Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
New stub types proposed
I've proposed several new stub types to help reduce the excess size of the {{battle-stub}}s. Kirill's pointed out that there are large overlap issues here: the typical use of stub templates on Napoleonic battle stubs is about four (battle-, NW-, and two countries on average). The new types would reduce this to a mere three, but it's worthwhile considering whether this many tags should be being used, and whether the current scheme is entirely appropriately. I've made an analysis of the distribution of the current tags here. Alai 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it used? It is linked to, but it's talk page is empty - it doesn't even have link to this WikiProject, as is customary. This lost soldier needs help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's needed for compatibility with the (now deprecated) {{Battlebox}}, and is only going to be around until the replacement of that with {{Infobox Military Conflict}} is completed. —Kirill Lokshin 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Commented on the task force talk page. —Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The end of Template:Battlebox
As of today, {{Battlebox}} has been completely replaced with the new {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. In light of this, I've nominated it for deletion, along with a few related templates. —Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohooo! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Farewell and godspeed! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hurrah! Send it straight to Hell! Albrecht 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Bye bye =) --Loopy e 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Confusion with Template:Infobox Military Unit
Since the response seems to have been minimal, I'll ask again: could anyone with any experience working on unit articles please comment on the issues noted here? —Kirill Lokshin 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Recent expansions and modifications have only made things worse. While flexibility and customizability are to be aimed for, I think we need to keep in mind that this is essentially a summary box. We ought to keep it streamlined and easy to use throughout every period of military history (i.e. Sacred Band of Carthage and Tercio are just as deserving of attention as German Fifth Army), and we should resist the temptation to bow to every demand for an extra field here and an added technical detail there.
- Example: "Notable battles or wars" is vague when we want to be clear; general when we want to be specific; and redundant when we want to be concise. Recall this field's intended purpose: to highlight battles that decisively shaped the unit's image or identity, not to provide a combat or operational history. "Notable wars" is a massively useless addition; wars tend to be notable by definition, and should easily stand out in the article text without needing further highlight. Albrecht 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Map creation
I have started working on the requested articles Battle of Bialystok-Minsk and Battle of the Baltic (1944). Would somebody be able to produce dedicated maps for these battles, since I am unfortunately singularly untalented? I can probably provide map examples to work from. Cheers. Andreas 10:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Now also started the requested Battle of the Crimea (1944), same request and offer. Andreas 12:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Military.com has a range of maps available online that are scanned maps from the US GPO. This would mean that there is no copyright attached to the original maps. Would downloading the scanned maps and inserting them into articles be a copyright violation of the rights of Military.com? Thanks for any help on this. Andreas 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Army or Armee
This was raised by [User:Michael_Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]. When creating or editing an article I usually change the terms for formations into German (I focus on World War II articles). The reason for this is that I believe it aids understanding, since many armies had a 4th Army, so it would be possible that we have to write e.g. "German Fourth Army attacked Soviet Fourth Army, which then had to retreat". I find the solution "4.Armee attacked Fourth Army" more elegant in terms of the flow of writing and easier to understand. I would prefer to stick to this, but if it is against the guidelines, I will of course change my approach.
Cheers. Andreas 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- In your example, why do you translate the German, but not the Russian? (This would be more extreme with Divisions, I think.) Additionally, I would think that the "4." is actually confusing to most Americans who don't realize that ordinals are written that way in Germany.
