Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

More Task Forces Anyone?

Just kicking around some ideas, see if anyone else is interested in a few other task forces that I think we should add to this project.

• Russian Task Force
• Ottoman Task Force
• Cold War Task Force

--Laserbeamcrossfire 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union and Portal:Belarus, Portal:Russia, Portal:Ukraine, etc. We might not want to fragment too much. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 19:33 Z

Well, that hasn't stopped us before (c.f. WP:CHINA, WP:JAPAN, etc.)—and really shouldn't, as the broader projects are not specifically military in focus. Having said that, the availability of interested editors is, as always, a valid question when creating new task forces. Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what would be a better name for a Kievan Rus/Muscovy/Russian Empire/Soviet Union/CIS countries task force? Eastern Europe task force is not right. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 15:17 Z

How much of this could be written off under either "Russian military history" or "Russian and Soviet military history"? Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of it. But my interests also include things like Ukraine in 1917–22, and modern Ukrainian AFVs. These subjects have a strong relationship to the Russian Empire and Soviet AFV design, respectively, but are clearly neither Russian nor Soviet. I'm sure there are many less prominent cases like this, which would nevertheless only be controversially called Russian or Soviet in their own sphere. Calling the military history of Kievan Rus Russian would certainly get a number of editors up in arms (Russian architecture had a POV notice on it for many months over such issues).

Just trying to be inclusive and avoid empty arguments, without inventing complicated politically-correct category names. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 17:25 Z

My origional thought was, to be honest, a task force for just Imperial Russia/Soviet Union, which seems to me to be two very close, very intertwined Russian nations. Things do get fuzzy for me if we start talking about the CIS or the Kieven/Rus nations/organizations. --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is going to be a powder keg. Is there an all-inclusive term that anyone can think of? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We could try using an Eastern European Task Force to cover all of the Eastern European countries (I think Austria-Hungary would be excluded in this case, because I believe some of it extended into Eastern Europe. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have a Polish task force, though; having a "Eastern European" one at the same time might be something of a mess. Kirill Lokshin 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the Eurasia Task Force? Typically, such a designation includes Russia and all of the former USSR and only those countries. I think it would be less confusing. --ScreaminEagle 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothign wrong with this but as with all things there might be soem edditors that would rather have nation specific TFs of dislike being groups up with neighborring and possibly rival countries. What would be the scope of the task force?--Dryzen 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think, country-wise, that the scope would be Russia, Ukraine, the Batlic states, Belarus and the Caucasus countries. That's what I would do, anyways. --Laserbeamcrossfire 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for some time, and I think that the right approach is to create "natural" task forces—as they're tools for organizing editors moreso than for formally organizing articles—and just accept that we'll have overlaps and gaps between them. Thus, for example, we could create a "Russian military history" task force or a "Rus, Russian, and Soviet military history task force"; but I would avoid trying to overthink this and create some artificial construct which may cover all the gaps on the edges, but which won't provoke the sort of "Hey, I'm interested in that!" gut feeling from people seeing the task force name that we need for actually attacting contributors to it. Kirill Lokshin 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps make just a Soviet task force (it includes many groups who had nothing to do with Russia for some time and it covers heavily the cold war (more militaria). Rus and Russia could run in seperate forces, they are likely to be attended by different people (more historians). Wandalstouring 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about a Latin American military history task force? We're talking about a pretty huge area (Central and South American & Caribbean islands) where many major wars have taken place. It's the only part of the world still not specifically attended by any task force, and the articles certainly deserve to be looked after by this project. --Andrés C. 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I'd be up for that as well! --Laserbeamcrossfire 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin America sems like a good idea, if we can get enough editors for it to be active. There seem to be two so far; any more that would be interested? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can join a bit, but i don`t know how much I can contribute (time). Wandalstouring 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Task force: Military Music? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So that includes all the bands and music written specifically for the military? That's not very much, is it? Or am I missing something? --ScreaminEagle 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, you are missing out on something. There's TONS of historical military music out there. Marches, Barracks ballads, Sea shanties, Unit and popular songs. There are entire albums and whole websites devoted to it. Choose one from THIS google search. Music can make history come alive in a way very few mediums can. It is also a large and fascinating topic which deserves its own Task Force. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the more unusual ideas to come up, I think ;-) I suppose that we should consider two questions here:

1. Does including military music segway us to including military art, writing, or similar things?
2. Do we want to include said things in the project?

Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My answer to both is, why yes:) They are part of history, and while not as important as wars, campaigns or battles, they do help shape the way such events are viewed and remembered. This of course leads to the question; How do we accomplish this? I recommend a single large task force to cover "Military arts and literature". And if it proves successful, then it can spawn off daughter TFs to cover music, painting, movies, writing etc as deemed worthy:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats a lot of work on ahead, but as a Military History project we cannot ignore how the arts have shaped our martial world...--Dryzen 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Do we want to draw a distinction between the following, though:

• Military "art" (painting, etc.)
• Military literature (in the work of historians sense; perhaps "military historiography" is a better term here)
• Military literature (depiction of real warfare in literature)
• Military fiction (depiction of fictional warfare in literature)

The last of these is a massive block of articles that we've traditionally kept away from, so I'm not sure if we would want to include it. Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess htat would depend on the memebrs we would gather, but prestnly I think one group should take care of the Arts, Literature and Music. As for Fiction I dont think we should open that Pandora's Box. As interessting as it is, I think our agenda will be a quagmire with the arts alone... --Dryzen 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Dryzen, that is one box we should avoid opening, no matter how fascinating some of its contents may be ;). But the first three are fair game. The key here, of course, as you point out, will depend on how many interested contributors will join and participate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Would "literature" include things like Richard Sharpe, in this case? Or am I horribly misinterpreting what's intended? If it would, I wonder if we might not have two distinct task force ideas here:

• Military art and literature
• Military historiography (historians and formal historical works)

These might be combined, I suppose, but it might be a bit unusual to lump more scholarly works in with the rest. All of this is, of course, contingent on there being more interested editors. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh...Leftenant Sharpe, it is with great reluctance I must dismiss you, Sir! Unfortunately works of military fiction, even those heavily based in fact and realism (or "faction") such as Sharpe and his seafairing contemporary countryman, Captain Hornblower, must be excluded. At least for now. But who knows? Once the TF is up and (hopefully) running, maybe enough will demand they be called back to duty. Even then, though, I say we should limit ourselves to works of faction over flights of fancy. In the meantime, having two TFs as you suggest is perhaps better than one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I would perfer not to mix Art and Literature with Historiography, if we dont have enough members we might have to make the compromise. As for Sharpe and faction, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) hold my opinion on the subject.--Dryzen 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern European notice board exists, but it seems to be no hit. Poland is considering itself Central Europe, so I doubt they object. Wandalstouring 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Castle

I've been working on a number of castle-related articles over the past few month (list can be seen at my user page), but it struck me today that Castle, which I've been avoiding because the size of the topic, should really be a featured article.

I'm really only knowledgable about British castles up to about 1400, with a smattering of knowledge of Crusader castles.

I'm prepared to start tackling Castle but could do with some help, particularly beyond the limits of my knowledge. --Dweller 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I would suggest also letting the Middle Ages task force know. Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can help a bit, but the Influence of Castles in Britain section in the article seems a bit Anglocentric to me. Wandalstouring 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglocentric, yes. But does that mean we should remove it, or should we create new sections for the influence and development of castles in other countries? I am considering whether or not to create a summary section for the Japanese castle, but I fear that if we create sections for each country (or each type of castle), this article will get way too long and out-of-hand. What really needs to be expanded and included in this main Castle article? LordAmeth 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've set the ball rolling. It's a real mess. Feel free to get your hands dirty. --Dweller 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First reading, than talking, than writing. Wandalstouring 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the scope? Is there a distinction here between castle and fortification? It would be a shame to exclude Vauban and not to continue to the present day. Would ancient fortresses be included? There is a development thread through the ages. Folks at 137 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that a series of articles under the overall umbrella of fortification might be more practical than trying to cram everything into castle; certainly, the trace italienne is an important enough concept to warrant an article of its own. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A related article is redoubt, which could use some expansion. -- Миборовский 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

fortification also needs some work, perhaps we need to combine some tasks. Wandalstouring 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortification is also a collaboration candidate, if anyone is interested. Kirill Lokshin 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It slowly looks like a taskforce work on military architecture. On the other hand all these beautiful castles have no military purpose. Wandalstouring 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, even many of the ones that were never the site of actual fighting are still clearly military structures ;-)

But you're quite right in that we need lots of work here. We don't even have an article on the Citadel of Rhodes, for example. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Warrior Kings

Would Alfred the Great and Clovis I be regarded as Military History seeing as warrior kings such as Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun and Alaric I are considered part of Military History? Kyriakos 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First we need a clear definition: What is a Warrior King?

Second we can decide who is one and who not. Wandalstouring 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A warrior King is a king that leads his men into a campaign. For instance, Alexander the Great spent like 10 years in a campaign away from homeland. OTOH, a lot of English kings waged colonial wars without leaving London. (It's just a thought...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Last British monarch to lead troops into battle was George II, fwiw. Shimgray | talk | 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a good rule of thumb is: if there is a significant amount of military history material that needs to be in the article—whether because someone led troops into battle directly, like Alexander or Caesar, or because they were heavily involved in the conduct of a war as a civilian, like Abraham Lincoln—then they can be considered to be part of "military history". But merely being the ruler while a war was fought doesn't qualify them unless they took some active role in its conduct (and consequently need significant material on it included in the article). Kirill Lokshin 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Warrior King would be to difficult, IMO, to create an accepted definition. Would it apply to every monarch who ever led troops in battle? Would this monarch have to have actually partaken in the combat, or would being on the sidelines count? What if they planned the battles/campaigns, but never set foot on the battlefield? Does it have to specifically be a King? What about Emperors, Queens, Princes and other nobility? If a person was a warrior before becoming King (but not after) would that count? What about the other way around? Would it be purely historical, or would fictional characters (such as Aragorn) be applicable?

