Over the past few months, there have been a number of potential task forces mentioned in various discussions. I'd like some comments on how viable any (or all) of these would be; obviously actual statements of willingness to participate are best, but vague promises to round up enough editors from the article pages in the area may also be acceptable ;-)
Hello. As I said before, I think a World War I TF wouldn't be a bad idea. In contrast to more general subjects like weaponry perhaps, the risk of the TF encompassing so many articles to the point where it becomes unmanageable is reduced. Please count me in in case it is implemented. To gauge the potential membership (and hence viability) of these various TFs, it may be a good idea to put up a message on {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}, informing editors of this proposal, so those who become interested can come here and "register" in the proposed TF of their choosing. In about a month (or even less depending on the case) you can have an idea of the viability of each one of them. Andrés C.14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea on the announcement box; I'll do that.
As far as overly broad task forces, I'm not sure if "Weaponry" is necessarily any more broad than "Middle Ages"; both constitute substantial—but not overwhelming—portions of "Military history" as a whole, and the larger period-based ones seem to have been working well so far. Kirill Lokshin14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like weaponry might end up getting a large amount of pre-written information. Many article conserning armies or soldier types already describe the weapons in useage. I'm unsure about Weaponry as a task force, at least in my expertise of pre-Napoleonic armament since most of those have there own complete articles, but should one be made I would join up. Dryzen18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone interested in taking part in one of the proposed task forces could just list themselves under the appropriate one(s), that'd be great! Kirill Lokshin17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I sent out some messages before Kirill raised this, to assess the level of activity we can expect for a Chinese military history task force. I got some feedback already, others will probably reply soon. I'll inform everyone what the outcome of that it. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've got some feedback and I think we can count on maybe 4-6 editors to contribute meaningfully to a Chinese milhist task force. I'm not sure if that is enough. If the task force is just a notice-board thingy then I think it can survive with less activity, but if it is to be a HQ for coordinating Chinese milhist articles, I doubt we can keep it going for long without fresh blood (which is darned difficult to get with the mofo-ing Great Firewall). (I probably missed a few people too, just messaged those whom I've talked to and/or seemed to be willing to contribute in this area. If anyone else can contribute it would be much appreciated.) -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that's plenty to start off with; an initial round of tagging articles might bring in a few more, and then it'll be all set. Given the way recruiting works, anyways, it's probably much easier to find additional people once the simple "go to page & sign up" method is available ;-) Kirill Lokshin23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
True, but I'm a bit apprehensive as the China-related topics notice board died of neglect and I fear the task force might as well, given that membership would be even more exclusive. But I suppose a task force no matter how inactive would not hurt, so do I have the go-ahead? I'll come up with a banner and whatnot asap, and make sure to mention it in the next newsletter ;) -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You probably should find a better image for the banner, though; the only one I could find offhand is rather non-military. Kirill Lokshin23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks. Anyway, I changed the icon to the Chinese character for "martial". Still not quite satisfactory though. Anyway I'll start tagging stuff and start editing the project page. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if a "Weapons" task force is a no-go, I think there ought to be some sort of guidlines about how to write articles on weapons and military technology, and a "Weapons" task force might be a starting-point for those guidelines. I think I'd like to see something about tactics as well; the article on ambushes, for a semi-random example, is kind of seriously weird, and doesn't mention ambuscades in the first paragraph, despite the redirect. UnDeadGoat02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've created a French military history task force; based on interest, it's likely that at least the WWI and Weaponry task forces will be created within the next week or so. Kirill Lokshin18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the Weaponry and WWI task forces. I'm also currently discussing the merger of an external project here to create something like a "Cemeteries & memorials" task force; anybody have any objections to that? Kirill Lokshin13:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Describing battles in articles other than the article about the battle
Wuff. That's a heck of a section title. Here's what I'm trying to get at... The Hannibal article is too long and one of the reasons is that there are detailed discussions of various battles that Hannibal fought. There is a need to trim the battles out of that article but there needs to be something left behind since the discussion of the battles is the core of the article.
Here are guidelines that I've put together for what essential facts need to be in the sections on the battles. I think that these guidelines can be used in any article that is about a war, campaign or person. Your feedback and suggestions are solicited.
I would propose that each battle section be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that answer the following questions:
Why did the battle take place? Who was attacking, who was defending, why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it? What was at stake?
What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces?
Who won? How decisive a victory was it?
Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded or killed?
Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles? (e.g. Cannae was particularly notable for thousands of years afterward). Don't describe the strategy or tactic in detail, just give a one or two sentence summary as to why the strategy or tactic was notable.
Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle?
What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign? Did it make any difference or was it just another battle?
Anything that is not a direct and concise answer to one of these questions should be left for the article on the battle. I'm sure that I've left something out but I think this is the first cut.
Not bad, but I think you left out the most important part: what role did the subject of the article play in the battle? ;-) Kirill Lokshin16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems to take into account space and synopsis, pretty good. Only on the fith point would I add, in the case of the notable strategy, more detail on what this person deveised.Dryzen19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This is actually a good guideline for articles about battles as well. If it is possible to create articles about such battles, you could even reduce the content in the person's article and rely more on reference to the battle-article. --Habap19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. We already have some guidelines for article structure on the project page; should we just combine them, or do we want to have separate sets for articles about battles versus articles mentioning battles?Kirill Lokshin19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect, a rather silly question on my part, since the guidelines for actual battle articles need to include narrative structure not present in the summary version. Still, a number of the elements mentioned here should be mentioned in the main article guidelines as well. Kirill Lokshin20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the reception seems to be positive, I've added a (somewhat compressed) version of these to the project page; hopefully, I've gotten the point across without too much repetition. Comments are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin04:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Change of icon
As an outsider to military history, I find difficult to recognize as a piece of a map, at the small sizes used in templates. Would anyone object to its being changed to something more universal? I suggest a pair of crossed swords, maybe or . Seahen22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm fairly indifferent towards both. I agree that the map section is somewhat difficult to recognize, but I feel it helps to emphasize the academic/scholarly element of the study of military history, rather than the military aspect. Maybe I'm just looking into it too much. The map's been around for a bit, and I've grown a bit fond of it, but if others wanted to change it, I wouldn't care. LordAmeth22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I tend to like a map, but not necessarily the map. Before/instead of switching to swords (which my mind associates with a videogame, sorry), could we try to improve a map image to make it more obvious as an icon? ←Humus sapiensну?23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, the swords look a bit Playskoolish (they're not the correct shape, for one, and the garish colors don't improve things). I'm open to adopting whatever the members of the project want to use, though. Kirill Lokshin23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As usual, my line of thought follows Kirill's to the letter: I'm not prima facie opposed to a change of icon, but I'd prefer not to have to work with something out of Final Fantasy. Albrecht23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned either way, but if a change were to be made, better swords are needed ;) --Loopye04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally; I just saw the swords used on some articles in the milhist stub. Gaudy and distractingly big, methinks. --Loopye04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed the stub template icon to . They may still be daggers, they may still be of doom and destruction, they may still be elven, and they may still be +3 (not sure how to tell), but they're definitely not prismatic anymore. Seahen22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of swords or daggers. They don't invoke the thought of "military" to me; rather they bring to mind medieval "street fighting" or duals of honor. If the community consensus is to keep this visual, it needs to be much smaller. —ERcheck @ 11:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I say keep the previous icon. I don't think the idea of the swords is bad, but the ones chosen look to me a bit too videogamish. Andrés C.14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the old one should be kept because it's so familiar; changing the identifying image of a task force just because it's not immediately transparent to outsiders kind of sticks in my craw. UnDeadGoat01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any good pictures of a military officers formal hat? Something obvious like one with a hackle. That'd be immediately recognizable and should still serve to portray a rather academic look. Oberiko17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree - it is too dark. In icon size, it looks much like a bucket with a shovel in it. It is hard to identify as a military cover. —ERcheck @ 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What should the icon show? If there is