This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Military history page. |
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Japanese ships are considered male, not female. Accordingly, I changed the pronoun on the pages of three Japanese WWII cruisers, but this got reverted. Is this not an example of cultural insensitivity? Other Choices ( talk) 03:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Call the ship "it" and you'll be fine." - Well, no... that's not necessarily so, as just calling a ship "it" is not that simple and straight-forward.
"This gendering of inanimate objects was quaint and silly, but is increasingly becoming outright problematic. Just avoid it.
" - Yeesh, are you trying to be insulting, or is that just an unintended result? Just becuase any particular individual finds somethings "problematic", does not make it so, and "just avoid it" is personal advice and should've been indicated as such at the outset. Plus it's really just bad advice, as it can lead to more problems. -
wolf 02:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
"replace it. As simple and straight forward as can be." appears to directly contradict WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, part of the MilHist MoS here, as well as MOS:RETAIN, from over on the main MoS page. Along with those two, and other P&G that may apply, we also had a fairly extensive RfC on female pronouns for ships just last year. There was no consensus to either eliminate existing pronouns in articles or to prevent use of such pronouns going forward. So when you have such significant feedback from the community, as well as at least two established guidelines on the matter, I'll again say that to advise people to ignore all that and even edit against it, is bad advice. If someone want to change an already existing "she" to "it" in an established ship article, or use "it" when adding new content to an article that already has the use of "she" established within that article, then there are processes they need to follow. That is the advice you should be giving. But, I'm fairly certain you already know this, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. (But this is longer than I intended so I'm not gonna ask either.) - wolf 11:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Ships may be referred to either using feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively.( WP:SHIPPRONOUNS) This guide for warships restates the global consensus (and the wording) of our guidelines for merchant ships at WP:SHE4SHIPS and generally at WP:Gender-neutral language#Ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
G'day all, the format of order of battle articles is inconsistent across en WP, and in many cases lacks clarity and precision. For example, we currently have Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia and Union order of battle at the Battle of Raymond (probably unnecessarily wordy), and Polish–Soviet War Polish order of battle and Marengo order of battle (Marengo what?), Order of battle for the Viet Cong and many more variations, see Category:Orders of battle for many more examples. The following is a proposal to introduce new MOS guidance on article titling for stand-alone lists known as orders of battle (thanks to Mdewman6 for formulating this, which I have only copy-edited). Please discuss/suggest tweaks and indicate support or opposition in the relevant sections below. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Titles for stand-alone list articles comprising orders of battle should generally be formulated as:
&;t;name of military event/organisation> order of battle
For the common case where the orders of battle for a military event are split into separate list articles by belligerent or opposing forces, then the naming conventions for split lists apply, and the format becomes:
<name of military event> order of battle: <belligerent>
as in Invasion of Yugoslavia order of battle: Axis or Battle of Raymond order of battle: Confederate. The military event should include any necessary disambiguation in the same way as the article about the event does; for example Raqqa campaign (2016–2017) order of battle. The parent list name should exist as a {{ List of lists}} with links to the split lists. Redirects should also be created to shorter forms of the title that are likely to be searched, such as Gettysburg order of battle and Gettysburg order of battle: Union. Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
puts the unique part of the title (the event) first, so the article a user seeks is more likely to come up in searches, rather than us having hundreds of articles beginning "Confederate order of battle at" or "Union order of battle at".
Should dot (bullet) points be allowed in the results section?
This proposal was kick-started from a brief question I had related to if dot points are allowed in combat infoboxes. As stated by Cinderella157, the MOS specifically states what is and isn’t allowed. In this specific instance, there isn’t anything about dot/bullet points. No yes or in-fact no no. This surprised me, so I looked at the archives here and also found nothing about it. Below, I have included screenshots from European theatre of World War II, which shows it with bullet points (currently not allowed under MOS) and without bullet points.
This is not the only instance where dot/bullet points are (in this case were) used. Some of the most searched articles have them currently as well. Some examples are
Attack on Pearl Harbor,
Pacific War,
Battle of Britain,
Italian campaign (World War II), and ongoing events like
2023 Israel–Hamas war &
2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. That said, some of the most searched articles also do not have them. Some examples are
Battle of Midway,
Battle of Iwo Jima,
Battle of Gettysburg,
Siege of Yorktown, and ongoing/recent events like
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel &
Russian invasion of Ukraine &
Siege of Gaza City.
In some fashion, we need a discussion/hard decision to either allow them or not allow them, since the most-searched articles are entirely mixed on the debate.
So, I propose that MOS:MIL allow for the inclusion of dot/bullet points for articles when appropriate. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At Template:Infobox military conflict:
this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE:
Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE:
the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The name {{ Infobox operational plan}} has been changed. Also, nothing has been written about {{ Infobox civilian attack}} and other infoboxes. Parham wiki ( talk) 10:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Should WP:MILMOS#TANKS be abolished? Schierbecker ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of uniformity, ease of understanding and clarity, all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end.
The guideline—written five years ago after a discussion with minimal participation—gives the examples of Type 1 Chi-He medium tank and M6 heavy tank. The latter no longer even follows that guideline.
I don't understand why we need an ostensibly hard-and-fast rule that very few of our articles seem to follow. Going down the list of 100 popular tank articles: Merkava, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, M4 Sherman, T-90, Tiger I, T-72, T-34, Tiger II, T-54/T-55, TOG2, Panzer IV, Panzer VIII Maus, Leopard 1, Challenger 2, T-80, M48 Patton, PT-76, M10 Booker, T-14 Armata, M26 Pershing, T-62, T-64, K2 Black Panther, Panzer III Panther KF51, M3 Stuart, M24 Chaffee, Type 10 and Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte are not using this convention.
M60 tank, Centurion (tank), Panther tank, Kliment Voroshilov tank, Chieftain (tank), Leclerc tank, Arjun (tank), Churchill tank, Type 99 tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank are named that way because their names are ambiguous. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
There seems to me a tendency of some to over-police the results parameter guidance in the MILMOS, and I think that is because it is too prescriptive, effectively seeking to ban some results from being placed in the infobox. We need to make it clear in the guidance that the MILMOS does not trump the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign. Style should not be permitted to trump the academic consensus on the substance. There certainly are battles that resulted in a Pyrrhic victory according to the academic consensus, and the MILMOS can be used as a bludgeon to try to remove the result that is clearly indicated by the academic consensus from an infobox. I think some modification of the wording needs to be made to better reflect the above. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Military history page. |
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Japanese ships are considered male, not female. Accordingly, I changed the pronoun on the pages of three Japanese WWII cruisers, but this got reverted. Is this not an example of cultural insensitivity? Other Choices ( talk) 03:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Call the ship "it" and you'll be fine." - Well, no... that's not necessarily so, as just calling a ship "it" is not that simple and straight-forward.
"This gendering of inanimate objects was quaint and silly, but is increasingly becoming outright problematic. Just avoid it.
" - Yeesh, are you trying to be insulting, or is that just an unintended result? Just becuase any particular individual finds somethings "problematic", does not make it so, and "just avoid it" is personal advice and should've been indicated as such at the outset. Plus it's really just bad advice, as it can lead to more problems. -
wolf 02:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
"replace it. As simple and straight forward as can be." appears to directly contradict WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, part of the MilHist MoS here, as well as MOS:RETAIN, from over on the main MoS page. Along with those two, and other P&G that may apply, we also had a fairly extensive RfC on female pronouns for ships just last year. There was no consensus to either eliminate existing pronouns in articles or to prevent use of such pronouns going forward. So when you have such significant feedback from the community, as well as at least two established guidelines on the matter, I'll again say that to advise people to ignore all that and even edit against it, is bad advice. If someone want to change an already existing "she" to "it" in an established ship article, or use "it" when adding new content to an article that already has the use of "she" established within that article, then there are processes they need to follow. That is the advice you should be giving. But, I'm fairly certain you already know this, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. (But this is longer than I intended so I'm not gonna ask either.) - wolf 11:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Ships may be referred to either using feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively.( WP:SHIPPRONOUNS) This guide for warships restates the global consensus (and the wording) of our guidelines for merchant ships at WP:SHE4SHIPS and generally at WP:Gender-neutral language#Ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
G'day all, the format of order of battle articles is inconsistent across en WP, and in many cases lacks clarity and precision. For example, we currently have Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia and Union order of battle at the Battle of Raymond (probably unnecessarily wordy), and Polish–Soviet War Polish order of battle and Marengo order of battle (Marengo what?), Order of battle for the Viet Cong and many more variations, see Category:Orders of battle for many more examples. The following is a proposal to introduce new MOS guidance on article titling for stand-alone lists known as orders of battle (thanks to Mdewman6 for formulating this, which I have only copy-edited). Please discuss/suggest tweaks and indicate support or opposition in the relevant sections below. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Titles for stand-alone list articles comprising orders of battle should generally be formulated as:
&;t;name of military event/organisation> order of battle
For the common case where the orders of battle for a military event are split into separate list articles by belligerent or opposing forces, then the naming conventions for split lists apply, and the format becomes:
<name of military event> order of battle: <belligerent>
as in Invasion of Yugoslavia order of battle: Axis or Battle of Raymond order of battle: Confederate. The military event should include any necessary disambiguation in the same way as the article about the event does; for example Raqqa campaign (2016–2017) order of battle. The parent list name should exist as a {{ List of lists}} with links to the split lists. Redirects should also be created to shorter forms of the title that are likely to be searched, such as Gettysburg order of battle and Gettysburg order of battle: Union. Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
puts the unique part of the title (the event) first, so the article a user seeks is more likely to come up in searches, rather than us having hundreds of articles beginning "Confederate order of battle at" or "Union order of battle at".
Should dot (bullet) points be allowed in the results section?
This proposal was kick-started from a brief question I had related to if dot points are allowed in combat infoboxes. As stated by Cinderella157, the MOS specifically states what is and isn’t allowed. In this specific instance, there isn’t anything about dot/bullet points. No yes or in-fact no no. This surprised me, so I looked at the archives here and also found nothing about it. Below, I have included screenshots from European theatre of World War II, which shows it with bullet points (currently not allowed under MOS) and without bullet points.
This is not the only instance where dot/bullet points are (in this case were) used. Some of the most searched articles have them currently as well. Some examples are
Attack on Pearl Harbor,
Pacific War,
Battle of Britain,
Italian campaign (World War II), and ongoing events like
2023 Israel–Hamas war &
2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. That said, some of the most searched articles also do not have them. Some examples are
Battle of Midway,
Battle of Iwo Jima,
Battle of Gettysburg,
Siege of Yorktown, and ongoing/recent events like
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel &
Russian invasion of Ukraine &
Siege of Gaza City.
In some fashion, we need a discussion/hard decision to either allow them or not allow them, since the most-searched articles are entirely mixed on the debate.
So, I propose that MOS:MIL allow for the inclusion of dot/bullet points for articles when appropriate. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At Template:Infobox military conflict:
this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE:
Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE:
the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The name {{ Infobox operational plan}} has been changed. Also, nothing has been written about {{ Infobox civilian attack}} and other infoboxes. Parham wiki ( talk) 10:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Should WP:MILMOS#TANKS be abolished? Schierbecker ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of uniformity, ease of understanding and clarity, all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end.
The guideline—written five years ago after a discussion with minimal participation—gives the examples of Type 1 Chi-He medium tank and M6 heavy tank. The latter no longer even follows that guideline.
I don't understand why we need an ostensibly hard-and-fast rule that very few of our articles seem to follow. Going down the list of 100 popular tank articles: Merkava, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, M4 Sherman, T-90, Tiger I, T-72, T-34, Tiger II, T-54/T-55, TOG2, Panzer IV, Panzer VIII Maus, Leopard 1, Challenger 2, T-80, M48 Patton, PT-76, M10 Booker, T-14 Armata, M26 Pershing, T-62, T-64, K2 Black Panther, Panzer III Panther KF51, M3 Stuart, M24 Chaffee, Type 10 and Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte are not using this convention.
M60 tank, Centurion (tank), Panther tank, Kliment Voroshilov tank, Chieftain (tank), Leclerc tank, Arjun (tank), Churchill tank, Type 99 tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank are named that way because their names are ambiguous. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
There seems to me a tendency of some to over-police the results parameter guidance in the MILMOS, and I think that is because it is too prescriptive, effectively seeking to ban some results from being placed in the infobox. We need to make it clear in the guidance that the MILMOS does not trump the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign. Style should not be permitted to trump the academic consensus on the substance. There certainly are battles that resulted in a Pyrrhic victory according to the academic consensus, and the MILMOS can be used as a bludgeon to try to remove the result that is clearly indicated by the academic consensus from an infobox. I think some modification of the wording needs to be made to better reflect the above. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)