Talk:List of historical reenactment groups

To-do list

 * Find information to fill empty cells, especially pertaining to dates/periods portrayed.
 * Put groups in some sensible default order (earliest year portrayed from earliest to latest, and alphabetically within that?).
 * It needs something, many new groups are just adding their info to the top of the list. It's a mess now. --Legviiii (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge in groups from other reenacting pages.
 * Add information. Approximate number of members might be a useful thing to add. Membership in umbrella groups?
 * Umbrella group membership has become important in Australia due to legislative changes affecting reenactment. --Legviiii (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * More information for umbrella groups?
 * Criteria for inclusion in this list? For example, if North South Alliance is listed, should the Mississippi Valley Brigade also be listed, and the 7th Texas Cavalry? How far do we go? At what level is a group an "umbrella group"?

Other thoughts? Cmadler (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The main criteria is that the group should have a Wikipedia article. Lists are supposed to be "lists of Wikipedia articles". In its current state this list is for the most part a directory/linkfarm so I have tagged it as such. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can find no guideline to that effect; to the contrary, it seems that a large part of the value of lists is the list members need not have articles. In some cases, list members may eventually have articles, while in other cases, the individual members are not sufficiently individually notable (see for example, numerous lists of minor characters such as List of minor characters in Dilbert). cmadler (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is lists of this sort run contrary to WP:LINKFARM, WP:LIST, WP:EL, Linking, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WikiProject Laundromat, and even WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a directory to help find reenactment groups, it is an encyclopedia that describes what a reenactor does. I saw a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 27 that bassicaly recomends purging a list like this. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A discussion among a handful of users doesn't make a policy or guideline. Also, the outcome of that discussion was to leave List of Astronomical Societies intact, interpreting the links as more akin to embedded citations, which I would argue is the case here (I don't have time to do it right this moment, but if it makes a difference to you, I can start converting them to citation formatting). cmadler (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually a handful of users do make policy and guidelines, if you think the guideline or consensus is wrong you can always open up another discussion at WP:EL and try to change it. Their outcome was to purge Star party, a list of ELs, and work with List of Astronomical Societies, since it came close to WP:LSC, per its "reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". With an article such as this with the vast majority (over 100 entries) being a directory of non-article ELs, which would simply be a "large number of redlinked unwritten articles", there are other options per WP:LSC and WP:ELMAYBE (linking a directory over an unacceptable long lists of ELs). Ohioartdude2 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohioartdude2 i must admit having read through the pages in question one one hand you may have a point (as substantially this could be seen as a list of links) however given the clear intent of the original author to include additional relevant information about societies (period covered etc) this list is clearly more than that. A number of the societies mentioned on this list are the subject of Wikipedia articles (where encyclopaedic information is appropriate) and this again does help differentiate this from a simple list of lists or similar.  I genuinely do not see how the page [{Astronomical society]] can be seen as ok (given how little info it contains on other aspects of those societies) but this not.  On this basis I would propose that directory/linkfarm be removed at this time. Nathandbeal (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest removing the external / links resources on this page as neither has anything to do with the subject of the article. Nathandbeal (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'umbrella groups' section is also less than ideal at this stage (being merely links to site with no additional content. On this basis perhaps this should be expanded out or removed.  Perhaps adding an additional column to the main list to denote a group that acts as an umbrella and where those groups who are members of that umbrella/wider group (as for example 'Conroi De Vey' is a member group of 'Regia Anglorum' (the umbrella in this case)). Nathandbeal (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the creator of this article, but I am probably the primary contributor, and the present format is largely my doing. The current two external links could be switched to references for the the groups they list; offers a long (possibly comprehensive?) list of 1812 reenactment groups in the UK and US, and  contains a very long list of Napoleonic reenactment groups in 15 countries. I have no objection to adding the "umbrella groups" into the main table and adding a column to designate such. Do note that while some groups in this list have articles, many groups instead link to the group being portrayed (e.g., 18thBtn AIF Living History Group gives a link to the actual 18th Battalion (Australia), not the reenactment group). cmadler (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since neither or  are re-enactment societies, i'm still not sure why they should included in a list of List_of_historical_reenactment_groups.  We would be better using these sites (and sites like them) as a source for additional societies to include in this list?  Nathandbeal (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, perhaps these should be used as sources (in-line citations). cmadler (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As to societies including wiki links to a page not about that society, i wonder if that is truly appropriate, would it not lead to confusion, should this be corrected? What are the wider thoughts here? Nathandbeal (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be corrected, or somehow made clear that the link is to the historical group being portrayed, and not the reenactment society. cmadler (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See also my comment at the top of this page: Criteria for inclusion in this list? For example, if North South Alliance is listed, should the Mississippi Valley Brigade also be listed, and the 7th Texas Cavalry? How far do we go? At what level is a group an "umbrella group"? I still think that's a question worth considering. It seems unrealistic to list every component group of every larger group, but on the other hand, some component groups are larger than other independent groups. cmadler (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * * That is a good point, i would think an umbrella group is one that has groups, that are part of it that operate under their own guise and that of the wider group. A group could be part of more than one umbrella.  Perhaps however this is a very complex relationship that might be very difficult to express, perhaps it would help if we better defined what an umbrella organisation is (it is not a term i heard use to describe groups in the UK)? Nathandbeal (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I've heard the term used either, but the concept of groups within groups (to at least 3 or 4 levels) is widespread within US reenactment of a variety of periods (certainly in American Civil War and American Revolution, which in my non-comprehensive experience are the most organized). cmadler (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up this list
The purpose of a page like this is that it is a link to Wikipedia articles.

In a week or so, I intend on removing any entries on this list which do not have an article.

Just for clarity, I am also intending on looking at the articles which we do have, and if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (especially A7 (No credible claim of significance or importance)) I will do so, and if they meet that criteria, but I do not feel that they meet the criteria for inclusion then I will either propose them for deletion or take them to Articles for deletion.

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I have removed links which were to the real-life battalion (etc) rather than the reenactment group. Most of the redlinks are to an article with a title like Reenactment Group Name (reenactment). If you want to create an article for the group, click on the red link and create it, however please note:
 * Any article should be about a group that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria
 * Any article needs to include references to significant coverage about the group which are in reliable sources which are independent of the group. In other words, you can't rely on press releases, social networks, the group's own website
 * I have tried to put the groups into alphabetical order - there might be a couple which are out of order, in which case please feel free to correct them!
 * I have also formatted the groups' web addresses. I have not checked to see if they work or not - in a week or so when I do the clean out, I will be removing this column altogether - if the group has an article (and so remain in the list, I think there are about 9-12 that currently have articles) then the website will be in the article. There is no reason for it to be in this list.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (and sadly), they are way out of alphabetical order now. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have just added a re-enactment group, for which I am chairman. However, I don’t wish to cause any upset or inconvenience and therefore ask for your approval and will not be offended if you delete the edit. Many Thanks Aeb45 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Clean Up Mk2
Maybe I should have read the talk page first. I have turned the bare external links of the individual societies into wiki type in-line citations (I realise that these are direct to the various societies own pages (primary sources) but I think its ok in this case), and thus removed the banner. Hope this was ok.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  21:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wirt Artna (Malta)
This has been repeatedly added (for example ). The text "From the blood stained sand of ancient Rome to the battlefields of the second world war" appears to be a publicity blurb and is not in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia. It's not clear that the claim that the reenactments cover 753 BC to 1945 AD are supported by the group's website. The only ref I can find to reenactments is at the 19th Century Fort Rinella: Includes various aspects of 19th century British military drill and fighting skills as practiced by the British Tommy in the days of Empire. Including the firing of live-historic artillery and a cavalry show. The history may go back to 745 BC, bu tit does not look like the reenactments do. Meters (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Period nearly?
What's this supposed to mean? Kortoso (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of historical reenactment groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regencyfriends.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of historical reenactment groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080614230824/http://www.templer-luenen.de:80/ to http://www.templer-luenen.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

red-linked groups
I don't think I've ever seen a list with this few linked wikiarticles. More than 85% of the groups have no link or are red links. If they don't have articles should they be on the list? Meters (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support removing the redlinked/non-linked entries. Othewise, the page looks like a bulletin board, and not an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are WP:RS cited and I say if, then they should stay; but, certainly the red ink can be removed as they have no article. If you check and they are not RS cited, then remove entirely. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of them appear to be self-cited to the groups' web sites, hence my comment about the bulletin board :-) Ah, there's even a WP:NOTDIRECTORY verbiage for it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Self-cited would not be RS. So I leave it to you gentlemen to clean up and copy edit then. Kierzek (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed a bunch and I'm still on letter "A". I added OR tag and a hidden note: "***Important**: Please only add reenactment groups that have been noted in secondary sources. A group's web site is considered a primary source, and such entries may be removed. Please review WP:NOTADIRECTORY before adding an entry." I hope this may deter additional entries of this nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I got down to H; that's all for today. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do error on the side of caution. With that said, here is another one which I believe would be related: WikiProject Laundromat. Kierzek (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This list is horribly outdated
Groups like Nova Roma or the SCA aren't considered actual reenactment groups. The SCA is more of a LARP group, it's best described as "historically inspired" by its own members - it's not a serious attempt at recreation of the past. Nova Roma is kind of a fringe organization that tries to be like the SCA but actually is somewhat problematic in that it has some pretty politically extreme persons in it.

The most notable reenactment groups in the world aren't even on this list: Legio XXI Rapax is the most important Classical Roman reenactment group in the world right now, being in the recent Netflix series "Barbarians." The Quartodecimani and the Living Danube Limes project which got a 3 million Euro grant to establish a tourism corridor along the Danube isn't here either. Neither is Wulfheodenas, which has been the most prominent Anglo-Saxon group for decades and is widely respected and whose members are all leading contributors to Anglo-Saxon archaeology.

This whole section of Wikipedia needs an overhaul... the problem is doing it would violate a lot of Wikipedia's rules about sources and original research because reenactment is really poorly studied.MMFA (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)