Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 12
 | This page 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. |
A few suggestions
Though largely defunct, should we absorb Wikipedia:WikiProject Military? Perhaps see if there's anything to salvage and then turn that into a redirect to here?
{{Milbox}} Secondly, I was visiting around and I saw a template on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts. I think something like this could work well for us, especially as something participants could add to their user pages. I'll go ahead and make it if no one has any objections. Oberiko 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would be easy enough to absorb a defunct WikiProject; I'm pretty sure there's little of value that would need to be salvaged.
- The template is an interesting idea. We do have a to-do list (above) as well as an announcements section; we either need to get rid of some of them, or devise a way from needing to add things in multiple places. Maybe a single announcement/to-do list in the form of the template? —Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Problem with the current template is that it doesn't really have any details on it. People have to come here to see what's new and going on, let's deliver the news to them instead. Oberiko 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, it's a basically a direct copy of the mabox. Should do for a first version. Oberiko 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gah! And I just created {{WikiProject Military history tasks}}! ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- lol. So, should we flip a coin? Oberiko 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly concerned. On the other hand, why not have {{Milbox}} be a compressed version of {{WikiProject Military history tasks}}? That gives us two different formats, which could be useful. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Means two versions to update though. May I suggest we use Milbox simply because the name is much shorter? Oberiko 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that {{Milbox}} would be {{WikiProject Military history tasks}} enclosed in an extra set of div tags to collapse it to a small size. ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, alright. I can just import yours into the other one then. Oberiko 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Colors - Template Conversion
Hey guys, I'm finally getting around to converting all my articles to the newest Infobox + Campaignbox templates. And I have realized... did you/we get rid of the colors designating battles in different parts of the world? I don't really mind one way or the other, but I just hadn't noticed before. LordAmeth 22:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, those were removed a while back (still in the battlebox, actually). The basic idea was that the average reader had no idea what the colors meant, so it was just added complexity for no real benefit.
- Incidentally, when you're doing the conversion, keep in mind that you may need to insert "the" into the partof parameter for correct grammar ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Map needs critique
Hi all, I just tried my hand at making a battle map. The result is this. (Big, 1MB, beware.) I need some critique on how to make it better. I'm aware of several problems ATM:
- Not everyone understands APP-6a NATO symbols.
- Map is too white... too blank.
- Lacks detail when thumbnailed. (See it in battlebox.)
- File size too big for thumbnail.
Anything I can do to make it better? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- The last two issues aren't a problem, in my opinion. Except for the simplest battles, the map will always be too complex to be properly viewed in 300px size. See Battle of Waterloo, for example.
- As far as reducing the blank space and making it more comprehensible, some ideas:
- Use solid lines for troop movements and dashed lines for withdrawals.
- Add major topographic features. The scale is probably too large for hills to play into it, but major roads are probably of interest.
- Should the commanders of the units be indicated?
- The use of APP-6a isn't really an issue; anyone that wants to read the details on the map will either be familiar with it or be willing to look it up.
- Hope that helps :-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Campaignbox instructions
If anybody feels like reading over the instructions here (also transcluded onto the project page) and commenting on how understandable they are, I'd be very grateful :-) —Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Science and Technology of World War II
I am interested in the factors that have stimulated advances in science and technology. At the moment I am interested in the factors that stimulated the great advances in physics, mathematics and industrial technology during World War II. To this end I created a category called Science and Technology of World War II, and added this category to various pages of military weaponry, scientific bodies of World War II such as the National Defense Research Committee which spawned the Manhattan Project (Section S) and other projects such as RADAR from Section D. Various scientists are also included such as Vannevar Bush and Karl Taylor Compton. The hope was that the category would attract people with similar interests to contribute and to identify gaps in the information already in Wikipedia from a history of science and technology viewpoint.
Regretably my category has been deleted by one of the members of this project, Oberiko, who informs me that I need permission from this project to make this category. I apologize if I have inadvertantly stepped on someone's toes in this process, my impression was that this project wasn't particularly interested the history of science and technology. I would like Oberiko to restore my category if no one objects.
--Prmacn 00:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, you don't need our permission to make new categories; I suspect Oberiko was only giving you advice about the most productive way of doing things.
- As far as a "Science and Technology of World War II" category, there is at least one obvious problem with it—as defined, the category would include the entire morass of military technology categories for the war: weapons, ships, vehicles. I suspect that this isn't what you had in mind. A better option, in my view, would be to create a "Science of World War II" or "Technological development during World War II" category (perhaps someone can think of a better name?); the intent being to limit the category to experimental and development work, rather than to everything technological about the war. —Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I was trying to make a category that would include the entire morass of military technology. This is needed to capture the synergy between the multiple scientific developments and their impact on the multiple applications in technology. For example the science used in radar gunsights was also used in radar bombsights. Radar gunsights were used on ship and land based anti-aircraft.
- World War II was remarkable in that the rate of technology transfer was very high. Application of the technology motivated the development of new science and a synergy developed. How this happened is very relevant today.
- The name of the Category should be one that can relate to other eras in Science and Technology. The next Category might be Science and Technology of the Cold War followed by Science and Technology of the Consumer Age.
- Oberiko did a lot more than give advice. He removed about 40 links I created, and some links from other writers as well. Then he deleted the category. Then he gave advise. Is this how people in the Military history project normally settle differences? --Prmacn 05:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your proposal seems based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of categories. The intent of the categorization system is to make closely related articles easier to find. It is not intended to present a canonical hierarchy of concepts. Thus, more specific categories are generally to be preferred to less specific ones; for example, grouping "Technology of World War II" and "Science of World War II" into a single category, while perhaps more "correct", would be inappropriate. Instead, articles should be added to both categories as necessary. This should not, I might add, be necessary for most articles; the MP40 is a sterling example of technology, but has no discernible scientific connection, for instance. —Kirill Lokshin 06:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, my intent is to cross-cut the hierarchies. If you go to the root of Wikipedia you find a major science category and a major technology category. Both are a canonical hierarchy descending from a general term like science to a specific term such as polymer or a general term such as technology to a specific term such as MP40. The progression from the MP36 to the MP40 involved replacing a wooden stock with a stock made from polymer. Polymers were used in other handguns also, and my category would help you identify which handguns these were and how they used polymers. I haven't seen anything else on Wikipedia that would do that.
- Curiously your comment is the opposite of the one I received from Oberiko who told me that I violated the nature of a canonical hierarchy as follows:
- Hello. When adding categories to an article or category, be sure to only add it to the highest level. Since Category:World War II anti-tank guns is descended from Category:World War II military equipment, you should not add the same parent category to both. Oberiko 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the future, please discuss any large military-related categorization change ideas you have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history before you implement. Oberiko 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am still in a quandry over Oberiko's deletion of my category. Is the deletion of someone else's work an appropriate method of critique?
--Prmacn 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Without getting too much into whether it was the best method of critique, yes it is acceptable. But that's probably not a response that's very helpful for you, so...
- In my opinion, whay you should do is create specific categories as necessary in each case. For instance, if you wanted to discuss polymers, you'd create a category (named Category:Firearms using polymers or something similar) and include the appropriate articles in it. This takes a bit more work than simply lumping everything together—you have to choose appropriate categories, for one—but it doesn't produce meaningless connections like MP40 → radar → Panzerfaust.
- If you want to go a step further, you could create a category similar to the one you originally wanted ("Science and technology of World War II", although I would suggest a more precise name) and include the categories I discussed above in it. This super-category, rather than containing everything technological about the war, would only contain categories that deal with actually important connections—whether they be radar, polymer-based handguns, or nuclear weapons.
- For what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree with you that there is are meaningful connection to be drawn here; I just don't think that a single overarching category will be of any use in examining them. —Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually your approach was the direction I was moving in. I would use the super-category as a way to organize what pertinent information is already in Wikipedia. Once organized it is possible to both create sub-categories and to split the super-categories into sub-categories. How big the starting category should be is a judgement.
- With all due respect to Oberiko, I would submit that he/she deleted the Science and Technology of World War II category to make the point that contributors are not to create categories in the area of military history without first consulting this project. This is apparently Oberiko's policy and by acquiescence the policy of the project. Certainly it is not part of the Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The action violates the Wikipedia guideline "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".
- I can see that a lot of work has been done in the Military history project, but readers and contributors will not have confidence in all the hard work if Wiki bullies make the rules. Wikipedia is frequently criticized on this point.
--Prmacn 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I said above, deleting the categories was probably not the best way to go about this. On the other hand, of course, calling Oberiko a vandal wasn't either.
- I would respectfully suggest that we all consider this whole affair an unfortunate misunderstanding and get back to writing the encyclopedia; hopefully my remarks above have given you some ideas about how to proceed :-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Prmacn, you should keep in mind that this is a collaborative effort. You want to do something that is against the grain of the wikipedia and not really using categories for what they were intended (indeed, you'll end up with a massive category). Will you include all American battleships? Every single German AFV? All the soviet aircraft? Etc. It'll be in the thousands, making it useless.
- This is especially in light of the fact that we already have an article for Technology during World War II. Oberiko 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed Request
L'vov Sandomierz The requested article exists, try a different spelling. :-) Andreas 20:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, so somebody does look at that box ;-) Thanks for catching that; I've added another redlink in its place—hopefully this one doesn't exist yet. —Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Someone does :-) While we are at it, I was wondering whether a separate Battle of Crimea 1944 is really required, or whether the Crimea should be treated as one theatre for 1941-1944? In any case, when I get back home to my sources I can start with a stub. That'll be after Jan 7. Andreas 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the single Crimea article become too long, then? I suspect that the reason for having two separate articles was size rather than any great historical concern. —Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- That maybe the case, and a natural break-point in the narrative exists with the combat operations in the Kuban bridgehead (BTW, I could not find an article on those). But the 1944 campaign was relatively short and therefore may not need an article for itself. Maybe someone (me?) should just start writing it, and it can always be split later? Andreas 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Announcement and task box
In case people haven't seen it already: {{WikiProject Military history tasks}} (also usable in a smaller form as {{Milbox}}, which you can see at right) now contains the FAC/Peer review announcements, plus a selection of open tasks (currently missing articles and stubs). The template can be watchlisted independently; it can also be included on user pages, for anyone who wants faster updates ;-)
Now, a stylistic question: should the section names ("FAC", "Peer review", "Wanted articles", "Stubs") be nouns, as they currently are, or verbs ("Expand", "Create", etc.)? If the latter, what would be appropriate terms for the FAC and Peer review sections? Or does nobody really care?
Of course, any other ideas for improving the template are welcome as well! —Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
H.L.S. Blair
TO Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin] FROM OLDWINDYBEAR: H.L.S. Blair does exist, if you would bother to check the im addresses of her contributions on the battle of tours you would know that. I reinstated her in this project, as she had asked me to put her name in it. I would appreciate the basic courtesy of checking your facts before you call me a liar and accuse me of putting a non-existant person on the page. She is quite real, a personal friend, and bluntly, has forgotten more history than you know. I don't mind some of your more arrogant edits, but this one was over the edge. Check your facts, please. I personaly put nothing on this wonderful project that I cannot substantiate.OLDWINDYBEAR
- With all due respect, User:H.L.S. Blair had no edits at the time I removed her name. Please note that I am referring to the account rather than the person (there was a User:HLS BLAIR that edited Talk:Battle of Tours, but that's neither here nor there). While I appreciate that your friend may wish to be a part of this project—and everyone is, of course, welcome to contribute— it's not very useful to add an account name that isn't used by the person in question. —Kirill Lokshin 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ms. Blair asked me to add her name, and I did so. Her contributions to the Battle of Tours, and to the article on Charles Martel were good ones. Kirill, i don't mean to offend you personally, but you offended me personally when you accused me of putting a non-existant person on the project. I realize engineers have a mindset that requires Empirical evidence, so I referred you to her contributions on the articles named. I disagree that adding the name of a person who has contributed good work to articles on battles of macrohistorical importance is of no use. That is my historian's viewpoint opposing your engineer's viewpoint. OLDWINDYBEAR 12:49 12/26
- My apologies for any offense I've given; it certainly wasn't intentional. As far as the list goes, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have contributed to important articles; obviously listing all of them would be a little impractical. I've always taken the view that the main purpose of the list of participants was to allow us to contact each other as needed—something impossible if the listed names are accounts that aren't used; you may, of course, disagree with my philosophy here.
