Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 34

message: I've just finished updating the assessment statistics through the month of July, and I thought I'd share a few points of interest:
* The total number of articles tagged into the project has continued to increase by ~30% per month.
* We're seeing a healthy growth in the number of FAs: ~17% in the last month.
Now, the (sort of) bad news: the growth of unassessed articles has outpaced all other groups.  Thus, a request: if anyone has some free time, might you please consider assessing a few articles?  It doesn't have to be many—if we can get a reasonable number of members each doing only a couple per day, we can still make significant headway on this.  It's usually not particularly difficult either; most articles will fall quite clearly in one of the lower three levels, and more complex cases can, of course, be left for later consideration.  Any assistance in this would be much appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do plange 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thought, surely we can all muck on a small bunch each day? I certainly will. --Loopy e 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Working on the last page in the log, and came across this one Yoshisuke Aikawa - not sure why he's tagged for MILHIST? plange 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing it's because of his relationship to the Fugu Plan; but that's borderline "military" in of itself, so he might actually not need to be tagged.  If you're interested, I'd ask LordAmeth; maybe he knows something about his role in military affairs that isn't apparent from the existing article. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, will do. Here's another one: Édouard Daladier - he was Minister of War, bught didn't do any fighting, is that enough to quilify? plange 00:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daladier would probably qualify, but I suppose it depends on whether he did anything as the Minister of War (US SecDefs would also qualify under this provision, I presume).  I have no idea what the post entailed at the time, though.  Lockroy's article has the tantalizing "enlisted as a volunteer under Garibaldi", which might mean actual fighting; but the article is confused enough that I can't really figure out the specifics. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left them tagged, so if someone more knowledge about these two sees this they can untag them if they think it warrants it.... Thanks Kirill! plange 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We've probobly been finding more articles too, with participants only adding the WPMILHIST. That would explain the growth of unassessed articles. I'll go an do a few as time permits. --Dryzen 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been tagging and assessing articles as I go. --Laserbeamcrossfire 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been tagging and assessing articles daily, but unfortunately only getting about 20 done a day. One thing is it sure has been expanding my knowledge.--Oldwildbill 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article on Yoshisuke Aikawa, and tagged it. Though the Fugu Plan is borderline military (I could see it being tagged or not), Aikawa was heavily involved in the maintenance and industrialization of Occupied Manchuria (Manchukuo). I'm gonna go assess some articles now. ^_^LordAmeth 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm guessing it's beause he's noted as "serving briefly in World War I as a Second Lieutenant in the King's Own Scottish Borderers" ;-) Kirill Lokshin 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, missed that ;-) plange 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another question: Do political leaders that presided during a war (but did no fighting) and/or who staged a coup part of this project? Clearly Abraham Lincoln would, but wasn't sure about Wang Jingwei plange 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a borderline issue.  I suppose the fundamental principle would be to ask if there's any content related to military history (interpreted fairly broadly, of course) that needs to be in the article.  If not, there's probably not much point to tagging it. Kirill Lokshin 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! plange 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've started doing a few assessments, new to this assessment lark so leave me a note if you disagree with any assessment I've left -- 195.92.70.130 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment statistics & backlog 

message: This was on the talk page of the Pacific War article and I thought it would be better placed here:
:The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be visiting some colleges in the east around that time... -- Миборовский 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill, since you're already in Maryland, any chance you could make it out for that?  A more suitable ambassador I can't think of. Oberiko 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't the faintest idea of what my schedule will be like nine months from now, unfortunately; but I'll consider it. Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse Project coordinator or assistant. I've offered to go, but I'm such a comparative novice around here. I often find myself in the DC area, so even if I'm not a panelist I might well attend as an audience member. It would be really great if we could get Kirill (or other senior WPMH contributor) at such an event. I commend Rjensen for bringing the wiki community into an important venue at an important time; I say this having been a sometimes complainer about that user's boldness. Since wiki projects' influence on society is inevitable, it would be great if we could lead with our best (since one of our most prolific, Dr. J, will also attend). BusterD 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay for Kirill! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I just took a look at the list of Project participants, & one old-timer to consider if Kirill can't make it is DJClayworth. Although I've been around Wikipedia for a while, I haven't been very involved in this project & wouldn't be able to talk much it. Furthermore, I'm on the West Coast while DJ is in Ontario -- he's much closer. -- llywrch 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can convince some of these professionals to help us in peer reviews and assure quality this way. Wandalstouring 10:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007 

message: Another mass nomination.  I'm not sure what to do with this one, since it goes against our plan of moving to "of X" for these categories; but that is apparently in conflict with the naming convention for the rest of :Category:Occupations by nationality.  Any input would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every military personnel serves somebody or something. Usually this takes the form of a nation. So we simply categorize them by whom they serve and not where they were born. In the article we can state where somebody was born and perhaps even establish a substructure like Germans in the French Foreign Legion. Wandalstouring 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I perfered indicating where they where from to reduce the number of problematic service records. This might be less of a problem in modern armies but the medieval periode and following centuries to the industrial revolution some generals made quite the habit of switching sides. While others of course for ever served a foreign power. Of course the good old Légion is a definit proponent of by country of service.--Dryzen 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem listing a soldier in all groups he served, while the problem for the Medieval time with their mercenaries is: we do not know for sure where everybody came from, but if we have a record, we know at which side he fought. Wandalstouring 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a project member, though I do have some background on the subject (I revised the game Axis & Allies, for example). Mostly what I hope to see is that we agree that we can't have "military people" and "military personnel" in the same category. "People" causes some folks paroxysms because it include non-servicemen, so I think that will never gain consensus. My proposal is that we agree on "Xian military personnel" for now, get all the categories on the same footing, and then deal with whether it's "military personnel of X" later on. Anybody buy that?--Mike Selinker 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had long discussions on this without total consensus; this is why people feel a bit blindsided by the noms. UnDeadGoat 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but  I think none of you would take the position that "some 'people' and some 'personnel' is good." Maybe a larger group like CfD can help tip it one way or the other.--Mike Selinker 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind we do a general decision on a case where we miss many reliable records about the combatants. So the only sure things is on which side were they. Wandalstouring 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military people/personnel/whatever... 

message: Would the Eureka stockade be part of Military history? Kyriakos 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it one group with the Wielkopolska Uprising (1848), the battle of Rastatt (1849) and in a broader sense the Second Anglo-Boer War. In my opinion it is part of military history, even if the military component was very onesided. Wandalstouring 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree with Wandalstouring here.  It involved the British Army fighting a "battle"—even if not a very challenging one—so I think it qualifies. Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eureka stockade is an important part of Australian History but is not looked at in the military sence. The article states that the stockade has equal significance to Australian history as the Storming of the Bastille was to French history, if this is true than shouldn't the Storming of the Bastill and all other similar events be in our scope too. These kinds of events are civil uprisings not military events. I will be the first to admit that these are important historical events that may involve the use of military forces, but not with in our scope. Hossen27 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, interesting point.  I suppose my perspective on it was that if it involved regular troops, it was "military history" pretty much by default—regardless of whom they were fighting.  Are you suggesting that we should use some other factor instead?  I'm not sure if the distinction with "civil uprising" is tenable, in such cases: were the Battles of Lexington and Concord just a civil uprising, for example?  As long as both sides were actually active combatants—which seems to have been the case here, if I understood the article correctly—I'd say it qualifies as a topic in "military history."  I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this, though. Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not suggesting we use another factor, the obvious way to define a military subject is whether there was military forces involved. My argument about this article is based on my belief that the military actions at the stockade are not important when looking at the event as a whole. People today dont talk about the battle of the Eureka stockade where soldiers fought against an entrenched enemy. They talk about protecting workers rights, standing up for what you believe in and the importance of the event in forming an Australian identidy. Saying that I wont be protesting if the WPMILHIST template stays on the talk page. Hossen27 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough; I'm not really familiar with the topic, so I have little knowledge of how its military aspects are regarded.  Considering how minor of an engagement it is in military terms, either having the template or not seems fine to me; consistency need not be pedantic, after all ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree to disagree, its a good thing everyone doesnt think this way or we wouldn't have much of a project. At least there is an Australian article in the projects feature article category. Hossen27 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, we do have some other Australian (or at least tagged with the Australian task force) FAs; Battle of Rennell Island, for example. Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant more Australian specific than that, but good point. Hossen27 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eureka Stockade

message: Some news of interest: the German usebox solution has apparently started working on WikiProject userboxes, which are being "projectified"—that is, moved to a subpage of the relevant project in the Wikipedia: namespace, rather than residing in the Template: namespace.  Personally, I don't believe that this is an issue worth fighting over, and would therefore suggest that we go ahead and move our (extensive) collection of userboxes to subpages.  
The practical question here is this: where do we want to put them.  I see two slightly different options:
* Common suffix: put all userboxes on a "/Userbox" subpage from the appropriate group.  Thus, the main project uxerbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Userbox, while, say, the WWII task force userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Userbox.  This has the advantage of it being easy to guess where the userbox for a particular group is, but does spread them out extensively.
* Common prefix: put all the userboxes on subpages of the outreach department.  Thus, the main project userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox, while the WWII task force userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox/World War II.  This has the advantage of keeping all the userboxes in a single logical place, but puts them a bit further from the relevant groups.
Comments? Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can create both with one being a redirect to the other... :) I would lean towards a userbox page in Outreach, transcluding subpage userboxes. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea.  If nobody objects, we can go ahead and move the userboxes there. Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just started, see outreach page :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, it's already finished? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe.  That didn't take very long ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: Just a heads up, maximum enlistment age needs to either be some sort of an article or point to a location that already has that information.  I don't know enough to do it myself.  Thanks.  --Cyde Weys 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I surprise you: There is no such thing. All German grandpas within reach were armed with guns somehow and their grandchildren with Panzerfausts shortly before the end of the Second World War in Germany in 1945. So if somebody tries really hard, there is no age limit. Most reservist soldiers are usually not drafted if over the age of ~45. On the other hand you can enter the Indian army up to the age of 30-35, while for the German army 25-28 is the limit. Wandalstouring 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could probably get away with something like Enlistment age by country, as I think there are similar lists for various other topics (age of consent and drinking age, although I don't remember what the article names are). Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Krill Enlistment age by country would be the appropriate article, it also allows you to also talk in an historic sence. Enlistment age over time in each country such as Germany in WWII. Hossen27 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interessting proposal, the Enlistment age by country should be very informative, even more so should we include periodes. --Dryzen 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum enlistment ages 

message: Battle o' Hong Kong Michael Dorosh 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is already an article on "History of Hong Kong", wouldn't it make sense for that project to claim History, and for the Battle article to be a Military History project page exclusively?Michael Dorosh 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  It's probably not worth fighting over exact scopes; the convention that summary templates (i.e. infoboxes) get higher placement than mere link or series templates should be sufficient for our purposes here. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox war