Talk:Military step
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge proposal: Military step into Foot drill
Now THIS is a good comparison to the article on Foot drill! However, it is common sense that it is SO similar, that the two should be merged...Edit Centric 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I propose; I'm going to try and get a hold of the creator of the article, and collaborate on the proposed merger. If I cannot contact, or have not heard anything back after a week, I'll go ahead and start integrating the text from this side over to Foot drill. After this article is fully integrated into that one, then military step will be submitted for deletion / redirection to the Foot drill article. Edit Centric 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge: "Foot drill" is a more general topic than "Military step". It is a standard procedure of growth in Wikipedia to split longer articles into sub-articles dealing with some subtopic. Both articles have a very large potential for expansion. The Military step article, besides brief introduction, must contain only desciptions of various types of step and nothing else. If you look into "Foot drill", it is much more than just step. In addition to other exercises and ceremonies, it may contain training, parades, history, etc. In addition, there is article, labeled "USA-centric", will definitely benefit from input of other countries, especially non-English and non-Western cultures (which themselves may be potential or separate articles). `'Míkka>t 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Mikkalai, while I agree with you wholeheartedly on the premise that Foot drill is a more general topic than Military step, that is also where I am coming from in the suggestion of merging of the two articles. What I am proposing is a full integration of the material from Military step, which would serve dual purposes; 1) Bring a more multi-national feel to the article and "De-USA" it, and 2) Expand the article's substance overall.
-
- As the primary editor of the Foot drill article, I would definitely NOT be against a major contribution of material and substance by another editor at this point. The article is a bit stale, and needs a good kick in the pants. As no one editor "owns" any article here at Wikipedia, I view it more as a concerted, team effort. The more we work together, the better the articles get.
-
- Rest assured that my sole motivation for this proposal is for the betterment of both articles, and of Wikipedia as a whole. This little project in open editing has, historically, not been viewed with much credibility by either the academic, or the media establishments. If we are going to make the "W" a force to be reckoned with, and a compendium of knowledge, we need more good editors such as yourself. I realise that you have a lot of time and effort vested in the Military step article, and it shows. (That's another reason for wanting to integrate this material into Foot drill. It's good material!) Edit Centric 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I re-read the "foot drill" article and now I understand your desire. Indeed, it is not good that it has almost no text about military step. However I would suggest you to refiew the following practice of the integration of particular subtopics into general articles: please see wikipedia:Summary style. Under this approach you may write a section "Military step", keeping it reasonably complete, but without greater detail.
- BTW, you are a bit mistaken that I spent much effort on this article. Quite often I wander into topics very far from my primary interests, in the process of disambiguation of terminology I intended to write about in the first place. In this case all started from "Lock Step (dance move)". It turned out that wikipedia didn't have an article about the original word "lockstep", so I wrote it as well, although I have a very remote knowledge of American penitentiary system. While googling I noticed that many people use the word "lockstep" having in mind "military step" and at this moment I detected that wikipedia does not have the latter article either. So here you have one, written without special enthusiasm, but just to fill a pit. `'Míkka>t 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rest assured that my sole motivation for this proposal is for the betterment of both articles, and of Wikipedia as a whole. This little project in open editing has, historically, not been viewed with much credibility by either the academic, or the media establishments. If we are going to make the "W" a force to be reckoned with, and a compendium of knowledge, we need more good editors such as yourself. I realise that you have a lot of time and effort vested in the Military step article, and it shows. (That's another reason for wanting to integrate this material into Foot drill. It's good material!) Edit Centric 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Corrected Arm Movement Intervals...
During the time that I was enlisted, even the cadences that we would march to made clear reference to the intervals of arm movements and distances; "Nine to the front and six to the rear, that's the way we do it here", and "Dress it right and cover down, forty inches all around". Edit Centric 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Does anybody remember "Break-Step"?
I remember Break-Step from my time in CAP but I have no reference for it. Can anybody help with a reference for Break-Step? That's when the soldiers just walk, not in step, until Forward March is declared again. The theory, at the time, was to keep bridges from collapsing under the rhythmic resonance of the marching feet. Padillah (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)