|
:''Please add requests for MILHIST participation to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input]]. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.''
{{WPMILHIST Announcements}}
{{/Header}}
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; ">
{{Skip to bottom}}
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; ">
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; ">
|archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{Automatic archive navigator}}
<div class="NavFrame" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 1em; ">
|maxarchivesize = 250K
<div class="NavHead" style="background: lightsteelblue; ">Archives</div>
|counter = 177
<div class="NavContent">
|minthreadstoarchive = 4
{| style="width: 100%; text-align: left; "
|algo = old(7d)
| colspan="2" | A selection of major topics is given for each archive; discussions of narrow or ephemeral interest are not listed.
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive %(counter)d
----
}}
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" |
''WikiProject Battles'':
== Requests for project input ==
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 1|October 2002–December 2003]]: original discussion; battle taxobox.
*''Please add requests for MILHIST participation to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/ArchiveRequests 2|Augustfor 2003–Novemberproject 2004input]]:. oldThis taxoboxincludes instructions;requests militaryfor operations;comment, colorrequested schemes;moves, battlebox images; naming conventions; categories; image captions; infoboxarticles for battles;deletion, battle before/battleand aftermore.''
* [[{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 3|December 2004–July 2005]]: Pacific campaign; warbox; battles versus operations; battleRequests categories;for uglyproject battleboxes.input}}
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 4|August–September 2005]]: dates in battle names; categorization; pictures; project notice tags; deciding the fictiveness of a battle; capture/surrender icons.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 5|September–October 2005]]: "Battles in" categories; new warbox design.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 8|October 2005]]: infoboxes; Napoleonic Wars stubs; project merger.
== Proposed deconflation of "Non-international armed conflict" from "Civil war" ==
| width="50%" valign="top" |
''WikiProject Wars'':
The page {{brackets|Non-international armed conflict}}
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 6|March 2004–April 2005]]: campaigns in modern warfare.
redirects to [[Civil_war]]. The concepts are related, but different. Civil wars are sometimes called internal armed conflicts but, of course, there are also non-internal (non-international) armed conflicts, which makes the redirect overly broad. While the redirect might have been a laudable temporary measure, I think it's time to change things. First, here are the five articles that currently link to the redirect page, each with one such link:
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 7|October 2005]]: warbox colors; war stubs; project merger.
*(1) [[List of non-international armed conflicts]]
::{{tq|The following is a list of [[non-international armed conflict]]s, fought between territorial and/or intervening state forces and [[violent non-state actor|non-state armed groups]] or between non-state armed groups within the same state or country.}}
*(2) [[List of countries by intentional homicide rate]]
::{{tq|Killings caused by a [[non-international armed conflict]] may or may not be included, depending on the intensity of hostilities and whether it is classified as 'civil unrest' or a clash between organized armed groups.}}
*(3) [[List of countries by intentional death rate]]
::(Same as previous)
*(4) [[Foreign fighter]]
::{{tq|A '''foreign fighter''' is someone who travels abroad to participate in a [[non-international armed conflict]] or fight for a country of which he or she is not a national.}}
*(5) [[Starvation (crime)]]
::{{tq|In 2018, Switzerland proposed extending this provision to [[non-international armed conflict]] (NIAC).}}
By my reckoning, all of the above links refer to {{brackets|non-international armed conflict}}s in general, rather than referring to the stricter sense of civil war only. Because of this, I propose:
|-
* (a) that the links above, pertaining to non-international armed conflict link, be de-linkified;
| colspan="2" |
* (b) that the redirect at {{brackets|Non-international armed conflict}} be deleted;
----
* (c) that an appropriately-scoped article on {{brackets|Non-international armed conflict}} be written (preferably by a military and/or legal expert), which would of course link to [[Civil war]], but also explain the difference in meaning between the two terms;
''Military history WikiProject'':
* (d) that, after (c), the above links to {{brackets|Non-international armed conflict}} be restored.
Thoughts? Thanks! [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 15:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 9|October–November 2005]]: merger completed; battle maps; warboxes; articles for divisions.
:Well, my initial thought is that the definition in use for '''Foreign fighter''' seems wildly incorrect in specifying "non-international", as exemplified by linking on the very same page to [[Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War]] which is.... an international conflict. I'd be very surprised if that article's claim (which is substantively the entire article given that it's only one sentence long followed by a See Also section that's roughly 3-4 times as large as the entire body text) accurately summarizes the sources involved in their complete context; and would suggest culling the See Also section with a chainsaw. The other links seem appropriate, but that one isn't. The rest of the approach seems fine, though I think only step (c) is actually necessary. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 10|November–December 2005]]: nationality categories for wars; naming conventions for battles; war categories; battle categories; announcements section; warbox formatting; War of 1812 naval actions; warbox implementation.
::{{ping|Swatjester}} Thanks. I've just edited the '''[[Foreign fighter]]''' article to remove the qualifier that the armed conflict needs to be "non-international". There certainly are lots of See Also links, but they all seem appropriate, so I didn't remove any. [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 20:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 11|December 2005]]: military unit infobox; meta-templates; wikifying ranks.
In case anyone ({{ping|Swatjester}}?) is interested, I've written [[User:Dotyoyo/Non-international_armed_conflict|'''an initial draft of content here''']] to replace the redirect at {{brackets|Non-international armed conflict}} that currently redirects the user to [[Civil war]]. I propose to replace the link in a week or so. Feel free to provide feedback in this section. Thanks! [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 03:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 12|December 2005]]: open tasks template; science and technology of World War II; industrial warfare.
:Thanks, it's a good starting place to build from, for sure. I would start with building out next the portion addressing specifically distinctions from full-scale civil war (which would link to that article for further detail), and then an examples section with notable instances of NIAC. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 03:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 13|January 2006]]: military biographies; "Dead" versus "Killed"; Sengoku period campaignboxes.
FYI - I've made some further modifications to the [[User:Dotyoyo/Non-international_armed_conflict|'''draft''']]. I'd say it's ready to become a bouncing baby stub! [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 14|December 2005–January 2006]]: template conversion process; task forces; World War II German categories; project coordinator positions; stub pictures.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 15|January–February 2006]]: coordinator elections; automated tools; campaignbox review; notes field in warbox; World War II categorization; succession boxes for battles; articles for WP1.0; relative project sizes.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 16|January–February 2006]]: future plans; drawing the line between fact and fiction; AFD; American Civil War battle names.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 17|February 2006]]: Army or Armee?; capitalization in operation names; naming conventions for unnamed battles.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 18|February 2006]]: campaignbox review results; US DoD military definitions; boxes for related wars; military aircraft infobox; consolidation of "aerial bombing" articles.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 19|February–March 2006]]: collaboration of the fortnight; project template renaming; project consolidation and new task forces; units in battle infoboxes.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 20|February–March 2006]]: project award; tagging good articles; ancient warfare task force; cartography and translation departments.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 21|March 2006]]: countering systemic bias; peer review; list copyrights; order of entries in infoboxes.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 22|March 2006]]: collecting references; results in military conflict infoboxes; infobox for long-term conflicts.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 23|March–April 2006]]: categories for military people; infoboxes on stubs; naming of World War II; orders of battle.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 24|March–April 2006]]: project newsletter; "Islamic battles".
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 25|April 2006]]: top-level category structure; welcoming new members.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 26|April–May 2006]]: project newsletter; project award; worklist changes; consolidated project banner template.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 27|April–May 2006]]: article importance ratings; member list maintenance; last stands.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 28|May 2006]]: potential task forces; summarizing battles; project icon; scope of military aviation; overlapping projects.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 29|May–June 2006]]: categories for military people; conflicts by year; task force emblems; WikiProject ADF; assessments and "good articles"; importance ratings; wargames.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 30|June–July 2006]]: talk page layout; maritime warfare task force; War on Terrorism task force; military award infobox; automated newsletter delivery; aircraft in popular culture.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 31|June–July 2006]]: "good articles" and "A-Class"; Far East task force; assessment statistics; project banners; "military history"; importance ratings; ahistorical images; alternate names.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 32|June–July 2006]]: using operational codenames; project coordinator elections; Indian taskforce; German taskforce; Japanese taskforce; Dutch taskforce; removing importance ratings.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 33|July–August 2006]]: military unit categories; new open task template; military websites; task force icons; style of operational names; project banner size reduction; intelligence agencies; primary and secondary sources; small unit articles.
Done. I've pushed the content from my draft page to the article at [[Non-international armed conflict]]. [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 22:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
|}
</div></div></div></div></div>
{{WPMILHIST Navigation}}
== Template experts ==
== "Adopting" 11,000-odd stub articles by bot? ==
Tried to create [[Template:Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII]] by splitting it from template: Arctic naval operations of WWII but it wasn't as straightforward as I'd expected. Does anyone mind having a look and suggesting how to sort it out? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion of this here: is it on a sub-page? At any rate, see the discussion of the proposed bot-tagging of MILHIST templates, [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Grafikbot.2C_MILHIST_article_tagging|here]]. In particular, I draw your attention to my comment about just how many such articles there are, and the lack of clarity about whether these relate to military ''history'' per se. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was the |battles= parameter. [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 12:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:Mmm, you seem to have forgotten to mention that I [[User talk:Alai#Re: Scope|already explained the issues of scope]] at some length. ;-)
::Ah, thanks babe. ;O)[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:I've simplified {{tlx|Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII}} but I gotta wonder if that template is really needed. At the bottom of [[Arctic convoys of World War II]] there is a navbox {{tlx|Arctic convoys}} that appears to list the same article links with additional detail. Redundant stuff is redundant; is {{tld|Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII}} really needed?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Greetings, I got a sinking feeling when I looked at [Category:World War II campaignboxes]. I'm content to return to the status quo. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
::::"Sinking feeling." Arctic convoys of WWII. Good one! [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 05:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Eythenkew! ;O) how do I revert the lot, do I just blank the pages? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Request for Speedy deletion [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 12:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Thanks, used criterion A10.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
: Hmmm, found that the template had appeared on the article, when I thought that I put it on the template I created in error....[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
:: For some reason, when a template has a deletion tag on it, it puts a thing on the template ''in the articles'' the template is in as well. I can kinda see why, but it makes thing screwy with the "turn links to things nominated for deletion pink" script... - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
== Is there a topicon for this Wikiproject? ==
:As far as bot-tagging: our main flaw in tagging has been that we've gotten ''non-military'' articles rather than ''non-historical'' ones. Going down from {{tl|mil-stub}} should avoid this, as everything tagge with it should be military by definition. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried looking for one but couldn't find it, only a coordinator topicon. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 01:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
::It might be more accurate to say that I was less than convinced by the explanation in regards to the original point, much less seeing it being vital in the context of the above. But to recap same: if there's a continuity of scope between the mil-stub hierarchy, and this project, it's far from clear from its name, and its self-description. I think it would be worthwhile to make this absolutely crystal-clear, ''and'' to vestablish there's a fairly wide consensus here for doing this, before ploughing ahead with such a vast number of edits that it would be potentially highly problematic to clean up afterwards, should there be any after-the-fact reservations about the scope, or of the WPJ's categories suddenly becoming unusuably large. This side of {{cl|Living people}}, having 1% of wikipedia in a single cat seems fairly unprecedented. (I say, without checking the numbers, so doubless someone is about to prove me wrong...) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:I think that is the only topicon related to this project. I don't remember seeing another one over the course of many years editing Wikipedia. I don't find one in a search but it brings up 568 results. After the first two results, I don't see any that appear relevant in the next few dozen results, so I think it is safe assume that there is no other pertinent result and not worth the time to look through the rest of them. I conclude that is the reason that you and I cannot find one - because there are not any.
:::Actually, now that the [[WP:1.0/I|bot-assisted assessments]] are operational, it's not all that uncommon to see talk page categories with thousands of entries. They're not really meant to be parsed by hand all the time, after all. But that's neither here nor there.
:I can't think of another reason for other topicons for this project. There are quite a few user boxes for membership in the project, for various task force memberships and for various interests. I think that topicons are mostly for more limited purposes but I will admit I am not absolutely certain about that. In any case the userboxes appear to be sufficient for most purposes for which a Wikipedia contributor or editor would wish to post the membership or other notice on their talk page. That is a likely a good reason why there is no topicon for the same memberships, accomplishments, milestones or interests in addition to userboxes for those items.
