Electrical conductivity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background: lightsteelblue; width: 100%;"
|-
| style="width: 40px;" | [[Image:Gtk-go-down.svg|25px|Skip to Table of Contents]]
| ''[[#toc|Skip to Table of Contents]]''
|}
{{WPMILHIST Announcements|simple=yes}}
{{WPMILHIST Navigation}}<div style="float: right; width: 320px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">
<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right;" class="noprint">
<th align="center" valign="top">Archives:<br/>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive|Full list]]
</table>
{{shortcut|[[WT:MILHIST]]}}
</div>
== Non-"battle" combat operations ==
An issue that's come up a few times now: our current guidelines call for all combat operations to be placed in the "Battles involving X" categories, even if they're not referred to as "battles" (this for fairly obvious reasons: the definition of "battle" has become extremely vague in modern warfare). We've always sort of waved the terminology issue away here, but I wonder if it might not be better to approach it explicitly by making the category names more inclusive? We could rename the "Battles involving X" categories for ''modern'' states (i.e. those likely to have non-"battle" ops) to the form "Battles and combat operations involving X".
Thus:
* [[:Category:Battles involving Germany]] → [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Germany]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the United States]] → [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving the United States]]
* ...
but:
* [[:Category:Battles involving the Holy Roman Empire]] → [[:Category:Battles involving the Holy Roman Empire]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the Franks]] → [[:Category:Battles involving the Franks]]
Comments? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Sounds fine to me. I'm sure there is a great deal of confusion nowadays as to what constitutes a battle, as car bombings and aerial bombings, rocket attacks, and all sorts of other "combat operations" are undertaken that don't quite look like battles as we traditionally know them. Though, I am starting to think about trying to categorize "incidents" - things like the sinking of the [[USS Maine (ACR-1)|USS Maine]] and the [[RMS Lusitania]], the [[Namamugi Incident]], and the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989|Tiananmen Square Massacre]], which were not proper battles, but involved the use of violence, or led to war. Obviously, there can be a somewhat blurry line between acts of terrorism, diplomatic incidents, domestic incidents, and what does and doesn't count as a "military history" event to begin with. But, anyway, I'm thinking about it... Sorry to go off topic - your proposal here sounds fine to me. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Perhaps "Military operations involving ..." would be a better, broader and more generic phrasing? [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::We already have those (see [[:Category:Military operations by country]]), but they're a bit higher-level, since they include wars, battles, combat operations, non-combat operations, planned-but-canceled operations, and pretty much everything a country's military has done. (You can see what the full tree looks like at the moment at [[WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations]].) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That works for me - modern warfare really plays hell with the current categorization. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested, a preliminary list of the categories that would be eligible for the new naming:
* [[:Category:Battles involving Afghanistan]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Afghanistan]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Algeria]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Algeria]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Angola]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Angola]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Argentina]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Argentina]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Australia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Australia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Austria]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Austria]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Belgium]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Belgium]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Bolivia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Bolivia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Brazil]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Brazil]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Bulgaria]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Bulgaria]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Canada]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Canada]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Chile]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Chile]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving China]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving China]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Croatia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Croatia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Cuba]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Cuba]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Cyprus]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Cyprus]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Denmark]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Denmark]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Egypt]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Egypt]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Finland]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Finland]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving France]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving France]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Georgia (country)]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Georgia (country)]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Germany]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Germany]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Greece]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Greece]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Hezbollah]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Hezbollah]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Hungary]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Hungary]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving India]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving India]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Iran]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Iran]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Iraq]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Iraq]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Ireland]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Ireland]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Israel]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Israel]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Italy]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Italy]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Japan]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Japan]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Korea]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Korea]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Latvia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Latvia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Lebanon]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Lebanon]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Lithuania]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Lithuania]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Mexico]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Mexico]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Morocco]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Morocco]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Mozambique]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Mozambique]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Namibia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Namibia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the Netherlands]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving the Netherlands]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving New Zealand]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving New Zealand]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Nigeria]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Nigeria]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Norway]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Norway]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Pakistan]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Pakistan]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Paraguay]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Paraguay]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Peru]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Peru]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Poland]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Poland]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Portugal]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Portugal]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Romania]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Romania]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Russia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Russia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Saudi Arabia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Saudi Arabia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Serbia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Serbia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Slovenia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Slovenia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Somalia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Somalia]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving South Africa]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving South Africa]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the Soviet Union]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving the Soviet Union]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Spain]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Spain]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Sudan]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Sudan]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Syria]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Syria]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Thailand]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Thailand]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Turkey]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Turkey]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Ukraine]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Ukraine]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the United Kingdom]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving the United Kingdom]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving the United States]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving the United States]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Uruguay]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Uruguay]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Venezuela]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Venezuela]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Vietnam]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Vietnam]]
* [[:Category:Battles involving Yugoslavia]] to [[:Category:Battles and combat operations involving Yugoslavia]]
I've taken the rather primitive approach of selecting the categories for all countries that were around in the 20th century; this probably results in a few false positives because some of those countries may not actually have been militarily active. If anyone cares enough about the issue to go through and get rid of the ones that didn't actually ''have'' any combat operations in the last hundred years or so, please feel free! :-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:Some "military operations" are simply not-so-easily classified. Even so, I'd prefer to see:
:* Battles (e.g., [[Battle of Iwo Jima]], [[Battle of Waterloo]])
:* Campaigns (e.g. [[East African Campaign (World War II)]], [[Eastern Front (World War II)]], plus related categories [[:Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War II]])
:* Wars (e.g. [[Gulf War]], [[World War II]])
:* Military operations
:* Non-combat military operations
:* Covert operations
:* Peacekeeping operations --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::Let's see:
::* The battle/campaign split doesn't work with conflicts since WWI, since you get "battles" that would have been considered "campaigns" in previous conflicts (e.g. [[Battle of Normandy]], [[Battle of France]], [[Battle of Greece]], [[Battle of Gallipoli]], etc.). I'm not convinced that it's worthwhile to try and make such a subtle distinction at the level of categories.
::* Wars - [[:Category:Wars]]
::* Military operations - we ''do'' have a tree under [[:Category:Military operations]]; but this is a very high-level grouping for all military activity, not merely things which go by particular operational codenames, so it's mostly useful to push things down into more specific categories as much as possible.
::* Non-combat operations - [[:Category:Non-combat military operations]]
::* Covert and peacekeeping operations - not a bad idea; it may be worthwhile to create [[:Category:Covert military operations]] and [[:Category:Peacekeeping military operations]] under [[:Category:Military operations by type]].
::More generally, the overall category structure for a single country tends to look like this:
::* Military operations
::** Wars
::*** Battles & other combat operations
::** Non-combat operations
::** Canceled operations
::(The nesting of combat operations under wars is a curious point; it may be worthwhile unwrapping that, for clarity.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::On a related point: perhaps we ought to explicitly toss campaigns into the mix as well, by having, e.g. [[:Category:Battles and campaigns involving the Roman Empire]] and [[:Category:Battles, campaigns, and combat operations involving the United States]]? Or would this be overcomplicating things? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:A thought, should there be a category for ''non-state actors''? Since this change broadens out the category then it brings in issues like PIRA and the like?[[User:ALR|ALR]] 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::Well, they're currently in the "country" tree (c.f. [[:Category:Battles involving Hezbollah]]), mostly because the state/non-state line is very blurry in, say, medival warfare (e.g. [[:Category:Battles involving the Knights Hospitaller]], etc.). I'm not sure that trying to split the category is going to bring us any more clarity, and it'll just cause endless arguments over whether something is an actual state or not. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
=== A different idea ===
A somewhat different proposal, taking into account some of the thoughts above: rather than combining battles and other operations, we combine battles and campaigns (in other words, "traditional" conflicts), and make that a sub-category of something broader for all combat operations. In other words, we get something like this:
* Military operations involving France
** Combat operations involving France
*** Wars involving France
**** Battles and campaigns involving France
** Non-combat military operations involving France
** Canceled military operations involving France
Or, alternately, with battles moved out a level:
* Military operations involving France
** Combat operations involving France
*** Wars involving France
*** Battles and campaigns involving France
** Non-combat military operations involving France
** Canceled military operations involving France
Or, alternately, borrowing [[:Category:Military conflicts]]:
* Military operations involving France
** Military conflicts involving France
*** Wars involving France
*** Battles and campaigns involving France
** Non-combat military operations involving France
** Canceled military operations involving France
(But this is slightly more problematic in that someone will probably argue a distinction between "combat operations" and conflicts".)
Comments? Is this any better than the above? (Or does anyone have other ideas we could consider?) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:For me, the original proposal was good enough, but if it doesn't work for other editors, I prefer the first of these three. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::Heh. At this point, I'm just throwing ideas out for discussion; frankly, I'm not sure what we ought to be moving towards. ;-)
::Really, we have two somewhat distinct issues here:
::# How do we deal with ''small'' combat operations that aren't real "battles" (e.g. missile strikes, etc.)?
::# How do we deal with ''large'' combat operations that are more properly "campaigns" than individual "battles" (and how does this intersect with the unfortunate habit of calling campaigns "Battle of X")?
::Everything that I've been able to come up with so far has problems; if we change the category structure to resolve one of the issues, we make it impossible to accomodate the other one. If we could come up with a more-or-less usable way for deciding whether something was a "battle" or a "campaign", we could go with a more explicit structure, e.g.:
::* Military operations involving X
::** Wars involving X
::*** Military campaigns involving X
::*** Battles involving X
::*** Non-battle combat operations involving X
::** Non-combat military operations involving X
::** Canceled military operations involving X
::With an equivalent counterpart for wars, e.g.:
::* Military operations of the X War
::** Theaters of the X War
::** Campaigns of the X War
::** Battles of the X War
::** Non-battle combat operations of the X War
::** Non-combat operations of the X War
::** Canceled operations of the X War
::Which would allow us to avoid mass renamings entirely, and simply add in extra steps in the scheme for the (relatively few) countries & wars that require them. But it doesn't work if we can't make the battle/campaign distinction, since we're then forced to combine things into a "battle and campaign" form.
::(If anyone sees some clever way of solving this that I've missed, suggestions would be ''very'' appreciated.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::: How about "[[:Category:Military actions]]" for minor or limited-scale military operations, such as an airstrike or missile strike, insurgent, counterinsurgent or counterterrorism event, firefight or border clash, etc? We already have categories for campaigns, such as [[Saratoga campaign]] ([[:Category:Campaigns of the American Revolutionary War]]) vs. [[Battle of Saratoga]] ([[:Category:Battles of the American Revolutionary War]]). I have no idea why people want to mash-up the two distinct categories. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: The main reason, as I've said a number of times now, is that they're ''not'' distinct in modern warfare. Is the [[Battle of Normandy]] a battle or a campaign? How about the [[Battle of Gallipoli]]? (And does the answer change if I link to them as the [[Normandy campaign]] and the [[Gallipoli campaign]]?) At what level of scale does a modern "battle" stop being placed in the battle categories?
:::: As far as "Military actions" is concerned: wouldn't that be ambiguous with "Military operations"? I could see someone interpreting either of those as the top-level category for every military activity. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Few small-scale military actions are the result of named operations ("Overlord," "Crusader," "Desert Fox", etc., tend to be large-scale efforts). Many are accidental or incidental, or are otherwise isolated. If they were the result of a named operation, there is obviously the ability to list them as '''both''' military actions and military operations. I fail to see a crisis. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::What does whether the operation has a codename have to do with anything here? The question is whether someone browsing through the categories would be likely to correctly understand the distinction between "Military operations involving Germany" and "Military actions involving Germany". It's my contention that they would not; the names do not unambiguously describe the contents of the categories, since "military actions" is neither a technical term nor limited in usage to small-scale activity in historical literature. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually, why not use a simple descriptive name: "Small-scale combat operations" (or "Limited-scale combat operations", but that seems somehow more artificial)? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
=== Yet another idea ===
On further thought, maybe I'm just being stupid here. Why not just place large modern "battles" in both battle ''and'' campaign categories? Using the current setup, this would be somewhat bizarre, because we'd be violating the principle of placing articles into the most specific sub-categories possible; but that's only true if "battles" are considered to be a sub-category of "campaigns", and there's no reason why that really ''needs'' to be the case. In other words, if we have a non-nested setup:
* Military operations involving X
** Wars involving X
** Military campaigns involving X
** Battles involving X
** Non-battle combat operations involving X ← still need to figure out what to call this
** Non-combat military operations involving X
** Canceled military operations involving X
the problem basically goes away; we can place, say, [[Battle of Normandy]] in both [[:Category:Battles involving the United States]] and [[:Category:Military campaigns involving the United States]] without conflicting with any general categorization principles. It also becomes trivial to mirror this scheme for wars, since each war can now have campaign/battle/etc. sub-categories.
(Granted, this means that some articles will have a few more categories; but I doubt that's a serious issue, really.)
Comments? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. We can have both "battle" and "campaign" categories for certain large-scale battles, or articles where both the overall campaign and the resultant battle are both described in the same article. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 06:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Yep, that seems doable. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:So what does everyone think of this proposal? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::It's OK. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Anyone else? (Particularly anyone with objections?) Or should we start moving forward with implementing this (not that it's going to be ''that'' much work, at least initially)? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm tempted to say that before we change our categorization, we clean up our definitions. I'm a bit confused personally as to the criteria we use to define "battle", "campaign" and "war" (not even getting into "incidents"...). Is it just based on what the conflict in question is popularly called? Is it a recursive relationship where Y can contain Y (ie. sub-wars, sub-campaigns, sub-battles etc.)?
:::::Well, we're trying to avoid having it done by name (c.f. the issue with campaigns called "Battle of X"), as that's a major part of the problem. Beyond that, I'd say that we go by whatever the sources say; each of these categorizations is equivalent to a statement in the article ("X was a war...", "X was a campaign...", "X was a battle..."), so the question really boils down to what would justify such a statement in the text itself.
:::::(With the flat-tree proposed here, of course, we can tag a single event into multiple categories if needed. So if some historians refer to X as a battle and some as a campaign, we can add it to both categories.)
:::::As far as recursiveness goes, I would say yes. Wars can obviously "contain" sub-wars (e.g. the Seven Years War and French and Indian War), campaigns can contain sub-campaigns (very common), and large modern battles (which are really campaigns, but will likely wind up being double-categorized) can contain "sub-battles" (e.g. the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of Villers-Bocage). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::It would seem that we are advocating that a conflict in question can be more then one of the above, does this mean that some can be ''all'' of them? For example the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front]] of World War II has been called a battle ([[The Battle of Russia]], [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Battles-World-War-II/dp/6305248176]), campaign, and a war. Would it then go into all of the categories? [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::In theory (although I would be careful in terms of undue weight and so forth; here, for example, I don't think the Eastern-Front-as-a-battle view is widespread enough—do we, for example, call it a battle in the article?). Personally,I suspect that campaign+battle double-tagging will be somewhat common, but not the other types. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Good Lord, I think we're missing the obvious here: regardless of what certain Old World radio personalities like Churchill ''called them'' (and you'll find that these are almost completely his inventions), things like the 'Battle' of France and the 'Battle' of Greece, etc. '''are ''campaigns'''''. Sedan, Dunkirk, etc. were the ''battles.'' We're dealing with rhetorical simplification here, not malleable definitions. I've done a lot of reading on the American campaigns, and I never hear talk of a "Battle of Tunisia," "Battle of the Pacific," "Battle of Australia," or "Battle of Japan." In fact, I think all the confusion here warrants serious thought on whether the current names for these operations are acceptable. [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, many of these are the most common names used in historical literature; abandoning that as a baseline naming convention because the names aren't "correct" is going to be a huge can of worms. (Not to mention that the country-wide "battle" is just one issue here. Even something like the "Battle of the Somme" or the "Battle of Stalingrad" is really a "campaign" in the sense that it can be broken down into component "battles"; so I don't think we're going to be able to draw a very exact line separating the two.)
:::::::::I am, of course, open to other ideas here. (But, incidentally, I think that un-nesting "Battles involving X" from under "Wars involving X" should be done anyways, simply because it makes the sub-category relationships a lot neater for essentially no cost.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Certainly the accepted historical names should be respected; I'm not suggesting we move "Battle of Britain" to "German bombing campaign over the United Kingdom (1940)." But I suspect that in many cases "Battle" is used with a knowing wink and nod to Churchill's ghost and not as serious nomenclature, i.e. the writer might say "Battle of Greece" offhandedly, in an introduction, or to place the campaign in the historical context, but will invariably revert to "invasion," "campaign," or individual actions when describing its essentials. But I'm well aware, as you say, that in trying to rename these fights we're liable to start a new one. ("Battle of the Battle of France," or rather, "WPMILHIST invasion of the French Campaign (1940)".)
::::::::::In any event, I don't think the line between battle and campaign need necessarily be so blurred; many classical or neo-classical battles consisted of several engagements in different locations, much like the Somme or Stalingrad. In brief, I think your latest plan works fine: Let's categorize campaigns as campaigns, battles as battles, and rare ambiguities as both. After all, accuracy is fantastic, but do we really want to bury what should be simple categories under this much jargon: "Category:Battles and combat operations involving Denmark"? [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:So, leaving the exact scope of each level to further discussion (below), are there any objections to the general structure? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
=== Classification guidelines ===
Would it be possible then to start a separate discussion which attempts to resolve / classify the matter? A WPMILHIST set of accepted principles and guidelines for classifying battles, campaigns and wars? If we don't, my prediction is that we are going to end up with a snowball effect with a lot more multiple-entries then we might be currently anticipating.
For example, if the ''Battle of Normandy'' can be classified as a "Battle", why not the ''Western Desert Campaign'' (which I've seen referenced as ''Battle of the Desert''), or, more easily, the [[Battle of Tunisia]]? I believe the three are roughly comparable in scope and objectives and would defer in classification primarily by common-name, which is something I think we can all agree is not a good way for things to be categorized. If we start classifying these campaigns as battles, then other campaigns could follow (why the Battle of Normandy and not the Battle of France, why the Battle of France and not the 'Battle of Russia' etc.). Your other point brings this up quite nicely as well, someone could try to classify Stalingrad as a campaign (which many sources do) which could then lead to many other large, multiple-engagement battles (Kursk, Iwo Jima etc.) being also classified as such. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]]
:Well, assuming that the classification would be oriented primarily towards categorization, rather than an attempt to actually determine article content, I don't see a problem with our putting together some guidelines. If anyone has suggestions for a more-or-less straightforward way for people to decide which of the operational level categories (wars/campaigns/battles) an article should be placed in, please feel free to draft something up! :-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::As a starting point, a few possible general principles to follow:
::* A war is a conflict bounded by periods (however brief) during which the combatants are formally at peace with one another; it generally consists of multiple distinct component operations such as battles or campaigns.
::* A campaign is a coherent series of smaller operations, which may be other campaigns or individual battles.
::* A battle is a single, distinct military engagement generally limited to a narrow geographic scope—typically no larger than a single city—and typically characterized by the opposing forces encountering one another, engaging in some form of combat operations, and then separating.
::* Categorizing an article in more than one level should generally be avoided unless doing so substantially adds to a reader's understanding of the topic. For example, a single article about a war consisting of only one battle may be categorized as both.
::These are, obviously, quite sketchy; comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Semantics are a sketchy thing, like drinking [[Buckley]]'s it a pain to swallow but once your down it will clear up the system. In the MilHist casse, getting a set guidline for what we mean by the prevailent terminology should help reduce any misunderstanding over the terms. The end definition though should be a generally accepted concept of the word but rendered clear enough, even if that means cutting other viable understanding.
:::Basicly, if an Engagment means 20-200 combatants in close quarter combat (over simplification, I know but its an exemple bear with me, its the idea not the symbol that counts), then we stick to the communal definition even if Engagement could mean larger events or long ranger encounters in legal of literal circles.
:::Why bother with this? Becuse once people know our definitions they will know what we mean by them when used in the future. Forgoing any need for futher explinations every time it is used and eliminating possible conflicts of concept between editors. This is something most philosophers do to make sure that their words aren't misconstrued by the reader.
:::As to the namings and categorisation, we keep the names most used and known (as we've always done, no?) and categorize by name and by our definiton. In the end, doing what [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]]'s been proposing with his un-nested tree.
:::Where getting big and when things get big they enevitably hit bureaucracy. Although guidelines will be good, I think were still all close enough to understand one another, therefore this set of defintions if more for the un-initiated readers than the members themselves.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I would avoid categorizing by name. The Battle of France wasn't a "battle" per say, it was a campaign; also, as mentioned above, the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front]] has been called [[The Battle of Russia]]. If we dismiss "The Battle of Russia" as a battle, then we have to start justifying which names/sources we will use for categorization, and which we will reject; something I think will become very subjective very quickly. Additionally, we will end up with situations of confusion (how can the Battle of France be a battle and the Norwegian Campaign can't be one when the Battle of France was larger, had more troops, etc.) if we have multiple "or" criteria (name ''or'' characteristics etc.).
::::If I may, my preference would be to start off by getting a consensus on a few questions:
::::# What role, if any, should the name of an article bear on its categorization? Do other, also prominent, names (such as redirects) affect categorization, or only what the article is called?
::::# Are we going to include "Theatre" in our classifications as something with the same relative degree of mutually-exclusiveness as "Battle", "Campaign", and "War"; or will it be something decided independently?
::::# How do we define a sub-war? What differentiates a sub-war from a campaign or theatre?
::::# Can something be both a sub-war and a campaign or theatre?
::::# Is a participant who is only involved a sub-war(s) also categorized as being involved in the larger war, or only the sub-war? (ie. The Iroquois participation in only in the [[French and Indian War]] part of the [[Seven Year War]])
::::# How do we define battle, campaign and war?
::::# Can a battle have multiple different engagements?
::::#*If so, what separates a protracted multi-engagement battle from a campaign?
::::#*Can an event (article) be both a protracted multi-engagement battle and a campaign?
::::# Can an event be both a battle and a war?
::::I apologize if the questions seem a bit nit-picky, but I think it's important we have something quite specific to refer to for something as potentially grey as the categorization of military conflicts. I'll branch this off to a sub-page if it gets to large. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::My personal opinions are such:
::::# The name should have no bearing on categorization.
::::# I think Theatre should be categorized independently, as it refers only to the geographical area. Thus, one theatre might potentially have only one campaign and in that case they would (likely) not have separate articles.
::::# A sub-war should be differentiated from a campaign in that the sub-war should have at least one combatant who is not actively militarily involved in the larger conflict outside of their specific sub-war. In taking the French and Indian War (FIW) example above, from a Native American point of view, the FIW was a full war; from the view point of the European powers, it was just a campaign of their larger war. A sub-war loses this status if the conflict merges with the super war.
::::# This also answers the latter point, an event can be both a [sub] war and a campaign, but not both to the same party
::::# All participants involved in a sub-war would be listed both in the sub-war and super-war with "Wars involving [nation]". All parties involved in both the super-war and the sub-war would also have "Military campaigns involving [nation]" in the sub-war. The reason for both is that, from the campaign'ers point of view, all parties were in a campaign; from the war'ers point of view, all participants were in a war. A participant in the super-war but not the sub-war would, obviously, not be listed in the sub-war.
::::# I'm going to pretty much use Kirill's definitions above. The only changes I'd advocate is that, IMO, a campaign is a heavily interlinked set of battles/operations with a set goal (which can change) from the campaign initiator from the onset. This would remove something like Stalingrad as a campaign, as capturing the city wasn't a German goal in and of itself, it was a quagmire they got caught in on the way to their goal.
::::# Since I believe it's possible (though not frequent) that a campaign can have just one multi-engagement battle, an event could be both. I think this is what we see with something like [[Battle of Kursk|Kursk]].
::::# I don't think it's like that we'll see any thing where a war is a battle, as it would have to be a war with the one battle, and only the one battle (not even including all the preliminaries for the war itself such diplomacy etc.). This would work for ant colonies, but not really applicable here. The main reason I wanted this point was to prevent potential sticking points. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Let's see:
:::::# If we're going through all the trouble of coming up with guidelines here, I think we ought not to categorize only (or primarily) by name, since it's the inconsistency between the event's name and what it actually was that's at the root of the problem here.
:::::# Theatres are something of a special case, because they're relevant for only a few wars, very few in number, and generally quite well-defined by historians.
:::::# Okay, that seems sensible; but there are probably any number of curious edge cases here (e.g. [[Pacific War]] as a "sub-war" of WWII, etc.) where article editors will just need to go with whatever makes sense rather than relying on literal guidelines.
:::::# Okay.
:::::# That seems okay; basically, the "super-war" will be a "Wars involving X" for everyone, while the sub-war would be a "Campaigns involving X" for the broaders participants and a "Wars involving X" for the narrower ones.
:::::# Okay.
:::::# That seems fine.
:::::# There's a distinction between the event per se and the article covering it. There's certainly quite a few wars that only had one battle (worth writing about, anyways); the question is whether there would be two separate articles for the battle and the war (which could then be categorized separately), or a single combined article (which would presumably keep both sets of categories), and whether that combined article would be "X War" or "Battle of Y". So, for example, if we merged [[Third Punic War]] into [[Battle of Carthage (c.149 BC)]], the resulting article might have both sets of categories, but if the we merged them the other way, the battle categories could be removed. (This is, admittedly, not that common of a scenario; I'm not sure whether it's even worth noting it explicitly.)
:::::[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
== Diplomatic incidents ==
In light of the above discussion spurred by Kirill, I have come to think more seriously about better categorization of those events which, though not military in nature, have crucial effects upon diplomacy. There are already complex trees of categories for terrorism, state terrorism, assassinations, and the history of foreign relations of many separate countries, but I still think it may prove useful, and pertinent, to create, and populate a complex of categories for diplomatic incidents, and particularly for events which, even when not directly "military" or "diplomatic" in nature, have profound effects upon those spheres. (Some examples include the sinking of the [[RMS Lusitania]], the [[USS Maine (ACR-1)|USS Maine]], the assassination of [[Archduke Ferdinand]], the kidnapping of several Israeli soldiers last year, and the [[Namamugi Incident]], just to name a few.) Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? How might we best label these articles so as to indicate their roles in spurring greater diplomatic or military events? Thank you. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:Just to further explain a bit. [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents]] currently has a mere two articles in it - if people think this is a worthwhile category to maintain, it should definitely be populated. There is of course the issue that some things (like the Maine and the Lusitania) are ship articles, not event articles on the sinking, and thus perhaps do not belong in such a category, while things like the [[Marco Polo Bridge Incident]], the [[Mukden Incident]], and the Arrow Incident which spurred the [[Second Opium War]] are submerged into, or conflated with, the articles of the military events which they spurred, making these again difficult to categorize as the incidents themselves, and not as the battles/wars. Nothing comes without roadblocks. Nevertheless, what do people think? [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::Well, off the top of my head, there are two obvious possibilities:
::* [[:Category:Causes of war]] (which already contains a lot of the incident-that-caused-the-X-war type of thing).
::* A new [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents involving the military]] placed under [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents]] and [[:Category:Military diplomacy]].
