Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Convention for repeated single names

This is a problem we have to face repeatedly with the ancient Greeks and the Punics for example because they only had one name, no family name and these names tended to be repeatedly used or were taken from some kind of deity. I suggest some clear rules for disambiguation.

• nicknames in case they exist. for example Hannibal the Bald, Hasdrubal the Fair - OK
• profession in case this made him relevant and there is no chance of someone else with the same name and profession. for example Polybius the historian - OK, Hannibal the general - not OK, there more than three of them
• Dynastic names (can be disputed and is not clear because this habit was not in use in ancient times- leading to our problem). See Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal Barca, Hasdrubal Barca, Mago Barca they all were family members and there side is commonly called the Barcids. On the other hand Hasdrubal the Fair's son and Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago's nephew Hanno was equally treated by them, although he is not refered to as a "Barca", but he is a member of Hamilcar's family and a Barcid.
• Place of origin or ethnic group is a common disambiguation used by ancient sources. for example Lysimachus the Celt
• dates, preferably the lifespan, but the time someone held an important office could be used alternatively.

The aim is to avoid wrong links to deities and other people. Wandalstouring 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall that there were some interesting naming conventions adopted for the ancient Romans that might be useful here; but I can't remember where they are. :-\ Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found them: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I would appreciate some input. For example we have two Punic Hannibal of equal rank, one in the First the other in the Second Punic War and both of them played a very important role. The one from the Second Punic War is more widely known, but can we establish fame as a criteria? Wandalstouring 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about some rules for all these Greeks, Punics and the like.

• If we they have any additional names [Soter], a universally accepted ranking [I, II, III, ...] or epithets [Barca, the Bald, the Fair, from Naxos, the Celt, the Samnite, of Sparta, from Alexandria] that make them unique these are to be used. [For exmaple Ptolemy and Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus or Hamilcar and Hamilcar Barca]
• If such a disambiguation is not possible the next step can be to use in parentheses behind the name the modern name for the dynasty[Mago (Magonid)] this also applies to non-royal families like the Barcids ord Gisco [Sophonosbe (Gisco) or Hamilcar (Gisco) or Hasdrubal (Gisco)] and may be extended to relatives of such a house if they were closely involved in the dynastic policy [Hanno (Barcid) or Bomilcar (Barcid)]. In the very rare case there are more bearers of the same name within a dynasty, but they are not contemporaries and there is no established ranking, it is possible to disambiguate them [as Mago (I Magonid) the later as Mago (II Magonid)].
• The next step is looking at the biography. The lifespan can be used [Bostar (200 BC - 140 BC)] or in case the lifespan is not known, what is often the case for Punic nobles, the known office and the time it was held can be used [Hanno (Rab 210 BC - 190 BC) or Hanno (strategus 200 BC) or Hanno (Punic naval commander ~200/201 BC)].
• In case these rules can not be applied, the profession, the homecountry [Hanno (trader from Carthage)], the husband [Sophonosbe (wife of the Numidian king Syphax)] or an important close realtive [Julius (illegal son of Hannibal (Barcid))] can be listed. Naturally the disambiguation has to be used in case the name itself wouldn't be clear. Wandalstouring 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedited draft, per request:

Where a single name is shared by multiple individuals, one of four options (given in order of priority) may be used to disambiguate them:

1. If the individuals have commonly-accepted additional names, epiphets, or numerical designations, these should be added directly to the name. For example, Ptolemy I Soter, Ptolemy II Philadelphus or Hamilcar Barca.
2. If the individuals are part of a dynasty or family with a known name, that name may be added in parentheses after theirs. For example, Hamilcar (Gesco) or Hanno (Barcid).
3. If the birth and death dates of the individual, or the dates in which he held some particular office, are known, they may be added in parentheses after the name. For example, Bostar (200 BC-140 BC) or Hanno (strategus 200 BC).
4. As a last resort, profession, home country, or relation to other figures may be used as a parenthesized disambiguator. For example, Hanno (trader from Carthage) or Sophonosbe (wife of Syphax).

