Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:03, 20 July 2008

Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project as a whole or several task forces. For discussions about individual existing task forces, please use that task force's talk page instead. Skip to Table of Contents • List and scope of Task Forces • Add new section

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy
Core work areas
Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box
Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive
Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box
Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1517 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 41 Featured pictures 544 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 684 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,592 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion
Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War
Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships
edit · changes

• WT:MILHIST

Isaac Brock under FA review

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New C-Class and Milhist

Discussion closed: the consensus was clearly that we do not adopt C-Class. --ROGER DAVIES  12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:

Arguments for C-Class

• More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
• It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
• For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).

Arguments against C-Class

• The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
• Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
• The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
• This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
• There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
• More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So we can determine consensus in Milhist, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Milhist assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on 4 July 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, --ROGER DAVIES  08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. We don't need to spend a lot of time focusing our efforts on going back and re-assessing everything, we can just add C-class as we see articles that need it. I know that while working on T&A I've seen many articles which would fall under this new category, for example a well-developed article that doesn't have enough pictures, or that has some grammatical errors, etc. It isn't right to list these articles the same as those that are virtually stubs.Borg Sphere (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
2. It's much to easy to get a start class article but B-class requires a bit of work. I think C-Class would be a welcome addition to give the authors an idea that their work on the article allowed it to progress. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I've found that a lot of MILHIST articles fall short of only one or two B-class criteria. The new class would be a way to more accurately show just how far along an article is. I agree that we shouldn't take a great deal of effort to update templates on articles, only fixing as needed. But the way I have seen things, (and the way our Contest Department seems to see things), I have found that Start and Stub class articles are usually very similar, while B- and GA- articles have very similar criteria of their own, which is far above that of start. The new class would bridge this gap. -Ed!_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, KISS, too much work to impliment, Start/B is already well defined, this would require intense discussion on what C-class should rerpresent, everything else noted above in the arguments against C-class, and anything I forgot to mention that others may mention below my post in the oppose section. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think there are other better ways to reduce the gap between Start and B-class (for example, slightly changing the B-class criteria). --Eurocopter (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, all of what TomStar81 said but something else... To me, anything above Start-class should be a badge of merit. I'm very pleased to have an article I worked on classed as B by a colleague. I wouldn't assess articles I've substantially contributed to as B-class for that very reason - to me it's something a peer should 'award', not something you give yourself. I'm afraid C-class just doesn't cut it in the same way. For me, if there is perceived to be a significant leap between Start and B, so be it - that's something to aim for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
4. There doesn't seem to be any need for C-class in our classification structure as start class is working well, and re-classifying existing articles would be a waste of effort. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Adding another class will increase bureaucracy without improving the encyclopedia. Okay, let's say half of our "start" articles should really be labeled "C-class". So what? Both classes will remain a collection sub-standard articles that need some work. The "B-class" criteria is pretty high, but easy enough to reach for anyone willing to make a little effort. It won't break anything if we use "C-class", but we won't gain much by it. —Kevin Myers 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I agree that there isn't any need for a C-class assessment. The current system works well. Kyriakos (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Given that our B-Class requirements are already clearly defined (and rather more precise than those used by many projects, to boot), I see little benefit to adding another level to the scale; as Kevin points out, it'll just be another set of sub-standard articles. Kirill 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   It seems likely, by the way, that the new B-class wiki-wide definition will be very closely based on ours.--ROGER DAVIES  06:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

8. As Kevin has already pointed out, adds unnecessary bureaucracy. the lines between B-Class & Start-Class are fairly well-defined. Adding C-Class only complicates that. What constitutes a C-Class and what constitutes a Start-Class? How do we determine whether an article is B-Class or C-Class? Questions like these leave the assessment open to far too much subjectivity. As Kirill has pointed out, the MilHist Project has boundaries between start & B that are well established, and IMHO, the bureaucracy that would accompany the transition from the addition of C-Class would be detrimental to the project as a whole. For example, we can say hello to an entire new assessment drive (with significantly more complicated instructions) to reassess the 34,000 some-odd start & B-Class articles according to C-Class criterion. I'm not a fan of tons of bureaucracy, and therefore I oppose the institution of C-Class into the MilHist Project Assessment Scale. Respectfully, Cam (Chat) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Would involve a great deal of extra work. Against. Buckshot06(prof) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Unlike other wikiprojects, MILHIST's Start/B-class criteria are well defined. We don't need a dumping ground for bad B-class articles (C-class), because we dump them in start class. Also, oppose due to the amount of work required to implement one (unless it's gradually introduced, which would take far too long). --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I'm inclined to oppose as well, for the same reasons as have been listed above. It's just far too much work for what I see as marginal benefit; the time spent reassessing every Start and B class article to see if they fall into this new C class could be better spent improving these articles. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose for all the reasons mentioned above Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Too many classes already. Can't we just promote an article out of Start class by removing the start designation? Or shuffle the criteria to tighten the gap in the existing set of classes. —Michael Z. 2008-06-26 04:49 z
14. I agree with Kevin here; it will only introduce another grade of sub-standard articles. We have well-defined B-Class criteria, the formula for an acceptable article. Whilst I understand that it can sometimes be hard for some articles to meet the grade, this is merely to maintain the quality of our articles. I don't think achieving "C" grade is something that should be particularly heralded, or cherished by editors. Woody (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. We don't need more classess. Surely the purpose of grading an article is to provide a broad guidline for editors to improve the page, that's all. It's already confusing. Most people (except dedicated wikipedians) don't know the difference between GA and A for example. The system should be simplified not complicated further, providing yet another focus for arguments - "It's B-Class", "No, it's C-Class article", "NO. B-Class" ad infinitum. If you want to introduce a new class, you should introduce 'Failed Classification' for those appaling articles that seem to have been translated using Babel Fish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.73.190 (talk • contribs)
2. As an aside, the new B-Class colour is horrible. Who chose that one? Cam (Chat) 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   It was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Added C-class to the grading scheme. Woody (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback on partner peer reviews

How's it going? Is it fun and interesting? Is it delivering what you were expecting? Thoughts, gripes, comments? --ROGER DAVIES  04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We want to know whether it is in the interest of the project to continue this partnership and what could be improved. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the goal?

If it's to get people in peripherally-related Wikiprojects to become involved in projects that may also interest them, a benign bit of advertising, it seems to be working fine.

If it's to get people to participate in discussions relevant to the other projects...less effective. I don't recall a single notice at WP:CVG that had anything to do with that project's scope.

So whether the mission was accomplished or not depends on what the mission was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the mission was something more akin but yet separate to your first point, in that it was an attempt both to broaden the horizons (of some editors), as well as to aid in finding where Video game editors' faults lie when peer reviewing video game articles — likewise, Military history. In essence, injecting fresh blood. To which, I would say it went well. I would like to say that a few more history review notices coming up would have been pleasant. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Izno, that was the intention. I just looked over the VG talkpage and I don't see any Milhist notices. I think that was probably a failure on the Coordinators part when we add the notices here and to the task-forces. From my view, I think it has gone well. We had, at the beginning, a significant increase in reviews both here, and at the VGPR. Whether or not areas that were lacking were identified through the process, I don't know, perhaps someone who has put an article through a review could comment. Woody (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Milhist notices get archived pretty quickly at WP:CVG, as they aren't active threads for very long.

If the intent was to cross-pollinate the peer reviews, I don't know how successful that was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it worked well. Generally speaking, some peer reviews just never seem to get that many comments. But as far as this WP:MILHIST and WP:VG partnership is concerned, I believe the amount of comments and participation did increase on both sides. Kariteh (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The one place I think we really helped was fighting game peer reviews, and thier editors helped a lot over here, I noticed a user called Giggy giving peer reviews on almost requests. I don't think we helped much when it came to racing games, or other kinds that aren't really within our scope.--Serviam (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an article go through the review that is now an FA and I noted at the time that the quantity of feedback dramatically increased with no slip in the already top standard of quality in the reviews avaliable through MILITHIST. If I had a suggestion, it is that Video game articles for review should have been listed on the same page as military history ones during the trial period. That way more people would have seen them, resulting in an even greater quantity of reviewers.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, so, what do we do? Kariteh (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden now open

The A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the use of animated gifs in infoboxes

I've started a discussion about the use of animated gifs in infoboxes at Template talk:Infobox Military Unit#Animated images. Your input is welcome there to discuss these images and to form a consensus about them. Fram (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above discussion, a broader discussion on the appropriateness of any type of image (static or animated) to iconically represent the type of unit in {{Infobox Military Unit}} has been started on the template's discussion page. All editors having an opinion are invited to comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Ark Royal (91) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank Task Force

Hey! Before I go into my plans for said task force should it be founded I want to apologize in advance if I go into tangental rants and into my life story and what not. :D In any case, I am moving out of my flat in Madrid, Spain, by tomorrow night and so my internet access will be extremely limited until 14 July 2008 - I will try to access the internet to see comments on various watched pages and what not, but for all intents and purposes I won't be around. So, this is just to see what people think until I get access to a computer in San Diego, California.

As you probably suspect by now, I have an unhealthy obsession with tanks and have taken three articles (to date) to FA class, with a fourth one hopefully being promoted soon (Leopard 2E). A few days ago I also started a new portal on tank, hoping to use it as a 'rallying point' for interested editors. I know there are two existing task forces which this can be included in - Military technology and engineering task force and the Weaponroy task force. However, I'd like a shot at an independent task force because I have a lot of ambitions on improving the articles on these topics, and it's not only related to actual tanks, but to the soldiers (whether enlisted or officers) and theorists which have made tank warfare what it is today (i.e. Heinz Guderian, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Basil Liddell Hart, et cetera). Also, articles for tank components (gun technology, armor, et cetera) and what not. Basically, it would be centered on motivating editors to improve articles up to FA class and for editors which may not be interested in doing 'large edits', but may be interested in peer reviewing, copy editing and helping with the small details to get the article to FA class. I think through an independent task force I can help channel users to cooperate. There are a lot of articles which will need said cooperation or they will not improve to A-class or FA-class, such as Tank (although Dhatfield's improvements of the article cannot be quantified with simple words) and Leopard 2.

I think there are enough users to warrant the creation of the task force, and I believe that members will increase over time. I have not taken the time to message anybody right now and I might before I move out, but I might wait until I get some comments on here about the idea in general. Without binding them, here are some editors which may be interested (remember, I have no contacted them) - User:MWAK, User:Mzajac (not sure how interested he'd be, but as the maintainer of the T-34 article I have him included - he also looks over the post Cold War tank template and the T-84 article, IIRC) -, User:Dhatfield, User:MoRsE (he edited quite a bit on the T-26's involvement in the Winter War and has been fairly active on the Leopard 2's talk page), User:Denniss (edits on Leopard 2 and Leopard 2E), amongst others I have missed. If such a task force gets endorsed or it's said that it is a possibility if I can get enough people to join it, then I will message these and others.

There are other reasons why I'd like this to be a separate task force. I have plans of introducing some type of award 'unique' to the project (although I can be awarded out of the task force, to people who are not in it but have made edits that help it), similar to the chevrons with oak leaves - basically, it would be awarded by consensus of the project members (just like the previously mentioned WP:Milhist award) - the target would be to use the award to motivate editors to continue to edit in support of the task force. Other ideas are similar and all of them have to do with motivation and making the area of tanks a well represented 'category' (4 FAs currently and perhaps 1 more soon - hopefully we can get even more articles to FA). The fruits of such cooperation, even without the task force, has already been seen (thanks to the WikiProject as a whole) - small copy edits are as necessary as the editor providing the bulk of the information, because without these copy edits the article's prose would never be good enough to reach FA status. Not to mention that without people double checking your information you might get something accidently incorrect in the article (for example, Denniss has consistently made sure that the Leopard 2 article says 1,500PS and not 1,500HP).

