Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Early Modern warfare task force/Archive 1

Are explorers "military"?
Am I the first to post on your talk page here? oo, I feel special. Well, congrats on forming a task force. You'll go far. I'm excited. Though I do have two annoying questions. Thanks all, for your help. LordAmeth 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do explorers and the like count as "Early Modern military history"? Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro clearly do, as they are conquistadores, literally "those who make conquest". And many explorers did serve the dual purpose of privateer (or pirate, I suppose); I'd imagine very few ships of this era went without cannon, especially given the constant sea battles between Protestant England/Holland and Catholic Spain/Portugal. (Is there a name for that conflict?)
 * 2) And now, the more obnoxious question. How do other cultures fit in here? East Asia I'll leave alone, as they have a whole different time scale as to their feudal and modern periods. But if, for example, Cortes is "Early Modern military history", then that would make the siege of Tenochtitlan early modern history. Does that mean that Montezuma is early modern military history? I suppose so... I guess. What do you all think? Are people and other elements associated with pre-modern cultures, which come into contact with early modern cultures, count as "Early Modern" topics?


 * Some thoughts:
 * As you said, many explorers tended to get involved in conquest and warfare. The ones that really didn't, we probably shouldn't get involved with (as there's probably no military-related content in those articles); but I suspect that during this period, the majority will be closer to Drake and Pizarro then to, say, Amudsen.  (Not to mention the fact that many explorers were military officers, which makes things even easier.)
 * As far as other cultures: I think it'll be much easier to consider the scope of the task force to be the entire period without looking too much at whether the finer points of warfare match the European development on a per-culture basis. This will, perhaps, be somewhat more intuitive than with the Middle Ages task force because the most salient characteristic of the period—small arms—became pervasive pretty quickly via colonization and so forth.  (Certainly the powers with significant military histories tended to get involved in this regard in one way or another.  There are probably some interesting fringe cases of, say, nations in inner Africa that didn't have any European contact until much later; but, in article terms, such topics will be a very small minority—and likely so limited by systemic bias that we don't need to have any practical concern over their inclusion.)
 * Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As Kirill Lokshin and LordAmeth pointed out explorers of this periode have a knack for finding themselves in our scope. By either leading military / military like expiditions or being / having been military personnel thse are to be included do doubts about it. In general I beleive with these logical attributs we woudl of already taken into account most explorers, we should also include adventurers that where funded by military organisations or towads a military goal. This too shall reduce entanglement when trying to decide weither to include the explorer or not. for if he wasn't funded by hte military, did not participate in military action nor hold military status thatn there is verly little to include him in our taskforce is there?
 * As far as other nations... I think our scope as definied by 1500-1792 is rather universal and therefore can incorporate worldly events within this time frame. At the very least until we split these into theatres. For the ment I think we'll have our carts full with the european expansions and there exploration (which will definitly effect other parts of the world such as LordAmeth's exemple of the siege of Tenochtitlan, wich I would clump wiht our taskforce.)
 * --Dryzen 13:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll throw my support in with all the others - if an exploration was funded by, worked alongside, or used any military force/soldiers or attacked/defended another group, I'd say that constitutes as military action and falls under the task force. And I too agree that the task force could easily reach to include a non-eurocentric article base, though right now there is a still a lot to do on that. I even think the far eastern countries could come in eventually, as they did not exist in their own bubble, and it would be interesting to see comparisons and notes on the way the far east developed in relation to the west and any military ideas and technologies that were exchanged between the two (for instance, some samurai forsaking traditional garb and using western style cuirasses given as gifts).-- Xiliquiern 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Swedish Wars
I stubbed Polish-Sweden War (1600–1611), Polish-Sweden War (1620–1622), Polish-Sweden War (1625–1629) out from this one, which was getting unwieldy, but am having difficulty rewriting them into independent articles, with a beginning, middle and end etc. Any takers to help? Neddyseagoon - talk 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't all of those be at "Polish-Swedish War" rather than "Polish-Sweden War"? I don't recall ever seeing a compound name with one part using the adjective form and the other the noun form. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Neddyseagoon - talk 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Castles
Might I draw your attention to WikiProject Castles. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find an American Revolution Battle
Hi, I am writing an article on Ann Eliza Bleecker. Sources say she was displaced by the Saratoga Campaign in 1777, and again in 1779. I know the Saratoga Compaign ended in 1777. Do any of you know of a battle that took place in or near Albany or Saratoga in 1779? Thanks, you can answer here or on my talk page Epousesquecido 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I'm not aware of any fighting that took place particularly close to Albany in that year - it's possible the reference is to the Sullivan Expedition, which took place mainly in the summer of 1779. You might also ask at the US task force - someone there might have a more concrete answer. Carom 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had considered the Sullivan Expedition (by checking all the battles in the Northern campaign against years, it did come up as a candidate) but it seems further west, out by Elmira, which is well on the way to central New York. I'll reference this question at that task force's talk page, thanks for the pointer. Epousesquecido 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I initially had the same though, but this map seems to indicate that the expedition did make it's way fairly near to Albany, although I don't know if there was any fighting in the area. Carom 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple problems with that theory (pretty map though!)..
 * I think she lived on the E side of the Hudson, near Tomhannock. I have not found exactly where that is, but the modern day Tomhannock Reservoir is well to the east, as shown on Google Maps.
 * The original source seems to suggest she was fleeing from the British but the map (and my reading of the Sullivan article) suggests that Sullivan used Albany as a start point and worked his way west.
 * Thanks for the further thinking on this, though! Certainly not categorically ruled out, as the data is very sketchy! I have cross posted as you suggest. Epousesquecido 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lines of Ne Plus Ultra, 1711
Hi, I've just created an acticle on Marlborough's passage of the Lines of Brabant at Battle of Elixheim. I hope to create a similar article for his passage of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra, but would first like clarification whether the title Passage of the Lines of Ne Plus Ultra would fall within WP and this project's guidelines, given that no actual battle occured. MartinMcCann 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no obviously better name, that should be fine. We can always rename it if something more appropriate comes up. Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You could write the article on the Siege of Bouchain and use Marlborough's very impressive manoeuvres through the Ne Plus Ultra Lines, outwitting Villars, as the article's prelude. The siege of bouchain is every bit as interesting, and this was afterall, Marlborough's intention all along. Raymond Palmer 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this task forces's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other task forces/WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal?
Is there any interest in creating a Portal:Early Modern warfare for this area? I'm thinking of putting one together, so does anyone have any suggestions, input, objections, and so forth? Kirill (prof) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps Discussion
Can anyone who has experience making military maps for wiki purposes please comment on the following questions?

