Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 20

message: We have a number of options here:
A. The basic chevrons + barnstar design 
B. A barnstar overlaid over the chevrons  or 
C. A tank armor barnstar  or  or  or 
D. A camo barnstar  or  or  or 
E. Multiple awards; use multiple images with some meaning behind each (i.e. major/minor awards or something?)
F. Find another image (possibilities would be co-opting some sort of historical award)
G. No official project award at all
Which option(s) do people prefer?  (Perhaps we should just have a straw poll here?) —Kirill Lokshin 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like the top one, but the tank-like barnstars could be given to people who delve into tank warfare & the such... Spawn Man 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While not conventional, the first one is the best looking IMO. Oberiko 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A for me, too. --Loopy e 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A or B - Vedexent 20:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A also.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Go with A.  It's my choice as well and seem to be (by far) the most popular. Oberiko 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A is fine with me. I'd say either A or F using :Image:Barnstar-Oak-Leaf.png. Staxringold 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Option A it is, then!  I've added a note about the award to the project page.  To avoid any unneeded bureacracy, I've noted that it can be awarded by anyone (like a barnstar); we might want to consider doing project-wide awarding of it as well, but that may be too much red tape. —Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To sum up... 

message: I've started the Middle Ages task force.  Accepting new members.  Welcoming template designs. Durova 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created some stuff for it. —Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a template and we have open tasks.  Welcoming new editors. Durova 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force 

message: I've created a new subsection to Wikipedia's good article index: Wikipedia:Good articles#Military history.  I'm sure more than 7 articles are good enough to deserve listing.  Let's identify and honor more good work. Durova 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything tagged as A-Class on the worklist can probably be added there.  Conversely, anything there that's not on the worklist yet should probably be added to it. —Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops.  There's already another place for them: Wikipedia:Good articles#War.  I think the two should probably be combined. —Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All military history is not "war" so yes, combine.  Incidentally, I'd be interested in opinions on the article I've largely created  - Calgary Highlanders. I think it is at least as well detailed as any other unit site - any chance of getting a nomination from someone? Michael Dorosh 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is very impressive. It could use a bit of formatting & aesthetic cleanup (and probably copy-editing; haven't read it all). Some sections can be removed or combined to make the length more manageable. Otherwise, it's looking good. Albrecht 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 2nd Canadian Infantry Division is also one of mine...should we be adding our own articles to the list?  Seems like the easiest way to do it given the diversity of our interests.  Actually, it says not to self-nominate - maybe we can post our own pages here in this talk section, to bring them to the attention of others in the military TFs who can then decide to post to Good articles?  Seems like a fair way to draw attention to our collective work.Michael Dorosh 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which list?  If you mean the project worklist, sure.  If you mean the good articles list, I think they have some sort of red-tape process for self-nominations; you may want to poke around and see if you can find the instructions somewhere on that page. —Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire section is a discussion of getting military articles nominated to the good articles list, is it not???  As indicated, I've already read the self-nominations bit. I think we can circumvent the red tape and promote each other's work more effectively by posting links to what we feel represents a good article here on this Talk page, to both a) get feedback from others with military history knowledge and interest and b) be able to get articles listed in the Good Articles list without resorting to self nomination.  Yes/No? I am sure many of you have written articles you consider above average and are frustrated that the topic is so arcane no one will be likely to single it out for good article status, whereas less arcane subjects with pages of dubious quality get mentioned simply because of the traffic going to them. I think we are thus in a position to assist each other, if we can get past an an individual focus and look more to co-operation.   Now...who else has created articles they feel worthy of good article status?  Let's see a list.Michael Dorosh 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, sorry about that; I was a little confused by the thread nesting ;-)  This page might work as a place to ask for feedback for the time being; the various task force talk pages would also be good, for those topics that have associated task forces. —Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles]] 

message: I found this infobox over on the Alabama Page, and it seems to solve a problem I've noticed in our articles: It can show two graphics, side by side, on the same line. Military units tend to have at least one, and often two or more graphic items in their heraldic items, most commonly the Coat of Arms, the Distinctive unit insignia, and the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia. I also see this as a solution to the information organization issue. Look at this and see if it is useful.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the regular infoboxes can handle two images already (just list both in the "image=" field.  Getting the captions positioned correctly is somewhat harder, but can still be done; alternately, a single caption may be used for both images. —Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Type of image is important - Cap Badges are present for Commonwealth regiments/branches/corps.  Listing shoulder patches would be impossible, especially for multi-battalion units.  For US forces, divisional SSI would be appropriate.  As for German units, they didn't wear either, so I guess we won't have any commonalities across nationalities.Michael Dorosh 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Potentially Useful Infobox

message: Would there be any interest in (a) task force(s) devoted to ancient (600 AD and eariler) conflicts task force? I can see this breaking up, eventually, into more specialized units, but for now maybe one would suffice? As someone who is interested in the history of Ancient Rome, I'm starting to see holes in the coverage of even some of the more famous coflicts, such as Caesar's civil war - Vedexent 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat hesitant to start such a broad task force, particularly given that we do have a fair number of people working on Roman topics.  Perhaps a dedicated Roman task force would be better? —Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way works for me. My primary interest is Rome, I just didn't want to be civilization-centric ;) - Vedexent 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civilization-centric is fine ;-)  It matches the other "Fooish military history" task forces, in any case. —Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One other question: do we want a "Roman military history" task force (thus potentially including Byzantium?) or an "Ancient Rome" or "Roman Era" task force (which would potentially include contemporary powers, e.g. Carthage, Pontus, Parthia, etc.)?  —Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough; here you go, then.  Feel free to rephrase the scope to your liking. —Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion-Expand the breadth and make it "Classical Warfare" or "Classical Antiquity" Taskforce, to cover the period from the Persian wars to the fall of Rome. Greek and Roman military histories are very closely linked. It is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, not to discuss one when dealing with the other. You will also get a lot more interested members and won't have to change the TF's logo, since the Trireme is Greek invention and hence much more closely associated with them than the "bloody" Romans:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Classical Antiquity"?  Isn't that a bit redundant?  I have no problems with expanding the task force to cover both the Greeks and the Romans—along with everyone else who got caught up in the wars—but the lack of a good name is the main stumbling block ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Task Force Belisarius? Palm_Dogg 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I like that, I must go with Classical Warfare. Beli's brillance falls a bit after the peroid in question:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Classical warfare" it is, then. —Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Wars Task force(s)? 

message: This should probably get reposted somewhere else on the project, but I'm not sure where.  I've surveyed all the articles on the worklist and noted which ones are featured in some other language but not in English.  It should be a good reference for our multilingual editors. Durova 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting.  Unfortunately, I suspect that some languages—the smaller ones in particular—have rather looser standards for featured articles than the English Wikipedia, which means their articles may not be of much help. —Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on what our article looks like, we may need all the help we can get. Durova 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a Translation Task force is in order here too? With emphasis, at least at first, on the larger, better known languages.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured in other languages 

message: Per the various discussions above, I present, for your viewing pleasure, the cartography department (which will attempt to build a collection of maps for the project) and the translation department (which, naturally enough, will work on various translation-oriented things).
A few remarks:
* I've purposely structured these a little differently than the regular task forces, since they are both somewhat more formal and less topic-oriented in scope.  In particular, the membership/recruitment side of the task forces (the notice tags, the member lists, etc.) is almost entirely absent.
* The list of languages in the translation department is rather brief; feel free to add others as needed.  I'm hoping that we can get at least a few covered with volunteers from our current membership.
* I'm not quite sure yet how the list of maps should be structured within the cartography page; I suspect that this will become clearer once some initial cataloguing is done and the scale becomes more apparent.
* The introductory comments and section instructions on both pages are somewhat rough.  If anyone can come up with something more coherent, please feel free to improve on them.
Any comments or suggestions are, of course, welcome! —Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *applause* Durova 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartography and translation departments