going to be a change, it should naturally be to something that is "iconic" for military, easy to identify when the image is small, not be tied to a particular nation, span as long a time period as possible. Medals are easily identified with the military, but various versions of medals are used as "barnstars" on wikipedia. "Combat boots" would work - easy to identify in profile or silhouette and have been around for a long time. But, my best suggestion is chevrons, like the one for this WikiProject's Distinguished service award. The award is identified with WikiProject Military History and the icon for the project page would be tie the two together. —ERcheck @ 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we could use the chevrons (minus the barnstar image at the top) for the icon. My only concern would be that the yellow image wouldn't show up too well against the banner background (at least in the default skin). Could anyone perhaps repaint the chevrons in another color (such as lightsteelblue, perhaps)? Kirill Lokshin21:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling this might be one of those things people Have Opinions about, so if we're seriously contemplating changing our time-honored icon thing, maybe this should get thrown up in the Announcements as something people ought to look at. UnDeadGoat00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Not being a graphics expert, it took me awhile to figure out how to make the color change suggested by Kirill. I tested a few colors - black (which looks ok, though a bit bland; a dark red (which looks ok); here is a blue (uploaded to Image:Triplechevron_icon.png; —ERcheck @ 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is part of the Military history WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of military history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
I'dd still rather use the older map cut out, rather than Chevrons, these also have the not so pleasent possibility of proping up arguments: why use British chevrons over American chevrons, or vise versa, why enlisted, etc? The map might not be hte most recognisable but once you've seen it you understand why its there and its in my book a rather neutral image. Humanity has over 5000 years of recorded warfare... finding an iconic image that represents that, is not going to be easy. I'll be gone on an extended voyage soon, therefore I wish you, fellow participants, best of luck and resolve in this quest.Dryzen18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ain't broke, no need to fix it in my view. Agree with Dryzen. Nothing of what I have seen suggested thus far strikes me as better than what we have at the moment. If there is a view to go with crossed whatevers, I would go for sabres (the bent ones, don't know the word in English), at least those were used in warfare in many ages and places and are often used to indicate a battle location on a map. Andreas20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Something representing hoplite combat maybe? It's a bit too small, but something similar would look pretty cool. Rmt2m20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Stub icons and Task force icons — Proposal: They should match
I noticed that certain stub icons are out of sync with the corresponding task force icons. For example, our current main project icon (Military history) was changed for the {{Mil-hist-stub}} on May 17 to the is now the crossed swords from the discussion above. I think they should be in sync. Comments? —ERcheck @ 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Also not the same:
United States military history stub icon and US-task-force icon
World War II stub and WWII-task-force icon (WW2 stub does not have and icon.)
We've made some changes to the task force icons recently (see the section on shield icons at the bottom), so that's caused some of the inconsistency. But given that nobody usually cares too much about the stub icons, I don't think there would be many objections if we used our task force icon images for them. Kirill Lokshin03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I just couldn't stand the crossed drawn swords at the end of all those military history stub articles. There's just something to cartoon swords on encyclopedia articles that seems to sap at the visual quality of the article.Dryzen18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the icon. It should be consistent and since there was not a consensus to change to the swords for the WPMILHIST icon, leaving it as it was is appropriate. —ERcheck @ 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
An Issue with the project banner & some thoughts on the Military aviation Task Force
As I was merrily assessing articles, I discovered that the template has no parameter for the Military aviation taskforce. This appears to be A Significant Omission. UnDeadGoat00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. Now the only thing the Task Force is still missing is its own userbox for members of the project. BTW, now that the parameter has been created, do expect to see a significant increase in the number of articles belonging to the project (on the order of a few hundred) :) Andrés C.03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Great! Hopefully the tagging will make the task force grow a bit as well; it's surprisingly small for such a large topic at this point. Kirill Lokshin03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that may have to do with this overlapping situation. Consider that the articles that should be included on this Task Force (actually a a four-digit number!) are already being taken care of by the members of the well organized WikiProject Aircraft. In fact, I do wonder if this Task Force is viable at all. Anyhow, I will put Wikiproject Military History on its list of related projects. Andrés C.04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. I guess the question would be if the Aircraft project deals with pilots, air battles, aerial units, and so forth (the task force having been