Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring

Initial question

• Comment/Question - Upon reviewing the category structure for Category:World War II, it was startling to encounter a completely unrecognizable array of categories. I see that over the last few days it has undergone a radical, single-handed restructuring by User:mrg3105. I would like to inquire as to whether this was done in consultation with other editors, as there's no sign of that on the category's talk page.

I'm not suggesting that the previous arrangement of sub-categories could not be improved upon. But whatever the possible merits, I feel that it is not appropriate for any single editor to make such sweeping changes to such a major, heavily-used category entirely on his own accord. Unlike articles, there is no way to compare the new category structure with the former structure, and it is virtually impossible to recreate the former structure if that is desired in whole or in part.

I would be interested to know what other editors think about all of this. Cgingold (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm new to all of this still, and I've had run-ins with mrg before on matters, but such a radical restructuring does concern me. I thought anything that large had to be done with community consensus, and not just by one person whatever their opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Its so radical that battles and operations are buried deep in the new structure. If pressed I'd advocate a reverting to an earlier point and start the discussion of structure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

See WT:MILHIST#Category:World War II politics above. This is a radical change that needed consensus. I will see what can be done to revert it. Woody (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that deep Graeme :)

Militaries of the Second World War

Strategies and doctrines of World War II

Military battles and operations of World War II

Previously they were one layer higher, but one was challenged to find them in the mess of other sub-categories.

Then need for the extra layers is dictated by the lack of differentiation between different disciplinary approaches to history of the Second World War that were completely out of synchronisation with other Wikipedia projects that cover Politics (and international relations), and Economics, as well as Sociology.

Strategies and doctrines seeks to bring together things like Blitzkrieg and the campaigns it was used in, blitzkrieg being a doctrine.

Please also note that I had previously participated in the recategorisation discussions, and this was to a degree implemented elsewhere in the project by Kirill--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Something as radical as this needs a damn good explanation and discussion. Have you got a link for these? Woody (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the damn good explanation is that most of those categories were created to remove spuriously added articles to the root category:World War II. When I consulted the categorisation guidelines they were very clear. In any case the recategorisation was discussed last year extensively with Kirills input and others, and the basic standard was already implemented elsewhere. All I am doing is following the guidelines and creating more specific categories for what is currently a jumble. Please do not over-react and revert. That can always be done if there is not a consensus, but you will find that this has been thought through and does have consensus based on other projects and interwiki use, as well as categorisation conventions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying there was a discussion: show me it. I have found Renaming top-level "operations" categories and Top-level "operations" categories, Mk. II. They were inconclusive at best. Any reverts I make, will not be blind, I can assure you of that. Woody (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and here are (Kirill's category contributions) Woody (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The basic form was agreed on in those discussions. My other categories simply conform to what was already there in the naming format. For example where I needed to categorise a German infantry division, I created a category German infantry divisions, which is really needed in the editing and authoring I'm doing. The vast majority of the categories are self explanatory and closely match the articles to which they were applied. If I moved some categories it is because of the desire to comply with categorisation guidelines. I would suggest that you consult these and maybe ask someone from the categorisation project to assess what I did because I had spent weeks on figuring out what to do and how to do it, and I did take the two responses received to the previous suggestion into consideration--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Those discussion agreed nothing, that is why there are many red-links in it. It cannot be used as an example of consensus. Frankly the system is not self-explanatory; I couldn't even find the Battle articles in your system. So, if you took many weeks on your own, how is this not a unilateral decision to turn the category to your own liking? Woody (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't see any practical consensus (beyond general agreement that the current system is inadequate) in those discussions. And the current setup does certainly have problems—I don't think anyone is denying that—but the changes we make on this scale really do need to be planned out in advance, or we wind up with contradictory categorization schemes (as well as poor naming; "military battles" as opposed to, what, non-military ones?). Kirill ^(prof) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The redlinks are there because the articles and the categories were never created due to lack of need at this time. I am surprised that you were unable to locate battles, however, I had not nearly finished the process.

to find battles you to to

• Category:Strategies and doctrines of World War II
  • Military operations of World War II
  • Military battles of World War II - They are listed at the bottom of the list separately, but are in fact a singe category per my source from Trevor N. Dupuys book
    • Military operations of World War II
      • Battles and operations of World War II

I would be asking for the Military operations of World War II (which I did not create) to be deleted as unnecessary

The categories are not to my liking. I read the articles. If you look at the timing of category creations, you will see that it took me some time to research and create appropriate categories in some cases I can email you the master I'm working from to look at because its toll large to post on talk. Just reply to my empty email and I will forward an attachment in reply--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, extensive restructuring like this deserved extensive discussion. Boldness is one thing, but this is inappropriate unilateralism that should be reverted if there is consensus. SoLando (Talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On a procedural note, we seem to have parallel versions of this discussion going on here and at WT:WWII, so it may be a good idea to merge them into one place. Kirill ^(prof) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SoLando amongst others. WP:BOLD is one thing, but singlehandedly altering categories in such a way goes too far, mrg. I don't deny the categories are badly ordered, but you can't just go off on your own, no matter who you seemingly want to cite. Heck, even starting a conversation here before starting asking for help or approval would have been something. Might I suggest you stop doing anything until more discussion can be had? Skinny87 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are battles and operations under "strategies and doctrine" - there all compeltly different things. Just to answer a slightly sarcastic remark early on about military battles as opposed to what. Well there was a 3 day long punch up in some town between Aussie and American troops on R+R, thats ended up being called the Battle of such and such (cant remember the exact name).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Off top of my head, would it not be simpler with:

• Category:World War II
  • Doctrine
  • Stragegy
  • Operations
  • Battles

well something to that effect?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we do, we should bear in mind "...Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." from Wikipedia:Categorization. But does the average reader understand what doctrine means and what articles they might find under it? Its about the readers not the editors. And also in passing on bold changes here under the Be bold sectionGraemeLeggett (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved from the below section

• I have sent to Woody the master table for the categories I developed based on prior discussions, the standards given in the Project guidelines and general categorisation guidelines in Wikipedia.

The reason I created Strategies and doctrines is intentionally to make it too ambiguous for users not to use it but to seek out the sub-categories that are more appropriate to their article. Not every category is meant to have articles in it. There are several approaches one can take to categorisation, and some understanding of this concept may help. another concept is to plan out the entire possible scope of project coverage and see how the articles fit into the categories as well as subject areas --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you not understanding the concept of Wikipedia's categories: to categorise similar articles for our readers. If the categories are empty, how are they of any use, and how is creating them as ambiguous meant to entice the reader, it will just make them more annoyed that they can't find what they want. Anyway, I divulge, the thread below about how to fix it, not to continue arguing. Woody (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring Category:World War II part 2

I think it is time to move on from the blame game, some changes have been enacted, they are not liked, now we have to develop a consensus as to what we do want.

Current format

• Category:World War II
  • Category:Chronology of World War II
    • Individual articles: Timelines etc
  • Category:Economics of the Second World War
    • Category:Economic history of World War II
    • Category:Economies of World War II
    • Category:International trade during World War II
    • Category:Public administration during World War II
  • Category:Lists of World War II topics
    • Contains individual list articles, no subcategories.
  • Category:Militaries of the Second World War
    • Category:Awards and decorations of World War II
    • Category:Concurrent wars to World War II
    • Category:Intelligence services of World War II
    • Category:Military lists of World War II
    • Category:Military organisations in World War II
    • Category:Strategies and doctrines of World War II
      • Category:Campaigns and theatres of World War II
      • Category:Civil wars fought during World War II
      • Category:Military actions of World War II
      • Category:Military campaigns of World War II
      • Category:Military campaigns of World War II orders of battle
      • Category:Military operations of World War II
    • Category: WW2 photograph
    • Category:World War II military equipment
    • Category:World War II national military histories
    • Category:World War II sites
  • Category:Political science of the Second World War
    • Category:Diplomacy during World War II
    • Category:Diplomatic archives of World War II
    • Category:Political archives of World War II
    • Category:States in World War II
    • Category:Sweden during World War II
    • Category:World War II politics
  • Category:Sociology of the Second World War
    • Category:Aftermath of World War II
    • Category:Cultural history of World War II
    • Category:Events cancelled due to World War II
    • Category:Historiography of World War II
    • Category:Home front during World War II
    • Category:Human factors in World War II
    • Category:People of World War II
    • Category:The Holocaust
    • Category:World War II casualties
    • Category:World War II crimes
    • Category:World War II media
    • Category:World War II non-government organizations

First off, I would suggest renaming the strategies and doctrines to something much more accessible and approachable to readers. It currently obscures that it contains perhaps one of the most important sub-categories: the campaigns and battles. I suggest that the strategies and doctrines becomes a level two category so it is placed straight into the main Category:World War II. Beyond that, what else needs amending and where should this discussion take place? Woody (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As said before, i suggest renaming the strategy and doctrine section - as that title does not cover anything which is under it. If i was looking for a list of WW2 Operations/battles/theaters etc i would not have looked under that heading.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest in its place? Woody (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of one at the moment, but if i was scanning the categories list and i came across that - i would be expecting articles on Bliztrkrig, Colossal Cracks, inflitration techniques, amphibious landings or articles discussing the grand strategy - British wanting to take the Danube and Austria, broad front or narrow front debate for Western Europe etc etc Thats what that title states - i would be surprised to find articles on battles, operations etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I too have been watching this unilateral reorganisation take place, and I'm glad now that somebody's taken action to halt it - I was wondering about it myself, but dreading the vituperative personal attacks from Mrg that I thought would have resulted. I support renaming the strategy and doctrine section, or maybe bringing campaigns and battles to be immediately subordinate to the root category. Buckshot06(prof) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved all the comments that weren't discussing how to fix this to the above section. This section is about the content and how to fix it, not for the blame game. Woody (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be simplified to make it accessible to the readers. At the moment it isn't and their are far too many obscure sub-categories. I suggest merging many of this up into the large subcategories. Woody (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the most important section first, the campaigns and battles area currently under 'Strategies and Doctrines', I suggest we create a main category covering all military operations, campaigns, actions, etc - not sure what we'd call it - 'Military campaigns and actions'? - and put all the six subcategories under that, and make it immediately subordinate to the root WW 2 category. Secondly, there are now a large number of empty categories in the tree. I would agree they should be merged/deleted into the higher categories, and the higher categories be named so as to be representative of the subcategories they contain. My initial two cents. Buckshot06(prof) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is contradictory to Wikipedia categorisation guidelines

• Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies
• Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring part 3: Strategies and doctrines of World War II

Ok, ive sobered up and can make a suggestion now :)

In place of "Strategies and doctrines of World War II"

• Category:Military engagements of World War II
  • Category:Theatres of World War II
  • Category:Military campaigns of World War II
  • Category:Military campaigns of World War II orders of battle
  • Category:Military operations of World War II
  • Category:Military operations of World War II orders of battle
  • Category:Military battles of World War II
  • Category:Military battles of World War II orders of battle
  • Category:Military actions of World War II
  • Category:Civil wars fought during World War II

There we would have all articles covering the fighting during the war under one category title clearly named instead of an ambiguous one. Just to note, the world "military" would be in top section, as there may be articles relating to WWII non military battles and operations - i..e that fist fight i mentioned, which am sure has an article etc etc. I would then also suggest:

• Category:Strategies and doctrines of World War II
  • Category:Strategies used within World War II
  • Category:World War II Doctrine

Something to that effect, as said above, this would then hold articles relating to the actual title name - stuff of Blitzkrieg for example, the arguments of Ike strategies, if such articles exists etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason that I created an ambiguous category to encompass all things to do with operations of military forces and their doctrines. Primarily it is to prevent bunching of a large number of dissimilar articles in same category, and because many articles are written without sourced reference to how they are defined in military history because the writers do not have an understanding of basic underlying concepts. Below is my reposting of a message to Kirill on the subject of category Military operations, which is as Kirill points out was originally intended to convey the concept of armed forces "doing by war", otherwise known as combat. Although it refers to the Second World War, it applies equally to all military periods so I post it here rather then the World War II task force talk.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Begin of copy--------------->

Hi Kirill. You created this category back in 2006, and I would like to suggest it for deletion. Here are my reasons.

The category is ambiguous. Many authors who used it to categorise their articles, used it for any and all operations, including air, naval and land, and including events that are only named operations because of their codeword, e.g. Operation X.

The purpose of the categorisation is to enable the reader to find similar articles in Wikipedia. The question is therefore what would make "operations" similar. As it happens I was not the first to think of this question. There is a book by an eminent, recently passed away, military historian and theoretician Trevor N. Dupuy, Understanding War [1] to answer this question. As you may remember we discussed before that combat occurs in difference scales. Dupuy, through historical case analysis came up with a categorisation found on pages 64-71 of the book. Essentially he defined five scales of combat:

• war - a conflict fought between two factions, states, nations or coalitions
• campaign - a phase of a war involving a series of operations related in time and space and having a common strategic objective that may include only one battle, but usually several; is fought in a single theatre of operations, and lasts from a few weeks to a year.
• battle - is a combat between major forces, usually as part of a campaign; lasting from a few days to several weeks, and are made up of several engagements. Naval battles tend to be short, an decisive
• action - is a combat between forces neither larger then a battalion nor smaller then a squad, each side having a tactical objective. As part of the engagements actions can last from a few minutes to hours, but never longer then a day
• duel - a combat between individuals, individual fighting aircraft or vehicles, and naval vessels, and usually last minutes

As you can see this also creates the additional commonality between articles in terms of common thread of goals, objectives and missions to define the articles as related to tactics, operations or strategy, a previously thorny issue due to lack of use in the English language of "operational" as a level of combat within a doctrine

This produces the relationships

• war - national goal (national forces - strategic)
• campaign - strategic objective (Army Groups or Field Armies - strategic/operational)
• battle - operational mission (Field Armies or Army Corps - operational/tactical)
• engagement - tactical mission (Divisions - companies - tactical)
• action - local objective (battalions - squads - tactical)
• duel - local objective (individuals or individual crews - tactical)

The above relationships would encourage use of Category:Battles and operations of World War II, with the proviso that the articles only named "operation" to facilitate a code name, but not the scale of combat are categorised elsewhere. The further development of this category name can be

• Category:Land battles and operations of World War II
• Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II
• Category:Air battles and operations of World War II
• Category:Combined arms battles and operations of World War II

and

• Category:Japanese land battles and operations of World War II
• Category:Soviet air battles and operations of World War II
• Category:United States naval battles and operations of World War II

with Category:British battles and operations of World War II assumed to be Combined arms to reduce the length of the category name.

End of copy-------------->

In addition doctrines are generally related to the Principles of War. For example the much-cited Blitzkrieg is really just a principle of mobility--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can type all that out and go into all the detail you want but your first sentance makes not sence: "There is a reason that I created an ambiguous category to encompass all things to do with operations of military forces and their doctrines."

What is the point of titling it something some will not bother looking in, because they havent read the book you have which places actual fighting for some reason under strategy - long term aims and doctrine - to put simply: how you do the fighting etc

As i have already said, if i was looking for a list of articles on battles/operations etc - i would not look under a catergory i would recognise as having sod all to do with it.