1. Is there a particular map style preferred for this period (i.e. black & white line drawing, marked-up historical map, modern topographic, et cetera)?

2. Is there a particular unit symbology preferred? Are simplified modern American military symbols (infantry, cavalry, artillery, et cetera) acceptable? Is there a preferred color scheme?

3. Is there a convention concerning the notation of ad hoc or irregular formations? I.e. would an ad hoc collection of fifty Massachusetts militiamen engaged together in an action constitute a company?

4. Is there a convention concerning unit movement vector notation? Should a mapmaker prefer fewer maps with an enumerated timeline noted on each, or more maps, each representing a discrete time period? Or some other model?

5. Are there any other guidelines that a person interested in creating maps for this period aught to know beyond those guidelines common to all of wikipedia?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Bwilreker (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a preferred notation, per se. Many people tend to use the NATO symbols, at least for modern engagements; but for older events, it's mostly an ad-hoc approach.
 * You could probably get away with just seeing what similar articles use and doing the same thing. Kirill (prof) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Early Modern warfare
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Which French flag?
There seems to be inconsistency in which French flag of the period we are using: this one and this one  are used interchangeably. Has there been some sort of consensus which to use. I don't want to change them only to be reverted, but I do want consistency in these articles. Thanks.

"Venetian War" circa 1610
I'm working on the Robert Gorges article, an early New England governor, and several sources state that he fought in the "Venetian wars", presumably for the English since his getting a commission as Governor by the crown was supposedly based on that service. But, I'm at a loss to figure out what war this was and I'm not familiar enough with the time period. Any ideas? It could be the "Venetian-Austrian War" of 1615-1617, based on some Google searches, but I don't see a Wikipedia article about that or it's not the conflict's modern name. Any ideas? JRP (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The conflict is (also) called the Uskok War; it does appear to be the war being referred to, since the English were involved, and Norwich's History of Venice does not list any others which match the period when Gorges could have been present. Hope that helps! Kirill 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:05, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder but, with less than 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.
 * Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.
 * Roger Davies talk 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Szigetvár now open
The peer review for Battle of Szigetvár is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Klis Fortress now open
The peer review for Klis Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze now open
The A-Class review for Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Rose peer review
Mary Rose is up for peer review. Comments and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Cedars now open
The A-Class review for Battle of the Cedars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for War of the Bavarian Succession now open
The A-Class review for War of the Bavarian Succession is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Siege of Fort William Henry now open
The peer review for Siege of Fort William Henry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for War of the Bavarian Succession now open
The featured article candidacy for War of the Bavarian Succession is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Soltau now open
The peer review for Battle of Soltau is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of the Cedars now open
The featured article candidacy for Battle of the Cedars is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Klis Fortress now open
The A-Class review for Klis Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton now open
The peer review for Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Valcour Island now open
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Valcour Island is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Siege of Scarborough Castle
In case anyone's interested, it's been freshly imported and could use a look from someone knowledgable. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) now open
The featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Plassey now open
The peer review for Battle of Plassey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) now open
The A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open
The A-Class review for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Quebec (1775) now open
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Quebec (1775) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 07:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) now open
The featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Alton now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Alton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open
The featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Ollantaytambo now open
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Ollantaytambo is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open
The A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)