Point-in-short, I don't think a universally accepted definition is possible. Oberiko 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good points Oberiko, this could lead to multiple forms of militant leaders: Armchair Leaders leading from the back, Warrior Leaders leading from the front as fighters, Soldier Leaders leading as professionnal military men/women, Diplomat Leaders, etc... Now beyond this and looking as to putting leaders in the Military Personnel/people categories, which if I am right is at the basis for this discusion, most heads will have to go in or out. The easiest to include are those leaders with military backgrounds. Following woudl be leaders of influence in military matters, those that set the objectives, worked on the strategies; those rulers that had a hand in war. This of course will of included a majority of leaders, leaving only the figureheads: innefectual and ruled by there councils. --Dryzen 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can make a better defintion: the king is engaged in close combat in the battle he leads. Wandalstouring 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That would definitly be a warrior king in its purest form, including the one I would prefer to use. This though does ingnore other types of Militant leaders. What is the reason behind categorising warrior Kings is my question? From this we can perhaps build a definition that better suits the need.--Dryzen 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Allo?--Dryzen 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Europe

I'm planning on starting an article on the Military history of Europe, and I was wondering (given the huge task) who would be interested in joining/helping me?

We're talking about a truly massive article, from the Greeks at Thermopylae till the European contribution to the lebanon peace force. If you're interested, please add your name below and your interest or country of particular knowledge. Rex 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Add name here:

• Rex -- Dutch (military) history; and mainly 1450+

Why start with Thermopylae? Why European military history in one box? Wandalstouring 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend any really massive articles. For something as broad as the military history of Europe you should probably segment it out into the eras used in convential Military history (Ancient, Medieval, Gunpowder, Industrial, Modern) and then add summaries in each of them with links to specific main articles for each section. Oberiko 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but given the massive influence europe has had, and how delevopements in it shaped our world ... I'm not looking for some mix of every Europeans country's military history, but more of a broad (massive wasn't the right word) article describing the impact of European countries and empires. Rex 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell in detail what you want to do and show. An overview with links to existing articles about military histpry in Europe? Do you want to exclude North America (Canada, USA) or include? What about theIslamic, the Ottoman and the Mongol Empire which covered large parts of Europe? Wandalstouring 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Non including any reference to them would be thoughtless, this isn't a black and white situation. The aim should be to desribe military events and their impact, if that includes colonies, non europe based empires, or foreign allies/enemies during a war than that should not be ignored. Rex 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the idea is here. Are you trying primarily for a chronological presentation (i.e. tracing military events in Europe) or an overview of the development of military science (in which case limiting it to Europe seems rather counterproductive)? I do think there might be some potential for the first option, but it will quickly become very convoluted. Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going for the chronological overview of military events in Europe. Rex 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a chronical overview. It is a more like a summary style article that helps little to inform.

Actually a military history of Europe as an entity is nonexistant till to the division of the Mediterranean between Islamic and Christian rule. Until then it is the Mediterranean (3 continents) and their neighbours.

So we could make a Mediterranean military history (Classic, Rome, Carthage, Greece, Egypt, early and high Middle Ages) that ends some time after the crusades and European dominated military history is the rise of Europe as origin of global powers and their influence on warfare and economics. It starts with the Portugues/Spanish(America silver, India spice, Africa slaves, spreading the Christian religion) and then Dutch, British, French (settlements) and minor colonial powers like Denmark, Prussia, Courland (slavetrade, golden triangle). Later we have Italy and Germany as further colonial powers during Europe´s imperial era, ending after the second world war. In meantime we have the rise of the economic US-imperialism (independence of Panama, war with Spain). How far into modern times we extend it is a point to discuss. Wandalstouring 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a rather strange way of splitting it. Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic military histories certainly dovetail into that of "Europe"; but, at the same time, a distinctively European military history emerges immediately after the fall of Rome with things like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon warfare in England and Frankish warfare in the Rhine area. Certainly, by the time of the Crusades, it's in full swing. We can't really regard, say, the Guelph-Ghibelline wars as some extension of "Mediterranean" warfare; and northern and eastern Europe are entirely separate by this point.

I would suggest instead an article tracing post-Roman "European" warfare. Granted, some intrusion of material from outside Europe will be inevitable, but I think the majority of the narrative will have a distinctly European focus. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Post roman ... alright, how would we start such an article? An introduction how the migration period was its ultimate downfall? Such an introduction would be a stepping stone towards the first European empires. Rex 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why pos-Roman? What about the military history during the Roman-era, or the Classical era in Greece? Are those military events so inconsequential that we can blantantly choose to ignore them? I for one think that such an article should proceed, chronologically from the first record of military history in Europe till August 19, 2006. I think that if that is not the case for the article, a more appropriate name would be European Military History "Lite." --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wandalstouring makes the point that Greek and Roman military history may be better handled in a "Military history of the Mediterranean" article (or something of the sort) simply because it's so entwined with the non-European history of that region. Hence, we'd actually have two articles:

• Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else
• Military history of Europe (or Military history of post-Roman Europe, perhaps?) discussing things after the first article breaks off (and obviously pointing out that the first article is where information about the preceeding period may be found)

Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's Northern Europe going to fall into this? Or parts of Western Europe? Ireland? They all have military history that dates back to even before ancient Greece. Do we choose to ignore that as "non-notable" and be done? --Laserbeamcrossfire 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical military history? ;-)

If there's a substantial amount of material there—and I'm not certain there is, for what it's worth—we could start the Military history of Europe article at whatever date we saw fit, switch to very terse summary style with a {{details}} link when we hit the classical period (allowing the Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean article to pick up the details) and go back to regular narrative once the Roman Empire collapses. Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that way the 2 articles would connect in a certain way, that would be nice. Rex 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. For Gallic military history before the Roman invasion written sources are rare. That is the point with history. Of course we can find a defintion for the history of warfare in Western and Eastern Europe, north of the Mediterranean, but use terms that reflect the existing division at that time and not random defintions like Europe.

I suggest something like this: (little zones of interest with a infobox to move on from one to the next, I saw this as timetables several times)

Classical time

• Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean discussing Greece, Rome, and everyone else (European-African-Asian)
• Military history in the Celtic and Germanic zone of influence(European)
• Military history in the Scythian and Sarmatian zone of influence(Asian-European)

End of the Western Roman Empire (late Antiquity, early Middle Ages)

• Mediterranean: Islam and Byzantium, crusades, rise of Italian city states(African-European-Asian)
• Successor states in the area of the Western Roman Empire (European)
• Slavic and Viking (same weapons, etc.) zone of influence military history (European)

Middle Ages

• Orthodox Europe (European-Asian)
• Catholic Europe (European-African-Asian)

Gunpowder era and Reconquista

European military history and the way to global influence (Europe-World) Wandalstouring 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't some (all?) of these make more sense as sections of a Military history of Europe article, with the breakout articles at a more specific level (e.g. Military history of Ancient Greece, Military history of the Celts, Military history of the Scythians, Military history of the Vikings, etc.)? Particularly given how vague some of these groupings are, I think it might be easier to present them as fluid subdivisions within a consolidated narrative, rather than hard breaks between topics. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The central problem is Europe. We have plentyful of overlaps all the time (as these examples tried to show) and I do not feel confident that a random geographic approach is OK. To seperate for example Viking and Slavic military history is very difficult. What we could do is Military history in Europe and also in other continents shown with overlapping regions. But Military history of Europe sets Europe as an entity that was non-existant (is ahistoric) and neglects the constant overlaps with neighbouring continents (is biased). But we still need a certain form for the presentation of the multiple overlaps. Wandalstouring 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

These overlapps do not matter, Europe isn't a fixed concept with the same cultural and political borders how would you ever explain colonialism? Rex 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what colonialism has to do with anything here; but certainly Europe during its colonial heyday (post-1492, anyways) was a more clearly delineated entity than Europe during, say, the Roman period. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was is that you simply cannot write an article solely on Europe. Rex 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing but the overlaps does matter. The explanation for colonialism is an export of military concepts from Europe (dominant part) to other parts of the world (colonized parts). The native European forces almost never acted without native local forces/supporters and often trained them in the European way of warfare. So we do have a created overlap in military concepts, while the foreign experience also changes the European military (new weapons, new tactics, new military dresscode, etc.). Europe is only a geographic concept which has been given other meanings for our current situation. Wandalstouring 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we're overthinking this a bit. "Military history in Europe" and "Military history of Europe" are both problematic—the first because it will exclude actions outside the continent, the second because it identifies geography as a meaningful area—but the second is more consistent with the other "Military history of ..." articles we already have. I wonder if we cannot simply name the article that and make clear in the introduction that it is a military history of European powers, not necessarily that of "Europe" as an entity in its own right.

Alternately, we could create a split by period—e.g. Military history of Ancient Europe, Military history of Europe in the Middle Ages, and so forth—with the assumption that the character of the entity called "Europe" does follows some identifiable lines depending on the timeframe we consider. Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally I tried to point out, that for writing military history of Europe the colonial time is suited best. You have a clear defintion and it is a field of interest to many people why many nations of the same continent succeded each other in power over such a long time and conquered almost the whole globe. Other conquests were carried out by specific groups and with the decline of their power disappeared (Islamic Empire by Arabs, Mongols).

I wonder whether it is a good idea to work with the Europe concept all the time. We could use Europe where it is useful but not force it dogmatic in times where it is less suitable than "Military history of the Ancient Mediterranean". Wandalstouring 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That could work if we can get some sort of template giving the proper chronological series of the articles; otherwise, the different names will make them pretty difficult to find. Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading through this discussion i find myself with several questions and possible suggestions. First of all I'm not quite sure I see the outcome of this possible article or set of articles outweighting the difficulties in preparing them. In any events we should definitly attempt at keeping a form of consistency. I emphysise this with the usage of timelines and regions. Making sure that our articles keep similar "swaths", for exemple that when we speak fo the medieval periode we all speak of year X to year X (such as the 500-1500 stated in the task force). Similarly when we touche the subject of reagions, for what ever purpose, that these expanses be homogenous. as wellin the intrest of faireness and comprehensive knowledge, should we engage in the construction of a military history consised by region and/or powers that it be done for the span of human civilisations. As to the blueprint of such articles, What about divisions by periode, with each sub-article(Periodes) abording a by Power organisation. EX: Military history of Englobing region/powers-->Military history of Englobing region/powers in Periode -power1: -power2 --Dryzen 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its somewhat odd that all talks have stopped, after such a series of postings...--Dryzen 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it does not fit creators intentions any more. Wandalstouring 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks rather maribund wouldn't you say?--Dryzen 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of quotation templates

What is the consensus here on usage of either {{cquote}} or {{Quotation}}? I'm using the latter in Stephen Trigg and had someone in a peer review question whether I was using it right. Are they only for quotes made by the person the article is about? If so, do I just use the normal blockquote HTML tag instead? plange 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a firm rule. Some people like the formatting, and some don't, but it's just a formatting issue; so long as it's consistent within an article, I don't think it's a big deal. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Trigg article, you're mixing two different types of quotes. "In line" or block quotes, which are part of the flow of the article, should never, ever be used with {{Quotation}}. The blockquote HTML tag produces the format that everyone in the real world uses for block quotes. Some Wikipedians use {{cquote}} with block quotes, although this is non-standard. Probably they've confused block quotes with the second type of quote, the "pull quote". This is when a quote is set off (or "pulled") from the rest of the article for emphasis. Like an image, it's not part of the flow of the text of the main body of the article. Use {{Quotation}} or {{Quote box}} to create pull quotes.

In the Trigg article, the Harwell quote is a "block quote", the end quote from the History of Kentucky book is essentially a "pull quote". Either can be converted to the other, but mixing them is messy and amateurish. --Kevin (complaints?) 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... On a side note, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but please remember that WP editors are not sprung fully-formed and knowledgeable about how to use things. That's why I asked. Seems a little harsh to characterize me as not being part of the real world and that I'm messy and amateurish. It might be so, but I didn't mean it to be that way, so please assume good faith. I've only been an editor for a couple of months now... plange 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. These quotation templates have been widely misused because they've been poorly explained by those who created them, which includes me. So the current mess is my fault, not yours. Kevin (complaints?) 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've changed it now, is the article now using them right? plange 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. By the way, I've uploaded a photo of the mass grave at Blue Licks, where Trigg was presumably buried. You may want it for the article. Kevin (complaints?) 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you!!! I just added it to the infobox! There's no photo of him that I know of, so this is great! Do you live near there? plange 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked the photo. I live further north in God's Country, but I'm in the Bluegrass State now and then. • Kevin (complaints?) 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Croatian

What about Croatian Military History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.196.166 (talk • contribs)

Well, there's Military history of Croatia; it's not developed, obviously, but I doubt we have many editors here who have an interest in that area. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian Military History Task Force

A potential new task force is being conceived and has been approved, but before it can be created a few questions must be faced. Firstly, the new task force will be the Italian Military History Task Force and it will likely include any Italian history after that which would fall into the Classical Warfare task force. However, one of the main topics of discussion here will be whether or not people want to include articles that would qualify as the Roman Republic or Empire or other classical history in Italy.

Secondly, I would like any Military History Project members that would join this task force to go ahead and put forth their support and/or comments on the task force. Please give any comments on the focus of the project you may have.-KingPenguin 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any problem with including Roman military history in the task force (in addition to having it in the Classical task force, obviously). Double-tagging isn't a problem, the overlap won't form an overwhelming portion of either the Classical or the Italian task forces' scope, and (correct me if I'm wrong on this point) modern Italy does identify with a Roman heritage, so it's reasonable to assume that someone might approach Roman history from the starting point of Italian history.

Conversely, we could start off after the fall of the Western Roman Empire; that would reduce the double-tagging.

I'm not sure if we have enough interested people already in the project to start this off, though; we might need to do some recruiting of editors in this area who aren't already members. Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to include ancient Roman stuff - makes more sense to start in 476. I'd be happy to help out, although I'm not sure how useful I'll be at the moment, as I don't really have any books available to me. I'm good at critiquing other people, though! ;) john k 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; 476 is probably a pretty good starting point. We can probably get this off the ground if there's another editor or two who'd join up. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Count me in.UberCryxic 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the task force has been created. Kirill Lokshin 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Campaign within a campaign

Since the Battle of Guadalcanal was more of a campaign than a single battle, with seven major naval battles (that all already have their own entries), and at least three and as many as seven air/land battles, I was thinking of changing it from a single battle article to its own campaign, with its own campaign box. However, it's also part of the Solomon Islands campaign. If Guadalcanal becomes its own campaign, should all of its individual battles still be listed in the Solomon Islands campaign box, or should they only be listed in the Guadalcanal campaign box? Are there any other campaigns within campaign precedents in Wikipedia that I could use as a guide? Cla68 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, {{Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War}} went through some thrashing over these point; it's somewhat mixed, with most things listed only on the sub-campaignbox, but a few of the major ones filtering up to the main one as well. Given that none of the Guadalanal engagements are of Kursk & Stalingrad level, I would go ahead and put all of them only on the subsidiary box, with the outer one linking only to the Battle of Guadalcanal itself. (You should probably include both campaignboxes on the battle articles, though—the narrower one and then the broader one—so as to make navigating up the campaigns easier for readers.) Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, thank you. Cla68 11:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We have something similar with the Western European Campaign (1944-1945), which contains several smaller campaigns. What we do is list the intra-campaigns in the main campaign box (Normandy, Siegfried, Ardennes, Elbe) and then all the operations of the intra-campaigns in their own box. This means that the intra-campaigns have two campaign boxes (one for parent-self-siblings and the other for self-children). See the Battle of Normandy for an example. Oberiko 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, there's also a {{Campaignbox Western Front (World War II)}}; somebody needs to figure out what the overlap scheme here is. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of that one; looks like we have two seperate campaign schemas going on. I'll put cleaning it up on my to-do list after (if?) I finish my article on Operation Battleaxe. Oberiko 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On a (vaguely) related note, I tried to start up a discussion here about how best to construct a top-level campaignbox for WWII as a whole, but nobody else seems to have commented; hence, any additional input on the subject would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. As for WWII, I'll promise I'll think about it... as the current subparsing is not quite adequate IMHO... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Along this same line, there doesn't seem to be an overall campaignbox for the Pacific War theater of WWII. Unless someone knows of one that I don't, I'll go ahead and create one. Cla68 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Could you also please list them on WP:CAMPAIGN once they're created? Otherwise, they tend to be rather hard to keep track of. Kirill Lokshin

American Civil War

Is there a taskforce or separate wikiproject that coordinates articles about the American Civil War? CQ 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The United States military history task force, presumably? It's almost entirely a topic of U.S. history, so that would seem to be the natural place to discuss it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for anyone else interested, the discussion is continuing on the task force talk page; additional comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And a new American Civil War task force has been created; editors with an interest in the topic (and there do seem to be a fair number) are welcome to join! Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!!! *running over to join* plange 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we wont end up wih a myriad of single war oriented task forces, it could end up rpoducing quite a glut.--Dryzen 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there will be many with both the level of editor interest and the number of articles that the ACW has, at least until the editor demographics on en: shift substantially. Kirill Lokshin 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Much to talk about. :P Wandalstouring 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

request for image department

In peer reviews it is often critised that images are lacking. I have started to google required images, write nice letters and usually obtain legal terms for the use of many pictures on (wikimedia) wikipedia in return. I suggest to formalize this a bit, assemble more interested people and help the ones in need. We may have some overlaps with the cartography department, but there is not much activity, so never mind. Wandalstouring 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the cartography department should be mothballed anyways; it's clear that it isn't something we can actually get practical results from at this point ;-)

However, the same issue comes up with something like this: is there a need for a separate department—or some benefit from having one—and can it be maintained in an active state? I would suggest that, as cataloguing images isn't really needed (and any aspects of that are better handled by the category system on Commons), perhaps a more feasible approach in practice might be to avoid a separate structure here and focus on image work from two sides:

• Use the "Images" section on the "Article requests" page (which hasn't seen much activity) to collect requests for images. One issue here is that this page is a mess at the moment; hopefully some of the new coordinators might be willing to clean it up a bit ;-)
• Focus more attention on peer reviews and getting any necessary images for an article as it undergoes that process.