I also find your relationships a little off.

What is wrong with keeping it simple with a strightforward name?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and this seems to be the fundamental issue here. Mrg, you seem to want to create categories and categorise so that it is easy for you to maintain and with names you read in a book. The system however, should primarily be designed to help our readers discover similar articles in a simple and easy manner. We are not a military archive, we are trying to produce these for readers. "Primarily it is to prevent bunching of a large number of dissimilar articles in same category, and because many articles are written without sourced reference to how they are defined in military history because the writers do not have an understanding of basic underlying concepts." That is the problem with the articles, we should sort them, before we try and build a category system around them. So, in summary, it needs a drastic rethink on your part Mrg3105, to build this system from a reader-oriented approach. Woody (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly to answer EnigmaMcmxc

The reason for ambiguity in the Strategies and doctrine is because there are not a lot of articles that can be written that combine elements of both, but both guide major subject areas in the field of Military History and Military Science. Mostly it concerns such articles as Principles of War which are core concepts in developing bot the strategy, operational thinking and tactics. You do not want to crowd the category with articles that deal specifically with tactics, or specific operations, or specific doctrines like AirLand Battle, etc. I am all for the simple approach, but the reality of it is that the Project area is a complex one.

To answer Woody

Well, I am glad we agree on something because I begun looking at the issue of categorisation because of sorting them. However, are you sure we are not a military archive? Contributors are free to contribute to Wikipedia on any and all notable subject, and this will in the dim future include tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of articles.

On the subject of sorting them, that is what I have been doing. In some cases this has proven difficult because the authors have not been explicit in stating what their article is about, or upon reading, me realising that most of the article in fact does not deal with the article title.

And here the other difference if our points of view. I see informing and getting authors to conform to guidelines more important then having these optimised for the reader because the author of the article is the active participant in Wikipedia and the reader a passive one. If the author gets it wrong, the reader can do nothing about it, so the objective for us is to make sure the authors do not get it wrong, and so there is no need to duplicate their categorisation at a later time with recategorisation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to ignore all rule when I have to. I stick to policy, but guidelines are named as such for a reason. If the "author" does not make it explicit, then be bold and fix it. There are no authors here, we are all editors, no-one owns an article. If you don't think it makes sense, fix it. I think you have sorted it far too finely and you have created a category system that is far too deep. You have designed this as if it complies with a normal military archiving system, something the IWM would use, but we are not. We need to design them so that they are actually of use to the reader, not to make it obscure and ambiguous. Woody (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect I need to correct you on several points.

Firstly anyone who authors an article is an author. Secondly, at the point of creation, he or she do own it because if they fail to add project tags, and leave it uncategorised, there is no way in hell of finding it at all unless someone goes and looks through the uncategorised articles database as I did today. It is enough to fix articles by editing that we should have to go hunting for them in what is a sort of dump.

Being familiar with both military archives and military libraries, as well as commercial document management systems I have made every effort not to use any. I have in fact almost exclusively based my model on articles already in Wikipedia. The introductions to every category I created are somewhat edited introduction paragraphs taken from Wikipedia articles. I am trying to keep the categories to 4-5 strata were possible. However deeper strata of categories already exists within the project categorisation, and may I say in several cases needlessly, with no sign of that having ever been discussed. The higher level strata categories are necessarily obscure and ambiguous by definition. If the readers type in "World War II", they will be obtaining any and all results, so a taxonomy is required, and this is explicit in the categorisation guidelines. Sure they are guidelines, but they make good sense. How deep they go usually relates to the number of words in the title. Have a look at some of the existing titles not created by me, and you will see that what I have done is far from "radical" as was initially stated. In any case, tomorrow I will proceed further with your suggestion in setting up the categorisation project-space which will hopefully resolve many issues you and others raised.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Am sorry but your not making sence, you say "The reason for ambiguity in the Strategies and doctrine is because there are not a lot of articles that can be written that combine elements of both", then why make it such a category?

The category was needed to combine categories that are "strategies" and "doctrines". Each of these is not a single sub-category, but several, and all the "strategy" categories come in a triplicate which I will illustrate in the new categorisation project-space I am setting up on Woody's advice--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mostly it concerns such articles as Principles of War which are core concepts in developing bot[h] the strategy, operational thinking and tactics.", if thats what you suggest being in there why do you then go on to say " You do not want to crowd the category with articles that deal specifically with tactics, or specific operations, or specific doctrines like AirLand Battle, etc.", so again why call the category Strategies and doctrine if your suggesting such articles should not be in there? Also whats the point of them slapping under the title all articles to do with operations, battles etc

Obviously, "I am all for the simple approach, but the reality of it is that the Project area is a complex one.", is not the case.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategies is not only about strategy, but all levels of combat execution, their examples and their orders of battle. There are literally thousands of articles in the sub-categories. The core articles such as Principles of War would never be found by a reader if so categorised.

You do not agree that the subject of military history of the Second World War is a complex one? I can tell you that so far the project barely scratched the surface in terms of accurate and extensive coverage of the subject as a whole. There are many very basic articles that are missing, and many articles that are not offering the coverage they should, all largely due to lack of a systematic approach inherent in Wikipedia. However, as the articles accumulate, and complete their editing cycle, authors will seek out new subjects and these will demand new categories. It is far better to create an effective and efficient taxonomy now then continuously play catch up. It does not mean that all the categories need to be created immediately and sit there with no articles, but they can be posed on the parent (higher strata) category page to let new editors know what the category that needs to be created should they need one--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(od)Mrg, you're no doubt aware that this recategorisation you've done is controversial. Would you please mind not continuing to create new World War II categories until the discussions have reached a point of consensus? Regards. Buckshot06(prof) 04:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Any continuation of category creation is performed to comply with Wikipedia policy on categorisation. Any controversies in regards to specific new category can be discussed in its talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

However, as you've seen, you do not have WP:CON - consensus that this should go on. Please temporarily stop creating these controversial categories until the discussion is over. Buckshot06(prof) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:CATEGORIES is a guideline not policy and WP:CONSENSUS is policy not a guideline. Between the two is WP:DISRUPTION, a behavioural guideline which by consensus may be enforced by blocks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of "wikilawyering" again, the policy is to have all articles categorised. It is only a guideline how this is accomplished. Not exactly sure how it is that I am being disruptive by correctly categorising articles according to existing guidelines. Is there something controversial about any of the categories I had created other then the top six high order categories in the Category:World War II?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it is policy to categorise articles.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that articles need not be categorised at all?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Correctly categorising articles" is only according to your opinion, and as people disagree with this opinion, is it not common courtesy to hold off further changes until consensus is agreed? Woody (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to "Firstly anyone who authors an article is an author. Secondly, at the point of creation, he or she do own it because if they fail to add project tags, and leave it uncategorised, there is no way in hell of finding it at all unless someone goes and looks through the uncategorised articles database as I did today." All I can ask is that you please read the policy, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, particularly the Examples subsection. Woody (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other options are to not categorise them at all, or to categorise then incorrectly. So which is it?

