This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
As there don't seem to be any objections being raised to the draft naming convention for military units and formations, shall we go ahead with adopting it and throwing the door open for page moves? Or does anyone have a problem with the proposal? Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Carom, I was going to say this on your talk page, but you directed anyone to make comments here, so I will. I noted that you changed First Army's name after I had already moved it to the new page per the new naming guidelines. The official name is not "First Army," it is "First United States Army," [1] and that's what I changed it to from the original "U.S. First Army," which is obviously not the official name. So I hope you don't take offense to my changing it back. As an aside, I'd already done the same to the rest of the numbered armies for the same reason. -- ScreaminEagle 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a question. I have been moving Australian divisions, and Hossen27 pointed out a potential problem: For virtually all of the Austrialian divisional articles, there are seperate articles for WWI and WWII units (for example, 1st Australian Division (World War I) and 1st Australian Division (World War II). What should we do with these? Personally, I think they should all be merged, leaving one article with subsections detailing the various creations of the unit, but I'm open to other suggestions. Carom 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether or not country names are part of the official names for units from former British colonies during WWI and WWII (I'm thinking specifically of Canada and India) - or are they just disambiguators that can be dropped? For example, should it be 11th Indian Infantry Division or can I move it to 11th Infantry Division (India)? Carom 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[[Page I Moved|
with a replace of [[Page I Moved it To|
, followed by another variation of [[Page I Moved]]
with a replace of [[Page I Moved it To|Familar Name, Similar to Old Link]]
. The first variation does the replace for all the links that already specify a link alias, and the second one does a replace while specifying a link alias. It's repetitous, but a lot faster and easier than doing it all manually. Care still needs to taken though that you type things in correctly for the replace string, and that you also verify what you are replacing on each page as it scrolls through. I'm afraid I missed a couple, and conversely was "carried away" on my first few passes. Hope this information may help others, so we can avoid the skipped pages with old links.
wbfergus 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to de-conflict the older guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) with MILHIST's draft naming convention for military units and formations. The major difference seems to be:
I am not an advocate for either approach, just want to highlight the conflict. Wendell 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
13th (Western) Division (United Kingdom): the division was not a United Kingdom division it was a British Army division. The British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, paid for by taxes raised by Parliament but they are Monarch's armed forces as is HMG and the ministers in that government who order their deployment. So to use the country designation of United Kingdom is not correct. The name before the move ( British 13th (Western) Division) was a much better name. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding naming conventions for Russian and Soviet missiles, I generally agree, that manufacturer's designations should be used for article names instead of NATO reporting names (NATO names should necessarily be mentioned, but inside articles, as they are non-official ones). But as far as I know, design bureau generally does not precede model's name. The official name usually consists of the GRAU designation followed by name (if any) of the weapon, for example, 9K33 Osa. One of the sources where I've just seen such naming is the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published since 2004 by government's publisher (I can find the volume and the page, as well as other online sources, if needed). Cmapm 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also I do not think that the provisional guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) should be binned, instead the new proposals should be intgergrated into it. There is a lot of information in the Naming conventions (military units) which should be in any new guideline. Like for example that Army numercal designations be described using words and that Corps should use Roman numerals. Also for those who work on World War articles agreeing on the names to use for German units needs to be kept. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kirill most of the moves for things The Parachute Regiment-> The Parachute Regiment (British Army)-> The Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom), has been sparked by you and some others who had been working on US units not liking the previous standard. But if a unit in the British Army needs disambiguation them the usual way to do this is to place British before the unit name. I think that this is new proposed standard is creating as much of HA for name of British units as you though existed for American units before the proposed change. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Krill it is not a practical problem it is an aesthetic one, they are "British Paras" not "Paras (UK)". Shimgray your argument is easily taken care of by redirects. I have when necessary set up pages like English Interregnum but at the same time created a redirect of Interregnum (England) so that I can use the pipe trick Interregnum. Besides the typical first use of a British Army unit would usually be written British 7th Armoured Brigade (as it is in the Burma Campaign article) of course if there is no other 7th Armoured Brigade in an article then from then on it would be 7th Armoured Brigade but would not be linked again. I can not see anyone writing 7th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) as an initial link although they might type British 7th Armoured Brigade, but it involves more typing (British and (United Kingdom)) and it breaks " WP:NC" which says:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In the old form, this would be written asSeveral units of the British XVII Corps—including the 7th Infantry Division, the 12th Infantry Division, the 2nd Armoured Brigade, and the 5th Armoured Brigade—crossed the river.
while in the new form, it would be
Several units of the [[British XVII Corps]]—including the [[British 7th Infantry Division|7th Infantry Division]], the [[British 12th Infantry Division|12th Infantry Division]], the [[British 2nd Armoured Brigade|2nd Armoured Brigade]], and the [[British 5th Armoured Brigade|5th Armoured Brigade]]—crossed the river.