I think that this would allow us to help obtain images as needed for use in articles without creating what would probably wind up being another inactive subpage. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a place to request images easily and to distribute larger quantities. The common image departement organisation is suboptimal. Wandalstouring 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, wouldn't the consolidated requests page be a suitable place to request images? Concentrating attention in a single place seems to work better than spreading it out over many different pages for things like that, in my experience. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This section already in use is what I was referring to, incidentally. Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have about 1,000 pictures of WW2 (almost always of China though some are American and German aircraft). If anyone's looking for relevant photos tell me and I might have them on my computer. -- Миборовский 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know. I think we have more hidden treasure. The problem is people do use pictures they see and are easily accessable and almost no user finds his way to the commons picture gallery. So I have two suggestions:

• We make it obvious where you can request images on the request page. Perhaps in a form that a watcher can easily keep record of image requests. I created such a section, but it is a bit hidden for the request page does not show at one look where you can request something.
• It would be good for the average user here (they do not browse wiki commons!) to create perhaps our own structured picture gallery. This way we can have an eye on problems with images such as in many Korean military history articles (a whole series, used in many articles was tagged to be deleted). Wandalstouring 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Making the existence and use of the request page more obvious is something that's definitely needed, as is making it easier to use. Hopefully the coming cleanup will substantially reduce the level of built-up cruft there, and make it a bit easier to navigate.

As far as picture galleries, I very much doubt doing this systematically would be practical; it would involve thousands (tens of thousands!) of images, all of which would need to be carefully structured, and wouldn't really have much practical benefit, at least as far as I can see. As a long-term solution, I think making it easier to find images on Commons is better, since that's where most of our images are being migrated anyways, and since we can then use the built-in search capabilities to their fullest extent. Kirill Lokshin 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we should help our average user to discover the commons more easily. and give perhaps a short introduction how it works. At the moment searching there is often a pain in the ass, especially if you do not know about it`s classification system. Wandalstouring 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a few links in the "Resources" section on the project page, but they could probably use some more explanation. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning peer reviews. Kirill writes image needed. Wandalstouring searches, negotiates and gives the user the image required, but I tended to do it silently. Perhaps we could establish some constructive criticism. Wandalstouring 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything in particular you have in mind? Kirill Lokshin 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide criticism and some aid like request images here(link), list of sources at taskforce x here(link), tool for making references in the text here(link), etc. Wandalstouring 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Things like that should be somewhat easier with a usable image request area ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Coordinator election reminder

Just a reminder to anyone who hasn't yet voted (but intends to do so) that there's about a day and a half left until the end. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Task Forces

I have a few suggestions for new task forces. Here are my suggestions for new task forces, an Ottoman task, a Balkan task force, a Greek task force and a Portugese task force. If anyone has any thoughts leave comment. Kyriakos 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in a Balkan task force, but I was wondering what countries you would include in it? -- Underneath-it-All 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Presumably countries entirely in the Balkans, as well as actions by other countries which occurred in the region? I doubt we'll be able to do this purely on national lines, as much of the military history of the area obviously involves outside powers. Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What about an African task force? There's lots of little wars and conflicts that have occurred (and are occurring) in Africa. I suppose this could encompass conflicts from colonial times to present... I'd also like to see a sort of 'Irregular Warfare task force'. I think the idea was kicked around here a while ago inconclusively. I suppose this could cover guerrilla movements, insurgencies and efforts to combat and suppress them. I don't really know what time period this would cover though...Mike McGregor (Can) 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The African one might be a good idea, but would probably be problematic in practice; I only know of one project member that has an interest in that area, so it's not really feasible unless we can recruit more editors into it (which will be somewhat difficult for all the usual systemic bias reasons). Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we could start covering irregular warfare in our existing articles. Sources about irregular warfare and intelligence operations do exist, even for ancient times, and we could start integrating more of them (for example into the prelude of battles and into articles about campaigns. A few sentences about them give the reader a much better picture. So an intelligence or irregular warfare group would be a nice thing to spice up our informing on events. The problem is willing and capable people.

I study the Punic wars at the moment to work over the concerning articles. For the Second Punic War alone we have lots of intelligence and irregular warfare not integrated in the articles. (Punic slaves uprising in Rome; Punic intelligence network in Rome discovered; Numidians faking to go over to the Romans at Cannae and backstabbing them; a Numidian cavalry troop, that had run over from Hannibal to Rome, caused great panic among the Romans, thinking they had been tricked and Hannibal was already in Rome; Scipio gives Hannibal's caught spies a guided tour of his camp and forces; etc., read Livy) Wandalstouring 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to have colonial wars, rather than "african wars" because that's what a lot of them were, and you could then do wars in other areas at the same time, specially if they were related.SpookyMulder 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually hoping to see more coverage of the post-colonial wars and civil wars by proposing this. Obviously wars between colonial powers an independence wars would be included as well, but I think that modern African conflicts are a major aspect of military history which is under represented here on wiki.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike McGregor (Can) has a very interessting point. Finding the participants though, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out, will be the inevitable deciding factor. I know a fellow who's particularly gifted (and to say the least interessted) in this subject but has yet to join wikipedia. --Dryzen 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign renaming

There is a big bunfight at Polish September Campaign ove the renaming. What are the conventions we have set up for consistency? We have articles on the Battle of Sicily and the Battle of Normandy and the Italian Campaign rather than "invasion of...", so I don't understand how "Invasion of Poland" even becomes an acceptable alternative....? Yet they are suggesting that as a name. Perhaps some members of the Military History Project need to weigh in there - Talk:Polish September Campaign.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, one of those discussions. The convention has generally been that the most common name is usually acceptable, regardless of connotations (e.g. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Sack of Magdeburg, etc.); beyond that, there are some rather complicated issues of (national) politics being played out, so I'm not sure if simply throwing more bodies at the discussion will be helpful, or just serve to inflame people further. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought that consensus was best formed by more people, rather than fewer (vocal) ones. Regardless, sourced responses would be appreciated - it seems the most common names in German and Polish both translate as "campaign" and "defensive war" in any event, so invasion seems to have little historical context. In English, most histories seem to use Polish Campaign, admittedly from a German POV. Anyone who claims Poland as their 'bag' may want to weigh in.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Michael on this one. Over here we're interested, but mostly detached, observers. I think if we can get enough of those kind of folks over there, it should help to provide some stabilty to the debate and discussion. Oberiko 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; anybody with knowledge of the period/conflict involved should probably wander on over (preferably with sources at the ready). Just be aware that these discussions do occasionally turn rather nasty ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We're enthusiasts of military history. Pointless struggles, aggressive behaviour and meaningless fights are kind of our thing. ;) (That last statement, as indicated by the ";)" is a joke, let's not have anyone taking offense) Oberiko 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true, hehe... :D -- Миборовский 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You forgot: If any radical is not able to push his POV in his mother tongue, he joins the English wiki. Hopefully nobody there realizes that all the problems they create us are non existant in their mother tongue wiki, because they did exactly the same way as we do. Wandalstouring 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope this discussion is coming to a close. The question is hopefully: Do we use popular or scientific standards for naming our articles? Wandalstouring 01:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Task force suggestion (Cold War, New Zealand)

How would you all feel about a New Zealand and a Cold War task force? --James Bond 04:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I feel ill about it.

Well, honestly we can not appreciate any taskforce simply because it has a hip name. If you want to create a taskforce name the scope of this taskforce and wait for people who are willing to join and contribute. If there is enough resonance you can get a taskforce. Wandalstouring 12:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would be interested in a New Zealand task force since there's a substantial amount of material regarding New Zealand's military background and it's active involment throughout history but it needs improvement. Would appreciate any Australian & British editor help on this one considering the common military roots of these countries.

Regarding a Cold War task force, it would include all military material regarding that era (ie Vietnam War, CIA Operations, Nuclear tests, East Germany, Bay of Pigs invasion) etc. --James Bond 07:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see a point in a New Zealand Military Task Force- although I would support a change for the Australian Task Force to an ANZAC Task Force. NZ's military history really isn't that exciting or significant, despite what people in NZ will try and tell you. :-P --Commander Zulu 12:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a good amount of imformation on NZ military history but I wonder how many members it would have. The ANZAC task force is an interesting proposal the two countries were deeply joined on military issues in the past, I guess I could work with some Kiwis if I have to :). The Cold War task force would be great so much stuff and no shortage of user who would join. Hossen27 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a Cold War task force sounds reasonable; do we have people willing to sign up? Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will throw my two cents into the fray and say that the ANZAC task force may be the best way to advance the AUS and NZ Mil Hist articles. IMHO I would say that is the way to do it but that is up to Hossen and others intimately involved with those projects to make the final call. The number of contributors will ultimately be the determining factor. As far as the Cold War task force goes I will say that I am not a fan. It will be the same people contributing so I do not see the beginning of a Cold War task force as bringing in a whole bunch of new contributors. Unfortunately, I believe it will just regurgitate info parceled from other task forces. Those that want to contribute to the Vietnam War, East German espionage operations, etc...will do so regardless of this TF. I do not want to be a pessimist and I consider myself an inclusionist here on Wikipedia but I think this TF may be a bit of a stretch.--Looper5920 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can put my name down for an ANZAC task force because several of the battles that I'm currently working on involve military personnel from both of those nations. Cla68 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ribbon bars

I just spent the night making ribbon bars for the ROC army (gallery), so if you happen to have ribbon image requests (or barnribbon requests a la WP:RIBBONS) now's the time to ask (before I lose my photoshop template, fall asleep, or go fishing). -- Миборовский 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle stubs images

Who creates the templates for battle stubs? Currently the U.S. stub and British stub have the same image (which looks odd on Battle of Fort Oswego where the French stub has a different image). Can these images be changed? Rmhermen 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to change to a different image if you have one that works better. The images on the various stub tags are so minor a point that I don't think it's worth trying to impose any level of central control over it. Kirill Lokshin 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)