Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Project award upgrade

All this talk of future plans got me thinking about an upgrade of the projects award system. At the moment we have one award the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award or WikiChevron, the award features three stripes with a gold barnstar above it. Seeing this is a military related project why not have several levels of award following a military rank system. I propose keeping the current design with three stripes but creating two lower grades of awards. The lowest would have 1 stripe and the barnstar, similar to the rank of private. The middle with 2 stripes and the barnstar and the highest being the current award. Also some guidlines would be created around each rank outlining the reasons why the awards should be given. This would allow a user to award someone an award for smaller contributions and increase the level of the award as their contributions increase. Any thoughts Hossen27 10:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than tiering the existing award, I was thinking about an additional set of medals for various things, leaving this one as a generic award. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea - make everyone feel like part of a "family/organisation" where they know that their efforts will be recognised in some manner. Of course, one could "promoted" for actions above and beyond the call of duty as well as reaching a specified level of contributions to the Project. --Harlsbottom 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Im all for creating additional awards for other reasons such as article creation, services to the project but I think it should run along side a tiered standard award. It would allow less active members to still recieve the main award along with the more specific but possibly less prestigious medals. The three main awards become increasingly harder to get as you progress. The top award would be like recieving the VC or Medal of Honour (Not meaning to trivialise those awards) the middle would be like winning the Bronze Star and the bottom like winning a DSO (lots of people have it but its still requires a large effort to get). Mixed in with specific less important medals (similar to campaign medals). Maybee im putting to much thought into this :) Hossen27 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No you're not. The subject is very important. There is no project without a community feeling and there is no community feeling without such things (especially when we're talking about a military history project :)
However, I still stand by that Wikichevrons should be kept as an existing first-tier award. Such as:
  1. WikiChevrons
  2. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
  3. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords
(Yeah I love the Ritterkreutz system :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that but the higher awards must be hard to get, WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords would reqire committment like Krills. The more specific awards could be for things such as.

  • Heavy contribution to a specific task force (So a medal for each task force)
  • A medal for 6 months in the project (recieving a bar for each additional 6 month period)
  • For number of contributions to the project (eg. 500 or 1000 edits)
  • For number of articles created
  • Minor edit medal (lowest on order of merit)
  • Anti vandalism medal
  • Coordinator and assistant coordinator medal
  • Feature article medal
  • Add more here

Each medal could come in a Ribbon format and a medal so medals dont start to clutter user paged. There should also be a defined order of merit or something similar. Hossen27 13:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In order:

  • No, not a medal for each task force. I would rather go for a clasp on an standard award.
  • Yes.
  • No, editcountitis is evil.
  • I'm not convinced...
  • There is already the minor barnstar
  • Redundant with the Anti-vandalism barnstar
  • What do you mean? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Receive a medal if you get a good number of MILHIST articles up to FA standard, could be redundant with FA medal that already exists. Agree editcountitis can be very bad, how about a joint medal with based on both edit count in the project and articles created, simply a contribution medal (maybe several classes). I like the clasp idea. Hossen27 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm thinking too (on FA thing) I already have a ribbon for that btw and using it :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else got an opinion on the Project award upgrade. Hossen27 13:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We should let this thread live for a few days. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This award thing is suspicious to me, it can create tensions. While editcountitis is evil a human factor in distributing medals can not do without being biased. We have some decorated veterans, but other diligent editors have nothing on their userpage. In my opinion favoring articles every day on the mainpage is a better way to award. We could for example feature articles, task forces or editors on our project page once in a while. This way the contributing editor gets positive feedback and most important we should do this featuring to make contact with the featured person easier. The aim is to better integrate their know-how and ideas into the community and inspire others. Wandalstouring 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're not inventing anything here, as barnstars are already there and they can create some tensions, so by adding one or two more, that won't change anything... However, I agree that the thing is not to overdo it by adding a bunch of awards. Four of five versions of Wikichevrons should be plenty enough. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I do think the level of tension from the project award ought to be miniscule, and should generally be worth it for the motivational factor it provides. Maybe one way of approaching this might be having two "lines" of awards:
  • The multi-grade WikiChevrons (with shiny stuff tacked on!) for actual accomplishments (barnstars, in other words). Somebody needs to draw up some designs, though.
  • One or more service awards that would be handed out based on time in the project or something like that; since these would be distributed very widely, it might help avoid the feeling that some people aren't getting anything.
I think that awards for specific tasks (vandal-fighting, etc.) would be too much work, and would overlap too much with existing barnstars; I don't really see the need to create our own versions of everything if something suitable already exists. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
One further comment: one idea bounced around when the award was first put in place as a possibility for higher-level awards would be to have them bestowed by the project as a whole—following a general consensus—rather than by individual members. This would, of course, potentially limit the number of recipients, but would also provide (a) the idea of an "official" recipient (we could, for example, keep a list on the project page without worrying about missing people) and (b) perhaps more impact to the award if it were seen as recognition from the entire community, rather than from one individual. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I thnk having a regimented hierachical order in what is basically an anarchic collaboration could be counterproductive. What if someones throws their weight around: "I'm a General on the MILHIST WikiProject, so I win this edit war. Blocked 24hrs!"? OK, we already do have this problem. But let's not make this any worse.
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little something to shows some appreciation for one's work, so maybe we can have a "Editor(s) of the Month" thingy. -- Миборовский 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused here. I was under the impression that we were merely discussing having a multiple grades of the project awards (which are essentially trinkets—nice morale-boosters, but not bestowing any rank, title, or priviledge on those receiving them) rather than any formal way of grading editors in general (which wouldn't be a good idea, for the reason you menton); is this not the case? Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK then instead of general let's make it "I have the WikiChevron with oak leaves, swords and grand cordon, so I win this edit war". Military-style medals of any sort inherently confers rank and privilege. Actually, medals of any sort (including barnstars) confer a sense of privilege, but military ones are the worst. In my humble opinion. -- Миборовский 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting perspective on that. The quesion that immediately occurs to me is this: is this actually a practical concern? Or, to put it another way: are the people being given these awards the type that would try to use them in an underhanded manner to win disputes? That certainly hasn't been my impression of the recipients of the current award; is there something specific that you have in mind? Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Миборовский. But I still didn´t encounter a tinselstallion showing it off here, on the other hand you should also outrule that admins misuse their powers. If we have these awards in a hall of fame for example it would put a hindrance for prestigious misuse, while we still honor who deserves honor. Defeat the beginnings. Wandalstouring 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
By hall of fame, do you mean a listing of recipients on the project page? Or something else entirely? And would this approach (a) necessarily require that these awards be given out by project consensus, rather than by individual editors (b) necessarily preclude having a badge corresponding to the "award" that could be displayed by recipients? Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Miborovsky. The point a lot of people miss is that you don't need any kind of awards or even barnstars to bully editors and to be disruptive. However, people that will be awarded high-ranked awards (above the current wikichevrons) are likely to be long-standing members respected by the project. We can even make the award a project consensus.
Yes, I love ribbons. And I would like to see this system implemented. But I never said anything like that and probably won't regardless of whether it exists or not. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

a) It contains no requirements who gives the award.

b) It supports to preclude a corresponding badge on the userpage.

c) An own page could be more suitable. Wandalstouring 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, what's the point (to put it somewhat bluntly)? It certainly wouldn't be an indication of prestige—since anyone could add names—and wouldn't even have the morale-boosting effect of giving people "awards". What exactly would anyone get out of this, other than a vague list of "nice people"? Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, we have two factions: the tinselsupporters and the tinselbanners. The tinselbanners see all the possible disadvanteges and dangers. To avoid them, awards are made a vague list of "nice people". The tinselsupporters want to give shiny stuff on the userpages to motivate the troops. This way a positive feedback is created, the user is always reminded about his achievements, hopefully inspiring him to even more, and it is a tool for community integration. Wandalstouring 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea. What about Friendship Bracelets style? Nobody has ever been able to intimid someone else with this, no matter how many he had. Wandalstouring 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So how do we create a system that can satisfy both parties (which seem to include about five people at the moment; I'm quite interested in what the remainder of the project thinks of all this)?
The current system combines (1b) informal, anyone-can-do-it awarding with (2a) award badges. The original proposal above was to have a secondary system with (1b) informal awarding and (2a) award badges. My proposal was (1a) formal, project-consensus-based awarding, (2a) award badges, and (3) list of recipients. Your proposal seems to be (1b) informal awarding, (2b) no award badges, and (3) list of recipients. I think we're going around in circles here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Bicycling, two different circles spinning around in one discussion. No, I never referred to informal awarding, I was simply not discussing this matter. It was arguing against award badges that pose the possibility to gain authority and proposing ways to avoid it. Badges are OK in my opinion, shiny big medals less. Wandalstouring 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, do you think that the size or complexity of the "badge" really makes a difference? They're just pictures, after all (and can be resized as desired).
I'm not convinced that this would a practical issue, though, as I have difficulty imagining that anyone to whom we might give a prestigious award would try to misuse it; or that it would make any difference even if they did. These are, again, mere pictures; unlike the admin metaphor, they don't come with any actual powers. Someone could just as easily try to "pull rank" using any number of other methods (editcount, length of time editing, etc.); I don't really see why awards would make things any more problematic than they would be anyways. Kirill Lokshin 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill. The whole argument about "I am XXX, so I win the edit war" is kinda useless. People who are d*cks don't need awards to be d*cks, and will get blocked or banned anyway. OTOH, people that will recieve high awards are likely to be nice people and won't inflate their head... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Kirill and Grafikm_fr -- Sounds like we're creating a problem that doesn't exist, and if it did, the people doing it would be jerks without the award anyway. I can't see that anyone getting this would then all of a sudden, because they got this award, turn into a jerk. I say, if they're caught using it as a weapon, we take it away. But I feel like it's a non-issue in that the awards don't make already jerky people jerks. I think the benefit far outweighs any potential for this plange 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, carry on. A jerk is a jerk. No more objections. Wandalstouring 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading about, I set of distinctions for awards, somewhat like our own modern medals or badges; breaking up the awards into two types wich I loosly name Acheivement and Distinction. The first would encompass things that need not have a cadre of people discuss about. To take from exemples from Hossen27's original list, tenure: reaching 6 months of activity,coordinator and etc. The second group will be much like the current Wikicheverons given for a distinction. This later group would be voted, to give the weight of the project behind it, it could also go into what Kirill Lokshin's proposition of a list of recipients. In short, one formal and one informal like Kirill Lokshin surmised above. As to what will be incorporated I'll ponder on that one and will post in good order. In either case I beleive that it could do some positive reinforcement and that like it has been concluded:"A jerk is a jerk."--Dryzen 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I still think a tiered idea of Wikichevrons being the best :) I'll try to come up with some drafts to show you though, so I won't be just displacing air... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, fine. If we're gonna have all these awards then might as well make it authentic. We'll need badges, devices, ribbons, clasps, award stars (let's avoid award numerals since they're US-only) and orders of precedence. Let's rock and roll. -- Миборовский 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm_fr has a template for transposing award stars on ribbons (and with some tweaking could be used for medals too). User:Grafikm_fr/Ribbon -- Миборовский 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity's sake: I stolecopied it from User:Cool cat. But the clasp rather than the barnstar is my idea, and I made the pic myself :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm not sure how useful it would be for medals; obviously they could be used for medal-with-ribbon setups, but superimposed badges wouldn't really work for larger award badge images.
A few ideas, off the top of my head:
  • We could make the "achievement" award(s)—the ones for tenure and so forth—normal ribboned medals. These could then take the superimposed stars to indicate multiple/successive awards.
  • Conversely, the "distinction" awards could have (as Grafikm suggested) several levels, which would have larger badges with added regalia (e.g. award, award with oak leaves, award with swords and oak leaves, etc.) to indicate the level.
Given that I'm not all that good with any kind of drawing work, I'll leave the actual drafting of the designs up to someone else ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As a side point: it might be nice to use a common "WikiChevrons" element in all the awards, and add various items to the image to create specific ones, such as (large) ribbons for medals or various trinkets for more order-like awards. The main problem with this is that the original WikiChevrons are somewhat inconvenient, as the chevrons are detached from the star, preventing its natural use with other elements. I'm wondering if someone would like to take a stab at rearranging the chevrons; maybe emboss them onto the star? Or overlay them? In addition, retouching the image to some more metallic color than danger stripe yellow might be nice if we'd like to use it in other compositions.
All of this would require some image editing skills, obviously; hence, the call for volunteers ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm drawing this up right now, please wait a few minutes... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm at work right now, so can't help. -- Миборовский 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin as expressed it quite succinctly , with regards to the "Achivements" and "Distinctions"' design. The implementaion of hte Wikichevrons as a mark of the award's origins its an excellent concept.--Dryzen 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First sketch

Disclaimer: This is a quickly drawn sketch so we'll be able to get the idea. Don't hit me please (not on the head at least).

It's pretty fast drawn but I think it's a start. Not all tiers will be used (four or five of them only). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice design!
I don't really like the distinction between "dagger" and "swords", though, particularly as the rifles and swords occupy the same visual position; maybe we should go "oak leaves and sword" → "oak leaves, rifles, and sword" → "oak leaves, rifles, wings, and sword" (which also reduces the number of grades neatly)? Or maybe lengthen the swords and change the angle so they can be applied together with the rifles? Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not planning to use them all. I'm personally for "plain" → "oak leaves" → "oak leaves and sword" → "oak leaves, sword and rifles" → "oak leaves, sword, rifle and wings". But rifles are not a standard heraldry symbol, and some people may not like them. So I made both so people can compare. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. A few other ideas:
  • Flip the single sword so that the hilt can be seen in the gap at the top?
  • Maybe change the regular image to move the star into the same position it occupies in the other ones?
  • Could the images be recoloured/modified to look more like metal plaques? Or would that be too difficult?
(This may be moot if people don't like this design, of course; but I'm just throwing things out for comment at this point.) Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
guns (cannons) and anchor are missing. Wandalstouring 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill: No prob to flip the sword. Regarding moving the image to its "usual" place, no prob but since you said you did not want a detached star... :) And as for recolouring, as I said, it is a first draft, so let's decide on design first :)
Wandalstouring: do you suggest some more tiers or removing some existing? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No no, I meant moving the star in the original (first-level) image so that it's overlaid over the chevrons (as in the later images) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, slightly clever (maybe?) idea per Wandalstouring:
  • WikiChevrons
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Sword(s)
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Sword(s), and Anchors
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Sword(s), Anchors, and Wings
One design element for each major service? Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And one more (I promise I'll stop now...): if we adopt this, maybe we can use the central star + oak leaves as the pendant part of the medal for the achievement awards? Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually more for Swords and Anchor (à-là USMC logo). I'll see what I can do.
As for medals, sure thing, this is all (pseudo)vector, so no problem to add/remove things. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(decreasing indent)

Well, you know what, drawing an anchor is hard. That's my best attempt... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's quite nice, actually. Two minor points, though:
  • The anchor (and the swords?) needs to show up through the hole in the barnstar.
  • Can the swords be made longer? It's difficult to see them when they're entirely contained within the area of the main chevron.
Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I could try to make it show, but it's too small, so you see only gray... As for longer, I'll make a new version... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just gray would be fine; better than a strange white circle where the viewer expects to see something from behind the star, anyways. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"For a nitpicker, you surely dress poorly" (c) Dilbert... :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, V4 done. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't draw, so all I can do is criticize. ;-)
But now that the swords are rotated, they'd need to show through the gaps too. I wonder if it would not be better to simply fill the area behind the star (the gaps between its arms and the leaves) with a lighter shade of yellow, forming a solid disk "behind" the star image? Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What kind of yellow, give an example please :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Entirely up to you; as I said, I can't draw. It just needs to be different enough from the yellow of the star & chevrons that both outlines are distinguishable. Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that I can draw, you're heavily mistaken... Anyway, V5's uploaded. Heh, a zero-grade color perception will always be my curse... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm not entirely sure if the filled-in version or the transparent version is better; would anyone else like to comment? :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Anybody else think those are some very happy-looking chevrons or is it just me? --ScreaminEagle 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? *scratches head* -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The anchor makes it look like a smiley face and that's all I can see now. It's pretty stupid, so nevermind, just pretend I'm not here. ...Stop looking at me like that! --ScreaminEagle 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest replacing the rifles with big guns for artillery (guns, siege engines). Cavalry has usually an iron fist as insignia (in Europe). The wings are for flying objects (rockets, planes, jets, starships), the crossed swords are the insignia of infantry, the anchor for naval things or amphibious forces. And mechanized troops get a bicycle (we need some kind of funny award, besides bicycles were used by several militaries, like SS-cavalry or Vietcong) and for nuclear troops a nuclear mushroom. For terrorists I suggest (I do not object if somebody has a better symbol) a derivate of the gun of the Red Army Faction (a German terrorist organization cooperating with several international terrorist groups, especially Palestinian and Libanon groups. fortunately they decided to disintegrate several years ago, so we do not support anybody doing terrorism now) Of course we can mix all of them and add some more signs of recognition. Wandalstouring 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we concentrate on the main 5 tier sequence at the moment. I already have enough stuff to draw :) Then we have to discuss what form would those additional awards take. :)))-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we just trying to put in an image for everything, or are we trying to make this look like a "traditional" award badge? Some images make sense for one of these but not the other. Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, I would go for the following system.
  • A five-tiered WikiChevrons (plain/oak/swords/anchor/wings) That's the main Wikiproject award. And it's tiered, like Legion d'Honneur or Order of Glory are.
  • Then, if people want, some special award badges, for contribs to this or that. I'm not discussing their design here, as it is a separate matter, and their list must be decided beforehand. The idea, IMHO, is to not overdo it. I could go with a WikiProject military history medal with clasps on it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I basically agree with that. My suggestion for the secondary badges would be to have two different "medals": one for tenure/length of activity and one for article-writing (with exact times at which these would be handed out to be determined). The first one would have only award stars to indicate multiple awards; but the second could have any number of specialized clasps to indicate the particular area/topic in which the contributions had occurred. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I had in mind too. Like a medal for contribs with clasps or little colored symbols to go on the ribbon (e.g. a lily for French TF and so on...) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Vide contra (sorry quality is real crap but I made it in a hurry. So you have a medal with devices on it. The lys stands for French TF and the plane for aviation TF. Just an example. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Very neat. The clasps will probably need to be silver, and we can definitely lose the light yellow background here (since there's no missing elements to hide); but the general idea looks quite nice. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more: I actually prefer the design of the medal to the chevrons-based ones above. Might it be possible to have a set of medals with the oak leaves (and swords/anchors/whatnot crossed behind the disk) for the graded awards and then have a version without the oak leaves to use with clasps for achievement awards? We'd need to flip the star to allow it to be "attached" to the ribbon, but that doesn't seem too bad. Comments? Kirill Lokshin 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I see two slight objections:
  • It means abandoning the traditional WikiChevrons design, which is something akin to a symbol by now :)
  • On the "anchor" version, the anchor sticks higher than the star, so you won't be able to attach the ribbon to the star. Unless of course you scrap the anchor and replace it with rifles :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Or we could do a diagonal anchor, with a sword going the other way. As far as the chevrons: is there any way we could put the chevrons on the ribbon in place of the vertical stripes? Or would that be too tacky? Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean like that? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, just like that. A few more suggestions (which you're no doubt getting tired of by now): change the ribbon background to a silver or steel color to make the chevrons & clasps more visible and remove the background color behind the star. Another thing to consider (which may be too bizarre) would be to use this shape of ribbon? Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Version of Grafikm's last draft with blue ribbon, transparent background, and crossed swords behind.
My own rather pathetic attempt at implementing some of this can be seen at right. It obviously has many problems, but I think the general idea can be seen. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't we simply change the color for minor awards and keep all the symbols? silver, bronze, iron, copper? Would be another of the slightly clever (maybe?) ideas from Wandalstouring 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that might be too complicated, if you mean doing it instead of the medals (with a five-tier "distinction" award, you'd have a minimum of 10 minor awards, each of which would need to have some meaning) or too plain if you mean the main levels (the colors may be too difficult to distinguish; bronze and gold don't look that different). Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep thinking simple. What about iron/steel award for duration? Perhaps with a H-iron instead of a star. Wandalstouring 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow you go away from the discussion for a couple days and look what happedens. I like where the designs are going, but seeing i cant draw and my photoshop skill are what they used to be ill stay out of the design side. I am for the five-tiered WikiChevrons (plain/oak/swords/anchor/wings) then the special award badges with TF and contrib clasps. Well keep up the good work Hossen27 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, me too actually. I don't like the idea of a suspended thing for WikiChevrons. For the medal however, Kirill's design is very nice... :) I reckon we should take these two... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Anchor
I have no objections to that; it would probably be a good idea to wait for some more comments. In the meantime, a few thoughts on Grafikm's last chevron design (at right):
  • As in the medal, removing the colored background seems to be a bit more natural.
  • Maybe lengthen the anchor, so that the horizontal elements at the top & bottom are visible outside the chevron background.
  • The swords should be visible through the gaps that result from the first step.
  • All of the elements should be cleaned up to give an impression of an actual badge, rather than a painted design. At a minimum, the color of the chevrons might be made a bit darker and more metallic, and the swords can be recolored to a simple gold/silver scheme. The wings can be filled in with a lighter grey for a silver look as well.
All of these require actual image editing skills. Is anyone feeling up to it (as I'm really not) or do we need to find someone?
Finally, what kind of things should the medal be awarded for? The most obvious ideas are tenure (at what intervals?) and article contributions of some sort (but how do we measure this)? We should probably come up with something that won't require a lot of subjective judgement, so that we can hand them out fairly liberally. (And do we want service star-like clasps, horizontal bar clasps, or both?) Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do for the design already.
  • For the status of Wikichevrons: It is awarded for great contributions to military history related article and for running the project itself. They're awarded like Legion of Honor, meaning you start with the plain chevrons, then if you get a second award you have chevrons with oak leaves and so on... The first tier is awarded by any user just like a barnstar is. The two next... well we'll have to define some criteria sure. I also suggest that the last two tiers should be awarded through a project vote.
  • For the medal, I prefer star-like clasps since they're easier to display on a ribbon bar (which will be prolly be twice a wide as a standard one). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WOW...I'm blinded by the beauty! Great work Kiril and Graf!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First Draft

Making a subsection considering the size at wich this discussion has grown.

As Kirill Lokshin indicated what kind of things should the medal be awarded for? For a quick run down of what has been proposed so far:

Reasons

  • Tenure
  • Length of service (suggested time so far was 6 months)
  • Office held/holding
  • Contributions

Types:

"Achievement":ribboned medals

  • One or more service awards that would be handed out based on time in the project or something like that; since these would be distributed very widely, it might help avoid the feeling that some people aren't getting anything.

"Distinction":Several levels with regalia

  • The multi-grade WikiChevrons (with shiny stuff tacked on!) for actual accomplishments (barnstars, in other words). Somebody needs to draw up some designs, though.

Feel free to add anythign I might of missed in my rapide resume --Dryzen 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit more:

Award process:

"Achievement": awarded primarily at more-or-less objective points, can be given out as a routine matter.

"Distinction": first level remains a pure barnstar (anyone can award at will). The next four levels are open to discussion; it has been suggested that the top two levels be awarded by the consensus of the project as a whole. The middle two can also follow this model, or perhaps just be awardable via some number of editors endorsing (e.g. the award is given out once three members endorse a nomination.

Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I object giving an award for simply holding an office. Let's turn it an election whether a former office holder should be awarded. We could make this while voting on new ones. This way we make sure no sloth-bear gets an award and it expresses more feelings of gratitude.
The award process sounds OK. Wandalstouring 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a brief note to indicate that if anyone posts one of those horrid yellow things on either my user page or user talk page I will personally hunt them down and choke them. :-) Carry on. Michael DoroshTalk 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
<-- Horrid yellow thing on your userpage? Are you talking about this? :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The horror, the horror... --Dryzen 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wandalstouring, looks like all our runner ups have gotten some barnstars for trying. Normally should the participant have been given office he should already hold some measure of respect from his peers, but I concure that gratitude is the basis for all awards.--Dryzen 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"crickets"--Dryzen 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, was somebody drawing up more designs? Or do we want to go ahead with something like what's up now? Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was expecting to get some more input from our comarades, as this still needs some hammering out of the details. I seem to have knack for being the last to post in discussions... --Dryzen 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So, anybody else have ideas for the images? :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Many of us are too busy working on page space to worry much about how fancy an award looks, or who gets one. I'm glad someone does care about it; I just don't have anything useful to say. IMHO, pats on the back are cheap and always a good idea. Folks endorsed with community trust, their reward is responsibility (sometimes for discussing awards). Enjoy! BusterD 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. ;-)
(It turns out that our chief award designer is on break; we'll probably see some more concrete progress here once he's back.) Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Second draft

Okay, it seems that the complicated discussion isn't going anywhere. So (without prejudice in regards to going with the full scheme if there's more interest in that), let me throw out a much simpler idea: a rudimentary two-level setup:

  • WikiChevrons (Distinguished Service Award, 2nd Class)
    WikiChevrons (Distinguished Service Award, 2nd Class)
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves (Distinguished Service Award, 1st Class)
    WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves (Distinguished Service Award, 1st Class)
  1. WikiChevrons: as present, can be awarded by anyone for anything; encourage people to use this more liberally.
  2. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves: to be awarded by the consensus of the project; will include an officially maintained list of recipients.

This has the advantage of being much simpler to implement, and doesn't require significant additional image work; but obviously loses a lot of the frills of the first draft. Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I know I've been neglecting my duties of designer and stuff, but I have some exams to prepare atm... I'll be back on Sept. 20, can we let it cook until than? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok; that's fine with me. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It can wait. At worst this is a great fall back plan.--Dryzen 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any designs yet? Hossen27 13:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the stuff above is the latest we have; hopefully we'll have some more soon, though! Kirill Lokshin 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think simplicity is the best way to go, that's why the barnstars are so successful as the emphasis is on the fact that you have one rather than how ornate it is. These second drafts look very promising! --SGGH 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Recolorized version.

OK, the discussion (sorta) resumes. I've been moderately successful at my attempts though. For the time being: I colored the swords in gold and gray, so it gives this... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looks very nice! Kirill Lokshin 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Draft

Okay, here we go again:

  • WikiChevrons
    WikiChevrons
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
    WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords
    WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Swords
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords and Anchor
    WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords and Anchor
  • WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords, Anchor and Wings
    WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Swords, Anchor and Wings