intended to cover all these topics), or only with the aircraft themselves? Kirill Lokshin04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that for the sake of clarity of purpose, this task force—if it's going to survive at all—should devote itself to articles on aerial warfare (battles, campaigns, significant strike attacks, tactics, units, pilots, etc.), and let the guys from WP Aircraft cover the aircraft themselves. In that regard, I suggest that the objectives of the task force be restated in a way that clarifies its real purpose. As they stand now, the objectives may be too broad and a bit vague. Andrés C.13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this project recentely introduced two new taskforces by my count, and I was just thinking that a good taskforce to start for the future would be a "Asia military" taskforce or something of that sort. Chinese military history already exists but I dont believe it covers all the other military histories of countries such as India, Vietnam, Mongolian, Korean etc. What you guys think? - Tutmosis15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems a little too broad to me; "Asia military" could include things like Russia, Persia, Babylon, etc. that really have no connection to each other except for being on the same continent. Perhaps a "Southeast Asia" or "India" task force would be better; but I'm not sure if we even have enough interested editors to work on either of those topics. Japan and Mongolia, for example, are both basically single-editor efforts at the moment, as far as I know. Kirill Lokshin16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Infoboxes are completely optional. They are certainly not a prerequisite for an article to reach featured status. In fact, many articles about wars/campaigns/battles do not lend themselves too well to infoboxes. Andrés C.19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite true. At the same time, I suspect that this article would be fairly well-suited to an infobox, if anyone had the time and inclination to add one. Kirill Lokshin20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Naval Vessel infobox?
I was poking around various navy ship pages, and noticed that there was some differences (sometimes major differences) between different ship infoboxs. I was curious if there was a standardized warship infobox. I mean, I may just be blind, but there isn't a listed box on the project's main page. --Laserbeamcrossfire02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Practical reasons, mostly. The ship project developed independently (and, to some extent, prior to this one), and we haven't really tried to absorb their material (since there's far too much of it for us to handle gracefully at this point). If we were starting from scratch, warships might have been handled by a task force of this project; but it's probably counterproductive to try and throw our weight around at this late stage. Kirill Lokshin02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Help with newsletter delivery
Would anyone be interested in helping to deliver the May issue of the newsletter (at some point in the next few days)? Kirill Lokshin03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Anytime before the end of the month; this is pretty flexible. The actual work requires subst:ing a message (one of two) to the talk page of every active project member (~200 edits); how much time this will take probably varies by person, but I managed to do the entire set in about 35 minutes last time. Kirill Lokshin04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it ready to go? Do you just go from the active list? (I'm willing to help; would do in the next few days.) —ERcheck @ 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Please check out the color change in the icon for the project banner above on this talk page.)
Yeah, it's ready. There's somewhat clearer instructions here; it's actually two lists. About a dozen people who signed up for the full content version get that; then, everyone on the active list that hasn't gotten the full content version gets the link-only version. Kirill Lokshin04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Haven't started yet (I just wrapped up the actual newsletter about an hour ago; and yes, it is the third issue). I suppose it depends on whether anyone else is interested, and when we want to do this; but we could probably just go through the list alphabetically. Kirill Lokshin04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just completed all the non-members on the list on the page you linked above. Do you want to start at the beginning of the alphabet or the end? —ERcheck @ 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Great! If you want to start from the top of the list, I can go from the bottom. Or did you have something else in mind? Kirill Lokshin05:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me ... I'll start at the top. —ERcheck @ 05:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (I've done the first ten, but will really work in earnest tomorrow.) —ERcheck @ 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: Subcategory:Commando Raids under Category:Battles
I am interested in feedback on whether others think it is a good idea to create a sub-Category:Commando raids under Category:Battles. There are plenty of notable raids, and it might be good to categorize them... Georgewilliamherbert05:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Would this category incorporate all subversive operations, including night attacks and raiding from all periodes, or would it comprise only of the more modern operations undertaken by special forces and intelliegence groups? --Dryzen12:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I reckon it should comprise only those more modern raids. For one the idea or word (not sure?)commando came from the Afrikaaner battle formations used against the British during the Boer War and from that the British started using the word to describe their special forces during WWII.