- In any case, I hope that this has now been resolved to your satisfaction. —Kirill Lokshin 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the courteous and honorable way you resolved this, which frankly, surprised me. Not that you personally were so courteous, but we live in an age in which rudeness seems to be an art form. I appreciate your understanding that Ms. Blair really exists, and honestly wanted to be on this project, and respected that. I also appreciate your understanding that to me, a crippled veteran, my word is about all I have left, and I value it. (so when I think someone is calling me a liar it distresses me!) I think (while I have obvious thoughts of things which could be done differently) that you make a valuable contribution. I appreciate your courtesy, and I am sure Ms. Blair will as well. OLDWINDYBEAR
- Thank you for your kind words, and happy editing! —Kirill Lokshin 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Improvement drive
A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Battle of Kouan
Can someone please take a look at the Battle of Kouan article for me? The Infobox is experiencing some sort of error, and it is not displaying properly. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed. The problem was a missing bracket on one of the parameters ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I really could not for the life of me find that. LordAmeth 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Industrial Warfare" sounds like a contest between industries. While WWI might be seen as a test of munitions manufacturing, I don't think that's the intent here. Should this article be renamed to "Industrial Age warfare"? --A D Monroe III 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- If someone makes a page like that I'll consider renaming. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I think a rename is in order, but let's do it right. I suggested "Industrial Age warfare" (with capital A) because Industrial Age is a proper noun. I left the W of war lower-case because the whole phrase is not a proper noun. Any differing thoughts? A D Monroe III 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the titles of the other entries ("Ancient", "Medieval", "Gunpowder", and "Modern" warfare), a one word description works. While I understand your objections, this does seem to be a pretty minor one, as far as they go, and since there don't seem to have been any major objections I'm going to oppose any move.Palm_Dogg 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've always seen the term "Industrial warfare" used (usually as compared to "Pre-industrial warfare"). —Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I am with PalmDogg on this one. "Modern" serves plenty well in my opinion. If we can make such sweeping categories as Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern (or Gunpowder), than I think we can survive with just "Modern." Warfare has not changed that much over the last hundred years to warrant an entirely new category... LordAmeth 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I was the one who created the article, because I think there was a major revolution in military affairs between Napoloeon and the American Civil War and that there was another one in the late Twentieth Century. The debate was over whether the name "Indutrial warfare" was the best name for this time period (Roughly the start of the Indutrial Revolution to the Information Age) Palm_Dogg 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought we were discussing reorganizing the main categories of Military History, either in categories, or in the Military History article. In terms of having a separate article on "Industrial warfare", I think "Industrialized warfare" or "Industrial Age warfare" are fine options. 'Industrial warfare' sounds too much like war between industries, and is in any case not a regularly recognized term. LordAmeth 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the "ages" of warfare and military equipment should be broken down as such:
- Ancient
- Classical antiquity
- Middle Ages
- Early modern
- Industrial age
- World War I
- World War II
- Cold War
- Modern
- Future
I realize that four of the last five fall into last century, but we've definitely seen massive change in the art of war since WWI broke out. Oberiko 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the above, what characterizes "Industrial age" warfare (as distinct from WWI). Are we just going to focus on breech-loading rifles and such? —Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not as much as you'd think. For example, most of the technology in World War II was introduced in World War I (although it was usually very crude and unreliable). The major change, in addition to the rise of industrialization which makes large militaries plausible, was a revolution at the national level, in which countries and armies moved from the personal fiefdoms of various monarchs to symbols of the people. Not many people would give their life for some abstract king, but would immediately lay down their lives for "the Fatherland." The changes that bring about Modern warfare don't really occur until the 1980s, when major armies start moving back to professional all-volunteer forces, "smart" weapons come into general usage, and satellites and the Internet make battlefield intelligence both instantaneous and thorough. Palm_Dogg 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Something that was just brought to my attention; this is pretty badly POV (for largely the same reasons why we don't recommend naming articles after operations). Should we just kill it, or does anyone have a better idea? —Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redundant. Delete? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Should we replace it with a warbox on the articles where it's used, then? —Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I say yes. Make it a redirect, too? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Should we replace it with a warbox on the articles where it's used, then? —Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)