Don't hit me please... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the final image not actually have an anchor? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you just happen to experience hallucinations Kirill :P -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys have done an amazing job, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here a little bit. Why are we wasting so much time with this? Doesn't seem to be important; it's just an award....over the internet, no less. This project is already phenomenal, but that doesn't mean it can't still be improved. And I doubt we're going to improve it by voting on which award looks better. This whole thing is just silly.....we're mature adults arguing about oaks and leaves on yellow circles.>/s>UberCryxic 23:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, we're neither arguing nor spending a great deal of time on this, I think. But, more generally: awards tend to be a good thing. Having more awards, and community-supported awards, is presumably also a good thing. If it takes a while to settle on a good design: so what? It's not like it's interfering with the project's more serious work. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
These awards are nice - they make us feel good for two minutes - but I don't see how they contribute anything significant. If you were to prove to me that they are somehow a motivational factor in the work that people do, then I might be more receptive to the idea. But right now these look like Christmas decorations. The award we have is already fine in that respect.UberCryxic 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is making people feel good not a motivational factor? (Particularly insofar as the variety of recent flare-ups have shown that we need all the motivational factors—and particularly all the ways of making people feel good about contributing—that we can get our hands on.)
As far as the designs looking like Christmas decorations: well, that may be a fair criticism, but it has more to do with the drawing itself than with the idea of having a multi-level award. We could certainly go for something less ornate—e.g. something like the two-level system that was proposed as a stop-gap measure above—but this would necessarily mean a simpler award system. Whether that's something to be preferred is open to discussion. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically who do you need to make "feel good"? I'd like a username or two. The very idea behind Wikipedia is that you devote your time for a higher purpose. I doubt anyone came here because people offered us awards. If the implication is that we need awards to keep people here, then that does not say much about their dedication. Or even if the implication is that we need awards to make people do more work or better work, then it still flounders. That's what A-class, GA, and FA are there for: they make us feel good about our work. At best awards are redundant. Our biggest motivation already is Wikipedia and what it stands for; awards can't overcome that. And if they can't, then they are unnecessary. And they are especially unnecessary when we assign the job to one of our coordinators, who should not have to bother with such trivialties.UberCryxic 00:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it's best if I disengage from this conversation. I can't see any good coming out of it. Although I think this is all crap, the designs really are nice. That I truly mean.UberCryxic 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Funny how real military arguments infiltrate the military history project. One that always goes back and forth. What good are ribbons and medals for soldiers? Your thank you comes on payday and anything else is fluff. You shouldn't need anymore motivation to do you job. Who is right? I would say both are and that is why this argument has been going for a few hundred years.--Looper5920 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In researching articles recently for World War II Pacific battles, I read that Japanese military personnel, especially enlisted personnel, were rarely awarded decorations, ribbons, or medals and many of them really resented not being able to receive decorations or recommend them for their comrades. Cla68 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, true enough.
As far as how we approach this in practice, everything seems entirely flexible at this point. The main ideas that seem to drop out of the lengthy discussions above are twofold:
  • Having one or more "higher" levels of the award with more community-driven—and hence hopefully more prestigious—requirements. This could be done as simply as just having one extra level to be awarded by project consensus (although two might be more flexible); if people think the full 4/5 level system is too complicated, we can leave off some of the levels, as there's no requirement that all the potential designs be used.
  • Having more frequent and liberal handing out of awards for just doing decent work over time, without necessarily having done something specific for which someone decides to give you an award. This could be done by introducing additional medals/clasps; alternately, we could just be much more liberal in using the first-level WikiChevrons.
None of this is required, of course; but I don't think there have been too many objections to having some sort of awards per se. It's just a matter of settling on something that will be useful for the project. Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Grafikm (AutoGRAF), here's slap on the back for great work. Gaining recognition for our efforts can be a valourizing experience. True its not needed as this is all volunteer work to begining with but its still something to take pride in. I'm a pro^ponent of seeying this through, a multi tiered system. for a rough deisign as basic barnstar allocatable by any when ever for whatever, much as we have now, a tenure and a contributions or Achievement and distinction (as mentioned in the first draft). Merging the current system within the dual t/c or a/d is also a sound though , as earlier mentioned in the draft.But should this grow to become a hinderance to our project community then let us abort. For the time it projects as an enjoyable progression in internal relationships.--Dryzen 13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's Friday evening and I'm totally out, so can I have a translation please, because I don't get it... :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Translation: it's all good, keep working, try to go for the full system but simplify if needed, and drop it if it becomes too much a point of contention. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
( :oD )--Dryzen 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered an entire eagle rather than just disembodied wings. Hve a look at the UK's MoD site, its a similar design. If not, why not have a similar system that army's have for promotion ie: one stripe for good work, followed by two stripes, three stripes, three stripes and a star, etc Raymond Palmer 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Three task force ideas

Okay, culling things out of some old discussions, three ideas for task forces that I think might be feasible:

Russian military history
Define this broadly, as with the German task force, to include anything that a reasonable editor might consider to be "Russian" or related to "Russian history". Certain things will probably overlap with other (potential) task forces, but as there doesn't seem to be a great influx of interest in, say, Ukranian military history, I think this won't be too unpleasant.
Latin American military history
Lumping all of these together—at least for the time being—is probably the most effective way to get a decent level of activity. There aren't too many articles in question, so this ought to be manageable.
Historiography
This is more questionable, as I don't know whether we have that many editors interested in the topic; but something dealing with historians and their works would be quite helpful. (Is this the best name, though? Perhaps simply "Historians" would work better?)

Any comments or suggestions—and particularly statements of interest in participating in any of these—are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I, for one, would contribute to historiography (historiography, or at least, the way in which history is recorded and interpreted is one of my minor research interests). I think "Historians and Historiography" would be most appropriate, as that would allow for the inclusion of not only historians and their work, but separate articls on any historiographical controversies that fall under our purview. Carom 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Russian one is long overdue. I assume that its statement of scope will make clear whether it encompasses the former USSR territory and the new states (best of luck with the phrasing). Is "Latin America" geographical or cultural, ie does it include/ exclude Falkland Islands/ Malvinas, Belize, Surinam, etc? Are West Indies included? Sorry if I've missed a relevant discussion. Folks at 137 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Presumably whatever is included in our Latin America article? I don't expect this one to be contentious, and given that many of these countries don't have a particularly large number of topics to cover, it may be best to just lump them together. Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I still say it should be called the Eurasia Task Force since that's what most professionals call the former USSR now. I may or may not join such a TF, I just thought I'd add my opinion yet again.--ScreaminEagle 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Historiography would be a nice idea, but is possible above our average editors level.
  • There have been a little bit more wars in Latin America than in Anglo-Saxon America. Of course Jamaica, Haiti, Bahamas, Trinidad&Tobago, etc. can never be considered part of Latin America (and don't consider themselves), but Texas (Texas war of independence), California, Nevada and New Mexico are definetly within its scope as they were all former provinces of Mexico and Florida was also Spanish for some time. Furthermore they maintained a Latin American population (+immigrants from other states with native language English) and it is growing nowadays. In my opinion it is quite difficult to draw the line between the U.S. and Latin America without provoking disputes (of course most native English speaking editors and readers would never dream about considering part of the U.S. Latin America). I think forming this taskforce along a cultural border is a bad approach. I would prefer a geographic one, this creates less disputes. Especially considering the Carribean you will have lots of military operations to cover (many in the age of sail). So I suggest North (North Pole, Greenland, Canada, U.S.A., Mexico), South America (+Falkland) and Caribbean (+Bermuda). Wandalstouring 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, how about a "South and Central American" task force? Would that include the Carribean? I'm hesitant to go for two separate ones here simply because I doubt we have the editors. Conversely, we could just create a "South American" task force for now and leave the question of Central America, Mexico, and the Carribean for a later point (i.e. when editor interest develops). Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's see what the editors are interested in. Wandalstouring 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested in a Russian task force for sure. However, I don't think it would make sense for it to not be "Russian/Soviet", or even "Russia/Former Soviet Union", because of the fact that basically all of the Soviet Union used to be tsarist Russia, and so on. Also, perhaps "Latin America and the Caribbean" might be a better scope than "Latin America"? Just thinking that the US and Canada already have task forces, and if there's too much stuff going on in the big one, it can get split up geographically/culturally/nationally as need be. Less arguing of semantics, more stuff gets done. UnDeadGoat 23:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem of separating "Latin America" from "Caribbean" is that the Spanish-speaking countries of the latter are usually considered part of the former. So I think that there should be some consideration for linking Caribbean to Central and South America. As to Mexico and Central America, where they are grouped often depends on the topic. For modern military history, Mexico isn't all that linked with Central America, whereas for ancient history, the two are inextricably linked.
Moreover, for modern military history, Central and South America have some common ties — most especially in the case of Panama, which switched from one grouping to the other within the 20th century. You also have to deal with the Cold War ties, which aren't typically applied to Mexico. Geographically, Mexico is part of North America, but cultural groupings usually tie it to the regions to its south. All worth considering, but don't know what the decision should be. Only know that Central America shouldn't be overlooked or casually assigned, nor should Caribbean. --Lawikitejana 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Took the questionable step of changing the indentations, as I found some were misleading in terms of visually connecting responses to the items to which they respond. If someone reverts that change, please take steps to preserve this paragraph.)
Hmm, is there some broad term (or combination of terms) that would apply to everything south of the US? Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have seen "Central and South America and the Caribbean" used before as sections in textbooks, I believe. Maybe 'The Southern Americas' being everything south (central + south) of North America? -- Xiliquiern 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For "Russian", the name Eurasian task force would probably cover the scope appropriately, although it may not be quite self-explanatory. Its vagueness is an asset, because where appropriate, it can and should cover a lot of things that are not exactly Russian nor in Russia, for example Scythian warfare, early East Slavic tribes, Varangian raids on Byzantium, Kievan Rus’, Halych-Volhynia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Cossacks before the Treaty of Pereyaslav, battles of the Russian Civil War outside of Russia, the West Ukrainian National Republic, the Warsaw Pact, Nagorno-Karabakh, modern Belarus and Ukraine, etc.

