Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Archive 1

Battles of the Somme
Can someone look at this First Battle of the Somme (1918) especially with regard to the current naming of Battle of the Somme (1916)?GraemeLeggett 08:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "First Battles of the Somme, 1918" is the official British name for the battle starting 21 March 1918, otherwise known as Operation Michael or the Kaiserschlacht. It is to distinguish it from the "Second Battle of the Somme, 1918" which is the official British name for the Somme fighting during the Hundred Days. Gsl 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

British Divisions
Would anybody here mind much if I started amalgamating some of the WW1 and post WW1 pages for some of the Brit divs that having continuing histories-- the regular formations and First Line TA? If there's no difficulty, I'll start rolling them together slowly on the lines of US Div entries. Cheers Buckshot06 07:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems like a decent idea. Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing topics list

 * I've just finished a missing topics list on WWI biographies based on FirstWorldWar.com if anyone is interested in taking a look. MadMax 23:38, 7 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 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Converting templates to portals
There's a discussion on the main talk page about converting the large WWI template into a portal - drop by to leave your opinion! Carom 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Portal:World War I had been created, and I intend to use it to replace the overly-large WWI template. Unless anyone has any concerns and/or complaints... Carom 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Schlacht von Tarnawka"
Hi, I'm currently translating the German article about the WWI general Remus von Woyrsch. The article refers to a certain three-day long "Schlach von Tarnawa", i.e. Battle of Tarnawka, between German and Russian forces. This page tells me it took place from 17-18/9/1914. I'm assuming Tarnawka is the German name for or the German transliteration of the name of some Eastern European town, which is probably known by its Eastern European name or transliterated differently in English. I guess there are two possibilities I found of what the English name of the town could be, either Tarnowka, which is located in Poland, or Trnávka, the name of two towns in Slovakia and one in the Czech Republic, but I couldn't find a reference to a WWI battle for any of those articles. Do any of you know what this mysterious battle might be called in English?--Carabinieri 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dobro Pole
I have "completed" and article on the Battle of Dobro Pole. I tried to compile as most information on the battle as possible, as there is scarce availible.

Main campaignbox
I've just taken a stab at merging WWITheatre into the standard Campaignbox World War I. It's functional, but perhaps a bit too big; any ideas for formatting the links in a more compact manner would be welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Poison gas in World War I FAR
Poison gas in World War I has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

War World I: sub-category thoughts
Having done a fair amount of categorising over the last couple of days, I've been struck by how complicated the WWI sub-categories are. Firstly, they're a real mouthful of type; secondly, they're not easy to remember; so all in all it's an unnecessary inconvenience. How do people feel about very broad sub-categories directly under Cat:World War I (sub-cat: France and World War I, sub-cat: United States and World War I etc) with the more specific stuff (sub-sub-cat:Military history of the United Kingdom during World War I, sub-sub-cat:Military personnel of the USA, etc) under them? There's a lot of good material and it's getting lost by over-specific categorisation and there are also way too many categories with very little stuff in them. This simplification would also give editors really obvious but relevant sub-categories for initial categorisation of their articles. The articles can always be moved/copied to better sub-categories later. Thoughts? Roger 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same thing lately and thought that some cleanup or reorganization should be done. I am posting it below for thoughts:


 * -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Create [Category:World War I in fiction] and include [World War I films], [World War I games] and [World War I literature] on it.
 * Create [Category:World War I history by country] and include [Military history of Australia during World War I], [Ottoman Empire and World War I], etc on it. Plus [Short-lived states of World War I] indeed.
 * [Category:World War I equipment] has to include [Category:World War I ships], [Category:World War I aircraft].
 * [Category:World War I sites] has to include [World War I memorials]. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [Category:World War I literature] contains non-fiction material, so the parent category needs a different name than [Category:World War I in fiction]. I've been thinking about a category like this for the American Revolution myself, something to cover films, plays, books, paintings, poems, songs, etc. Haven't figured out what to call it yet. —Kevin Myers 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree and think Roger has already found it → [World War I media]. It will include everyting, from history books to literature and movies. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some good stuff here. Some first thoughts ...
 * [World War I in fiction] would exclude history books :)) Perhaps [World War I media]? And then bypass [World War I literature] altogether?
 * [World War I history by country] - good idea. Except it excludes any national stuff that's not historic. That was my thinking behind [France and WWI] etc, absolutely catch all. Perhaps the answer is simply to remove the word "history"?
 * [World War I equipment] - tricky one this, because whilst it's spot on right in principle I cannot think of a dreadnought as a piece of equipment. Perhaps [World War I materiel] (no diacritic) instead.
 * Perhaps replace [Military operations of World War I] with a snappier [World War I hostilities]? (On which subject, the distinct between a theatre and a campaign is a fine one, and those sub-categories might usefully be combined.) It's only the Western Front that has a huge number of battles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * (Whoops) Roger 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussed above. Sounds appropriate.
 * Maybe [World War I by country]?
 * Agree. You are right. I thought about the same but couldn't find it. You got it.
 * Hostilities sounds a bit POVish. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this and this explain the rationale beyond some of the category naming schemes.
 * Taking the points already raised, I don't personally have any substantial objections to the "Foo and World War I" naming system, but "History of Foo during World War I" would serve just as usefully as a parent category for all World War I materials related to Foo, with "Military history of Foo during World War I" being a useful subcategory for military history. I also think "World War I literature" is a useful categorization, and should be retained. "World War I media" seems like a reasonable name for the parent. On the last point, Roger, it should be noted that the "Military operations" category is intended to be a parent of not only combat operations, but also cancelled operations and non-combat operations, which makes "hostilities" a not particularly useful replacement. Carom 14:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, not all operations are hostilities, per se. (Additionally, in the case of something like military operations, keeping the name consistent with the entire vast tree of such categories is more important than making it "snappy", I think.) Kirill Lokshin 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting "hostilities" (which has meant "acts of warfare" for 400 years) to avoid using "military". "Military" primarily refers to "armies" and "soldiers". The Arab Revolt, for instance, wasn't a military operation but a military-inspired insurrection. Naval battles are not usually regarded as military actions either. Roger 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's the old BE/AE problem, I think. In AE, "military" refers to all organized warfare, not just warfare by a formal ground army; so the Arab Revolt is a "military operation" even though it's not conducted by the same form of "military" that the Battle of the Somme was.  Our category names, for better or worse, seem to follow this usage fairly consistenly; I don't see any obvious benefits to be had by breaking that. Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. Websters had the primary meaning of military as of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b: of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces If Websters reckons that, a very significant number of people will think that. It's genuinely confusing. Roger 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A point of some interest here might be that we are the "military history" WikiProject, and that are scope is generally understood to include combat in all its forms. I'm not aware that our use of "military" in this general sense has generated a great deal of confusion, although I confess that the possibility for such confusion never occurred to me. Nonetheless, I don't see any particularly compelling reason for large scale changes to the category naming scheme. Carom 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all about striking a balance, isn't it? It's about having at the top of the tree broader, terser, more easily remembered categories (ie USA and World War I] and having the wordier more-specific ones (ie Military operations of the United States during World War I] further down. As far as I can tell we have consensus on that. I wasn't proposing wholesale renaming of sub-categories: that's sort of crept into the discussion on the fly. Roger 04:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True enough. I have no particular objections to using the "and World War I" form, rather than the "in World War I" form, for what it's worth. Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The easiest option for the country categories may be Category:World War I by country → France in World War I, Germany in World War I, etc.; this combines terse category names with a naming scheme that doesn't break that easily for unusual country names. I don't think that "history" is essential to have at any level; we could just as easily rename the military history categories to the form Category:Military of France in World War I and avoid that inconsistency entirely.