Yes, I have read the policy. The problem is that there is also practicality. If the article is neither in a cateogry or assigned to a project, only knowing what to search for will ever locate the article...and the new article report in maintenance. So it is possible to kid of own an article by obscuring its existence in Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(od)Wood, I've finally done what you asked and had a close look at the category structure. Initially I'd recommended deleting the empty categories Economies of World War II and the empty technology transfer one below it, as well as the empty diplomatic and political archives categories, both of which are well covered by the general archival categories. I'll take another look and think about the structure of the rest of the cat tree later. Buckshot06(prof) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you call this consensus building?! They are empty because I have been told to stop moving the articles into them!!! Are you saying that there are other categories which cover economic aspects of World War II below this root category?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring part 3.1: Strategies and doctrines of World War II

"Strategies is not only about strategy, but all levels of combat execution, their examples and their orders of battle. There are literally thousands of articles in the sub-categories. The core articles such as Principles of War would never be found by a reader if so categorised. "

Pardon by ignorance but since when? Each layer of combat is labeled differenty from the strategic level down to the tactical level - this level is not strategy, there not using tactics to fight the battle etc.

Likewise, Doctrine, which call it the principles of war all you want is the basically the "by the book play".

I do not agree what so ever, that labeling a category - something which is regarding Strategy (again, the overall plan on has on how to win the war) and doctrine (the basic field play, the in house ideas on how to fight a battle) will help anyone find an article on a battle etc without having to dig around.

"You do not agree that the subject of military history of the Second World War is a complex one?" Of course its a complex subject, but what you are doing is making it more complex with such titles which any casual reader is not going to bother looking in because they do not have the same idea as you have at what certain things mean. Is it hard not to try and make it simpler for everyone else by labeling a category something they will think - hmm that category will have the battle articles in etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues

• How to break down information about the Second World War into diffused subject areas
• Will the reader find these diffused areas

(How to break down information)

The 2-strata category of Militaries includes all aspects of the use of armed force during the Second World War (1-strata) this is necessary to separate articles that are dealing predominantly with the politics and diplomacy, economics and effects on societies.

At the 3-strata we find the first real diffusion happening with diverse subject areas that make up the militaries. There are the individuals, the organisations, their mode of operations, their technology, their work (battles), etc., so I was faced with the issue of what to do about scope of employment (strategy - tactics) and mode of employment (doctrines). They are inseparable, but never the less different aspects of militaries. If you have a better suggestion, the category can always be changed, but I remind you of the number of article each subject area contains.

(Will the reader find these diffused areas)

I do not understand the concern for the reader. The categories are not assigned by readers, but by writers/editors with assistance from Project membership. They are there for the riders to click to see similar articles. It is the Project memberships' responsibility to ensure the article is appropriately categorised. This is what I'm doing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming of highest categories

Notr that I believe in trying to limit the number of higher level categories, there's room for several on a page, but their names should be clear; so shouldn't it be "Political history" not "political science" of WWII that diplomacy and states sit under? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Buckshot06(prof) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the Project Military History does not exist in a vacuum, but had to be consistent with the information it provides to the reader considering other Projects (subject areas) within Wikipedia. Politics, and political history have specific meaning. In short, politics refer to that part of political science which deals with the domestic, state selection of leadership by its population. In fact politics in this sense had a very insignificant part of the Second World War as such because most of the political processes were suspended in most participating countries in some way, and political leadership change only took place in the United States as a result of the untimely death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in Italy due to the belated death of Mussolini.

However, some political processes did take place, such as local council elections in UK (of importance tot he home front articles), or in the neutral states. Also, internal politics within the parties-in-government did take place and influence behaviour of belligerents, and these do need to be treated in the scope of the Project.

In the larger scope of Political Science, other issues played a very dominant role in the Second World War, such as the identity and nature of statehood, international relations (foreign affairs to Americans), the formulation of foreign policies and its execution through the process of diplomacy, the creation and dissolution of puppet regimes in occupied territories, and others which are not studied as part of politics as such. They influenced economic aid, military strategies, and in the end military operation by requiring Western Allied troops to halt at the Elbe.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing as someone with a degree in political science, political history is definetly the better term - political science is theoretical and somewhat forward looking, which obviously can't really apply to events of 60+ years ago. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At issue here is the definition of politics. Political history, when applied to categories is actually use when categorising articles that deal with the history of politics in specific polities. Given the entire area of politics, international relations, diplomacy, etc, are subject to study by political scientists, I did not see a problem. So far as I know there is no other way to name a top-strata all-encompassing category, but suggestions are welcome as long as they are unique names that are not needed for other category naming lower in the taxonomy. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward, not sideways

I have put up Option 1 on the main project page. All it does is rename the "Strategies and doctrines" cat to "Operations and campaigns." Are there any other suggestions on how to move forward. I know that one of the other major concerns is the high rate of diffusion amongst some sub-categories. Are there any other issues with the naming of some cats, if so list them please in as non-verbose form as possible. If you think there are sub-cats that need to be merged, please list them. Do not act unilaterally however, either to create new cats or to rename them. We need to develop the new structure in a spirit if community, not trench warfare. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of time today for being verbose. Much of the issue of categorisation has to do with defining terms. Operations and campaigns, as they are defined, are inadequate. The rate of category diffusion is only relative to the rate of article creation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First thought: Category:Military campaigns of World War II orders of battle is very similar to Category:World War II orders of battle; the military campaigns OBs cat could be a subcategory of the WW II OBs cat as well, or maybe be merged into it (I haven't done a line-by-line look at the articles). Buckshot06(prof) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will propose a structured way of thinking about categorisation for the Project,and the Second World War in particular elsewhere. However, to begin with, the English language is read left to right. This is how readers searching for the subject area and how they process information visually, and instinctively disambiguate what is presented to them on the screen. My idea is to present the information from left to right starting from most specific to their sought reference to the more general in the subject and Project areas. In this sense the category World War II orders of battle approaches English as if read right to left, listing the very general Subject common to many sub-categories first, and making visual disambiguation difficult. Military campaigns of World War II orders of battle on the other hand starts with the specific term military (as opposed to political campaigns, or economic campaigns, or social campaigns) and then goes on to use the term campaign to denote the scale at which the combat took place, and only later places it in the general area of the World War II. I placed "orders of battle" at the end because logically the OOB would only be sought by association with the campaign, so during a search the two will be presented together

Military campaigns of World War II

Military campaigns of World War II orders of battle

The upshot is that the category World War II orders of battle needs to be renamed to Orders of battle for World War II deleted as superfluous. In turn I would suggest the creation of Military thetre of World War II orders of battle, Military battles of World War II orders of battle, and Military engagements of World War II orders of battle.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think the category could be better named, maybe there's a case for that, but I don't really see the point of splitting it into four - just creates confusion for people who don't know whether a particular even is categorised as 'engagement,' 'battle,' or 'campaign.' Surely it would be much easier for everyone involved to have one category, and if there's a specific category for that region or theatre, the order of battle article could be placed in that category as well. Anything more just creates unnecessary confusion.

The other point I was going to make was that there are a number of categories which are empty. I believe those should be deleted; instead of trying to categorise non-existant articles we should create the categories after the articles are created, to order what is actually there. Regards. Buckshot06(prof) 05:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the possibility of creating confusion is why reference works exist. For this reason 'engagement', 'battle' and 'campaign' are clearly defined in Wikipedia. This is required because of the large number of articles they encompass, and because of the reason for existence of categories, that is, to enable the reader to see other like articles. It is pointless to have 2000 articles of all manner of combats in terms of scale in a single category because, for example if one wanted to compare all the campaigns of the British Army in the 19th century, the inclusion of the 16th century battles would not be at all helpful, and would signify a failure to categorise. One can have Military battles of World War II by era, but that is really one strata down in the taxonomy.

