Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 44

message: Okay, based on the long discussion above, I think this may be a bit closer to what people are looking for:
# Article titles for military units should generally follow the form "Official name of unit (Disambiguation)".  If the name of the unit is not originally in English, it should be adapted by translating common terms (such as type designations) and transliterating everything else; editors should generally follow the usage in reputable historical works when deciding which components of the name should be translated.
# The "(Disambiguation)" part of the title should be the name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (e.g. "(Soviet Union)"), or, if needed, the name of the military service to which the unit belongs (e.g. "(United States Marine Corps)").  In general, unit names that can reasonably be expected to appear in multiple countries' armed forces—in particular, numbered units—should be disambiguated immediately, regardless of whether any other articles by that title exist at the time.
# When a unit has had multiple names over its lifetime, the article may use either the name under which the unit is best known (if any), or the final name of the unit.
Comments?  Are these principles generally acceptable, or do people see problems with them?  Are there major issues remaining here that we haven't touched on? Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is buried pretty deeply in the middle of the page, so easy to overlook. If I'm not mistaken I believe this version covers all the issues raised in discussion above. BusterD 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hopefully people will notice it; if not, we can always move the section down to the bottom. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me - although I would argue that it might be best to default to them most recent name of a unit, as "best known" might be a little too subjective (I don't think it's really a big deal, though, so feel free to implement the guideline as is). Carom 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2 

message: Based on the comments so far, a somewhat more coherent idea: a four-part categorization:
* By country [of service] (and branch)
* By era (and war)
* By rank or title (could be merged into "type", I suppose)
* By type (a catch-all for everything else)
We could then try to extend the existing naming convention across this tree:
* By country/branch: "Military personnel of Foo" (e.g. "Military personnel of France")
* By era: "Fooish military personnel" (e.g. "Medieval military personnel")
* By war: "Military personnel of the Foo War" (e.g. "Military personnel of World War II")
* By rank or title: "Foos" (e.g. "Generals" or "Chiefs of the General Staff")
* By type: "Foos" or "Fooish personnel" (e.g. "Pilots" or "Naval personnel")
These combine using the normal conventions to produce things like "Generals of France in World War I" and "Medieval military leaders of England".
Thoughts?  Is this somewhat workable? Kirill Lokshin 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Carom 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works out well, although I dont see much difference with our prior Categorisation ideas, save some added explainative.--Dryzen 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  We should be able to put an officer/enlisted branching under the rank/title categories, I think; there will probably need to be some renamings to meet the overall naming convention, but I think the structure should carry over more-or-less intact. Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful. I apologize for somehow not noticing this discussion earlier, and thus not contributing to it. But the results look wonderful. LordAmeth 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KL:  Wouldn't that be the other way around?  i.e., a "Lt. Colonels" category under an "officers" cat?  Or do you mean, omitting the latter, as implied by the former?  Or am I misunderstanding completely?  Alai 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, based on previous discussions and a series of recent deletions (on CFD), it would be omitting the former.  In other words, the categories would be split into "officers" and "enlisted", and "generals" would be nested under "officers"; but sub-general ranks (e.g. Lt. Cols. and so forth) wouldn't get categories of their own, but would all be directly under "officers". Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds fine to me:  I was confused by the "By rank or title" bit.  Probably better as while it's generally possible to identify enlisted personnel and company/field/general officers (with some variations) exact rank equivalences would get very fine-grained, very fuzzy, or both.  Alai 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft 

message: Okay, since the previous discussion seems to have more-or-less wrapped up, I've tried my hand at putting together a draft naming convention for military units and formations on the project page.  Is the proposed convention broadly acceptable?  Are there any significant points that have been missed, or problems with what's being recommended?  Any comments would be very appreciated!  Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looks good to me. Carom 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. --ScreaminEagle 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody else? Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there any outstanding objections?  Or should we adopt the proposed convention, then? Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft unit naming convention 

message: I just stumbled on :Category:Military of Cornwall today.  As far as I can tell, Cornwall has never had a distinct military identity.  Is it really a good idea to categorize militaries by what's essentially a coincidence of geography?  Comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not a good idea. If Cornwall, why not every other county in the UK? Raymond Palmer 12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pretty much a bad idea, if you ask me (which you did, indirectly). There might be some cases where a military-related region category like this might be useful (although I can't think of any off the top of my head). At any rate, this one should probably be deleted. Carom 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad, bad idea. Definite for cfd. We might as well let any well meaning nationalist set up their own category. Emoscopes Talk 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've nominated it for deletion.  Comments there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military of... Cornwall?! 

message: I have the idea in my head of splitting off the majority of the historical information in United States Army Ranger into its own article, perhaps History of the United States Army Rangers or something similar. Since the Rangers are a fairly unique unit, there's significant information to the article in addition to the historical part. I'm fairly convinced that it's the right thing to do, but I wanted to post in here and see what other editors thought about the idea. EvilCouch 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the parent article isn't really so long that it needs to be split, at this point; and much of the non-history material in it is lists (including some fairly trivial ones).  I have no objections to splitting the article in principle; but I'd like to make sure that the parent is left with enough material to cover to make a good article in its own right. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not particularly convinced that this is neccessary - as Kirill points out, if we remove the trivial lists, there isn't a whole lot of article left if the history is split into a new article. Are there particular reasons that you want to make this split? Carom 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, mainly I was looking to do it for clarity and brevity's sake, while not losing any important information. For example, that the Regiment dates back the French and Indian War is definately notable and should be included, however I don't know that the article itself really needs to go as in depth as it currently is. However, dumping the information off into ether seems like a really horrible idea. I could condense the article down significantly and improve its readability for those that are more interested in getting a good overall grasp of what the Rangers are, but I would not want to just axe the detailed information. While, I'll certainly agree that it's not nearly as long as other pages and doesn't need to be whittled down because of size, I do believe that the article is not nearly as concise as it could be. EvilCouch 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work; you'd have the main article, which would cover the Rangers generally (composition, roles, equipment, etc.) and include an overview of their history, with a more detailed article that would cover a blow-by-blow of the history at greater length.  Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did the split and now the main article is much more concise and readable. The history article still has its information in list format which is impeding readibility, and has become my new project. Any feedback so far? EvilCouch 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranger History

message: I've just spotted that 2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC) - a local UK Air Training Squadron - is on the deletion-discussion list. I've seen a few of these articles around before, and I'm really not sold that groups which tends to be as small, emphemeral and inconsequential as these are worth including on such a "granular" level. (For context, the RAF sponsors >900 ATC squadrons) Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably merge and redirect to a parent article, which would provide a complete list of all the ATC squadrons sponsored by the RAF (even though there are a lot of them). While I don't think that individual squadrons are generally notable (although there are probably exceptions), the entire structure probably is, and I don't see any reason for Wikipedia not to have this information listed somewhere. Carom 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are also a few articles on Australian cadet units. I agree with Carom's view that while individual cadet units are non-significant, the cadet system itself is (I take the same view on all the articles on individual schools which people create). --Nick Dowling 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability for minor orgs? 

message: Is this category really useful and/or neccessary? As far as I know, the Commonwealth does not have a distinct militay identity, apart from the fact that many units in the forces of the member nations are derived from British units that were created during the Empire period. It seems to fall outside the usual country/region tree, and I can't see a good reason for keeping it.  A side note: if the category is useful, it should probably be renamed to :Category:Units and formations of the British Commonwealth. Any thoughts? Carom 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem particularly useful, and produces a number of problems with units from one country winding up in a sub-category of another country's military.  I'm not sure that any explicit categorization for the Commonwealth's militaries is useful at all; but, even if one is present, it should be above the "Military of Foo" categories (e.g. "Military of the British Commonwealth", which would include "Military of Australia", "Military of the United Kingdom", etc.) rather than at the level of individual units. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the Commonwealth of Nations, not the British Commonwealth. There have been a couple of identifiably "Commonwealth" formations - 1st Commonwealth Division and subsidiary formations in the Korean War - but other than that... Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many potential category members are we talking about? Enough to make a category? If there are, than we can probably keep the category, cut it would need an overahul to get the right units in it, and a rename. And you are indeed correct about the name - the category should be :Category:Military of the Commonwealth of Nations, if it's going to stay. My mistake. Carom 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those units, this may indeed be a worthwhile category (under a different name); but it would need to be limited to units that were explicitly "Commonwealth" in their own right, rather than just being national units of countries that are part of the Commonwealth. Kirill Lokshin 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I queried the creator of the category on their talk page - we'll see if they have anything to add. At the moment, though, it seems like the best course of action would be to empty the cat., refill it with the appropriate articles, and then nominate it for rename at CfD. Does anyone object to :Category:Military of the Commonwealth of Nations as the name for such a category? Carom 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, we're just looking at the Korean forces and that's it. It's perhaps worth emphasising that the "Commonwealth division" was essentially an administrative formation with a good name - it was a Canadian brigade and two British brigades with a handful of ANZAC units; there were no actual "Commonwealth" units involved per se. I don't think it's worth categorising seperately, but YMMV. Shimgray | talk | 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the category should be deleted. All the articles in the category are better classified through their national militaries as the Commonwealth is in no way a military alliance, much less a unified military command. As has been noted above, 'Commonwealth' units haven't existed since the 1950s. The articles which have so far been classified into this category are a real hodge-podge and don't seem to demonstrate any Commonwealth links - eg, how is the 1 NZ MI Coy or the British 16th Air Assault Brigade a 'Commonwealth' unit? - they're units of the New Zealand and British Armies respectively and have almost nothing to do with each other. --Nick Dowling 07:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "British Commonwealth" was the official name in 1926-49 and there were a lot of combined entities in WW2, such as the major RAF formations, the Eighth Army and the British Pacific Fleet. By "combined" I mean that they actually had whole units detached from countries other that the U.K. in them. On one hand the category would probably be worth preserving for combined entities; on the other hand it is liable to be misunderstood. Grant65 | Talk 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being made is, I think, that these formations are not "Commonwealth" in any meaningful sense - the component units belong to the armed forces of other sovereign nations, not to a "Commonwealth Army," etc. More to the point, the Commonwealth has not (except for a brief period in the Korean War, as Nick and Shimgray have pointed out) fielded a military force as an independent entity. While I'm perfectly willing to keep this category if it provides a useful axis for navigation, I don't really see that as being the case. Your comment about the name pre-1949 is well taken - however, it will be something of a moot point if the category is deleted.Carom 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this category is suitable for pre-1949 units either as there weren't any 'Commonwealth' units in this period. For instance, while many units from Commonwealth countries served with the British 8th Army and RAF Bomber Command these higher headquarters were part of the British military and the interests of the national contingents were represented by seperate officers where appropriate. Similarly, the RAF bomber squadrons which were manned by mixed crews from the Empire Air Training Scheme were British squadrons first and foremost. --Nick Dowling 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:British Commonwealth Forces]] 

message: The AFDs are now becoming pretty chaotic; I have no idea what, if anything, will wind up being deleted by them.  I think this would be a good time to have a more general discussion of how these lists should work within the project, and to use whatever consensus we come to as a rationale for further AFDs (or lack thereof).  Hence, some initial comments (mostly cribbed from my earlier comments here):
Lists tend to be more difficult to maintain than categories or navigation templates; they should be used in cases where they offer some substantial benefit over these, but the ones that are redundant to more easily maintainable organization schemes needn't be kept around.  The major drawback of categories is that they arrange articles alphabetically; while this is suitable for many things, it excludes the other natural ordering: chronological.  (Campaignboxes offer a chronological ordering, but are limited in scope to individual wars or campaigns.) An obvious role for lists is therefore to provide chronological navigation through military conflicts (related or otherwise).  Thus, the core of my proposal: combine the existing chronological lists of battles and wars into a single, comprehensive timeline of military conflicts.  It could be structured something like this (a rather crude sketch, obviously): 
:; Year
:* War of X begins
:** Battle of A
:** Battle of B
:* War of Y begins
:** Battle of C
:* War of Z ends
:; Year+1
:* War of X continues
:** Battle of D
:** Siege of E
:* War of Y ends
:** Battle of F
:* War of Q begins
:...
Obviously, size constraints would force us to break the timeline onto multiple pages; but they would still remain part of a single, navigable sequence.  The entries would be open to further annotation, of course; I've left them as mere titles, but things like combatants, locations, results, etc. could all be briefly summarized.
Thoughts?  Is this a totally insane idea?  (And, regardless, does anyone have any other ones?) Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a huge project, but I think that it would ultimately be worthwhile. I don't exactly know how you'd go about accomplishing it, however - you would almost need a group of editors doing nothing else in order to make certain that the list was complete and accurate. Maybe a trial run on a particular portion of the master list (19th century, or something like that) would b in order to see how it works in practice. Carom 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a huge but "Good and Necessary" project. I recommend creating a page for each year. --Ineffable3000 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would create extremely stubby pages for everything except a few brief periods (ACW, WWI, WWII), though; I would suggest starting out at the century level and then breaking the long ones apart by decade (and, in the extreme, by year).  The key thing would be to create a navigation bar that would link to all of these; then, we wouldn't need to worry too much about the exact splits. Kirill Lokshin 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centuries is fine. --Ineffable3000 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  could serve as a possible blueprint for such a structure within a limited timeframe and over different geographic regions/political entities. Wandalstouring 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of military conflicts 

message: There are some articles about resources that would be considered strategic. For example salt, tin in ancient times, later saltpeter, oil and coltan today. Controlling the supply of these items or having them (not) in storage was considered essential for the ability to lead or continue wars. I suggest to improve the integration of articles on this topic into our project. For example History of salt or Petroleum contain this topic. Possibly we could create a new task force for the topic or integrate it into one of the existing groups. Wandalstouring 10:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the question of strategic resources per se would be within the province of the military science task force.  Whether anyone is interested in actually working on articles from that perspective is a different question; while undoubtedly important to war, these topics call for a somewhat different writing style than most of the more obvious areas of military history. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I wanted some input on how to proceed. Our quality would improve if we could integrate such elements. Wandalstouring 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strategic resources 

message: I call on participants of the wikiproject to join the discussion on Operation Meghdoot's talk page. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on article's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Meghdoot 

message: See Talk:USS Admiralty Islands...66.167.137.9 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up and use the solution presented there. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#New_element_for_external_links_to_images.
Wandalstouring 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image available for article missing one (but you'd need to get permission I suspect) 

message: I don't know if I should bring this up here but I think this article Second Battle of Mohács needs deleting. Not only is it factually wrong but the article already exists:
Battle of Mohács (1687) Raymond Palmer 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably easier to just redirect it to the actual article. Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A redirect is probably better, as it's not entirely out of the question that someone might search for "second battle of mohács" - no reason they shouldn't get redirected to the actual article. Carom 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Done. Raymond Palmer 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion