Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 28

message: Wuff.  That's a heck of a section title.  Here's what I'm trying to get at... The Hannibal article is too long and one of the reasons is that there are detailed discussions of various battles that Hannibal fought.  There is a need to trim the battles out of that article but there needs to be something left behind since the discussion of the battles is the core of the article.
Here are guidelines that I've put together for what essential facts need to be in the sections on the battles.  I think that these guidelines can be used in any article that is about a war, campaign or person.  Your feedback and suggestions are solicited.  
I would propose that each battle section be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that answer the following questions:
# Why did the battle take place?  Who was attacking, who was defending, why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it?  What was at stake?
# What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces?
# Who won?  How decisive a victory was it?
# Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded or killed?
# Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles?  (e.g. Cannae was particularly notable for thousands of years afterward).  Don't describe the strategy or tactic in detail, just give a one or two sentence summary as to why the strategy or tactic was notable.
# Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle?
# What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign?  Did it make any difference or was it just another battle?
Anything that is not a direct and concise answer to one of these questions should be left for the article on the battle.  I'm sure that I've left something out but I think this is the first cut.
--Richard 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, but I think you left out the most important part: what role did the subject of the article play in the battle? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to take into account space and synopsis, pretty good. Only on the fith point would I add, in the case of the notable strategy, more detail on what this person deveised. Dryzen 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a good guideline for articles about battles as well. If it is possible to create articles about such battles, you could even reduce the content in the person's article and rely more on reference to the battle-article. --Habap 19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  We already have some guidelines for article structure on the project page; should we just combine them, or do we want to have separate sets for articles about battles versus articles mentioning battles? Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, a rather silly question on my part, since the guidelines for actual battle articles need to include narrative structure not present in the summary version.  Still, a number of the elements mentioned here should be mentioned in the main article guidelines as well. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the reception seems to be positive, I've added a (somewhat compressed) version of these to the project page; hopefully, I've gotten the point across without too much repetition.  Comments are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 04:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing battles in articles other than the article about the battle 

message: As an outsider to military history, I find  difficult to recognize as a piece of a map, at the small sizes used in templates. Would anyone object to its being changed to something more universal? I suggest a pair of crossed swords, maybe  or . Seahen 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know, I'm fairly indifferent towards both. I agree that the map section is somewhat difficult to recognize, but I feel it helps to emphasize the academic/scholarly element of the study of military history, rather than the military aspect. Maybe I'm just looking into it too much. The map's been around for a bit, and I've grown a bit fond of it, but if others wanted to change it, I wouldn't care. LordAmeth 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to like a map, but not necessarily the map. Before/instead of switching to swords (which my mind associates with a videogame, sorry), could we try to improve a map image to make it more obvious as an icon? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, the swords look a bit Playskoolish (they're not the correct shape, for one, and the garish colors don't improve things). I'm open to adopting whatever the members of the project want to use, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, my line of thought follows Kirill's to the letter: I'm not prima facie opposed to a change of icon, but I'd prefer not to have to work with something out of Final Fantasy. Albrecht 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really concerned either way, but if a change were to be made, better swords are needed ;) --Loopy e 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally; I just saw the swords used on some articles in the milhist stub. Gaudy and distractingly big, methinks. --Loopy e 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the size got bumped from 30px to 40px when the image in the stub tag was changed.  No idea why, though. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the map's not all that bad. Of course there could be better, but I would perfer something other than weapons.Dryzen 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Say no to the Prismatic Elven Daggers of Doom and Destruction +3. :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they're dual Headstrikers... :P -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've changed the stub template icon to . They may still be daggers, they may still be of doom and destruction, they may still be elven, and they may still be +3 (not sure how to tell), but they're definitely not prismatic anymore. Seahen 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you decrease the size. A one-liner stub doesn't need a picture 2 lines tall. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * I'm not in favor of swords or daggers. They don't invoke the thought of "military" to me; rather they bring to mind medieval "street fighting" or duals of honor.   If the community consensus is to keep this visual, it needs to be much smaller.  —ERcheck @ 11:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep the previous icon. I don't think the idea of the swords is bad, but the ones chosen look to me a bit too videogamish. Andrés C. 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the old one should be kept because it's so familiar; changing the identifying image of a task force just because it's not immediately transparent to outsiders kind of sticks in my craw. UnDeadGoat 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any good pictures of a military officers formal hat?  Something obvious like one with a hackle.  That'd be immediately recognizable and should still serve to portray a rather academic look. Oberiko 17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I could find offhand was .  I'm not sure whether it would be an improvement. Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit dark, but IMO, much better then the cartoonish crossed swords. Oberiko 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it is too dark.  In icon size, it looks much like a bucket with a shovel in it.  It is hard to identify as a military cover. —ERcheck @ 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse than the daggers IMHO... just stick with the map. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text:   What should the icon show?  If there is going to be a change, it should naturally be to something that is "iconic" for military, easy to identify when the image is small, not be tied to a particular nation, span as long a time period as possible.  Medals are easily identified with the military, but various versions of medals are used as "barnstars" on wikipedia.  "Combat boots" would work - easy to identify in profile or silhouette and have been around for a long time.  But, my best suggestion is chevrons, like the one for this WikiProject's Distinguished service award. The award is identified with WikiProject Military History and the icon for the project page would be tie the two together. —ERcheck @ 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose we could use the chevrons (minus the barnstar image at the top) for the icon.  My only concern would be that the yellow image wouldn't show up too well against the banner background (at least in the default skin).  Could anyone perhaps repaint the chevrons in another color (such as lightsteelblue, perhaps)? Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling this might be one of those things people Have Opinions about, so if we're seriously contemplating changing our time-honored icon thing, maybe this should get thrown up in the Announcements as something people ought to look at. UnDeadGoat 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for the idea! Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'dd still rather use the older map cut out, rather than Chevrons, these also have the not so pleasent possibility of proping up arguments: why use British chevrons over American chevrons, or vise versa, why enlisted, etc? The map might not be hte most recognisable but once you've seen it you understand why its there and its in my book a rather neutral image. Humanity has over 5000 years of recorded warfare... finding an iconic image that represents that, is not going to be easy. I'll be gone on an extended voyage soon, therefore I wish you, fellow participants, best of luck and resolve in this quest.Dryzen 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ain't broke, no need to fix it in my view.  Agree with Dryzen.  Nothing of what I have seen suggested thus far strikes me as better than what we have at the moment. If there is a view to go with crossed whatevers, I would go for sabres (the bent ones, don't know the word in English), at least those were used in warfare in many ages and places and are often used to indicate a battle location on a map. Andreas 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Something representing hoplite combat maybe?  It's a bit too small, but something similar would look pretty cool. Rmt2m 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: —ERcheck @ 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've made some changes to the task force icons recently (see the section on shield icons at the bottom), so that's caused some of the inconsistency.  But given that nobody usually cares too much about the stub icons, I don't think there would be many objections if we used our task force icon images for them. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just couldn't stand the crossed drawn swords at the end of all those military history stub articles. There's just something to cartoon swords on encyclopedia articles that seems to sap at the visual quality of the article.Dryzen 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for reverting the icon.  It should be consistent and since there was not a consensus to change to the swords for the WPMILHIST icon, leaving it as it was is appropriate. —ERcheck @ 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of icon 

message: Not being a graphics expert, it took me awhile to figure out how to make the color change suggested by Kirill.  I tested a few colors - black (which looks ok, though a bit bland; a dark red (which looks ok); here is a blue (uploaded to :Image:Triplechevron_icon.png; —ERcheck @ 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'dd still rather use the older map cut out, rather than Chevrons, these also have the not so pleasent possibility of proping up arguments: why use British chevrons over American chevrons, or vise versa, why enlisted, etc? The map might not be hte most recognisable but once you've seen it you understand why its there and its in my book a rather neutral image. Humanity has over 5000 years of recorded warfare... finding an iconic image that represents that, is not going to be easy. I'll be gone on an extended voyage soon, therefore I wish you, fellow participants, best of luck and resolve in this quest.Dryzen 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ain't broke, no need to fix it in my view.  Agree with Dryzen.  Nothing of what I have seen suggested thus far strikes me as better than what we have at the moment. If there is a view to go with crossed whatevers, I would go for sabres (the bent ones, don't know the word in English), at least those were used in warfare in many ages and places and are often used to indicate a battle location on a map. Andreas 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Something representing hoplite combat maybe?  It's a bit too small, but something similar would look pretty cool. Rmt2m 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Icon: Chevrons?

message: * I noticed that certain stub icons are out of sync with the corresponding task force icons.  For example, our current main project icon (Military history) was changed for the  on May 17 to the is now the crossed swords from the discussion above.  I think they should be in sync.  Comments? —ERcheck @ 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: —ERcheck @ 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've made some changes to the task force icons recently (see the section on shield icons at the bottom), so that's caused some of the inconsistency.  But given that nobody usually cares too much about the stub icons, I don't think there would be many objections if we used our task force icon images for them. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just couldn't stand the crossed drawn swords at the end of all those military history stub articles. There's just something to cartoon swords on encyclopedia articles that seems to sap at the visual quality of the article.Dryzen 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for reverting the icon.  It should be consistent and since there was not a consensus to change to the swords for the WPMILHIST icon, leaving it as it was is appropriate. —ERcheck @ 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub icons and Task force icons &mdash; Proposal: They should match 

message: As I was merrily assessing articles, I discovered that the template has no parameter for the Military aviation taskforce. This appears to be A Significant Omission. UnDeadGoat 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  Now added as "Aviation-task-force"; thanks for catching that! Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kirill. Now the only thing the Task Force is still missing is its own userbox for members of the project. BTW, now that the parameter has been created, do expect to see a significant increase in the number of articles belonging to the project (on the order of a few hundred) :) Andrés C. 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Hopefully the tagging will make the task force grow a bit as well; it's surprisingly small for such a large topic at this point. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that may have to do with this overlapping situation. Consider that the articles that should be included on this Task Force (actually a a four-digit number!) are already being taken care of by the members of the well organized WikiProject Aircraft.  In fact, I do wonder if this Task Force is viable at all. Anyhow, I will put Wikiproject Military History on its list of related projects. Andrés C. 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  I guess the question would be if the Aircraft project deals with pilots, air battles, aerial units, and so forth (the task force having been intended to cover all these topics), or only with the aircraft themselves? Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that for the sake of clarity of purpose, this task force—if it's going to survive at all—should devote itself to articles on aerial warfare (battles, campaigns, significant strike attacks, tactics, units, pilots, etc.), and let the guys from WP Aircraft cover the aircraft themselves. In that regard, I suggest that the objectives of the task force be restated in a way that clarifies its real purpose. As they stand now, the objectives may be too broad and a bit vague. Andrés C. 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to rewrite them, then ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Could you guys take a look at it? Andrés C. 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely new to the task-force but this new division makes perfect sense. Abel29a 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Issue with the project banner & some thoughts on the Military aviation Task Force 

message: I noticed this project recentely introduced two new taskforces by my count, and I was just thinking that a good taskforce to start for the future would be a "Asia military" taskforce or something of that sort. Chinese military history already exists but I dont believe it covers all the other military histories of countries such as India, Vietnam, Mongolian, Korean etc. What you guys think?  - Tutmosis 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a little too broad to me; "Asia military" could include things like Russia, Persia, Babylon, etc. that really have no connection to each other except for being on the same continent.  Perhaps a "Southeast Asia" or "India" task force would be better; but I'm not sure if we even have enough interested editors to work on either of those topics.  Japan and Mongolia, for example, are both basically single-editor efforts at the moment, as far as I know. Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a possible future task force 

message: I just noticed that War of the Spanish Succession is a featured article, yet it doesn't contain an infobox. Rmhermen 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Infoboxes are completely optional. They are certainly not a prerequisite for an article to reach featured status. In fact, many articles about wars/campaigns/battles do not lend themselves too well to infoboxes. Andrés C. 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true.  At the same time, I suspect that this article would be fairly well-suited to an infobox, if anyone had the time and inclination to add one. Kirill Lokshin 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I was poking around various navy ship pages, and noticed that there was some differences (sometimes major differences) between different ship infoboxs. I was curious if there was a standardized warship infobox. I mean, I may just be blind, but there isn't a listed box on the project's main page. --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's generally handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships; I'm not sure if they've changed infoboxes recently, but they had a pretty complicated modular one some time ago. Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Why are warships not under Military History preview? --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, these Task forces just keep on coming! :) Andrés C. 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Practical reasons, mostly. The ship project developed independently (and, to some extent, prior to this one), and we haven't really tried to absorb their material (since there's far too much of it for us to handle gracefully at this point). If we were starting from scratch, warships might have been handled by a task force of this project; but it's probably counterproductive to try and throw our weight around at this late stage. Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval Vessel infobox?