Or, somewhat more trivially, note that
Several units of the [[XVII Corps (United Kingdom)|British XVII Corps]]—including the [[7th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)|]], the [[12th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)|]], the [[2nd Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|]], and the [[5th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|]]—crossed the river.
is actually longer than
[[British 17th Armoured Regiment|17th Armoured Regiment]]
(Obviously, the difference is more significant for other countries, since "United Kingdom" is one of the longer disambiguators. But, generally, situations where links need to be given without having the country display in the rendered text will involve less typing in the new syntax than in the old one.) Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[[17th Armoured Regiment (United Kingdom)|]]
There are some inconsistencies between writing 2d or 2nd and 3d or 3rd and so on with the numbered units. Did we ever reach a consensus on which format should be used, or should I just let it go? -- ScreaminEagle 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Did we come to a consensus on whether or not German Panzer divisions, etc. need a country disambiguation? Carom 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess this has already been said, but I'd like to add that I was quite happy with the "old" convention and the new one seems definitely less natural to me. How about some poll? // Halibu tt 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So, what do we do with the old draft page? I've carried over some of the useful notes regarding the inclusion of original unit names in the first sentence, and moved the German translation material over to the German military history task force. I would argue that the remainder of the old material is either redundant or irrelevant now that the main convention is to use the official names, and that the best course of action would be to either mark the old draft as historical, with a note of where the new guideline is located, or to simply redirect the draft to the new guideline. What does everyone think? Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This article has a severe anti-cluster munition bias... an anonymous editor continues to add uncited claims (Well, occasionally cited, usually followed by a POV statement) about the danger they pose to civilians, and move the "Threats to Civilians" section to the top of the article, above relevant info like the development and types of cluster munitions. Zaku Talk 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the main project page has become rather long, I would like to propose that we de-transclude the infobox instructions, and simply link to them instead. By a rough estimate, this would reduce the page length by about one-third, and raw page size by as much as one-half. Obviously, however, it would mean that people would need to click through to the instructions to read them.
Thoughts? Is this an acceptable tradeoff, or would having the instructions no longer transcluded directly on the page be too much of an inconvenience? Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried my hand at changing the transcluded instructions for the infoboxes (and the project banner) to links; the rendered page size has dropped from ~330K to ~240K, and the pre-expand transclusion size from ~480K to ~300K. Comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to mention this, but our policy against popular history section is unfortunately unfair and biased. As a result we might need some adaptions that reestablish some of these sections in the articles. However, this does not reflect my personal attitude.
The problem is the inclusing of images, more specific paintings that are usually centuries apart from the depicted events. Many of these materials are seen as essential colorful extras for featured articles. In fact they are mere popular culture, even if it is popular culture of another age and nowadays hangs in museums. The problem is this is a biased policy that excludes non-painted material that could be used if we are legally allowed, such as references to books, plays, films (trailers, screenshots) and unfortunately computer games. Arguments such as the factual accuracy can not be used to exclude any of this material in favor of others(images from history books are the only candidates).
A possible solution could be to formalize the implementation of the popular culture section via specific infoboxes to keep them as short as possible and clearly seperated. Wandalstouring 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Battle of Waterloo. This is a prime example why popular culture sections should be discouraged. This ever-expanding list of trivia now makes up 1/4 of the article. Raymond Palmer 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Trivial and speculative (and wrong, but that's another point). ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)The final mission of Starcraft's Brood War expansion, "Omega" is a scenario similar to Waterloo, except the forces in the position similar to Napoleon emerge victorious.
I suspect it would be gone from the article by the end of the day. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- In 1873, John Smith painted a portrait of Alcibades visiting the Academy...
- In 1779, John Smith the Elder included Alcibades in his painting of the battle...
- ...
We are more permissive with regard to images/videos/audio files/any other kind of supplemental material than we are with text (which we generally have no shortage of),
in order to have articles that are more interesting for the reader.
But that is absolutely not the point of the discussion. The problem is while we do keep strict regulations on the text, the images are a part of the article and do provide information to the reader. They don't play gooseberry. Now the problem is we can not establish any trivia bans for painted images as the phenomen is too widespread, OK. Central is the how to proceed with non-painted material that like our paintings is popular culture. From this perspective it is fairly insane to strictly limit one kind of material and allowing a flood of the other kind that is no more or less trivia. The scope of an article is to inform about a topic. Naturally any popular culture section attracts all kinds of unnotable content and so far the lack of images has prevented them from becoming an as great menace as the plain text part. Although here it is also evident that factually accurate images or official paintings of battles from painters who were on the battlefields(painter was a job in the military) are often lacking.
To get back to the topic of this discussion. How to proceed with the popular culture based on guidelines that can also be employed for image material such as paintings?
So far from the suggestions the first two are probably the most practical. As I pointed out my concern was the dicrimination based on media type. We can have paintings as plain text only and we can scan book covers, so there isn't much trouble in turning the world upside down. Central point would be to use this rule as well for paintings, essentially to prohibit any overkill in an article like in hussar with the various paintings of Polish winged hussars for example. Wandalstouring 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Slight tangent: let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. While I agree that the Waterlooivans went more than a tad overboard, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water by outlawing trivial pursuits, "because [as has been argued elsewhere] it would get cut from a printed encyclopedia". - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the Sukhoi Su-30 article for peer review. Comments please folks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This has a couple more days left on its GA Hold run and yours is on the only project tag on the talk page, so I though I'd bring it here, seeing as no-one appears to have seen it. Concerns can be found at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse#GA on Hold, mostly just the massive amount of external links, converting links in text to references/fixing references and adding FUR's for two images. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I've found some redirects where US infantry divisions are redirected to US infantry regiments: US 22nd Infantry Division and the US 12th Infantry Division. (NB full stop inside square brackets.) I was doing some copyedits about the units which liberated Buchenwald concentration camp: my edit. Is this correct? (I've read Regiment and Division (military) without being much the wiser.) Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the various discussions here haven't come up with any real point to this, and the previous incarnation ( Category:British Commonwealth Forces) was deleted, I've nominated Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps for deletion. Comments there would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Earlier today, in a couple articles covered by this project, I had moved up References and Notes above "See also", and this change was reverted, apparently according to guidelines I am unable to find. Anyway, this isn't terribly important to me, but it seems to me that References and Notes, since they apply directly to the article text, should go before "See also", which usually only applies tangentially. Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Military history doesn't seem to work as there are hardly more than two editors mentioned for the same location. Possibly we could add a new feature to this list similar to the Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service that helps to find locals who take photos. The idea would be to provide links to people who can help with information on a local basis (town history for example). This may help to add some details to our articles and thus improve overall performance. Wandalstouring 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that a new criteria for A-class has to be added. Any A-class article also has to be a Good Article. -- Ineffable3000 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there an infobox to use on air force articles? If not, could someone perhaps make one? Thanks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware. We might be getting a lot of unusual edits soon. [3]. Just kidding. -- Ineffable3000 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The answer is probably buried somewhere in the portal project, but I'm confused by the system of "battles involving", etc. There is a lot of overlap in the battles and operations of Vietnam, for instance. (Newbie lost in the forest, obviously). Richiar 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I found the article 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery because it linked to an image I uploaded. I have substantialy improved (I think) Diff the article and added it to the project. I think the page should be moved to 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery. Would like any input as well as any help referencing the page beyond what I've done. Dan D. Ric 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Was there any Russian interference in the Sino-Japanese War? The page on the Battle of Idinahui says there was. -- Ineffable3000 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese did interfere in Russian affairs during the revolution and tried it once during WWII. At the end of WWII Russia intervened in Japanese affairs, taking away their half of Sachalin and some small islands(possession is still disputed, that is why there is only an armistice, no peace treaty between Russia and Japan). So far however I know of know direct Russian involvement in the Sino Japanese War(I suppose it means the war shortly before and during WWII). However, many nations were involved via volunteers and advisors. Wandalstouring 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know (via boilerplate, no less ;-)...
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!
Kirill Lokshin 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the Australian Defence Force entry for the last few months with an eye to bringing it up to one of the higher standards. Before I began work on expanding the article I reviewed all the other entries on western national militaries and was surprised to see that no two cover the same topics or present their information in the same order. My end result is a combination of what I liked best about the United States Military, British Armed Forces, Canadian Forces, United States Marine Corps and Russian Ground Forces articles, and I think that it works fairly well (though the history section still needs to be completed). I was wondering whether developing a standard format for entire militaries would fall within the scope of this project, and if so, what topics should be covered? -- Nick Dowling 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What should I list Garibaldi's forces on the Uruguayan Civil War page? Please see talk page for more info. -- Ineffable3000 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, getting back to a topic that was previously discussed (albeit briefly), but not fully implemented: I'd like to propose a set of category renamings and merges that will eliminate the "Military veterans" and "Soldiers" trees:
Rationale: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was involved with it in the past; thus, there's no Category:Retired scientists, Category:Former monarchs, or Category:Footballers who no longer play. Thus, military veterans should be categorized in the normal categories for military personnel:
Rationale: "soldier" is a very ambiguous term; it can refer either to all military figures, or only to figures serving in the land forces, or only to enlisted ranks; thus, using it in category names is unnecessarily confusing. The current categories fall into two broad groups: those that are used only for enlisted personnel, and those that are used for all military personnel. In the former case, the proposal is simply to rename the categories; in the latter, the proposal is to merge them into the military personnel categories, and allow enlisted personnel categories to be split out if/when they are needed (to avoid having large numbers of articles incorrectly categorized, as they would be if these categories were renamed to enlisted personnel). Thus:
Categories that are already intended for enlisted personnel:
Categories that do not appear to already be intended for enlisted personnel:
Comments? (I'd also appreciate if someone could poke through these to make sure I didn't miss any "veterans" or "soldiers" categories.) Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the nominations here; comments there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Effects-Based Operations (EBO) is now an article. Feel free to add to this, as it is an emerging part of modern operations doctrine. Examples of it being employed would be welcome, as would be additional organizational changes related to it (such as the Fires Brigade). -- Petercorless 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
English is not my native language. I struggle with structure of sentences. Please help and review my work. I created new article called Japanese aircraft carrier Ryuho. This article was a feature on Wikipedia Main Page "Did you know?" I also expanded the Japanese cruiser Abukuma from a stub. I also worked on many other articles about Imperial Japanese Navy. I added information about aircraft carried by the aircraft carriers. Shibumi2 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Good day. I've just done a major rewrite of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, expanding the prose, adding inline citations, and generally attempting to improve the article substantially. I'd appreciate if there might be an opportunity for members of this WikiProject to take a look and give their opinion on the new version. My hope is to push this article up to Good Article at the least, with an ultimate goal of making it a Featured Article if possible
There are a few things that I don't have that would benefit the article, most notably a couple more images, however I haven't the slightest idea where to hunt for images of period soldiers that I feel would brighten up the middle section of the article somewhat. Also, I wonder if an Order of Battle section would be beneficial; for a battle with less than 10,000 men, though, that might be overdoing it.
At any rate, I'd love to know what editors who know their military history think of the new version; please drop a note on the talk page with any thoughts towards improvements. Thanks very much. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This came up on media copyright questions Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Source_of_claim_in_Template:Military-Insignia. Please add your comments there. Megapixie 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great power is a strange article without a coherent logical guideline. Austria and Hungaria are included among the great powers,the Polish-Lithuvian Commonwealth, Sveden, Spain or Italy not. Be that as it may, I have quoted the official government position of Germany on that issue and the media usage in Germany which all explicitly state that Germany is a medium power and not a great power. Now there are some professors and free lance writers not in Germany who think diffferent because it fits their concept. So far so fine as long as you say clearly who says what in my opinion. Now two editors have teamed up and make it a wash in my opinion by creating some say so and some say else, totally mixing up official German government positions, native media usage and output of foreign freelance writers. My point is I do not disagree if someone assesses Germany as a great power but as long as I can provide clear and recent official positions saying else they should be mentioned as such and not intermixed because political and media language is not scientific language. So I'm going to hit the three revert rule first. Nice way to solve such issues democratically. Wandalstouring 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me of Maximillian I of Mexico, where an Austrian prince ended up Emperor of Mexico. What were these French Civil War generals up to!? Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac is a great story. But what I came here to ask is whether anyone knows who these other French Civil War generals were? Bored European aristocrats seeking excitement in a war half a world away? Or what? Carcharoth 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time the WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration moved a heap of content into wikipedia, the old domain is now being squatted and we are providing heaps of links to it. To clean up this spam I have been removing the This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission from the article space and adding this template on the talk page {{ Wikiproject VC migration}}. When I started there were more than 1300 articles, linksearch. I was hoping some people from this project might help out and take the opportunity to add more VCs to the military history project - I've seen a lot that aren't project tagged. Thanks. -- Peta 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Although the nation no longer exists, I'm surprised there's no article for Prussian military history. - Emiellaiendiay 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The Roman-Spartan War has been up for FAC and has not recieved many comments. Could some editors read the article and leave their opinion at the article's FAC page. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