::Both of these may be worthwhile. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd think it would be better to simply use the [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents]] category. and see [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents involving the military]] as unnecessary. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Is it worth distinguishing between incidents that were actually participated in by the military (e.g. incursions over borders, etc.) and purely diplomatic incidents (e.g. the various 18th century court intrigues)? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Referring to the above, this is where we might mark the article as a "Diplomatic incident" and a related "Military action." Alternatively, we could use the term "Military incident" instead of "Military action" if we want to speak about singular, small-scale or limited engagements which are sub-battle, sub-campaign, sub-war and sub-operational. I'm ambivalent between "Military action" or "Military incident," as both seem to apply to the same class of events. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::"Military action" seems needlessly ambiguous here; it could be applied to almost anything, up to and including an entire war. If we have to choose between the two, I'd go with "military incident"; but, really, wouldn't "Incident involving the military" make more sense for some of these (the ones that can't otherwise be categorized somewhere under [[:Category:Military operations]]? (For example, the sinking of the ''Maine'' wasn't an action on the military's part; but it did involve the military.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Consider how it would evolve: "Category:Military incidents involving X" could apply to countries, insurgent movements, or even units. I'd prefer to keep it "Military incidents" rather than "Incidents involving the military," which seems a needless inversion and a weak paradigm. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Well, looking at the size of the category, it may be that such sub-categorization is unnecessary in any case, regardless of the name we want to use. [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents]] is already going to be split by country, apparently; so we could likely get away just fine with simply categorizing individual aricles under the appropriate war/causes of war category in addition to that. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I didn't realize there was a [[:Category:Causes of war]]; good to know, and useful for this matter. I think perhaps the best thing to do for now would be to simply push for the population of [[:Category:Diplomatic incidents]]. The more I think about it, the more I realize that many incidents will be found within the context of other, more far-reaching articles (e.g. [[Foo-Bar foreign relations]]), and not in their own separate articles anyway. Thanks to [[User:Historian]] for starting this category - now hopefully we can get it populated. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== Request a second opinion ==
I'm not well up on Federal conflicts, but the articel on the [[Battle of Miami Beach]] looked so completely suspicious that I had to ask someone knowledgeable: Is that real?! Is there any such battle by that name? [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hoax, hoax, hoax. And not even a good one. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Might be worth checking the user's other contributions... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not even a good hoax :( I was looking forward to seeing something really strange, but all they've created is an infobox. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Checking htis user'S contribs I've foudn that most of the article created are all link to information gathered from the works of author [[John O'Shea]]. There is thus a strong chance that this hoax is a ficticious battle from one of this later's books (wich I've never read, anyone knowledgable on this ?). --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
== Help with {{User|Torb37}} ==
Can someone from this project take a look at the contributions of this user? S/he seems to be an enthusiastic creator and contributor to various WWII articles that would fall under this project's scope. However, s/he doesn't seem to be a native speaker of English, and seems to be either translating literally or using a machine-translator, with results that are basically gibberish. I also wonder whether the numerous lists that this user has created are necessary. I've tried contacting the user, but I don't think the user does much in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Torb37&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=3 interacting with other editors]. Thoughts? <small>[[User:BuddingJournalist|Budding]]</small>[[User_talk:BuddingJournalist|Journalist]] 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm. Some curious stuff here; a lot of the lists don't seem like they're particularly useful. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Yep. I also moved, for now, [[List of WWII foreign aircraft captured by German forces]] from "foreing aircraft". I'm not sure it's a notable entry, and it does not cite its source. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 06:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== A-Class review for [[Edwin Taylor Pollock]] now open ==
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edwin Taylor Pollock|A-Class review]] for [[Edwin Taylor Pollock]] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
== A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] now open ==
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Igloo White|A-Class review]] for [[Operation Igloo White]] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
== Foreign Maps ==
In my attempts to find images and maps for so many of my articles which are missing them, I've come across a number of pretty nice tactical maps of various battles, created by Japanese Wikipedians. Obviously, with enough work I could edit the images to translate them... but for now, what do people think about the inclusion of foreign-language maps in articles? Is it alright for now? Should it be avoided? etc. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:If the information on them is illustrative sufficient to show locations of troops, lines of advance or control without having to know the foreign language, then they are useful. Try to ensure you provide translations of key text if you can. If, however, even with a partial translation the user might be confused by the foreign language text, then we can wait for their full translation. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:I would wait for translated versions, personally. Maps are nice additions to articles about battles, but not so neccessary that we need to include those in a foreign language, particularly if there are users willing and able to translate. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::On a precedence level, having foreign maps is acceptable. Just look at the number of francophone maps to be found in our articles. As already mentionned If the reader can understand the point of them ap and disern knowledge from it then its, in my mind, ok, perferable though to have translations.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::You could also try to turn them into bilingual maps. This might be helpful for someone who wants to inform himself via Japanese sources. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I only use maps from a different language as a las option. [[User:Kyriakos|Kyriakos]] 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
== Consolidated review department ==
An idea that the coordinators have come up with: a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review|consolidated review department]] that would include peer reviews, A-Class reviews, and FACs/FARs, all transcluded onto a single page for easy watchlisting and browsing. The obvious benefit is a better centralization of activity (particularly to things like the FARs, which haven't traditionally been directly visible anywhere in project space); the potential drawbacks are a larger page size and a more complex layout.
Comments? Would this be a good approach? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think that the increased visibility of external peer reviews and FACs/FARs would be a huge benefit; however, I also think that transcluding everything on a single page may be unworkable, given the number of discussions that are usually going on at one time. It might be better to simply provide a list on the main review page - something like "the following articles are currently Featured Article Candidates," with a link to each discussion. On the other hand, it wouldn't be as bad as, say, AfD, in terms of length, so that may not be a real concern. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::The total size of the page is about 400K, and we have rather more FACs/FARs active than we usually do; for comparison, the actual [[WP:FAC]] page is upward of 900K. Given that people aren't complaining about the latter, I don't think the size will be a technical problem here, at the least. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking (at least, by the time I finished typing). At any rate, I think the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Initially I thought it perfect, but now I have an idea for a different approach: Just make a watchable list of review titles with links to the specific reviews. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's basically what {{tl|WPMILHIST Announcements}} does already; the question is whether the full-transcluded page offers additional benefits beyond the simple link-list. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::It sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::But the announcement page isn't that much suited for keeping on a watchlist. Improving this might be helpful.[[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Eh, why not? The only changes made directly to it are (a) changes to the list of currently open reviews and (b) occasional project-wide announcements; that seems exactly suited for watchlisting. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:So, anyone else have an opinion? Should we implement this and see how it works in practice, or are there outstanding concerns that haven't been considered yet? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::I already palced my opinion in the original discussion, basicly: might be too big/bulky, better visability will benifit the less participated review types, Annoucements already a generic rieview visibility. Pretty much what eveyrone's already had in there minds. I dont think there are any outstanding concerns to stop the implimention for a trial run. Might be harder to keep both the old pages and this new one running though. Should the consolidate page function to expectations what is to become of the old review pages?--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, for the purposes of the trial run, we can just redirect the old page to the new one and see how everyone reacts; if the reactions are positive, we just keep the redirect and go on, and if not, we simply revert the redirect and get the old structure back. (I'm not sure that a test with the old pages still fully active would really show anything, since people wouldn't have any reason to visit/try working with the new page.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Good point, I'dd completely forgotten about redirects. With this in mind I support the initiative for a trial run as you proposed. With the redirects in place we should get an excellent idea of the Cosolidated Reviews potential as well as the attention of all the reviewers who may not be up to date with this disscussion.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Okay, on that note: the new review department is open for business. Let's see how things go! :-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[List of military disasters]]==
[[List of military disasters]] has been listed on AfD. My suggestion is to move the article to 'military disaster' and use the current content to provide examples of such disasters. Given that there's a large literature on the topic of the causes and nature of military disasters I think that this is an article well worth keeping in some form. Thoughts? --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:I do think that an article on the general topic would be useful, but I'm not sure that the current list is going to be of any value as a foundation. The list currently uses an overly broad definition of "disaster", adn seems to conflate "military disasters" with "decisive defeats"; it may be easier to just start over, focusing on the more canonical examples covered in literature on the topic. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thats a tricky list since a decisive defeat wich became a disaster for one party certainly wans't a black day for the victors. The definition of Disaster will definitly have to be explained and carefully followed... --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Delete it. It is no more than a marketing site for two books. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
== A-Class review for [[Operation Igloo White]] needs attention ==
A few more editors are needed to complete the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Igloo White|A-Class review for Operation Igloo White]]; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:Still needs attention, if anyone has a bit of time to comment. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
==Poison gas in World War I FAR==
[[Poison gas in World War I]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Poison gas in World War I}}|here]]. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
==Any guidelines and infoboxes for armed forces?==
Certainly there are such guidelines and infoboxes for specific units and war factions, but I'm looking for similar advice for entire armed forces, including those of various states (e.g. the [[Roman Army]] as the army of the Roman Empire), mercenary units, and popular militias, as well as multiple armed forces. I've started a page on various [[Gothic armies]] and am at a loss... [[User:Jacob Haller|Jacob Haller]] 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:No, we don't have a strict guideline. The problem is rather that it is no good idea for premodern forces and even for today's armed forces it is quite difficult and controversial. You can take [[Military of the United States]] and [[British Armed Forces]] as examples, but the best option is probably to limit such infoboxes to dates when you have a primary source(ancient script) about the forces. Any modern approximations have to be sourced with '''more than one independent''' scientific source because these are highly controversial issues. I suggest to limit yourself to mentioning how many members they did possibly have in different battles at different times. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::Limiting myself to the most controversial issue? There is much more data on social origins, recruitment, weapons, etc. than on army sizes at specific battles. And why are articles on ancient or medieval militaries/military systems 'no good idea'? [[User:Jacob Haller|Jacob Haller]] 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm a bit puzzled. There is nowhere said that you should limit yourself in writing the article, but limit the infobox to sourced and specific statements. Pray tell me where you get the idea from that '''articles''' about medieval militaries are 'no good idea'. In the examples of infoboxes on militaries you could see that they are focused on giving the number of troops and that is until now the pupose of this specific type of infobox.
:::I doubt the military unit box is useful, but I may stand corrected.
:::Sure there is much material on social origins, recruitment, weapons, etc., but there is no urge to create an infobox from that stuff, even more so because infoboxes tend to have simplistic statements while the mentioned issues tend to need more exhaustive explanations. Wouldn't it be more convenient to write them in a well-structured article first? Afterwards we could discuss your ideas for infoboxes much better. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 19:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::::It's worth noting that the "boxes" that appear on some national military articles at the moment are simply raw HTML tables, not infobox templates. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yep. Basically, infoboxes are well-suited for presenting numbers and list of terms; but anything that can't be boiled down to a few words tends not to fit in with them so well. In general, the older the topic, the less likely it is that we have very specific data for it; filling in infoboxes with "Widely varying theories; see article text" for every field tends to be unhelpful. (Which is not to say that some of the field in an infobox designed for modern armies won't be useful for an ancient one; but many likely won't be, since there's really no way of designing around a true lack of historical information.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:On a practical level, {{tl|Infobox Military Unit}} has been adopted for national air forces fairly well, so you should be able to make decent use of it for national armies as well. (Feel free to drop a note on the template's talk page if you spot any obvious missing fields.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
== Image of a toy soldier in FA ==
[[Llywelyn the Great]] has an image of a toy soldier that seems to be intended to serve as a kind of portrait, however, this could nevertheless be [[Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears|Duke Igthorn]] with his shiny new shield. There has been so far agreement to ban trivia and I stick to enforcing it. Naturally an article about the marketing of Llywelyn the Great can be created, but this is not part of the biography as long as he himself was in no way involved with this toy line. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:That's not a toy soldier. It's the statue of Llywelyn in the town square of [[Conwy]], [[Wales]]. The statue looks to have been done in the 19th or perhaps early 20th Century to me, and apparently is painted on to make it look more life-like. See: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LlywelynFawr.jpg Image:LlywelynFawr.jpg], or [http://www.deganwy.conwy.sch.uk/pages/llew_fawr.htm Llywelyn Fawr (Llywelyn the Great)] for a picture of the statue in context of buildings and streetlights. You can also see [http://www.flickr.com/photos/31726387@N00/280118440/ Llywelyn Fawr (Llewelyn the Great)] for a shot from directly below. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::OK, my fault. But the image still looks like a action figure distributed by a fastfood company in addition to the kid's menu. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Heh. It's an interesting style for a statue, that's for sure! ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
== Request for Comment on World War II ==
Greetings! A [[WP:RFC|request for comment/discussion]] has been started on [[Talk:World War II#Request for Comment: Inclusion of Combatants and Commanders in Infobox|Talk:World War II]], in an attempt to help resolve an ongoing debate over the inclusion of specific countries in the [[World War II]] infobox. A wide range of input is sought to help bring fresh perspective to the debate, so, please, if you have interest or knowledge on World War II, please stop by, read the discussion, and provide your input. Thanks! ——[[User:Krellis|Krellis]] <small>([[User talk:Krellis|Talk]])</small> 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:Consensus does not appear to be reachable in the above so I have initiated a [[Talk:World_War_II#Vote_on_Allies.2FAxis_vs._Nationality_in_the_infobox|vote]]. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
== Merrimack vs Virginia ==
I’m being accused by the editor Carajou of participating in an [[Wikipedia talk:Edit war#Need a bit more than just resolution|edit war]] in the article [[Ironclad warship]] over trying to identify the Confederate ironclad [[CSS Virginia|CSS ''Virginia'']] by its historical name instead of long-popular but incorrect [[USS Merrimack|USS ''Merrimack'']]. I would appreciate knowledgeable editors from this project visiting article, reviewing in the edit history the key pair of changes I made on February 16 & 17 that he reverted, and the [[Talk:Ironclad warship#Merrimack vs Virginia|“debate” on the talk page]], and commenting on the issue neutrally and constructively. I myself will be out of town on business travel for most of the week, so I probably won’t be on Wikipedia until next weekend (or possibly later). Thanks, [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Commented on article's talk page. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::Me too. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you both for your contributions. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
== Apparently missing topics ==
I have collected a [[User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Military and Warfare|list of missing topics related to military and military history]]. I have tried to check if there are any similar articles but I'd appreciate if others could have a look at it. Thank you - [[User:Skysmith|Skysmith]] 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Long list, but I doubt it has any use. The more general you keep things and the more topics you lump together the less attention it will receive. People do write articles because they want to inform about a topic or people write long lists and store them in some dark corners of wikipedia. The best you could do is split this list and adress the requests directly to a specific editor with an interest in the topic or specific task forces within this project. However it can take years or forever until the issues get solved. Another criticism is that there are more and better search engines than google. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::Incidentally, all of those topics were copied into {{tl|WPMILHIST Announcements/Requested articles}} a few weeks ago. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Then you better update it, because I updated the page two days ago. As for the use of Google, I mainly used the standard <nowiki>{{search|}}</nowiki> - [[User:Skysmith|Skysmith]] 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Given the sheer numbers involved, there's probably no point in spending too much time on synchronization. Once we get a decent proportion done, then we can start looking for stragglers. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::It really shows dedication to keep such lists updated, although it would be more beneficent if you tried to provide these lists with specific material that can be used to write articles, a google search is not sufficient and hardly helps. Write 3-5 sentences what the topic is about or why the guy was notable, etc. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::If we had 3–5 sentences for each, we could presumably just produce stubs for them, no? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We could do that, but several stubs grouped in an article with redirects to these chapters might keep things more manageable. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Pending full articles we could bunch up these stubs in themed articles(Generals, Battles, etc..), somewhat like the editors did for [[List of minor Star Wars characters|Minor characters]]. That way all the stubs are in one place, easier to find and travel as well as reducing the amount of independant articles to keep an eye on pending devellepment. ?--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
== Mass moves to revert ==
Looks like we have someone who's enthusiastically renaming articles to include acronyms in the title; can somebody please go through [[Special:Contributions/Aeh4543]] and revert the things? Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Damn, I didn't notice he'd moved [[United States Army Special Operations Command]] twice so reverted his first move first; it needs an admin to fix. Really sorry. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, there are several in there that are chain moves through three or four different pages. If you can just list the ones that wind up needing an admin here, I can move those myself. Thanks for your help! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::It's possible to correct them, but it has to be done in order of moves (which is rather confusing at times). He edited the redirect for [[Military District of Washington (MDW)]], so I can't do that myself. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Another at [[United States Army Corps of Engineers]]. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Fixed all three. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::[[United States Army Acquisition Support Center]] and [[Installation Management Command]] have edited redirects, and I think [[U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Signal Command (Army) (NETCOM/9thSC(A))]] is empty and can be speedied along with its redirect [[United States Army Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Signal Command (Army) (NETCOM/9thSC(A))|here]]. I think that's all of them but I'll double-check (and am going slightly crazy with all the abbreviations). [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::[[Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC)]] is also empty, redirect is [[Surface Deployment and Distribution Command|here]]. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC) [[United States Army Acquisition Support Center]] is actually just an external link so speedy. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Okay, I think that's all of them (again!). [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yep, that looks like all of them now. Thanks a lot! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To prevent that happening again, if the redirects are even remotely likely to be plausible, leave the name plus acronym versions as edited redirects, so people can't do this sort of thing by mistake, unless they are an admin. I think that has been done anyway, but the talk of deleting redirects above got me confused a little bit. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 13:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::This brings something else to mind--something that's been bugging me for a while now. The article was changed from [[U.S. 3rd Infantry Regiment]] to [[3rd United States Infantry Regiment (TOG)]]. Is the (TOG) really necessary at the end there? Can I remove it without there being a hubbub over it? --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I think so; looking through their webpage, it seems that "The Old Guard" isn't technically part of the unit's official name. (And even if it ''is'', I'm sure somebody will point it out once you move the article. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
==WPMILHIST Template==
I would presume that we include submarines in the project, but it seems that a number of our sub articles are missing the {{[[Template:WPMILHIST|WPMILHIST]]}} template and all pertinant add-ons. I went ahead and added the template on all US ''Ohio, Los Angeles, Seawolf,'' and ''Virginia'' -class sub articles that didn't already have the temple, so they have been taken care of. I could handle the remainder of the sub articles myself, but that would be a long and tedious task; is there a chance we could get some more members to help, or maybe get a bot to do it? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:Our member bot-ops aren't particularly active at the moment, unfortunately; I've made some requests for outside bot help (we actually have a ''huge'' tagging backlog; see [[WP:MHAUTO]]), but no luck so far on actually getting anything to happen.