Presumably these can be maintained at the Classical warfare task force. Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, any further comments on this? It seems to reflect current practice, more or less; should we just adopt it as a convention for Punic (and Greek?) names? Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there seem to be no objections, I've put this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force#Naming conventions. Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons

An old discussion at this WikiProject has been linked at a centralised discussion on flag icons at the Manual of Style. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry? if you wish to comment in the current centralised discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for B-Class

So, going from the discussion above, a draft set of criterial an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class:

1. The article is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. The article is free from major grammatical errors.
5. The article contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

Based on the discussion so far, the first four seem to have broader support than the last one. In any case, what do people think of these? Can we agree on some subset of these criteria as a minimum benchmark for B-Class? Do people have any other suggestions that haven't been mentioned yet? Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with this criteria. I think it is a good way of seperating Start from B. Kyriakos 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good place to start - if there are major problems once we get started, we can re-evaluate. Carom 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Has my vote, with a review after some experience. Two suggestions: somewhere permanent to comment on the criteria (to give a basis for further discussion/ praise) and a check list of the satisfied criteria as a hidden list for each article. This last may be "ott", but it would give editors a guide on what needs to be done. Perhaps some experienced editors apply the criteria to some existing start and B articles, as a kick-off? Folks at 137 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion would presumably take place at the assessment department, since that's where the criteria would be listed. As far as a checklist, I'll see what might be possible; but I'm not sure how feasible it would be from a technical standpoint. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, technically feasible it is: see User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template. The "checklist" is controlled by a series of parameters named "B-Class-1", "B-Class-2", etc., matching up with how the criteria are numbered; these can each be set to "yes", "no", or left blank, to indicate whether the article meets or fails that criterion. At the moment, the parameters only display on the talk page; I'll try to add some code that will automatically create categories for (a) B-Class articles that don't pass all five and (b) pre-B-Class articles that do, so that checking for reassessment can be more easily done.

So, comments? Good idea, bad idea? Worth doing, or too technical? Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(And the categorization code is done. The template can now recognize both cases and put the page into a category for review accordingly.) Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Umph. There's definitely some benefit to haing a visible checklist of what, exactly, needs improving in an article, but I wonder if a) it might not be a little too technical, and b) if B-class would even be the right place to introduce this kind of checklist. In some sense, it seems like the kind of thing that would be most useful pre-A or pre-FA. Carom 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to boil down A/FA stuff to a checklist might be more trouble than it's worth; and, since those levels go through formal reviews anyways, the checklist wouldn't necessarily tell us as much in terms of whether the article could be moved to the next level or not. (Not that we couldn't add checklists for those, of course; but they'd be even more complicated than this one, and would largely be redundant to more thorough things like actual peer review.)

The overly technical part is a valid concern. I'm not sure how complicated we can make it before it starts to frustrate people; we've dealt with complicated parameter schemes before (e.g. the infoboxes), but I don't know how comfortable anyone besides myself would be with having five extra parameters to fiddle with here. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And I thought all my concerns were valid, Kirill! ; )

Personally, I don't mind fiddling with the extra parameters, but I think it probably puts the B-class review in the hands of a relavtively small number of editors, and the goal is, ultimately, to allow virtually anyone to perform this level of assessment. One solution might be to make the checklist optional (sort of an "on request" type thing). Carom 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be optional—in the sense that it wouldn't be required to actually change assessment—in any case. My intent was for something that would allow, as Folks at 137 suggested, a convenient way to indicate which criteria were met and which weren't (particularly in the case of an article failing to be promoted to B-Class over several attempts); obviously, there wouldn't be any requirement to use the checklist to determine promotion (although I expect that we'll eventually get most of them filled in as the housekeeping catches up). Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can try it out and see how it works...In the long run, it might be more useful for a slightly more in-depth version of the assessment statistics than it will be as a tool in the B-class assessment. Carom 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will throw my vote in for this as well. Good guideline to get people pointed in the right direction but still vague enough to allow some flexibility.--Looper5920 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My too. We can ammend if anything else comes up, but I concur that this is a good place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments regarding either the criteria or the checklist? If there are no objections, we can probably implement both in the next day or two. Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I still think that supporting materials are more impt than extensive citations towards making an article look nice, and making it useful, but as always I am perfectly happy to go with the flow. LordAmeth 13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the new criteria up on the assessment page and enabled all of the checklist code in {{WPMILHIST}}; let's see how this goes! :-)

(As an initial matter to work on, we need to find a good example of a B-Class article for the "Example" column in the quality level table. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

B-Class Review

Please review the Uruguayan Civil War page for B-class without formalities? It's already on "Did you know?" on the main page. --Ineffable3000 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, requests like that are less likely to get lost in the traffic if they're made here. ;-)

(More to the point: anyone want to take a crack at applying the proposed new criteria to this article?) Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article is currently a vandal-magnet (due to a front page link). --Ineffable3000 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it's a little skimpy to fulfill #2. Although I cannot point to the precise information that is missing, the sections seem a little underdeveloped to me. However, I believe it fufills the other criteria. Carom 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany or Nazi Germany?

Several boxes, eg here have had "Germany" changed to "Nazi Germany". There's a brief argument here and there have been reverts (not yet a war). My own opinion is that "Germany" suffices and is correct. Any views before I sharpen my blue pencil? Folks at 137 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Nazi should be added in front of Germany. Nazi Germany is more to me like a time period or a political party. I think that it is like putting Kingdom of France in front of France or Classical Greece in front of Greece. Kyriakos 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Germany" seems more correct, as we're not disambiguating here, and it's not a different state from pre-Nazi Germany; there's no more need to label it as "Nazi Germany" than there would be to have "Fascist Italy". (I suspect, however, that such questions of usage may be treated differently in non-English historiography. Russian works, for example, tend to use "Reich" or "Fascist" as adjectives where English works would use "German" or "Nazi".)

(Nazi Germany is probably a useful link target, though, if piped; i.e. [[Nazi Germany|Germany]].) Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think just "Germany" is preferable; where disambiguation is necessary (i.e. in the armed forces) it's probably best to use things like "Bundeswehr," "Wehrmact," etc. (there was a related discussion in that big, long section on the new naming convention at the top of the page, but good luck finding it). Carom 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't think of many cases where it would be necessary to disambiguate by service name in a battle infobox. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you use Nazi you should add Germany because the German Nationalsozialisten did have similar and supporting parties all over Europe and many of them joined during WWII with a swastika in the flag. Germany might be more appropriate as we likewise do not disambiguate Cromwell-England or NapoleonIII-France(Second French Empire) and also in the cases of Kuomintang and Maoists we use the official designations or China. Germans do in many cases prefer a rather different term then Germany(Deutschland) for the state ruled by the Nazis, but that's not encyclopedic.Wandalstouring 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is more specific. --Ineffable3000 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also not the name of the country; we don't do "Republican United States" or "Communist Vietnam", either. ;-)

(More seriously: there's no need to be more specific here, as there's no other "Germany" that we need to prevent confusion with.) Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO just "Germany" should be used as text, however if a flag icon is to be used then the NSDAP flag would be the one of choice. (Speaking of which, is there a [[Template:###]] for that flag? I was working on the Operators section of the Fieseler Fi 156 article and Template:GER was the only thing I could find to use.) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

{{flagicon|Germany Nazi}}. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, the problem is that in that Battle of the Bulge edit the wikilink was also changed. I only have minor problems with changeing the name itself from Nazi Germany to Germany, but it should still link to the article Nazi Germany. As a side note, Germany of the 20th century is generally divided into four to five phases. 1)The German Empire, 2) the Republic of Weimar, 3) the Third Reich, 4) FRG and GDR and 5) United Germany (Vereinigtes Deutschland (technically still the FRG but rarelly if ever called that). This is similar to the French numbering of Monarchies/Republics/Empires (I think it's the fifth Republic now).--Caranorn 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree re: the link; [[Nazi Germany|Germany]] would appear to be the path of least resistance. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New "Faction" template

Folks, I created a new template which might be of use in other conflicts, in Africa and elsewhere:

You can see examples of its use here:

• Islamic Courts Union
• Juba Valley Alliance

Purpose: To show a faction, especially a combatant or other territorial claimant as less than a "nation" but to distinguish its organization as more than just a "political party" (Template:Infobox_Political_party).

Different conflicts might need their own versions. Clan/tribe was definitely something used regarding indigenous ethnic conflict. Others might use "ethnicity" or "sect."