Although raidng has been around for centuries and i'm sure there are many examples of it over time; the Second World War proved to be the advent of Special Forces as a primary organisation (all sides in that war used such forces to a large extent), recognised as such, in most modern armies. You could i suppose create a category for the history of commando raiding and one for commando raidng in the 20th and 21st centuries, when it had become a recognised arm of any modern fighting force? Tristan benedict18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What about just "raids" in general? events like the raids on York, Port Dover, along the St. Lawrence during the War of 1812, Dieppe, etc. come to my mind. Mike McGregor (Can)23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Overlapping projects
Hey, I know the current fad is to place ones' project tag on as many articles as possible, but you guys are tagging a lot of aviation articles, and it sounds like a lot of maritime articles. These articles are already under projects, and have been for years. What's this going to result in -- ten projects claiming relevance? —Joseph/N328KF(Talk)03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that this was a significant problem. Are we getting articles with more than two project tags on them? (I'm not convinced that having two is a problem in of itself, since it seems to happen a lot even without our tags.) We can certainly change our tagging procedure if it's a major issue; but are you sure that it is one? Kirill Lokshin05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Only insofar as WP:Air has standards for these articles. As long as we stick to these standards (or change them at the WP:Air talk page), I'm fine with that. —Joseph/N328KF(Talk)19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I think that'll be fine, then; we've been directing issues with the actual aircraft articles to WP:Air anyways. I'll try to make sure that we let you know if any major discussions come up that could affect you. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that certain WikiProjects can claim ownership over an entire cluster of articles. Besides running counter to Wikipedia's philosophy, I don't think that is the purpose of any WikiProject. I'm a member of both WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST, and I don't see the need for anyone to warn fellow editors about sticking to standards...That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Or am I wrong? - Andrés C.18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
While you're correct in that a WikiProject can't actually claim ownership over anything, it would nevertheless be rather impolite on our part to undercut another WikiProject by encouraging people to ignore the guidelines that they have developed. Kirill Lokshin19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Kirill is correct. I was not trying to say "Back off! Mine!" I am merely trying to ensure that, since the central focus of the articles in question are aviation-related, that they should continue to adhere to those standards. I am not really addressing content, but structure and style. —Joseph/N328KF(Talk)19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, N328KF. I was addressing your question about many projects claiming relevance over the same articles. I did tag recently a great many articles on French aircraft and warships with the French military history TF banner (we can always untag them if need be). Actually, this is something that I spoke to Kirill about on this same page, specifically regarding the scope of the Military aviation task force, which led us to modify it (here's the diff) in order to avoid or at least reduce the risk of overlapping. Andrés C.19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ski Warafare
Hi, while reading your guy's page on Ski warfare, I found a few facts hard to believe. I dont know much about the history of war, but I do know a lot about skiing and it's history. The article states that ski warfare was used in the 13th century. Since skis weren't even invented then im pretty sure thats wrong. There are some other things that don't seem right. I think that someone at this project should check it out. Tobyk77705:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Skis are even older than that, and are present in a lot of both Baltic/Finnish and Slavic legends and folklore. Moden skiing is quite recent (19th), but it existed as a form of fast snowshoeing for several centuries or even millenia, derived from sleds and things like that... -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
difficult to recognize as a piece of a map, at the small sizes used in templates. Would anyone object to its being changed to something more universal? I suggest a pair of crossed swords, maybe 
or 
. Seahen 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
. They may still be daggers, they may still be of doom and destruction, they may still be elven, and they may still be +3 (not sure how to tell), but they're definitely not prismatic anymore. Seahen 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
. I'm not sure whether it would be an improvement. Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What should the icon show? If there is going to be a change, it should naturally be to something that is "iconic" for military, easy to identify when the image is small, not be tied to a particular nation, span as long a time period as possible. Medals are easily identified with the military, but various versions of medals are used as "barnstars" on wikipedia. "Combat boots" would work - easy to identify in profile or silhouette and have been around for a long time. But, my best suggestion is chevrons, like the one for this WikiProject's Distinguished service award. The award is identified with WikiProject Military History and the icon for the project page would be tie the two together. —ERcheck @ 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