:If anyone has seen any tagging bots running recently, it'd be really helpful to know which ones are actually active right now. :-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:I just tagged about 120 submarine article and will try to continue to work on the rest, However that really didn't put a dent in it.Cheers — [[User:Wilsbadkarma|<font color="#25185d">'''Wils'''</font><font color="#bc8d00">'''Bad'''</font><font color="#25185d">'''Karma'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wilsbadkarma|<font color="#bb8900">'''Talk'''</font>]])</sup> 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the help. As they say, "Every little bit counts." [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
== Vote to solve deadlock ==
The discussion on who were the major allied powers of WWII has maintained its deadlock. However, the argumentation is rather France focused (assessing whether or not it was a major ally) instead of defining what were major participants in the conflict (Italy is as questionable as France). Like most deadlocks people have their opinions and are immune against arguments. To solve this issue, please read the [[Talk:World War II#France in the infobox|discussion]] and express your opinion in the [[Talk:World_War_II#Vote on who was a major ally (for lack of any progress in the argumentation)|vote]]. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:''Lafayette, me voici!'' [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::As mentioned above, a vote has been called, though I have initiated a [[Talk:World_War_II#Vote_on_Allies.2FAxis_vs._Nationality_in_the_infobox|second one]] after some irregularities in the first. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Imense! I voted on the new poll and will start from there.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
== Wikipe-tan ==
[[Image:Wikipe-tan in navy uniform.png|thumb|150px|right|[[Commodore]] [[WP:TAN|Wikipe-tan]] reporting for duty.]] Très amusant, n'est ce pas? ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:Heh. I've always wondered why this project wasn't personified by a Japanese schoolgirl... ; ) [[User:Carom|Carom]] 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/User WPMILHIST 2|Be afraid, be very afraid]]... ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Wow. Now I ''know'' you have too much time on your hands...[[User:Carom|Carom]] 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::She is one of the very few females in our group, treat her with respect. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::'''''SWEET!''''' When did this appear, and who made it? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Today, and the artist is the one and only [[User:Kasuga]] --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|C]]</sup> 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::Good night nurse, what ''is'' that? --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That is [[Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|Wikipe-tan]] who is an [[Moe anthropomorphism]], or a personification and in this case of us. I think we are dead fit. Excuse me thats very confusing, i think i'll have a cup of tea and go back to British military history. [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I love this to pieces! [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I've compiled the stuff at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach#Wikipe-tan]], incidentally. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I wonder if this qualifies as [[pin-up girl]] artwork? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Does that star on her shoulder make her Brigadier General [[Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|Wikipe-tan]]
:No, because it is a naval uniform. This would make her the quivalent of a Commodore in most of the world's Navy's, or a [[Rear Admiral]] (Lower Half) in the United States Navy. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, those things on her shoulder flaps are puzzle pieces. ;-) --[[User:129.241.126.121|129.241.126.121]] 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Does she qualify as a member of the Japanese task force? [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 10:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I vote for her as Virtual Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Maritime Warfare Task Force!! [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Second. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, amusing to say the least. Qualifies for a lot of things as a symbol. With [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] and [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]]'s inquiries, I can simply imagine her as the template for slew of task forced themed incarnations. Good art work--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
== Beware of number of troops ==
I'm just puffing some steam out here... People, be very careful when you add number of troops participating in a certain battle or a war, as it has turned out that many sources use different methods for counting troop strengths, generally minimizing own troop strength and maximizing enemy's. A common method is using divisional strength for one and all military strength to another. At WWII timeframe this gives a difference of factor 2.
A similar, although not as common, feature is to use word "casualty" in relaxed way. Sometimes it means only KIA, but sometimes in consists all KIA, WIA and MIA together. --[[User:Whiskey|Whiskey]] 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
: I agree, and the same applies for casualty figures which can sometimes be rather odd. It's probably not a bad idea to cite this kind of information. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::Yep; [[WP:MILHIST#CITE]] includes numerical data as one of the things that needs to be cited. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Numbers are usually even less reliable for ancient and medieval warfare. I'd suggest people read Delbrück (for an intro to issues and mothods, but not to regard his figures as final either) and possibly Engels (Donald) or Roth on logistics. [[User:Jacob Haller|Jacob Haller]] 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Troop figures are the main reason why I keep away from military history and why I hated working on [[Siege of Vienna]] (if you read the notes there you will sense an editor going quietly mad). [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
== Selected articles on portals ==
I don't quite recall who asked for this, but I've added functionality to {{tl|WPMILHIST}} to indicate that a tagged article is selected for use on one or more portals; this allows the banner to absorb templates like {{tl|USN Portal Selected}}.
The banner currently allows up to five portal selections to be indicated via a set of numbered parameters:
<pre>
{{WPMILHIST
...
|portal1-name=Italian Wars
|portal1-link=Selected event/3
...
}}
</pre>
(The link parameter may be left blank if there's no useful subpage to link to.)
Field testing, feedback, and (eventually) assistance with deprecating the existing templates would be appreciated. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Nice, but a couple of queries:
**Can we change the color of the icon that shows up in the banner? Right now, it's showing up directly underneath the B-class checklist, and as they're both grey, it's a little difficult to see.
**It doesn't seem to be showing up on [[Talk:Battle of the Somme]] - could this be something to do with the wikiproject banner template, or did I just input the code wrong?
:Otherwise, looks good. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::Re: color: sure, the backgrounds of the cells can be recolored; the grey is just something I went with in the absence of other ideas. Is there some particular color you'd like? We could potentially have different background colors for assessment/review, portal, collaboration, and attention-needed slots, to make them easier to distinguish.
::Re: Somme: yep, there was a typo in one of the field names.
::[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I was pretty sure I must have made a mistake, but I'm going cross-eyed (staring at a coumputer screen all day can do that to you, apparently). As far as the color is concerned, blue, perhaps? I'm not picky, personally - just something to distinguish each component within that part of the banner. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Ok, coded the colors as follows:
::::{| class="wikitable"
! Color !! Field type
|-
| style="background: darkred;" | || Attention needed
|-
| style="background: lightsteelblue;" | || Assessment & review
|-
| style="background: indigo;" | || Portals
|-
| style="background: darkgreen;" | || Collaboration
|}
::::Does that work? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Most excellent. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:That looks good. I hope it help clear up space on the battleship pages, since they are somewhat cluttered with banner templates. (PS: I was the one who inquired about it :) [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Everything looks good. Since my template seems to be the example used for what needs to be changed I feel I should mention that I have removed the {{tl|USN Portal Selected}} template from all articles that are featured on the US Navy Portal and switched everything over to to this.Cheers — [[User:Wilsbadkarma|<font color="#25185d">'''Wils'''</font><font color="#bc8d00">'''Bad'''</font><font color="#25185d">'''Karma'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Wilsbadkarma|<font color="#bb8900">'''Talk'''</font>]])</sup> 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
== Heads Up ==
An article members might want to patrol for a while - [[Global Guardian]]. Someone keeps slapping a merge template onto it, wanting to merge it into an article about military exercises on 9/11/2001. However, as an annual major exercise, it deserves its own article. A 9/11 mention in the artcle - no problem. A mention in the propsed merge artcle about Global Guardian, no problem. But I think a seperate article needs to be maintained on the exercise itself.--[[User:Nobunaga24|Nobunaga24]] 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
== Need map for Hammurabi's conquests ==
If anyone has a suggestion for where to find a map of Babylonian conquests under Hammurabi, I'd very much appreciate a note on my talk page. This is, by the way, an excellent wikiproject. You all are doing great work. [[User:Mocko13|Mocko13]] 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:Not sure that there's any good source for something like this; given the scarcity of information, most maps of the period tend to look something like blobs ("Sargon's Empire was somewhere around here..."). Van De Mieroop's ''History of the Ancient Near East'' has a map of the general situation early in the second millenium (but it's blob-like, and doesn't indicate anything specific to Hammurabi). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::(German)''Putzger Historischer Weltatlas'' page 4 (ISBN 3-464-00176-8) has a map of Hammurabi's empire at it's biggest extent. You can find out the conquest if you know the size of the territory he started with ;) For more information on maps check our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Images_and media|resources]]. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Compare [http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/geography/explore/mesopot.html Mesopotamia c. 1800 BC] to [http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/geography/explore/babylon.html Babylon c. 1750 BC] to see the consolidation of Babylonia under Hammurabi. He added the territory of the Isin, Eshnunna, Larsa, and souther Amorite nations. Also note the ancient coastline was far further upriver; it has silted up dramatically in the past 4,000–5,000 years. Ur used to be far closer to the Persian Gulf. While these maps are basic starting points, you will likely find more information in a thorough examination of sources. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::::[http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/hammmap.html Another map], showing Babylonian control going as far north as Harran and Nineveh. Your mileage may vary. As I said, read through the sources and compare. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::The last one corresponds to the Putzger map I mentioned earlier. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[Nagorno-Karabakh War]] reaches FA==
Congrats to those who helped create the article, and my thanks to those who helped review it. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
==Move CF Commands==
Unless strenuously anyone here objects, I'm requesting the following moves:
* [[Canadian Forces Land Force Command]] → [[Land Force Command (Canada)]]
* [[Canadian Forces Maritime Command]] → [[Maritime Command (Canada)]]
* [[Canadian Forces Air Command]] → [[Air Command (Canada)]]
<s>In each case, the latter name redirects to the former.</s> The former are ''not'' the official names of the commands; I have no idea why the "Canadian Forces" prefix was added (for example, [[Air Mobility Command]] is not at [[United States Air Force Air Mobility Command]]). Outside of Wikipedia or its mirror sites (or sites that seem to have gotten their info from same), I can't find reference to these full monikers -- and definitely not on the DND sites.
Just letting y'all know, as a courtesy. Cheers. --[[User:SigPig|<span style="color:white; background-color:dimgray">'''Sig'''</span><span style="color:white; background-color:midnightblue">'''Pig '''</span>]]|<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:SigPig|SEND - OVER]]</font></sup> 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:Some (all?) of them might need a "(Canada)" stuck onto the end; I suspect that several countries have an "Air Command". [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::Is a disambig needed yet, given that there are no other articles under any of these titles? I tho't disambig generally was not needed until there was actually a second item to confuse. --[[User:SigPig|<span style="color:white; background-color:dimgray">'''Sig'''</span><span style="color:white; background-color:midnightblue">'''Pig '''</span>]]|<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:SigPig|SEND - OVER]]</font></sup> 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, it's normal to disambiguate in cases where another article is ''expected'' to be created, but hasn't been yet; and [[WP:MILHIST#UNITNAME]] recommends preemptive disambiguation for names that are likely to be used by multiple countries (due to militaries being quite uncreative with naming, mostly). That's really more oriented towards simple numerical designations (e.g. "12th Infantry Division"), but I think it applies equally to simple type designations.
:::On a more practical level, Singapore had a "Maritime Command", Fiji and Estonia? have a "Land Force Command"; "Air Command" is widespread as a unit designation (e.g. "12th Air Command"), but I haven't found any non-Canadian examples of the term appearing alone. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::Disregard my last. There appears to be an LFC in NZ and Fiji, a MARCOM in Oz (as well as being the former name of the Rep. Singapore Navy and a Danish Navy command in Greenland), and Air Command is also in Oz. I have amended my proposal above. --[[User:SigPig|<span style="color:white; background-color:dimgray">'''Sig'''</span><span style="color:white; background-color:midnightblue">'''Pig '''</span>]]|<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:SigPig|SEND - OVER]]</font></sup> 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, I was ceding the point as you made your edit. Ironic tho' that Air Command which seems more ubiquitous, may actually be unique in Canada's case; Air Command in Aus is [[RAAF Air Command]]. I'm willing to disambig the above with (Canada). Semper gumby. --[[User:SigPig|<span style="color:white; background-color:dimgray">'''Sig'''</span><span style="color:white; background-color:midnightblue">'''Pig '''</span>]]|<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:SigPig|SEND - OVER]]</font></sup> 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::Heh. That seems fine, then; I don't see any other reason not to move the articles. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::[[WP:BOLD|Bugrit, millennium hand and shrimp.]] --[[User:SigPig|<span style="color:white; background-color:dimgray">'''Sig'''</span><span style="color:white; background-color:midnightblue">'''Pig '''</span>]]|<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:SigPig|SEND - OVER]]</font></sup> 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
== Campaign categories and so forth ==
Okay, trying to boil down the discussion about categorizing battles/campaigns/wars ([[#Non-"battle" combat operations|above]]) into something practical, I've put together three more-or-less concrete proposals:
1. Change the top-level structure of the military operations categories for each country to be:
:* Military operations involving Foo
:** Wars involving Foo
:** Military campaigns involving Foo
:** Battles involving Foo
:** Non-combat military operations involving Foo
:** Canceled military operations involving Foo
2. Add a two-branch category tree for military campaigns, copying the country & war branches from the category tree for battles:
:* [[:Category:Military campaigns]]
:** [[:Category:Military campaigns by country]]
:*** Military campaigns of Foo
:** [[:Category:Military campaigns by war]]
:*** Campaigns of the Foo War
3. Adopt the following recommendation on classifying conflicts:
:Definitions:
:* A war is a conflict bounded by periods (however brief) during which the combatants are formally at peace with one another; it generally consists of multiple distinct component operations such as battles or campaigns.
:* A campaign is a coherent series of smaller operations with a defined overall goal; this goal may, however, change over the course of the campaign.
:* A battle is a single, distinct military engagement generally limited to a narrow geographic scope and typically characterized by the opposing forces encountering one another, engaging in some form of combat, and then separating.
:Names:
:* In general, articles should be classified according to what the topic actually is, regardless of the name used. For example, a series of engagements generally regarded by historians as a campaign should be categorized as one even if it's referred to as the "Battle of X".
:Multiple categorization:
:* Some operations and conflicts may need to be categorized into more than one of the above levels; however, this should generally be done only when it substantially adds to a reader's understanding of the events. The possible double-categorizations are outlined below:
:** War and campaign: This can occur when a "sub-war" is fought as part of a larger war (for example, the [[French and Indian War]], as part of the [[Seven Years' War]]). A subsidiary conflict is typically a "sub-war" when it includes some participants not involved in the larger conflict; the article can then be categorized as a war involving those participants, but as a campaign involving the participants of the larger conflict.
:** Campaign and battle: This can occur in modern warfare, where a long-term engagement has been treated by historians as either a single battle or a sequence of separate battles (for example, the [[Battle of Kursk]]).
:** War and battle: This should generally be avoided, except in the few cases where a war consisted of a single large battle ''and'' only a single article covers the conflict.
:* No event that can be classified as all three has been found.
Thoughts? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:Anyone? ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Looks good. It seems to resolve the problems rather nicely (although I sometimes wonder if we make these problems more complex than they really are). [[User:Carom|Carom]] 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
==Template:Military needs some work==
...but I'm not brave enough to risk messing up a lot of articles by doing it! The current [[Template:Military]] is too inflexible for general use as it has been hardcoded to only include males (whereas most western militaries allow women to serve in most roles) and the hard coding of the military ages is also too inflexible as these dates are neither consistent with the categories used in the CIA World Book or national military policies which now limit the recruitment of people aged under 18. Does someone who knows about templates want to remove this hard coding? --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:Bleh, that thing needs to be completely redesigned to use modern infobox standards. I can whip up a replacement fairly quickly, but can some people take a look at the parameters for the current one and check what changes are needed? From what I can see:
:* country - keep
:* color - drop this; we've already figured out that funny colors don't mean anything to the average reader
:* image - keep
:* caption - keep
:* age - maybe split this into start and end ages? or allow for separate male & female ages?
:* availability - split to male & female?
:* service - split to male & female?
:* reaching age - split to male & female?
:* active - keep?
:* amount - keep
:* percent GDP - keep
: [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, as a rough draft: {{tl|Infobox National Military}}. Comments would be appreciated! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That looks pretty good to me. However, am I right in thinking that the ages for manpower availability are still hard-coded in? I think that these shouldn't be automatically populated as they differ from country to country (for instance, the Australian Defence Force doesn't recruit 15 year olds and the [https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/as.html#Military CIA World Factbook figures for Australia's military manpower] cover 16 and 18 year olds) --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::::It would be trivial to allow those to be overridden; but what would a good default be? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I've added a <tt>manpower_age=</tt> parameter that can be used to indicate a different age range for the data; does that work? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm trialing that on [[Australian Defence Force]] and it looks OK. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Manpower: It is possible to recruit 16 year olds in conflicts (see WWII, the Wehrmacht originally didn't recruit 16 year old, but when men became rare, the situation desperate and teens were still available in large numbers, they got a gun and were sent frontwards), so they are part of the potential manpower, whether or not they are sent into combat is another question. Next issue would be including women, at least for countries like Israel, Lybia, Russia and USA. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Women can be included now, obviously; that was one of the main points. As for the broader manpower issue, I suspect it'll be tied to whatever statistics are actually available; the people compiling them are going to make certain assumptions about the ages involved, and we don't have any real way of changing them. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Why stop there? If I remember correctly, Paraguay conscripted 10 year olds during the later stages of the [[War of the Triple Alliance]] and I think that the Nazis conscripted kids much younger than 16 as well in 1945. The point I'm trying to make is that it should be possible to tailor the manpower statistics to the manpower which is actually available in the country being described at the present time. As the socially/legally acceptable military age differs between countries the template shouldn't force compliance with what are artifical figures. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Is there any guidance on what should be included in the automatically linked 'Military manpower of X' and 'Military expenditures of X' articles? --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Frankly, I'm not sure we need to be automatically linking them at all; for all but the largest militaries, there isn't going to be material for an entire article on expenditures; and I'm not convinced that the topic of military manpower alone can sustain a decent article for ''any'' military. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I agree - While an expenditure article on Australia would be possible (if not very interesting) a military manpower article would be excessive and would end up duplicating [[Demographics of Australia]]. At the end of the day, each of these topics can be adequetly covered by tables showing the military expenditure and available manpower in the country each year and there's not much more that could be added. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::So, should we just remove the automatic links from the infobox? That seems like the easiest solution here. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 10:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
== {{tl|Infobox Military Conflict}} ==
I think you might like to know that this infobox of yours is being used to describe fictional battles, including outer space dogfights and superhero slapfights. This is an inappropriate usage of a template created to describe non-fiction events per [[WP:WAF]], and I thought you should know. By the way, nice WikiProject; you have really set an example to follow here. --[[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] (<big>[[User talk:ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:black">☓</span>]]</big>) 09:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::It seems like those infoboxes really help pages like [[Battle of Yavin]]. It's a good way to concisely summarize the battle. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] 09:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:That's a standard argumentum ad defactum (Just made that up, golly!): possessives, slapstick and remember never to end with "[..] thought you should know" <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</span> 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::I have no idea what you were trying to get across. --[[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] (<big>[[User talk:ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:black">☓</span>]]</big>) 10:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::All these articles make it clear that this is fictional material. If a number of editors feel confused by the use of the same infobox for fiction and real conflicts, we might be able to change the background color for fictional infoboxes(needing someone who carries out all the changes). [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::This doesn't seem to be a real problem - it improves the articles in question, and I doubt that it's generating any kind of confusion about the fictonal nature of the battles. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I don't really see the issue here; the template is suited for describing any kind of battle. If your concern is that fictional events shouldn't be using infoboxes, that's not ''our'' problem; take it up with the projects that cover fiction! ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
== Collapsible sections in navigation bar ==
I've added functionality to {{tl|WPMILHIST Navigation}} to allow the sections of the template to collapse; none of them do so by default, but it would be possible to change that if anyone feels strongly about it. Comments would be welcome. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:Could you add a button to collapse them all at once? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Don't think so; each sub-table is separate, and there's no real way to get them all to do the same thing. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
==Help for the Abreviatedly Challenged==
I am working (albeit slowly) on overhauling the Iowa class battleship article, and have found this outstanding source gun measurements and history, but I have hit a roadblock and need help some help with an abreviation. The section below deals with the 16in guns from the class, and is quoted from [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm navweapons.com]:
<blockquote>
When first introduced into service during World War II, the barrel life was 290 ESR, the lower of the two values given above. At that time, Nitrated-Cellulose (NC) was the standard propellant. HC rounds at 2,690 fps (820 mps) were 0.43 ESR and at 1,900 fps (579 mps) were 0.03 ESR. The Target rounds at 1,800 fps (549 mps) were 0.08 ESR. Following World War II, Smokeless Powder Diphenylamine (SPD), a cooler-burning propellant, was adopted in order to prolong barrel life to about the second value given above. In the 1967 and 1980s deployments, the use of "Swedish Additive" (titanium dioxide and wax) greatly reduced barrel wear. It has been estimated that four AP shells fired using this additive approximated the wear of a single AP shell fired without the additive (0.26 ESR) and that HC rounds fired with the additive caused even less wear (0.11 ESR). Later developments during the 1980s deployment led to putting a polyurethane jacket over the powder bags, which reduced the wear still further. This jacket is simply a sheet of foam with a fabric border around the ends that is tied to the powder bag. When the jacket burns during firing, a protective layer forms over the surface of the liner which greatly reduces gaseous erosion. This wear reduction program was so successful that liner life can no longer be rated in terms of ESR, as it is no longer the limiting factor. Instead, the liner life is now rated in terms of Fatigue Equivalent Rounds (FER), which is the mechanical fatigue life expressed in terms of the number of mechanical cycles. The 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 is now rated at having a liner life of 1,500 FER.
