Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Battle of Jarama

There's a valley in Spain called Jarama
it's a place that we all know so well
it was there that we fought against the fascists
and saw a peaceful valley turn to hell

Support

  1. -- Миборовский 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Looks like a neat topic. Wish I could help. LordAmeth 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Battle of Crete

Support

  1. Kyriakos 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Yannismarou 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This battle was a major battle of WWII and with the proper attenion has the potential of making it to A class or FA. Kyriakos 08:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISTAR

The current article presents the subject in the single context of US Marine Corps snipers, but it is a term used in the British Army for at least two different types of unit: the STA patrols of the HAC & 4/73 (Sphinx) Special Observation Post Battery and the Radar equipped batteries of the rest of 5 Regt RA & 101 Regt RA(V). The existence of a Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Counter-surveillance centre (STANOC) at RSA Larkhill suggests a further broadening of the term. Yorkshire Phoenix 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yorkshire Phoenix 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Deon Steyn 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Added comments to its talk page too, in short it's a concept that should be expanded and existing pages shouls be merged into it (like Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition). Deon Steyn 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now moved the old article to STA sniper (USMC) and turned Surveillance and Target Acquisition into a disambiguation page. It still needs some work as Surveillance and Target Acquisition still isn't defined: I've just linked to articles on units that use the term. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • More clean-up & merger seems to be required between this theme of accronyms. A simple merger will likely be inadaquate. I propose discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR (this talk page already has the most on this topic). -- MCG 03 Sept 06
  • No no no! Why do you continue to suggest the MCG? C4ISTAR is a informational systems based doctrine: Things such as AWACS, satellite surveillance uplinks, integrated communications, etc. STA is literally a MOS in the military, it is also a TYPE of platoon in the USMC, and RSTA is the equivalent type of unit in the US Army at the battalion and brigade level! These are hard subjects, physical, MTOE-able subjects, not doctrine like C4ISTAR which is a concept. You keep suggesting this merge that is completely inaccurate. Obviously STA has greater meaning than just the USMC definition, but that's been fixed a long time ago. See the page now, there is no THEME running between STA and c4istar.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR (this talk page already has the most on this topic). -- MCG 03 Sept 06
  • The merge debate is wrapping up. ISTAR and C4ISTAR perpetuate the core theme while RSTA (U.S. Army), Artillery STA, and STA sniper (USMC) carry the peripheries. The merging of ISTAR with C4ISTAR and the development of the new article would be suitable for a collaboration. MCG 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo War

The article has some 80 kilobytes of material, but is very poorly referenced, and seems to be borderline pov in places. There also seems to be an edit war brewing on the page over the inclusion of material (read the section Ridiculousness of NATO Loses on the talk page). It may be in the best interest of the military history project to intervene and improve the article now, rather than play catch up later and have to play the role of peacekeeper in an edit war. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mieciu K 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC) about time,

Comments

[edit] Tank

Tank gained Featured Article status over two years ago (around 2004-07-15). Back then it was a lean, mean fighting machine, but has spent the intervening time eating doughnuts and watching History Channel. It has bulked up from 3,100 to 10,300 words (19,000 to over 64,000 characters), and needs a radical weight-loss program. Good judgment is an asset, but expertise in the subject is not required—the job needs some serious editorial work, splitting off sections and judiciously cutting the fat to restore focus. Finally, the text needs to be massaged, injected with references, and polished to an oily sheen.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 22:57 Z

Support

  1.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 22:57 Z (nominator)
  2. Support. While we're there, we might get some inline citations too. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. As above. Citations are a must if this is to stay at FA (or even A). Carom 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Start firing. Idleguy 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] United States Army Reserve

A branch of the US Army larger than most nations' militaries, and it is little more than a stub. Nobunaga24 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

Comments

  1. Nobunaga24 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Atb129 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hal06 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Tenusplayor 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrior

Two short paragraphs on a very basic concept. Yvwv 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yvwv 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nobunaga24 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --gala.martin (what?) 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Military history of Switzerland

The Swiss had a rich military history and deserve a longer article than this. On User:Randy Johnston's request. -- Миборовский 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. -- Миборовский 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. RJH (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Underneath-it-All 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Scoo 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. —this is messedrocker (talk) - I support as the initiator of the article. 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Battle of Vienna

Often cited as one of the most important battles in history, this marked the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire, and the high-water mark of the Turkish expansion into Europe. RJH (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. RJH (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Laserbeamcrossfire 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Underneath-it-All 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hello32020 13:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • It's a pretty decent page already, but it needs citations galore and expansion of the aftermath section. It could also use a couple of decent maps. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military tactics

One of the most important articles about military history is a little more than a stub :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. UnDeadGoat 23:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Andreas 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Battles of Narvik

The events which took place in Narvik in 1940 are very important owing to the fact that they were part of the German invasion of Norway and the end of the Phony war. It was one of the first times the British and French came in to major battle with the Germans. And the first major setbacks for the Germans who had seemed unstoppable up to that point were very important morale boosters. Norwegian, Polish, British and French troops participated against the Germans. The town of Narvik was also one of the main reasons for the German invasion due to its importance towards the supply of iron. The article as it stands now is very confusing to the novice reader and is heavily influenced by the British point of view. It needs to be looked at by "neutral" experts and the sections about the land battles need to be heavily expanded. Which naval battle was the first one needs to be determined and maybe the article should be split. Inge 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Inge 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spot87 2:27 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Abel29a 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oberiko 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Scoo 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I understand why this would be a very important topic for Norwegians and anyone interested in the events of 1940, but other than that, I would have thought this article is maybe a bit too focussed to provide a good collaboration topic. In general I think it maybe more useful to focus on broader articles that otherwise won't get a lot of attention (such as the current co-operation), because they are going way beyond the ability of a single contributor to do a lot about improving them. Andreas 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a difficult topic as we have "only" one article per two weeks, thus raising the bar somewhat. I'd say that a mix of narrow scope articles and meta-articles would provide an interesting blend. Synergy should not be underestimated when considering an article. Further, somewhat obscure or specific articles now and then might do well to combat bias. The only drawback I can think of regarding broad, meta-articles is that non-native English speaking editors might have problems with very abstract language in the articles (not that such an issue should be weighted that much, we're all here to learn). Scoo 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban warfare

Urban warfare is more and more important in modern warfare and is an important cornerstone of military history, starting from World War I through epic battles like Stalingrad, Budapest and Berlin and more recentrly, Hue and Fallujah. This is well worth working on :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Kirill Lokshin 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. RJH (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

A very important and influential military commander, the article at present has an expand request outstanding and is very short. This could be a good candidate as it touches on other subjects, such as the Franco-Prussian war, on which we have a lot of content. External sources such as the 1911 EB, which has a large article on him, may also be useful. Other language articles don't seem to be substantially longer or better, though. Leithp 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. - Leithp 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 11:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Battle of Amiens

A key turning point, both in military technology and World War One. This would be in keeping with our current collaboration, Foch, who was involved with Amiens' planning. I've tried to fill it out with what I could, but more eyes is always a good thing. Staxringold 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Staxringold 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. AndyZ t 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Battle of Wake Island

It's an important battle of the Pacific War - not strategically, certainly not as much as Pearl Harbor, et al. - but it became a rallying point during the war and part of the United States Marine Corps mythos afterward. In its current state, the article doesn't do the subject justice, and some of the contributions are a bit amateurish (I know we're mostly amateurs here, but we're supposed to try to make things look professional). It could use cleanup and expansion, and the more contributors - the better. Jpbrenna 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jpbrenna 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. —ERcheck @ 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Harryema 06:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Military history

One of the cornerstone articles of the project, quite prominently linked from various interesting places—and basically nothing but a jumble of lists and see-also sections. This needs a complete re-working to become something closer to an actual article. —Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. —Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. bcasterlinetalk 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. gala.martin (what?) 13:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. UnDeadGoat 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobilization

An embarassing few paragraphs on one of the more important topics of 19th- and 20th-century warfare. This needs major expansion. —Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. — Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. - Andreas 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. - bcasterlinetalk 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. - gala.martin (what?) 16:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. AndyZ t 21:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Good topic - I've added brief notes on Canadian mobilization which seem overpowering given the dearth of material on other "minor" nations.Michael Dorosh 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tidied up some details on Russian & German mobilisation in 1914. Can write up a couple of para's on France and Australian & New Zealand as per Michael's comment. Being a complete newby here, I'm a little gunshy of doing a major rewrite, but the references to the Schlieffen Plan are misleading (this was a thought experiment only, and the actual plan differed in key respects). Can someone point me to where we kick such things around (like I said "newby").FrankDynan 05:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek War of Independence

For such an important and vital part of the history of Modern Greece, this article is heavily lacking. With a group effort, this article could also easily attain Featured Article Status. --Caponer 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Caponer 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kyriakos 7:59, 4 March 2006 (EST)
  3. Jpbrenna 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Druworos 13:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spawn Man 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Zorbadgreek 07:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] American Revolutionary War

One of the most popular articles at Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia:Most visited articles. It's covered in 20 languages, none of which have a FA version. This is currently a good article that needs a better discussion of Naval warfare. It's well written and organized and has 8 footnotes so far. Overall this is something that a collaboration could easily bring to featured status, and well worth the effort. Durova 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Durova 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jpbrenna 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. bcasterlinetalk 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Caponer 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 06:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It surely isn't perfect but it's the best we've got. Considering how many U.S. schools are hooked into the Internet, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of children generate the hits on this article. I suspect the other two are Google referrals. Durova 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
A final push for Featured Status!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Spain

A single sentence for the military history of one of the major European powers. Embarassing stuff. —Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. —Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Caponer 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Jpbrenna 15:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. - Leithp 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. NomaderTalk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Loopy e 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. bcasterlinetalk 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Ferdinand Foch

One of the most important figures in the First World War, at the moment the article is a bit longer than a stub and has one paragraph on his role during the war. Leithp 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominator support. Leithp 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, seems like a good choice to me. Andreas 19:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. A single paragraph on WWI? Expand! SoLando (Talk) 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. A figure of vital importance to WWI, Military and French History. The perfect choice. User: J Gez M 17:08, 1 March 2006.
  5. Caponer 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments