Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 21

CSB department/taskforce discussion
From the recent thread I raised the question of a CSB taskforce (or department). I think we ought to have a discussion here, as that subheading has been hijacked by map fanatics! :D

OK, a few points I think we should talk about first: -- Миборовский U 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Is CSB reverse discrimination? (Probably have to do with the whole concept of CSB, but it leads to the next question:)
 * 2) Is CSB, directed by a group of people, involving coordinated effort by the said people, placing an importance on articles of a certain nature at the expense of other articles, reverse discrimination?
 * 3) How many hands can we expect to be helping out if a CSB taskforce was created?
 * 4) How coordinated an effort would a CSB taskforce be? We all have our own specialties. Should this be a contribute-if-you-can type of project, or would we be diverting substantial atttention to counter SB, if so, would we be doing what I described in point 2?

In theory, great idea. In practice I view this with trepidation. Here's a Wikipedia-specific example: three months ago a new editor came to Joan of Arc and started rewriting a section that needed help. Wonderful, I thought, and welcomed her. This turned out to be an LGBT activist pushing an agenda. To be fair to this editor, there have been many gay historical figures whose sexual orientation was whitewashed. I asked her to cite a historian and, per WP:NPOV, present this as a minority view. To my understanding this particular case was fringe scholarship, but perhaps it had gained credibility? She was uncivil. Progress toward FAC stalled for six weeks. In RfC it became clear that she had misidentified her main source and didn't know the standard reference works. I would have liked to have kept some part of her contribution: she just hadn't named a single historian. The whole ordeal had been a waste of time. CSB projects are a magnet for that sort of person. Durova 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur fully Durova. Even the CSB project itself, doesnt really seem to do much of anything except argue. To my mind WP:NPOV trumps CSB. If it were followed more closely, CSB would be hardly needed at all. Also, my friends, we must beware of TASK FORCE BLOAT...that is having too many which try to do too much and end up doing nothing. Too much of a good thing..etc. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK... Anyone else wanna chip in? -- Миборовский U 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the objections are pretty fair ones, especially insofar as creating a dedicated group for this sort of thing might cause problems if anyone joining it decides to pick fights with the other project members. My suggestion would be to work informally for the time being&mdash;for example, by adding items to the wanted articles list and the worklist&mdash;and to come back to this idea when the entire department/task force structure has had some time to mature; once we figure out how to run semi-autonomous subgroups successfuly, we'll be in a better position to handle something like this. —Kirill Lok s hin 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmkay. Can I request that Template:WPMILHIST Announcements be expanded to include a section for articles (whether created or not) that could benefit from some CSB work? -- Миборовский U 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure thing; just give me a good word for it (and some articles, obviously). —Kirill Lok s hin 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a better word than: "CSB:"! :S For articles, we can have Military history by country, the appalling number of red links there is not good. The Second Italo-Abyssinian War could use some work. List of Chinese battles has lots of red links which look rather ugly, some really important battles like the Battle of Shanhaiguan are missing. (Note that my own systematic bias causes me to be biased towards Chinese military-related articles as opposed to, say, African ones. :D ) -- Миборовский U 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! (Although CSB is slightly cryptic to the uninitiated.)  Feel free to maintain that list as you see fit. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * w00t! Thanks! Let's hope it wouldn't just be me maintaining that list... -- Миборовский U 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Something I had never really paid attention to, but that might be an interesting idea to consider: the computer & video games WikiProject runs its own version of peer review. Might it be worthwhile to do the same?

On the one hand, the majority of comments on military history articles on regular peer review come from project members; we're rapidly reaching a size and level of penetration within the editorial community where we can feasibly run our own version without losing much. It might also be easier to coordinate an internal peer review with any interested task forces via clever use of subpage transclusion.

On the other hand, an internal process would be somewhat less visible, at least initially, than the main peer review page, and so would require some attention on the part of the project members to make sure that all the articles listed received some feedback.

Comments? —Kirill Lok s hin 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regular, plain vanilla peer review, like so much, is dysfunctional. I've always intended to submit La Grande Armée for review by our project instead. And made no secret effort in encouraging others to do likewise with their contribs. Besides, even if PR were working as advertised, subjects of the importance and complexity of those we deal with demand greater attention from editors with more specialized interests and knowledge. So...making it official by establishing our own system of "in house" peer review, at both the project and taskforce levels, is an idea whose time is due. I have complete faith that our members are up to the task. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are both knowledgable and enthusiastic. The quality of our leadership helps also (Once again I agree with you Kirill...I must stop doing that...maybe when you are wrong...maybe;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a damn good idea. Regular peer review never seems worth it, especially (as RDH says) with the specialisation in reviews needed. Some peer reviews go through with barely a comment, so I think a Wikiproject MH peer review could meet or surpass the results normal peer review generates. Definitely seems worth a try. --Loopy e 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we kept using the regular peer review process and "current peer reviews" notification on the project? It seems like less trouble and would probably garner more opinions. Durova 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We do do that (see the peer review listing in the announcements box). Doing our own process would allow us rather more flexibility, though. —Kirill Lok s hin 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what we could do that regular peer review doesn't already do? Durova 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of different possibilities (this isn't necessarily an exhaustive list, but just things that occurred to me; others may have more ideas):
 * Easier monitoring of when new requests are added and old ones are archived. As it stands, the few military history-related ones are lost within the general sea of entries (and the archiving schedule on WP:PR leaves something to be desired).
 * More prominent linking of the collective peer reviews within the project; potentially bringing more attention to them. (Widespread linking to the main peer review page would be rather useless, given how little of it actually pertains to us.)  In addition, possible transclusion of review subpages within, say, task force pages.  (The main peer review has at times frowned on being transcluded elsewhere, since it causes their archiving system to go out-of-sync.)
 * Potential expert reviews (see Scientific peer review for another recent attempt at something of this nature). This would obviously be more of a long-term goal contingent on finding some expert reviewers willing to participate.
 * More project self-sufficiency. (This is a very subtle issue that ties in heavily with various other discussions&mdash;all over Wikipedia&mdash;about the significant social problems facing the community.  I think that we have managed to maintain a certain collegial atmosphere within this project that is sometimes missing in the community at large.)
 * These may not be enormous improvements, but given that we don't really stand to lose much by setting up our own system, I see no harm it trying it out. —Kirill Lok s hin 02:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For anyone curious, I've started a (very rough) draft here. Any comments or suggestions are welcome! —Kirill Lok s hin 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection then. I found it very hard to drum up responses for Joan of Arc during two peer reviews.  Considering that's among the most general interest type of article we generate, we might as well see how your alternative works.  Best wishes, Durova 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the page somewhat, and it may be in a state where we can try it out at this point. Any comments would be very apperciated! —Kirill Lok s hin 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At the Task Force level, let's leave it up to each TF to decide if they are large or active enough to undertake it. I'm thinking specifically of the Napoleonic and Classical TFs...they should have no problems with doing this. Having an article looked over twice, by highly knowlegdable amatures if not actual experts, will give our PR process a lot more meaning in the eyes of many. As the used furniture salesman said, "Sofa So Good" :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly each task force is free to decide how it will participate. At the same time, I hope that we'll see articles being nominated there even if there isn't any task force for them, or the task force doesn't participate in any formal way; the peer review process should be able to function somewhat independently of any individual task force ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try it out and see if we need to change anything? Anybody have an article they'd be willing to submit? —Kirill Lok s hin 22:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And looks like we have our first victim volunteer ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Another useful article bites the dust
List of Roman military terms has been deleted. I'm afraid to ask or hope that it can be restored. It had been carefully built up and improved over the years and was cited as a "see also" in numerous other articles. It was even listed as one of our project's resources a month or two ago. Now POOF...it vanishes down a Memory hole. Things such as this really anger, disgust and discourage me. There is a growing, active group of ignorami, trolls and out right assholes, who are trying to effectively dismantle our encyclopedia. Not only are their efforts tolerated, but they are encouraged and empowered to do so. I know it is just one article, only one battle lost, but where will it end!? Part of me seriously does not want to be around long enough to find out. Our project is about the only thing keeping me here in any serious way. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's back at the old location (copied the mirror from answers.com), but needs to be edited and wikified. Unfortunately I can not do that, since I do not know how to do the internal links. Andreas 11:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The deleted history shows it as having been tagged as a copyvio from here. There was also a discussion on a user talk page. Helpfully, this is in Hebrew. Leith p 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you scroll down in that discussion you see that the author gives the permission for reproduction if place of origin is acknowledged. Which it was on the page. Andreas 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I left a note with Simetrical who listed it on WP:CP. I'll try and restore the edit history now. Leith p 11:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Now done. Hopefully there wasn't anything in that Hebrew discussion that established it as a copyvio, I've used up all my Rouge Admin points for this month. Leith p 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Rogue Admin or have you been spending more time at the cosmetics counter? Hehe. --Habap 12:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See Category:Rouge admins ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 12:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was an association with the Khmer Rouge, implying that the admin was intent on destroying the Wikipedia community. I might be reading too much into this though. Next: how widespread use of "Teh" on chat forums is because of a Sumatran influence. Leith p 15:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to be linked to very heavily, but that could just be a consequence of it having been a redlink for so long. —Kirill Lok s hin 12:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a neophite on wikipedia; How do you copywrite a list of words? This list seems rather useful to roman history and therefore deserves a place in this virtual world of learning. Mind you I do not read Hebrew and did not understand the content of his message, but I had post my support of the List's existance.Dryzen 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's the definitions themselves which can be copyrighted, i.e. I couldn't just copy the OED and publish it myself. I also think the selection of which words to include may make it copyrightable as well. IANAL, though and I'm not familiar with the very vague grey areas of US copyright law that apply here.Leith p 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist: part of this discussion is now archived as Wikipedia humor at Talk page highlights. Durova 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I regret having to list it as a copyvio, but it was one. Discussion at User talk:Gilgamesh he, translated (his part roughly translated, mine translated to what I meant it to mean but not necessarily what it actually meant ;), reads: On the talk page of List of Roman military terms, you wrote that the author of the page gave permission to distribute it, but not to edit. It's necessary to obtain permission to distribute and edit and sell; if not, we have to delete the page. Can you get permission?

(By the way, I can speak English if that's easier for you.) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * The permission wasn't given to me personally, but was a general permission on the forum to transfer the list. The permission wasn't given to me, but to other users who asked to transfer the list to their site.  I took [it] from there because validity for other sites was also validity for Wikipedia.  The permission was

only to copy it, not to edit or anything else. I [something] that I didn't think about it and was content with general permission. Unfortunately, I think that it has to be deleted. Gilgamesh he 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible to inquire further and clarify? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I already haven't visited this forum in two years and I don't know if he's still alive. You can ask there, of course. Gilgamesh he 09:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go to the forum and look for him. Maybe the guy's still there. If I can't get in touch with him, I'll put the page on WP:AFD. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I went to the forum's new location and found his account. Unfortunately, it was inactive, but I signed up and PMd it anyway (no e-mail was available). After a few weeks without response, I had to put up the page for deletion. Sadly, the underlying list just wasn't licensed such that it's usable under the GFDL. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great work crew! Simetrical, sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks for your positive response. Your language skills are, obviously, impressive. Please consider joining our new WikiProject Military history/Translation department. You are hereby invited! Oh and Leithp, I know a number of admins who will gladly lend you some of their "Rogue points" ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * applies rouge Cheers, Durova 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested images
Think there's enough interest to start a requested images page on this project? I've been sniffing around Wikimedia Commons and other language versions of Wikipedia for images to import to our medieval armor articles. It can take a lot of sleuthing: a bascinet finally turned up on the Hebrew edition incorrectly identified as a great helm. Haven't found an armet anywhere. This could be a good chance for SCA types to get their pictures into an encyclopedia, as well as for art buffs to add free domain images of their favorite battles and commanders. Durova 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Also requested: Found a few more. Durova 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Couter
 * Kettle hat
 * Mongolian armour
 * Paper Armour
 * Ringmail
 * Sabaton
 * Spaulders
 * Vambrace


 * I'd add one :) I can't find a public domain image of Marcus Licinius Crassus. There is a very common image of a grumpy looking bust of crassus in whitish stone agaisnt a dark background; you see it everywhere on the net. Unfortunatly, it appears to be an image scan out of a book, and therefore it isn't in the public domain, so I/we can't use it in Wikipedia. Does anyone know any other Crassus images? - Vedexent 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New category
I've started Category:WikiProject Military history (and a number of sub-categories) to keep some of the random subpages/templates/whatnot we have in a place where we can find them. It's still very much a work in progress (and it's not really meant to replace the navigation template and main project page, which will continue to be the primary places where links are given). Comments are welcome! —Kirill Lok s hin 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Need for a new infobox
Not sure if there is one out there but what does everyone think about creating an infobox for military bases. Looking around at the US bases for all services the pages are pretty weak and need alot of work. I think there are enough bases out there to warrant one. Interested to here thoughts.--Looper5920 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Infobox Military Structure is pretty usable for that. Are there some specific fields you think need to be added? —Kirill Lok s hin 22:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll use that one. No other base had a box so I thought maybe it was for a reason.  Don't know about fields just yet.  Let me try a few out and see if any are needed.  Thanks--Looper5920 22:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