Which categories are empty? There are many miscategorised articles, and I had stopped the process of moving them because of the insistence for discussion. If you will note, almost all the categories I have created are for existing articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how that would help someone looking for, for example, the Kursk order of battle navigate through such a complicated category tree. Is it in 'campaign'? is it in 'battle', and frankly, what do you mean by 'engagement'? I'm not sure I know when there are the other two options available. If you want to subcategorise the orders of battle, surely a much more helpful division would be by theatre - logically linking everything together. Buckshot06(prof) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start they can search in Wikipedia for Kursk (city) and click on the link to the Battle of Kursk there. At the section called Operation Citadel the reader will find a link to the article Battle of Kursk order of battle.

Your question "Is it in 'campaign'? is it in 'battle', and frankly, what do you mean by 'engagement'?" cannot be answered because of the very problem I have discussed with your earlier and one you refused to acknowledge, namely, naming events with their actual names and not "common English" names. There was of course no campaign, battle or engagement called "Battle of Kursk", so the best that can be done is to call it an summary article to the series of German and Soviet operations (battles) that I had listed in the article. While the more accessible source in English like Dupuy only uses the words "battle" and "operation" to describe certain sized scales of combat, as you know German and Soviet sources use three subdivisions of this scale, the strategic operation, the strategic-operational operation, and the operational operation. I have never tried to use this in Wikipedia because aside from it sounding strange in English, it is a far too specialised usage for a general reference work. However, I would create a separate category under Battles and operations called Strategic operations of World War II because there is just no way to describe some very complex/composite land, naval and air operations (not just on Eastern Front), or compare them. From this perspective having Battle of Kursk around is very handy because it allows the combining of all the strategic-operational and operational operations under one "umbrella" name that in reality did not exist, but exists as a common English name (borrowed from Russian). This applies to many other such complex operations such as the Battle of Atlantic and the Battle of Britain to name two

As for the rest, you can see their definitions here, here and here when I get a chance to write it (although it is mentioned in the previous article). I can only suggest that expereinced editors can go into articles, and upon reading hem assess them for their scale and insert the right word into the introduction such as "The Battle of XYZ was an engagement during the battle of Southern Boon docks campaign, both being misnomers in their time to increase the significance of the Zuarian victory over Miskalians during the propaganda campaign conducted by President Forrest Gump in the effort to enhance his public appeal before the elections of 1968"

Funnily I do agree with you that "surely a much more helpful division would be by theatre - logically linking everything together". However, when I put a list of theatres up in the article dealing with the subject which was based on research of all theatres used in all (modern) wars by all nations, it was removed as original research and I did not have time to reference each of some 30 entries. The fact is that for the purpose of categories this list will have to be used, and when used I will provide references in the category description as I customarily do in the cases where no Wikipedia article exists. This is because some editors have very narrow views of military history. For example they do not realise there is a South West South American theatre because the Chilean strategic posture is not well covered in English. South Africa (state) in the 70s included for strategic purposes operations In the West African and East African theatres. The Indian perspective of strategic theatres is also different to that of the USA or the USSR. So, inevitably to categorise many operations outside of Europe, some OR will have to be done for the purpose of categorisation because the alternative would be to include a category for the World as seen from the strategic point of view of every member state of the United Nations, which is unworkable.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my difficulty with the structure you're proposing: I consider myself to know a little about the events we're discussing, and even I am having trouble following the arcane differentiations you are wanting to put in place. We have to write articles - and categorise them - for the general reader; anyone who is aware that Soviet military historians dispute the naming of a 'Battle of Kursk' will not, probably, need wikipedia in the first place. How can we possibly consider subdividing things according to military engagements when I, with a Master's degree reasonably affiliated with the subject, can't tell you the exact difference between an 'engagement' and a 'battle'? The category structure you're proposing is suited far better for an encyclopedia catering to people with PhDs in military history than those who come surfing in off the net.

Theatre? Your list of 30 plus categories was again, far too detailed for the need of that article, or this instance. How about we try four categories: Western Europe, Eastern Front, Mediterranean/Middle East, and Pacific. Should be navigable by most, without getting into disagreements about whether Chile was in an active theatre of war or not. What do you think? Buckshot06(prof) 09:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on what you know or don't know, but Dupuy was not a lunatic. He did extensive historical analysis, and his works are accepted as authoritative. They are confirmed by Simpkin, Erikson, Glantz, Dunnigan, etc. Quite simply you have to define the terms being used in articles. How can you make comparative studies of combats if you are comparing apples with oranges? Scales of combat require very different approaches, and besides this, from referencing point of view, there are vastly different numbers of tactical engagements then there are battles. How do you know that Wikipedia is not used, or will not be used by people with PhDs? The goal of Wikipedia is not to pick and choose its user audience but to provide an encyclopaedic reference work. I think its the wrong path to take in trying to guess who uses Wikipedia.

On the subject of naming of the Battle of Kursk, the name was derived from Soviet sources during the Second World War because they were printed in the papers with the bulge around Kursk. So far as I know the real names of the operations were unknown in the west until the late 60s. So far as I know no one disputes the names of the Soviet operations. Battle of Kursk is just used because it is well known, and so logical to use for marketing purposes. For reference purposes every unique bit of data gets an article. Its just inevitable in a work of reference. Look at any printed encyclopaedia. No one asked me when I bought my Britannica in the early 80s if I was going to use it when I go to uni, or just to display in the book case. As it happens I did both although at the time I had no idea I was going to uni. Seems to me as editors we should make no assumptions about the readers or the future and just deal with the facts.

The problem is not really about what I think in terms of theatres. Theatres, for the purpose of categorisation, have to be consistent across all eras and for all participants. Trouble is that this is a late 19th century word. The other problem is that even within same armed forces different Branches saw the war differently. You probably know more of the UK, so you will know that the South Pacific out to South America was the New Zealand Command for RN. There were no Army or RAF commands for NZ. Americans divided the Atlantic into three theatres quite unlike the British. I mentioned Chile explicitly because it took no part in the Second World War. However, it had wars with its neighbours at other times, and at some stage these will have to be categorised somewhere. Which theatre will they go to? The names need to be consistent because we are dealing with a taxonomy, and can't make it up as we go along. Its called knowledge base mapping[2].

• Comment by Mrg3105 ends

• Comment by EnigmaMcmxc begins*

"Seems to me as editors we should make no assumptions about the readers or the future and just deal with the facts. "

Seems to me some are makign gaint ass assumptions that the readersw, whatever there intellectual background maybe, have all read some guys book and should know what each ambiguously named category should mean.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, EnigmaMcmxc, the point of contributing to Wikipedia is because other readers have not and do not want to read many of the "some guys" books, and just want to know the answer to their question, so use a reference work. In a reference work the definition of terms is very important (raison d'etre for its existence), and more so because one is dealing with a taxonomy of the sum of human knowledge. I tried to point out; the reader does not need to know how the category is defined (they just click), but he author/editor does, on the assumption that the author/editor knows what they are authoring or editing about. This is an important assumption since anyone can author and edit anything in Wikipedia, and one that those responsible for categorisation need to make because there is no means of controlling who adds what to Wikipedia. This is as important as the MilHist Project, which is why there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. The fact is that many authors do not know what area of human knowledge their articles belong in as you can see for yourself in Category:Uncategorized pages --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm opposed to categorising by anything so potentially contentious as the scale of an engagement. The distinctions in the continuum from raids, actions, battles, offensives, campaigns and theatres are essentially semantic and editors have to be working from a clearly defined, universally agreed and rigidly enforced scale to categorise thus. This is not as the navy say worth the powder and shot. Slicing geographically requires a much lower threshold of knowledge and is less open to dispute. For example, it is easy to determine whether Normandy invasion was on the Western Front or in the Pacific. Moreover, I don't see why it's helpful to lump things together by type of engagement. Wars simply aren't fought like that: they're generally about geographically defined objectives. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of categories is to allow the reader to look at other articles that deal with similar subjects. It is far simpler to define something by the scale of combat then theatre, these being very large areas. The idea of raids, actions, battles, offensives, campaigns and theatres is not semantic. Raids of course are a type of operation and can encompass a large range of participating forces, but the rest are well accepted in military history, at least since the 80s. All more recently published works even in the west now freely use concepts such as operational warfare. However, the basic premise of categorising along these lines us used based on the simple idea of dimensions. "Slicing geographically" as you put it is far more arbitrary, and as I pointed out elsewhere, is done differently not only by different countries, but by different branches of forces in the same country. Wars are never fought over geographically defined objectives; I think you meant "battles". This is what I mean about using clearly defined terms in a work of reference. However, even campaigns, operations/battles and engagements are fought not over geographically defined objectives, but topographically defined objectives. Geography does come in at the larger theatre scale, but yet again, you are simply referring to a different level of forces command. The result of retaining just theatres will be potentially in having hundreds of very diverse articles in same categories, not that helpful.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not persuaded by that so we're just going to have to agree to disagree and see where consensus takes us :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But Roger, what exactly is your proposal? Is it