Please keep in mind that Soviet is not simply the equivalent of Russian during Soviet times either—for example, many important WWII battles took place in Soviet Ukraine and not in Russia, and were fought over by Soviet troops who included many Belarusians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 22:18 Z

It seems to be a fairly neat solution to the naming problem, then. The only real question is whether "Eurasian military history" will mean anything to people seeing it; is the terminology used widely enough that this won't be completely obscure? Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the distinctions between "Soviet" and "Russian"; however, "Eurasian" techincally includes all of Europe and Asia, and sice we are organizing task forces based on "most people who want to join this task force will be interested in a lot of stuff going on in here", I don't know that there will be a lot of people who are, for example, interested in conflicts of the Soviet Union only if they took place in Russia and involved only ethnic Russians, or in Ukranians and only Ukranians, but if they are, a taskforce with "Russian" and "Soviet" in the name, and maybe a bunch of other words to indicate inclusiveness, should have a place for all them. Besides which, what we think of as "Russian" and "non-Russian" today is largely a historical accident of the internal organization of the Soviet Union, most of which had been a part of tsarist Russia. I mean, who thinks of themselves as more Russian, Belorussians or Chechnyans? I don't think there's been much coherent reasoning as to why a "Russian and Soviet" task force can't be given a scope that includes former Soviet territories in the modern day, and ancient peoples in what is now Russia, and so on. UnDeadGoat 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, the real question, I suppose, is whether including Ukraine and Belarus (as those are the two more contentious areas in question) into a "Russian and Soviet military history" task force would be feasible without causing a huge fight to break out. Personally, I think we could manage it—whatever the current political situation, there is clearly a great deal of intertwined history there—but I'm not necessarily up to date on what the on-Wikipedia relations among editors in those fields are like. Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The short answer is: yes for 95% of editors, and there will remain 5% of POV-pusher who will mess everything up. I would be more than glad to see a Russian TF (whatever is his final name), but the danger of it falling apart because of (mainly) Ukrainian POV-pushers is quite quite high... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been quiet lately, but there have been huge flame-wars in the past, over seemingly more innocuous matters of naming or classification in articles. I would suspect that a number of non-Russian editors may choose not to collaborate in something because it was labelled Soviet/Russian. I think the scope of a "Eurasian" task force can be anything we decide it is, but I do see the recognition problem.
Personally, I also have a problem that the name "Russian and Soviet" simply doesn't represent our intended scope, and I don't see myself as a POV-pusher (you may disagree). The scope would be wider if it was the "East Slavic Task Force", representing East Slavs' lands and domains. This is closer to the intended scope, but I suspect it wouldn't fly.
How about "Eastern European" or "Eastern European and Central Asian Task Force"? A bit wordy. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 20:14 Z
"Eastern European" might be better than "Eastern European and Central Asian", simply because I don't think we want to pull in the entirety of the Mongol and post-Mongol activities in "Central Asia" into it. Generally, though, an "Eastern European"—interpreted, for our purposes, as everything east of Poland (as that's the easternmost country to have a task force already), perhaps?—would have the very practical benefit of simplicity, if not perhaps the most cleverly-chosen name. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why it might not include, say, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech Rep. and Slovakia. It wouldn't have to be restricted to "east of Poland", it's just that Poland already has a task force with several members. No reason why task forces couldn't throw together, say on topics concerning the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 20:21 Z
Hmm, I would think that the Balkans would probably be better off on their own; given how complex the issues there are, it might not be the best idea to lump them into the same task force that'll be handling the existing Eastern European issues. But we can do whatever the prospective members prefer, obviously. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I guess the Balkans are in southern Europe. The list of countries in Eastern Europe depends on who's map you use: 1 2 3. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 22:58 Z
This one seems closest to what I had in mind (although Romania is an interesting question, as it combines a number of older states with quite different histories). I think the general idea for the task force would be to combine Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, with some smaller states on the edges of that region open to be included/not included as desired. But I may be missing something obvious here, though. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully support simply "Russian military history." Wikipedia has plenty of material on the subject alone and also has plenty of editors willing to make contributions. Trying to obscure it with phrases like "East European" or "Slavic" does a disservice to the rich history and traditions of the Russian military.UberCryxic 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So I should start a Ukrainian military history project of my own? Ruthenian military history? Military history of Kievan Rus’? —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 21:14 Z
What Michael said, basically. What is defined as "Russian" is quite easy in the heyday of the Russian Empire, but a much more complex question before and after that point. It's the difficulty with coming up with a suitably uncontroversial definition of "Russian" that's driving this search for a better name. Any ideas in this regard, incidentally, would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, those are important considerations, but the same question can be raised for many of our other task forces. What does it mean to be French? Or German? If I really wanted to be anal, I could ask why is Charlemagne part of the French military history task force? He clearly was not French. Those have been important questions too at one point or another in history. Michael's points are actually moot; no one would seriously contest what it means to be Russian now. The Soviet question is tricky, but the nucleus of the Soviet Union was modern Russia. The main problem I have with these alternative names is that they do a disservice to all of the history that the nation of Russia has compiled. That history is clearly distinct and peculiar, and it certainly deserves to stand on its own shoulders.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a practical issue with, say, Charlemagne (although it should be pointed out that he's under more than just the French task force); he's legitimately considered part of French history, and nobody seriously disputes that.
The real nasty problem here—which happens to be a practical one—is that the identity of Kievan Rus as Russian versus Ukranian versus something else is a matter of current dispute (or at least enough of one to cause us problems with people complaining over the issue). We could, if we wanted to, pick a post-Kievan date to start a "Russian" or "Russian and Soviet" task force and avoid the issue; but if we want to include the earlier periods, we'll need to pick some terminology that doesn't take such obvious sides in any current national/cultural disputes. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The later date seems like a reasonable option in this case. I noticed we did it for the Italian military history task force, though I can't imagine why because Romans and modern Italians are almost ethnically identical. That could be a potential issue here, so the dating option works.UberCryxic 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On Charlemagne: in terms of ethnicities/nationalities, he's under the Dutch and French task forces. The funny thing with this is that he should just be under the German task force since he was purely Germanic.....but whatever. You are right that he is an important figure in French history, however. But there still have been practical debates about how he should be classified. They are ongoing to this very day.UberCryxic 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think picking a later date solves the problem. For example, the majority of a million Ukrainian Canadians trace their heritage through Austro-Hungarian Galicia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the principality of Halych-Volhynia, back to Kievan Rus’. Although many Ukrainians fell under the Russian Empire, where they were called "Little Russians", a significant portion was never associated with Russia in any way (Galicia was only annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939). For many Ukrainians, including pre-Soviet emigrants and refugees of World War II alive today, simply grouping them as "Russian" for convenience is inappropriate and simply incorrect. I suppose many who don't fall into those categories may not be overjoyed about the idea either. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 21:54 Z

Not to be brusque, but that is not a big enough problem to completely eschew the term 'Russian.' Considerations like these would plague almost every task force, but expediency needs to prevail in the end.UberCryxic 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this differs from every other nationally-oriented task force, in that we envisioned it with a wider scope than what is Russia. Perhaps that's not possible to do. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 23:05 Z
Well, the alternative would be to have a (fairly inclusive) "Russian military history" task force that would cover everything that could be legitimately described as being part of "Russian history". Obviously this wouldn't claim exclusive coverage (so Kievan Rus, for example, could be shared by it and a hypothetical Ukranian military history task force), nor cover everything in Eastern Europe; but it would have what may be a somewhat more intuitive scope. As far as the parts left out of the task force, we may be able to delay making a decision on those until we get more editors with that particular interest; if we were to get enough members interested specifically in, say, Ukranian military history, we could very well create a distinct task force for that.
All of this is open to change, obviously. Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I don't really understand why UberCryixic objects to an Eastern European Military History Task Force. It's not meant to obscure anything. There are a number of portals and Wikiprojects dealing with Eastern European nations, and I don't think it makes sense to duplicate each one of them with military history task forces. If the envisioned scope is wider than just the Russian Federation, it necessarily ties in a number of other nations, so why not be inclusive? —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 23:07 Z
Perhaps it's time to float the idea at the relevant portals and wikiprojects to gauge the level of interest. A recruitment drive. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 23:09 Z
Please do! I'm not entirely sure of what the active spots for discussion are at the moment; but if you happen to know, please feel free to invite editors working on these topics to join the discussion here. Kirill Lokshin 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've chosen not to do so, yet. Our prolonged but friendly debate regarding the proposed title of this project could turn into a bit of a national-political slugfest if it was taken out of context by one or two hasty outsiders. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-13 05:35 Z