</blockquote>
In the paragraph the author deciphers FER into Fatigue Equivalent Rounds, but does not unabreviate ESR. Anyone have any ideas what that could mean? [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:It stands for "Equivalent Service Rounds." [[User:Carom|Carom]] 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. I apreciate it. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No prob. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
== Task force modern conflicts ==
While assembling the African military history task force, I realized that we do have quite a lot of editors working on modern (recent and ongoing) conflicts. I would like to know who is interested in such a task force as a specific rallying point? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:Would this be intended only for ongoing (and recently-ended) conflicts, or all "modern" (post-WWII, really) conflicts in general? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Don't know, post-WWII or post-Cold War might be workable approaches, but it's up to the participants. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::True, that. I see basically three easy-to-define scopes:
:::* "[[Modern warfare]] task force" (everything post-WWII)
:::* "Ongoing conflicts task force" (everything that's actually ongoing)
:::* "Recent conflicts task force"? (post-Cold War; I'm not aware of a really good name for the period as a whole)
:::Let's see what people want, then. :-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of task forces, I have to suggestions. How about Portugese and Spanish task forces. Seeing as this two states have a lot of Mil hist I think that if there is enough support they should be created. [[User:Kyriakos|Kyriakos]] 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Either of those two would be a good idea, if there's enough interest. We actually have a few other ideas (South America, Southeast Asia) that have also been sitting on the back burner. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'm up for it. What would the order of business be? --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
== Coordinator election results ==
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007|third project coordinator elections]] have now concluded. Seven coordinators have been selected to serve for the next six months:
: {{User|Carom}}
: {{User|FayssalF}}
: {{User|Kirill Lokshin}}
: {{User|Kyriakos}}
: {{User|LordAmeth}}
: {{User|Petercorless}}
: {{User|Wandalstouring}}
Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to all the candidates who put themselves forward for this responsibility! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
== Category:Red Army Operations during World War II ==
I've proposed ([[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_26#Category:Red_Army_Operations_during_World_War_II|here]]) that this category to be renamed to [[:Category:Battles and operations of the Soviet-German War]], to follow the normal naming conventions for such categories. (Basically everything on the Eastern Front involved the Red Army as one of the combatant sides, so I don't see the point in having a redundant category for it; and even if we did want it, it should be named something like "Battles and operations of World War II involving the Red Army".) There is, however, an alternative renaming possible to use "Eastern Front of World War II" instead of "Soviet-German War", and I'm not sure which would actually be better; some opinions would be very welcome there. Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think "Eastern Front of World War II" quite makes it since it was the "Eastern Front" only to the Germans (and other Europeans). It certainly wasn't "eastern" to the Russians ... and there was, after all, a front in the "Far East". "Soviet-German" sounds fine to me. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, our article is at [[Eastern Front (World War II)]], for what it's worth. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::What about the non-German Axis-participants like Romania, Finland, (Spain), Italy, etc? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
((Moved my comment to the discussion. --[[User:Petercorless|Petercorless]] 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)))
== Crunching the Numbers ==
Can someone tell me what 1100 km translates to in miles? (Math never was my strong point) :/ [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:According to Google, [http://www.google.com/search?q=1100+km+in+mile 1100 kilometers = 683.508311 mile] --[[User:Kusunose|Kusunose]] 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
==AfD nomination of [[Nachshub]]==
An article that you have been involved in editing, [[Nachshub]], has been listed by me for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nachshub]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw -->
In particular we got a new user over at [[WikiProject Germany]] complaining about the prevalence of German military terms which are mere translations of the term. I don't fully agree with him, but one of the items he did mentioned was particularly bad IMO. I see 2 possible outcomes - Transwiki to Wikitionary or someone beefs up the article, which would hopefully solve the complaints. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Heh. That's not even a stub, really.
:(But this goes back to the idea—bounced around a few times in the past—of creating a glossary of military terminology, preferably as an article, but perhaps as a project page if that doesn't work—as a merge target for the many such perma-stubs. It would be quite useful to have a military-specific reference for such things.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::That is no genuine term in German and it simply translates to supplies, however it can be used as a slang form for the troops occupied with delievering supplies. ''Streitkräfte Basis'' (who are a 'branch' organising the ''Nachschub'' and other things) would be a genuine military term we could have an article about. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The minimum if kept would be to correct the spelling (move to [[Nachschub]]. But I'm not sure it's needed (and yes, it's not even a stub right now).--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::For those not aware of it, there ''is'' an article on some German military terms: [[Glossary of WWII German military terms]] (although not all of the terms listed are military). [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
== Two articles, one war ==
I have found while reading about the [[Napoleonic wars]] that there are two articles that seem to be describing the same war. I have added a merge tag. The two articles are the following: [[Neapolitan War]] and [[Austro-Neapolitan War]]. They seem to be describing the short-lived conflict that took place between the [[Kingdom of Naples]] and [[Austria]] in [[1815]]. In the [[Neapolitan War]] article it also states that there was another '''Neapolitan War''' in [[1494]]-[[1495]] when the [[France|French]] king [[Charles VIII of France|Charles VIII]] captured [[Naples]]. If someone could have a look at these two articles, I think there is a bit of confusion. Thanks. --[[User:Francisco Valverde|Francisco Valverde]] 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[Battle of Cannae]] --"An Alternative View" section==
Since this is a featured article I think this needs attention. An annon IP has added a large section giving "An Alternative View" of the battle. I don't know enough as to whether there is any serious historical debated about the battle to justify this section, and in any case there are serious NOPV issues and a lack of sources cited in this section. Help! [[User:Tomgreeny|Tomgreeny]] 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:I have [[Gregory Daly]] ''Cannae (The experience of battle in the second Punic War)'' here and can find no mention of any alternative views. What is is discussed are such details like numbers of dead and POW (disputing the traditional view that so many Romans were really killed, more like 45k dead 'only'), discussing the equipment and tactics of the African troops (urging that they did not attack in a fashion similar to the Macedonian phalanx, but rather a mixture of Phoenician/Iberian/Roman influences made them swordfighters, probably charging like the Romans) and what role the javelins and slingshots played in the killing (citing different sources with differing views on the effectiveness and pointing out influences like dust and reduced sight that helped a massive bombardement of these missiles to cause casualties) [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::I've read that theory (also citing Livy, though stating that information is inconclusive) before, though it was not in a history book but in the design/historical notes for a wargame (Richard Berg's SPQR (GMT Games)). The analysis was rather good (certainly better then the annon's addition) but I'm not sure how much weight such a non scientific source has. In any case Berg (assuming he wrote that analysis and not an editor or co-designer) comes to the conclusion that the traditional view is more probable.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The aforementioned book reflects the current research on the topic. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||