Category:World War II

Category:A theatre in World War II

Category:B theatre in World War II

Category:C theatre in World War II

Category:D theatre in World War II

Category:E theatre in World War II

Category:F theatre in World War II

Category:G theatre in World War II

Category:H theatre in World War II

Category:I theatre in World War II

Category:J theatre in World War II

Category:K theatre in World War II

Category:L theatre in World War II

Category:M theatre in World War II

Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Militaries of the Second World War

I believe this is a badly thought out category as well. Why is an intelligence category which contains civilian agencies sitting under in a 'Militaries' category? And what is the category for World War II photos doing there? Surely, given that name and that it could contain photos covering every aspect of the war, it should be under the root category? Buckshot06(prof) 03:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean exactly. I had not as of this time sorted out the military intelligence services from those which performed non-military espionage missions, or economic espionage for that matter. Remember, I was told to stop until consensus was reached.

World War II photographs was a badly though out creation of 20:50, 9 May 2008 Terra (Talk | contribs) (59 bytes) (Creating wanted category via Special:WantedCategories). I would have

• Images of World War II
• Images of societies during World War II
• Political images of World War II
• Economic images of World War II
• Military images of World War II

in their appropriate parent categories. Sub-categories would include such things as art and posters in addition to photography among others.

I would of course propose deleting Category:World War II photographs--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Free images belong on Wikicommons, not Wikipedia, so they should be moved there rather than any effort be placed into categorising them here. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a longstanding objection to "Militaries of" and prefer "Armed forces of". The grounds are "military" (noun) is the usual plural; "military" (noun) is less inclusive than "armed forces" (Merriam Webster Unlimted for instance uses armed forces as the headword) and "military" (noun) often means just the army. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I agree, but there they are, so I'm suggesting that if the images are used whichever domain, these are the categories to use.

Roger, the use of Military vs Armed Forces was part of the discussions that took place last year, and are far more wide ranging. The advantage of using Military is that it is a more general, one-word-use very suitable to categorisation syntax. Armed Forces can not be applied to everything and lengthen the category by a word, something never considered by Merriam Webster Unlimited. For example Military decorations rather then Decorations of armed forces. However, I am not bothered either way since armed forces are more appropriate in some cases. Just so long as it is consistently used.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a slight misunderstanding here. In this instance, I'm pointing up the difference between the adjective "military" (ie military history, military intelligence, military uniforms etc) which usually refers to the armed forces as a whole and the noun "military" (ie the military of) which often doesn't. Merriam Webster, by the way, do not prescribe usage, they report how a word is actually used and they make precisely this distinction in their definitions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:World War II deception operations

We already have this category, so I believe the new category established as part of this reorganisation, Category:Military deception during World War II, should be deleted/merged into it. This is another example of people creating things in wikipedia without checking what is there already. Buckshot06(prof) 05:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the use of World War II at the start of the category name, which is unhelpful, the category is limited. Military deception during World War II in my conception is itself an umbrella category for

• Strategic Deception of World War II
• Operational Deception of World War II
• Tactical Deception of World War II
• Deception methods of World War II
• Deception technology of World War II

When I get a chance, I intend to contribute a large number of articles on the subjects which is of intense interest to the military forces even as we write--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When we've got all those new articles, I think that might be the time to consider such a category structure. Up until then one category serves us just fine; beyond it is needless complications. A better idea would be to create a umbrella category, perhaps 'Military deception,' for the intersection of deception and the military - right now the World War II deception category sits directly under Category:Deception. Buckshot06(prof) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know Bucjkshot06, what upsets me most about our communications? You criticise everything I suggest, however seemingly without any consideration of what I say or write. Here I wrote "The categories would not all be created immediately, but stored in the Project category "repository" for activation as needed."

Surely you are aware that all military activity requires planning. No one I have ever known who has ever served in any military forces has ever suggested they did things on the "worry about it when we get to it" principle (even with the Australian "she'll be right mate" attitude). Not that plans don't change, and often radically, but a plan is the foundation of any enterprise worth doing, and if its worth doing, its worth doing it well. So I'm asking you, all of you, I'll even beg on my knees, think beyond today, next month, next year, next decade. Wikipedia is a big idea, and if you are a part of it, you have to think equally big. Think all possible articles, all possible editors, and all possible readers. Not all categories need to be created to sit there waiting for the articles, but the planning needs to be done now. Actually it needed to be done years ago, and Kirill had done a lot to start the process, but the process needs to continue and be developed. World War II is useful because it is far more limited in scope, but has the components of many other eras and conflicts, so is particularly useful for the purpose of consistent category development for use in Military History Project...a project that will one day be completed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you not aware that the memory of the foul terms you've addressed with in might colour my views, even if slightly? In any case, if you think my point is new, then you're haven't previously considered what I've written above - maybe other people have pointed it out as well. You appear to be proposing a structure when we create categories before the articles have been created - you'd have us using categories to order the articles, not the other way around. We should not be trying to impose category structures on yet-to-be-written articles based on one author's (Dupuy or not) idea of things that one editor reads. (Oh, on while we're on the subject, comparing us with a military activity is an inappropriate analogy - a better one would be history). Buckshot06(prof) 09:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to revisit the past, but I have never called you either a "clever troll" or a "vandal", and never used any words that may be described as "foul" that were directed at your person. However, if you are suggesting that your opposition to anything I say or do in Wikipedia is a personal tit-for-tat revenge for anything I said in your perception, then you are in the wrong place here. Moving right along...

Well, we already have lots of articles, and in order to categorise future articles it helps to have a consistent approach that allows editors to remember the categories without having a "stab" at guessing one, i.e. it helps to be logical rather then intuitive in the approach of presenting information in a reference database because that is what Wikipedia is, a database.

Being logical goes well with planing. I am not imposing structures on anyone, however, there is such a thing as taxonomy (an observation most editors agree with ), and libraries are also structure their holdings of books (aka sources) to fit the existing categories. Books are even categorised for marketing, the ISBN numbers.

Use of Dupuy was only required for one set of sub-categories, and I really had to dig for that one because I would have thought that structuring combat by scale was well known given he was not reinventing the wheel in military science 20 years ago. I just used him for a source. I could have used a less available NATO manual.

Ok, what activity would you like me to compare Wikipedia with? Let's see, there is business, life, money, learning, living. I only used military because we are on the subject, and you do have an MA on the subject.

What is it exactly that you want from me Buckshot06? What do you want from Wikipedia? You want me to blindly gather information on projects of your interest while people deposit any and all articles into Category:Wikipedia at random in a sort of a big melting pot of information? There is freedom of choice, and yet,there is no freedom Buckshot06. There is structure everywhere. Wikipedia itself exists within the structures of the Internet environment.

I am happy to collaborate with almost anyone on almost any project, but I have my own priorities. I approached you for collaboration, and I still remember how that turned out. I have collaborated with others in Wikipedia, so it seems I ma not completely antisocial ogre.

I take what I think is a very logical approach to ordering information in Wikipedia. I welcome suggestions from others so long as they are also logical, and are based on some evidence that is widely accepted. If you think that blindly opposing me is going to score points, I can only suggest that you are very wrong. The only thing that gets hurt is Wikipedia and its users.

I could not care less what anyone thinks of me or calls me, though if I am being called names, I would at least like to be deserving of them.

In any case, IF you oppose me to just score points, I will simply stop responding to your posts. If you do respond, and want to be answered, please think about what I said above. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You've manage to forget this?:

How about this. YOU go and buy Keitel's fucking book in Irving's fucking translation and then YOU write the fucking articles based on that and see how same they look ok. You are so big on talk, but will not spend the money on the books, but the books have nothing. They are written for a perspective of a very senior officer in Berlin. SO, the articles you refer to are NOT same as those on this list. They are the German POV base on a single source, and I will tag them as such when I find the template. Then they will sit there for another year as stubs until someone tries to improve them using Glantz's Kharkov 1942 book. THIS entire sorry issue with these three articles is the sort of bullshit that drives people away from Wikipedia. Enjoy. I have taken all three off my watch list. All yours now, or whoever.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I call that foul and directed at me, thank you. For the rest of your points, I've been advised that should simply indicate my disagreement - with this entire, ill-judged, overcomplicated, overreaching, category structure - rather than repeatedly rebutting you point by point, so I'll leave it there. I've spent well enough time writing responses to indicate that, and I should not let my anger at your repeated insulting and arrogant behaviour tempt me into continuing to debate you over this issue. Buckshot06(prof) 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinion about either Keitel and his book, or Irving and his translation of that book, has not changed. If you wish to base articles solely on this book then you are still welcome to them. That I used expletives is only based on the absolute unwillingness by you to listen to a very long discussion. In fat it was so long I had a chance to get a copy. Have you read the book? It is just one single appeasement of Nazi strategy. Very little real historical value. Wonder why it has never been translated again (not).

If you think that my suggestion is "ill-judged, overcomplicated, overreaching" the produce your own. I spent not a little time over this, on and off since the discussion ended last year, so no wonder I defend it, because I had made an investment in it. All reference works organise, i.e. structure their contents in some way. What exactly do you suggest? Its easy to criticise--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Second tier subcategories

Given that discussion seems to have petered out, and on reflection that much of the opposition was to the introduction of five subcategories to Category:World War II, I thought I would ask what options there are for breaking up the 20 or so subcategories previously found in Category:World War II other then below?

Category:Militaries of the Second World War

Category:Political science of the Second World War

Category:Economics of the Second World War

Category:Sociology of the Second World War

Category:Chronology of World War II

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the things that might have annoyed people the most about your re-categorisation Mrg is that you just went ahead and did it. I'm not sure, but you might get more interest and active willingness to discuss the issue in good faith if you demonstrated you were not firmly committed to your new system - that's the impression I get, though I'm biased by my involvement, of course. As you will have seen, there are a number of editors interested in what you've done who are a little reluctant to engage with you because of the tone of your responses. You may get more responses, I'm not sure for certain, if you consider demonstrating willingness to start from the previous status quo, rather than your new one. Actually having written that, and looked at the sentance, I'm sure of it. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a different frame of reference which contributes to me being seen as someone who is pushing my "system".

You see, I had given it a real go last year. We talked about categorisation extensively and there was somewhat larger participation then now. The difference is that everyone talked and walked, while I went away and created a system.

Now, having worked at something for months (on and off), and having looked at other systems, and used sources, I implemented a system, which is what categorisation supposed to be, which conforms in every way to everything previously discussed and current Wikipedia guidelines. I use Wikipedia articles from other projects to define each category I create. Given these are main articles for their projects and subject areas, they are by and large stable and that means a substantial degree of consensus behind every category I create. If there is no main article, I will write one, and the article can go though the usual editing process. I doubt that I will get it badly wrong, but anything is possible.

Please have no doubt that my intention is in good faith. However, I don't see why I should compromise because others have done nothing, and have not offered any options or alternatives.

Consider two people who, after an exhausting journey in a stagecoach say to each other, "wouldn't it be wonderful to go between cities faster and with no shaking and bouncing over potholes?". So one goes away and designs a railway and a steam train, and the other goes about his usual life. Then, when the first guy starts building the railway, the second guy objects to it not because its a bad idea, but because its not his idea, or because it goes south of the mountain and not north, or because the coaches are green and not blue, or because the engineer's name is Bob and not Richard.

Quite frankly I have a lot of articles to produce. I am going to create categories as I need them. This is not trolling or vandalism, or being disruptive or acting without consensus because any editor can create categories. I would rather be consistent, but the previous/current "status quo" is not consistent. I had to create the broad subcategories above because they are the primary academic disciplines that focus on studying the Second World War. As a matter of fact they apply to the Military History in general.

Military History is not only about battles, OOBs and technology. It is also about societies, economies and elites that make use of the militaries. I can not see how anyone can deny this. I did more military history doing economic history at uni then most people had as part of the History stream (long wave to conflict correlations). My other unpublished thesis was on hegemony, and was supervised within the Political Science Department. In my 3rd year I did organisation psychology, and looking at cumulative stress in large organisations, yes military organisations in conflicts. Not that I'm disinterested in technology, but I can happily author several thousand articles and never use the weapon task force at all.

What is wrong in going ahead and doing it? Its the primary principle behind Wikipedia that people contribute by just doing it, i.e. authoring and editing articles. A category is an article that serves to combine other articles. It can include definitions, references, sources and even pictures if a given category is better understood visually. Looking at the category articles as they are now, they are a mess. If they were text articles, most would have clean-up templates on them. So I do not understand why I am being prevented from editing categories where I would not be prevented from editing similarly in need of editing encyclopaedic articles? After all, when a reader clicks on the category link, they should be presented with an article of equal quality to the one he/she just left. Right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very broadly and very briefly, for a categorisation system to work in a large and diverse project, like Milhist, it needs the active support and cooperation of hundreds of contributing editors. In essence, this means it has to be simple, obvious and accessible. Every stumbling block that is erected reduces the chances of it being implemented. Added to this, editors prefer to stick with what they know and will not readily accept a new system that introduces steep learning curves. Another element is that this is an environment that depends on heavily on cooperation and interpersonal skills. Editors will gather very readily behind people they know, like, and trust but may well resist ideas from someone without this track record. While I understand your disappointment, and appreciate that you have put a great deal of work into this, I suggest the current set of proposals are mothballed for the time-being and perhaps re-proposed in say three or four months in a much simplfied form. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think this way, but I can't agree. The categorisation process was mothballed last year, and for more then 3 months. I need to go on with my project, and that will mean creating new categories where they do not exist now, or renaming those that exist into a more consistent and logical manner, notably by reordering the category names to conform with the way English is read.

On the subject of your offered rationale for such a "mothball", you will note that for the time being my proposals were restricted to the area of World War II which does not include "cooperation of hundreds of contributing editors". In fact not even half a dozen spoke up here, and there are only 106 regulars in the task force. I had high hopes of interest from at least two dozen since the effect is on broad areas of popular area of editing, alas didn't get it.