The reason why you don't understand that is because I'm not objecting to an Eastern European task force. I am fine if that exists; I'd even join it. But there should be a separate task force for Russian military history. By itself, Russian military history has been far too influential and important to group with a region. All I'm saying is that we should note this distinction by giving the topic its own task force. Some nations with military histories less illustrious than that of Russia have task forces (I'm not going to name any, but you know who you are), so I don't think there's much room for logical discussion here (that is, opposing Russia getting its own task force).UberCryxic 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the table on this one, but I feel that there is room for a task force devoted specifically to Imperial Russia and/or the Soviet Union, provided its remit is sufficiently limited. There is no reason to develop an overly broad task force simply for the sake of including countries that have no editor interest, and if there is a sufficient amount of interest, those countries might deserve their own dedicated task forces. I'm not entirely certain why we are searching for a catch-all, as it does not seem that one is entirely necessary. Carom 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be keen to be part of a Russia/USSR etc Task Force. If you want a name suggestion, how about "Russia and Eurasia" - would cover USSR and current former Soviet republics, plus anything else we decided to include. I've already done articles on the Moscow Military District, the Volga-Ural Military District, and the Leningrad Military District and have reorganised Russian Ground Forces in an effort to reflect the current order of battle.
Cheers Buckshot06 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we seem to have a couple of ideas bouncing around here:
  1. An "Eastern European" or "Eurasian" task force (to include Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and others) - this covers things without gaps, but isn't the most obvious grouping, and may pull in things with little editor interest.
  2. A "Russian" or "Russian and Soviet" task force (to include all material reasonably described as "Russian") - very obvious grouping, but gets into many problems defining scope in the early periods.
  3. A "Russian" or "Russian and Soviet" task force (to include only material after some date X) - less obvious than the above, but can avoid the worst of the issues with Kievan Rus.
  4. A "Russian" task force (to include only Imperial Russia) - not very obvious, and may not have much editor interest.
(Aside from these, of course, would be a potential "Ukranian" task force; but I suspect we don't have enough editors at this point to make it practical.)
So, what do people—and, in particular, the presumptive members of this task force (who will probably be the target of most of the complaints if there's any nasty disputes over the scope)—prefer? (And does anyone know of any easy ways to get more editors working in the affected areas to take part in the discussion?) Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Post a note at the following, but maybe give it a few more days, so we can shake out the latest questions here. This has the potential to become quite political. —Michael Z. 2006-10-13 06:46 Z
IMO, "Eurasia" implies an entire landmass, Iberia to Kamchatka to southern India, and "Eastern European" implies inclusion of Eastern Bloc countries whose history may be less closely intertwined with Russia's than that of Ukraine's, and excludes Caucasian and Central Asian stuff relevant to Russia and the USSR. Also, something to consider is that we are interested in military history, so states tend to be more relevant than nationalities, and that our task forces are groups of people who will be interested in broadly the same categories of articles. Hence Rome is Classical but modern Italy is Italian because the editor base is so different; however, probably more people would get annoyed with having Julius Caesar and Mussolini in the same place than would be annoyed with having both Stalin and Vladimir the Great. Would the inclusion of the word "Ukrainian" in the task force title, and/or an explanation in the scope that states that because the history of the area that is now Ukraine is so intertwined with the history of what is now Russia, our WikiProject at this time, because of X, Y, and Z (editor interest &c), is including both in the same task force. And if we get demand for a Ukrainian task force, Kievan Rus and all that difficult stuff could probably be double-tagged . . . UnDeadGoat 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The Rome/Italy analogy is not as politically complex nor as current. Kievan Rus’ is represented by three nations today. It had two direct inheritors (Muscovy and Galicia-Volhynia), but only one went on to become the Russian Empire. The Soviet Union later made the three nations, along with many others, equal in theory, but often not in practice. In the 1930s at least 4.8 million Ukrainians died while the Soviets enforced collectivization and suppressed their language, but in the next decade another 2.7 million Ukrainians died fighting for the Soviet Motherland. These things happened in living memory, so debates on the subject can become more than just an academic question of semantics.
A Ukrainian task force would be small, but perhaps there would be enough interest to make it viable. There would be a lot of overlap, but it would definitely bring in a few things that are clearly out of the scope of a Russian/Soviet task force. —Michael Z. 2006-10-13 06:46 Z
Perhaps we should just create a "Russian military history" group (to include anything that can be considered part of Russian history), then, and let any gaps be filled in with separate task forces if/when sufficient editor interest develops? Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of an ideal solution either, but (sorry to be contrary again) perhaps "Russian and Soviet" is the best, and most-inclusive expression of the desired scope. For example, the following subjects are not "Russian"—they are Soviet, and only obliquely related to Russia:
Soviet military history is not just Russian, nor Ukrainian, Belarusian, Armenian, Georgian, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, and so on. 2.7 million of those "Russians" who died fighting in World War II were Ukrainian soldiers. During the Cold War, some Western histories paid lip service to the actual identity of Soviet peoples, but equating the USSR with Russia today seems inappropriate to me.  —Michael Z. 2006-10-13 05:22 Z
Fair enough, "Russian and Soviet" would probably be more correct (assuming people don't get too upset about grouping the USSR with Russia?); maybe we can get a Ukrainian one going as well, although I'm not entirely sure whether there would be enough interested editors to make it work at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we can give it a try with this name, yes :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Russian military history should definitely have its own task force: this is because the subject is lengthy, complex, and it ties in with many other worldwide historical issues going back over centuries.
As much as possible, I would like to see Russian military history articles include information from highly specific, academic books and articles on the subject, as opposed to the editors relying on elementary, overgeneral sources which really don’t address the underlying facts.
There is much about Russian military history that is misunderstood in the West.
We should not make too much of a distinction between “Soviet” and “Russian” military history. It is the same institution regardless of its name.
I encourage others to call on me as much as possible for help with sources, specific facts, etc.
Kenmore 13:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Without getting into the merits of your position (but see my comments above), I am confident that enough editors would disagree with you that the debates would siphon off hundreds of cumulative hours of constructive work. —Michael Z. 2006-10-18 19:47 Z
In any case, does anyone have an issue with using "Russian and Soviet" as a practical way of moving forward on this? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In theory, should the Soviet Union have remained a state to this day, would we not be naming this task force simply Soviet?--Dryzen 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably; but as it's no longer around, we're left with this messy naming question. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if it was, no: because the Soviet Union is a country which existed from 1922, and not a nationality. It was formed by the union of the Belarusian, Russian, Transcaucasian (representing Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis) and Ukrainian republics. Unlike the Russian Empire, it was theoretically an international union, and not the dominion of a single nation. Events in Kievan Rus’ or Imperial Russia certainly couldn't be called Soviet in any case. —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 18:19 Z
Michael, are you suggesting that citizens of the Soviet Union would not be called "Soviets" as their nationality? There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity. Citizens of the UK are British nationals, regardless of their Welsh, Irish, Scottish, or English ethnicity (or for that matter any other ethnicity); likewise with US citizens - US citizens are American in nationality regardless of whether they are ethnically Hawaiian, Hispanic, Jewish, or anything else, and regardless even of whether or not they currently reside in the US. LordAmeth 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the Soviet Union was established in 1922, and its seeds were sown in the revolution of 1917. Consequently, earlier events such as the Mongol invasion of Rus, Battle of Molodi, Khmelnytsky Uprising, and Crimean War have nothing to do with Soviet Military History, and would not be labelled as such. —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 18:48 Z
Oh, and while I am here, I would like to express my "vote" against "Eurasia" or "Eastern Europe" - if you want a Russian/Soviet task force, call it that. Eurasia is a combination of Europe and Asia, and includes everything in between. As someone else said, Eurasia encompasses everything from Iberia to Kamchatka, China, and Japan, as well as India and much of the Middle East. We cannot simply change the meaning of that term to suit your own purposes. Just as the German task force follows a somewhat loose definition of "Germany", including conflicts of the Holy Roman Empire, and the separate states of Bavaria, etc, prior to unification, so too the "Russian and Soviet military history task force" can cover all the former republics without stretching the geographical distinctions much. The British and Chinese task forces do much the same, covering events that did not take place during a unified United Kingdom or a unified China. You can do the same. LordAmeth 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite right, and that's why "Russian and Soviet" may be a suitable name, but neither alone would be. —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 18:50 Z

Sorry this simple question of a name has dragged out so long. It's obvious that such a task force would be useful, and we've shaken out many of the naming issues here. I will start a new thread at the bottom of the page, and ask for input from other editors at the relevant portals and projects, so we can get a bit of outside input and finalize this shortly. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 18:54 Z

Task Force Proposal - Renaissance Military History

Before I begin, let me say that I'm rather new here, and that I am really suprised at the organization and strength of this specific project. I am not sure the proper procedure for recommending a task force, nor the great deal of work that must follow it assuming it is approved.

I've been looking through a number of the pages I regularly watch and have noticed that they do not fall into the medieval (c500 - c1500) task force, nor the napoleonic (c1792-1815) task force. As many of you are aware this missing 300 year time period (c1500-c1800) saw a great change not only in military tactics, but in weaponry, armour, organization, and leadership. I think that a task force should be created to more accurately group articles currently (mis)listed in Medieval task forces and to promote information on the importance of this 300 year time frame as a major transitional period towards the following eras of military history and modern warfare. --Xiliquiern 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite interested in putting something like this together, given that it's my primary area of interest; but I'm pretty sure the proper term is "Early Modern" rather than "Renaissance" (which is a narrower, and perhaps earlier, period). Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be perfectly alright with a name change. I suggested this one only because 'Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts' (my particular area of interest) organizations generally refer to the late 15th, 16th and early 17th century arms and armour as 'Renaissance'. The addition of the 18th century would, indeed, push the barrier of the term, so I think Early Modern would be very fitting. --Xiliquiern 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, their are a number of editors and articles that have worked on the conflicts and events of this periode. It would only be fitting to give them a taskforce. Renaissance is though too narrow and ambiguous a term, although the general populace will get an indication of the timeline involved with such a name as compaired to Early Modern wich could be confused with post-Napoleonic. Yet the term is more indicative of the 1500-1800 bracket than renaissance, wich is usualy the 16th century, with enlightement in the 17th, etc... If such a taskforce where ot be created you'll be able to count me in.--Dryzen 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as the name goes, I think Early Modern would be most appropriate, as that is the terms generally used in the historical community to describe the period in question. Additionally, it is somewhat less Eurocentric than Renaissance although admittedly, the second term is often used in the historiography of other cultures as a frame of reference (less now than formerly, but used nonetheless). Carom 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me; new task force is available here. Most of it is done; the remaining paperwork should be finished shortly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's the name of the task force after 1815 - the industrial/Victorian era? Raymond Palmer 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That would depend, I suppose, on how late you wanted to run with it; "industrial warfare" probably goes up to about the end of WWII. I'm not sure that such a grouping would be particularly useful, since WWI and WWII already have their own task forces (and editors working on WWII don't usually have an interest in, say, the Crimean War, and vice versa). Maybe something running from 1815 to 1914 (grabbing all of the late colonial warfare, the development of modern firearms, etc.) would be useful; but I suspect that there isn't enough interest in the period among our current editor base (and I don't have a good name for it, either!) Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If this is early modern what would modern entail? our own article on the subject states from 1800-present. A rather massive scope for a task force. A 1815-1914 taskforce would seem enviable, the semantics leading to its naming is on the other hand quite treacherous. Industrial dosen't quite come out as intuative on the world scale. Revolutions is sujested in the Modern Europe article and fits the general tumoil of the time. The History of South America broke it down to Independance, while the History of the Middle East splits it in Ottoman era and European Domination History of Africa calls it European Exploration and Conquest...--Dryzen 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick question: have all of our new TFs made their way onto other Projects' pages, such as the Biography/Military working group? I don't know how many others are cross-related like that, either. Just a thought.--ScreaminEagle 05:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the period 1789-1914 is often called "the long 19th century", although I agree with Dryzen that 1815-1914 is, militarily speaking, a little more useful. However, I think we should avoid creating artificial delineations for the sake of having every period of history covered by a dedicated task force. In this case, while 1815 is useful insofar as Europe is concerned, I'm not entirely sure that it represents anything significant for the rest of the world. While most of our period task forces have somewhat ambiguous start and end dates, which allows for some leeway in deciding where an article really belongs, it is somewhat problematic to define global task forces on specific years that are really only useful in Europe. Carom 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You have a point as far as 1815 is concerned, but 1914 seems a date with a bit more of a world-wide significance (c.f. World War I). In any case, this seems a purely theoretical discussion at this point, as there doesn't appear to be interest in actually creating such a task force in practice. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of the countries that were at war in 1914 were in Europe - the war really spread in 1915, and in some places fighting didn't begin until 1916 (and the US didn't declare war until 1917). And some parts of the world (mainly South America) were not particularly involved in the war, which makes the relevence of 1914 to their military history somewhat questionable. You're right, however, it's purely theoretical at this point, as I think editor interest is probably pretty low. Carom 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On a administrative point of vue I'm more inclined to organize taskforces along periode rather than nations/states. As ambiguous as they may be they are are dates that can be voted and arranged as the project perfers and leaving little to argu about. Unlike defining taksforces along national lines, such as states that have changed over the centuries or that are near completely modern designs, which have the potential for severe controversy. Forthe moment our arrange works and I hope that it contignues to do so. I'dd enjoy seeying a "Industrial" taskforce, yet cannot offer any expertise.--Dryzen 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that task forces aren't meant to "split up" the project, but rather to provide a gathering spot for editors interested in a particular topic. We should therefore try to keep the topics "natural" in the sense that they should try to provoke an almost-gut-reaction "Ooh, that's what I'm interested in" from visitors (as opposed to "Is this where the stuff I'm interested in goes? Let me go check the dates, do some research, etc.," which tends to be fairly ineffective as a recruitment tool). As a consequence, nations and particular conflicts are easier to work with (statements like "I'm interested in Japanese stuff" or "I'm interested in World War II" being fairly reasonable and common) than broad—especially artificially constructed—periods (how many people would really be likely to say "I'm interested in the period 1183–1702"?). Which is not to say that period-based task forces don't work; but the period needs to be coherent enough that an incoming editor might readily recognize it as something specific and meaningful. Kirill Lokshin 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I hadn't thought along those lines. In essence, although for the dates if your a zealous follower of Cromwell, you'd know right away that you want in on the 1183-1702. While the Jacobite enthusiast will definitly find this hard to work with as he falls in two taskforces, rather than the British Taskforce...--Dryzen 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wehrmacht

Hello, I have read the article on the Waffen SS Charlemagne, and am deeply concerned. The article is somewhat pro-fascist, to say the least. I have made some initial comments at the article. Unfortunately also, the article was rated B. This is not a high rating, but it does grant the article an air of legitimacy it surely does not deserve. I have encountered this problem on other articles regarding the Wehrmacht. Part of the problem lies in the very concept of military history. Military historians often tend to empathise with, to admire, the military. Probably no political system glorified the military more than fascism. This by no means devalues military hisotry per se, indeed it makes good research in the subject all the more important. But that is because alot of pro-fascist material tries to grant itself an air of legitimacy by focusing upon military units with no reference to the sociological conditions in which they operated, and upon which they had an effect. As such, a website, Feldgrau, which the Charlemagne SS article has links to, claims to be non-political, but its "neutrality" extends so far as to ban any discussion of the holocaust on its forums. Surely links to this site should be banned from Wikipedia. I am deeply concerned by this, and will raise this matter elsewhere if I feel such action is warranted. SF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.48.20 (talk • contribs) .

So, are you arguing that Wikipedia should not include articles about anything German between 1933 and 1945? That wikipedia should drop the NPOV guidelines for these subjects? or do you have suggestions to improve the situation? After skimming the article, I have to say, I don't really see anything advocating the Fascist cause or glorifying the division itself. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Feldgrau site. Curiously, one of the first things I saw was a link to their disclaimer. It says things like "Feldgrau does not support in any way those who would condone or embrace individuals, groups and/or organizations that are intolerant, racist or violent" and "this site is respectfully dedicated to all those who suffered and died during the most tragic war in human history." Yeah, that's a really chilling glorification of fascism and militarism. Albrecht 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article needs cleanup, particularly for style, and has insufficient citations, but neither of these facts distinguish it from the majority of articles on Wikipedia. It is also questionable whether the individual unit articles are the correct place for a discussion of the social or psychological environment in which they operated. Such a topic probably deserves its own page, unless the unit in question is particularly prominent in the literature (such as Ordnungspolizei Reserve Unit 101 in Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning) in which case a subsection would be appropriate. Carom 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Texas Revolution

I created a new category Category:Texas Revolution and populated it, as well as a subcat Category:People of the Texas Revolution. I moved Category:Battles of the Texas Revolution under the new parent cat. Feel free to add any articles to these cats that I may have missed. Scott Mingus 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some more cleanup on various articles involving the Texas Revolution and added some biographies (for example, Sidney Sherman. I also heavily rewrote the Battle of San Jacinto over the past couple of days. Scott Mingus 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft

I've added the project template to the stub for the Shorts Belfast cargo aircraft. This needs a lot of expansion. I'll probably add more aircraft as I find them. Rosejpalmer 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyperspectral

Somebody (in your group) has classified this topic in military history, with an image of a tank shown. Hyperspectral imaging is used in many other applications. I added some mention of other fields, such as atmospheric science, prevalence of plant disease and brain imaging [1], [2] where the bracketed items are external links. I don't know how to remove the little tank image or the classification but I suggest you do so. After all, radar is a better example, but you do not have the little ikon etc in there. Thanks Carrionluggage 05:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The tank is just the standard icon for military-related stubs; there's no particular meaning behind it. Having said that, this isn't really a stub anymore, so I've removed the tag. Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ranking of military strength

I am looking for sources with the ranking of different countries' military strength. US is clearly #1, but which countries follow in conventional or nuclear capability? Dianelos 07:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not completely sure, but I think in a ranking based on numbers actually in engagement, US 1st, UK 2nd, Italy 3rd, and I'm not sure where it goes from there, but I'll try and find a better list than that. -KingPenguin 11:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, here's military expenditure ranking, This is based on number of active troops, and I can't find any list based on nuclear capability. -KingPenguin 11:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is List of countries by number of active troops, currently FLC and quite well sourced as far as I can tell at least. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be very cautious about taking this any further than military expenditures or # of troops and equipment. I don't think "rating" each military and how they would perform against each other is within the scope of this project or wikipedia for that matter. Best to leve the subjective aside. --Looper5920 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As Looper5920 said, where walking on egg shells if we start ranking armies beyond sound statistics. These do not always present a clear winner (ex: the Seven Years' War Russia had the largest numbers and France the greatest expences yet both failled to reduce Prussia).--Dryzen 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of troops is one factor but not a particularly important one as far as military strength goes. Expenditure is certainly one relevant fact, an important one. Other factors are how modern your weapon systems are, how battle-hardened your troops, how good your intelligence gathering capability, how experienced your generals, I suppose the list of factors is long. It's not easy to estimate overall military strength but surely some studies about this matter must be available somewhere; what I am looking for is something like a "top ten" list. Sorry for asking this here, as this issue is not directly related to military history, but I didn't know where else to ask. I do think this is encyclopedic information; for example it is widely believed that Israel has one of the strongest militaries on earth - but I would like to find good references that substantiate this view.

