Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 12

message: If anybody feels like reading over the instructions here (also transcluded onto the project page) and commenting on how understandable they are, I'd be very grateful :-) —Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaignbox instructions 

message: L'vov Sandomierz The requested article exists, try a different spelling. :-)
Andreas 20:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so somebody does look at that box ;-)  Thanks for catching that; I've added another redlink in its place—hopefully this one doesn't exist yet. —Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone does :-) While we are at it, I was wondering whether a separate Battle of Crimea 1944 is really required, or whether the Crimea should be treated as one theatre for 1941-1944?  In any case, when I get back home to my sources I can start with a stub.  That'll be after Jan 7. Andreas 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the single Crimea article become too long, then?  I suspect that the reason for having two separate articles was size rather than any great historical concern.  —Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That maybe the case, and a natural break-point in the narrative exists with the combat operations in the Kuban bridgehead (BTW, I could not find an article on those).  But the 1944 campaign was relatively short and therefore may not need an article for itself.  Maybe someone (me?) should just start writing it, and it can always be split later? Andreas 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Request

message: In case people haven't seen it already:  (also usable in a smaller form as , which you can see at right) now contains the FAC/Peer review announcements, plus a selection of open tasks (currently missing articles and stubs).  The template can be watchlisted independently; it can also be included on user pages, for anyone who wants faster updates ;-)
Now, a stylistic question: should the section names ("FAC", "Peer review", "Wanted articles", "Stubs") be nouns, as they currently are, or verbs ("Expand", "Create", etc.)?  If the latter, what would be appropriate terms for the FAC and Peer review sections?  Or does nobody really care?
Of course, any other ideas for improving the template are welcome as well! —Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement and task box 

message: A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Can someone please take a look at the Battle of Kouan article for me? The Infobox is experiencing some sort of error, and it is not displaying properly. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  The problem was a missing bracket on one of the parameters ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I really could not for the life of me find that. LordAmeth 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Kouan 

message: "Industrial Warfare" sounds like a contest between industries.  While WWI might be seen as a test of munitions manufacturing, I don't think that's the intent here.  Should this article be renamed to "Industrial Age warfare"?  --A D Monroe III 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone makes a page like that I'll consider renaming. Palm_Dogg 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Industrialised warfare or Industrial age warfare would be good.--Kross | Talk 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think a rename is in order, but let's do it right.  I suggested "Industrial Age warfare" (with capital A) because Industrial Age is a proper noun.  I left the W of war lower-case because the whole phrase is not a proper noun.  Any differing thoughts?  A D Monroe III 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you look at the titles of the other entries ("Ancient", "Medieval", "Gunpowder", and "Modern" warfare), a one word description works.  While I understand your objections, this does seem to be a pretty minor one, as far as they go, and since there don't seem to have been any major objections I'm going to oppose any move.Palm_Dogg 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm afraid I am with PalmDogg on this one. "Modern" serves plenty well in my opinion. If we can make such sweeping categories as Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern (or Gunpowder), than I think we can survive with just "Modern." Warfare has not changed that much over the last hundred years to warrant an entirely new category... LordAmeth 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, I thought we were discussing reorganizing the main categories of Military History, either in categories, or in the Military History article. In terms of having a separate article on "Industrial warfare", I think "Industrialized warfare" or "Industrial Age warfare" are fine options. 'Industrial warfare' sounds too much like war between industries, and is in any case not a regularly recognized term. LordAmeth 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In the above, what characterizes "Industrial age" warfare (as distinct from WWI).  Are we just going to focus on breech-loading rifles and such?  —Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Not as much as you'd think.  For example, most of the technology in World War II was introduced in World War I (although it was usually very crude and unreliable).  The major change, in addition to the rise of industrialization which makes large militaries plausible, was a revolution at the national level, in which countries and armies moved from the personal fiefdoms of various monarchs to symbols of the people.  Not many people would give their life for some abstract king, but would immediately lay down their lives for "the Fatherland."  The changes that bring about Modern warfare don't really occur until the 1980s, when major armies start moving back to professional all-volunteer forces, "smart" weapons come into general usage, and satellites and the Internet make battlefield intelligence both instantaneous and thorough. Palm_Dogg 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Industrial warfare]] 

message: Something that was just brought to my attention; this is pretty badly POV (for largely the same reasons why we don't recommend naming articles after operations).  Should we just kill it, or does anyone have a better idea? —Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundant. Delete? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we replace it with a warbox on the articles where it's used, then?  —Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes. Make it a redirect, too? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:MilitaryOperation]]