In any case, without boring people too much - what do other editors think? Thanks for your time, regardless! JonCatalán (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO the scope would be too small. I would certainly support the creation of a vehicle task force though, that takes in all military vehicles from long ago till present that would have a similarly-sized scope to our other taskforces.--Serviam (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the number of articles relevant to tanks, we're talking about thousands (once you take into account articles not yet created, all the tank articles, all the biographies and all the articles on tank tactics, tank components, et cetera). The scope is actually fairly huge for the amount of people likely to sign up. I would support expanding the task force if we can handle tanks well, but by itself what I'm envisioning for the group of articles relevant to tanks is ambitious (perhaps too ambitious). I don't know - what do others think?). JonCatalán (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is simple. How many people are interested in this task force? If there are enough it will be created. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the time to message the editors I think would be interested. JonCatalán (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It does strike me that it is much narrower in scope than any existing taskforce. That siad, if it ends up happening, good luck to you! The Land (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough tank-related articles for this task force to be created. A very good example is the T-54/55 MBT. There are loads of sources on it and it's impossible for one person or even a few people to cover all of them. That said a military vehicle task force wouldn't be a bad idea either since tanks and other military vehicles like APCs, IFVs, ARVs etc. are very closely related. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I support creating a military vehicle task force and would join if it was created. That's three users so far--Serviam (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support the creation of a military vehicles task force. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the military vehicles taskforce is created I would suggest it sticks to land vehicles, to avoid duplicating the Ships and Aviation wikiprojects and the Maritime Warfare taskforce. The Land (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I would prefer armored fighting vehicles - although something like the chariot might fall into the category, given that to some extent or another this was an older relative of mechanization (war elephant, et cetera). In any case, this is supposed to be narrower than say ... the weaponry task force. JonCatalán (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AFV task force is a good idea but military land vehicles task force would be even better since it would also cover unarmoured military land vehicles like trucks, jeeps etc. While studying the subject I found that Misplaced Pages to be lacking on this subject since most of those vehicles have either stub articles or no articles at all. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggest broadening the scope only when we can see that it will be useful, and why I suggest just starting with my original idea of covering tanks. At this rate we'll just turn into the weaponry task force and then there's really no point. If we see that we can get the interest to broaden the scope and the people to do so then why not, but until then I suggest just sticking to a narrower topic (like tanks or even up to all armored fighting vehicles). JonCatalán (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another comment; this is supposed to also mirror the portal - the portal was supposed to ask as a 'rallying point' for the task force. I rather see the articles in that template get little brown stars than become a broader scope and get less done. JonCatalán (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with armored fighting vehicles rather than exclusively tanks simply for ease of categorization; there's a lot of "tank-like" vehicles that have been used, but which aren't, properly speaking, "tanks", and I'm not sure that the editor groups working on them are really distinct. Kirill 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. If nothing else, maybe it can resolve some of the infobox issues over specs the current box(es) can't accommodate. Offhand, I'd say there's enough material for a "tank-only" TF, but an AFV project including APCs & MICVs might not be out of line; could just as easily break out task forces (combat commands?) as needed. Get up & running, count me in. TREKphiler 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then armored fighting vehicles it is. I think we can now count on four. JonCatalán (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not. I'd be interested in completing the articles Panzer division and Panzer corps, However I have no idea about the tanks/AFV/military vehicles scope. Comte0 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include stuff like 110 Jeep and Humvee, as they have no task force of thier own? "Land military vehicles", or should we just sitck with AFVs?--Serviam (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Military vehicles like trucks and jeeps mostly either don't have their own articles or thier articles are stubs. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) It looks as if the precise scope needs firming up. Once that's done, the bright line for implementation last time was support from two coordinators and at least eight editors to make it worth the effort of setting it up. --ROGER DAVIES  08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought. Do you intend to include armored cars under AFV? Or tracked only? My thinking is, what's really needed is an umbrella group, a Military Vehicles Project, with TFs or sep Projects for AFV/tank, APC/MICVs, armored car, jeeps (incl M151 Jeep, Land Rover, Type 62, Mehari, & the like), trucks, amphibs (like LVT, BAV 485, & Landwasserschlepper, tho LVTs could fall under APC), & maybe a general "other" for things that don't categorize well. I'd also suggest a separate or crossover "experimental" task force for things like the M6 heavy tank, T30 heavy tank, Black Prince, IT-1, M4 Jumbo, & so forth, that never saw widespread use. TREKphiler 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stay grounded, there are hardly enough editors for one taskforce, let alone a project. The procedure has been that people choose what scope their intended task force should have, and not that we impose scopes, especially if one is not volunteering as a member. There are quite a lot of fields we hardly cover, so I don't see any reason why their scope should be expanded beyond their interests. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Prince, above. I'm in favour of a "land military vehicles" task force, that includes stuff that isn't tracked like the Stryker and Mowag Piranha, and also "soft" vehicles like the Humvee and the Russian Gaz jeeps.--Serviam (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Widening the scope"? Not my intention at all. Just making a suggestion for further consideration at a later time, if anybody wants to take it on. It seems to me MilHist has the remit to oversee all the above projects, should they arise, so the idea belongs here. Beyond that, I insist on nothing.

Judging by the distinction between tracked/not Serviam notes, it seems armored cars is outside an AFVs TF (my own feeling also is, they're outside), unless there's strong support for inclusion? Given Wandalstouring's (good) advice, a broader "land military vehicles task force" may be too big to take on. At the least, outside a narrow AFVs TF. TREKphiler 05:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How can an armoured not be an AFV? AFV stands for armoured fighting vehicle. So armed armoured cars fit the description. I still believe that land military vehicles task force would be a good idea. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I now presume the task force will include all Armoured Vehicles like; AVRE,BRIDGE LAYERS,CVRT,LVTP ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, we got two suggestion:

• land military vehicles
• armoured fighting vehicles

Could the editors interested in this task force please declare their preferences, then I am able to create the infrastructure. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first one would parse a bit better as "military land vehicles", if I'm not mistaken. Kirill 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounded really odd to my ears, but I decided to stick with the suggestion. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting the military land vehicles suggestion. Because this whole topic needs more attention, not only the AFVs but also unarmoured fighting vehicles and logistic vehicles like trucks and jeeps. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I rather just focus on armored fighting vehicles (including armored cars). It's still my opinion that we can widen the scope at a later date. There are a lot of areas not covered by any task force currently, while other general land vehicles are to a degree (under the weaponry task force) - that's why I don't support the creation of a military land vehicles task force. I think increasing the scope will be underproductive until we can get moving on what I originally wanted the task force's scope to be. JonCatalán (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. Lets start with AFVs task force and later we will expand it to military land vehicles task force. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Firm proposal

Let's try to determine where the support lies on this one. So comments please ... Once we've established which task force has potential, we can see if it has enough support to be formed. --ROGER DAVIES  07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Military land vehicles (Support/oppose/comment)

1. support because is a super set of all the vehicles of military Suyogaerospace 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose as overbroad, contrary to original (narrow) AFV project (as noted above). TREKphiler 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I support expanding to this at a later date. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This task force is going to have at least 8 members when it starts up, that's plenty, and considering how much our other task forces have grown, in a few months it should be quite large.--Serviam (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Armoured fighting vehicles (Support/oppose/comment)

1. oppose its a subset of above Suyogaerospace 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Needed, & useful. Slight oppose including armored cars (but I won't make a fuss over it); my sense of "AFV" has always been more "tank". TREKphiler 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I support it because its better to start with this and later expand to all land military vehicles. Also I strongly remind everyone: "An armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) is a military vehicle, protected by armour and armed with weapons." (Quote from Armoured fighting vehicle article) therefore armoured cars do fall in this category. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support But I can see a need for the above Military land vehicles Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Support, as I believe the abroad is too broad.

Compromise

How about this: We start the task force as an armoured fighting vehicle task force, then once it reaches twenty members and at least 3 GAs or 1 FA, we rename it the military land vehicles task force, and broaden its scope?--Serviam (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Make it 3 A class. The GA process produces rather mixed results. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

2 A class? A class are harder to earn than GAs, and I'm sure two would be better than three.--Serviam (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it this would be difficult to do, renaming/reorganizing a task force is suppose to be tricky and challenging from a number of different standpoints. That is, if I recall correctly, one the main reasons we ask for consensus on a task force and its scope before adding it. If this is in fact the case then I do not thinking adopting one name and then switching to the other would be a good idea, if it would even be allowed at all. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Enlarging the scope when the number of members will increase to a certain number is IMHO a good idea. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm Tom's comment: renaming task forces is a big, big pain, and ought to be avoided if at all possible. Particularly given the short timeframe being proposed here—1 FA and 3 A/GA articles can be done in a couple of months—I don't really see the point; if the broader task force scope is the one people think will work best in the long run, then we can just create it under that, and outline narrower initial priorities internally. Kirill 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't yet see sufficient support for a new task force and am reluctant to support setting one up for the sake of it. What might be a better solution is to use the Weaponry task force talk page as a temporary home page. There's very little traffic there (other than notifications) so it might generate more interest and help crystallise the scope issues. It might be possible to set up semi-formal cadres within existing task forces as a half-way house as a way of building support for potential new task forces, and I'd much prefer this as an option, especially as we have so many inactive TFs. I suppose the way I'm thinking longer term is fewer, more active, TFs with broader scopes. --ROGER DAVIES  04:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to show up late. I'll support this task force under either name, or as a group under the Weaponry t.f. I also think that other naming options ought to be considered. For better or worse:

• Tank task force I'm okay with this, if it's understood that it includes armoured warfare in general, including organization, technology and tactics surrounding the tank.
• Tanks task force
• Tank warfare task force More explicit about broadening the scope.
• Tanks and armoured warfare task force
• Armoured warfare task force Simpler version.
• Armoured task force
• Mechanized warfare task force Broader in scope, based on motorized vehicles.
• Mechanized task force
• Military vehicle task force I see no problem with the scope—this set phrase usually means motor vehicles, and not aircraft or ships.
• Military motor vehicle task force If you want to get technical about it, this is fine.

Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-12 15:07 z

I see proposals there for things we do need (in particular a tank warfare task force to cover the tactical/strategic issues currently unaddressed), but I understood this to be fairly narrowly "tank" & technical (including design, development, production, perhaps procurement, issues), rather than all mil vehicles, never mind operational matters. Not that they shouldn't get attention, just not in this tent (so to speak). Or am I way off target? TREKphiler 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In a tan task force all matters concerning tanks should be covered. In an AFV task force all matters concerning AFVs should be covered. And in a military land vehicles task force all matters concerning military land vehicles should be covered. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trekphiler is correct about what I originally proposed, and to a degree so is SuperTank17 - I wanted to cover everything that had to do with tanks, including tank warfare - using the portal as a table of contents of sorts. JonCatalán (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to an above comment about the amount of FAs and whatnot to justify the expansion of the task force, we would technically start with 4 FAs and one GA (that I know of) - T-34, T-26, Verdeja (tank) and Lince (tank) are all FAs and Panzer I is a GA, and upon my return to San Diego I plan to work on what I left off of last year and take it through the FA process as well. Since I center mostly on tanks, that's why I originally proposed the task force to just focus on tanks because I assumed that I would be the most active member taking articles through the FA process (three of the four FAs were nominated and written by me (not to forget all the crucial copyediting other editors did) and one more is going through FAC currently - Leopard 2E). To be honest, I was hoping of centering editors interested in tanks so that once I wrote the bulk of an article I'd have knowledgeable editors all concentrated under a single task force and with our efforts oriented we can get a lot done. This is why I disagree with widening the scope of the task force. JonCatalán (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that as I said before its impossible to focus on tanks without focusing also on a number of other AFVs such as APCs, IFVs, ARVs, SPAAGs, engineering vehicles etc. And that's not only because many of those vehicles are based on tanks. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not an Armoured Vehicle Task Force then those editors who wanted to concentrate on tanks would be free to do so, but it would not exclude those interested in APC'S, IFV etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, other military vehicles do not have a task force, and I'm particularly interested in some soft-back vehicles but I have no supporting task force. It seems a bit pointless to create a tank task force and not include other vehicles. Also, that scope would be miniscule compared to our other tfs.--Serviam (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would kind of hard to create another task force for not armed vehicles like trucks, jeeps etc. That's why I think the military land vehicles scope is the best one. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject of tanks is practically the same as armoured warfare—tank are used by armoured, infantry and reconnaissance units in all types of operations, integrally with APCs and MICVs, and in coöperation with combat support, artillery, and air. It's also the same as mechanized warfare—AFVs entered the battlefield only two years after trucks did.

I think all of the suggested names are essentially synonyms. The question is merely one of emphasis. I think using tanks in the name helps provide novices with an image, but doesn't limit the scope. —Michael Z. 2008-07-13 20:40 z

Finding consensus: Military land vehicles

There seems to be strong consensus (and sufficient support) to start up a new task force. Unfortunately, no such consensus exists over the name and scope. So unless some agreement can be reached it ain't going to happen. However, Military land vehicles clearly has the edge though this doesn't seem to be acceptable to everyone. For what it's worth, in highly informal discussions, three coordinators also think "Military land vehicles" is the best choice (mostly because it's broadest). Perhaps people with strong views might consider the "I'd rather cut my head off with a rusty saw than join the Military land vehicles task force " test. If you can just about live with it, albeit under silent protest, and smiling fixedly through gritted teeth, please don't oppose. Can this name fly? --ROGER DAVIES  18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Although not particularly involved in Armoured vehicles on Misplaced Pages, I do recognize the need for there to be a new task force concerning Military Land Vehicles & Armoured Warfare. Cam (Chat) 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - I think it's taking on way to much at one swipe, but what the hell. TREKphiler 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment We don't have to do everything at once. We could, for instance, restrict the scope initially. --ROGER DAVIES  09:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can choose what they want to write articles about. It's not like everyone has to make contributions to each and every article that falls in the scope of the task force. Regards. -10:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Brilliant concept, nice start on the Portal:Tank, Jon. Comment I'm behind the portal & award concepts (esp. the 'to do' list - nice for focus, could we transclude from the task force to dos?), although I'd like to see more tank tech (tank guns, ammo, armour) - everyone has their favourites :) I'll generate an "AFV Award" pic once I have free time. I liked Jon's initial scope concept best, but that's POV. Nice work, no wielding of rusty saws here. Dhatfield (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank guns, ammo which is used exclusively by AFVs and armour of the AFVs and unarmed armoured vehicles all fall in the scope of Military land vehicles task force. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support - for the sake of getting somewhere. And thanks Doug for doing the award - I was going to try myself, but you are a much better graphic artist than I am. JonCatalán (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Best scope, we can work with this.--Serviam (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support If it doesn't work we can rename it and/or focus the scope. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created the infrastructure for the new task force at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. Please sign up and so forth! :-) Kirill 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article M1 Garand rifle which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) now open

The peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF now open

The A-Class review for Air Combat Group RAAF is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!

Proposed category: Operations and Battles by Country and Conflict

Hi All,

I have been doing some poking around the categories of the Australian military, and have found it difficult to identify which military operations involving Australia where for which conflict. This required opening the article. On further examination, I found the same problem in a number of other prominent national military histories (if not all).

I suggest creating various category trees as follows (using Australia as an example):

Military History of Australia

Military operations involving Australia

Battles involving Australia

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War I (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see below)

Non-combat military operations involving Australia

Non-combat military operations involving Australia in the Middle East (new)

Non-combat military operations involving Australia in the South East Asia (new)

Military history of Australia during World War II

Military campaigns involving Australia during World War II (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see above)

Also:

Battles by war

Battles and operations of World War II

Battles and operations of World War II by country (new)

Military battles and operations involving Australia during World War II (new, see above)

I feel this would clearly define the context of the article. This is becoming an ever-increasing problem as the list of battles increases such as ] (not a large list compared to some other countries).

We already have a category for military units and formations of Australia in World War II, so it makes sense to have a category for the operations and battles involving Australia in World War II etc.

Any thoughts??

Glenn Sisson (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply in Category talk:Military history of Australia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion best belongs at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force rather than this central talk page. Would you mind moving it there please Glenn? Nick Dowling (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best way to approach it, actually; the example here is Australia, certainly, but anything we decide here is immediately applicable to other countries. Kirill 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - I only saw the 'Australia' bit and missed that this is a universal proposal. This is definetly the right place for it. Sorry about that Glenn. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need such intersection categories; but if they are created, I'd suggest using cleaner naming:

• No "military battles"
• Form names as "...of...involving..."/"...in...involving..." rather than "...involving...during..."/"...involving...in..."

Thus, we'd have things like Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Australia, Category:Military campaigns of World War II involving Australia, and Category:Non-combat military operations in the Middle East involving Australia. Kirill 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill both that this is the right forum and with the suggestions he makes about the general naming principles. I am not persuaded about the need for a widespread intersection either. --ROGER DAVIES  08:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill regarding using cleaner naming. But I do feel these categories are appropriate in some shape or form as the list of battles for some countries is getting very long and it should be clearer as to which battles belong to which conflict from that countries perspective. If I am interested in the battles Australia fought in Vietnam, I don't want to have to open up a variety of articles to find them, either in the military operations involving Australia category or in the military operations of the Vietnam War category. This sort of intersecting categorisation already exists for units and formations as explained above, and this seems to work well across the board for the various countries that utilise this category.

PS. I am new to these sorts of discussions. At what point will it be clear about the decision, who makes it etc? Thanks for your help and input. Glenn Sisson (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• What about India Pakistan war series and under what project does counter torrism comes? Suyogaerospace 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much productive discussion going on there. The Land (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Military history of Canada

Military history of Canada has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Truces and ceasefires

Are they one and the same? Comments appreciated at Talk:Ceasefire#Truce.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shuttle bombing

I create a new article called Shuttle bombing it is little more than a stub at the moment, but a relatively new editor has been making what I consider to be some unorthodox edits to the page. As user:Mugs2109 and I are crossing swords on a number of articles at the moment, I would appreciate it is someone else with an interest in this field would look at the short edit history of this article and make a decision on which is the better format, because edit warring over such a trivial issue is a waste of everyone's time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I threw a few darts into the loo but eventually cast my vote with your version. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

As a suggestion, would it be helpful to create an infobox for articles on individual nations contributions to multi-national wars? (eg, Military history of the United States during World War II, Australian contribution to the 1991 Gulf War, etc). At present this is one of the few areas within the scope of this project which doesn't have any appropriate infobox and it might be worth creating one to summarise the war articles and ensure that their appearance is consistant with other articles. I'd suggest the the infobox include the following fields, which I've taken from the Military Conflict infobox:

• Article title (rather than seperate country and war fields - unless there's some way to link these via automatic text?)
• Image
• Caption
• Date (the dates the country entered and left the war)
• Result
• Opponents (is this worthwhile?)
• Allies (is this worthwhile?)
• Strength (the peak strength of the country's armed forces (eg, about 1 million Australians in WW2), or the total forces committed (eg, 6 warships and some aircraft for Australia in the Gulf War) - whatever seems more appropriate)
• Casualties (own casualties only - not those inflicted)
• Notes

Is this a good idea, or would it only add clutter? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian campaigns in East Africa in the 30s

Hi. I've noticed a series of articles - Second Italo-Abyssinian War, East African Campaign, Battle of Maychew, Battle of the Ogaden, Battle of Amba Aradam and so on - all of them are heavily based on the book "The Rape of Ethiopia" by lieutenant colonel A.J. Barker. I wonder how accurate that reference is. I mean, imagine an article on the Colonization of the Americas based on a book titled "The Rape of Native Americans"... --82.56.120.86 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting: change in Manual of Style

Howdy folks. Just now I've noticed that, according to the folks who edit WP:DATE, linking dates for the purposes of autoformatting is no longer recommended or required. So, where before you might wikilink April 8 2008 or 11 November for the purposes of enabling date autoformatting, this is now discouraged because it creates too many low-value wikilinks, and because most Misplaced Pages readers don't even have autoformatting enabled. This seems like a sensible guideline to me. If I've just noticed this, I figure some of you might not have noticed it yet. The actual wording on WP:DATE is rather noncommittal, but editors have been less ambiguous about the new recommendation on the talk page and elsewhere.

This guideline has some special considerations for this Wikiproject because, although the Manual of Style calls a date like December 9, 2002, the "American format", many Americans writers of military history will use the so-called "International format", 9 December 2002, because that format is common in the US military. So some non-military oriented editors might innocently change the date style used on a US military history article because they think it's "wrong" to use a "non-American" format. This is too trivial to edit war over, of course, because anyone who does much reading in English will be familiar with both date formats, so no harm is done if some military history articles use one format and some another. The only thing really important is that each article is internally consistent on the format used. In the past I've used both styles interchangeably, even in the same article, thinking that autoformatting will sort it all out, not realizing that most readers don't have autoformatting. Now I've turned off my autoformatting to help keep in mind what the average reader is seeing.

We might mention something about this in our own style guide, if anyone finds it necessary. —Kevin Myers 06:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that Kevin. I also agree that this is a change for the better - linking dates seemed a bit pointless. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's about time the trivial linking of dates has been thrown out. Low value, indeed! It only would have been useful if, say, one could go to 7 Dec 1941, for instance, and look up everything that any Wiki article mentioned had happened on that date. What should have been done, though, was to recognize dates within text without the help of a link, and to format the dates as before for the people who were using it. I think the process can be made seamless without our having to do anything. Ah well... Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual reason was formatting rather than linking. Linking a date meant that it would be displayed per the user setting in preferences, ie 7 July or July 7. --ROGER DAVIES  07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An article should use a consistent date structure. For this reason, the first date structure used in the article should be employed for all other dates. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly the advice is: if the article is in American English use American month/day/year formatting (ie July 7, 1941); if it's in British/Commonwealth English, use day/month/year (ie 7 July 1941). Articles should be internally consistent, so use only one style or the other. Roughly, the principles in WP:ENGVAR should be applied to the date format. --ROGER DAVIES  07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to retroactively apply this to articles? Or should we deal with it as articles come up for higher assessment ratings? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I don't think that's the case. My read of MOS:NUM is that it's neither required nor prohibited. If there's a consensus on a particular article that autoformat dates are especially undesirable, I wouldn't see any problem with removing them.

Following up on what Roger said above, I believe that the date styles should be treated like American vs. Commonwealth English in that, once established, the style should not be changed without valid reason. I don't believe that the style choice should be explicitly tied to the variety of English (if that's what Roger was saying above). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To clarify, the new date format guideline has the same strong national ties clause as WP:ENGVAR (i.e. use the format prevalent in the country to which the article relates) and in that sense is tied to the variety of English used. --ROGER DAVIES  05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles

Can an easily findable "Requested articles" section be added, as other WikiProjects have? Badagnani (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Full is, well, full of them. ;-) Kirill 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can this please be made easily findable? I looked very hard. Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the requested articles in this list? I see no redlinks. Further, the terms "request" or "requested" do not appear anywhere at that list. Badagnani (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just about every task force has a "Requested articles" list there; you need to click on the "" links to see expand them. Kirill 05:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(And since I suspect the question will come up: the reason the requested articles are split into multiple lists in this manner is because we've found smaller, topic-oriented lists to be more conductive to article creation than a single overly broad one, given the extensive scope of the project as a whole.) Kirill 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article Cannon in the Middle Ages, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article English cannon, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Indiana in the American Civil War now open

The A-Class review for Indiana in the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Warwick Castle now open

The peer review for Warwick Castle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Citadel of Saigon; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article Tsar Bomba which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory now open

The peer review for United States Air Force Research Laboratory is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of battles by death toll

List of battles by death toll is an article with a high activity of IP editors inserting unreferenced material. After months with a template calling for sources and removal of every new unsourced edit, I decided to make clean sweep and removed all unsourced material. IP editors keep reverting my edits because I vandalized their beloved list. It is impossible to discuss matters with these guys. It would be nice if someone else could have an eye on it and keep it going into a properly sourced article. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't see a huge amount (or indeed any) value in the article. Is there not some way to be rid of it?

