these changes and jump on it. I'm gonna go back to writing about Kabuki actors and ukiyo-e painters. Anyone needs anything, please just give a holler. LordAmeth 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed 6th century to 639 the year of the Arab invasion. Time to populate the Wars and Battles of "Arab Egypt"? As I move through the Crusades and Byzantine articles should I tag where I find Egyptian envolvement? --Dryzen 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why not. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dryzen, for finishing what I started. I'm glad that someone with more interest and expertise and patience than myself has seen this through. :) LordAmeth 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You should take all the credit, I just added a few details and put in some content. Speaking of wich I added the Crusades in wich the Fatamids, Ayyubids and Mameluks participated in. This can be found in the Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The following Category:Battles of the Mamluk Sultanate should be merged with Category:Wars of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Battles should be merged with Wars? I'm not sure if that's right, but if you think so, go right ahead. LordAmeth 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I ment Category:battles of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looksl iek there the category:Battles of the Ayyubids too, since there capital was Cairo as well I'll send the battles towards Category:battles of Arab Egypt.--Dryzen 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Ptolomaic and Pharonic Egypt are quite distinct from each other; in my mind, Cleopatras and Ptolemies don't really count as "Ancient Egyptians", let alone 6th-century North African Christians! Also, I don't know the exact historical state naming conventions for Egypt, I think that having just plain "Egypt" meaning just the modern state, without references to historical states in the category description, is quite confusing, considering that various states/administrative units throughout the past three millennia are referred to as "Egypt". Also, modern Egypt is way Arab. UnDeadGoat 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

These clumpings are of course to have an easier set of categories to administer. The various states have always had an Egypt (or a synonymous term) for the delta region, while the upper parts have held many different names and fallen in many different states or as states themselves. I'm not sure of LordAmeth's complete view on this matter but I understood it as the territorial scope of the categories to involve forces and states originating from Egypt, comprising of the meaning of the term or synonyms at those times. As for modern Egypt it has a signifigantly diffrent culture than the Arab hegemony, while being muslem.--Dryzen 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not presume to know as much about Egyptian history as some of you do, but I was simply trying to find a convenient way to divvy up the wars & battles without creating too many subdivisions. I chose "Arab Egypt" because it represented the time that Egypt was part of the massive Arab Empire, and I have no idea which caliphate or sultanate that was under. I grouped Pharonic into Ptolemaic because Greek & Roman are just as "classical" and "ancient" as Pharonic Egypt, even if they do represent great changes for Egypt. In short, in essence, I was attempting to do for Egypt something comparable to what was done for Japan (my field of expertise) - definining periods to be called Ancient, Classical, Feudal, and Modern History. LordAmeth 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you all think is appropriate is perfectly fine with me - go ahead and discuss, and make changes. I'm just happy that I've initiated the creation of categorization which I thought was necessary, and that it attracted the right attention from those more knowledgable than myself. LordAmeth 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what's there, the divisions do make sense, although I do think a division between "Pharonic" and "Classical" would make a lot of sense, and I understand the difficulties with the whole "Arab" thing; however, to me it would make a lot more sense if Category:Wars of Egypt was moved to Category:Wars of Modern Egypt, and the original either be deprecated or be an umbrella for all historical periods. I looked at Japan, as well as Category:History of Egypt, and both looked too messy to use as examples. However, if "Modern Egypt" makes people squeamish, I think it would at least make sense for the text at the top of the category to refer people to other historical periods. UnDeadGoat 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We can just put in a see-also for the other periods (e.g. Category:Battles of the United Kingdom). Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an adaquate solution. Speaking of wich there is still the overlapping Mamluke and Ayyubid categories that fall into our new Arab grouping.--Dryzen 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We can probably merge them, then; no reason to make things more complicated than they need to be here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the merge signs.--Dryzen 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to {{WPMILHIST}} text

There's apparently some sort of mass attempt to shorten the various talk page header banners going on, and {{WPMILHIST}} seems to have caught someone's eye. I've tried to shorten the main blurb enough to satisfy them without losing too much of the meaning or useful links, but I'd appreciate it if someone could look over the new text and comment on whether it's satisfactory. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you only have one verb that people can do by clicking a link, I prefer "participate" to "join us" . . . UnDeadGoat 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I avoided "participate" was because one need not join the project to participate in editing the article and so forth; I wanted to avoid having claims of article ownership leveled against us. If people think that it's not a concern, though, we could easily change it. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would interpret "participate" as "do stuff through our project" rather than "do stuff with this article"; also, you technically don't need to join to look around, find something to do, etc. UnDeadGoat 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The icon is pretty poor; why not have something more instantly recognisable? Raymond Palmer 08:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been our icon for a long time, so there's some sentimental value attached; but, more practically, do you have any good ideas that would work at that small size? Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested on William Ward Burrows

We have a confusing situation with respect to two men named William Ward Burrows.

• First, there is the first official Commandant of the Marine Corps, LtCol William W. Burrows.
• We also have his son, Navy Lt. William Burrows, KIA in the war of 1812, for whom 3 Navy ships are named.

Both have the full name William Ward Burrows (AFAIK the son does not take the suffix Jr.), and the full name seems to be the most common for both; the distinction William W. vs. William Burrows seems to be artificial, the full name William Ward Burrows redirects to the son.

If no compelling evidence is offered that either men favored some form of the name William Ward Burrows, I propose we move them to William Ward Burrows (Marine), and William Ward Burrows (sailor), and make William Ward Burrows a disambig page. The latter should be done anyway, but I think the current naming scheme for the articles is awkward and artificial.--Mmx1 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to making a disambiguation page when there will only be two pages to chose from. I think it's better to pick whichever page is likely to be the most linked to or searched for, and make it the default page. Then put a disambiguation link on the top of the most popular article to the second most popular page. So, if the sailor is the most popular, keep him at "William Ward Burrows" (and all its variants), and name the other article "William Ward Burrows (Marine)". That way fewer than half of links to the Burrows will need to be piped. —Kevin 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's logical, but I was hoping to avoid the issue of which one gets the name; from my perspective I'm more familiar with the Marine father; but I don't see any compelling argument of which one is more popular or linked to. Both appear to be similarly popular within their own communities --Mmx1 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to have the same number articles that link to them. I'd pick the Marine as the default article, because as one of the relatively few Marine Commandants, he's perhaps a bit more high profile. Both of these article have few links and no talk page activity, so it seems unlikely that anyone will be bent out of shape by your choice. —Kevin 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this a showcase and we are likely to have the same problem a 100 times when working over Punic warfare (tons of Hannibals, Hasdrubals, Carthalos, Hamilcars, etc.). Lets make a more simple rule. In case of identical names, the first one appearing with this name gets the default link and the other ones get a link from it. So the father becomes the standard page, because he was born before his son. Wandalstouring 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That'll mean that we'll be shuffling articles around as ones for earlier people get written, though. Wouldn't the easier approach be to simply use the base name as a disambiguation page—despite having only two entries, in this case—and give both of them parentheses? Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting dilemma, in the interest of making a "rule" we should go with making disabiguation pages, this way it will clear the way for future problems of an equal nature. --Dryzen 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well since we've failed to uncover compelling arguments for the status quo, I'm putting in the disambig.--Mmx1 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Giant see-also templates

I'm wondering if there's a good way to deal with the various gigantic footer templates that are being used for a few wars. In particular:

• {{World War I}}
• {{World War II}}
• {{Cold War}}
• {{Arab-Israeli Conflict}}

These seem to have no real limit to their growth (there seem to be constant edit wars over which links should be added, though) and are inserted into a wide variety of articles. They are, essentially, gigantic and vague see-also sections; in many cases, the links from the article topic to some of the articles on the template are very tenuous.

Could we perhaps turn these into portals and replace them in articles with the appropriate {{portal}} link? Or does anyone have any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems appropriate. I cannot speak for the Arab-Israel conflict, but the other three are significant enough to have their own sub-portals of Portal:War. MCG 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also {{American Civil War Menu}}, which has been integrated into Portal:American Civil War but hasn't been replaced with a portal link on the articles yes. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion was made to replace the Cold War template with a portal, but unfortunately people didn't seem enthusiastic. Nonetheless, the portal was created. Rather than wholesale conversion of the template to the portal, now the effort is being undertaken to reduce the scope of the template step-by-step, transfering information over to categories, lists and the portal, with the resulat result being hopefully a more manageable template. First step is to remove persons from the template. That discussion is underway at Template talk:Cold War. Skeezix1000 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I suspect that anything short of a total replacement will just leave you to fight the same edit war a few weeks down the road. Maybe if you were to drastically trim the template—down to 10–20 very general links—and add {{portal}} directly into it, that might work. Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the edit wars have been over names, but point taken. The process is underway, and we'll see what happens. Skeezix1000 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this idea has died or not, but I think turning the two World War templates into portals would be a Good Thing, and would cut off all the heads of that particular hydra in one go. Carom 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for WWI and WWII. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, anybody volunteering to actually create the portals? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

{{RAF Squadron}}

Does anyone know of any problems that would prevent us from replacing this with {{Infobox Military Unit}}? Or is it okay to just fire up the AWB and convert these? Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no apparent reason to warrant retaining that template (though I could be myopic ;-)). May I suggest, however, adding a label garrison field, for alternatives such as "home stations", "depots", etc. SoLando (Talk) 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, added it as garrison-label=. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Airstrike

Ok, you DEFINATELY need to get some people over there. Any brainacs, historians, or military genious who know anything about air strikes? THERE MUST BE!!! Colonel Marksman 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Always with the all-caps and exclamation points. The building isn't burning down, so just be cool. There is a Military Aviation Task Force somewhere...you might think of putting a note on their talk page directly since they are the mostly likely candidates to contribute to such an article. --ScreaminEagle 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Three task force ideas

Okay, culling things out of some old discussions, three ideas for task forces that I think might be feasible:

Russian military history

Define this broadly, as with the German task force, to include anything that a reasonable editor might consider to be "Russian" or related to "Russian history". Certain things will probably overlap with other (potential) task forces, but as there doesn't seem to be a great influx of interest in, say, Ukranian military history, I think this won't be too unpleasant.

Latin American military history

Lumping all of these together—at least for the time being—is probably the most effective way to get a decent level of activity. There aren't too many articles in question, so this ought to be manageable.

Historiography

This is more questionable, as I don't know whether we have that many editors interested in the topic; but something dealing with historians and their works would be quite helpful. (Is this the best name, though? Perhaps simply "Historians" would work better?)

Any comments or suggestions—and particularly statements of interest in participating in any of these—are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I, for one, would contribute to historiography (historiography, or at least, the way in which history is recorded and interpreted is one of my minor research interests). I think "Historians and Historiography" would be most appropriate, as that would allow for the inclusion of not only historians and their work, but separate articls on any historiographical controversies that fall under our purview. Carom 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Russian one is long overdue. I assume that its statement of scope will make clear whether it encompasses the former USSR territory and the new states (best of luck with the phrasing). Is "Latin America" geographical or cultural, ie does it include/ exclude Falkland Islands/ Malvinas, Belize, Surinam, etc? Are West Indies included? Sorry if I've missed a relevant discussion. Folks at 137 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Presumably whatever is included in our Latin America article? I don't expect this one to be contentious, and given that many of these countries don't have a particularly large number of topics to cover, it may be best to just lump them together. Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I still say it should be called the Eurasia Task Force since that's what most professionals call the former USSR now. I may or may not join such a TF, I just thought I'd add my opinion yet again.--ScreaminEagle 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Historiography would be a nice idea, but is possible above our average editors level.

• There have been a little bit more wars in Latin America than in Anglo-Saxon America. Of course Jamaica, Haiti, Bahamas, Trinidad&Tobago, etc. can never be considered part of Latin America (and don't consider themselves), but Texas (Texas war of independence), California, Nevada and New Mexico are definetly within its scope as they were all former provinces of Mexico and Florida was also Spanish for some time. Furthermore they maintained a Latin American population (+immigrants from other states with native language English) and it is growing nowadays. In my opinion it is quite difficult to draw the line between the U.S. and Latin America without provoking disputes (of course most native English speaking editors and readers would never dream about considering part of the U.S. Latin America). I think forming this taskforce along a cultural border is a bad approach. I would prefer a geographic one, this creates less disputes. Especially considering the Carribean you will have lots of military operations to cover (many in the age of sail). So I suggest North (North Pole, Greenland, Canada, U.S.A., Mexico), South America (+Falkland) and Caribbean (+Bermuda). Wandalstouring 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• For the Russian taskforce we are likely to miss the editors. There is a Eastern Europe taskforce trying to cover this, but with little result. Wandalstouring 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, how about a "South and Central American" task force? Would that include the Carribean? I'm hesitant to go for two separate ones here simply because I doubt we have the editors. Conversely, we could just create a "South American" task force for now and leave the question of Central America, Mexico, and the Carribean for a later point (i.e. when editor interest develops). Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what the editors are interested in. Wandalstouring 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in a Russian task force for sure. However, I don't think it would make sense for it to not be "Russian/Soviet", or even "Russia/Former Soviet Union", because of the fact that basically all of the Soviet Union used to be tsarist Russia, and so on. Also, perhaps "Latin America and the Caribbean" might be a better scope than "Latin America"? Just thinking that the US and Canada already have task forces, and if there's too much stuff going on in the big one, it can get split up geographically/culturally/nationally as need be. Less arguing of semantics, more stuff gets done. UnDeadGoat 23:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem of separating "Latin America" from "Caribbean" is that the Spanish-speaking countries of the latter are usually considered part of the former. So I think that there should be some consideration for linking Caribbean to Central and South America. As to Mexico and Central America, where they are grouped often depends on the topic. For modern military history, Mexico isn't all that linked with Central America, whereas for ancient history, the two are inextricably linked.

Moreover, for modern military history, Central and South America have some common ties — most especially in the case of Panama, which switched from one grouping to the other within the 20th century. You also have to deal with the Cold War ties, which aren't typically applied to Mexico. Geographically, Mexico is part of North America, but cultural groupings usually tie it to the regions to its south. All worth considering, but don't know what the decision should be. Only know that Central America shouldn't be overlooked or casually assigned, nor should Caribbean. --Lawikitejana 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Took the questionable step of changing the indentations, as I found some were misleading in terms of visually connecting responses to the items to which they respond. If someone reverts that change, please take steps to preserve this paragraph.)

Hmm, is there some broad term (or combination of terms) that would apply to everything south of the US? Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen "Central and South America and the Caribbean" used before as sections in textbooks, I believe. Maybe 'The Southern Americas' being everything south (central + south) of North America? -- Xiliquiern 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For "Russian", the name Eurasian task force would probably cover the scope appropriately, although it may not be quite self-explanatory. Its vagueness is an asset, because where appropriate, it can and should cover a lot of things that are not exactly Russian nor in Russia, for example Scythian warfare, early East Slavic tribes, Varangian raids on Byzantium, Kievan Rus’, Halych-Volhynia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Cossacks before the Treaty of Pereyaslav, battles of the Russian Civil War outside of Russia, the West Ukrainian National Republic, the Warsaw Pact, Nagorno-Karabakh, modern Belarus and Ukraine, etc.

Please keep in mind that Soviet is not simply the equivalent of Russian during Soviet times either—for example, many important WWII battles took place in Soviet Ukraine and not in Russia, and were fought over by Soviet troops who included many Belarusians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 22:18 Z

It seems to be a fairly neat solution to the naming problem, then. The only real question is whether "Eurasian military history" will mean anything to people seeing it; is the terminology used widely enough that this won't be completely obscure? Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the distinctions between "Soviet" and "Russian"; however, "Eurasian" techincally includes all of Europe and Asia, and sice we are organizing task forces based on "most people who want to join this task force will be interested in a lot of stuff going on in here", I don't know that there will be a lot of people who are, for example, interested in conflicts of the Soviet Union only if they took place in Russia and involved only ethnic Russians, or in Ukranians and only Ukranians, but if they are, a taskforce with "Russian" and "Soviet" in the name, and maybe a bunch of other words to indicate inclusiveness, should have a place for all them. Besides which, what we think of as "Russian" and "non-Russian" today is largely a historical accident of the internal organization of the Soviet Union, most of which had been a part of tsarist Russia. I mean, who thinks of themselves as more Russian, Belorussians or Chechnyans? I don't think there's been much coherent reasoning as to why a "Russian and Soviet" task force can't be given a scope that includes former Soviet territories in the modern day, and ancient peoples in what is now Russia, and so on. UnDeadGoat 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, the real question, I suppose, is whether including Ukraine and Belarus (as those are the two more contentious areas in question) into a "Russian and Soviet military history" task force would be feasible without causing a huge fight to break out. Personally, I think we could manage it—whatever the current political situation, there is clearly a great deal of intertwined history there—but I'm not necessarily up to date on what the on-Wikipedia relations among editors in those fields are like. Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Task Force Proposal - Renaissance Military History

Before I begin, let me say that I'm rather new here, and that I am really suprised at the organization and strength of this specific project. I am not sure the proper procedure for recommending a task force, nor the great deal of work that must follow it assuming it is approved.

I've been looking through a number of the pages I regularly watch and have noticed that they do not fall into the medieval (c500 - c1500) task force, nor the napoleonic (c1792-1815) task force. As many of you are aware this missing 300 year time period (c1500-c1800) saw a great change not only in military tactics, but in weaponry, armour, organization, and leadership. I think that a task force should be created to more accurately group articles currently (mis)listed in Medieval task forces and to promote information on the importance of this 300 year time frame as a major transitional period towards the following eras of military history and modern warfare. --Xiliquiern 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite interested in putting something like this together, given that it's my primary area of interest; but I'm pretty sure the proper term is "Early Modern" rather than "Renaissance" (which is a narrower, and perhaps earlier, period). Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly alright with a name change. I suggested this one only because 'Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts' (my particular area of interest) organizations generally refer to the late 15th, 16th and early 17th century arms and armour as 'Renaissance'. The addition of the 18th century would, indeed, push the barrier of the term, so I think Early Modern would be very fitting. --Xiliquiern 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, their are a number of editors and articles that have worked on the conflicts and events of this periode. It would only be fitting to give them a taskforce. Renaissance is though too narrow and ambiguous a term, although the general populace will get an indication of the timeline involved with such a name as compaired to Early Modern wich could be confused with post-Napoleonic. Yet the term is more indicative of the 1500-1800 bracket than renaissance, wich is usualy the 16th century, with enlightement in the 17th, etc... If such a taskforce where ot be created you'll be able to count me in.--Dryzen 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the name goes, I think Early Modern would be most appropriate, as that is the terms generally used in the historical community to describe the period in question. Additionally, it is somewhat less Eurocentric than Renaissance although admittedly, the second term is often used in the historiography of other cultures as a frame of reference (less now than formerly, but used nonetheless). Carom 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me; new task force is available here. Most of it is done; the remaining paperwork should be finished shortly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's the name of the task force after 1815 - the industrial/Victorian era? Raymond Palmer 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That would depend, I suppose, on how late you wanted to run with it; "industrial warfare" probably goes up to about the end of WWII. I'm not sure that such a grouping would be particularly useful, since WWI and WWII already have their own task forces (and editors working on WWII don't usually have an interest in, say, the Crimean War, and vice versa). Maybe something running from 1815 to 1914 (grabbing all of the late colonial warfare, the development of modern firearms, etc.) would be useful; but I suspect that there isn't enough interest in the period among our current editor base (and I don't have a good name for it, either!) Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is early modern what would modern entail? our own article on the subject states from 1800-present. A rather massive scope for a task force. A 1815-1914 taskforce would seem enviable, the semantics leading to its naming is on the other hand quite treacherous. Industrial dosen't quite come out as intuative on the world scale. Revolutions is sujested in the Modern Europe article and fits the general tumoil of the time. The History of South America broke it down to Independance, while the History of the Middle East splits it in Ottoman era and European Domination History of Africa calls it European Exploration and Conquest...--Dryzen 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question: have all of our new TFs made their way onto other Projects' pages, such as the Biography/Military working group? I don't know how many others are cross-related like that, either. Just a thought.--ScreaminEagle 05:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the period 1789-1914 is often called "the long 19th century", although I agree with Dryzen that 1815-1914 is, militarily speaking, a little more useful. However, I think we should avoid creating artificial delineations for the sake of having every period of history covered by a dedicated task force. In this case, while 1815 is useful insofar as Europe is concerned, I'm not entirely sure that it represents anything significant for the rest of the world. While most of our period task forces have somewhat ambiguous start and end dates, which allows for some leeway in deciding where an article really belongs, it is somewhat problematic to define global task forces on specific years that are really only useful in Europe. Carom 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point as far as 1815 is concerned, but 1914 seems a date with a bit more of a world-wide significance (c.f. World War I). In any case, this seems a purely theoretical discussion at this point, as there doesn't appear to be interest in actually creating such a task force in practice. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the countries that were at war in 1914 were in Europe - the war really spread in 1915, and in some places fighting didn't begin until 1916 (and the US didn't declare war until 1917). And some parts of the world (mainly South America) were not particularly involved in the war, which makes the relevence of 1914 to their military history somewhat questionable. You're right, however, it's purely theoretical at this point, as I think editor interest is probably pretty low. Carom 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On a administrative point of vue I'm more inclined to organize taskforces along periode rather than nations/states. As ambiguous as they may be they are are dates that can be voted and arranged as the project perfers and leaving little to argu about. Unlike defining taksforces along national lines, such as states that have changed over the centuries or that are near completely modern designs, which have the potential for severe controversy. Forthe moment our arrange works and I hope that it contignues to do so. I'dd enjoy seeying a "Industrial" taskforce, yet cannot offer any expertise.--Dryzen 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that task forces aren't meant to "split up" the project, but rather to provide a gathering spot for editors interested in a particular topic. We should therefore try to keep the topics "natural" in the sense that they should try to provoke an almost-gut-reaction "Ooh, that's what I'm interested in" from visitors (as opposed to "Is this where the stuff I'm interested in goes? Let me go check the dates, do some research, etc.," which tends to be fairly ineffective as a recruitment tool). As a consequence, nations and particular conflicts are easier to work with (statements like "I'm interested in Japanese stuff" or "I'm interested in World War II" being fairly reasonable and common) than broad—especially artificially constructed—periods (how many people would really be likely to say "I'm interested in the period 1183–1702"?). Which is not to say that period-based task forces don't work; but the period needs to be coherent enough that an incoming editor might readily recognize it as something specific and meaningful. Kirill Lokshin 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I hadn't thought along those lines. In essence, although for the dates if your a zealous follower of Cromwell, you'd know right away that you want in on the 1183-1702. While the Jacobite enthusiast will definitly find this hard to work with as he falls in two taskforces, rather than the British Taskforce...--Dryzen 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations

I've recently been thinking about collaborations, and while the idea is great, I'm wondering about the execution. For example, right now it is Warrior. But as of this posting, only Kirill has done anything with the article. Military tactics, in two weeks, received 3 edits; after collaboration, it had barely any more information than when it started. I think part of the problem might be we vote, one is chosen, but then there is no plan for just how to improve the article. What I'm proposing is this: we vote, one is chosen, then a few days are spent developing a plan of action before anyone touches the page. What do we want to improve? Where is the article weak? Where is it strong? What are some good sources, internet and print? Preferably, the discussion should be on a high visibility page, for instance this one, because judging by the number of voters on the collaboration page, I don't think it would get as much exposure as it would here. I think an assistant coordinator should be assigned to the task of guiding the discussion, making decisions about the focus of the collaboration, etc etc. (and no, I'm not nominating myself or volunteering :-)). I'd be interested in other peoples' opinions on this. --Nobunaga24 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I think you're definitely right insofar as the collaboration has had extremely variable results. In some cases, this is probably due to a lack of publicity more than a lack of planning; the editors who might contribute simply aren't aware that a particular article has been chosen. Ideally, one (or more) assistant coordinator could engage in some publicity work for each selected article, inviting other projects and individual editors who might be able to contribute to do so. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Plublicity is dead on, myself have only ventured to that section of our project twice in the last 3 months. The same wsa true with assesment prior to our elections in which the process was refered to a number of times. Since I have been commenting on article on wich I have some knowledge or inclination of interest.--Dryzen 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree as well that publicity and prior coordination are key to keeping the Collaoration relevant and active. This page is probably the best place for it as well.--Looper5920 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a go at Warrior, but such a general topic is difficult to build up a coherent view of. I suspect Military tactics suffered from the same problem. Perhaps a collaboration on a specific, but important or famous, topic would acheive better results? -- Medains 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Remagen

Could someone please have a look at this article? It looks like a possible copyvio - see its talk page for details.

tia,

TeunSpaans 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sections look a little suspicious (and the information in question was added by an anonymous user with only one edit, which isn't particularly encouraging). Carom 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, some sections look quite suspiciously like a cut and paste from the site linked in the talk page. Worth tagging as a milhist article of interest due to the strategic importance of the bridge over the rhine? -- Medains 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai

I am worried that The Bridge on the River Kwai has been tagged as part of the Military History project, since the film and book are fictional, with only a brief section on why they are travesties of the truth. The true story is in Death Railway and Philip Toosey. JMcC 10:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• No worries at all. Agreed that the tag does not belong. I just removed it. --Looper5920 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Langley National Historic Site

Someone just added Fort Langley National Historic Site to this WikiProject. Does your project really include commercial fur trade forts within its scope? To my knowledge, it was never a military fort. Just checking. -- TheMightyQuill 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Just removed the tag.--Looper5920 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time?

Something that's been really, really bothering me lately here- on a personal level, as well as a general one- is the feeling that I'm increasingly wasting my time working on articles here, as all I get is criticism and rejection from people. The case in point is the article Webley Revolver, which recently failed an A-class peer review because two people objected based on the vague complaint there weren't enough cites. I'm getting really fed up with this "cite-mania" here- I've spent an inordinate amount of time researching, writing, and citing that particular article, and I just can't see what else needs to be cited there. Certainly, unless you're prepared to go and find the cites yourself- or at least tell me what cites you think are needed, I don't think you should be commenting or critiquing an article. I don't go and critique articles I'm not prepared to contribute to, and I'd expect the same courtesy from others here. This isn't meant to be a personal attack on anyone in particular, but I don't think anyone really understands the frustration of pouring all your energy and time into an article and then having someone with no real knowledge of the topic dismissing your work as irrelevant. It hurts, and I'm at my wits end. If you aren't prepared to help, then don't criticise someone else's work- at least, that's how I feel at the moment. --Commander Zulu 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there Commander Zulu. Your work is excellent and interesting. I didn’t review the article but don’t look on comments made by contributors as criticism – I know we use the words Object and Oppose – but almost all the reviewers make these comments to help the article progress to a higher level - adding citations is difficult if you don’t have the reference material that was used in the writing of the article. My early articles wont get anyway near A –Class (Let alone FA), not because they are inaccurate or badly written, but simply because they are under cited. If you made improvements, there’s nothing stopping you re-nominating it for A-Class – or put it through a peer review if it hasn’t had one. Raymond Palmer 14:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasting your time? You've written and continue to maintenence several of the finest articles in this content area, and consistently produce extremely effective content with extremely low negatives. That makes you a leader around here, an example to all of us who want to watch the wiki process work. I suspect with some patience and continued peer process many of your articles are GA and FA material. I not only use your articles for general reference, I actually often enjoy reading them. I wish more wikipedians would waste time the way you do. I should write so well. I salute you, Commander. BusterD 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In practical terms, just renominate the article and ask for people to be more specific if they want more citations upfront; it's intended that the author of the article participate in the review process, obviously. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, though. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that, actually; I've relisted the nomination here myself. If everyone could drop by and help with reviewing the article (and the other candidates, of course, but this one especially), it would be extremely appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't prepared to help, then don't criticise someone else's work I think we had it discussed among coordinators, how to establish constructive criticism. If providing criticism, you should always show or offer a solution. It is intended to help the original editor. At the moment this is more like an idea someone somehow mentioned somewhere with little practical relevance. Wandalstouring 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that A-class review was intended to be a simple yes/no, with reasons why in the case of an objection and that we were not supposed to give lengthy suggestions for improvement. If I am mistaken, that's no problem - I would just appreciate some claarification on this point so that I'm following the guidelines when reviewing. Carom 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the intent was that it not be exhaustive—in the sense that reviewers needn't list every single thing that could possibly be improved—but should still provide specific reasoning for objections. Just how detailed that reasoning is will vary on a case-by-case basis (e.g. "Object, no references" doesn't really need too much elaboration); ideally, once we burn through the backlog of procedural nominations, most will come from people who have some connection to the article, and can ask reviewers for clarification if needed.

