This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Without even looking at the content I'm seeing obvious problems.
Redundant links: 1 & 2, 8 & 9.
Off topic links: 4, 11
Generally the burden rests on those seeking inclusion. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Without even looking at the content" - Seriously? Well, that's your problem right there.
The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
I'm concerned that we're simply not communicating, while ELBURDEN is being ignored. I appreciate the focus on just #4, but I hope you won't be offended if I delay responding in the hope that time will help the situation.
Focusing on the end goal: In my experience, we should aim for one or two directories or sites with very good directories. That's all. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The argument that it's a broad topic and so it shouldn't have any/many links seems backwards. To me, that justifies a broader selection of links, and I believe this list is well within reason. Even if it were true that other broad topic articles don't have many ELs (which does not appear so),
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
As to the specifics, all the links seem relevant, and I'll trust the opinion of the comments above that they are reasonable sources – it's not really my field, but they look useful. 1 and 2 concern me, as they appear to be paywalled and not content (only bibs). 9 seems to be a more specific link within 8, so 8 could probably go (applying parallel reasoning for not wikilinking like
Danville,
Illinois). —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
seems backwards
It justifies a broad selection of links (and categorizes) to other articles in Wikipedia. Those articles are going to have external links specific to their topics. There's no lack of external links if we're covering a topic, it's sub-topics, and related topics well.
To avoid ELNO#1 problems, the link needs to be to a site that has information that still meets ELYES#3 criteria (relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article...), but not already in the article and it cannot be added to the article.
The broader a topic, the more likely that it's main aspects will be well covered by Wikipedia and what few select external links we choose, especially if we find an external link to a good directory. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Re "Less is more" is not helpful.
I never said that. It's a strawman, and misrepresents my position while ignoring policy. It's not "less is more", it's follow NOT and EL, focus on our readers rather than the researchers that are here, focus on creating a better encyclopedia and better coverage of the topics within this encyclopedia. --
Ronz (
talk)
16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Re ref#4: I'm sure it's a useful resource for finding the latest thought and commentary in the research community, but that's not our focus nor audience. I wonder if some editors might consider it ELNO#10. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
While we're still mired in addressing blatant NOT/EL problems, I looked through the contents of them all. It's worse that I expected, including a COI violation that should have been disclosed.
I didn't search each site to see what external resources they list and how they organize them. I'm hoping I overlooked a some good resource lists and directories.
I'm unclear why historyofwar.org was mentioned as a good directory of external resources, nor why the authors of the site should be considered experts.
In general, I was disappointed with the authorship.
Ironically, americanhistoryprojects.com appears to be a useful directory. I expect we can get others to agree so the COI can be put to rest. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like harassment intended to disrupt normal consensus-making then." - Uh, what? Can you clarify that? (Or retract it). Otherwise is appears you've just smeared an entire group of editors. And a large group at that. - wolf 17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: "Harassment" is what happens when one editor rides one or more editor's ass over something stupid. No one's done that yet. Now if we can return to the matter at hand, lets work through this.
In summary, here's whats happened:
Opening the ANI thread was a bad maneuver, at the moment all this is is a content dispute and therefore should remain here until something egregious occurs to promote it to admin intervention levels. Because there was no consensus to remove the external links, they should remain in the article for the duration of this discussion. Now to put us back on track, we are here to answer two questions:
Lets keep our comments confined to these two questions, reply to inquires in good faith, lose the personal attack mentality, and discuss this like civilized contributors. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@
TomStar81:, thanks for jumping in. You really should provide diffs. I've numbered your points. #1 is called
WP:BOLD. without providing any reason
simply isn't true. Please withdraw #3. I can see how it my comment could be misinterpreted to believe it was directed at the Project, but it was not the case and I've clarified. --
Ronz (
talk)
04:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm listing each link as a subsection so that we can move forward with discussing content. Please comment below each title. – dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.A site that is a “home for further research” is exactly the opposite of this, in my opinion, as the whole point of such a home would be to either provide, or direct readers to, information not in the article. If this site were simply a listing of sources used in the article, I would agree, but the bibliography appears to be much more comprehensive than that. I agree with Moxy, though, that this has a better home in the bibliography section, rather than external links. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*Exclude - While this looks fascinating and I think I may bookmark this, it appears to fall afoul of ELNO#10.
CThomas3 (
talk) 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Striking per note below.
CThomas3 (
talk)
19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.. Otherwise, why stop at just Canada and China? Why not the United States, Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc.? There are war museums all over the world, why link this particular one and not others? CThomas3 ( talk) 19:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I just got through examining this page for a school assignment, and I must say that everyone involved with this did a great job! There are a wealth of sources, the links lead to reputable sources, and images are properly captioned. I also did not locate any grammatical errors. Overall, nice job! ReedP12 ( talk) 08:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. We need to organize better this article, because you have two sections compromising the history of war: "Technological Evolution" and "Periods of Military war" MUST be joined together because the article has messed up 2806:102E:B:BC5E:59CB:2CCB:F036:A5F4 ( talk) 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Without even looking at the content I'm seeing obvious problems.
Redundant links: 1 & 2, 8 & 9.
Off topic links: 4, 11
Generally the burden rests on those seeking inclusion. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Without even looking at the content" - Seriously? Well, that's your problem right there.
The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
I'm concerned that we're simply not communicating, while ELBURDEN is being ignored. I appreciate the focus on just #4, but I hope you won't be offended if I delay responding in the hope that time will help the situation.
Focusing on the end goal: In my experience, we should aim for one or two directories or sites with very good directories. That's all. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The argument that it's a broad topic and so it shouldn't have any/many links seems backwards. To me, that justifies a broader selection of links, and I believe this list is well within reason. Even if it were true that other broad topic articles don't have many ELs (which does not appear so),
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
As to the specifics, all the links seem relevant, and I'll trust the opinion of the comments above that they are reasonable sources – it's not really my field, but they look useful. 1 and 2 concern me, as they appear to be paywalled and not content (only bibs). 9 seems to be a more specific link within 8, so 8 could probably go (applying parallel reasoning for not wikilinking like
Danville,
Illinois). —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
seems backwards
It justifies a broad selection of links (and categorizes) to other articles in Wikipedia. Those articles are going to have external links specific to their topics. There's no lack of external links if we're covering a topic, it's sub-topics, and related topics well.
To avoid ELNO#1 problems, the link needs to be to a site that has information that still meets ELYES#3 criteria (relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article...), but not already in the article and it cannot be added to the article.
The broader a topic, the more likely that it's main aspects will be well covered by Wikipedia and what few select external links we choose, especially if we find an external link to a good directory. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Re "Less is more" is not helpful.
I never said that. It's a strawman, and misrepresents my position while ignoring policy. It's not "less is more", it's follow NOT and EL, focus on our readers rather than the researchers that are here, focus on creating a better encyclopedia and better coverage of the topics within this encyclopedia. --
Ronz (
talk)
16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Re ref#4: I'm sure it's a useful resource for finding the latest thought and commentary in the research community, but that's not our focus nor audience. I wonder if some editors might consider it ELNO#10. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
While we're still mired in addressing blatant NOT/EL problems, I looked through the contents of them all. It's worse that I expected, including a COI violation that should have been disclosed.
I didn't search each site to see what external resources they list and how they organize them. I'm hoping I overlooked a some good resource lists and directories.
I'm unclear why historyofwar.org was mentioned as a good directory of external resources, nor why the authors of the site should be considered experts.
In general, I was disappointed with the authorship.
Ironically, americanhistoryprojects.com appears to be a useful directory. I expect we can get others to agree so the COI can be put to rest. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like harassment intended to disrupt normal consensus-making then." - Uh, what? Can you clarify that? (Or retract it). Otherwise is appears you've just smeared an entire group of editors. And a large group at that. - wolf 17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: "Harassment" is what happens when one editor rides one or more editor's ass over something stupid. No one's done that yet. Now if we can return to the matter at hand, lets work through this.
In summary, here's whats happened:
Opening the ANI thread was a bad maneuver, at the moment all this is is a content dispute and therefore should remain here until something egregious occurs to promote it to admin intervention levels. Because there was no consensus to remove the external links, they should remain in the article for the duration of this discussion. Now to put us back on track, we are here to answer two questions:
Lets keep our comments confined to these two questions, reply to inquires in good faith, lose the personal attack mentality, and discuss this like civilized contributors. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@
TomStar81:, thanks for jumping in. You really should provide diffs. I've numbered your points. #1 is called
WP:BOLD. without providing any reason
simply isn't true. Please withdraw #3. I can see how it my comment could be misinterpreted to believe it was directed at the Project, but it was not the case and I've clarified. --
Ronz (
talk)
04:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm listing each link as a subsection so that we can move forward with discussing content. Please comment below each title. – dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.A site that is a “home for further research” is exactly the opposite of this, in my opinion, as the whole point of such a home would be to either provide, or direct readers to, information not in the article. If this site were simply a listing of sources used in the article, I would agree, but the bibliography appears to be much more comprehensive than that. I agree with Moxy, though, that this has a better home in the bibliography section, rather than external links. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*Exclude - While this looks fascinating and I think I may bookmark this, it appears to fall afoul of ELNO#10.
CThomas3 (
talk) 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Striking per note below.
CThomas3 (
talk)
19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.. Otherwise, why stop at just Canada and China? Why not the United States, Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc.? There are war museums all over the world, why link this particular one and not others? CThomas3 ( talk) 19:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I just got through examining this page for a school assignment, and I must say that everyone involved with this did a great job! There are a wealth of sources, the links lead to reputable sources, and images are properly captioned. I also did not locate any grammatical errors. Overall, nice job! ReedP12 ( talk) 08:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. We need to organize better this article, because you have two sections compromising the history of war: "Technological Evolution" and "Periods of Military war" MUST be joined together because the article has messed up 2806:102E:B:BC5E:59CB:2CCB:F036:A5F4 ( talk) 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)