- Unfortunately I do not speak Russian, and there is a high potential that I would get things wrong. With divisions, because of the different naming (German Infantry Division = Red Army Rifle Division) there is a bit less need for this I think (or my logic breaks down, whichever you prefer :-) ). Andreas 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, I would leave the decision to the writer as to how to make it clear what's going on rather than making a rule here. --Habap 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to comment. Andreas 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- As per Habap, it should probably be up to the writer of the individual article. One thing that I've found useful (although I don't know to what extent it would help in WWII articles) is to use the name of the commander rather than that of the unit; for instance, rather than "German Nth Army attacked Soviet Yth Army", we'd have "Von Manstein attacked Zhukov". —Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- When writing on my own website, I tend to leave German terms in German and would support the use of same in English articles, I just wonder if some standardization across articles might not be desirable? I think using native language is a good idea - ie, if writing about a US tank division I would use "Armor" and if writing about a British tank division, the term "Armour" would be appropriate. I'd support the use of German terms in English language - perhaps a seperate article on how the ordinals work, etc., could be used as a footnote in articles heavily laden with German terminology.Michael Dorosh 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the feedback - I will continue the way I have done, but put a note behind the first mention of a German formation explaining the correct form to non-German speakers to avoid the confusion that Habap pointed out. Andreas 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Operation names
In English military writing, names of operations are usually in all-capitals, ie Operation OVERLORD. Would there be an advantage to using the same in wikipedia military articles, or would the use of all-capitals seem too intrusive? Michael Dorosh 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would avoid it where possible, simply because many readers (and even many editors) are unfamiliar with that style. —Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some sources do the same for ship names - again, we don't use the capitals unless there's a specific good reason to. Shimgray | talk | 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions for unnamed battles
I'm wondering if there are any naming conventions for battles that aren't already named. I'm looking to create a series of articles about the battles associated with the restoration of democracy in Athens after the Peloponnesian War, but only one of the engagements has anything like a standard name. I'm thinking of creating the articles under the names that seem most obvious, so Phyle campaign, Battle of Phyle, Battle of Munychia etc. (for anyone looking to find out what I'm talking about here, see Thrasybulus#The_Thirty_Tyrants). Is it ok to just sort of name these battles myself when no one else has? Also, there's one battle in the campaign that doesn't really have a specific location, and "Battle of Athens" would just sound dumb, so what could I do about that? RobthTalk 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The general convention for battle names (both in Wikipedia and in other literature) is "Battle of Place", so your plan looks fine. I'm not sure what to do for battles without a specific location; given the time period, I would assume that the exact location is unknown, rather than actually covering a wide area. Perhaps the name of the region could be used? —Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I think it would be appropriate to include the year along with the place name, so "Battle of Olympus Mons (3049)". :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good, and I like the sound of Battle of Attica (403 BC) (region and year, that is) for the tricky one, so I'll go ahead with those. Thanks for the input. RobthTalk 06:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I think it would be appropriate to include the year along with the place name, so "Battle of Olympus Mons (3049)". :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
New Text Box
I found this text box on the US Rangers page. How does it compare with the Unit Text box we have here? SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
75th Ranger Regiment
Rangers
Airborne Rangers
Army Rangers
U.S. Army Rangers
Chain of Command
Description
Special Operations Force, rapidly deployable light infantry force.
Each battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours' notice.
Conducting conventional or special light-infantry operations, conducting direct action operations, conducting raids, infiltrating and exfiltrating by sea, air or land, recovery of personnel and special equipment.
Motto
Rangers Lead The Way! (RLTW)
Sua Sponte ("Of their own accord")
2nd Battalion:
3rd Battalion:
Equipment
84 mm Ranger Antitank Weapons System (RAWS), (Carl Gustav)
60 mm Mortars M240B machine guns,
81 mm Mortars
Mark 19 RP MM grenade launcher,
120 mm Mortars stinger.
M4 Carbine,
M24 SWS Sniper Rifle,
SR25 Sniper rifle,
AT4 Rocket Launcher
June 19, 1942
America's entry to WWII. American's needed an elite force of soldiers to participate in clandestine operations in the ETO
- We're discussing the same thing on Template talk:Infobox Military Unit. It's not really a template, is designed specifically for a certain type of US unit, and has a lot of parameters that don't really belong in an infobox, so I'd like to replace it with the standard box eventually; there are still a few quirks we need to work out, though. —Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
problem with campaignbox?
Does anyone else have problems with browser-accessing the new Infobox Military Conflict followed by Campaignbox? I find that the campaignbox is disrupting graphics that follow. When I look at Battle of Shiloh in Mozilla Firefox, I get the first graphic overlapping with text and the [edit] button. I just tried it with Internet Explorer and there is excessive whitespace before the first section after the boxes. Any ideas on how to fix this? Hal Jespersen 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've noticed this too and wondered what causes it, but I'm pretty sure I've witnessed it in articles without the Military Conflict Infobox + Campaignbox, so it might just be a general bug? --Loopy e 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a known issue whenever there are two somethings with float=right set. If it becomes really disruptive, moving the campaignbox past the affected header will help; but it's not directly related to the type of template (try stacking two long templates), so it may be best to wait for a general fix. —Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a seperate image (Image:ACW Belmont2Shiloh.jpg) that needed to be moved. I added a few blank lines and a <:br> (without the ":") to move it off the text. I find this seems to work for most images I find like this. you mentioned the problem with other pages, if you add them here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/image problems, I'll try to fix them is spare moments.Mike McGregor (Can) 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Israelie Army medic insignia?
Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)