(Somewhat more generally: keep in mind that this process is just starting off; I have no doubt that there are cases that we haven't considered yet.) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll keep that in mind in future. Carom 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, everyone... I know it probably seems like an over-reaction, but it is frustrating trying to get involved in articles, providing a list of cites as long as one's arm, and then being told there's still not enough cites! Personally, I don't think huge numbers of cites are necessary at all, as long as key reference works on the topic are listed at the end, but apparently I'm in the minority on that one... --Commander Zulu 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should not overdo it with footnotes. Put some of them at the end of a paragraph and it is enough. Critical statements (disputable claims for example) should be provided with clear references. On the other hand there is no other tool in wikipedia to assure reliability of content. Wandalstouring

That's my main point - Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, where articles are exhaustively edited to ensure reliability, and can only be edited by people with impeccable credentials. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and in order to make sure that articles are accurate, should cite whenever possible. At least, that's how I have come to feel from using Wikipedia. Carom 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. I am of the "school" that believes 1 factual claim = 1 reference. This means that you claim A happened you need a reference, If you claim A happened followed by B, because of C you need four references (A, B, C, and the causality), or one reference which says the same thing in its text (i.e. it also makes this "compound claim").

In other words, if you were to break down an article into symbolic logic, there has to be a reference for every atomic statement, or every atomic statement has to be contained in a compound statement which is itself referenced. (whew!).

This means that Wikipedia authors aren't really doing any original writing. What you're doing is digesting, presenting, and organizing data and claims from other sources. This can be creative in itself; working the article to be well organized, engaging, and easy to read is a skill all on its own - but we're not extending knowledge, simply consolidating it. If we want to extend it, we had better be off somewhere doing original research, getting it submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals and published (and then we can be sources for Wikipedia articles! :D ). - Vedexent 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in exhaustively referencing every. single. factual. statement made in a Wikipedia article... if you do have a copy of a referenced text, then you know whether or not the facts mentioned in the article are true or not. If you don't have a copy of the listed text, then adding a cite to the effect that the information for said claim can be found on page 452 of the 1993 Edition is somewhat pointless, since readers still have to take your word on it anyway- especially if the text in question is a "specialist" or "academic" work and not readily available at the local bookshop.
FWIW, I am a published gun writer and firearms historian, but I've always considered it extremely poor form to reference one's own work on Wikipedia- although I may have to re-think that view. ;-) --Commander Zulu 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say, if you are published, you should feel free to cite your own work - it's just as valid as anything anyone else as published. Unless you are prpounding a particular contentious or controversial viewpoint, using your own published work as a citation is, to my mind, perfectly acceptable. On the other count, I don't think that the obscurity of a particular work (or group of works) relieves us from the responsibility of citing our sources. Vedexent put the argument well, and I also agree with Kirill's comments below. Citations are critical to making Wikipedia reliable, regardless of whether or not the cited sources are easily accessible. Carom 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One point to keep in mind, though, is that when multiple sources are present, it's often difficult to determine which one certain statements are sourced to without explicit citations. Depending on the number of sources and the degree to which their usage in the article is interleaved, more footnotes may be needed in order to avoid confusion in this regard.

(This quite aside from all the other nice things one can do with footnotes, of course! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having been a participant several times in academic environments, I can say that the emphasis on numerous citations is something that won't go away. You can't cite too much, but you can too little. It's a pain in the you-know-what and time-consuming to cite numerous sources in an article. But, it's necessary. Cla68 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Commander Zulu I understand your frustration, but hope you continue your work, you are one of our finest editors. On citing, I also have taken part in academic forums where the byword is short and to the point, as Cla68 says so eloquently, you can never have too much citation, but you certainly can have too little. Because of the very nature of wikipedia, we need citation even more than print media which has the luxury of footnotes. old windy bear 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is that?

http://www.militaryhistorywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page a site with stubs as content, but in the official wikipedia layout and with several links to other language wikis in some stubs. Unfortunately it does appear in search engines if you run a request on topics like the third servile war. Wandalstouring 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be an (utterly inactive) wiki that somebody started. (The layout comes from the MediaWiki software rather than Wikipedia per se.) As far as I can tell, it has absolutely no connection to us. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But it gets quite a lot of hits with www.ask.com and it looks so much like wikipedia. Actually our article did not show up. Wandalstouring 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another clone-Wikipedia site. Found quite a few when looking for Moirae, our own articles comming back over and over on many sites...--Dryzen 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

100th Guards Rifle Division

This article was just created, and I don't know what to make of it (I'm not a military historian). I even googled it but found nothing. Can anyone clarify what country this division was from? Is it article worthy? If anyone can help this article and get it out of a confusing, vague mess, please do so. I don't want this just added to a "wikiproject military history to do list" and ignored; we need to get this article up to even stub quality before anything else is done. =) —EdGl 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The division was Soviet. Whether it is article worthy... I have no idea. Bukvoed 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Division-level units are probably notable by default; this article is in a pretty sorry state, though. Maybe Grafikm will know something about it. Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The same user created a bunch of messy sub-stub articles on WWII-era Soviet divisions within the last 24 hours or so (one of which, the 110th rifle divison, is over at AfD right now). They seem to check out as legitimate, but there is such a paucity of information available that I doubt they will ever be more than stubs. Cleanup is a must, though. Carom 05:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get much. There was a 100th Guards Airborne Division, but no idea if it's the same thing... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The only references I've been able to find are to two generals who commanded the unit in 1944-45, but direct references to 100th guards rifle division seem to be nonexistant. Carom 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you still provide them please? :) Thanks. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure - I'll put them in the article. The website www.generals.dk lists Ivan Makarenko (1945) and Vasilii Leshchinin (1944-45) as commanders of the division. Carom 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Woot, it's 100th Guards Airborne Division all right, the name and theater matches. There is nice web site on the division in Russian. I'm gonna put this one in my to do for cleanup. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I put some info in regarding the commanders, with links to the web page - feel free to clean my edits right out of the article if neccessary. Also, you might want to take a look at some of the other articles created by the same user - they all need cleanup, and I suspect you might be the one for the job. Carom 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added some flesh to the article :) (fortunately there is a website on the division) Feel free to go and correct my horrible English... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles with citation problems

It looks like there's now sufficient momentum on WP:FAR to systematically go through the old FAs that don't meet curent standards for citation. I think it'll be helpful for us to be somewhat ahead of the game here, as we have a tremendous number that will need to be looked at. Going from our showcase, the following FAs may have issues in this regard:

1. Abraham Lincoln - now in FARC
2. A. E. J. Collins
3. Algerian Civil War
4. Attack on Pearl Harbor
5. Attila the Hun - now in FAR
6. Battle of Alesia
7. Battle of Cannae
8. Battle of Hampton Roads
9. Battle of Inchon
10. Battle of Jutland
11. Battle of Leyte Gulf
12. Battle of Normandy
13. Battle of Warsaw (1920)
14. Battle of the Bulge
15. Battle of the Somme (1916)
16. Blitzkrieg
17. Charles I of England
18. Chemical warfare
19. Colditz Castle
20. Convair B-36
21. Cristero War
22. Eureka Stockade
23. First Battle of the Stronghold
24. First Crusade
25. Henry VIII of England
26. Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
27. Husein Gradaščević
28. Imperial Japanese Navy
29. Invasion of Poland (1939)
30. Iowa class battleship
31. Isaac Brock
32. James II of England
33. Kammerlader
34. Karl Dönitz
35. Krag-Jørgensen
36. Lord's Resistance Army
37. Louis XIV of France - currently on FAR
38. Manuel I Komnenos
39. Mark Antony
40. Michael Woodruff
41. Military history of Canada
42. Military history of France
43. Military history of Puerto Rico
44. Military history of the Soviet Union
45. Nuclear weapon
46. Operation Downfall
47. Poison gas in World War I
48. Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)
49. Polish-Soviet War
50. Richard O'Connor
51. S-mine
52. Second Crusade
53. Shrine of Remembrance
54. Sid McMath
55. Siege
56. Stanisław Koniecpolski
57. Swedish allotment system
58. Tank
59. Theodore Roosevelt
60. Trench warfare
61. U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program
62. USS Missouri (BB-63)
63. USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
64. Virtuti Militari
65. War elephant - now in FARC
66. War of the Spanish Succession
67. Warsaw Uprising
68. William III of England
69. William IV of the United Kingdom
70. William the Silent
71. Witold Pilecki
72. World War I
73. Władysław Sikorski
74. Yom Kippur War
75. Zeppelin

Some of these are admittedly borderline; while they don't have the same level of citation expected of newer articles, they're probably not so deficient as to attract the attention of FAR.

In many cases, the original nominators are no longer around, so we can't necessarily count on their help; but we'll need to try and come up with some way of improving these articles enough that they don't get de-featured. (In some cases, it may be that de-featuring them will turn out to be the only practical option, if suitable references can't be found through a reasonable effort; but that's something to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.) Thoughts on any of the above articles, and on how we should approach this in general, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin much of their history up to the time of their 1980s reactivation is an NPOV toned repeat of material found in the Dictonary of American Naval Fighting Ships. In the case of Missouri, the citations present need to be expanded on below that because three measly points is weak, even for an article largely text dumped from DANFS. This was a problem I tried hard to adress for Wisconsin, with what I thought at the time were excelent results, but having seen the article here I guess it was not enough. Since I feel strongly attached to both of the battleship articles I would ask that if you place those on FAR you do it sometime in December, since that is when I have the most available free time to handle issues brought up TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Henry VIII of England and William IV of the United Kingdom part of the Military History project? If so, why not all the other Kings and Queens of Britain? Most of whom are FA status and are entirley lacking in citation!Raymond Palmer 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Those two are included because they were military leaders directly (Henry fought in the Italian Wars, while William was a Royal Navy officer). This tends not to be the case for all (or even most?) monarchs, though. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Most (not all) kings of England prior to George III have a better claim to be classed as military leaders than William IV; including William I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry V, Henry VII, Richard I, Richard III, James II, William III and many others Raymond Palmer 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They can presumably be tagged with {{WPMILHIST}}, then; that should make us aware of their presence in the future. Are any of their biographies featured articles? Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that, actually; I've found the half-dozen or so articles in question, and will be tagging them shortly. Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added them to the list above now; hopefully I didn't miss anyone that had any significant role in military affairs. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a few articles on there that can work on this week when I'm off work, but I think the way to get the most help might be to divide them up by task force. Carom 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tank has changed substantially since it achieved FA status, and is no longer the lean, mean fighting machine it was then. If anything, it probably needs a major weight reduction by splitting off some sections and a merciless editorial polish—could be a good candidate for a collaboration. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 21:08 Z

It's something of a problem with a lot of articles on general topics (e.g. tank, siege, etc.); they're broad enough that a lot of passerby will drop in a few paragraphs here or there that never really get smoothed into the overall structure of the article. Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup: the little details grow into paragraphs and sections. Tank doesn't need more information, just an editorial butcher job and some references. If it can reach a current standard for an FA, then it should be easier to prevent the addition of uncited factoids. I've nominated it for collaboration. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 23:11 Z

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts

Hi folks, I thought I'd ask here to see if there was anyone interested in trying to resurrect this other project since some martial arts have a related military history... Any takers? -- Medains 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I edit heavily in the Historical European martial arts field, focusing mostly on European martial arts (and weaponry), most specifically the German school of swordsmanship and associated information. I'm not sure where this would be fitted, though. Are you suggesting a 'Martial Arts' Task Force within the Military History Project? -- Xiliquiern 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Some martial arts clearly have a military-related context; others really don't. I'm not sure to what extent pulling the not-really-military ones here would be a good idea. (On the one hand, we more-or-less do it for weaponry, as there's no separate "Civilian weapons" project. On the other hand, I'm guessing that there's a military association for a much greater proportion of weapons than of martial arts. Having said that, I'm not an expert on martial arts by any means; it would be very helpful if people with more experience could comment on the degree to which they may or may not be related to military history.) Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems now that this post was meant to see if anyone here was interested in also editing over at the Martial Arts Project. Is that correct? Sorry I did not originally draw that from the message - I thought you were trying to incorporate a martial arts section here. -- Xiliquiern 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My own knowledge of martial arts is only budding and this in itself is geared towards swordhandling. As for a possible absorbtion? Martial arts, as the name implies do and did spawn from military affairs. For an exemple: kenjutsu --> Kendo, Aikido and Jiujitsu-->judo, etc. both these japanese arts where of samurai curriculum and turned towards a sports evolution as this venerable order (I use the term loosely) disapeared. Merging and not merging are not our only options when confronting this project, we could always add it as a liason group.--Dryzen 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I wasn't suggesting a MA task force, just seeing if there was anyone whose joint interests might lead them to help out in getting the MA project rolling again. I'm aware that individual users are editting articles, but the project isn't really any kind of center for collaboration and article improvement; which is a problem IMHO - I'd just like to see the standards for MA articles brought up to the standards that are enjoyed here. -- Medains 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review requests

If anyone has some free time, there are a number of new requests that could use some more feedback! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are many articles "rushing" to A-class review that could stand to be run through the peer-review process first? Perhaps I'm just being grumpy :) However, I've found that feedback helps immeasurably in polishing an article, and much improves the chances of being approved for A-class status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, most of the listings are just procedural reviews of articles that had been tagged as "A-Class" before the review system was introduced; once we finish going through those (and there's only a handful left now), things will probably start coming in more through a full review process. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we're wrapping up the backlog now; assistance with reviewing the remaining handful of requests would be very appreciated! :-) Kirill Lokshin 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2 for 1 proposal

Here's an idea for people involved in the project, especially those of you trying to improve your articles by running them through review processes, or trying to get A-class standing, and the like: why not adopt a "2 for 1" rule?

Simply put, whenever you use a "resource" of the project, contribute back to it (at least) twice. Put your article up for peer review? Review two others! Put your article up for A-class review? Read, vote, and make constructive comments about two other candidates.

Not everyone's cup-of-tea, I'm sure, and there's no way to enforce this, I know - but I think it is a good "rule of thumb" for people to follow - and it would keep the project running quite nicely :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, very good principle to follow; even a handful of additional participants in the various "resources" could cause major improvement in terms of making them more useful for everyone. (The fact that it's impossible to enforce isn't a problem, in my opinion; we generally wouldn't want to do so even if we could, as that would defeat much of the point.) Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Having gone through the process these people would be a great asset as critiques/reviewers. I think its a respectable courtesy. It also helps participating in the reviews even before one writes an article or add to one such for A-, Fa- Class, seeying what other people have done. That way one can eliminate many of the smaller "quinks" prior to review, saving everyone time. --Dryzen 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attention requested on new Gulf War * categories

A new user, User:Vikrant Phadkay, has created the categories

• Category:Gulf War aircraft
• Category:Gulf War tanks
• Category:Gulf War ships
• Category:Gulf War armoured vehicles
• Category:Gulf War artillery

I am not familiar with the categorization scheme, but it appears to set a bad precedent of "equipment by Conflict" --Mmx1 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad precedent per se—we have similar categories for WWII, if I'm not mistaken—but I think it's an entirely useless categorization in any case, as the Gulf War was neither long enough nor significant enough in technological development for equipment used during it to be distinct from merely modern equipment of the period.

(Having said that, the equipment categories are a mess in general, so I can't really fault him for creating the categories; it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.) Kirill Lokshin 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military operations by war

I've added some material to the category guidelines here describing this new category and how it's meant to be used; a sanity check on the additions (as well as any other comments) would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading over this again: it strikes me that there's a certain amount of confusion caused by our use of "operations" to refer to both military activity in general (e.g. Category:Military operations of the United States) and specific "Operation Crimson Chicken"-type events (e.g. Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War). I wonder if we shouldn't try to reduce the ambiguity by adopting a different term for one of these. For example, we could have something like "actions" instead of "operations" for general military activity, which would result in a tree like:

• Category:Military actions
  • Category:Military actions of the United States
    • Category:Wars of the United States
      • Category:Vietnam War
        • Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War

In this case, "operation" would unambiguously refer only to the small battle/campaign-sized events, avoiding the strange nesting of operations→wars→operations that seems to occur now. Thoughts? Does this make any sense, or am I trying to make things too complicated? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if "military action" is a particularly intuitive classification, and I also don't think that the double-nesting of "operations" really presents any problems. Carom 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, "action" was just the first thing that came to mind; I'm sure there's a more appropriate term that could be used. But, as I said, I may very well be overthinking this; if other people don't see it as a problem, then there's no reason to make things more complicated by introducing additional terminology. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although, the more I look at it, the less contrived "military actions" appears. On the other hand, "action" is a term often used to refer to smaller-scale military happenings. I would say that we could probably leave the organisation 'as is' in that respect, and make changes if it became apparent that it was too confusing. Carom 04:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest military Confrontations (following the line of though with military events), mayhaps Designs(holding to plotting events), Directions, Edicts(similar to commands)? Using operations twice in a arboressance is destined for conflict, right away having boht is a bad sign as it creates unneeded ambiguity. Action could do it, yet as Carom pointed, action does seem to connote smaller military opperations.--Dryzen 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Confrontations" wouldn't really work because some of these are one-sided. Maybe something like "military activities" would be more suitable? Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Activities works for me. Carom 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, won't "activities" cause even more confusion by causing everything done by the military to get lumped into it (e.g. parades, training programs, etc.)? Bleh. I'm not sure if there's a neat answer here. Kirill Lokshin 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, activities, I see Kirill Lokshin's point and it doesm ake a lot of sens... Backtracking, what is the purpose of this category? From there we shoudl find a word that fits to this purpose. --Dryzen 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I have recently AfD'd many "Military hardware in Popular Culture" lists as crufty, unmaintainable lists of prop appearances in movies and games:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture

Riddley brings up a good point that these articles were often created as an escape valve for often-inserted pop-culture references that get inserted. Not a perfect solution, but one that keeps the main article clean.

We had a similar problem on aircraft articles where video game fans were prone to insertion of their favorite game (Ace Combat was an especially popular one). In response, the Wikiproject Aircraft discussed an inclusion guideline [1], and settled on a consensus that is now part of the Project guide to content: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. It has been fairly effective at staving off the more persistent editors.

I'd like to tackle this issue head-on and establish a similar policy for Pop culture references for all military hardware. I am leaving aside institutions, units, and events for the moment (e.g. US Coast Guard in popular culture. It is impossible to leave out such a section globally, Top Gun and F-14 is a canonical counterexample where its pop culture appearance is notable to the aircraft. Moreover, if there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the impact of a piece of hardware in popular culture, that would be an ideal prose addition. My intent is to exclude "The M16 was featured in the movie Bad Boys, where in the third act, Martin Lawrence picks it up off the floor to shoot the villian" entries. The current aircraft guide reads:

A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.

I propose for Wikiproject Military History:

Military Hardware A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless subject has a well-cited impact on popular culture, not simply a lengthy list of appearances. Any WWII film, for example, will use Mauser K98's and M1 Garand's as props; that is not especially noteworthy. The canonical example of a significant appearance would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat.

This section should be a prose discussion of the cultural significance of the subject, not a compendium of every trivial appearance. Claims of cultural relevance should be verifiable and cited from reliable sources. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.

Discuss and edit as necessary --Mmx1 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to put something like this in place, we should probably point out the need to have any popular culture sections take the form of actual prose (e.g. Webley Revolver or T-34), rather than bulleted lists of trivia. Having said that, I think the general idea is probably a good one. Kirill Lokshin 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also support such a guideline, provided Kirill's comments are incorporated. I think we might consider extending this idea to all articles that fall under this project, but one step at a time, perhaps? Carom 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree- there's a tendency to list every single trivial appearance of a piece of military hardware in popular culture, and it borders on irrelevancy at times- for example, if a movie is set during WWII, it's a given that the soldiers will be carrying Mauser K98s, Lee-Enfields, M1 Garands, etc, and so it's not really necessary to document every single appearance of a Mauser K98 in film, unless it's particularly notable. Where a piece of equipment's popular culture usage is noteworthy (such as the F-14s in Top Gun or the Martini-Henry rifles and Webley Revolvers in Zulu, then my vote is for prose rather than bullet-point or list format. --Commander Zulu 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the prose from the webley revolver, I've grown to enjoy its simplicity and effectiveness at decribing the portrayal of the weapon in popular culture. Like Carom, I'm incluned to support this as pan project in reponce to cases of numerous and overlapping trivia.--Dryzen 17:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the webley prose, but even that is given to sweeping generalizations which need to be sourced. Since the webley is a historical piece, I have no doubt it can be and I have seen these claims made in print. However, similar claims are made about many contemporary firearms "X is iconoic" in gross violation of WP:OR:

• "The M1911 Pistol has been featured in films, television shows, and popular culture so many times, that it has become a ubiquitous icon and the quintessential representation of a semiautomatic pistol."
• "The M203 is known to the common man as "the shorter, larger gun under the M16 and M4" and has been used to defeat "bigger or tougher foes" in most films, TV series and video games."
• "(The FAMAS is) appreciated for their short length, sturdy construction and very high rate of fire, as well as futuristic design."
• "As the M82 is considered one of the heaviest sniper rifles, it has become an iconic sniper weapon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, how about this wording:

"In popular culture" In articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.), "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any World War II film, for example, will use the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand as props, but their appearance there is not especially noteworthy; a good example of a significant appearance would be the F-14 Tomcat in Top Gun. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the cultural significance of the subject, which should be cited from reliable sources, rather than a mere compendium of every trivial appearance. Speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as it constitutes original research.

Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This wording is a little better, methinks, although it might be possible to address Mmx1's concern (which I think is important) a little more explicitly. Something like "Unsupported speculation about cultural significance alse constitutes original research and is discouraged." Carom 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Change the last sentence to "Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses should not be included, as it constitutes original research," maybe? Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That works.Carom 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Kirill's version with Carom's modification.--Mmx1 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oncwe again we acheive concesus! I concure, excellent production Kirill Lokshin.--Dryzen 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's the proper procedure to seek Project approval? A straw poll? I see this has been added to the Announcements; I am curious to hear other opinions. The wording as it stands now:

“ "In popular culture" In articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.), "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any World War II film, for example, will use the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand as props, but their appearance there is not especially noteworthy; a good example of a significant appearance would be the F-14 Tomcat in Top Gun. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the cultural significance of the subject, which should be cited from reliable sources, rather than a mere compendium of every trivial appearance. Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses should not be included, as it constitutes original research. ”

--Mmx1 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a rough consensus for that version, but it may be worthwhile to leave the issue open for another day or to so that anyone else who wishes to comment can do so. If nobody has any objections, we'll simply stick the thing on the project page and proceed from there. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This version has the same content, but a bit more concisely and highlights the salient points. Can we think of a better example than Top Gun? There must a more iconic association, along the lines of 007's PPK.

I removed the restriction to hardware articles: there are other examples, like the Colonel Bogey March in Bridge on the River Kwai, perhaps the Iron Cross, the German officer's monocle and duelling scar, etc. —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 17:21 Z

"In popular culture" sections should be avoided, unless the subject has a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, avoid:

• Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia).
• Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research).

This tends to be a problem in articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.), for example: the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, the F-14 Tomcat's prominent appearance in Top Gun may be considered significant.

Nice! I think removing the restriction to hardware is fine, given that this isn't something that should be blindly applied anyways; obviously, some topics will have a greater tendency towards trivia lists than others, but there's no need to try and enumerate all the possibilities here.

As far as better examples, I'm not entirely sure of what good ones might be. Obviously very iconic topics (e.g. Battle of Normandy) can have highly developed treatments of popular culture, but those might not be the best examples for the average article to compare to. One example that I'd like to give is the potential "In popular culture" section of MP-40, which would wind up being a discussion of how the gun is misconstrued in popular culture; but what's currently in the article is in a pretty sad state. Kirill Lokshin 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to link to one or more non-weapon examples. These are good models to follow, and aren't prone to trivia-itis. Some possibilities below (please add more). —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 18:22 Z

• Webley Revolver#Webley Revolvers in Popular Culture (excellent)
• T-34#Tank as a symbol (into the realm of conceptual art)
• Bridge on the River Kwai#Music (good example, although the article is about a movie, it does include a history section)
• Thompson submachine gun#Popular culture (showing good restraint)
• Scimitar#The scimitar in fiction and popular culture
• Iron Cross#Use in popular culture (not bad, but it's threatening to start using bullet points)
• F-14#F-14 in fiction and popular culture (currently just a short trivia list—not a great example)

I don't think we should go overboard with the examples - one or two should suffice.Carom 18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would link to a specific version of the page, e.g. like this(click on the history); so the links remain relevant. --Mmx1 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: just trying to find one or two of the best. But maybe we should have a concerted Pop-Culture Work Bee, and clean them all out. —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 18:47 Z

Updated the examples: —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 21:23 Z

"In popular culture" sections should be avoided, unless the subject has a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, avoid:

• Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia).
• Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research).

This tends to be a problem in articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.), for example: the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument certainly are notable.

This looks fine, and can probably be put up as a guideline in the near future. Are there any objections to this version? Kirill Lokshin 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections here . . . UnDeadGoat 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at Bernard_B._Fall

I was assessing the article, and it struck me that it is a quite good piece of prose - with very few alterations from the initial creation... wondering if it was a cut-and-paste from somewhere. The initial editor has a number of biographical articles under his belt, so I could be wrong - he could just be a good biography writer. Anyone able to check? -- Medains 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are the references? Wandalstouring 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible 'about the author' on any of his books. amazon list or a short biography from contemporary authors also amazon. Just struck me as a really good piece of prose for an uncited article. -- Medains 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone is up to a rewrite. He is too important, though relatively unknown, to the Vietnam War to be deleted as a copy-vio.--Nobunaga24 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA process and inline citations

Recently GA added a requirement for inline citations. This is now being contested and I thought I'd post a note here for people to comment. A straw poll is up for voting whether they should be required and using WP:CITE as the guideline for implementation, and there's a debate on the talk page of WP:CITE on what should or should not be cited. I invite your participation no matter what side of the debate you may fall on --plange 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, it's spreading! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally want to get involved with GA - I'd be more than happy to sort out an answer internally. Also, it seems that the disagreement over there centers on science articles, and I don't know if one criteria can necessarily be applied to all projects. Carom 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I've tried to move the argument over to WP:CITE since it's this guideline that is the sticking point, so if perhaps GA isn't something you're interested in, the questions on what not to cite on WP:CITE might be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by plange (talk • contribs)

Warfare by era

There's been some work done recently on extending the by-era categorization trees (e.g. the new Category:Battles by era). I notice, though, that Category:Warfare by period has a name that doesn't really match its children (or its purpose); would there be any objections to renaming it to Category:Warfare by era? Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Carom 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Support-Dryzen 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've listed it for renaming. Kirill Lokshin 08:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

General category principles

Since they seem to repeat throughout the category guidelines, I've split out the guidance on using the "most specific" categories and on categorizing entire sub-categories into the section on general principles and trimmed it from the specific battle & unit guidelines; hopefully this will reduce the redundancy and reduce the possibility of different trees being inconsistent in this regard. Any comments (as well as a sanity check on the new content) would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Categorizing entire sub-categories, if I understood its messare correctly, the term on should be replaced by above, to better indicate its position in the arborescence.As there is already a Military "activities" exemple, perhaps putting in a units or tacking a chance with personnel, to better present that this is a pan-category guideline.--Dryzen 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it to eliminate the in/on/above issue and added another units example. I've been avoiding personnel in these general examples primarily because we haven't really figured out how that category tree is supposed to look; once we go through with that, we can add them. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a paragraph to the section on most specific categories explaining that having muliple paths from a category to some ancestor is okay and giving an easy example; hopefully that will avoid some confusion down the line. Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Mirko Norac

Hello. I'm here to request some help with Mirko Norac article. I never interacted with WP:MILHIST before, so pardon me if I asked at wrong place. Anyway, the thing is that I spent more than 9 months on trying to write a sourced out article on a controversial Croatian general. It seems from comments on failed GA nominations that I'm quite close to making this article GA, but there are still some problems with the article, most important of which is NPOV. And now User:DavidWJohnson turned out and deleted a bunch of info from the article. Since I considered the article to be fairly NPOV before the "rewrite", of course I have some complaints about his actions, so I didn't just revert him since I just detest edit warring. But, I have brought out a bunch of complaints here: Talk:Mirko_Norac#Rewrite_of_this_article and I'd like to ask you guys to take a look at the article and comment on my complaints, because I feel that quality of this arcile has imensly detoriated after the rewrite. --Dijxtra 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conflict

List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons#Attack Squadrons uses links of the form "VA-X". But this is also an abbreviation used for Virginia state highways. Is there a fuller name that can be used, so that "VA-X" can be a disambiguation page? --NE2 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with an A-Class review

If we could have a few more people voice their opinions on this review, it'd be much appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for check

Hi all,

An anon IP, 219.78.51.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been changing figures in some WWII-related articles. On Eastern front battles, his additions were deliberately misleading, however I can't tell for other articles. Could someone familiar with Western-front battles look into his figures and revert them if needed?

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)