I have found this site which ranks Israel #3, but I would like to count with other sources too. Dianelos 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lmao Italy 3rd???? You have to be joking Penguin. They have a great military, no doubt, but I highly doubt top three in the world. The top three in most troops deployed are America, Britain, and France (in that order). Looper is completely right though. We're not here to rank who would "kick ass," even if you were to find some reputable author that gave an actual rating of military strength. This is beyond Wikipedia's scope, hence it is irrelevant as far as we're concerned.UberCryxic 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the actual fact is that Italy (according to Military of Italy) ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peace-keeping and peace-enforcing scenarios (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Balkans, Lebanon, Israel). What is France in that doesn't count as a peacekeeping mission that puts them over Italy? Not like that's a big deal, but it was a statistic, not just my imagination. -KingPenguin 03:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that article is pretty damn confused. In 2004, Italy had about 10,000 troops deployed abroad. France had around 35,000. The article does say "as of 2006," but there is not one deployment that Italy made during this interval that's significant enough to tip them over 35,000. Britain has around 80,000 I think and America a whole lot more than that. I am also fairly sure that Germany has more troops deployed abroad than Italy, but I need to find a source for this.UberCryxic 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Make clear based on what criteria you want to do the ranking. German troops for example did quite good in NATO tests against expensive state of art equipped troops, although the equipment was older than the soldiers, furthermore many countries (China) have covered their total military expenditures, etc. So perhaps compare just numbers you know about for sure, like number of troops, number of jets, number of tanks.Wandalstouring 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A top ten list should not be approached by wikipedia, its a death trap of POV, statistical analysis and too many fronts and serves very little in term of enriching one's knowledge. Producing a list of raw statistics would be an exceedingly more benificial and defendable venture, than top ten military powers of the world, wich in itself is an abiguous title.--Dryzen 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Macrons

Some time ago, it was determined that macrons (e.g. "ō" and "ū") could be used in titles of articles relating to Japanese topics. See WP:MOS-JA for the details. As a result, I have been trying to create a push for editors to move articles to properly macronned versions of the titles. For example, Japanese aircraft carrier Taihō has now been moved to Japanese aircraft carrier Taihō. I would appreciate your help in this, particularly as the WWII articles are exceptionally numerous. I would imagine that most editors working on Japanese WWII articles know something of the language, and where macrons are and are not needed; if you don't know, don't worry about it (or, ask someone who does - there are plenty of editors who'd be happy to help out, incl. myself and likely anyone in the Japanese task force). Thanks. LordAmeth 08:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some attention needs to be paid to Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

Some attention needs to be paid to this article; an IP editor is insistent on inserting OR and uncited "controversy" into the article; several of the "controversy" links also fail WP:RS. I don't quite have the time to track down the IP's and go through the administrative tasks to track them down, but one of them is quite insistent on gaming WP:3rr: User_talk:69.180.43.235. --Mmx1 02:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been a long running lack of NPOV for quite some time. I would personally welcome outside editors to make some changes, especially to the controversy and criticism section. However, as Mmx1 said, expect almost everything you do to be reverted or re-edited to insert bias. There is also a relatively severe problem with citations in the criticism section (on both sides, not just the critiques), not to mention that most of it is approaching "painful to read status" after many edits, re-edits, reverts, and more edits. If just a few experienced editors would give this a look over, I would be personally grateful. -- Xiliquiern 14:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this article would benefit from a presentation of more groups (in other articles) working in this field or an overall presentation with the different organizations in subarticles. There are lots of POV debates in fencing, so we should try to make the best POV presentation possible. Wandalstouring 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made a couple of notes today on the talk page, and would welcome interested third party review of my suggestions. I welcome any editors opinions, especially those of you who seem to be especially skilled at finding POV. -- Xiliquiern 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/British nuclear tests at Maralinga. Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Military Test Site}}

If anyone is interested, we now have a (prototype) infobox for military (particulaly nuclear) test sites. Any feedback would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't want to dive in and meddle, so: "nearest_town – optional – in cases where the location is given as a coordinate pair, the town nearest to the memorial." Presumably "memorial" is a leftover? Perhaps include "current use" for discarded sites and "size (area) of site". Also occurs to me that this could be made more general and used for sites of general military interest, eg bases, training grounds or ranges, arsenals, etc. Folks at 137 18:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that was a leftover. ;-)
The "status" field can presumably do double duty for sites that are no longer active, but the "size" field is definitely a good idea.
As far as extending this to all sites, I thought about that, but it might produce too complicated a template if we try to roll everything into it. It would be theoretically possible, though, so we can do whatever people prefer. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article names for controversial events

Hi everyone. FYI there is a discussion and proposal in Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict about use of strong words such as "massacre" and "genocide" in article names. Your comments there would be most welcome. Naming guidelines on a few pages, including this one, could be clarified. Kla'quot 19:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. This seems to mesh up pretty well with our current guideline. Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Kla'quot 09:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, going to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions I was enevitably redirected here via a link in the conversation. Was this on purpose?--Dryzen 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Proposal_for_articles_on_events_and_activities. The proposal itself has graduated to "guideline" status, and is now at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Kla'quot 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Main page length

I have been experiencing a problem lately in which particularly long Wikipedia pages crash my browser (Firefox). I wonder if others have the same problem, and if they know how to fix it. In the meantime, the front page of WP:MILHIST has become one of those pages that crashes me. I don't know if it's the pure length of the page, or the number and complexity of templates... I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to make changes purely on my account, but if others have in fact been having the same problem... Thanks. LordAmeth 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the page renders at about 480K of HTML, with around 350K of that as template transclusions. If it's a concern, there are certainly a number of things that could be de-transcluded fairly painlessly to substantially reduce the overall size:
  • The full list of members could be given as a link rather than a full transclusion. That alone is about 170K of HTML and 83K of templates, due to the extreme length and repeated use of {{user}}. It's also not something that most people probably need to refer to very often, so not having it directly on the page shouldn't cause any significant problems with people finding it.
  • The infobox template instructions could be given as links rather than transcluded. This would have a small impact on ease of use, as it would no longer be possible to skim the instructions from the project page directly; but, if needed, this would remove about half of the remaining HTML length and most of the transclusions.
I'm sure there are other ideas possible, but I think those two would be the easiest to consider if we want to reduce the length of the page. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support moving the members list off of the main page, and providing a simple link to it.
I think that the infobox templates could be moved and linked to another page, but left in their current format. This would take them off the front page and create a subpage specifically for the templates, meaning 1) that they have their own bookmark-able location, that 2) the user would not have to find them within the other main page text, and 3) that the main page size would be significantly reduced. I think many other people might have issue with this though, and I certainly can understand that. These are just some humble suggestions and support. -- Xiliquiern 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
So, anyone else have any preferences here? We could quite easily start off by turning the list of members into a link; that should give us a sense of how much more material (if any) needs to be shuffled around to make the page usable. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, list into a link is the best start I think -- Medains 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The displacement of the participant list is worth the reduction in size of the main page. I'm not as sure on the infobox template, but if its making the web browser crash and it can go without being a hinderance then I'm good with shipping the box to its own page.--Dryzen 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed the member list to a linked form, reducing the overall page size to ~350K; comments on the result would be very appreciated? (In particular: is that enough, or do we need to shrink the page further?) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Having not lag to start with I see no instantanious change. The move of the list does make the srolling a lesser burnden, yet this was generally already remedied by the internal links.--Dryzen 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal Barca action toys

How important is G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero? that we do have a detailed story of a plot about two action figures in the historical Hannibal Barca biograpy? Are we going to tell there every idea someone has published about the possible usage of Hannibal Barca DNA in science fiction? It keeps coming back, when I delet it, so we should make a point. I think it fits far better to tell this story in G.I. Joe and give a link to Hannibal Barca. Wandalstouring 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That definitely doesn't belong there, but I am vastly confused. Why does the body of the article suddenly start in 203 BCE, ignoring everything that happened before????? I mean...what the frick....72.66.53.49 01:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nvm fixed it (this is Uber btw; I'm having trouble logging on my account in this comp).72.66.53.49 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm people this is pretty damn serious. For several days there the Hannibal article had like 70% of its length cut out. Somebody please monitor it more closely.72.66.53.49 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, there's usually people watching that article; I'm surprised it didn't get caught. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as action toys are concerned: see the ongoing #Popular Culture discussion up closer to the top of the page. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It happened to me several weeks ago, that I did an edit there and in the preview all looked OK and I saved it. But then the article was much shorter (no content deleted, just made invisible). it took me some time to figure out the mistake, but can't remember what it was. Perhaps something similar happened, although I doubt it was me this time. Wandalstouring 14:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review request

If anyone has a bit of free time, the A-Class review for the Battle of Greece needs some attention! :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozambiquan War of Independence

I have created this article here Mozambiquan War of Independence after trawling as thoroughily as I can through wikipedia and finding no article for this conflict. I will continue to work on this article until hopefully we have a well written resroue on the conflict, however I would very much appreciate any help from users willing to help me tackle this one, as it's my first big article attempt. Many thanks, --SGGH 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_39&oldid=1190098289"