 * As far as literature is concerned, it may be useful to create a distinct Category:Historiography of World War I that would serve as a root for the historical works on the topic; then, we could have something along the lines of Category:Fictional depictions of World War I for the fictional material. Kirill Lokshin 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [France in World War I] is fine but it strongly suggests that it refers only to 1914-1918. [France and World War I] is better because it could include anything relating to France and the war, before or after those dates. (Incidentally, the difficulty with [Military of France in World War I] is that "military" explicitly embraces only France's army and soldiers.) Roger 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. This sounds a bit sonorous and has a potential for great hair-splitting. Why not use the everyday terms: history, fiction, autobiography, poetry, magazines, DVDs etc, all directly under the main category. I would be loathe, for instance, to sub-divide games into fact or fiction (some games are incredibly accurate, painstakingly researched, and used to develop army officers' strategical skills). Much good history is often popularised and dramatised. All this could easily lead to having to make many judgment calls. For the categories to be memorable, easy to navigate and easy to work with, the names must surely be plain, simple and essentially neutral. (Snappy would be a bonus.) Roger 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Are cemeteries memorials?
A new editor User:United Prune Corporation has removed various Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries from category:World War I memorials on the grounds that cemeteries are not memorials. Given that (1) most war cemeteries contain a memorial/monument or two; (2) the tradename for a tomb stone is a memorial stone; (3) that war cemeteries are intended to memorialize the fallen and (4) in the US, war dead are remembered on Memorial Day; is this reasonable? Do we need a separate category:World War I cemeteries and should, in consequence, 70-80% of the articles appear in both? Roger 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a distinct category for cemeteries is a good idea in any case; the real question is whether it should be a sub-category of the memorials one. I suspect that we need to clearly define the scope of "World War I" cemeteries here; does it include only cemeteries specifically set up for WWI casualties (in which case treating them all as memorials makes sense), or does it also include other cemeteries where such casualties are interred (in which case it probably doesn't)? Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) I don't think a separate category is warranted, although there is certainly a case for renaming to Category:World War I memorials and cemeteries. This would also match the naming scheme for the parent and sisters. However, there is also Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, which has a somewhat complex relationship with the by-nation and by-conflict category tree... Carom 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I too think a joint Category:World War I memorials and cemeteries would be fine. It avoids much hair-splitting. Out of interest, how do you arrange a renaming? ask one of the friendly neighbourhood admins? Roger 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CFD, unfortunately; our hands are basically tied as far as unilateral category renames are concerned. (It's not something I personally agree with, but that's neither here nor there.) Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, what fun! Carom 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although, it's possible that Category:World War I memorials might qualify for a speedy rename, based on the otherwise consistant naming scheme for the parent and sisters... Carom 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea: I've nominated Category:World War I memorials and Category:World War II memorials for speedy renaming on that basis. (Seemed silly not to do WWII as well while we're at it.) Roger 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename refused: The admin was very sympathetic and thought this ought to fall under type 4 but didn't at the moment. So the categories are back the normal candidate renaming section. If you have an opinion on this, please express it here. Roger 06:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a different matter. I think that's probably best left exactly as it is for time being. There are 1,700,000 people buried in 2,500 cemeteries in 150 countries spanning numerous conflicts including two world wars. In time, the category will probably grow huge but it's probably too early to say how that should be tackled. Long-term, the Category:German War Graves Commission will also present similar problems but on a smaller scale. Roger 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, since we're blurring the lines between cemeteries and memorials: would it be worthwhile to combine Infobox Military Cemetery and Infobox Military Memorial into a single template that could be used on both? Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Outstanding idea!!! Do we discuss it here? I have some ideas (I've been doing a LOT of cemetery stuff later) based on difficulties with the existing ones Roger 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Template talk:Infobox Military Memorial (as that seems to be the broader name) might be the best place to have a discussion if it's going to be an extended one. Barring any sudden objections, I'm going to simply merge the existing templates such that all the current uses will still work properly; once that's done, we can go ahead and start making additional changes to the (now consolidated) template. Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fewer infobox types the better, if you ask me. Carom 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)