:::I'm obviously of the opinion that [[User talk:Alai#Re: Scope|my previous explanation]] of how the project's scope works in practice is accurate. But if you insist: what says the project? Does my explanation reflect reality? And, on a more practical point, do we cover all of {{tl|mil-stub}}? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps this question will have further answers over the next few days but perhaps other readers of the item will think my answer is sufficient. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. I have, however, noticed that [[Template:Top icon templates|many other WikiProjects have topicons]]. Perhaps one could be made for this WikiProject? The userboxes are good to show membership but many users also like to have topicons. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Waricon.svg|20px|right]]
:::I've never used them but they are reasonably popular for displaying FAs etc. I can't see any harm in one being made and maybe a few people will click through to the project from them. They can be generated with the [[:Template:Top icon]] and consist of a small (20x20) image and a link (which would presumably go to the main project page). The project logo at this scale is a bit indistinct but perhaps recognisable enough? - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 06:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
[[File:P history.svg|20px|right]]
::::Thanks for making one. Even with reasonably good eyesight it's hard to make out what the icon is, perhaps we could choose a simpler design? From [[commons:Category:History icons]] I found [[commons:File:P history.svg]], which seems like a simpler design and is already widely used ([https://globalusagecount.toolforge.org/?lang=en&file=P+history.svg 640,000+ usages]). Could it work instead? [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 12:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Maki1-historic-15.svg|20px|right]]
:::::That one's already in use for [[:Portal:History]] and a similar cavalry figure is used for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History]] so might cause confusion. This cannon might work, but I would welcome wider thoughts as to what is representative of the project - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 13:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::I didn't realise that. The cannon could perhaps work. I'll see what other editors think. [[User:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#6F7AD6">'''Chorchapu'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Chorchapu|<span style="color:#146B55">edits</span>]]) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::One approach to this would be to gamify membership in a similar manner to [[Wikipedia:Administrative service awards]] and [[Wikipedia:Service_awards]], which makes sense given that our Coordinator topicon already uses rank insignia (and rank insignia shouldn't conflict with, but rather complement, the existing service awards which are ribbon/medal format). So instead of just a single membership topicon, you'd have one for each "rank". [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
== Fort Doyles are confusing ==
::::Comments, anyone? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1762830078}}
:::::I thought your explanation on Alai's talk page summed it up well. -[[User:Plange|plange]] 00:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
{{rfc|style|rfcid=D2E875D}}
So, within the [[Bailiwick of Guernsey]] there are 2 Fort Doyles: the [[Fort Doyle]] in Guernsey, and [[Draft:Fort Doyle (Alderney)]] on Alderney, and Wikidata has them as both the same and different.
why must it be this way?
:::So what does everyone think? Should we try to move ahead with getting these articles tagged? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::::My vote is yes...[[User:Plange|plange]] 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Mine too, obviously :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56294862] (guernsey one on German Wikipedia)
So is there any chance of an update to the WPJ's scoping statement to make this rather more evident to the casual passer-by? You continue to say "everything military" whenever these questions arise, but the project page is not suggestive of anything beyond "military history". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56294859] (Alderney one linked to the guernsey one’s page on English Wikipedia and has info for the Guernsey one) [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 01:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:Well, the current statement is: "The project generally considers any article related to the history of warfare or of military affairs to be a valid topic." What changes would you suggest? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Skipping the apparent restriction to "history". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm, that would leave us with:
::::''The project generally considers any article related to warfare or military affairs to be a valid topic.''
:::Which wouldn't be altogether bad, or really misleading, but does introduce the question of fictional things (which we don't cover, but which are, I suppose, related to warfare in some sense). We could make an explicit statement about this, perhaps. Another approach would be to explicitly define the terms, as we have done with "military":
::::''The project generally considers any article related to the history of warfare or of military affairs to be a valid topic.... Note that a very broad meaning of "history"—including topics up to the present day—is applicable here.''
:::I'm not entirely sure which would be the better approach. What does everyone think? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Or, explicitly say "historical and modern-day", or some such formulation. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Something like "The project generally considers any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within its scope," perhaps? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, I think so Kirill :) Military history project is also about modern-day warfare and tactics. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Okay, I've provisionally updated the scope statement to this version. Further comments are welcome, of course! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Thanks Kirill. And we really need to do something with that automatic tagging. I think that if that mess with approval is not over by Sept. 20 (date when my exams will be over and my participation in WP will return to its normal level), i'll just apply [[WP:IAR]] That leaves us almost a month though... :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:There are in fact two Fort Doyles. One is an old castle in the Guernsey district on the island of Guernsey. One is an old fort in the Alderney district. This is shown on mapcarta but I can't save a link because I received a message that the site is on the blacklist for Wikipedia when I tried to save it. Maybe there are other sites that show the same thing. As I am sure you have seen, the draft has no content at this time. I don't know whether it is entirely clear whether the one in Guernsey was incorporated into the Atlantic Wall. It appears that the Alderney fort was incorporated into the wall based on a quick search listing other online sources. Perhaps the German article actually does refer to the Alderney fort because of the incorporation into the wall, but they refer to it as Guernsey, for the island of Guernsey, rather than the identically named (and somewhat confusing) district on the island? (I can't read German so I don't know if any clue can be discerned about which of the two "forts" (or both?) that the German article may refer to.) [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
== Assessment statistics & backlog ==
::I know that both existed, that during the [[German occupation of the Channel Islands|German occupation]] the Germans would repurpose forts. The draft is empty because I made it yesterday. But the Wikidata and articles say that the guernsey one is the Alderney one, and that both Wikidata entries have data from both forts mixed. [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 12:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't focus on that aspect of the problem. The contradictions within Wikipedia itself certainly confuse this. Perhaps a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|request for comment]] generally could bring more comments if this page does not generate more. It seems that the contradictions within Wikipedia itself need to be corrected based on reliable, verifiable sources. Perhaps RfC might be the best way to do that or gain agreement on doing that as well? [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 01:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::::On wikidata too. [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 02:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::It’s an RfC now because it seems like that’d help get more perspective and end this. [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 02:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't think a RfC is an appropriate solution to this. First, it's early. Only one person has weighed in, and this is a novel question (see [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]). Second, there isn't a question here that a RfC can solve yet. Someone, ideally you, would look for available sources that could clear this up on Wikipedia. Third, a Wikipedia RfC can't enforce changes on Wikidata. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Wikipedia and Wikidata are linked. If we can solve the problem on both sides by getting the right data for the right article, then we wont need this RfC anymore. [[User:PhilDaBirdMan|'''PhilDaBirdMan''']] ([[User talk:PhilDaBirdMan|Talk]] |[[User:PhilDaBirdMan/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Socialism|WikiProject Socialism]] | [[WP:ATWA|Current Incubator Initiative]]) 11:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I suggested an RfC in the hope it would get more eyes on the problem than just listing it here, not in the sense that there is a dispute or similar problem to be solved. Perhaps that is not an appropriate way to achieve the desired result. In any event, I agree that the goal is to encourage someone to find reliable sources to clear up the confusion and presumably erroneous or contradictory information. This has obviously been caused by two different sites having the same name and the need to make clear what data or information applies to each site. Whether an RfC may draw more help than the post here, if properly framed, is hard for me to predict, of course. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 07:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
== Need peoples help on a article ==
I've just finished updating the [[WP:MHA#Historical counts|assessment statistics]] through the month of July, and I thought I'd share a few points of interest:
Theres a article called [[Siege of Nishapur (1221)]] and it got nominated for deletion and i need help to expand it from you guys so it doesn’t get deleted im trying my best [[User:Shadow. 547|Shadow. 547]] ([[User talk:Shadow. 547|talk]]) 18:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
* The total number of articles tagged into the project has continued to increase by ~30% per month.
* We're seeing a healthy growth in the number of FAs: ~17% in the last month.
:It got turned to a redirect now the only hope is [[Draft:Siege of Nishapur (1221)]] [[User:Shadow. 547|Shadow. 547]] ([[User talk:Shadow. 547|talk]]) 21:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Now, the (sort of) bad news: the growth of [[:Category:Unassessed military history articles|unassessed articles]] has outpaced all other groups. Thus, a request: if anyone has some free time, might you please consider assessing a few articles? It doesn't have to be many—if we can get a reasonable number of members each doing only a couple per day, we can still make significant headway on this. It's usually not particularly difficult either; most articles will fall quite clearly in one of the lower three levels, and more complex cases can, of course, be left for later consideration. Any assistance in this would be much appreciated! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::Just saying but if you guy’s didnt know recently it got accepted [[Siege of Nishapur (1221)]] [[User:Shadow. 547|Shadow. 547]] ([[User talk:Shadow. 547|talk]]) 12:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Will do [[User:Plange|plange]] 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Good thought, surely we can all muck on a small bunch each day? I certainly will. --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] <sup>[[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]</sup> 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
== Articles using infobox body of water without image bathymetry question ==
:::Working on the last page in the log, and came across this one [[Yoshisuke Aikawa]] - not sure why he's tagged for MILHIST? [[User:Plange|plange]] 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm guessing it's because of his relationship to the [[Fugu Plan]]; but that's borderline "military" in of itself, so he might actually not need to be tagged. If you're interested, I'd ask [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]]; maybe he knows something about his role in military affairs that isn't apparent from the existing article. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Okay, will do. Here's another one: [[Édouard Daladier]] - he was Minister of War, bught didn't do any fighting, is that enough to quilify? [[User:Plange|plange]] 00:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) and another-- was a political activist [[Édouard Lockroy]] [[User:Plange|plange]] 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Daladier would probably qualify, but I suppose it depends on whether he did anything as the Minister of War (US SecDefs would also qualify under this provision, I presume). I have no idea what the post entailed at the time, though. Lockroy's article has the tantalizing "enlisted as a volunteer under Garibaldi", which might mean actual fighting; but the article is confused enough that I can't really figure out the specifics. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I left them tagged, so if someone more knowledge about these two sees this they can untag them if they think it warrants it.... Thanks Kirill! [[User:Plange|plange]] 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:We've probobly been finding more articles too, with participants only adding the WPMILHIST. That would explain the growth of [[:Category:Unassessed military history articles|unassessed articles]]. I'll go an do a few as time permits. --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::I've been tagging and assessing articles as I go. --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Been tagging and assessing articles daily, but unfortunately only getting about 20 done a day. One thing is it sure has been expanding my knowledge.--[[User:Oldwildbill|Oldwildbill]] 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I wrote the article on [[Yoshisuke Aikawa]], and tagged it. Though the Fugu Plan is borderline military (I could see it being tagged or not), Aikawa was heavily involved in the maintenance and industrialization of Occupied Manchuria (Manchukuo). I'm gonna go assess some articles now. ^_^[[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) Here's another I just came across that seems borderline: [[W. C. Sellar]] -- only connection seems to be this: "He used his own ration and money to buy extra food for the boys of the House during World War II, which made him very popular." [[User:Plange|plange]] 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I'm guessing it's beause he's noted as "serving briefly in World War I as a Second Lieutenant in the King's Own Scottish Borderers" ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Oops, missed that ;-) [[User:Plange|plange]] 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:Another question: Do political leaders that presided during a war (but did no fighting) and/or who staged a coup part of this project? Clearly Abraham Lincoln would, but wasn't sure about [[Wang Jingwei]] [[User:Plange|plange]] 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::It's definitely a borderline issue. I suppose the fundamental principle would be to ask if there's any content related to military history (interpreted fairly broadly, of course) that needs to be in the article. If not, there's probably not much point to tagging it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks! [[User:Plange|plange]] 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:I've started doing a few assessments, new to this assessment lark so leave me a note if you disagree with any assessment I've left -- [[User:195.92.70.130|195.92.70.130]] 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[[Convoy QP 10]] found no adequate map of [[Hvalfjörður]] so used the infobox from the Hvalfjörður page. Is there a better way to do it? Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
==More Task Forces Anyone?==
Just kicking around some ideas, see if anyone else is interested in a few other task forces that I think we should add to this project.
*Russian Task Force
*Ottoman Task Force
*Cold War Task Force
--[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
{{Location map|Iceland
: There's already a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union]] and [[Portal:Belarus]], [[Portal:Russia]], [[Portal:Ukraine]], etc. We might not want to fragment too much. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2006-08-03 19:33 Z</small>''
|width =
|float =
|border =
|caption =
|alt =
|relief = yes
|label = Hvalfjörður
|label_size =
|position =
|mark =
|marksize =
|link =
|lat_deg = 64
|lat_min = 23
|lat_sec =
|lat_dir = N
|lon_deg = 21
|lon_min = 40
|lon_sec =
|lon_dir = W
}}
:You can do this with [[:template:Location map]] per right - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::Aah, thank you. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
==November 2025 Article Improvement Drive==
::Well, that hasn't stopped us before (c.f. [[WP:CHINA]], [[WP:JAPAN]], etc.)—and really shouldn't, as the broader projects are not specifically military in focus. Having said that, the availability of interested editors is, as always, a valid question when creating new task forces. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The '''Article Improvement Drive''' is a backlog reduction drive, which will run from 00:01 UTC on '''1 November''' through to 23:59 UTC on '''30 November 2025'''. The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project; however, only work on articles whose talk pages are tagged with with WikiProject Military History banner will be considered eligible. This year the drive is focused on eliminating four specific backlogs:
Well, what would be a better name for a Kievan Rus/Muscovy/Russian Empire/Soviet Union/CIS countries task force? Eastern Europe task force is not right. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2006-08-04 15:17 Z</small>''
Articles tagged as citing no sources (around 1,100 articles)
:How much of this could be written off under either "Russian military history" or "Russian and Soviet military history"? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure (around 300 articles)
Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials (around 400 articles)
Category:Military history articles needing attention only to grammar (around 50 articles)
Points will also be awarded for improving articles to B-class, to further our long-term goal of having 15% of all articles at or above this level, and carrying out assessments of articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.
The drive coincides with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2025]] and editors may wish to participate in both drives. To participate, see the last two sections at '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/November 2025 Article Improvement Drive]]'''
:: Much of it. But my interests also include things like Ukraine in 1917–22, and modern Ukrainian AFVs. These subjects have a strong relationship to the Russian Empire and Soviet AFV design, respectively, but are clearly neither Russian nor Soviet. I'm sure there are many less prominent cases like this, which would nevertheless only be controversially called Russian or Soviet in their own sphere. Calling the military history of Kievan Rus Russian would certainly get a number of editors up in arms ([[Russian architecture]] had a POV notice on it for many months over such issues).
== Left and right side of Infobox military conflict ==
:: Just trying to be inclusive and avoid empty arguments, without inventing complicated politically-correct category names. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2006-08-04 17:25 Z</small>''
Is there any sort of convention that determines which side gets put in the left or right of a {{template|Infobox military conflict}} box? '''''[[User:A diehard editor|A diehard editor]]''''' ([[User talk:A diehard editor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/A diehard editor|edits]]) 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
:::My origional thought was, to be honest, a task force for just Imperial Russia/Soviet Union, which seems to me to be two very close, very intertwined Russian nations. Things do get fuzzy for me if we start talking about the CIS or the Kieven/Rus nations/organizations. --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:No. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Heh, this is going to be a powder keg. Is there an all-inclusive term that anyone can think of? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
== Major general with 1 an 2 stars ==
:::::We could try using an ''Eastern European Task Force'' to cover all of the Eastern European countries (I think Austria-Hungary would be excluded in this case, because I believe some of it extended into Eastern Europe. --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 07:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In Bulgaria up until 2000 the Major general was the first general rank i.e. general with 1 star. In 2000 was introduced Brigadier general (1st general rank i.e. with 1 star). Major generals were renamed to Brigadier generals, Lieutenant generals to Major generals i.e. the new Major general become with 2 stars. This brings some confusion. Do you have any experience here or on your local Wikipedia in solving this issue? For example have a category "Major generals of the Republic of Bulgaria" and it has both 1 star and 2 star generals. Also we have list of ranks in which we have: * Major general (1990), * Major general (2000), which is also confusing. It's not a "major" issue, but I would like to hear your opinion on that. --[[User:StanProg|StanProg]] ([[User talk:StanProg|talk]]) 14:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
:I think the specific problem needs to be clarified a bit more -- e.g. is this a problem with categorization, infoboxes, article text, etc? Because it's hard to give just general categorical advice here. For instance, if an individual held the rank of Major General, regardless of the grade that was at the time, it would be correct for us to categorize them under the "Major Generals of Bulgaria" category, as that category is only contingent on whether one *is* a MG, not what grade MG was at the time. If you're talking about article body text, presumably we can explain the discrepancy in a footnote or in-line. In an infobox, we could simply note the rank with the appropriate visual number of stars that they held, and deal with it that way. I'm sure there's some edge cases that could be handled on a case by case basis. But I don't think it's clear specifically what the application of the problem you're facing is. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
::I'm trying to find an unified way to represent that case in the categorization (your proposal to leave it as it is seams reasonable), and for or all other cases - promotions in the text, infoboxes (we use just the rank there from Wikidata as a text, so it will be tricky as we don't know in Wikidata if it's 1 star or 2 stars), and sections with the list of the promotions. What I noticed today is that in some places editors have named Major general with 2 stars as Lieutenant general (and they were never promoted to that rank), I saw some links with the text Major general that lead to Brigadier general, etc, so I decided first to see if this problem was solved in some other Wikipedia, before I start standardizing it. We have just few dozens of people that are affected by this change in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but I need to find a solution and make a proposal for a local policy. [[User:StanProg|StanProg]] ([[User talk:StanProg|talk]]) 20:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
== Your attention is request for a discussion ==
::::::We already have a Polish task force, though; having a "Eastern European" one at the same time might be something of a mess. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion at hand is: [[Talk:World War I#Revisiting the "Commanders and Leaders" Section]]. Your contributions to that discussion are requested. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 11:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::How about the Eurasia Task Force? Typically, such a designation includes Russia and all of the former USSR and only those countries. I think it would be less confusing. --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I see nothign wrong with this but as with all things there might be soem edditors that would rather have nation specific TFs of dislike being groups up with neighborring and possibly rival countries. What would be the scope of the task force?--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
== Peer review: [[Crusading movement]] ==
:::::::::I would think, country-wise, that the scope would be Russia, Ukraine, the Batlic states, Belarus and the Caucasus countries. That's what I would do, anyways. --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Although the article primarily focuses on the institutional, social, and ideological aspects of the movement that emerged from the First Crusade, it also highlights the military dimension of crusading. I therefore believe that comments from members of this WikiProject could make a valuable contribution to improving the article before its FAC. Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. The peer review can be found '''[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusading movement/archive4|here]]'''. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 02:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I've been thinking about this for some time, and I think that the right approach is to create "natural" task forces—as they're tools for organizing editors moreso than for formally organizing articles—and just accept that we'll have overlaps and gaps between them. Thus, for example, we could create a "Russian military history" task force or a "Rus, Russian, and Soviet military history task force"; but I would avoid trying to overthink this and create some artificial construct which may cover all the gaps on the edges, but which won't provoke the sort of "Hey, I'm interested in that!" gut feeling from people seeing the task force name that we need for actually attacting contributors to it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
== Our Western Desert impostor Block evasion question==
Perhaps make just a Soviet task force (it includes many groups who had nothing to do with Russia for some time and it covers heavily the cold war (more militaria). Rus and Russia could run in seperate forces, they are likely to be attended by different people (more historians). [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[[Montewarrigal]] Could this be another iteration of our perennial Italian chauvinist?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::What about a ''Latin American military history'' task force? We're talking about a pretty huge area (Central and South American & Caribbean islands) where many major wars have taken place. It's the only part of the world still not specifically attended by any task force, and the articles certainly deserve to be looked after by this project. --[[User:Andres C.|Andrés C.]] 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
: Yep, saw his edits too and find them unhelpful and disruptive. I didn't revert, because I wanted to look at more of his edits first, but as far as I can tell he keeps adding nothing of encyclopaedic value. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 14:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:: This editor keeps adding extremely long quotes from dubious sources that add nothing of value to the articles. I believe we have to radically revert this nonsense and set the articles back before all these quotes were added. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 22:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone remember the procedure for block evasions? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
:::: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] for by-the-book. You could use [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] (ANI) or [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] (AIV) to limit the damage while SPI does its thing if it's a ''really'' obvious case.
:::: In the past, for some frequent obvious cases involving IP-hopping evaders I've been advised to handle things via AIV to save everyone time and effort. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 16:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Added to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] and editor talk page.... Is this editor our resident impostor who tries to make it look like the Italians won the [[Western Desert campaign]]? The edits seem biased, often relying on wartime Time articles and other sources beyond the fringe. You might want to comment. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
: Opened a sockpuppet investigations as its definitely him again: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala]]. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 08:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
== British Army brigades have been renamed ==
:::Hell, I'd be up for that as well! --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As part of [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/1st-united-kingdom-division/ 1st (UK) Division]:
::::Latin America sems like a good idea, if we can get enough editors for it to be active. There seem to be two so far; any more that would be interested? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
* [[4th Light Brigade Combat Team]] is now the [[4th Light Brigade (United Kingdom)|4th Light Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/1st-united-kingdom-division/4th-light-brigade-combat-team/ 4th Light Brigade website]
* [[7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team]] is now the [[7th Light Mechanised Brigade (United Kingdom)|7th Light Mechanised Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/1st-united-kingdom-division/7th-light-mechanised-brigade-combat-team/ 7th Light Mechanised Brigade website]
* [[16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team]] is now the [[16 Air Assault Brigade (United Kingdom)|16 Air Assault Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/1st-united-kingdom-division/16-air-assault-brigade-combat-team/ 16th Air Assault Brigade website]
* [[19th Brigade (United Kingdom)|19th Brigade]] is now the [[19th Light Brigade (United Kingdom)|19th Light Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/1st-united-kingdom-division/19th-light-brigade/ 19th Light Brigade website]
As part of [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/ 3rd (UK) Division]:
OK, I can join a bit, but i don`t know how much I can contribute (time). [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
* [[1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade Combat Team]] is now the [[3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/3-deep-reconnaissance-strike-brigade-combat-team/ 3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade website]
* [[12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom)]] is now the [[12th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|12th Armoured Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/12th-armoured-brigade-combat-team/ 12th Armoured Brigade website]
* [[20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom)]] is now the [[20th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|20th Armoured Brigade]] — [https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/formations-divisions-and-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/20th-armoured-brigade/ 20th Armoured Brigade website]
The British Army hasn't yet completely updated all of their webpages, but the "Brigade Combat Team" naming has been dropped, and the 3rd (UK) Division's 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade has been renamed 3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade to make way for the formation of the 1st (UK) Division's 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade. I moved four of the brigades (3rd, 4th, 7th, 19th) to their current and correct names, <s>but for the [[16 Air Assault Brigade (United Kingdom)|16 Air Assault Brigade]], [[12th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|12th Armoured Brigade]] and [[20th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|20th Armoured Brigade]] I could not move them, as the the correct names are also the units traditional names. If an administrator of the project could please move these three brigades to their correct names; thank you.</s> [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 23:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:Task force: Military Music? --[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::Don't any of thee people speak English? I'm paying for this. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 15:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::So that includes all the bands and music written specifically for the military? That's not very much, is it? Or am I missing something? --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
== Help needed with article name at [[2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats]] ==
:::Sadly, you are missing out on something. There's TONS of historical military music out there. Marches, Barracks ballads, Sea shanties, Unit and popular songs. There are entire albums and whole websites devoted to it. Choose one from [http://www.google.com/search?q=Military+music&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official THIS google search]. Music can make history come alive in a way very few mediums can. It is also a large and fascinating topic which deserves its own Task Force. --[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See [[Talk:2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats#Rename the article to 2025 United States strikes on Caribbean boats|several evolving proposals]] as the situation has escalated. More eyes are needed to form consensus. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
== New featured pictures target ==
::::One of the more unusual ideas to come up, I think ;-) I suppose that we should consider two questions here:
::::# Does including military music segway us to including military art, writing, or similar things?
::::# Do we ''want'' to include said things in the project?
::::[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to all of our hardworking [[WP:Featured pictures|featured pictures]] contributors. We have smashed through our previous target of 575 featured pictures and now have 680 within the project's scope. The co-ordinators have set a new target of 750 pictures, which would be a great milestone.
:::My answer to both is, why yes:) They are part of history, and while not as important as wars, campaigns or battles, they do help shape the way such events are viewed and remembered. This of course leads to the question; How do we accomplish this? I recommend a single large task force to cover "Military arts and literature". And if it proves successful, then it can spawn off daughter TFs to cover music, painting, movies, writing etc as deemed worthy:).--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Thats a lot of work on ahead, but as a Military History project we cannot ignore how the arts have shaped our martial world...--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Interesting. Do we want to draw a distinction between the following, though:
:::::* Military "art" (painting, etc.)
:::::* Military literature (in the work of historians sense; perhaps "military historiography" is a better term here)
:::::* Military literature (depiction of ''real'' warfare in literature)
:::::* Military fiction (depiction of ''fictional'' warfare in literature)
:::::The last of these is a ''massive'' block of articles that we've traditionally kept away from, so I'm not sure if we would want to include it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I guess htat would depend on the memebrs we would gather, but prestnly I think one group should take care of the Arts, Literature and Music. As for Fiction I dont think we should open that Pandora's Box. As interessting as it is, I think our agenda will be a quagmire with the arts alone... --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The files promoted in the last month are below (apologies if I have missed any). Thank you to all of the nominators involved and also to [[User:Matarisvan]] who does the important work of keeping [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FP|our featured picture showcase]] up to date.
