Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Naming conventions

OK, we need to thrash the things out so that we can sort out naming conventions for those formations which are not obvious yet.

As I have said in the editing that I have done to the main page, the British and American army formations that need disambigulating seem to have a settled pattern, with British and US being used as disbigulation prefixes. However, 6th Division (Finland) presents a counterexample to this sort of thing. I think that using prefixes is better, since it avoids the needs for brackets, and it just seems to flow better when read.

Naval and airforce prefixes have hardly been sorted out at all. I have put in links to articles about RAF Squadrons that use RAF as an identifying prefix. To me, that sounds better, and I think that it is sufficiently well known to use. People often say RAF when talking about the Royal Air Force, whereas it is rare to hear people talk about the RN for the Royal Navy outside of military and related circles (and we are all aware of the military's like for acronyms; SNOG [Senior Naval Officer, Gulf], and CINCUS [Commander in Chief, United States Fleet; sink us] come to mind!). I think that using British as prefix for RN formations other than ships would be a good idea. It is less likely to cause confusion. The one fly in the ointment is the Fleet Air Arm. That has squadrons, like the RAF, numbered in a very similar series. However, most people would not know what FAA stands for, and there are other nations with a Fleet Air Arm (Australia for example). The British Squadrons are called NAS or Naval Air Squadron, so perhaps an appropriate disambigulation form for them would be British No. 800 NAS. Possibly NAS should be expanded from acronym form, but I am concerned that would make the article title too long.

I am in two minds about the USN and USAF. People often talk about the USN and USAF in abbreviation form, although as with the RAF, they use the air force abbreviation more. US is a possible prefix, but then so are USN and USAF. I guess that it comes down to which sounds better. That also doesn't cover the USMC, and we still have the Royal Marines to sort out as well! David Newton 17:27 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Just got back from my vacation so I haven't had time to read through all your suggestions yet. I only want to point out that using "6th Division (Finland)" lets us use the so called pipe trick, [[6th Division (Finland)|]] renders as 6th Division which looks better when the name is repeated a lot of times in an article. If we use Finnish 6th Division, we are forced to write [[Finnish 6th Division|6th Division]] to get the same result. -- Jniemenmaa 08:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That pipe trick is a nice one. Given the amount of time that it would save with typing in the names formations (since there would be no need to type anything after the pipe in most cases), I think that I would in favour of adopting the brackets convention. I am in favour of the most quick way of doing disambigulation, and that beats out my suggestion. I will see what I can about changing the pages that I have created to your format. David Newton 19:52 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the pipe trick argument is very strong; it only works when first typing in, afterwards you have two copies anyway. (I never type the name twice when piping btw, always cut-n-paste from the first one.) Having now seen a bunch of articles in the "<country> <unit>" form, I'm inclined to prefer that; they read better as English article titles, which is the main place that normal readers will have to see the fully written-out name. Stan 21:34 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree with that the form "country unit" looks better as an article title. And yes, the pipe trick argument is an weak one. (but see below) -- Jniemenmaa 09:39, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Another thing. How do we disambiguate between different historial units that have the same name but from the same country? Let me take the Finnish 6th Division as an example again. There were two units with that name, one during the Winter War and one during the Continuation War. The correct way to do it should be Finnish 6th Division (Winter War) and Finnish 6th Division (Continuation War) or maybe Finnish 6th Division (1939-1940). There must be other units with similar problems. Any suggestions? -- Jniemenmaa 09:39, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would base it on the amount of material, keeping in mind that most historical narrative should go with the wars' articles, and a divisional article should be more about the unit itself - patch, commanders, combat locations, etc. So if there is just a paragraph or so for each division, I would put both in a single article; the reader can easily choose which is of immediate interest. If you have enough material for two articles, then either war's name or year is reasonable for disambiguation. I would tend to go with year of formation a la ships, because it's more factual - sometimes people can get worked up over titling, but a documented date is hard to argue with. (You can always move the page later if you don't like how it looks - several times I've looked at my article title for several months, then decided I hated it and moved the page.) Stan 12:51, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you guys want, I can make a template. Two articles that look good are US 1st Armored Division and United States Army. I can work on it tomorrow (its late at night here right now...), if you'd like (btw I wrote most of 1st Armored Division, and some of the orbat of United States Army). ugen64 01:10, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

There is now a list of military corps and list of military divisions and related sub-entries breaking down by number or name, plus some lists by country (US and British). For the British divisions I've been working on, I've included the relevant lists as a header (similar to the header used for battles). The format I've been using for divisions is:

  • header [[List of military divisions]] plus other relevant lists
  • taxobox (or divisionbox, I guess) with insignia, name, date formed and demobed (if known/relevant)
  • brief intro text, usually listing all the major conflicts in which the division saw action
  • unit history, more detailed paragraphs about specific important actions, broken into subsections by period (for me this is usually WWI, WWII and current)
  • formation, list of main brigades and battalions, again broken into subsections by period
  • battles, list of links to battle articles in which the division saw action
  • external links (if any)

For some examples, see list of British divisions in WWI. Does anyone have any comments on this approach? My goal is to complete the WWI British and Anzac divisions. I think it would be good to get some agreement on templates for this project before I go too much further, in case my method is fundamentally flawed. Geoff 07:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that your articles deviate from the general thrust of things in any really fundamental way. I'm glad that somebody's tackling them. I've recently been concentrating on filling in the gaps in the US forces, like sticking all of the armored division WWII combat chronicles online. I've also written articles for several of the US armies. David Newton 19:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, David. I'll continue as I am going. I'll be able to expand the WWI sections of some of the British armies. Geoff 07:21, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I liked the List of armies approach, so I made stub version of the idea for navies: List of fleets.

Template:SampleWikiProject

[edit] Nice unit taxobox (although perhaps a bit long)

I've found a nice potential unit taxobox at Marine Corps Force Recon. I'd appreciate if others could let me know what they think. David Newton 17:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation of Canadian military

Is there any reason to have Category:Canadian military formations and Category:Canadian military units? Geoff/Gsl 00:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a military man, but from what I have learned about military organization, (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing), formations and units are not the same thing. As I understand it, units are the basic building blocks, and formations are formed out them or out of other formations. The distinction appears to be important to military folks. However, as I said, I'm not an expert in the matter, so if I'm way off base, I could be persuaded to consolidate the two into one category.--Indefatigable 02:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy with one category containing all military "things containing people", be they "units" or "formations", but that's just my preference. If you like, we could move this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military and try and get some consensus from other interested parties (assuming there are any). Geoff/Gsl 04:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm pasting our discussion into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military.
What does everybody think? Is the distinction between formation and unit significant enough to have separate categories? Which of the two following is the better category scheme?
Military of Canada → Canadian military formations → Canadian divisions
                                                  → Canadian brigades
                   → Canadian military units → Canadian regiments
                                             → Canadian battalions
                                             → Canadian air squadrons

Military of Canada → Canadian military units → Canadian divisions
                                             → Canadian brigades
                                             → Canadian regiments
                                             → Canadian battalions
                                             → Canadian air squadrons
--Indefatigable 13:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Personally I find the distinction between unit and formation a bit fuzzy around the edges. Are brigades units or formations? British infantry regiments are probably formations but British cavalry regiments are probably units. German regiments, on the other hand, are probably all units. My concern is that someone reading, say, a Canadian regiment article follows its categories to Canadian military units and finds only regiments and battalions when they might expect to find divisions, corps and armies, not knowing they have to go up a level (to what? "Category:Canadian military formations and units") then down into the formations category to find a division.
Personally (again) I would prefer to be able to go to one category and see all military "unit/formation" categories for a given country in one go. It's not like the category is going to get too crowded. It might be worth having separate categories for naval and air units but until the need arises, a single category will probably suffice.
All that said, if we do stick to a single category, I don't know whether "unit" or "formation" or something else is the best term to use. I don't feel too bad calling an army group a unit but it doesn't feel quite right calling a battalion a formation. Geoff/Gsl 01:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The distinction is there, no doubt about it. However, as Geoff has indicated, most people would consider it a technical distinction and overly complicated. Since most of the people here who write the articles would not know the difference, I would personally be in favour of not reflecting it. Correct terminology should be used wherever possible (for example talking about the inactivation of a US Army unit as opposed to the decommissioning of a US Navy ship), but in this case I think it would probably be too awkward to implement.
Something I definitely would like to be standardized is the nomenclature of categories. For example, if you look under the categories for US military bases there are several ways of referring to them. It would be a bit of work to redirect all of them that are decided to be non-standard, but I think it would be worth it. My personal view on matters is that Military service bases should be the form to be used, with Military service being replaced as appropriate. I'll also have to get round to going back through some of the categories that I have populated and indexing them properly. David Newton 09:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Naming - Military formations and units

Would Category:Military formations and units be an acceptable title for a single, combined category, replacing the current top-level Category:Military formations? All the national categories would move from, say, Category:British military units to Category:British military formations and units. It's long-winded but should be unambiguous. Geoff/Gsl 23:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I came across Category:Military formations and it was a mess, so I sorted it. (See Category talk:Military formations). I sorted it into:

And THEN I found this page after I was finished.

I went for unambigous category names. I'm not sure if the category names I choose are perfect (In particular, I like Geoff's suggestion of "Military units and formations"), but it's alot better then it was. And, now that it's sorted, it should be easy to rename the categories if someone chooses to do so. -- Pioneer-12 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "The" in Regimental names

Is there any consensus on the naming of articles for Canadian and British regiments? Basically, does one use the definite article "The" in the title of the article? Example: "Royal Canadian Regiment" redirects to "The Royal Newfoundland Regiment" (emphasis mine); following that example (and others, such as the R Nfld R), I decided to at least start the stub for the other "named" infantry and armoured regiments. I noticed today that "The Sherbrooke Hussars" had been moved to "Sherbrooke Hussars". Comments?

BTW, I intend to continue to create the articles under the regiments' formal names, which usually include "The". SigPig 03:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, answered my own question here. Some regts use the definite article (The GGHG), while others do not (GGFG). Some appear to even have lost the definite article over time (cutbacks can be ridiculous). SigPig 15:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military Collaboration of the week

I've created a new Wikipedia project for a Miliary Collaboration of the week. Any one who wants to help out is more then welcome. Oberiko 14:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hello. I was wondering if anyone here would mind arbitrating at Template:WWIIGermanAFVs. We're at a roadblock in the debate to include foreign (captured) vehicles in the template or not. Oberiko 06:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian control of the military

Just a small note to editors who might be interested in this topic, I've expanded civilian control of the military a fair bit lately and am looking to send it to peer review soon; if anyone has any insights to its improvement before I take that next step, your comments are invited on the talk page. Thanks. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Possible project merger

A suggestion was recently made in the Military history WikiProject that this project be merged into it (since we have already begun to deal with military units, which seem to be the main point of interest here). A project merger would have the benefit of centralizing all discussion on these topics in a single place.

I'm interested in any general comments from the members of this project: would you be willing to accept such a merger? Is it a good or a bad idea? Any feedback would be very helpful in determining whether this is a course of action that should be explored further. —Kirill Lokshin 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the two projects are mutually supportive, and there are benefits to be had from sharing ideas, but this project should be for all things about current military and military history should remain that. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable military articles? By all means mention any FAs as well. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RSTA improve

I recently created RSTA it needs to be improved. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] OPSEC

Hello WP: military members. I just want to stress that we maintain OPSEC in any entries here. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history

Given the fact that much of the scope of this project (dealing with military units) is presently being handled by the military history one, and also the fact that the military history one is rather larger and more active, would anyone object to simply merging the two and consolidating our efforts? —Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see them merged as it this project isn't nearly as active and it would allow the active group (which I think would take the more general "Military" name rather then "Military history") to also include articles on Military technology, strategies, logistics etc. Oberiko 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be merged. Current military affairs are not military history. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but I think the switch would go the other way around. It would be Military history wikiproject that would merge into the more generic Military wikiproject. Oberiko 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not quite right; the military history project doesn't (and wouldn't, even after the merger) handle all things military. For example, we don't deal with war novels, fictional militaries, military contractors & the military/indistrial complex (except insofar as it appears in actual military events), and so forth.
I suppose the best way to put my idea would be that military units would be assigned to WPMILHIST in their entirety (we're handling them anyway, so this is basically a formality). Since this is all the military project deals with at the moment, it would be redirected for the time being (to avoid leaving loose ends) while leaving the possibility of a separate military project re-emerging if anyone wanted to start one to handle the various non-included issues I mentioned above (or even a purely current-affairs project, although that would be, I suspect, too politicized). —Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how articles like Structure of the British Army is part of the military history project and certainly not the article List of British Army Regiments (2008) although in 2008 the current list (List of British Army Regiments (1994)) like the previous list (List of British Army Regiments (1962)) will become part of the military history project. As Oberiko says the switch could go the other way, military history could become a sub-project of Military. But I do not think that this needs to be perused. As for the structures for military units, they vary over time, and any overlap can be dealt with with (joint) guidelines like the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)