ALR (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly needs improvement, but it seems to be of moderate interest. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I just don't see a lot of value in lists in the first place, plus I suppose there is the philosophical point that as a military professional the point of conflict is the outcome, not the number of bodies piled up at the end.

ALR (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Block expired, problem returned. It is 66.4.209.194, who has been warned because of vandalism several times, who keeps reverting my edits. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads FAR

Battle of Hampton Roads has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Halo (series) now open

The peer review for Halo (series), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Guyinblack25 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New article : Sea Breeze

I was wondering if someone can create an article on Operation SeaBreeze? If someone knows Russian perhaps, very limited sources exist for english.

There is an older version of the operation, can find some stuff here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea-breeze.htm http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/06/08/4757.shtml

And ofcourse, the current, and most controversial, going on for about 2 weeks: http://en.for-ua.com/news/2008/07/14/102051.html http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/14/europe/EU-Ukraine-US-Military-Exercises.php

Lihaas (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas, if you can list the Russian sites that deal with it, people can use machine translation to make the translations. Buckshot06(prof) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, don't rely solely on the machine translation! I've been working with User:Charles01 trying to clean up one from Italian WP on a car builder bio & it's a struggle; for something like milhist, the machines will have a devil of a time coping (unless you're using something better than I've seen). I tried Babelfish on a page from Spanish WP & it was...well, not unintelligible, but it'd be easier to use a Sp-Eng dictionary to begin with, 'cause it reads like it's gonna need one anyhow. And you risk introducing error for no good reason... TREKphiler 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article Julian the Apostate

There has been a discussion about moving this article to a new name here. It did not achieve consensus for the anticipated move, leading to a new vote for an anticipated move of the same article here. It looks like an endless debatte. For this reason, I encourage members of this project to drop by, read the arguments and make sure that the article is named according to wikipedia guidelines. Currently, all these repeated moves can achieve, is to exhaust one side, leading to a POV result instead of one according to the rules. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Sociology

A group of students in my course have chosen this article (one of the requested articles from the area of military science) as part of their assignment. They have just stubbed it, and will be working on taking it as close to a GA as they can over the next two weeks. Any mentorship, advice and assistance the MILHIST project members could render to them would be most welcome; however since the students are supposed to write the article, not have it written by them, I'd ask to keep any major content additions and such to talk (or just wait two weeks till they are done). PS. Do note that all the students are newbies to Misplaced Pages... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can help them with templates and images. If the article is really good we can ask one of our copy-editors to improve it. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. May I suggest copying any offers of help, advice and so on to article's talk page, as I don't expect the students to be able to locate them here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We could add a {{todo}} template the article talk page and add suggestions there so as to not clutter up the talk page. Alteratively, if a peer review were filed for the article, we could make suggestions and comments there intead of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, although I think it is too early for any significant peer review.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish the students well on their project. My only concern is how to limit interference by those on WP who do not realize this is a class project. I'm thinking primarily of over-aggressive taggers, such as AFD, or other editors may try to make major changes to the article, constructive or otherwise (unless that is part of the project, but your comments above seem to suggest not). I'd suggest an {{inuse}} tag, but this is recommended for several hours, not 2 weeks. My other suggestion is to move the article (temporarily) to a userspace for the duration of the project, and then back to the mainspace after two weeks. Just trying to be proactive, not alarmist. - BillCJ (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All affected article have talk talk pages tagged with {{EducationalAssignment}}, linking to WP:SUP subsection on this project. Hopefully this will help. I wonder if Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination should design a main article space template, akin to inuse... As for userspace, I tend to dislike it (editors seem to forget articles there and others have trouble finding them there), so I've decided not to teach student about this option. Time will tell if this is enough, in the end we area learning how to teach with Misplaced Pages just as we are learning how to build it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

<--This is an intriguing idea. I've got the page on my watchlist. I'm going to be very interested to see how it develops. TREKphiler 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:SUP project? Check also the enormous success of WP:MMM project. I wonder how we could tie MILHIST more closely with such projects, in the case of mil soc it was an accident - I teach a course in sociology, students chosen a mil-related topic and since I was aware how active is MILHIST project, I've decided to inform you guys about it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class Review for Panzer I now open

Hey,

I have started an A-class Review for the Panzer I tank article. It can be found here. Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) now open

The peer review for 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New B-class criteria

The new B-class criteria are along the line of our existing criteria, but a bit stricter on some issues. The coordinators have discussed to implement criteria six of the new system and possibly change criteria three and four of our system along the lines of the new assessment. They could not agree how this should be put to practice. Is there enough support for an assessment drive or should we just change things via bot and set criteria six automatically at yes? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need another assessment drive with one drive just completed. If we do adopt it, perhaps we can just have a bot set it at yes/no (not checked) and then correct them next time we do a drive, since it seems that one happens every six months to a year anyway. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If all the current B-Class articles were left with the new criteria not checked, they would all be automatically downgraded to Start. That is a bad idea. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be done as part of the next B-class drive? It has only been 3 months or so since the last. Narson (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way forward seems to be (1) use a bot to set existing B-Class to B6-y; (2) update the template to show B6; (3) assess new articles on B6 as they come up and (4) at some stage - perhaps during the next major drive - check B6. --ROGER DAVIES  16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the "B" standard is being redefined upward, maybe the utility of a "C" standard should be reconsidered?

—WWoods (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Another point to consider is that WPAIR is using C-class, and there is consederable overlap on military aircraft. There is potential for some confusion in assesment, as editors have often filled out both templates at the same time, or simply copied the other project's assessment. - BillCJ (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not being redefined upward for Milhist as the new criteria are broadly based on our existing ones. Otherwise, in the recent discussion here on C-Class, the consensus was overwhelmingly not to adopt it. These things though are not set in stone, consensus can change, and discussions can always be revisited. --ROGER DAVIES  19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw someone add a B-class checklist to a Start-class article to Talk:HMNB Devonport. As it's a Start-class and the next class up would be C-class there should be a C-class checklist. bsrboy (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As was just said Milhist isn't using C-Class at the moment, so it'd be pointless for us to come up with criteria for it. A better place to bring that up might be with the 1.0 assessment team. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When Milhist uses C-Class please make a C-clss cheklist as soon as possible or even get one ready beforehand. bsrboy (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We won't be. At least, not without a pretty seismic shift in consensus. Narson (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Are there any other projects that I should know about who do not use C-class? bsrboy (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles to merge ?

I don't know how this problem is dealt on wp:en (and where to go...) :
Both these articles have the same content but one with the bad title :

• Military history of Jordan
• Jordanian Armed Forces

Could someone take care of this ?
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Military history of Jordan was created in Feb 2008, and that was its only edit. Perhaps the user intended to expand it later, but hads since spent most of his time edit warring and being blocked for disruptions. COnverting it to a redirect is probably the best option. - BillCJ (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory both represent separate, notable concepts. But if they are forks, one should be redirected to the other. I am not sure which name is better, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Following your comment, I permitted myself to redirect the first one to the second one.

Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Tactical vs strategic

Just wondering what the guidelines on the use of "tactical" and strategic" (as in "U.S. tactical defeat"). It seems to be that a platoon level skirmish which took place less than a week ago in a small Afghan village is a tactical engagement, but the infobox for Battle of Wanat gives the Taliban a strategic victory. How can something that happened less than a week ago have strategic implications (that we're aware of currently)? Lawrencema (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In context, neither is accurate. As highlighted on the talk page, there is little inherently notable about it. Skirmishes such as this are happening all the time, and given the distribution of these platoon houses the operational impact of one loss isn't all that significant. If anything it could be said that it was a defeat for the US/ Afgh force, since they were forced to withdraw from the platoon house. The outcome is a loss of presence, erosion of reputation for US/ Afgh and an enhancement of reputation for the OPFOR.

ALR (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course something that happend less than a week ago can have strategic implications. If 4 days ago US soldiers captured some IED storage place, the obvious impications would be less IEDs. If the taliban shot down the only A10 in an area, obvious implications would be loss of air support, and probably more casualties because of it.--Serviam (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying a capture of an VBIED factory is a strategic victory for the Americans because there's less car-bombs? A single American platoon repelling a Taliban assault on a newly established base hardly has strategic implications for the overall direction of the Afghan war, but then, that was the point of my question. What are the WikiProject Military History guidelines (if any) for the use of the term "strategic" and/or "tactical"? I thought strategic referred to something that changes the overall direction of a conflict. Even if this was the case at the battle of Wanat, a few days after it happened is hardly enough time to make that sort of judgment.Lawrencema (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You could project an outcome, and make the suggestion that something would have a strategic effect, although this is probably not the case to try to make the argument based on. In WP terms the difficulty there is the OR aspect, if an independent, authoritative and informed analyst suggests a potential strategic outcome, then it's reasonable to make that statement.

ALR (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the thinking, perhaps because it lacks context. The effect of any action really depends on the operating environment. Using the examples you're proposing; the isolation of a store of IEDs, in either of the current TOOs would proabbly be considered a tactical outcome, since any individual store is quite small, and there are many of them. OTOH capturing, or turning, the bomb-maker would have a more significant effect through reducing the supply chain. Similarly, downing a single US aircraft doesn't have a significant military effect, since there are many replacements, however the effect in the information war would be significant.

It's worth working through the estimate process with these events, what are the outcomes, what might be the consequences. In this case, is the withdrawal from a single platoon house militarily significant? I'd suggest it's not all that significant.

ALR (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Become an image restorationist

Here's an offer for Milhist members who have an interest in images. I've located a large cache of period military maps in high resolution digital files. There's enough to cover nearly every major battle of the American Revolution and Civil War, plus a smattering of world history. This is highly encyclopedic material and it's more than I can restore alone. Want to start collecting featured picture credits? Fire up your image processing software and contact me; I'll train you. Durova 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should better be posted at logistics.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost coverage of WikiProject Military history

Are any of the members of the project willing to lend answers to the WikiProject report for the Signpost. It took an absence recently, and to re-kick it off, I thought this may be the best place to do that. Regards, Rudget (logs) 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Take your aim

Given the of importance volley fire to infantry tactics between 1600 & 1914, a better link than Volley gun or Organ gun is badly needed. TREKphiler 13:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Then do something yourself and write better articles on these issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got enough on my hands now, thanks. TREKphiler 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Late Roman army now open

The A-Class review for Late Roman army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject

I would like to propose that Nick be dismissed from his position for supporting use of a straw poll to change an article title from its historic name to a generic name because, on suggestion of another editor, "The current article title is lousy".

There is an apparent propensity to use any odd name deemed desirable for any operation that was not conducted by English speaking forces during the Second World War, seemingly supported by Nick, because of the "common name" clause in the Project MOS that presupposes need for use of fictitious "Battle of..." names six decades after the end of the war, and with full knowledge of their correct names being available. While there may be some merit in the argument where it concerns particularly entrenched usages such as Battle of Stalingrad, there is no grounds for inventing new names because someone doesn't like the original, things its too long, or imagines that the Misplaced Pages readership lacks the capacity to understand the terms used in the operations names, such as "strategic" and "offensive".

Given Misplaced Pages is a reference work, and as such is dedicated to presenting the user with the facts about any given subject, and not someone's idea of what that subject should be named, I see Nick's behaviour as particularly inexcusable given his position on the Project--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)