:::Agreed Dryzen, that is one box we should avoid opening, no matter how fascinating some of its contents may be ;). But the first three are fair game. The key here, of course, as you point out, will depend on how many interested contributors will join and participate.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For anyone interested in getting involved, information on the featured picture criteria can be found [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria|here]] and on the nomination procedure [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination procedure|here]] - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 05:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Would "literature" include things like [[Richard Sharpe (fictional character)|Richard Sharpe]], in this case? Or am I horribly misinterpreting what's intended? If it ''would'', I wonder if we might not have two distinct task force ideas here:
::::* Military art and literature
::::* Military historiography (historians and formal historical works)
::::These might be combined, I suppose, but it might be a bit unusual to lump more scholarly works in with the rest. All of this is, of course, contingent on there being more interested editors. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
<gallery class="center" mode=packed heights=200px>
::Sigh...Leftenant Sharpe, it is with great reluctance I must dismiss you, Sir! Unfortunately works of military fiction, even those heavily based in fact and realism (or "''faction''") such as Sharpe and his seafairing contemporary countryman, [[Horatio Hornblower|Captain Hornblower]], must be excluded. At least for now. But who knows? Once the TF is up and (hopefully) running, maybe enough will demand they be called back to duty. Even then, though, I say we should limit ourselves to works of faction over flights of fancy. In the meantime, having two TFs as you suggest is perhaps better than one.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
File:Eddie Adams, Photographer April 1985.jpg|War photographer [[Eddie Adams (photographer)|Eddie Adams]] photographed by [[Bernard Gotfryd]]. Nominated by [[User:JJARichardson]]
:::Although I would perfer not to mix Art and Literature with Historiography, if we dont have enough members we might have to make the compromise. As for Sharpe and faction, [[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] hold my opinion on the subject.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
File:Felice Beato - Interior of the Angle of Taku North Fort Immediately After Its Capture by Storm - Google Art Project.jpg|Aftermath of the [[Battle of Taku Forts (1860)]] photographed by [[Felice Beato]]. Nominated by [[User:Yann]]
File:My Lai massacre.jpg|Aftermath of the [[My Lai massacre]] photographed by [[Ronald L. Haeberle]]. Nominated by [[User:10ploopy10]]
File:Last American Soldier leaves Afghanistan.jpg|Major General [[Chris Donahue (general)|Chris Donahue]], the last American soldier to withdraw from Afghanistan. Nominated by [[User:JJARichardson]]
File:Kissing the War Goodbye.jpg|[[Victor Jorgensen]]'s photograph of a US Navy sailor kissing a female passing by on [[Victory over Japan Day]] at Times Square. Nominated by [[User:Yann]]
File:Valley of the shadow of death.jpg|''[[Valley of the Shadow of Death (Roger Fenton)|Valley of the Shadow of Death]]'', a photograph taken by [[Roger Fenton]] during the [[Crimean War]]. Nominated by [[User:Yann]]
</gallery>
== International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox ==
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Eastern_European_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Eastern European notice board] exists, but it seems to be no hit. Poland is considering itself Central Europe, so I doubt they object. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone here familiar with the history of this infobox and the underlying article it's on? This thing appears to be an utter travesty, an abomination of a template. Per the documentation on Template:Infobox military conflict (which the infobox in question derives from), infobox sections for military commanders in wars should include {{tq|only prominent or notable leaders with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended}}; and when there is a large number of participants, {{tq|it's preferable to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article}}. This absolutely absurdly large infobox template does neither. There are at least '''thirty entries in the "belligerents" section''' (which doesn't even accurately reflect the number stated by the [[Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition]], which started at 34 and grew to 43.) There are over 30 entries for just *current* commanders -- excluding sections for "allies" and former commanders, which grows that list to '''well over 100(!) entries of commanders'''. For comparison, the article for [[World War II]] only has two participants (Axis and Allies) and seven commanders (4 allied, 3 axis) listed. Or compare with [[World War I]] which has no commanders listed for either side (link only) and a belligerents section of only 6 Allied Powers and 4 Central Powers, both followed by a wikilink of "...and others". Those are examples of properly formatted infoboxes for large conflicts. For this ISIS one, however, does anyone know whether there was a proper RFC done or a broad community discussion that took place that would have make this *not* an example of [[WP:CONLEVELS|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, being used to override community consensus]] on infoboxes on a wider scale.? [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
== We must be doing something right ==
:Actually with further investigation it doesn't appear that a formal discussion was had anywhere, because the most recent thing I see in the archives is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_against_the_Islamic_State/Archive_4#This_page_is_too_big_after_including_templates,_it_is_breaking_Wikipedia this talk discussion 5y ago] in which unanimously it was agreed to reduce the size of the infobox which had by then reached a critical bug-inducing size; followed a couple of years later by an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_against_the_Islamic_State/Archive_4#c-Tartan357-2022-07-04T22:31:00.000Z-Shortening_the_infobox unanswered proposal] to drastically cut down the size per [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] (to only the leaders of the major coalitions, and the leaders of the countries where ISIS has been the most active (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Nigeria); and on the ISIS side, only the so-called "caliphs"). So maybe the better question would be, is there any policy-based reason to keep such a massive infobox vs. either drastically cutting down the entries or removing them altogether and linking to a more detailed subarticle? [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 16:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::This is one of those infoboxes from hell that needs to be culled back to an appropriate size. It is not the place for detail. It is meant to be a ''simple'' summary of key information ''from the article''. Consequently, the body of the article should evidence why a commander is listed in the infobox. Furthermore, the template doc would have us list about seven a side max. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Kirill has informed me that our project was featured in a presentaion on Wikipedia 1.0 at this weekend's Wikimania. It further confirms that this project is a model of collaboration, organization and efficiency for the rest to follow. I believe some degree of back patting and hi-fiving is in order:) [[Bravo Zulu]] TEAM!--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
== Sock circus ==
:There were a number of ''very'' interesting issues brought up at Wikimania that relate to this project, actually. I'll be posting full details here once I get back home—and to a more reliable connection! ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yay! All praise the ETERNAL LEAD COORDINATOR-FOR-LIFE!!! :P (So was Wikimania fun?) -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|<font color="#FF0000">Миборовский</font>]]''' 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nice. --[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] <sup>[[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]</sup> 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Very fun! (Except for getting back. I've been stuck at [[Logan International Airport|Logan]] for six hours now, waiting for a flight that keeps getting delayed.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed 7k text from [[Allied invasion of Sicily]] and 6k from [[Operation Fustian]], which was all inside references and had been added by socks of the disruptive editor TimSala / Paulioetc / Generalmesse. I will continue to look for such lengthy texts in references, which always cite fringe sources and remove them. There is also an open [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala]] for the newest rounds of socks. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 11:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Well, since I'm not going anywhere for a while, and the airport wireless seems to be holding up, I'll summarize the salient points of Wikimania discussions as they relate to us. (Most of these merely came up in conversations I had with various people, and shouldn't necessarily be taken as official pronouncements of anything.)
: Most grateful for your diligence. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:* A number of people expressed the opinion that we were one of the best WikiProjects—and perhaps even the best of all. So yes, it does look like we're doing something right.
:* Resources for the project: in addition to the upcoming arrival of media from the Holocaust Museum (which ought to alleviate some of the copyright issues that have come up with WWII images), there are a variety of things being added to WikiSource that would be of interest to us. Most obvious here are complete (including images) issues of National Geographic from the WWI era; there's some fascinating material there. We'll need to figure out a good way of organizing it all and finding it when needed, obviously.
:* Wikipedia 1.0: [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] suggested that topic-specific DVD releases (e.g. a military history encyclopedia) might find it easier to locate interested publishers, as we might provoke interest among the more specialist presses. I'm not sure how practical this would be, but it might be something to consider.
:* Project templates: a number of interesting tricks with show/hide blocks were suggested for reducing the intrusiveness of WikiProject banners. I'll experiment around with these and see if any of them can actually work in practice before making any concrete comments in this regard, though.
:* Other things: there were a number of points discussed about a more prominent role for WikiProjects within the community as we push towards a greater focus on the quality of Wikipedia's articles. Whether this will result in anything concrete is entirely up in the air, however.
:Comments on any of these points are very welcome! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:: I checked all Royal Italian Army WWII divisions and also all Western Desert Campaign articles. Every time I found long text in refs I removed it, because it was always inserted by the same sock circus. If other editors spot similar edits / text in refs let me know and I will check and if a case of TimSala etc remove the text. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 19:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::RE:''as we push towards a greater focus on the quality of Wikipedia's articles.'' This goal will be much harder to achieve while the pedia is hemmoraging talent faster than [[Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia|Tsarevich Alexei]] at a body-piercing convention. Something must be done to slow the exodus of talented, experienced contributors. Jimbo has not even acknowledged yet that this has become a major problem. Quality articles require quality contributors. To my mind the best way of attracting and keeping them engaged is through building a better community. The better the community we build, the happier we all will be and the better we will contribute. Thus this "quality drive" needs to go side by side with a concerted effort to make Wikipedia a more welcoming and enjoyable place to work.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Well there are several reasons for this to happen. First of all, yes, people leave. Some finish their studies and start working, cutting down their available time on WP, some get children and so on. And there is not much you can do about that.
::: However, many people leave because they're getting tired of trolls and idiotic noobs and things like that.
::: So yes, I totally agree with you: we need a better community, that will provide both editor and moral support:
:::*For editors support, I'm talking peer review (people, PLEASE peer review those articles, it will take you about 15 minutes and it is very useful for us poor editors!!!) and copyedit help (while we have some excellent contributors whose work don't need copyediting, not all of us are native English speakers...)
:::*For moral support, well, I'm talking first of all about kind words and support in case of problem. And last but not least, "administrative" support. We must develop an ''esprit de corps'' (pardon my French :). If an editor gets bullied by a troll, the whole community must immediately stand guard and not let this happen. This also implies following your favorite articles in a watchlist, but I know most of us do this already.
::: Well, that should finish my rant. Sorry if it appears useless to some, but I had to get it out. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
== Former US DepSecDef ==
::::Perhaps we can work on developing a (possibly informal) in-house mediation system? We should somehow try to make sure that project members can come here and be guaranteed, if not actual support in a dispute, then at least a fair hearing. On the other hand, might such a project stress our resources too much? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Dont be sorry [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup>, if you can't post your opinion then something is wrong, certainly when its well posted. Ahh, mediating... this is something that will probobly never fit in a system, considering its case by case nature. Yet it is vital to work over frictions that can arise not only against trolls, but among competent Wikipedians as well. For exemple [[Byzantine empire]], this is a clear case of frictions among editors and trolls/noobs and amongst themselves. As a community though I do feal we should support our fellow participants against belicose trolls and noobs and like Peer review, take a look at casses of discord. Something that could help the cases of reacurring arguments in new wikigenerations would definitly go a long way in saving ressources. As [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] indicated, to keep a harmony will take ressources, but I think it could pay dividents. --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Kirill, I was not talking about in-house disputes, which I still have to see so far, but about disputes with external editors that have solely a political agenda. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 14:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, I understood that. What I meant was that the mediation process would be in-house; in other words, rather than approaching, say, the Mediation Committee with such an issue, we'd have a place/process within the project to ask for help with resolving disputes. Whether something like this would work would of course be dependent on how many project members would be willing to take part in it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I think a good thing already would be if people wanting to mediate cases would add themselves to the medcab lists and stand guard on the watchlist to take mediation of all related cases. Then again, it is just my opinion. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: That's probably a good thing too; but I think that, in many cases, the single mediator that's drawn in by the medcab process gets overwhelmed by the dispute. Having some way to bring the attention of larger portions of the project to bear in resolving these conflicts might be an improvement in that regard. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I trust you more than myself on these matters, Kirill, since you're way more experienced than I am. These are just side remarks of mine :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::From the mediating I've attempted, getting some outside support or more moderate voices in would definitly be welcomed. It could also stop some of hte cicular arguing that oft time occures (i.e. 1 says hte smae thign over and over 2 says hte opposite over and over and since only 1&2 participate nothing evolves. When 3 come's in supporting neither they can both ignore him, but 4&5 are a crowd they can't ignore.)--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, I've posted a short note at [[Talk:Kathleen Hicks#Stewart interview|Talk:Kathleen Hicks]] asking whether a paragraph about her 2023 televised exchange with [[Jon Stewart]] belongs in her biography, or if it may be more appropriate for Stewart's article instead. Because I have a COI (I work with the Hicks family), I’m not editing directly, but would appreciate input from editors familiar with defense topics. Thanks very much for any thoughts. [[User:WWB_Too|WWB Too]] ([[User talk:WWB_Too|Talk]] · [[User:WWB_Too|COI]]) 14:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
http://www.tempusvivit.net/ is a high level reenactment organization in Germany. They started screening wikipedia for errors. Many of them have read scientific material on their topic and can quote it (a must in this scene). Perhaps we could engage some English-speaking reenactors to do the same job. Unfortunately I am not familiar which group (in this language area) is actually a good reenactment group and which not. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{Ping|WWB Too}} what does "I work with the Hicks family" mean? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 14:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::My firm, Beutler Ink, was hired by the Hicks family to seek updates to the Kathleen Hicks article while following WP:COI and WP:PAID. See also the <nowiki>{{Connected contributor (paid)}}</nowiki> template at the top of the Talk page. [[User:WWB_Too|WWB Too]] ([[User talk:WWB_Too|Talk]] · [[User:WWB_Too|COI]]) 14:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Reply|WWB Too}} So you work for, not with, the Hicks family? Or are the Hicks family also editing wikipedia alongside you? Given that we seem to have to clarify simple english can you also clarify whether "my firm" means employment or ownership of Beutler Ink? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Reply|Horse Eye's Back}} Sure thing. Beutler Ink is a consultancy that I own and operate; you can find more about that on my user page. The Hicks family has retained us on a contract basis to improve the quality of the article; you can see my prior efforts on the article's Talk page. [[User:WWB_Too|WWB Too]] ([[User talk:WWB_Too|Talk]] · [[User:WWB_Too|COI]]) 16:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ok, so "with" was an euphemism? Why not just directly say that you are paid? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
== German military operations - name translated vs. not ==
::Having our own mediation cabal is an excellent idea. And not without precedent either. Afterall, we started our own peer review process, to compensate for the deficencies in the larger one. And so far it has worked out well. At first, let us concentrate on editorial disputes and try and keep it about content rather than personalities. Such conflicts are usually difficult to resolve and thus RFC fodder.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 05:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Article titles about German military operations are inconsistent what to translate into English. With ''Fall'', handling is inconsistent between leaving it German or translate totally: [[Fall Weiss]], [[Fall Rot]] vs. [[Case Blue]], [[Case Brown]]. As of ''Unternehmen'' - this seems to be consistently translated into ''operation'', but then it is inconsistent whether the name is translated or not: [[Operation Sea Lion]], [[Operation Solstice]], [[Operation Northwind]], [[Operation Silver Fox]]... vs. [[Operation Bodenplatte]], [[Operation Elster]], [[Operation Lehrgang]], [[Operation Rösselsprung]]... does this follow a logic? --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
== Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007 ==
:When it comes to things such as Sea Lion vs Bodenplatte, it is because that name is most common among English speakers. I assume this applies for all the examples, but this is a good question. [[User:GGOTCC|GGOTCC]] 17:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
This was on the talk page of the [[Pacific War]] article and I thought it would be better placed here:
::Yes see [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names]]. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 22:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Some of it may stem from how they're translated (or not) in the RS used in each article. Some authors translate every military operation name, while others do not. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 18:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::Should we try to make this more consistent, and if yes, how exactly? --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 04:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
== FAC review request ==
:The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)</br>
--[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Might be visiting some colleges in the east around that time... -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]][[User:Miborovsky/B|<font color="#FF0000">в</font>]][[User talk:Miborovsky|ский]]''' 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, a current FAC I have running ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Fürst Bismarck/archive1]]) is short of reviewers, and will likely be archived if I can't attract any interest. If you have time to take a look at the article, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance! [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 17:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Kirill, since you're already in Maryland, any chance you could make it out for that? A more suitable ambassador I can't think of. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Count me in. I'll work on one today. [[User:GGOTCC|GGOTCC]] 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::I haven't the faintest idea of what my schedule will be like nine months from now, unfortunately; but I'll consider it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Endorse Project coordinator or assistant'''. I've offered to go, but I'm such a comparative novice around here. I often find myself in the DC area, so even if I'm not a panelist I might well attend as an audience member. It would be really great if we could get Kirill (or other senior WPMH contributor) at such an event. I commend Rjensen for bringing the wiki community into an important venue at an important time; I say this having been a sometimes complainer about that user's boldness. Since wiki projects' influence on society is inevitable, it would be great if we could lead with our best (since one of our most prolific, Dr. J, will also attend). [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Yay for Kirill!''' :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
== Cold War Swedish Ship Template ==
:::: I just took a look at the list of Project participants, & one old-timer to consider if Kirill can't make it is [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJClayworth]]. Although I've been around Wikipedia for a while, I haven't been very involved in this project & wouldn't be able to talk much it. Furthermore, I'm on the West Coast while DJ is in Ontario -- he's much closer. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
:::Perhaps we can convince some of these professionals to help us in peer reviews and assure quality this way. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 10:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am currently trying to figuring out how a template for Cold War-era Swedish Ships should work. Normally, it seems that the convention is to use a template such as [[Template:Post1945DutchShips]] to avoid repeats of WW2-era ships. However, we already have [[Template:ActiveSwedishNavyClasses]]. Should I merge the active ships template to avoid duplication of modern vessels, or is there an existing template style for ships between 1945 and 1991?
Thanks! [[User:GGOTCC|GGOTCC]] 17:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
== How do I cite translations? ==
I want to insert translations of featured articles. They do have non-English sources and a differnt reference system. When making a change in the German wiki you cite your source in the textbox this wiki uses for comments on changes. Of course the sources are also listed in the article, but I don´t want to check the article´s history for footnotes. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:Meh. I suspect that'll be the only real option here, as footnotes are basically a ''sine qua non'' on en: now. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::Next one for the [[Radio Yerevan Award]]. I would have to go back the complete (from a stub!!!) history of an article to state all changes with footnotes. Furthermore most German authors, like their English counterpart, do not source. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: blue;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: green; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: white;" | [[Image:Hammer and sickle.svg|45px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: black;" | For hard-working humour, but on certifiably insane criteria, this user has received the '''[[Radio Yerevan|Radio Yerevan Award]]'''.
|}
:::Ah well, what can I say... our earlier laxity with regards to citation is now coming back to haunt us; but there's really nothing we can do to make it easier (aside from using more thorough citation in the future, but that's a given). ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::(Which is not to say that going through the history is the only option, but likely the easiest. The ''other'' one would be to get the relevant sources and find the appropriate citations from scratch; but I doubt that this version would be any more palatable.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I understand footnotes are needed and adding them is a pain in the ass. But as I pointed out in German wiki articles work without. 1 out of 4 of the latest featured articles does use footnotes, all the others work completely without. This is like running kde on windows xp. Getting the sources is the easiest option. Problem: On English wikipedia are only English sources allowed. How do we solve that? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, I don't believe there's any requirement to use ''only'' English sources. Certainly it's preferred to have them where available—as they're easier to use for most readers and editors—and a total lack of English sources might be problematic at FAc, but I don't think there's anything wrong with citing sources in other languages in general, provided they're published ones. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::OK, I checked it. I think when I started on wikipedia here the policy was different. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English How to cite non English sources]]. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: The problem with using materials from another language is entirely one of ''verification''. If you write an article on a topic, & only cite works published in one or more languages that are uncommon or have few speakers, there is no way to know whether the Wikipedian is accurately reporting what the source says -- or is making everything up. (I encountered this with a now-gone editor who would list at least a half-dozen books at the end of his articles -- all written in Georgian!) On the other hand, anyone who has done serious research into a topic knows that often the best books aren't written in English, & using a work in German, French or Japanese (to name a few likely possibilities) is unadvoidable.
::::: My advice for handling a situation like this is to always aim to do two things: first, if you need to use a foreign-language source, make sure you include at least one English-language source; this alone will help you pass the "smell test". Second, if you use a foreign-language source, make sure it is one listed in [[WP:BABEL]], & has at least one editor proficient in that language who edits on a regular basis. I feel this is all common sense, but spelling out these steps here might help down the road should some troll insist on banning all cites in a foreign language due to real or alleged verification problems. (And in case anyone is curious, no we do not have any Wikipedians who are proficient in Georgian.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
: I'm sorry, but I'll be the first one to take a BMG .50 and shoot every FAC without visible inline citations. Not that I find that particularly pleasant - mind you, I would write FACs 10 times faster otherwise :P - but I think it is a sine qua non, especially with all those WP criticisms going. At least FAs must be above these... -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::Well, German wiki runs without (now) and there are rumours in Germany that it is better quality than the English version. But I agree in this wiki we do need inline citations. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Well, I chose [[:de:Schlacht_um_Caen]] as an example and it has a list of refs and even some inline citations.
::: And about "better quality", I don't know obviously since my German is awful, but the fact of not having inline citations surely enables one to write articles faster, which might explain a higher number of those... -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::::19 books as sources (not so obvious, but the text is not based on the references) without in-text-reference, 5 in-text-references.
::::I send a proposal and several requests to people concerned or possibly concerned with the topic. Someday somebody might help us. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 11:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
== [[Castle]] ==
I've been working on a number of castle-related articles over the past few month (list can be seen at [[User:Dweller#Castles_project_to-do_list|my user page]]), but it struck me today that [[Castle]], which I've been avoiding because the size of the topic, should really be a featured article.
I'm really only knowledgable about British castles up to about 1400, with a smattering of knowledge of Crusader castles.
I'm prepared to start tackling [[Castle]] but could do with some help, particularly beyond the limits of my knowledge. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:Very nice. I would suggest also letting the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force|Middle Ages task force]] know. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::OK, I can help a bit, but the [[Castle#Influence of Castles in Britain|Influence of Castles in Britain]] section in the article seems a bit Anglocentric to me. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've set the ball rolling. It's a real mess. Feel free to get your hands dirty. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:First reading, than talking, than writing. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:What's the scope? Is there a distinction here between castle and fortification? It would be a shame to exclude Vauban and not to continue to the present day. Would ancient fortresses be included? There is a development thread through the ages. [[User:Folks at 137|Folks at 137]] 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::I think that a series of articles under the overall umbrella of [[fortification]] might be more practical than trying to cram everything into [[castle]]; certainly, the [[trace italienne]] is an important enough concept to warrant an article of its own. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Content dispute on the [[Royal Marines]] ==
I've done quite a bit of development on the [[Royal Marines]] article in the last day or so leading to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Marines&oldid=69809823 this] version, [[User:Tashtastic]] has chosen to revert the lot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Marines&diff=69835352&oldid=69809823 here] describing it as ''rv to non butchered version''. I'd be grateful for a second opinion on that.
Previous interactions with Tashtastic on talk pages have been attempted, without great success, I'd prefer some expertise looking at it, rather than engage in a revert war.
Cheers [[User:ALR|ALR]] 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:You have some points, Tashtastic has some points. Can you source your statements? The same concerns Tashtastic he sourced no claim, so it is not valid. Simple solution to edit wars. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::Tashtastic didn't present any reasonable argument whatsoever, just block reverted. I'd be more comfortable that this was an effort at constructive criticism if s/he had actually put some explanation up. fwiw most of what I've put up in the last couple of days can be verified on the RN Internet site, although I've validated some on the MOD intranet so can't cite that as a source (it's not accesible).
::I'm aware of how to deal with a content dispute, although on reflection I was probably genorous in describing this as such.[[User:ALR|ALR]] 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Two problems:
:::Verifiability of your content. Talk to a RN press officer and get some help releasing nonclassified information so any wiki-user can check it.