I am also not sure what you allude to when you say that "it has to be simple, obvious and accessible". Aside from introducing an extra tier of subcategories to the top tier, which did simplify it, I had not in fact introduce any other changes that are not there already.

I am well aware that "editors prefer to stick with what they know and will not readily accept a new system that introduces steep learning curves", i.e. people don't like change. [3],[4]

However, aside for the fact that Wikipedia is a huge change in itself, change is constant within it. In fact its the environment of participation that is in constant change.

I am curious to know what constituted a "steep learning curve", what with people flaunting their academic accomplishments in the special projects talk.

I was not aware that Wikipedia is a social site where people come expecting to meet "people they know, like, and trust". I may have missed the point of just being here to contribute to editing a reference work. "People" can know me by my contributions, and trust me by my use of sources. Since some people clearly don't like me for challenging them on the later, they can, and do, take the matter to the arbitration, but as you said it yourself, the issues are not those of personalities (at lest for me), but of encyclopaedic content.

"People" certainly seem to "know, like, and trust" Kirill, but that did not significantly contribute to the status quo (in fact Status quo ante bellum as it were) you and Buckshot06 desire, so there goes that notion.

The version you call complicated is the simplified form. If you can not see the subject of World War II as a complex area of study, then we can discuss that, but I do not have the genius to present a complex area of knowledge in a simple way while retaining the way concepts relate to each other. It is the nature of data structures that they are complex, and a matter of engineering principle, one always needs a more complex tool to manufacture something complex.

I gather the discussion is over as far as you are concerned?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily over but there's no consensus that I can detect here for change and certainly not on the scale you were suggesting. I get the feeling that it's all seen as too much, too quickly. My suggestion of deferring the whole thing for a while was simply to let the dust settle and create some mulling time. That's normally how things work round here. Alternatively, you might focus on small non-controversial sections and develop something there. If you go back through the archives, you'll see that categorisation comes up regularly, with revisions every year or so. I did one lot last summer (to get WWI and WWII a bit more into sync), and Carom did a load the year before. A lot of editors, including me, add categories from memory: memorising a whole new (not necesarily intuitive) structure is the steep learning curve I was talking about. One of the things, by the way, that gave me reservations was the proposal that hostilities be categorised by type rather than theatre or campaign. It struck me as potentially disruptive, with endless arguments about whether something was a battle, or a strategic defensive operation, or strategic offensive operation, or whatever, with numerous name and category changes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I though the problem was the five discipline-based subcats. Everything else I have added is in line with current usage. Nothing has been renamed, though I think some can be. Nothing has been deleted either.

Why can't an event be categorised by theatre/area of operations, and scale of operations at the same time? The criteria for the scales is fairly clear, but if arguments do develop, the best solution is research and good sources. Wikipedia still wins either way. Worst comes to worst, two categories can be used because invariable there will be events that "start out as a skirmish and end up as a war"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Second tier looks good to me, i can't see any problem with the way they have been named as they appear to cover everything. Two observations, the last category i think should be renamed slightly to fall in line with the others and the second:

"Please have no doubt that my intention is in good faith. However, I don't see why I should compromise because others have done nothing, and have not offered any options or alternatives"

I dont have any doubt your edits are in good faith however i think you should relex towards some of the critaism and be a bit more willing to listen to suggestions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally not to keen on the "by discipline" approach at all. All the evidence is that readers come here for battles and biographies - the grist of military history - and the second-tier structure looks irrelevant to that. It looks as if we have little to offer but social sciences. On a minor point, we still have "Militaries of WWII", rather than Armed Forces. (This incidentally was a point I first made during the sandboxing months ago and I repeated a week or so back ....) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea i saw the discussion on that one and agree that it should be renamed, its a slip of mine before that i missed it. However in general i agree with the 5 levels which then brake down further - they cover the main areas, since war is not just all about the actual fighting and the 4 categorsy (minus the timeline) appear to cover everything.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed comprehensive (though not comprehensive enough) but that's not the point here. It's a question of undue weight on social sciences too far up the tree. Neither are the category names sufficiently transparent. Where, for example, does one go for battles, for biographies, for literature? As first sight, these appear to not be included. Some of the distinctions are exceedingly arbitrary in order to force the structure into a social sciences model: for example, why are politics and economics treated separately when to all intents and purposes they are often indivisible (National Socialism, for instance, is a fusion of the two, and Britain's war economy was centrally directed by the government towards military and political ends). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Intresting points.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Military vs Armed Forces had been brought up before. There are three arguments against use of the later:

• extra word
• not everything military is armed (some think literally)
• would require a huge renaming effort, maybe a bot
• I add a fourth, its just a few more characters to type, but I type enough already, all adds up

The issue of undue weight to sociology is warranted because MilHist (History) Project itself is a part of Sociology in Wikipedia. Even if "most" (OR? :) ) do want battles and bibliographies (another use for B&B?), a reference work is not the MacDonalds of knowledge. We do not cater to a market demand.

Yes, at a strategic (cat tiers 2-3) level during the war Politics (Diplomacy?), economics and military forces were indivisible. However, the effects of the dam-buster raids were largely social and economic, and not military or political (given the Nazi Party). The evacuation of Soviet industry (an article I have long been planning to do) was a wholly economic process replicated over 1500 times with the potential of each one having an article in some dim future (cat tiers 5-6). The Communist Party, even with the assistance of the NKVD could do damn all to increase the speed of the trains, or the fact that by the times some factories reached their allocated areas the snow begun to fall. Some subjects, while having substantial impact on the course of the war will have no significant military aspect to them at the "tactical" (cat tier 7+) level of the immediate organisation, group or area concerned.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Am i missing something here, arguments agaisnt a slight word change is because its an extra word long and it means like 5 seconds of extra typing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in categories the fewer words used, the better. Typing is trivial, and my own preference only.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your confusion

Are we part of Sociology/Social Sciences? Where does it say that? There's good arguments for saying we're: -history, -political science -arts -humanities? And yes we do cater to a market demand; all encyclopedias do. Otherwise they wouldn't have been produced in the first place. The argument over Military versus Armed Forces is valid, in my view, but a bit of a red herring at this level; the whole project uses 'military' in the US sense of all armed forces, and we could not have a discussion about changing that buried down here, have to be much more prominent. I second Roger's opinion - we're broader that social sciences and trying to force World War II into a social sciences category structure is not the best option. Incidentally Mrg you've been asked repeatedly not to keep creating new categories while the discussion is ongoing. What is Category:Military medical organizations of World War II, nested under your 'Militaries' category being created for then? Can you not respect the opinions of others and refrain until the discussion reaches an endpoint? Buckshot06(prof) 21:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your confusion Buckshot06. If you scroll down to the bottom of Category:WikiProject Military history, you will see two parent categories Military history and Military history. Of these, Category:Society WikiProjects is the highest umbrella category of the Project within the WikiProjects structure. Go to the Portal:Contents/Portals, you will see that the subject areas of military history are under War in the Society and social sciences portal.

For the record our sister disciplines are: Anthropology (Archaeology), Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Psychology, Sociology

I'd ask you to show where it says that any encyclopaedia, never mind the not-for-profit Wikipedia cater for market demand. Wikipedia is a "universal" encyclopedia that can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge.

I didn't say that the argument of armed forces over military is invalid, but that it had been discussed, and seems to have been largely arrived at a consensus of using military.

Creation of categories can not be stopped entirely, particularly since I patrol the new article maintenance and from time to time need to create categories in this or other areas of the project. I have until today stopped the larger process of reorganisation of the existing categories. I have kept my word on that count.

Since no discussion has taken place for two weeks, I gather it has reached its endpoint--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)