message: Would anyone be interested in helping to deliver the May issue of the newsletter (at some point in the next few days)?  Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with newsletter delivery 

message: I am interested in feedback on whether others think it is a good idea to create a sub-Category:Commando raids under :Category:Battles.  There are plenty of notable raids, and it might be good to categorize them...  Georgewilliamherbert 05:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this category incorporate all subversive operations, including night attacks and raiding from all periodes, or would it comprise only of the more modern operations undertaken by special forces and intelliegence groups? --Dryzen 12:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I reckon it should comprise only those more modern raids. For one the idea or word (not sure?)commando came from the Afrikaaner battle formations used against the British during the Boer War and from that the British started using the word to describe their special forces during WWII.
Although raidng has been around for centuries and i'm sure there are many examples of it over time; the Second World War proved to be the advent of Special Forces as a primary organisation (all sides in that war used such forces to a large extent), recognised as such, in most modern armies. You could i suppose create a category for the history of commando raiding and one for commando raidng in the 20th and 21st centuries, when it had become a recognised arm of any modern fighting force? Tristan benedict 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What about just "raids" in general? events like the raids on York, Port Dover, along the St. Lawrence during the War of 1812, Dieppe, etc. come to my mind. Mike McGregor (Can) 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Subcategory:Commando Raids under Category:Battles 

message: Hey, I know the current fad is to place ones' project tag on as many articles as possible, but you guys are tagging a lot of aviation articles, and it sounds like a lot of maritime articles. These articles are already under projects, and have been for years. What's this going to result in -- ten projects claiming relevance? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that this was a significant problem.  Are we getting articles with more than two project tags on them?  (I'm not convinced that having two is a problem in of itself, since it seems to happen a lot even without our tags.)  We can certainly change our tagging procedure if it's a major issue; but are you sure that it is one? Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok.  I think that'll be fine, then; we've been directing issues with the actual aircraft articles to WP:Air anyways.  I'll try to make sure that we let you know if any major discussions come up that could affect you.  Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that certain WikiProjects can claim ownership over an entire cluster of articles. Besides running counter to Wikipedia's philosophy, I don't think that is the purpose of any WikiProject. I'm a member of both WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST, and I don't see the need for anyone to warn fellow editors about sticking to standards...That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Or am I wrong? - Andrés C. 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're correct in that a WikiProject can't actually claim ownership over anything, it would nevertheless be rather impolite on our part to undercut another WikiProject by encouraging people to ignore the guidelines that they have developed. Kirill Lokshin 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kirill is correct. I was not trying to say "Back off! Mine!" I am merely trying to ensure that, since the central focus of the articles in question are aviation-related, that they should continue to adhere to those standards. I am not really addressing content, but structure and style. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, N328KF. I was addressing your question about many projects claiming relevance over the same articles. I did tag recently a great many articles on French aircraft and warships with the French military history TF banner (we can always untag them if need be). Actually, this is something that I spoke to Kirill about on this same page, specifically regarding the scope of the Military aviation task force, which led us to modify it (here's the diff) in order to avoid or at least reduce the risk of overlapping. Andrés C. 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping projects 

message: Hi, while reading your guy's page on Ski warfare, I found a few facts hard to believe.  I dont know much about the history of war, but I do know a lot about skiing and it's history.  The article states that ski warfare was used in the 13th century.  Since skis weren't even invented then im pretty sure thats wrong.  There are some other things that don't seem right.  I think that someone at this project should check it out.  Tobyk777 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skis are even older than that, and are present in a lot of both Baltic/Finnish and Slavic legends and folklore. Moden skiing is quite recent (19th), but it existed as a form of fast snowshoeing for several centuries or even millenia, derived from sleds and things like that... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ski Warafare