:::Tashtanic. If he delets in-text-sourced material and puts unsourced claims, this is vandalism and he gets blocked. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Let's continue this on the [[Talk:Royal Marines]] Page. I will post my observations there. --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
== Military people/personnel/whatever... ==
[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 15#Military people to military personnel|Another mass nomination]]. I'm not sure what to do with this one, since it goes against our plan of moving to "of X" for these categories; but that is apparently in conflict with the naming convention for the rest of [[:Category:Occupations by nationality]]. Any input would be extremely welcome! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:Every military personnel serves somebody or something. Usually this takes the form of a nation. So we simply categorize them by whom they serve and not where they were born. In the article we can state where somebody was born and perhaps even establish a substructure like Germans in the French Foreign Legion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::I perfered indicating where they where from to reduce the number of problematic service records. This might be less of a problem in modern armies but the medieval periode and following centuries to the industrial revolution some generals made quite the habit of switching sides. While others of course for ever served a foreign power. Of course the good old ''Légion'' is a definit proponent of by country of service.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I have no problem listing a soldier in all groups he served, while the problem for the Medieval time with their mercenaries is: we do not know for sure where everybody came from, but if we have a record, we know at which side he fought. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not a project member, though I do have some background on the subject (I revised the game [[Axis & Allies]], for example). Mostly what I hope to see is that we agree that we can't have "military people" and "military personnel" in the same category. "People" causes some folks paroxysms because it include non-servicemen, so I think that will never gain consensus. My proposal is that we agree on "Xian military personnel" for now, get all the categories on the same footing, and then deal with whether it's "military personnel of X" later on. Anybody buy that?--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::We've had long discussions on this without total consensus; this is why people feel a bit blindsided by the noms. [[User:UnDeadGoat|UnDeadGoat]] 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sure, but I think none of you would take the position that "some 'people' and some 'personnel' is good." Maybe a larger group like CfD can help tip it one way or the other.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Keep in mind we do a general decision on a case where we miss many reliable records about the combatants. So the only sure things is on which side were they. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
==Eureka Stockade==
Would the [[Eureka stockade]] be part of Military history? [[User:Kyriakos|Kyriakos]] 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:I consider it one group with the [[Wielkopolska Uprising (1848)]], the battle of [[Rastatt]] (1849) and in a broader sense the [[Second Anglo-Boer War]]. In my opinion it is part of military history, even if the military component was very onesided. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Quite agree with Wandalstouring here. It involved the British Army fighting a "battle"—even if not a very challenging one—so I think it qualifies. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::The [[Eureka stockade]] is an important part of Australian History but is not looked at in the military sence. The article states that ''the stockade has equal significance to Australian history as the [[Storming of the Bastille]] was to French history'', if this is true than shouldn't the Storming of the Bastill and all other similar events be in our scope too. These kinds of events are civil uprisings not military events. I will be the first to admit that these are important historical events that may involve the use of military forces, but not with in our scope. [[User:Hossen27|Hossen27]] 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Mmm, interesting point. I suppose my perspective on it was that if it involved regular troops, it was "military history" pretty much by default—regardless of whom they were fighting. Are you suggesting that we should use some other factor instead? I'm not sure if the distinction with "civil uprising" is tenable, in such cases: were the [[Battles of Lexington and Concord]] just a civil uprising, for example? As long as both sides were actually active combatants—which seems to have been the case here, if I understood the article correctly—I'd say it qualifies as a topic in "military history." I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this, though. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: I'm not suggesting we use another factor, the obvious way to define a military subject is whether there was military forces involved. My argument about this article is based on my belief that the military actions at the stockade are not important when looking at the event as a whole. People today dont talk about the battle of the Eureka stockade where soldiers fought against an entrenched enemy. They talk about protecting workers rights, standing up for what you believe in and the importance of the event in forming an Australian identidy. Saying that I wont be protesting if the WPMILHIST template stays on the talk page. [[User:Hossen27|Hossen27]] 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Fair enough; I'm not really familiar with the topic, so I have little knowledge of how its military aspects are regarded. Considering how minor of an engagement it is in military terms, either having the template or not seems fine to me; consistency need not be pedantic, after all ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Agree to disagree, its a good thing everyone doesnt think this way or we wouldn't have much of a project. At least there is an Australian article in the projects feature article category. [[User:Hossen27|Hossen27]] 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Actually, we do have some other Australian (or at least tagged with the Australian task force) FAs; [[Battle of Rennell Island]], for example. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I meant more Australian specific than that, but good point. [[User:Hossen27|Hossen27]] 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
== Userboxes ==
Some news of interest: the [[WP:GUS|German usebox solution]] has apparently started working on WikiProject userboxes, which are being "projectified"—that is, moved to a subpage of the relevant project in the Wikipedia: namespace, rather than residing in the Template: namespace. Personally, I don't believe that this is an issue worth fighting over, and would therefore suggest that we go ahead and move our (extensive) collection of userboxes to subpages.
The practical question here is this: where do we want to put them. I see two slightly different options:
* Common suffix: put all userboxes on a "/Userbox" subpage from the appropriate group. Thus, the main project uxerbox would be at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Userbox]], while, say, the WWII task force userbox would be at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Userbox]]. This has the advantage of it being easy to guess where the userbox for a particular group is, but does spread them out extensively.
* Common prefix: put all the userboxes on subpages of the outreach department. Thus, the main project userbox would be at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox]], while the WWII task force userbox would be at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox/World War II]]. This has the advantage of keeping all the userboxes in a single logical place, but puts them a bit further from the relevant groups.
Comments? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
: We can create both with one being a redirect to the other... :) I would lean towards a userbox ''page'' in Outreach, transcluding subpage userboxes. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::That's not a bad idea. If nobody objects, we can go ahead and move the userboxes there. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: I just started, see outreach page :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: What, it's already finished? :) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hehe. That didn't take very long ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
==National involvement in battles==
For battles/operations, I think we need to determine a standard of what criteria is involved for us to list a nation as a combatant.
Take a look at [[Battle of Monte Cassino]], it lists the following on the Allied side:
*United States
*United Kingdom
*Brazil
*Poland
*New Zealand
*India
*Free French
*Morocco
*and others
That's quite a large number for one battle and I think it may be stretching it. So the question is, how much is needed? 1 soldier? [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:My opinion: These nations are listed under combatants, so if there is a sourced claim they did participate, numbers are needed (directly behind the nation). If these numbers do not make a significant change to the total number involved on their side, except they made an important contribution, we do not explicitly mention them. What can reasonably be accepted as a signifacant change can be judged by common sense. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I think there are two basic rules we can use to trim things down:
::* Nations, not nationalities: if a nation is not taking part in the battle as a political entity, we don't list it. This means, for example, we don't need to list foreign mercenary units as their own "combatants".
::* Similarly, only ''independent'' "nations": if a nation does not exist as a separate political entity at the time of the battle, it is subsumed into whatever nation actually controls the territory. In this case, we would remove India and Morocco under this provision.
::In general, though, I'm hesitant to let WWII be (as usual) the tail that wags the dog here. The vast majority of historical conflicts do not have dozens of nations allied and contributing troops, and hence don't have this problem to deal with; I think that an informal trimming of entries on those articles where the list is particularly long will be better than trying to set explicit rules on what may or may not be listed. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::''independent'' "nations" is a source for trouble. How can we define this? Did you ever see a trooplist of the HRE, they were all independant... [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Does this actually come up in practice (that is, many members of the HRE participating ''on different sides''—if they're on the same side, we can just put "[[Holy Roman Empire]]" in the infobox and leave the details for the article)? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::(Actually, we can probably get away with generalities even when they're on different sides; see, for example [[Battle of Lützen (1632)]].) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I suggest to skip nations and put independent acting political entities (nation is a very recent invention). If we have lots of small flock, we simply list the most important (greatest contributions to troop strength, leading them, etc. and summarize the rest). [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough; I was really using "nation" as a shorthand, but I suppose it could be interpreted incorrectly to mean only true nation-states. My main point, though, was that we should avoid listing ''nationalities'' of soldiers if these are not tied to a distinct ''political'' participant in the fighting. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I definitly support the first basic rule suggested by [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]]. As for the ''non-independant'' nations I would suggest mentioning hte organisation in wich they are part. This woudl take care of multi-national task forces like NATO, UN, HRE, Commonwealths, etc... I dislike solely indicating the greatest contributor. Althouhg I do support making the infobox as short and consize as can be, should the character of the battle have been multy-partied it should definitly be mentioned. As well, mercenaries and ''non-independant'' nations should of course be discussed within the article. As for the nation section its true that can be misleading, but I completely understand and support Kirill Lokshin's original usage. Did anyone have somethign to propose changing it with? Looking at the list of synonym State, Country and Power could be replacements.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we can rewrite the rules by [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] (how they were meant to be):
* Political entities, not origin of comabatants: if a political entity is not taking part in the battle as such, we don't list it. This means, for example, we don't need to list foreign mercenary units as their own "combatants". My main point, though, was that we should avoid listing ''nationalities'' of soldiers if these are not tied to a distinct ''political'' participant in the fighting.
* Similarly, only ''independent'' "political entities": if a political entity does not exist as a separate entity at the time of the battle, it is subsumed into whatever entity actually controls the territory. In this case, we would remove India and Morocco (colonies, dominion, protectorate, etc.) under this provision.
Still there is the problem,like for the HRE in the [[battle of Lützen]]. (Actually, we can probably get away with generalities even when they're on different sides; see, for example [[Battle of Lützen (1632)]].) Somehow we need a way to make generalities. Many times there is no multi-national task forces like NATO, UN, HRE, Commonwealths, etc...
How do we handle that is the problem? If 30 independent villages gang up on 20 independant villages?
(wars in ancient Sumer for example) And forget nations, they were non-existant in many cases.
My suggestion was:
If we have lots of small flock, we simply list the most important (greatest contributions to troop strength, leading them, etc. and ''SUMMARIZE'' the rest). If there is no one of significantly great importance, they all get summarized. For example: [[Battle of Qarqar]]
So let`s come to the point in this discussion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:The point is, we can't treat ancient warfare the same as Second World War. Your suggestion to put numbers in brackets would work for the ancients, but makes no sense at all for modern battles, as a 10,000 man division will have perhaps 2,500 actual combatants. Obviously, separate rules should apply depending on circumstance. I'd even ditch the national components altogether for WW II and just list formations - in the case of Monte Cassino, British 8th Army, I Polish Corps, or whatever, and define national participation in the article itself.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::Well, actual numbers should really be in the "Strength" field even for ancient warfare. But we can certainly be flexible in what we list in the infobox, so long as the article itself explains the details. For example, we could have "Alliance led by Ur" against "Alliance led by Lagash" for ancient warfare; or "Western Allies: US, UK, France, and others" for modern battles. The key thing is that the two sides be easily identifiable; how exactly their components are to be listed can probably vary according to the exact needs of each article. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Quite true on the organisations, we could list the alliances instead, such as for what was done (genereal encampemnt of catholics and protestant powers) for [[Battle of Lützen (1632)]]. was what [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] suggested about allaince what your where alluding too [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]]? For listing the formations instead of combatant ''political entities'' I'm reticent to support such a change. It brings out some more questions to answer with the possibility of making the combatant listing even longer and more complex for the common reader. Of course I would love to have the listing of formations for my own personnal intrest, yet I dont think it will be worth the change in the overall percpective. Having such information in the article has done and will do. I do think we have the ''mercenary'' issue quite handled though. --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::"The key thing is that the two sides be easily identifiable" and the description is as short as possible. About ancient war [[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]], they did have their logistic personal just like nowadays. In some cases warriors equipped with most sophisticated equipment European knights for example) needed quite a lot personal to maintain this. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I would say "as short as possible ''without'' introducing substantial error"—we don't want people changing "Russia, Austria, Prussia" into "Sixth Coalition", for example; but I think the general intent is good (so long as it's clear that this is meant to be advice for the general case, not a rule to be followed pedantically even when it produces bad results). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'd like to introduce a point about the example given [[Battle of Monte Cassino]], and think about removing the mention of Indian Troops and adding there numbers to British Troops. I '''Strongly Oppose''' this on the grounds of both honouring the sacrifice of Non-White troops in WWII and Encyclopedic completeness. Sihks, Muslims and Hindus all willing served, in their own nation's (India)army and many Units in both the current Indian and Packistani armies that have these units in their regimental histories. I hope the accuracy of this project will address historical biases against the service of some groups over others, and with the great job people are doing here i have no doubt this will be the case.[[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]] 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::Well, that's not really what we're discussing, though. Nobody is suggesting that we should not indicate the presence of ''India'''n''''' (as in "from the place called India") troops—although it's usual to give a full breakdown of units in a section of the article rather than in the infobox, to prevent huge sprawling boxes on articles—but whether ''India'' (as in the country) should be listed as a separate combatant at a time when it did not exist as a politically independednt entity. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::[[Siege of Kut]] and [[First Battle of El Alamein]] are in perfect accordance with the rules suggested and they do mention the combatants from India in a fair way. White, non-white; write an article about blacks fighting for the Portuguese in Macao against Ming-China. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I think the best solution I've seen so far (as far as WWII battles/operations are concerned) is to list the actual units, and thier numbers, involved rather then nations. Most of the units already have articles of their own, and a great deal of the pages have orders of battle; in both of these we have areas better suited to discuss the make up of the troops involved. <s>Only in the cases where the number of units is unwieldly, or all/most of them for a nation were comitted to the same conflict (like in the WWII article itself), would we list the nations themselves.</s> [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::That may work, provided that the number of units is sufficiently small that the box can be kept concise. For the larger campaigns, in particular, this may not always be true; certainly, for something like [[Battle of Moscow]], I think we'd rather see "Soviet Union" given as a combatant than have a box with a laundry list of every Soviet army that participated in the conflict. (This would be especially problematic for longer battles where the units were repeatedly re-organized and re-numbered over the course of the conflict.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Battle of Moscow: would be Army Group Center vs. Central Front (or whatever it was called). For World War Two as a whole, you have "Alles" vs. "Axis". You go to the highest formation you can think of. For Dieppe, it is then "2nd Canadian Division" vs. Infanterie Division XXX, for Normandy 21st Army Group vs. Army Group X. You can vary the level of headquarters to fit the articles.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, for the Battle of Moscow, it would be Army Group Center vs. Western Front, Reserve Front, Bryansk Front, & Kalinin Front (I may have missed a few). Particularly early in the war, you often have multiple "independent" fronts being compressed into a small area during an offensive, so I'm not sure listing them all would be an improvement. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree with Kirill, listing fronts is kinda unhelpful... -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Okay, trying to go for something concrete here; this is a (rough!) draft of how we might change the instructions to reflect some of the points made in the discussion. Current version
:* '''combatant1'''/'''combatant2''' – ''optional'' – the parties participating in the conflict. Convention is to use the names of countries, rather than those of specific units. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
:Updated version:
:* '''combatant1'''/'''combatant2''' – ''optional'' – the parties participating in the conflict. Convention is to only list independent ''political'' participants (which are often countries, but may also be alliances or other groups); non-political or non-independent participants (such as mercenaries serving another power or troops drafted from colonies) are usually not explicitly named in the infobox, but are indicated in the body of the article. However, for more modern conflicts, individual formations (such as fronts, armies, or divisions) may be listed if this improves reader understanding and does not unacceptably lengthen the template. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
:I think I've gotten most of the relevant issues; please feel free to point out anything I've missed or misinterpreted. The text is somewhat dense, but hopefully concise enough that people will actually read it. Comments would be very welcome! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::"However, for more modern conflicts, individual formations (such as fronts, armies, or divisions) may be listed if this improves reader understanding and does not unacceptably lengthen the template. The use of flag icons is not recommended."
::Some ancient conflicts were mainly carried out by renown units such as the "wilden Gesellen" (military unit of Haag) in the ("Ochsenkrieg" 1421- 1422) between Haag and Bavaria, or the mercenary Regiment of [[Georg von Frundsberg|Frundsberg]].
::Therefore delete modern. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I think that, in cases where said units were acting independently, they fall under the "also be alliances or other groups" clause; and in cases where they merely happen to be mercenaries explicitly acting as the army of a political combatant, it's the original political combatant that ''should'' be listed in the infobox, rather than the mercenary unit. (For example, saying that Frundsberg's landsknechts fought Giovanni de' Medici's Black Bands says absolutely nothing to a reader glancing at the infobox, particularly given how regularly Medici changed sides; it's much more useful, in my opinion, to indicate what the actual powers were on whose behalf these mercenaries were fighting at the time.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I don't like it. :-) Echoing [[User:Hypnosadist|Hypnosadist]]'s concerns, I believe that specifically sanctioning the exclusion of "non-independent participants" from the infobox potentially encourages a type of systemic bais we want to avoid, because it can exclude large numbers of non-state or colonial combatants. I think it would be better to say something like: "Describe the combatants as succinctly as possible in the infobox, usually identifying them by country, but also possibly by army, alliance, front, tribe, or unit. To avoid overcrowding the infobox, when there is a wide variety of participants, list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and describe the rest in the body of the article."
::Definitely avoid specifying the exclusion of mercenaries: there are times when a battle was fought almost exclusively by hired troops on one side (e.g. the [[Battle of Trenton]]), and then of course they should be listed. [[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] <small>[[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaints?)]]</small> 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I like it personally. If I have the gist correct, we'll use specific units if possible ([[British 8th Army]] vs. [[Afrika Corps]] etc.) and nationalities if the specific units, at the highest level, becomes to long to be of any real use (say more then two or three units).
:::I think we can agree that for every rule, we'll have to have exceptions. In the case of mercenaries, they would have to be listed if they are they are a sufficient portion of the forces and are not part of a larger organized group ([[Hannibal]]'s forces come immediately to mind).
:::I also don't think it will lead to exclusions. If there are combatants which are not part of a larger force which is mentioned, and had noteworthy numbers/impact, then we'll have to mention them independantly. If they are officially part of a larger unit, then they will be mentioned within the article on that particular unit, in the order of battle for the conflict, or in the article itself if neither exist. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Hmm, how about this, taking Kevin's points into account:
::::* '''combatant1'''/'''combatant2''' – ''optional'' – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
::::Is that any better? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Brilliant! Only it should say: "Editors who put flag icons in infoboxes will be beaten." ;-) [[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] <small>[[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaints?)]]</small> 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Hehe. The small icons are mildly annoying, but I don't find them a point worth fighting over. It's the ''really big'' ones (e.g. [[Arab-Israeli Conflict]]) that are the most irritating. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Reads well to me Kirill. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::What a mess to answer a simple question. Besides I wanted only to object modern naming of military units vs not naming ancient military units in the battle box. I did not expect it to be worth so much alphabetic characters. :-/ [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::There's no such thing as a simple question on Wikipedia ;-) Look at the various [[WP:MOS]] pages; those go into exhaustive, painful detail on even the most trivial points, simply because people have—and do—get into huge fights over them. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Okay, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Military_history%2FMilitary_conflict_infobox&diff=70433088&oldid=68842264 updated] the infobox instructions to that last version; further comments are, of course, very welcome! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this from the begining waht did we want to show by mentioning combatants? Who was insvolved seems to be the answer, correct? This seems to have brought some varying points of vue and the involved part.
In definition point of vue we want to see those that was there, on the battle, in the war. Yet this brings a clash with the conceptual point of vue, wich would dictate that those involved are conflicting factions. Within this second reasoning the involved units are representations of the factions, not factions in themselves (in metaphorical terms naming the gladiators and not the equipement).
I am leaning towards this second opinion, as it it easier for the avarage reader to take in the information than individual formations (of wich arrise the ever present problem of selecting the largest available formations to indicate within the infobox. Thus meaning that passer-by readers will ever have to read around to comprehend the fluctuating combatants (i.e. with whom is this army? In which division, whom from what army, is this battalion?)).
Presenting both ideas to fully appreaciate them and attempt at an objective resolution; both sides have their merrit and their semantic weaknesses. When presenting a war, it is only natural that the factions and largest formations be the same, for what larger formation is there than a "side", a "political entity"? In ''political entity'' I do not stop at parties and nations, but at organisations. The weakness in this could be proven as not being truly representative of the scope of the conflict: The Allies is a rather ambiguous term wich as been used many times in history by varying powers, nor does it have the same effect as naming the panonply of states involved. For a battle, the factions keeps the understanding of sides a simple mater equally by seeying the factions one can general surmize the identity the conflict in which this engament took place, where are writing these for the public are we not?
Returning to the former point of vue, indicating the highest formation in a war, like in the above paragraph, should enevitably return to the factions and not solely the faction's armed forces, since this would neglect the global effect of war on a populace. In battles, we can beging to see that using the "direct" combatants is an effective methode. It indicates the scale of the encounter, the varying commands and the players to be seen in the acticle. It strength is also its weekness, one must have prior knowledge to be able to take in treasure of information.
Lastly, mercenaries are for the former an acceptible inscription. While in the later they are grossly inaceptible. Not representing a faction of their own they have no true reason to be indicated on one side of the other. To take [[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] <small>[[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaints?)]]</small>'s exemple of the [[Battle of Trenton]], it is true that Hessians formed the rival position of combatant, yet it would be false to say that [[List of states in the Holy Roman Empire| German states]], not sharing [[George III of the United Kingdom|the british monarch]], where at war with the [[Continental Army| revolutionaries]].
Inconclusion, after reviweing two major possibilities I have come to the conclusion that factions should be the combatants, with the possibility of the untis being metnioned either within its own section, within the strength or as a compromise mentioned under the faction, i.e. British #Hessian Regiments#. For a military force rarely holds independant drive, wich to me makes the real combatant capable of answering "Who was involved". One cannot say that it was the Hessian regiments that descided to fight the Contenentals, nor could one say that Army Group Center craved to invade the Soviet Union (these could decide on the particularities of the war or battles but they where not the forces that initiate the congflict (Ex: A government declares, the army does).
I hope that my long text has been helpful and that I have not left any vague spots (which seems to be my bane) to be misunderstood.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:Interesting points (although, as just about anything we work with here, there are exceptions and bizarre cases for them). I think that our underlying philosophy should be to express a general convention—here, "most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict"—but leave the specifics (and the various unusual cases) up to the people working on the article. I'm sure somebody can come up with examples for each possible interpretation of "combatants" where a pedantic rule would create problems, so it's probably better to allow article writers a considerable level of disretion. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::This seems to have been our default position. Wich I had never tuly contested, yet since everyone was putting in there opionions, I voiced my own. Should we ever attempt at a more pointed convention I hope that my analysis will aide. The only real point of contest I had was with mentioning mercenary units in the combatant section, which I explained above.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::In the 17th century, battles were fought where the majority of the troops were mercenaries. I feel the nationality of these mercenaries should not be mentioned. Hiring swiss mercenaries did not make Switzerland a participant. Also, many mercenaries were professional soldiers, hired on an individual basis. What mattered, were the nationalities of the nations at war.
:::The situation gets different when the troops were on loan to another ruler, such as the Hessian soldiers fighting the american revolt. And even then I'd vote to keep the Hessians out of the infobox, mentioning them in the text. [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Same thing for the 16th century; and it's ''really'' confusing when you have the same "nationality" of mercenaries fighting on both sides of a battle. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I dont consider the situation any difrent with forces on loan. Unless of course intrigue was involved, such as in the [[Seven Years' War]], were French forces where loaned to Autsria so that France could enter the war with Prussia to get at Hanover wich was under British rule.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
== Maximum enlistment ages ==
Just a heads up, [[maximum enlistment age]] needs to either be some sort of an article or point to a ___location that already has that information. I don't know enough to do it myself. Thanks. --[[User:Cyde|<font color="#ff66ff">'''Cyde Weys'''</font>]] 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:May I surprise you: There is no such thing. All German grandpas within reach were armed with guns somehow and their grandchildren with [[Panzerfaust]]s shortly before the end of the Second World War in Germany in 1945. So if somebody tries really hard, there is no age limit. Most reservist soldiers are usually not drafted if over the age of ~45. On the other hand you can enter the Indian army up to the age of 30-35, while for the German army 25-28 is the limit. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::We could probably get away with something like [[Enlistment age by country]], as I think there are similar lists for various other topics (age of consent and drinking age, although I don't remember what the article names are). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Agree with Krill [[Enlistment age by country]] would be the appropriate article, it also allows you to also talk in an historic sence. Enlistment age over time in each country such as Germany in WWII. [[User:Hossen27|Hossen27]] 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Interessting proposal, the [[Enlistment age by country]] should be very informative, even more so should we include periodes. --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
==Warrior Kings==
Would [[Alfred the Great]] and [[Clovis I]] be regarded as Military History seeing as warrior kings such as Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun and Alaric I are considered part of Military History? [[User:Kyriakos|Kyriakos]] 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:First we need a clear definition: What is a [[Warrior King]]?
:Second we can decide who is one and who not. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:: A warrior King is a king that leads his men into a campaign. For instance, Alexander the Great spent like 10 years in a campaign away from homeland. OTOH, a lot of English kings waged colonial wars without leaving London. (It's just a thought...) -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Last British monarch to lead troops into battle was George II, fwiw. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I think a good rule of thumb is: if there is a significant amount of military history material that needs to be in the article—whether because someone led troops into battle directly, like Alexander or Caesar, or because they were heavily involved in the conduct of a war as a civilian, like Abraham Lincoln—then they can be considered to be part of "military history". But merely being the ruler while a war was fought doesn't qualify them ''unless'' they took some active role in its conduct (and consequently need significant material on it included in the article). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Warrior King would be to difficult, IMO, to create an accepted definition. Would it apply to every monarch who ever led troops in battle? Would this monarch have to have actually partaken in the combat, or would being on the sidelines count? What if they planned the battles/campaigns, but never set foot on the battlefield? Does it have to specifically be a King? What about Emperors, Queens, Princes and other nobility? If a person was a warrior before becoming King (but not after) would that count? What about the other way around? Would it be purely historical, or would fictional characters (such as [[Aragorn]]) be applicable?
:::::Point-in-short, I don't think a universally accepted definition is possible. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Very good points [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]], this could lead to multiple forms of militant leaders: Armchair Leaders leading from the back, Warrior Leaders leading from the front as fighters, Soldier Leaders leading as professionnal military men/women, Diplomat Leaders, etc... Now beyond this and looking as to putting leaders in the Military Personnel/people categories, which if I am right is at the basis for this discusion, most heads will have to go in or out. The easiest to include are those leaders with military backgrounds. Following woudl be leaders of influence in military matters, those that set the objectives, worked on the strategies; those rulers that had a hand in war. This of course will of included a majority of leaders, leaving only the figureheads: innefectual and ruled by there councils. --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we can make a better defintion: the king is engaged in close combat in the battle he leads. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::That would definitly be a warrior king in its purest form, including the one I would prefer to use. This though does ingnore other types of Militant leaders. What is the reason behind categorising warrior Kings is my question? From this we can perhaps build a definition that better suits the need.--[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Infobox war ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hong_Kong&curid=1160238&diff=70437391&oldid=69648379 Battle o' Hong Kong] [[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:Argh! ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::If there is already an article on "History of Hong Kong", wouldn't it make sense for that project to claim History, and for the Battle article to be a Military History project page exclusively?[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Meh. It's probably not worth fighting over exact scopes; the convention that summary templates (i.e. infoboxes) get higher placement than mere link or series templates should be sufficient for our purposes here. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
==Military history of Europe==
I'm planning on starting an article on the [[Military history of Europe]], and I was wondering (given the huge task) who would be interested in joining/helping me?
We're talking about a truly massive article, from the Greeks at Thermopylae till the European contribution to the lebanon peace force. If you're interested, please add your name below and your interest or country of particular knowledge.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
''Add name here:''
* [[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] -- Dutch (military) history; and mainly 1450+
:Why start with Thermopylae? Why European military history in one box? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't recommend any really massive articles. For something as broad as the military history of Europe you should probably segment it out into the eras used in convential [[Military history]] (Ancient, Medieval, Gunpowder, Industrial, Modern) and then add summaries in each of them with links to specific ''main articles'' for each section. [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah but given the massive influence europe has had, and how delevopements in it shaped our world ... I'm not looking for some mix of every Europeans country's military history, but more of a broad (''massive'' wasn't the right word) article describing the impact of European countries and empires. [[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Can you tell in detail what you want to do and show. An overview with links to existing articles about military histpry in Europe? Do you want to exclude North America (Canada, USA) or include? What about theIslamic, the Ottoman and the Mongol Empire which covered large parts of Europe? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Non including any reference to them would be thoughtless, this isn't a black and white situation. The aim should be to desribe military events and their impact, if that includes colonies, non europe based empires, or foreign allies/enemies during a war than that should not be ignored. [[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm not quite sure what the idea is here. Are you trying primarily for a chronological presentation (i.e. tracing military events in Europe) or an overview of the development of military science (in which case limiting it to Europe seems rather counterproductive)? I do think there might be some potential for the first option, but it will quickly become very convoluted. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going for the chronological overview of military events in Europe.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:I oppose a chronical overview. It is a more like a summary style article that helps little to inform.
:Actually a military history of Europe as an entity is nonexistant till to the division of the Mediterranean between Islamic and Christian rule. Until then it is the Mediterranean (3 continents) and their neighbours.
:So we could make a Mediterranean military history (Classic, Rome, Carthage, Greece, Egypt, early and high Middle Ages) that ends some time after the crusades and European dominated military history is the rise of Europe as origin of global powers and their influence on warfare and economics. It starts with the [[Portugues]]/[[Spanish]](America silver, India spice, Africa slaves, spreading the Christian religion) and then [[Dutch]], [[British]], [[French]] (settlements) and minor colonial powers like [[Denmark]], [[Prussia]], [[Courland]] (slavetrade, golden triangle). Later we have [[Italy]] and [[Germany]] as further colonial powers during Europe´s imperial era, ending after the second world war. In meantime we have the rise of the economic US-imperialism (independence of Panama, war with Spain). How far into modern times we extend it is a point to discuss. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::That seems like a rather strange way of splitting it. Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic military histories certainly dovetail into that of "Europe"; but, at the same time, a distinctively European military history emerges immediately after the fall of Rome with things like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon warfare in England and Frankish warfare in the Rhine area. Certainly, by the time of the Crusades, it's in full swing. We can't really regard, say, the Guelph-Ghibelline wars as some extension of "Mediterranean" warfare; and northern and eastern Europe are entirely separate by this point.
::I would suggest instead an article tracing post-Roman "European" warfare. Granted, some intrusion of material from outside Europe will be inevitable, but I think the majority of the narrative will have a distinctly European focus. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Post roman ... alright, how would we start such an article? An introduction how the migration period was its ultimate downfall? Such an introduction would be a stepping stone towards the first European empires.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Why pos-Roman? What about the military history during the Roman-era, or the Classical era in Greece? Are those military events so inconsequential that we can blantantly choose to ignore them? I for one think that such an article should proceed, chronologically from the first record of military history in Europe till August 19, 2006. I think that if that is not the case for the article, a more appropriate name would be European Military History "Lite." --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, Wandalstouring makes the point that Greek and Roman military history may be better handled in a "Military history of the Mediterranean" article (or something of the sort) simply because it's so entwined with the non-European history of that region. Hence, we'd actually have two articles:
::::* [[Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean]] discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else
::::* [[Military history of Europe]] (or [[Military history of post-Roman Europe]], perhaps?) discussing things after the first article breaks off (and obviously pointing out that the first article is where information about the preceeding period may be found)
::::[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Where's Northern Europe going to fall into this? Or parts of Western Europe? Ireland? They all have military history that dates back to even before ancient Greece. Do we choose to ignore that as "non-notable" and be done? --[[User:Laserbeamcrossfire|Laserbeamcrossfire]] 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::''Historical'' military history? ;-)
::::::If there's a substantial amount of material there—and I'm not certain there is, for what it's worth—we could start the [[Military history of Europe]] article at whatever date we saw fit, switch to very terse summary style with a {{tl|details}} link when we hit the classical period (allowing the [[Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean]] article to pick up the details) and go back to regular narrative once the Roman Empire collapses. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, in that way the 2 articles would connect in a certain way, that would be nice.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:I do not agree. For Gallic military history before the Roman invasion written sources are rare. That is the point with history. Of course we can find a defintion for the history of warfare in Western and Eastern Europe, north of the Mediterranean, but use terms that reflect the existing division at that time and not random defintions like Europe.
:I suggest something like this: (little zones of interest with a infobox to move on from one to the next, I saw this as timetables several times)
Classical time
*[[Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean]] discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else (European-African-Asian)
*[[Military history in the Celtic and Germanic zone of influence]](European)
*[[Military history in the Scythian and Sarmatian zone of influence]](Asian-European)
:End of the Western Roman Empire (late Antiquity, early Middle Ages)
*[[Mediterranean: Islam and Byzantium, crusades, rise of Italian city states]](African-European-Asian)
*[[Successor states in the area of the Western Roman Empire]] (European)
*[[Slavic and Viking (same weapons, etc.) zone of influence military history]] (European)
:Middle Ages
*[[Orthodox Europe]] (European-Asian)
*[[Catholic Europe]] (European-African-Asian)
:Gunpowder era and Reconquista
[[European military history and the way to global influence]] (Europe-World)
[[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::Wouldn't some (all?) of these make more sense as sections of a [[Military history of Europe]] article, with the breakout articles at a more specific level (e.g. [[Military history of Ancient Greece]], [[Military history of the Celts]], [[Military history of the Scythians]], [[Military history of the Vikings]], etc.)? Particularly given how vague some of these groupings are, I think it might be easier to present them as fluid subdivisions within a consolidated narrative, rather than hard breaks between topics. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::The central problem is Europe. We have plentyful of overlaps all the time (as these examples tried to show) and I do not feel confident that a random geographic approach is OK. To seperate for example Viking and Slavic military history is very difficult. What we could do is [[Military history in Europe]] and also in other continents shown with overlapping regions. But [[Military history of Europe]] sets Europe as an entity that was non-existant (is ahistoric) and neglects the constant overlaps with neighbouring continents (is biased). But we still need a certain form for the presentation of the multiple overlaps. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::These overlapps do not matter, Europe isn't a fixed concept with the same cultural and political borders how would you ever explain colonialism? [[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Not quite sure what colonialism has to do with anything here; but certainly Europe during its colonial heyday (post-1492, anyways) was a more clearly delineated entity than Europe during, say, the Roman period. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What I meant to say was is that you simply cannot write an article solely on Europe.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nothing but the overlaps does matter. The explanation for colonialism is an export of military concepts from Europe (dominant part) to other parts of the world (colonized parts). The native European forces almost never acted without native local forces/supporters and often trained them in the European way of warfare. So we do have a created overlap in military concepts, while the foreign experience also changes the European military (new weapons, new tactics, new military dresscode, etc.). Europe is only a geographic concept which has been given other meanings for our current situation. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wonder if we're overthinking this a bit. "Military history in Europe" and "Military history of Europe" are both problematic—the first because it will exclude actions outside the continent, the second because it identifies geography as a meaningful area—but the second is more consistent with the other "Military history of ..." articles we already have. I wonder if we cannot simply name the article that and make clear in the introduction that it is a military history of European powers, not necessarily that of "Europe" as an entity in its own right.
::Alternately, we could create a split by period—e.g. [[Military history of Ancient Europe]], [[Military history of Europe in the Middle Ages]], and so forth—with the assumption that the character of the entity called "Europe" does follows some identifiable lines depending on the timeframe we consider. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Originally I tried to point out, that for writing military history of Europe the colonial time is suited best. You have a clear defintion and it is a field of interest to many people why many nations of the same continent succeded each other in power over such a long time and conquered almost the whole globe. Other conquests were carried out by specific groups and with the decline of their power disappeared (Islamic Empire by Arabs, Mongols).
:::I wonder whether it is a good idea to work with the Europe concept all the time. We could use Europe where it is useful but not force it dogmatic in times where it is less suitable than "[[Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean]]". [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::That could work if we can get some sort of template giving the proper chronological series of the articles; otherwise, the different names will make them pretty difficult to find. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading through this discussion i find myself with several questions and possible suggestions. First of all I'm not quite sure I see the outcome of this possible article or set of articles outweighting the difficulties in preparing them. In any events we should definitly attempt at keeping a form of consistency. I emphysise this with the usage of timelines and regions. Making sure that our articles keep similar "swaths", for exemple that when we speak fo the medieval periode we all speak of year X to year X (such as the 500-1500 stated in the task force). Similarly when we touche the subject of reagions, for what ever purpose, that these expanses be homogenous. as wellin the intrest of faireness and comprehensive knowledge, should we engage in the construction of a military history consised by region and/or powers that it be done for the span of human civilisations. As to the blueprint of such articles, What about divisions by periode, with each sub-article(Periodes) abording a by Power organisation. EX: Military history of Englobing region/powers-->Military history of Englobing region/powers in Periode -power1: -power2 --[[User:Dryzen|Dryzen]] 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Use of quotation templates ==
What is the consensus here on usage of either {{tl|cquote}} or {{tl|Quotation}}? I'm using the latter in [[Stephen Trigg]] and had someone in a peer review question whether I was using it right. Are they only for quotes made by the person the article is about? If so, do I just use the normal blockquote HTML tag instead? [[User:Plange|plange]] 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think there's a firm rule. Some people like the formatting, and some don't, but it's just a formatting issue; so long as it's consistent within an article, I don't think it's a big deal. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::In the Trigg article, you're mixing two different types of quotes. "In line" or [[block quote]]s, which are part of the flow of the article, should never, ever be used with {{tl|Quotation}}. The blockquote HTML tag produces the format that everyone in the real world uses for block quotes. Some Wikipedians use {{tl|cquote}} with block quotes, although this is non-standard. Probably they've confused block quotes with the second type of quote, the "pull quote". This is when a quote is set off (or "pulled") from the rest of the article for emphasis. Like an image, it's not part of the flow of the text of the main body of the article. Use {{tl|Quotation}} or {{tl|Quote box}} to create pull quotes.
::In the Trigg article, the Harwell quote is a "block quote", the end quote from the ''History of Kentucky'' book is essentially a "pull quote". Either can be converted to the other, but mixing them is messy and amateurish. --[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] <small>[[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaints?)]]</small> 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks... On a side note, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but please remember that WP editors are not sprung fully-formed and knowledgeable about how to use things. That's why I asked. Seems a little harsh to characterize me as not being part of the real world and that I'm messy and amateurish. It might be so, but I didn't mean it to be that way, so please assume good faith. I've only been an editor for a couple of months now... [[User:Plange|plange]] 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. These quotation templates have been widely misused because they've been poorly explained by those who created them, which includes me. So the current mess is my fault, not yours. [[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] <small>[[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaints?)]]</small> 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Croatian ==
What about Croatian Military History {{unsigned|124.184.196.166}}
:Well, there's [[Military history of Croatia]]; it's not developed, obviously, but I doubt we have many editors here who have an interest in that area. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
| 