British preparations for prospective invasion in WWII
I would be interesting in getting involved in an article detailing British preparations for invasion c1940. There is, of course, an article on Operation Sealion and a couple of articles on GHQ Line and the Taunton Stop Line, but I am sure there is a lot more to be said. WWII is not really my era, but as it happens I live very close to the GHQ Line and I know there is lots of material from my general interest in local history. Anyone interested? Gaius Cornelius 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can help you as far as Canadian order of battle and equipment states; we had one division reasonably well equipped at that time (May-Jun 1940) and another arrived in August 1940 in the UK. If you are looking at specific units, that is.Michael Dorosh 21:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael: I am sure that such contributions would be very welcome. For my own part, I was really thinking of writing about physical defences and the Home Guard. This is a big topic that is hardly touched by wikipedia at the moment and what there is is spread all over. Gaius Cornelius 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I've nominated Battle of Krasny Bor at Template talk:Did you know so it can be considered for Wikipedia's main page. This project is generating some good work. Let's make sure the rest of Wikipedia sees what we're doing. New articles are eligible if they're less than 5 days old. Most submissions that are well written and longer than sub-stubs get chosen, especially if they include an image. We should make more use of this resource. Cheers, Durova 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good choice. It is a nice to see first effort, but needs some major work. But that's what we are here for I guess. :-) Andreas 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's well above average for the "Did you know" spotlight. Nobody expects perfection in the first week. Durova 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not. I think it is a lot better than any article I started. Andreas 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why, from time to time, I'll snap and say some unpleasant things. OK, so it isn't exactly Stalingrad, but seriously: Twenty-five thousand men and eight thousand casualties at Saratoga =  EPIC  ...Yet fifty thousand men and fifteen thousand casualties at Krasny Bor = child's play. In fact, the appellation of "battle" is apparently an injustice; let's call it a "minor engagement" instead. I'll make the change myself, right after I move "Battle of Gettysburg" to "That little Gettysburg fracas." Albrecht 06:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down, calm down. It's systematic bias at work. Channel your frustration to write more (and better!) articles to counter this! It's what I do, and works wonders! -- Миборовский U 07:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of the importance of the battle within the context of the war, it is clear that Krasny Bor is nowhere near e.g. Saratoga. It does not even rate a mention in Ziemke, to give you an idea.  That does not make it a minor engagement though - it was part of a grand plan by the STAVKA that completely failed.  I intend to work this out a bit further, thereby showing why it is an important battle. Andreas 09:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Comments welcome.  Andreas 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Vafankou?
What is this, really? A google search turns up 2 pages, both linked to the WPMILHIST infobox. What is it in its original language, if any? -- Миборовский U 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's from here, originally. No idea what the person requesting it meant, though. —Kirill Lok s hin 04:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it sounds like a hoax to me. No google hits at all for the place name, even. :( Or it might be systematic bias at its full glory. *shrugs* Any way we can contact whoever put that up? Seems to be from a looooong time ago and I haven't got the spare time to track it down. -- Миборовский U 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wondered this myself the other day! --Loopy e 05:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds a lot like an Italian swearword. Best take it off the list and wait if somebody can show what it was. Andreas 10:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it with another entry. It's still on the wanted articles list, though, so maybe somebody will eventually figure out what it's supposed to be. —Kirill Lok s hin 14:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox order for commands and medals
My self and ERcheck have been working on infoboxes for all of the Commandants of the Marine Corps and we are running into issues of uniformity with regards to commands and medals and what precedence they should be listed. Is there a standard that is already out there? --Looper5920 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. I would assume that they would be ordered either chronologically or by order of precedence; but feel free to do whatever works best in each article. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On another note, keep in mind that the "Years of service" field should give the actual years (i.e. "1918–52"), not just the duration; great work aside from that! —Kirill Lok s hin 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on years of service. All of the Commandant of the Marine Corps articles have been updated to include actual years vs duration. &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive listing idea
Having found another neat template trick... any comments on this? The summaries are somewhat hastily constructed and thus probably incomplete, but I think the general idea is clear. Would this be worth using, or should we just stick with the numbered list? —Kirill Lok s hin 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Snazzy. My main concern is for users with poor eyesight.  The text is very small. Durova 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the font size there is controlled by the main MediaWiki CSS pages; I suspect it's set to 90%, which isn't too unusual. —Kirill Lok s hin 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice. I like the coolness of a hideable box. -- Миборовский U 03:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added it at the top of the page; does it seem to work? —Kirill Lok s hin 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Durova 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. I gotta use that collapsible (sp?) table for Wiki articles :D OOBs maybe? -- Миборовский U 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Possible, but be aware that that code is still somewhat experimental, so I wouldn't advise using it too widely yet ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It might just be firefox, but the page now "bounces" when it is loaded: the archive box is displayed expanded when the page loads, and as soon as it is done, collapses. Just interesting behavior :) - Vedexent 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's just Firefox - I get the same thing visiting a forum that uses a similar thing. --Loopy e 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)