Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 51

message: Ok, as a starting point, a (very) rough sketch of what the top level of the tree (under :Category:Military personnel) might look like:
The obvious branches: these mirror the categorization scheme for units; I don't really see any reason why the same idea shouldn't carry over to personnel.  The major structural question remaining here is whether we need one set of by-country categories or two (to deal with the country of birth/country of service issue).
* By country
** By branch of service
* By era
** By war
The somewhat obvious branches:
* By rank (e.g. generals, admirals, officers, non-officers, etc.) - this seems useful and easily doable, but it's unclear how to deal with the non-officers
* By "occupation" (e.g. pilots, engineers, medics, snipers, etc.) - no idea what a good term would be here; this basically builds from :Category:Military occupations
The strange branches:
* By award (e.g. recipients of the VC, etc.) - we have a whole bunch of categories for recipients of specific awards already, but there's no clear parent for them
* By "fate" (e.g. KIAs, MIAs, POWs, etc.) - somewhat useful, but not at all clear what this might encompass; also a variety of things like :Category:Assassinated military personnel that could wind up here
Miscellaneous: a bunch of categories that don't seem to fit in cleanly to the other branches
* :Category:Aces
* :Category:Mercenaries
* :Category:Warlords
* :Category:Warriors
* :Category:Non-combatant military personnel
* :Category:Military leaders
I've probably missed a few here; please feel free to add any that I overlooked.
Comments/criticisms/ideas? Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top-level tree for military personnel

message: Yikes - any chance some of you brainiacs here can do a repair job on T-34 in under a few days?  <grin>    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a bit of cleanup, admittedly; but I'm not sure why the referencing itself would be a major issue.  It has ~50 inline citations; while this isn't as many as more recent articles, I wouldn't think that it would garner substantial complaint, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, for gosh sakes - had again.  At this stage of game, you'd think I'd remember to look for inline rather than cite.php citations.  Sorry for the false alarm on the cites; other points still valid.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The guys putting this article on the main page didn't seem to check it beforehand. So as long as someone hasn't exhaustive literature on tanks around it won't be fixed, but you can make an FAR. Wandalstouring 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspicion is that 90% of these statements are easily sourced from the original sources (or are common knowledge for specialists), but those who tagged didn't know that.Circeus 15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapid repair work

message: The article was peppered with  templates during its main page stay. These still need prompt fixing.Circeus
:The guys putting this article on the main page didn't seem to check it beforehand. So as long as someone hasn't exhaustive literature on tanks around it won't be fixed, but you can make an FAR. Wandalstouring 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspicion is that 90% of these statements are easily sourced from the original sources (or are common knowledge for specialists), but those who tagged didn't know that.Circeus 15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still needed

message: The Castle article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive by Dweller. As the main article for the related Castles WikiProject, and a key article for this project, I would encourage people to get involved.  --Grimhelm 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ACID#Castle]] 

message: There was brief discussion a month or two back about starting a Southeast Asian task force... I'd be happy to head the thing as much as anyone heads any task force, and to do the grunt work of actually creating the page, though I do suppose we'd need some sort of discussion as to what to use as a project banner icon. So - shall we start a vote/discussion here to ask for support? Is there any particular number of supporters we need in order to start it? Or shall I simply go ahead and make the page, and we'll go from there even with only 2-5 members? LordAmeth 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating a page isn't a problem (I can probably do the whole process in 20 minutes or so), and we can just use a map as an icon until a better one is found; the reall issue is whether there are any interested members.  Ideally, I'd like to see at least a few people actually say that they'd be willing to participate before creating the whole massive infrastructure. Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Makes sense. Thanks, Kirill. The map could work fine, though could be quite unrecognizable shrunk down. We could use the flag of SEATO or ASEAN as the logo (I think the SEATO one is prettier), simply for convenience of the fact that these countries don't have that much in common that any single picture of a weapon or a Chinese character or the Sanskrit word for "southeast" would likely work. 'Course, both those organizations are exceedingly modern, not reflecting the long history of the region... But, yeah, let's see if there's any more interest beyond me and Okkar. LordAmeth 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southeast Asian task force 

message: Seeing some of the reactions to T-34, which is on the Main Page right now—in particular, people not noticing the Harvard-style citations at all—I wonder if it might not be a good idea to recommend the use of footnotes in our citations guidelines.  I don't think that Harvard-style should be prohibited, but I'd like to see footnotes encouraged in cases where people don't have a set preference, since they're likely to be more familiar to readers of historical articles, and tend to be more convenient for the sort of extensive citation that's becoming typical now.  Comments? Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (The article has now wound up on FAR, incidentally, mostly over citation concerns; if anyone feels like dropping in a few dozen footnotes, please feel free! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Harvard style is beautiful. Wandalstouring 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have toyed with the Harvard style and I seriously think about switching from footnote to Harvard. Especially if you have all these references to primary sources the Harvard style looks much better. Footnotes are good when you have secondary work which often tend to contain disputes of different scholars. The advantage is that you can add a bit more info on them in the form of comments.Wandalstouring 13:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're citing primary sources, wouldn't you just use in-text references rather than true Harvard style?  Compare "according to Livy (VII:107), he ..." with "He ... (Livy:4 BC)", in other words. Kirill Lokshin 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One trick is that this Harvard style provides a link to a note at the bottom where you can provide further links for the reader to check it immediately. If you have a constant use it might get somehow tireseome to read and Livy says and Polybius says and Appian says and Livy says and Justin says and Nepos says and Polybius says. Turning them into Harvard style puts them better into the context without disturbing the flow too much. Wandalstouring 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fair enough; but the situation with primary sources seems something of a special case.  Does the same reasoning apply to heavy citations of secondary sources (particularly several secondary sources at a time)?  In other words, can we come up with some recommendations on when each citation style may be more appropriate?  Kirill Lokshin 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are quite widespread in our project. As I said a few lines above footnote style has also advantages and is essentially useful for secondary works and complictaed citations of differing POV of secondary works. And I do agree with ALR that in technical context Harvard style isn't always that useful. The problem for example with this article is that it isn't always clear what is a reference and what is info in parentheses. Wandalstouring 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think, as with everything, it depends on context.  Harvard style is useful in some areas but can become more clumsy in technical articles where there is a need for more extensive foot-noting.  I find that footnotes are easier to integrate but I'd steer away from mandating one way or the other.ALR 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, fair enough; status quo it is, then. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Give a short warning about the problems one should consider with Harvard - nothing else in parentheses. That is usus for Harvard in literature, but I don't know if anyone already mentioned it somewhere. Wandalstouring 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; would rewriting the last paragraph as In general, an article may use either footnotes or Harvard-style references; footnotes may be more convenient when the level of citation is very dense, or where the citations include additional commentary.  Harvard-style references generally should not be used if the article has a significant number of other items in parentheses; however, the final choice of which style to follow is left to the discretion of an article's editors.work? Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Works. Wandalstouring 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard references versus footnotes 

message: *Sturmabteilung
*Aerial warfare
*Swedish Air Force. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles are all hopeless candidates. As long as citations are missing someone has to be interested in the topic and needs quite a lot of knowledge to improve them(adding complete citations). For this reason translations from the German wiki suck because even high quality articles(FA and lesenswerte) lack them. A possible reason may be the different social climate and milieu. Wandalstouring 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, common practice on de.wp is/was to cite sources in the edit summary when you contributed a section, rather than leaving them in the final article. Hence the apparent lack of sourcing... Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be, but the Germans are too lazy. Wandalstouring 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military related articles at the [[Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive|Article Creation and Improvement Drive]]

message: I'm a newcomer, started in December 06. I'm learning how to get around in the Wiki environment.
One thing I've noticed, is despite some conflicts and namecalling at times, this project is overall really well organized, and I recommend other editors to come here to look around. I'll be pitching in as I get more skills coming up on line. Richiar 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, Richiar.  Feel free to be jump into editing and be bold — we'll beat up on you whenever you make mistakes! ;-)  Askari Mark (Talk) 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the project.  If you browse around Wikipedia you'll find that there is much less "warring" in the war articles than there is in many other areas of the encyclopedia.  Irony? Cla68 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congradulations everybody 

message: Just to keep everyone in the loop: there are a number of ideas being discussed here regarding the size and appearance of WikiProject banners, and different options for controlling the proliferation of various talk-page templates (of which said project banners are a major part).  Things haven't really settled down yet, but there are a number of interesting possibilities being considered; for example:
* Hiding all of the project banners in a single template
* Having each banner display as a single line with a show/hide button to display the rest
I'll make an announcement if/when something's actually decided that would need to be implemented with regards to ; but, in the meantime, if anyone has any ideas regarding this, please feel free to wander over to the discussion and throw in your two cents! :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, incidentally, a way to have the banner collapse to a single line on a per-page basis, which we may want to implement regardless of anything else. Kirill Lokshin 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added (mostly as an experiment) a hide= parameter to ; if set to "yes", it will cause the banner to display in a collapsed form with a show/hide button.  Testing and feedback would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. It doesn't seem to be causing any problems, at least as far as I can tell. Although, it's of somewhat limited utility by itself...Carom 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner size & appearance 

message: I moved that to 27th Engineer Battalion (United States) because of capitalization.
--Pupster21 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  (You don't have to leave notes for the project on such issues, though; there isn't really anything that needs attention or discussion here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of 27th Engineer Battalion (United states) 

message: I noticed a completed  template for a Good Article had its current status parameter changed to A-class, based on a MilHist assessment.  In the past—with all the templates cluttering talk pages—it wasn't possible to incorrectly change a GA template.  Now it is possible to incorrectly enter A-class into the "current status" field on articlehistory.  Just wanted to call this to folks' attention, so that when assessments are upgraded to A-class, the articlehistory template stays at GA. Talk:T-26 (now corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the note. Wandalstouring 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessments and articlehistory

message: Just to let anyone that misses the various messages elsewhere know: we will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25! Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator elections: voting open!