As there don't seem to be any objections being raised to the draft naming convention for military units and formations, shall we go ahead with adopting it and throwing the door open for page moves? Or does anyone have a problem with the proposal? Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Carom, I was going to say this on your talk page, but you directed anyone to make comments here, so I will. I noted that you changed First Army's name after I had already moved it to the new page per the new naming guidelines. The official name is not "First Army," it is "First United States Army," [1] and that's what I changed it to from the original "U.S. First Army," which is obviously not the official name. So I hope you don't take offense to my changing it back. As an aside, I'd already done the same to the rest of the numbered armies for the same reason. -- ScreaminEagle 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a question. I have been moving Australian divisions, and Hossen27 pointed out a potential problem: For virtually all of the Austrialian divisional articles, there are seperate articles for WWI and WWII units (for example, 1st Australian Division (World War I) and 1st Australian Division (World War II). What should we do with these? Personally, I think they should all be merged, leaving one article with subsections detailing the various creations of the unit, but I'm open to other suggestions. Carom 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether or not country names are part of the official names for units from former British colonies during WWI and WWII (I'm thinking specifically of Canada and India) - or are they just disambiguators that can be dropped? For example, should it be 11th Indian Infantry Division or can I move it to 11th Infantry Division (India)? Carom 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[[Page I Moved|
with a replace of [[Page I Moved it To|
, followed by another variation of [[Page I Moved]]
with a replace of [[Page I Moved it To|Familar Name, Similar to Old Link]]
. The first variation does the replace for all the links that already specify a link alias, and the second one does a replace while specifying a link alias. It's repetitous, but a lot faster and easier than doing it all manually. Care still needs to taken though that you type things in correctly for the replace string, and that you also verify what you are replacing on each page as it scrolls through. I'm afraid I missed a couple, and conversely was "carried away" on my first few passes. Hope this information may help others, so we can avoid the skipped pages with old links.
wbfergus 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to de-conflict the older guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) with MILHIST's draft naming convention for military units and formations. The major difference seems to be:
I am not an advocate for either approach, just want to highlight the conflict. Wendell 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
13th (Western) Division (United Kingdom): the division was not a United Kingdom division it was a British Army division. The British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, paid for by taxes raised by Parliament but they are Monarch's armed forces as is HMG and the ministers in that government who order their deployment. So to use the country designation of United Kingdom is not correct. The name before the move ( British 13th (Western) Division) was a much better name. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding naming conventions for Russian and Soviet missiles, I generally agree, that manufacturer's designations should be used for article names instead of NATO reporting names (NATO names should necessarily be mentioned, but inside articles, as they are non-official ones). But as far as I know, design bureau generally does not precede model's name. The official name usually consists of the GRAU designation followed by name (if any) of the weapon, for example, 9K33 Osa. One of the sources where I've just seen such naming is the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published since 2004 by government's publisher (I can find the volume and the page, as well as other online sources, if needed). Cmapm 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also I do not think that the provisional guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) should be binned, instead the new proposals should be intgergrated into it. There is a lot of information in the Naming conventions (military units) which should be in any new guideline. Like for example that Army numercal designations be described using words and that Corps should use Roman numerals. Also for those who work on World War articles agreeing on the names to use for German units needs to be kept. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kirill most of the moves for things The Parachute Regiment-> The Parachute Regiment (British Army)-> The Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom), has been sparked by you and some others who had been working on US units not liking the previous standard. But if a unit in the British Army needs disambiguation them the usual way to do this is to place British before the unit name. I think that this is new proposed standard is creating as much of HA for name of British units as you though existed for American units before the proposed change. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Krill it is not a practical problem it is an aesthetic one, they are "British Paras" not "Paras (UK)". Shimgray your argument is easily taken care of by redirects. I have when necessary set up pages like English Interregnum but at the same time created a redirect of Interregnum (England) so that I can use the pipe trick Interregnum. Besides the typical first use of a British Army unit would usually be written British 7th Armoured Brigade (as it is in the Burma Campaign article) of course if there is no other 7th Armoured Brigade in an article then from then on it would be 7th Armoured Brigade but would not be linked again. I can not see anyone writing 7th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) as an initial link although they might type British 7th Armoured Brigade, but it involves more typing (British and (United Kingdom)) and it breaks " WP:NC" which says:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In the old form, this would be written asSeveral units of the British XVII Corps—including the 7th Infantry Division, the 12th Infantry Division, the 2nd Armoured Brigade, and the 5th Armoured Brigade—crossed the river.
while in the new form, it would be
Several units of the [[British XVII Corps]]—including the [[British 7th Infantry Division|7th Infantry Division]], the [[British 12th Infantry Division|12th Infantry Division]], the [[British 2nd Armoured Brigade|2nd Armoured Brigade]], and the [[British 5th Armoured Brigade|5th Armoured Brigade]]—crossed the river.
Or, somewhat more trivially, note that
Several units of the [[XVII Corps (United Kingdom)|British XVII Corps]]—including the [[7th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)|]], the [[12th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)|]], the [[2nd Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|]], and the [[5th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)|]]—crossed the river.
is actually longer than
[[British 17th Armoured Regiment|17th Armoured Regiment]]
(Obviously, the difference is more significant for other countries, since "United Kingdom" is one of the longer disambiguators. But, generally, situations where links need to be given without having the country display in the rendered text will involve less typing in the new syntax than in the old one.) Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[[17th Armoured Regiment (United Kingdom)|]]
There are some inconsistencies between writing 2d or 2nd and 3d or 3rd and so on with the numbered units. Did we ever reach a consensus on which format should be used, or should I just let it go? -- ScreaminEagle 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Did we come to a consensus on whether or not German Panzer divisions, etc. need a country disambiguation? Carom 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess this has already been said, but I'd like to add that I was quite happy with the "old" convention and the new one seems definitely less natural to me. How about some poll? // Halibu tt 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So, what do we do with the old draft page? I've carried over some of the useful notes regarding the inclusion of original unit names in the first sentence, and moved the German translation material over to the German military history task force. I would argue that the remainder of the old material is either redundant or irrelevant now that the main convention is to use the official names, and that the best course of action would be to either mark the old draft as historical, with a note of where the new guideline is located, or to simply redirect the draft to the new guideline. What does everyone think? Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This article has a severe anti-cluster munition bias... an anonymous editor continues to add uncited claims (Well, occasionally cited, usually followed by a POV statement) about the danger they pose to civilians, and move the "Threats to Civilians" section to the top of the article, above relevant info like the development and types of cluster munitions. Zaku Talk 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the main project page has become rather long, I would like to propose that we de-transclude the infobox instructions, and simply link to them instead. By a rough estimate, this would reduce the page length by about one-third, and raw page size by as much as one-half. Obviously, however, it would mean that people would need to click through to the instructions to read them.
Thoughts? Is this an acceptable tradeoff, or would having the instructions no longer transcluded directly on the page be too much of an inconvenience? Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried my hand at changing the transcluded instructions for the infoboxes (and the project banner) to links; the rendered page size has dropped from ~330K to ~240K, and the pre-expand transclusion size from ~480K to ~300K. Comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to mention this, but our policy against popular history section is unfortunately unfair and biased. As a result we might need some adaptions that reestablish some of these sections in the articles. However, this does not reflect my personal attitude.
The problem is the inclusing of images, more specific paintings that are usually centuries apart from the depicted events. Many of these materials are seen as essential colorful extras for featured articles. In fact they are mere popular culture, even if it is popular culture of another age and nowadays hangs in museums. The problem is this is a biased policy that excludes non-painted material that could be used if we are legally allowed, such as references to books, plays, films (trailers, screenshots) and unfortunately computer games. Arguments such as the factual accuracy can not be used to exclude any of this material in favor of others(images from history books are the only candidates).
A possible solution could be to formalize the implementation of the popular culture section via specific infoboxes to keep them as short as possible and clearly seperated. Wandalstouring 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Battle of Waterloo. This is a prime example why popular culture sections should be discouraged. This ever-expanding list of trivia now makes up 1/4 of the article. Raymond Palmer 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Trivial and speculative (and wrong, but that's another point). ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)The final mission of Starcraft's Brood War expansion, "Omega" is a scenario similar to Waterloo, except the forces in the position similar to Napoleon emerge victorious.
I suspect it would be gone from the article by the end of the day. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- In 1873, John Smith painted a portrait of Alcibades visiting the Academy...
- In 1779, John Smith the Elder included Alcibades in his painting of the battle...
- ...
We are more permissive with regard to images/videos/audio files/any other kind of supplemental material than we are with text (which we generally have no shortage of),
in order to have articles that are more interesting for the reader.
But that is absolutely not the point of the discussion. The problem is while we do keep strict regulations on the text, the images are a part of the article and do provide information to the reader. They don't play gooseberry. Now the problem is we can not establish any trivia bans for painted images as the phenomen is too widespread, OK. Central is the how to proceed with non-painted material that like our paintings is popular culture. From this perspective it is fairly insane to strictly limit one kind of material and allowing a flood of the other kind that is no more or less trivia. The scope of an article is to inform about a topic. Naturally any popular culture section attracts all kinds of unnotable content and so far the lack of images has prevented them from becoming an as great menace as the plain text part. Although here it is also evident that factually accurate images or official paintings of battles from painters who were on the battlefields(painter was a job in the military) are often lacking.
To get back to the topic of this discussion. How to proceed with the popular culture based on guidelines that can also be employed for image material such as paintings?
So far from the suggestions the first two are probably the most practical. As I pointed out my concern was the dicrimination based on media type. We can have paintings as plain text only and we can scan book covers, so there isn't much trouble in turning the world upside down. Central point would be to use this rule as well for paintings, essentially to prohibit any overkill in an article like in hussar with the various paintings of Polish winged hussars for example. Wandalstouring 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Slight tangent: let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. While I agree that the Waterlooivans went more than a tad overboard, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water by outlawing trivial pursuits, "because [as has been argued elsewhere] it would get cut from a printed encyclopedia". - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the Sukhoi Su-30 article for peer review. Comments please folks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This has a couple more days left on its GA Hold run and yours is on the only project tag on the talk page, so I though I'd bring it here, seeing as no-one appears to have seen it. Concerns can be found at Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse#GA on Hold, mostly just the massive amount of external links, converting links in text to references/fixing references and adding FUR's for two images. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I've found some redirects where US infantry divisions are redirected to US infantry regiments: US 22nd Infantry Division and the US 12th Infantry Division. (NB full stop inside square brackets.) I was doing some copyedits about the units which liberated Buchenwald concentration camp: my edit. Is this correct? (I've read Regiment and Division (military) without being much the wiser.) Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the various discussions here haven't come up with any real point to this, and the previous incarnation ( Category:British Commonwealth Forces) was deleted, I've nominated Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps for deletion. Comments there would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Earlier today, in a couple articles covered by this project, I had moved up References and Notes above "See also", and this change was reverted, apparently according to guidelines I am unable to find. Anyway, this isn't terribly important to me, but it seems to me that References and Notes, since they apply directly to the article text, should go before "See also", which usually only applies tangentially. Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Military history doesn't seem to work as there are hardly more than two editors mentioned for the same location. Possibly we could add a new feature to this list similar to the Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service that helps to find locals who take photos. The idea would be to provide links to people who can help with information on a local basis (town history for example). This may help to add some details to our articles and thus improve overall performance. Wandalstouring 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that a new criteria for A-class has to be added. Any A-class article also has to be a Good Article. -- Ineffable3000 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there an infobox to use on air force articles? If not, could someone perhaps make one? Thanks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware. We might be getting a lot of unusual edits soon. [3]. Just kidding. -- Ineffable3000 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The answer is probably buried somewhere in the portal project, but I'm confused by the system of "battles involving", etc. There is a lot of overlap in the battles and operations of Vietnam, for instance. (Newbie lost in the forest, obviously). Richiar 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I found the article 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery because it linked to an image I uploaded. I have substantialy improved (I think) Diff the article and added it to the project. I think the page should be moved to 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery. Would like any input as well as any help referencing the page beyond what I've done. Dan D. Ric 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Was there any Russian interference in the Sino-Japanese War? The page on the Battle of Idinahui says there was. -- Ineffable3000 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese did interfere in Russian affairs during the revolution and tried it once during WWII. At the end of WWII Russia intervened in Japanese affairs, taking away their half of Sachalin and some small islands(possession is still disputed, that is why there is only an armistice, no peace treaty between Russia and Japan). So far however I know of know direct Russian involvement in the Sino Japanese War(I suppose it means the war shortly before and during WWII). However, many nations were involved via volunteers and advisors. Wandalstouring 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know (via boilerplate, no less ;-)...
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!
Kirill Lokshin 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the Australian Defence Force entry for the last few months with an eye to bringing it up to one of the higher standards. Before I began work on expanding the article I reviewed all the other entries on western national militaries and was surprised to see that no two cover the same topics or present their information in the same order. My end result is a combination of what I liked best about the United States Military, British Armed Forces, Canadian Forces, United States Marine Corps and Russian Ground Forces articles, and I think that it works fairly well (though the history section still needs to be completed). I was wondering whether developing a standard format for entire militaries would fall within the scope of this project, and if so, what topics should be covered? -- Nick Dowling 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What should I list Garibaldi's forces on the Uruguayan Civil War page? Please see talk page for more info. -- Ineffable3000 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, getting back to a topic that was previously discussed (albeit briefly), but not fully implemented: I'd like to propose a set of category renamings and merges that will eliminate the "Military veterans" and "Soldiers" trees:
Rationale: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was involved with it in the past; thus, there's no Category:Retired scientists, Category:Former monarchs, or Category:Footballers who no longer play. Thus, military veterans should be categorized in the normal categories for military personnel:
Rationale: "soldier" is a very ambiguous term; it can refer either to all military figures, or only to figures serving in the land forces, or only to enlisted ranks; thus, using it in category names is unnecessarily confusing. The current categories fall into two broad groups: those that are used only for enlisted personnel, and those that are used for all military personnel. In the former case, the proposal is simply to rename the categories; in the latter, the proposal is to merge them into the military personnel categories, and allow enlisted personnel categories to be split out if/when they are needed (to avoid having large numbers of articles incorrectly categorized, as they would be if these categories were renamed to enlisted personnel). Thus:
Categories that are already intended for enlisted personnel:
Categories that do not appear to already be intended for enlisted personnel:
Comments? (I'd also appreciate if someone could poke through these to make sure I didn't miss any "veterans" or "soldiers" categories.) Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the nominations here; comments there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Effects-Based Operations (EBO) is now an article. Feel free to add to this, as it is an emerging part of modern operations doctrine. Examples of it being employed would be welcome, as would be additional organizational changes related to it (such as the Fires Brigade). -- Petercorless 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
English is not my native language. I struggle with structure of sentences. Please help and review my work. I created new article called Japanese aircraft carrier Ryuho. This article was a feature on Wikipedia Main Page "Did you know?" I also expanded the Japanese cruiser Abukuma from a stub. I also worked on many other articles about Imperial Japanese Navy. I added information about aircraft carried by the aircraft carriers. Shibumi2 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Good day. I've just done a major rewrite of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, expanding the prose, adding inline citations, and generally attempting to improve the article substantially. I'd appreciate if there might be an opportunity for members of this WikiProject to take a look and give their opinion on the new version. My hope is to push this article up to Good Article at the least, with an ultimate goal of making it a Featured Article if possible
There are a few things that I don't have that would benefit the article, most notably a couple more images, however I haven't the slightest idea where to hunt for images of period soldiers that I feel would brighten up the middle section of the article somewhat. Also, I wonder if an Order of Battle section would be beneficial; for a battle with less than 10,000 men, though, that might be overdoing it.
At any rate, I'd love to know what editors who know their military history think of the new version; please drop a note on the talk page with any thoughts towards improvements. Thanks very much. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This came up on media copyright questions Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Source_of_claim_in_Template:Military-Insignia. Please add your comments there. Megapixie 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great power is a strange article without a coherent logical guideline. Austria and Hungaria are included among the great powers,the Polish-Lithuvian Commonwealth, Sveden, Spain or Italy not. Be that as it may, I have quoted the official government position of Germany on that issue and the media usage in Germany which all explicitly state that Germany is a medium power and not a great power. Now there are some professors and free lance writers not in Germany who think diffferent because it fits their concept. So far so fine as long as you say clearly who says what in my opinion. Now two editors have teamed up and make it a wash in my opinion by creating some say so and some say else, totally mixing up official German government positions, native media usage and output of foreign freelance writers. My point is I do not disagree if someone assesses Germany as a great power but as long as I can provide clear and recent official positions saying else they should be mentioned as such and not intermixed because political and media language is not scientific language. So I'm going to hit the three revert rule first. Nice way to solve such issues democratically. Wandalstouring 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me of Maximillian I of Mexico, where an Austrian prince ended up Emperor of Mexico. What were these French Civil War generals up to!? Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac is a great story. But what I came here to ask is whether anyone knows who these other French Civil War generals were? Bored European aristocrats seeking excitement in a war half a world away? Or what? Carcharoth 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time the WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration moved a heap of content into wikipedia, the old domain is now being squatted and we are providing heaps of links to it. To clean up this spam I have been removing the This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference with permission from the article space and adding this template on the talk page {{ Wikiproject VC migration}}. When I started there were more than 1300 articles, linksearch. I was hoping some people from this project might help out and take the opportunity to add more VCs to the military history project - I've seen a lot that aren't project tagged. Thanks. -- Peta 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Although the nation no longer exists, I'm surprised there's no article for Prussian military history. - Emiellaiendiay 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The Roman-Spartan War has been up for FAC and has not recieved many comments. Could some editors read the article and leave their opinion at the article's FAC page. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)