Please let me know what you think. --Petercorless 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. It may be worthwhile to develop it into some sort of generalized template for factions, though; I doubt that there would be any benefit to having a separate one for each war. Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone else is more of a wizard at template whacking than I am, feel free to snarf this. Just leave a link here as to where your more genericized work is located. --Petercorless 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my first attempt at {{Infobox War Faction}} is done. At this point, it's mostly a reworking of {{Infobox Somali faction}} generalized to an arbitrary war (and using standard MILHIST infobox style); comments and suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, Kirill, nice work. I can't be positive how or when I'll make use of this, but it's excellent for helping to describe non-state actors, and I'm surprised we never thought of it before. Might work well for samurai clans and such, though as families they're not quite the same as factions formed to fight a particular ideological/political/military conflict... might work, might not. But for the modern stuff, like the Somalia conflict, very useful I'm sure. LordAmeth 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Kirill Lokshin! To make it more generalized, it may need the following options for some long-term or large-scale conflicts: Wars/battles, Part of. As per the military unit boxes such as Combat Logistics Battalion 2. --Petercorless 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added "partof" and "battles" parameters. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Military of Vanautu

Military of Vanuatu. WTF? --Ineffable3000 03:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're excited about. The Vanuatu Mobile Force is a small organisation that serves as the paramilitary arm of the Vanuatu Police. Just another small military/paramilitary, like the Civil Guard of Costa Rica (4,400, 7 paramilitary urban companies, Spec Ops unit, 6 provincial units (IISS Military Balance 2006)) or one of the Caribbean island states. Buckshot06 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It would probably be better off merged to the police article, though; a 300-man auxiliary isn't really going to provide enough material for a good article of its own, I suspect. Kirill Lokshin 04:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article contains almost no information and no references. I'm not sure why either that it's a separate article from the main Vanuatu article. I've just taken some action to hopefully clean-it up. Cla68 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Military of Vanuatu" even called the military? The last time I heard they didn't even have armed forces, only police. --Ineffable3000 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can merge all these defence troops in the pacific into one article as all these nations are allied and do ccoperate in education, defense and police work + Australia. Wandalstouring 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Militaries of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia? In any case, some sort of merging would probably be a good idea, regardless of where this particular AFD winds up going; most of these groups simply don't have enough written about them to sustain reasonably-sized articles.

(It's not a big deal either way, though; given how many stubs we have, at this point, a few more or less won't really make a difference.) Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Military of Antarctica

This discussion contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any research or serious use (unless the research is about Wikipedia itself).

The Special Forces of Antarctica

I have thought very hard and I decided that the Military of Antarctica needs an article. Antarctica has one of the biggest militaries in the world and I am surprised that it doesn't have an article. I have so many references about the Military of Antarctica so that I can write a featured article about it in a few hours (or even in less than an hour). Everyone knows a lot about the Military of Antarctica but hasn't yet written an article.

I am also thinking about writing an article about the Wars of Antarctica. Here are some pages I am also thinking about creating:

• Tanks of Antarctica
• Antarctican rifles
• Special forces of Antarctica
• Terrorism in Antarctica
• Anti-war groups of Antarctica

If you think about any more things to write about, please tell me. --Ineffable3000 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would happily contribute to this worthy article, Ineffable3000 is right this area is badly covered on Wikipedia. Though i doubt there would be enough info for Special forces of Antarctica, last time i checked it only included 6 fairy penguin commandos and a bad tempered Sea Lion. Damn Antarctic Treaty is really ruining everything. :) Hossen27 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you. You forgot the 10 nematodes that General Ida N. Care hired. --Ineffable3000 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"...and beware of the penguins." - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am trying to research the Antarctican Jungle War in the 9th century, and I only found 10 books about it. Can someone provide me some extra references? --Ineffable3000 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You forgot about the rather special force of "Scott of the Antarctic!" Or was that ... special farce? --Petercorless 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to volunteer to handle any Navy of Antarctica related articles. Incidentally Hossen27 you may not be up to speed on the Antarctic Special forces because the Antarctic Navy is primarily made up of SEALS.— WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 05:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on Ineffable3000 here we are trying to have a complex discussion on the Military of Antarctica and you bring up something silly like Antarctican Jungle War in the 9th century. As you and everyone else knows during the 9th Century Antarctica was made out of chocolate fudge and was a very peaceful place, it was not until the 11th century that it was militarised. Lets try to keep these conversations serious. Hossen27 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry. the Antarctican Jungle War occured in the 19th century, not the 9th century. --Ineffable3000 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright. This has just got silly. The section before this was a little funny, but this is just silly. Let's have a proper section now... Carom 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a parody of pages like Military of Vanuatu. --Ineffable3000 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? A parody? Never........

Incidentally, I was referencing Monty Python, but the joke (which was feeble to begin with) is rapidly losing effectiveness...Carom 07:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being a bit serious, Military activity in Antarctica would be a great topic for a very interesting article. Many national armed forces have carried out very sophisticated and interesting activities in support of scientific expeditions and, if I remember correctly, Argentina and Chile have rattled sabres at each other in the Antarctic. --Nick Dowling 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that a Military activity in Antarctica is a great idea. If their are enough dedicated editors intrested I think as Ineffable3000 said earlier the article could became a FA in good time. Kyriakos 07:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be Military activity in the Antartctic, to include nearby naval activity; but there's definitely a lot of material to cover; just offhand, I found Operation Windmill, Operation Deep Freeze, Operación 90, Operation Highjump, and Operation Tabarin. Kirill Lokshin 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A fierce tactical simulation of the conflict. --Petercorless 13:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An analagous discussion is going on here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of Vanuatu. --Ineffable3000 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see that some people are apparently of the opinion that we should keep perma-stubs around just so we can tag them with categories. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The game was fun, but let's disambiguate.

1. the parody has been nice but went boring and absurd
2. there is real military concerned with these regions so covering military presence in the Antarctica and military presence in the Arctica(+ old expeditions) with two sister articles would be feasable.
3. Vanuatu&co are often quite proud of their forces and it is not their fault that they are few and poor. at least some of these Pacific nations are US allies in an ongoing conflict and do contribute large parts of their armed forces. Wandalstouring 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Ineffable3000 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So I guess I can stop working on that article about Admiral Byrd's capture of the Nazis' Base 211 under 'Operation Highjump' in 1946-1947? [1] [2] I guess the truth will never get out ... sigh! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jup. I'm really astonished you found that stuff. About 7 years ago I read this during a school work on jet engines and afterwards i never found it again. But if you are interested in such stuff I have a book about ancient Egyptian and Maya flight engines etc. with construction plans. The guy who wrote this built them, and works on patents for his engines. Wandalstouring 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have long been curious about German WWII secret aircraft programs (since declassifying some captured original research documents as a young co-op student). Study something long enough and eventually you run all kinds of "stuff". I ran into this nonsense years ago ... and was surprised myself that a Google search turned up a few sources. Fun reading, though, with a little popcorn and a cold beer. ;) Now, tearing apart The Da Vinci Code — there's man's work (meat, potatoes, and a good stout port)! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Special Forces of the Arctic

Getting back to the serious stuff, time for Arctic vs Antarctica?? Carcharoth 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See below. --Ineffable3000 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My 'serious' comment wasn't actually serious. Would the nasty penguins overcome the cute fluffy polar bear cubs? If (when) the Arctic ice cap melts, will they transport polar bears to the Antarctic to ensure their survival? Carcharoth 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

500

Good news everyone, we have 500 members. As was said in a discussion when the project got 400 members we should have a mini how do you describe it cyber party. Lets hope to continue the great work and continue to have new members join. Kyriakos 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

500 active members; if we include the inactive list, we've had 500 for quite some time. (But I haven't gone through the lists for some time now, so the numbers are probably a bit off anyways. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Many people sign up for WikiProjects and never work with them. I was like that when I first joined Wikipedia. Then I left a bunch of Wikiprojects and began focusing on two. --Ineffable3000 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming coordinator elections

Just to keep everyone in the loop...

As there haven't really been any complaints with how the previous election (in August) took place, the current plan it to basically repeat the same process for this upcoming one:

• Two-week signup period (January 29 to February 11)
• Two-week voting period (February 12 to February 25)
• Simple approval voting
• Seven open positions (One Lead and six Assistant)

In light of some feedback during the last elections, we'll also have two minor improvements to the procedure:

• An explicit statement of which current coordinators are standing for re-election
• An explicit pointer to where general commentary can be placed

If anyone has any last-minute suggestions, please feel free to make them; otherwise, we'll presumably start the signup period as planned on the 29th. Kirill Lokshin 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For more information about coordinators, what they are and what they contribute to the project, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Wandalstouring 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll run for the position so that I can help the project. --Ineffable3000 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Colloboration of the week

Please vote for Uruguayan Civil War on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration. I am not forcing you to vote so but I think it is a good idea because:

• It is an esoteric topic that needs more information and referencing.
• It is a notable war in South American history.
• South American conflicts are under-represented on Wikipedia.

Thanks guys. --Ineffable3000 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look and post your opinion

http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/romans/rome11.jpg shows a Roman soldier. The question is whether it is a member of the light infantry, called velites, or of the heavy infantry, that would be principes or hastati. I have a conflict with a member of this project who thinks it is a velites and keeps adding this information in the Roman-Spartan War. Naturally I can tell him what I want, he doesn't believe me, so we let more people add their opinions to solve it. A clear point to disambiguate both units would be whether or not he wears heavy chainmail (velites don't). Wandalstouring 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force#Take a look and post your opinion. Kirill Lokshin 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Military activity in the Antarctic

As proposed above, I have actually created the article Military activity in the Antarctic as a stub with a grab-bag of all the operations and expeditions I can find. Please help me expand it so it doesn't look too odd when people start visiting it from the inevitable link at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. --Ineffable3000 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention the fictional representation of future war in Antarctica, Payne Harrison's Thunder of Erebus, as a conceptualisation of what future resources wars down there might look like? Buckshot06 01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't 'in fiction' sections generally frowned upon? A discussion of the potential militarisation of Antarctica and its probable consequences if the treaty system failed would fit in nicely though. --Nick Dowling 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is used to underline the importance of the treaty and is based on some serious sources, OK. Like space warfare where we talk about sats, lasers and missiles, but not Deathstars, not Klingons and not X-wings. Wandalstouring 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(scratches out planned mentions of F-302s and the Battlestar Galactica)

Seriously though I'll take a gander and see what I can do to help - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned Thunder of Erebus specifically is that it is pretty well researched in military terms, at least. All the military units are depicted reasonably accurately, but, even so, I don't think that the 6th Infantry Division from Alaska will actually turn up there anytime soon!! There must be some good discussion somewhere about resource induced threats to the Antarctic Treaty System. Actually, I've got a old book on various hypothetical conflicts and I'll take a look to add a little bit. Buckshot06 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Military history of Antarctica. --Ineffable3000 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, and for good measure Military of Antarctica now also points to the new article. 'Miltiary activity' is a better title than 'military history' as there has never been any actual fighting in the Antarctic. Buckshot, sorry to dismiss your suggestion out of hand yesterday - I was unfamiliar with the book. I think that informed speculation on the nature of war in the Antarctic would be within the scope of the article - it will certainly highlight why no-one has tried it! --Nick Dowling 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that Ice Station Zebra (film) is not based on real events?--Looper5920 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The book (at least) and probably the film, was set in the Arctic. Carcharoth 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Reilly's dumb-but-entertaining thriller Ice Station is set in Antarctica. Its military aspects are prominent but utterly bewildering. --Nick Dowling 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some other novels: Iceberg (novel) and Deception Point (both in the Arctic); and Atlantis Found (in the Antarctic). Carcharoth 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody brave enough to start the article Military activity in the Antarctic in fiction ;-) --Nick Dowling 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at what I've written. Comments and heated disagreement is welcome. Buckshot06 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources. --Ineffable3000 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cited the book and the links I drew on. --Nick Dowling 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Military activity in the Arctic

Following on from the above, I wonder if we have Military history of the Arctic, or Military activity in the Arctic, or Military of the Arctic? The closest thing I can find is Arctic warfare. Is there really no article on the history of warfare in the Arctic. One of Alistair MacLean's most famous books was based on the Arctic convoys of World War II, namely HMS Ulysses. Also, nuclear submarines cruising in Arctic waters is another example of military activity in the Arctic Ocean. Further back in history, we have the British Arctic Expedition. I challenge the inestimable editors of this WikiProject to rustle up a history of Arctic warfare! :-) Carcharoth 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea for an article. The recent very odd dispute between Canada and Denmark over an island between Greenland and Canada could also be included, along with the related expansion in Canadian military activity in the arctic. --Nick Dowling 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No it can't. It's a diplomatic, not a military confrontation.

The Arctic convoys didn't go over the Arctic ice shelf, but rather through the northern parts of the Atlantic, so this topic is covered in the convoy articles. The difference to the other convoys was that they met German surface ships and had a military escort that occasionally was ordered to run away. What can be discussed is Svalbard, the submarines in Greenland and the bases in Alaska or Iceland. We will have more to say about the Arctic in the Cold War. A possibility for inclusion would be reported raids of the Inuits and other Arctic people and the Russian conquest of the Aleutian Islands.Wandalstouring 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining the Arctic as the region within the Arctic Circle is helpful in some respects for a "history of the region", but Arctic warfare, dealing with warfare outside mountains, but in cold temperatures, doesn't restrict itself to that definition. It includes Siberian and winter warfare (such as Winter War and Operation Barbarossa), and warfare in a region disputed between Pakistan and India (Siachen conflict). I think that last example goes too far myself, but I think that the training that Scandinavian, Canadian, US and Russian military recieve in cold weather warfare should be covered in the Arctic warfare article. The countries surrounding the Arctic should probably also be included in a history of military activity in the Arctic.

Looking at the question of why the Arctic convoys were so-called, they didn't go as far north as the permanent Arctic sea ice, but they did go into the Arctic Circle. Battle of the Barents Sea took place in the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean. If you look at the map in the Barents Sea article (the map should be added to the Arctic convoys article), you will see the convoys went from first Iceland, then Scotland, round the northern tip of Norway, to reach Murmansk. See Image:Barents Sea map.png and Image:World map with arctic circle.jpg (that last one is rubbish, but just good enough to see that the convoys did go inside the Arctic Circle). Carcharoth 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the U.S. (perhaps other NATO countries have done so as well) and Russian submarine missions beneath the Arctic ice cap. Cla68 08:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The title isn't Arctic warfare but military activity in the Arctic, yes you can include the convoys and the Battle of Narvik and the Winter War if you draw the line along the arctic circle. iceland is south of it, but could be considered a possible candidate for inclusion. Wandalstouring 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of interesting material in James Bamfords book about the history of the NSA and the development of Sigint collection during the cold war.ALR 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Body of Secrets? That, according to the article, covers use of the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system to recover military personnel from drift stations in the Arctic. It was known as Operation Coldfeet, and some info is at Fulton surface-to-air recovery system#Operation Coldfeet. Carcharoth 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it talks about a lot more than that, it puts the drift stations in context.ALR 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then expand the article! :-) Carcharoth 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually got the book at the moment, read it a year or so ago. And whilst my interests do include Int Ops, I'm wary of adding material on some topics for external reasons. SigInt ops in general is one I'm very careful of.ALR 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not even the history stuff? Is old stuff about the drift stations not declassified yet? Carcharoth 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it is available in books, but I don't know if it's been declassified or not. I suppose talking to the National Archive might be interesting, but it's still a topic I'm cautious of discussing.ALR 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bornholm (1676)

There have recently been controversial edits to the article of Battle of Bornholm (1676). Can someone please take a look at it? I am concerned about the commander article changes. --Ineffable3000 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The most constructive course of action might be to ask the anonymous editor who made the edits for the source of their information. Carom 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think his IP is static. --Ineffable3000 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case. You could, however, raise the question on the article talk page. It may not lead to a constructive conversation, but it would seem like a reasonable course of action to me. Carom 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ineffable3000 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with "drive-by" edits from anonyomous editors is that they don't often understand the Wikipedia culture way of doing things (discussion pages, talk pages, etc.). If he/she doesn't respond to a request for discussion on the IP's talk page, revert away. If he/she is serious about the edit, they'll investigate and learn the system. Cla68 08:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Military exploration

The above stuff about Antarctica and the Arctic got me thinking about the role of the military in the exploration of these, and other remote areas of the globe. From my knowledge of the history of exploration, and the Arctic in particular, there is a long history of military expeditions, or military personnel, engaging in exploration. Captain Cook's expeditions were undertaken as part of the British Navy's history of exploration. I can also recall several military expeditions to places like Mount Everest, and there was that military expedition that got lost in a deep valley in (I think) Borneo. Is there any chance of a Wikipedia article, or overview, of the role of the military in the history of exploration? And what would be a suitable name? Carcharoth 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Cook's expeditions were sponsored by the Royal Society. Though the British Admiralty also seems to have been involved. But sadly, there doesn't seem to be a full history of exploration article. Exploration is not good enough, and Age of Discovery is the closest thing to what I was looking for. What I really want though is a history of exploration in the four centuries after that period is said to have ended (early 17th century). Am I missing an article somewhere? Carcharoth 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Exploration might be the closest thing to an overview of exploration articles on Wikipedia. Some military history hooks in there, such as United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, and British Arctic Expedition. Carcharoth 01:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most obvious military-related thing in there is Category:Conquistadores; the early Spanish and Portuguese exploratory efforts tended to be much more warlike than the later British ones. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe a starting point would be to categorise some of those articles into military history categories? Conquistador, Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, List of conquistadors, and many of the most famous conquerors in Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores should be accessible from the military history categories, but don't appear to be at the moment. What would be a suitable military history category to put these sort of article in? Carcharoth 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Category:Warfare by era. Not quite sure where the Spanish conquest of the Americas fits in there. The categories don't seem to join up between ancient and modern. Some gaps in the category system. Also, Category:Military history of Latin America says it covers "recent history" - which seems strange. Are the categories divided in that way or not? Carcharoth 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the Spanish conquistadors would fit quite neatly under Category:Warfare of the Early Modern era. (The Portuguese ones, having started earlier, have a slightly messier split.) I'd be tempted to have some sort of Category:European conquest of the Americas as a starting place for this set of topics. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, yes. That could include the colonisation of North America as well. What about European conquest of other places, such as Africa and the Indian subcontinent and the Malay Archipelago (the Dutch empire) and stuff like that. Is that well-covered? I guess a lot of that comes under Category:Empires and Category:Colonialism. Carcharoth 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to disambiguate here. Was it an expedition with military objectives or was it an expeditions where some chaps in uniforms were taking part(Gagarin, Armstrong). If we include the later into military history expeditions we can make a very short list of non-military expeditions until the 20th century. Furthermore every time a space shuttle or Soyuz spacecraft lifts there is likely to be someone with a military background on board.Wandalstouring 08:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Disambiguation between military objectives and military personnel taking part in non-military expeditions is needed. Robert Peary was a navy officer when he reached the North Pole, and was promoted to Rear Admiral following that achievement. I'd be interested to learn how much the military funded and supported his efforts. His team was taken to the Arctic on a US Navy ship. Several strands of exploration history can probably be discerned here - first you have adventurers exploring to find new lands, often to claim them or discover wealth, or simply to explore the unknown. Then there are organised military expeditions to survey new lands. Then, with the rise of science organisations like the Royal Society and the USGS, you have those organisations commissioning or organising expeditions. I would be very interested in picking out military and non-military contributions to all this, plus of course the more straightforward expeditions of conquest to far-flung lands. Carcharoth 12:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR

How do you cite JSTOR sources? --Ineffable3000 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a text on a website with a specific title. You give the best link to the website or the text and the title of the article + when you retrieved it. Just like pubmed, etc. Wandalstouring 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Best to cite them as though they were a printed journal article, and then add (accessed via JSTOR) or something similar at the end. They're not a website per se - citing the electronic source is conceptually a bit like citing a print article via the library I found it in... Shimgray | talk | 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

US Flag

The US Flag changes a lot but many US-related battle articles use the 2007 US flag. Should we fix it? --Ineffable3000 09:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Wandalstouring 09:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not a big deal. Hossen27 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why flag icons are discouraged: the flags tend not to be the correct ones for the period in question. (Which isn't that big of a deal with US flags, but tends to be rather more noticeable in cases where the flags have undergone total redesigns.) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the flag icons - at least in the "Operators" section of aircraft articles - and I've had to be careful of that from time to time. I've 'borrowed' the code from Template:World War II quite a bit. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry? for ongoing discussions on the subject. Wandalstouring 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)