Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 34


Contents

"Adopting" 11,000-odd stub articles by bot?

I don't see any discussion of this here: is it on a sub-page? At any rate, see the discussion of the proposed bot-tagging of MILHIST templates, here. In particular, I draw your attention to my comment about just how many such articles there are, and the lack of clarity about whether these relate to military history per se. Alai 07:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, you seem to have forgotten to mention that I already explained the issues of scope at some length. ;-)
As far as bot-tagging: our main flaw in tagging has been that we've gotten non-military articles rather than non-historical ones. Going down from {{mil-stub}} should avoid this, as everything tagge with it should be military by definition. Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be more accurate to say that I was less than convinced by the explanation in regards to the original point, much less seeing it being vital in the context of the above. But to recap same: if there's a continuity of scope between the mil-stub hierarchy, and this project, it's far from clear from its name, and its self-description. I think it would be worthwhile to make this absolutely crystal-clear, and to vestablish there's a fairly wide consensus here for doing this, before ploughing ahead with such a vast number of edits that it would be potentially highly problematic to clean up afterwards, should there be any after-the-fact reservations about the scope, or of the WPJ's categories suddenly becoming unusuably large. This side of Cat:Living people, having 1% of wikipedia in a single cat seems fairly unprecedented. (I say, without checking the numbers, so doubless someone is about to prove me wrong...) Alai 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that the bot-assisted assessments are operational, it's not all that uncommon to see talk page categories with thousands of entries. They're not really meant to be parsed by hand all the time, after all. But that's neither here nor there.
I'm obviously of the opinion that my previous explanation of how the project's scope works in practice is accurate. But if you insist: what says the project? Does my explanation reflect reality? And, on a more practical point, do we cover all of {{mil-stub}}? Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments, anyone? Kirill Lokshin 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought your explanation on Alai's talk page summed it up well. -plange 00:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So what does everyone think? Should we try to move ahead with getting these articles tagged? Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My vote is yes...plange 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Mine too, obviously :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So is there any chance of an update to the WPJ's scoping statement to make this rather more evident to the casual passer-by? You continue to say "everything military" whenever these questions arise, but the project page is not suggestive of anything beyond "military history". Alai 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current statement is: "The project generally considers any article related to the history of warfare or of military affairs to be a valid topic." What changes would you suggest? Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Skipping the apparent restriction to "history". Alai 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that would leave us with:
The project generally considers any article related to warfare or military affairs to be a valid topic.
Which wouldn't be altogether bad, or really misleading, but does introduce the question of fictional things (which we don't cover, but which are, I suppose, related to warfare in some sense). We could make an explicit statement about this, perhaps. Another approach would be to explicitly define the terms, as we have done with "military":
The project generally considers any article related to the history of warfare or of military affairs to be a valid topic.... Note that a very broad meaning of "history"—including topics up to the present day—is applicable here.
I'm not entirely sure which would be the better approach. What does everyone think? Kirill Lokshin 04:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Or, explicitly say "historical and modern-day", or some such formulation. Alai 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Something like "The project generally considers any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within its scope," perhaps? Kirill Lokshin 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think so Kirill :) Military history project is also about modern-day warfare and tactics. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've provisionally updated the scope statement to this version. Further comments are welcome, of course! Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. And we really need to do something with that automatic tagging. I think that if that mess with approval is not over by Sept. 20 (date when my exams will be over and my participation in WP will return to its normal level), i'll just apply WP:IAR That leaves us almost a month though... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment statistics & backlog

I've just finished updating the assessment statistics through the month of July, and I thought I'd share a few points of interest:

  • The total number of articles tagged into the project has continued to increase by ~30% per month.
  • We're seeing a healthy growth in the number of FAs: ~17% in the last month.

Now, the (sort of) bad news: the growth of unassessed articles has outpaced all other groups. Thus, a request: if anyone has some free time, might you please consider assessing a few articles? It doesn't have to be many—if we can get a reasonable number of members each doing only a couple per day, we can still make significant headway on this. It's usually not particularly difficult either; most articles will fall quite clearly in one of the lower three levels, and more complex cases can, of course, be left for later consideration. Any assistance in this would be much appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do plange 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good thought, surely we can all muck on a small bunch each day? I certainly will. --Loopy e 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Working on the last page in the log, and came across this one Yoshisuke Aikawa - not sure why he's tagged for MILHIST? plange 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's because of his relationship to the Fugu Plan; but that's borderline "military" in of itself, so he might actually not need to be tagged. If you're interested, I'd ask LordAmeth; maybe he knows something about his role in military affairs that isn't apparent from the existing article. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Here's another one: Édouard Daladier - he was Minister of War, bught didn't do any fighting, is that enough to quilify? plange 00:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) and another-- was a political activist Édouard Lockroy plange 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Daladier would probably qualify, but I suppose it depends on whether he did anything as the Minister of War (US SecDefs would also qualify under this provision, I presume). I have no idea what the post entailed at the time, though. Lockroy's article has the tantalizing "enlisted as a volunteer under Garibaldi", which might mean actual fighting; but the article is confused enough that I can't really figure out the specifics. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I left them tagged, so if someone more knowledge about these two sees this they can untag them if they think it warrants it.... Thanks Kirill! plange 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We've probobly been finding more articles too, with participants only adding the WPMILHIST. That would explain the growth of unassessed articles. I'll go an do a few as time permits. --Dryzen 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been tagging and assessing articles as I go. --Laserbeamcrossfire 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Been tagging and assessing articles daily, but unfortunately only getting about 20 done a day. One thing is it sure has been expanding my knowledge.--Oldwildbill 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the article on Yoshisuke Aikawa, and tagged it. Though the Fugu Plan is borderline military (I could see it being tagged or not), Aikawa was heavily involved in the maintenance and industrialization of Occupied Manchuria (Manchukuo). I'm gonna go assess some articles now. ^_^LordAmeth 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's another I just came across that seems borderline: W. C. Sellar -- only connection seems to be this: "He used his own ration and money to buy extra food for the boys of the House during World War II, which made him very popular." plange 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm guessing it's beause he's noted as "serving briefly in World War I as a Second Lieutenant in the King's Own Scottish Borderers" ;-) Kirill Lokshin 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, missed that ;-) plange 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Another question: Do political leaders that presided during a war (but did no fighting) and/or who staged a coup part of this project? Clearly Abraham Lincoln would, but wasn't sure about Wang Jingwei plange 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely a borderline issue. I suppose the fundamental principle would be to ask if there's any content related to military history (interpreted fairly broadly, of course) that needs to be in the article. If not, there's probably not much point to tagging it. Kirill Lokshin 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! plange 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've started doing a few assessments, new to this assessment lark so leave me a note if you disagree with any assessment I've left -- 195.92.70.130 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We must be doing something right

Kirill has informed me that our project was featured in a presentaion on Wikipedia 1.0 at this weekend's Wikimania. It further confirms that this project is a model of collaboration, organization and efficiency for the rest to follow. I believe some degree of back patting and hi-fiving is in order:) Bravo Zulu TEAM!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of very interesting issues brought up at Wikimania that relate to this project, actually. I'll be posting full details here once I get back home—and to a more reliable connection! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yay! All praise the ETERNAL LEAD COORDINATOR-FOR-LIFE!!! :P (So was Wikimania fun?) -- Миборовский 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice. --Loopy e 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Very fun! (Except for getting back. I've been stuck at Logan for six hours now, waiting for a flight that keeps getting delayed.) Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, since I'm not going anywhere for a while, and the airport wireless seems to be holding up, I'll summarize the salient points of Wikimania discussions as they relate to us. (Most of these merely came up in conversations I had with various people, and shouldn't necessarily be taken as official pronouncements of anything.)
  • A number of people expressed the opinion that we were one of the best WikiProjects—and perhaps even the best of all. So yes, it does look like we're doing something right.
  • Resources for the project: in addition to the upcoming arrival of media from the Holocaust Museum (which ought to alleviate some of the copyright issues that have come up with WWII images), there are a variety of things being added to WikiSource that would be of interest to us. Most obvious here are complete (including images) issues of National Geographic from the WWI era; there's some fascinating material there. We'll need to figure out a good way of organizing it all and finding it when needed, obviously.
  • Wikipedia 1.0: Anthere suggested that topic-specific DVD releases (e.g. a military history encyclopedia) might find it easier to locate interested publishers, as we might provoke interest among the more specialist presses. I'm not sure how practical this would be, but it might be something to consider.
  • Project templates: a number of interesting tricks with show/hide blocks were suggested for reducing the intrusiveness of WikiProject banners. I'll experiment around with these and see if any of them can actually work in practice before making any concrete comments in this regard, though.
  • Other things: there were a number of points discussed about a more prominent role for WikiProjects within the community as we push towards a greater focus on the quality of Wikipedia's articles. Whether this will result in anything concrete is entirely up in the air, however.
Comments on any of these points are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
RE:as we push towards a greater focus on the quality of Wikipedia's articles. This goal will be much harder to achieve while the pedia is hemmoraging talent faster than Tsarevich Alexei at a body-piercing convention. Something must be done to slow the exodus of talented, experienced contributors. Jimbo has not even acknowledged yet that this has become a major problem. Quality articles require quality contributors. To my mind the best way of attracting and keeping them engaged is through building a better community. The better the community we build, the happier we all will be and the better we will contribute. Thus this "quality drive" needs to go side by side with a concerted effort to make Wikipedia a more welcoming and enjoyable place to work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well there are several reasons for this to happen. First of all, yes, people leave. Some finish their studies and start working, cutting down their available time on WP, some get children and so on. And there is not much you can do about that.
However, many people leave because they're getting tired of trolls and idiotic noobs and things like that.
So yes, I totally agree with you: we need a better community, that will provide both editor and moral support:
  • For editors support, I'm talking peer review (people, PLEASE peer review those articles, it will take you about 15 minutes and it is very useful for us poor editors!!!) and copyedit help (while we have some excellent contributors whose work don't need copyediting, not all of us are native English speakers...)
  • For moral support, well, I'm talking first of all about kind words and support in case of problem. And last but not least, "administrative" support. We must develop an esprit de corps (pardon my French :). If an editor gets bullied by a troll, the whole community must immediately stand guard and not let this happen. This also implies following your favorite articles in a watchlist, but I know most of us do this already.
Well, that should finish my rant. Sorry if it appears useless to some, but I had to get it out. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can work on developing a (possibly informal) in-house mediation system? We should somehow try to make sure that project members can come here and be guaranteed, if not actual support in a dispute, then at least a fair hearing. On the other hand, might such a project stress our resources too much? Kirill Lokshin 12:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont be sorry Grafikm (AutoGRAF), if you can't post your opinion then something is wrong, certainly when its well posted. Ahh, mediating... this is something that will probobly never fit in a system, considering its case by case nature. Yet it is vital to work over frictions that can arise not only against trolls, but among competent Wikipedians as well. For exemple Byzantine empire, this is a clear case of frictions among editors and trolls/noobs and amongst themselves. As a community though I do feal we should support our fellow participants against belicose trolls and noobs and like Peer review, take a look at casses of discord. Something that could help the cases of reacurring arguments in new wikigenerations would definitly go a long way in saving ressources. As Kirill Lokshin indicated, to keep a harmony will take ressources, but I think it could pay dividents. --Dryzen 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, I was not talking about in-house disputes, which I still have to see so far, but about disputes with external editors that have solely a political agenda. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that. What I meant was that the mediation process would be in-house; in other words, rather than approaching, say, the Mediation Committee with such an issue, we'd have a place/process within the project to ask for help with resolving disputes. Whether something like this would work would of course be dependent on how many project members would be willing to take part in it. Kirill Lokshin 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a good thing already would be if people wanting to mediate cases would add themselves to the medcab lists and stand guard on the watchlist to take mediation of all related cases. Then again, it is just my opinion. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a good thing too; but I think that, in many cases, the single mediator that's drawn in by the medcab process gets overwhelmed by the dispute. Having some way to bring the attention of larger portions of the project to bear in resolving these conflicts might be an improvement in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I trust you more than myself on these matters, Kirill, since you're way more experienced than I am. These are just side remarks of mine :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
From the mediating I've attempted, getting some outside support or more moderate voices in would definitly be welcomed. It could also stop some of hte cicular arguing that oft time occures (i.e. 1 says hte smae thign over and over 2 says hte opposite over and over and since only 1&2 participate nothing evolves. When 3 come's in supporting neither they can both ignore him, but 4&5 are a crowd they can't ignore.)--Dryzen 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tempusvivit.net/ is a high level reenactment organization in Germany. They started screening wikipedia for errors. Many of them have read scientific material on their topic and can quote it (a must in this scene). Perhaps we could engage some English-speaking reenactors to do the same job. Unfortunately I am not familiar which group (in this language area) is actually a good reenactment group and which not. Wandalstouring 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Having our own mediation cabal is an excellent idea. And not without precedent either. Afterall, we started our own peer review process, to compensate for the deficencies in the larger one. And so far it has worked out well. At first, let us concentrate on editorial disputes and try and keep it about content rather than personalities. Such conflicts are usually difficult to resolve and thus RFC fodder.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007

This was on the talk page of the Pacific War article and I thought it would be better placed here:

The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--ScreaminEagle 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Might be visiting some colleges in the east around that time... -- Миборовский 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, since you're already in Maryland, any chance you could make it out for that? A more suitable ambassador I can't think of. Oberiko 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea of what my schedule will be like nine months from now, unfortunately; but I'll consider it. Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Project coordinator or assistant. I've offered to go, but I'm such a comparative novice around here. I often find myself in the DC area, so even if I'm not a panelist I might well attend as an audience member. It would be really great if we could get Kirill (or other senior WPMH contributor) at such an event. I commend Rjensen for bringing the wiki community into an important venue at an important time; I say this having been a sometimes complainer about that user's boldness. Since wiki projects' influence on society is inevitable, it would be great if we could lead with our best (since one of our most prolific, Dr. J, will also attend). BusterD 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yay for Kirill! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at the list of Project participants, & one old-timer to consider if Kirill can't make it is DJClayworth. Although I've been around Wikipedia for a while, I haven't been very involved in this project & wouldn't be able to talk much it. Furthermore, I'm on the West Coast while DJ is in Ontario -- he's much closer. -- llywrch 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can convince some of these professionals to help us in peer reviews and assure quality this way. Wandalstouring 10:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I cite translations?

I want to insert translations of featured articles. They do have non-English sources and a differnt reference system. When making a change in the German wiki you cite your source in the textbox this wiki uses for comments on changes. Of course the sources are also listed in the article, but I don´t want to check the article´s history for footnotes. Wandalstouring 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I suspect that'll be the only real option here, as footnotes are basically a sine qua non on en: now. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Next one for the Radio Yerevan Award. I would have to go back the complete (from a stub!!!) history of an article to state all changes with footnotes. Furthermore most German authors, like their English counterpart, do not source. Wandalstouring 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
For hard-working humour, but on certifiably insane criteria, this user has received the Radio Yerevan Award.
Ah well, what can I say... our earlier laxity with regards to citation is now coming back to haunt us; but there's really nothing we can do to make it easier (aside from using more thorough citation in the future, but that's a given).  ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(Which is not to say that going through the history is the only option, but likely the easiest. The other one would be to get the relevant sources and find the appropriate citations from scratch; but I doubt that this version would be any more palatable.) Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand footnotes are needed and adding them is a pain in the ass. But as I pointed out in German wiki articles work without. 1 out of 4 of the latest featured articles does use footnotes, all the others work completely without. This is like running kde on windows xp. Getting the sources is the easiest option. Problem: On English wikipedia are only English sources allowed. How do we solve that? Wandalstouring 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't believe there's any requirement to use only English sources. Certainly it's preferred to have them where available—as they're easier to use for most readers and editors—and a total lack of English sources might be problematic at FAc, but I don't think there's anything wrong with citing sources in other languages in general, provided they're published ones. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I checked it. I think when I started on wikipedia here the policy was different. [How to cite non English sources]. Wandalstouring 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with using materials from another language is entirely one of verification. If you write an article on a topic, & only cite works published in one or more languages that are uncommon or have few speakers, there is no way to know whether the Wikipedian is accurately reporting what the source says -- or is making everything up. (I encountered this with a now-gone editor who would list at least a half-dozen books at the end of his articles -- all written in Georgian!) On the other hand, anyone who has done serious research into a topic knows that often the best books aren't written in English, & using a work in German, French or Japanese (to name a few likely possibilities) is unadvoidable.
My advice for handling a situation like this is to always aim to do two things: first, if you need to use a foreign-language source, make sure you include at least one English-language source; this alone will help you pass the "smell test". Second, if you use a foreign-language source, make sure it is one listed in WP:BABEL, & has at least one editor proficient in that language who edits on a regular basis. I feel this is all common sense, but spelling out these steps here might help down the road should some troll insist on banning all cites in a foreign language due to real or alleged verification problems. (And in case anyone is curious, no we do not have any Wikipedians who are proficient in Georgian.) -- llywrch 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'll be the first one to take a BMG .50 and shoot every FAC without visible inline citations. Not that I find that particularly pleasant - mind you, I would write FACs 10 times faster otherwise :P - but I think it is a sine qua non, especially with all those WP criticisms going. At least FAs must be above these... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, German wiki runs without (now) and there are rumours in Germany that it is better quality than the English version. But I agree in this wiki we do need inline citations. Wandalstouring 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I chose de:Schlacht_um_Caen as an example and it has a list of refs and even some inline citations.
And about "better quality", I don't know obviously since my German is awful, but the fact of not having inline citations surely enables one to write articles faster, which might explain a higher number of those... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
19 books as sources (not so obvious, but the text is not based on the references) without in-text-reference, 5 in-text-references.
I send a proposal and several requests to people concerned or possibly concerned with the topic. Someday somebody might help us. Wandalstouring 11:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute on the Royal Marines

I've done quite a bit of development on the Royal Marines article in the last day or so leading to this version, User:Tashtastic has chosen to revert the lot here describing it as rv to non butchered version. I'd be grateful for a second opinion on that.

Previous interactions with Tashtastic on talk pages have been attempted, without great success, I'd prefer some expertise looking at it, rather than engage in a revert war.

Cheers ALR 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have some points, Tashtastic has some points. Can you source your statements? The same concerns Tashtastic he sourced no claim, so it is not valid. Simple solution to edit wars. Wandalstouring 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Tashtastic didn't present any reasonable argument whatsoever, just block reverted. I'd be more comfortable that this was an effort at constructive criticism if s/he had actually put some explanation up. fwiw most of what I've put up in the last couple of days can be verified on the RN Internet site, although I've validated some on the MOD intranet so can't cite that as a source (it's not accesible).
I'm aware of how to deal with a content dispute, although on reflection I was probably genorous in describing this as such.ALR 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Two problems:
Verifiability of your content. Talk to a RN press officer and get some help releasing nonclassified information so any wiki-user can check it.
Tashtanic. If he delets in-text-sourced material and puts unsourced claims, this is vandalism and he gets blocked. Wandalstouring 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's continue this on the Talk:Royal Marines Page. I will post my observations there. --Mmx1 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Military people/personnel/whatever...

Another mass nomination. I'm not sure what to do with this one, since it goes against our plan of moving to "of X" for these categories; but that is apparently in conflict with the naming convention for the rest of Category:Occupations by nationality. Any input would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Every military personnel serves somebody or something. Usually this takes the form of a nation. So we simply categorize them by whom they serve and not where they were born. In the article we can state where somebody was born and perhaps even establish a substructure like Germans in the French Foreign Legion. Wandalstouring 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I perfered indicating where they where from to reduce the number of problematic service records. This might be less of a problem in modern armies but the medieval periode and following centuries to the industrial revolution some generals made quite the habit of switching sides. While others of course for ever served a foreign power. Of course the good old Légion is a definit proponent of by country of service.--Dryzen 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem listing a soldier in all groups he served, while the problem for the Medieval time with their mercenaries is: we do not know for sure where everybody came from, but if we have a record, we know at which side he fought. Wandalstouring 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a project member, though I do have some background on the subject (I revised the game Axis & Allies, for example). Mostly what I hope to see is that we agree that we can't have "military people" and "military personnel" in the same category. "People" causes some folks paroxysms because it include non-servicemen, so I think that will never gain consensus. My proposal is that we agree on "Xian military personnel" for now, get all the categories on the same footing, and then deal with whether it's "military personnel of X" later on. Anybody buy that?--Mike Selinker 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We've had long discussions on this without total consensus; this is why people feel a bit blindsided by the noms. UnDeadGoat 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but I think none of you would take the position that "some 'people' and some 'personnel' is good." Maybe a larger group like CfD can help tip it one way or the other.--Mike Selinker 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind we do a general decision on a case where we miss many reliable records about the combatants. So the only sure things is on which side were they. Wandalstouring 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade

Would the Eureka stockade be part of Military history? Kyriakos 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider it one group with the Wielkopolska Uprising (1848), the battle of Rastatt (1849) and in a broader sense the Second Anglo-Boer War. In my opinion it is part of military history, even if the military component was very onesided. Wandalstouring 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite agree with Wandalstouring here. It involved the British Army fighting a "battle"—even if not a very challenging one—so I think it qualifies. Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The Eureka stockade is an important part of Australian History but is not looked at in the military sence. The article states that the stockade has equal significance to Australian history as the Storming of the Bastille was to French history, if this is true than shouldn't the Storming of the Bastill and all other similar events be in our scope too. These kinds of events are civil uprisings not military events. I will be the first to admit that these are important historical events that may involve the use of military forces, but not with in our scope. Hossen27 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, interesting point. I suppose my perspective on it was that if it involved regular troops, it was "military history" pretty much by default—regardless of whom they were fighting. Are you suggesting that we should use some other factor instead? I'm not sure if the distinction with "civil uprising" is tenable, in such cases: were the Battles of Lexington and Concord just a civil uprising, for example? As long as both sides were actually active combatants—which seems to have been the case here, if I understood the article correctly—I'd say it qualifies as a topic in "military history." I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this, though. Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we use another factor, the obvious way to define a military subject is whether there was military forces involved. My argument about this article is based on my belief that the military actions at the stockade are not important when looking at the event as a whole. People today dont talk about the battle of the Eureka stockade where soldiers fought against an entrenched enemy. They talk about protecting workers rights, standing up for what you believe in and the importance of the event in forming an Australian identidy. Saying that I wont be protesting if the WPMILHIST template stays on the talk page. Hossen27 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'm not really familiar with the topic, so I have little knowledge of how its military aspects are regarded. Considering how minor of an engagement it is in military terms, either having the template or not seems fine to me; consistency need not be pedantic, after all ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, its a good thing everyone doesnt think this way or we wouldn't have much of a project. At least there is an Australian article in the projects feature article category. Hossen27 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we do have some other Australian (or at least tagged with the Australian task force) FAs; Battle of Rennell Island, for example. Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant more Australian specific than that, but good point. Hossen27 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Some news of interest: the German usebox solution has apparently started working on WikiProject userboxes, which are being "projectified"—that is, moved to a subpage of the relevant project in the Wikipedia: namespace, rather than residing in the Template: namespace. Personally, I don't believe that this is an issue worth fighting over, and would therefore suggest that we go ahead and move our (extensive) collection of userboxes to subpages.

The practical question here is this: where do we want to put them. I see two slightly different options:

  • Common suffix: put all userboxes on a "/Userbox" subpage from the appropriate group. Thus, the main project uxerbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Userbox, while, say, the WWII task force userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Userbox. This has the advantage of it being easy to guess where the userbox for a particular group is, but does spread them out extensively.
  • Common prefix: put all the userboxes on subpages of the outreach department. Thus, the main project userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox, while the WWII task force userbox would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Userbox/World War II. This has the advantage of keeping all the userboxes in a single logical place, but puts them a bit further from the relevant groups.

Comments? Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We can create both with one being a redirect to the other... :) I would lean towards a userbox page in Outreach, transcluding subpage userboxes. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. If nobody objects, we can go ahead and move the userboxes there. Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just started, see outreach page :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What, it's already finished? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. That didn't take very long ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

National involvement in battles

For battles/operations, I think we need to determine a standard of what criteria is involved for us to list a nation as a combatant.

Take a look at Battle of Monte Cassino, it lists the following on the Allied side:

  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Brazil
  • Poland
  • New Zealand
  • India
  • Free French
  • Morocco
  • and others

That's quite a large number for one battle and I think it may be stretching it. So the question is, how much is needed? 1 soldier? Oberiko 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: These nations are listed under combatants, so if there is a sourced claim they did participate, numbers are needed (directly behind the nation). If these numbers do not make a significant change to the total number involved on their side, except they made an important contribution, we do not explicitly mention them. What can reasonably be accepted as a signifacant change can be judged by common sense. Wandalstouring 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think there are two basic rules we can use to trim things down:
  • Nations, not nationalities: if a nation is not taking part in the battle as a political entity, we don't list it. This means, for example, we don't need to list foreign mercenary units as their own "combatants".
  • Similarly, only independent "nations": if a nation does not exist as a separate political entity at the time of the battle, it is subsumed into whatever nation actually controls the territory. In this case, we would remove India and Morocco under this provision.
In general, though, I'm hesitant to let WWII be (as usual) the tail that wags the dog here. The vast majority of historical conflicts do not have dozens of nations allied and contributing troops, and hence don't have this problem to deal with; I think that an informal trimming of entries on those articles where the list is particularly long will be better than trying to set explicit rules on what may or may not be listed. Kirill Lokshin 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
independent "nations" is a source for trouble. How can we define this? Did you ever see a trooplist of the HRE, they were all independant... Wandalstouring 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this actually come up in practice (that is, many members of the HRE participating on different sides—if they're on the same side, we can just put "Holy Roman Empire" in the infobox and leave the details for the article)? Kirill Lokshin 12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, we can probably get away with generalities even when they're on different sides; see, for example Battle of Lützen (1632).) Kirill Lokshin 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to skip nations and put independent acting political entities (nation is a very recent invention). If we have lots of small flock, we simply list the most important (greatest contributions to troop strength, leading them, etc. and summarize the rest). Wandalstouring 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was really using "nation" as a shorthand, but I suppose it could be interpreted incorrectly to mean only true nation-states. My main point, though, was that we should avoid listing nationalities of soldiers if these are not tied to a distinct political participant in the fighting. Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I definitly support the first basic rule suggested by Kirill Lokshin. As for the non-independant nations I would suggest mentioning hte organisation in wich they are part. This woudl take care of multi-national task forces like NATO, UN, HRE, Commonwealths, etc... I dislike solely indicating the greatest contributor. Althouhg I do support making the infobox as short and consize as can be, should the character of the battle have been multy-partied it should definitly be mentioned. As well, mercenaries and non-independant nations should of course be discussed within the article. As for the nation section its true that can be misleading, but I completely understand and support Kirill Lokshin's original usage. Did anyone have somethign to propose changing it with? Looking at the list of synonym State, Country and Power could be replacements.--Dryzen 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can rewrite the rules by Kirill Lokshin (how they were meant to be):

  • Political entities, not origin of comabatants: if a political entity is not taking part in the battle as such, we don't list it. This means, for example, we don't need to list foreign mercenary units as their own "combatants". My main point, though, was that we should avoid listing nationalities of soldiers if these are not tied to a distinct political participant in the fighting.
  • Similarly, only independent "political entities": if a political entity does not exist as a separate entity at the time of the battle, it is subsumed into whatever entity actually controls the territory. In this case, we would remove India and Morocco (colonies, dominion, protectorate, etc.) under this provision.

Still there is the problem,like for the HRE in the battle of Lützen. (Actually, we can probably get away with generalities even when they're on different sides; see, for example Battle of Lützen (1632).) Somehow we need a way to make generalities. Many times there is no multi-national task forces like NATO, UN, HRE, Commonwealths, etc... How do we handle that is the problem? If 30 independent villages gang up on 20 independant villages? (wars in ancient Sumer for example) And forget nations, they were non-existant in many cases.

My suggestion was:

If we have lots of small flock, we simply list the most important (greatest contributions to troop strength, leading them, etc. and SUMMARIZE the rest). If there is no one of significantly great importance, they all get summarized. For example: Battle of Qarqar

So let`s come to the point in this discussion. Wandalstouring 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is, we can't treat ancient warfare the same as Second World War. Your suggestion to put numbers in brackets would work for the ancients, but makes no sense at all for modern battles, as a 10,000 man division will have perhaps 2,500 actual combatants. Obviously, separate rules should apply depending on circumstance. I'd even ditch the national components altogether for WW II and just list formations - in the case of Monte Cassino, British 8th Army, I Polish Corps, or whatever, and define national participation in the article itself.Michael Dorosh 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, actual numbers should really be in the "Strength" field even for ancient warfare. But we can certainly be flexible in what we list in the infobox, so long as the article itself explains the details. For example, we could have "Alliance led by Ur" against "Alliance led by Lagash" for ancient warfare; or "Western Allies: US, UK, France, and others" for modern battles. The key thing is that the two sides be easily identifiable; how exactly their components are to be listed can probably vary according to the exact needs of each article. Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite true on the organisations, we could list the alliances instead, such as for what was done (genereal encampemnt of catholics and protestant powers) for Battle of Lützen (1632). was what Kirill Lokshin suggested about allaince what your where alluding too Wandalstouring? For listing the formations instead of combatant political entities I'm reticent to support such a change. It brings out some more questions to answer with the possibility of making the combatant listing even longer and more complex for the common reader. Of course I would love to have the listing of formations for my own personnal intrest, yet I dont think it will be worth the change in the overall percpective. Having such information in the article has done and will do. I do think we have the mercenary issue quite handled though. --Dryzen 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The key thing is that the two sides be easily identifiable" and the description is as short as possible. About ancient war Michael Dorosh, they did have their logistic personal just like nowadays. In some cases warriors equipped with most sophisticated equipment European knights for example) needed quite a lot personal to maintain this. Wandalstouring 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say "as short as possible without introducing substantial error"—we don't want people changing "Russia, Austria, Prussia" into "Sixth Coalition", for example; but I think the general intent is good (so long as it's clear that this is meant to be advice for the general case, not a rule to be followed pedantically even when it produces bad results). Kirill Lokshin 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to introduce a point about the example given Battle of Monte Cassino, and think about removing the mention of Indian Troops and adding there numbers to British Troops. I Strongly Oppose this on the grounds of both honouring the sacrifice of Non-White troops in WWII and Encyclopedic completeness. Sihks, Muslims and Hindus all willing served, in their own nation's (India)army and many Units in both the current Indian and Packistani armies that have these units in their regimental histories. I hope the accuracy of this project will address historical biases against the service of some groups over others, and with the great job people are doing here i have no doubt this will be the case.Hypnosadist 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not really what we're discussing, though. Nobody is suggesting that we should not indicate the presence of Indian (as in "from the place called India") troops—although it's usual to give a full breakdown of units in a section of the article rather than in the infobox, to prevent huge sprawling boxes on articles—but whether India (as in the country) should be listed as a separate combatant at a time when it did not exist as a politically independednt entity. Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Siege of Kut and First Battle of El Alamein are in perfect accordance with the rules suggested and they do mention the combatants from India in a fair way. White, non-white; write an article about blacks fighting for the Portuguese in Macao against Ming-China. Wandalstouring 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the best solution I've seen so far (as far as WWII battles/operations are concerned) is to list the actual units, and thier numbers, involved rather then nations. Most of the units already have articles of their own, and a great deal of the pages have orders of battle; in both of these we have areas better suited to discuss the make up of the troops involved. Only in the cases where the number of units is unwieldly, or all/most of them for a nation were comitted to the same conflict (like in the WWII article itself), would we list the nations themselves. Oberiko 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That may work, provided that the number of units is sufficiently small that the box can be kept concise. For the larger campaigns, in particular, this may not always be true; certainly, for something like Battle of Moscow, I think we'd rather see "Soviet Union" given as a combatant than have a box with a laundry list of every Soviet army that participated in the conflict. (This would be especially problematic for longer battles where the units were repeatedly re-organized and re-numbered over the course of the conflict.) Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Moscow: would be Army Group Center vs. Central Front (or whatever it was called). For World War Two as a whole, you have "Alles" vs. "Axis". You go to the highest formation you can think of. For Dieppe, it is then "2nd Canadian Division" vs. Infanterie Division XXX, for Normandy 21st Army Group vs. Army Group X. You can vary the level of headquarters to fit the articles.Michael Dorosh 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for the Battle of Moscow, it would be Army Group Center vs. Western Front, Reserve Front, Bryansk Front, & Kalinin Front (I may have missed a few). Particularly early in the war, you often have multiple "independent" fronts being compressed into a small area during an offensive, so I'm not sure listing them all would be an improvement. Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill, listing fronts is kinda unhelpful... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, trying to go for something concrete here; this is a (rough!) draft of how we might change the instructions to reflect some of the points made in the discussion. Current version
  • combatant1/combatant2 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. Convention is to use the names of countries, rather than those of specific units. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
Updated version:
  • combatant1/combatant2 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. Convention is to only list independent political participants (which are often countries, but may also be alliances or other groups); non-political or non-independent participants (such as mercenaries serving another power or troops drafted from colonies) are usually not explicitly named in the infobox, but are indicated in the body of the article. However, for more modern conflicts, individual formations (such as fronts, armies, or divisions) may be listed if this improves reader understanding and does not unacceptably lengthen the template. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
I think I've gotten most of the relevant issues; please feel free to point out anything I've missed or misinterpreted. The text is somewhat dense, but hopefully concise enough that people will actually read it. Comments would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"However, for more modern conflicts, individual formations (such as fronts, armies, or divisions) may be listed if this improves reader understanding and does not unacceptably lengthen the template. The use of flag icons is not recommended."
Some ancient conflicts were mainly carried out by renown units such as the "wilden Gesellen" (military unit of Haag) in the ("Ochsenkrieg" 1421- 1422) between Haag and Bavaria, or the mercenary Regiment of Frundsberg.
Therefore delete modern. Wandalstouring 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that, in cases where said units were acting independently, they fall under the "also be alliances or other groups" clause; and in cases where they merely happen to be mercenaries explicitly acting as the army of a political combatant, it's the original political combatant that should be listed in the infobox, rather than the mercenary unit. (For example, saying that Frundsberg's landsknechts fought Giovanni de' Medici's Black Bands says absolutely nothing to a reader glancing at the infobox, particularly given how regularly Medici changed sides; it's much more useful, in my opinion, to indicate what the actual powers were on whose behalf these mercenaries were fighting at the time.) Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it. :-) Echoing Hypnosadist's concerns, I believe that specifically sanctioning the exclusion of "non-independent participants" from the infobox potentially encourages a type of systemic bais we want to avoid, because it can exclude large numbers of non-state or colonial combatants. I think it would be better to say something like: "Describe the combatants as succinctly as possible in the infobox, usually identifying them by country, but also possibly by army, alliance, front, tribe, or unit. To avoid overcrowding the infobox, when there is a wide variety of participants, list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and describe the rest in the body of the article."
Definitely avoid specifying the exclusion of mercenaries: there are times when a battle was fought almost exclusively by hired troops on one side (e.g. the Battle of Trenton), and then of course they should be listed. Kevin (complaints?) 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I like it personally. If I have the gist correct, we'll use specific units if possible (British 8th Army vs. Afrika Corps etc.) and nationalities if the specific units, at the highest level, becomes to long to be of any real use (say more then two or three units).
I think we can agree that for every rule, we'll have to have exceptions. In the case of mercenaries, they would have to be listed if they are they are a sufficient portion of the forces and are not part of a larger organized group (Hannibal's forces come immediately to mind).
I also don't think it will lead to exclusions. If there are combatants which are not part of a larger force which is mentioned, and had noteworthy numbers/impact, then we'll have to mention them independantly. If they are officially part of a larger unit, then they will be mentioned within the article on that particular unit, in the order of battle for the conflict, or in the article itself if neither exist. Oberiko 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, how about this, taking Kevin's points into account:
  • combatant1/combatant2 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The use of flag icons is not recommended.
Is that any better? Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! Only it should say: "Editors who put flag icons in infoboxes will be beaten." ;-) Kevin (complaints?) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. The small icons are mildly annoying, but I don't find them a point worth fighting over. It's the really big ones (e.g. Arab-Israeli Conflict) that are the most irritating. Kirill Lokshin 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Reads well to me Kirill. Oberiko 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What a mess to answer a simple question. Besides I wanted only to object modern naming of military units vs not naming ancient military units in the battle box. I did not expect it to be worth so much alphabetic characters. :-/ Wandalstouring 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a simple question on Wikipedia ;-) Look at the various WP:MOS pages; those go into exhaustive, painful detail on even the most trivial points, simply because people have—and do—get into huge fights over them. Kirill Lokshin 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated the infobox instructions to that last version; further comments are, of course, very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this from the begining waht did we want to show by mentioning combatants? Who was insvolved seems to be the answer, correct? This seems to have brought some varying points of vue and the involved part.

In definition point of vue we want to see those that was there, on the battle, in the war. Yet this brings a clash with the conceptual point of vue, wich would dictate that those involved are conflicting factions. Within this second reasoning the involved units are representations of the factions, not factions in themselves (in metaphorical terms naming the gladiators and not the equipement).

I am leaning towards this second opinion, as it it easier for the avarage reader to take in the information than individual formations (of wich arrise the ever present problem of selecting the largest available formations to indicate within the infobox. Thus meaning that passer-by readers will ever have to read around to comprehend the fluctuating combatants (i.e. with whom is this army? In which division, whom from what army, is this battalion?)).

Presenting both ideas to fully appreaciate them and attempt at an objective resolution; both sides have their merrit and their semantic weaknesses. When presenting a war, it is only natural that the factions and largest formations be the same, for what larger formation is there than a "side", a "political entity"? In political entity I do not stop at parties and nations, but at organisations. The weakness in this could be proven as not being truly representative of the scope of the conflict: The Allies is a rather ambiguous term wich as been used many times in history by varying powers, nor does it have the same effect as naming the panonply of states involved. For a battle, the factions keeps the understanding of sides a simple mater equally by seeying the factions one can general surmize the identity the conflict in which this engament took place, where are writing these for the public are we not?

Returning to the former point of vue, indicating the highest formation in a war, like in the above paragraph, should enevitably return to the factions and not solely the faction's armed forces, since this would neglect the global effect of war on a populace. In battles, we can beging to see that using the "direct" combatants is an effective methode. It indicates the scale of the encounter, the varying commands and the players to be seen in the acticle. It strength is also its weekness, one must have prior knowledge to be able to take in treasure of information.

Lastly, mercenaries are for the former an acceptible inscription. While in the later they are grossly inaceptible. Not representing a faction of their own they have no true reason to be indicated on one side of the other. To take Kevin (complaints?)'s exemple of the Battle of Trenton, it is true that Hessians formed the rival position of combatant, yet it would be false to say that German states, not sharing the british monarch, where at war with the revolutionaries.

Inconclusion, after reviweing two major possibilities I have come to the conclusion that factions should be the combatants, with the possibility of the untis being metnioned either within its own section, within the strength or as a compromise mentioned under the faction, i.e. British #Hessian Regiments#. For a military force rarely holds independant drive, wich to me makes the real combatant capable of answering "Who was involved". One cannot say that it was the Hessian regiments that descided to fight the Contenentals, nor could one say that Army Group Center craved to invade the Soviet Union (these could decide on the particularities of the war or battles but they where not the forces that initiate the congflict (Ex: A government declares, the army does).

I hope that my long text has been helpful and that I have not left any vague spots (which seems to be my bane) to be misunderstood.--Dryzen 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points (although, as just about anything we work with here, there are exceptions and bizarre cases for them). I think that our underlying philosophy should be to express a general convention—here, "most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict"—but leave the specifics (and the various unusual cases) up to the people working on the article. I'm sure somebody can come up with examples for each possible interpretation of "combatants" where a pedantic rule would create problems, so it's probably better to allow article writers a considerable level of disretion. Kirill Lokshin 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to have been our default position. Wich I had never tuly contested, yet since everyone was putting in there opionions, I voiced my own. Should we ever attempt at a more pointed convention I hope that my analysis will aide. The only real point of contest I had was with mentioning mercenary units in the combatant section, which I explained above.--Dryzen 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In the 17th century, battles were fought where the majority of the troops were mercenaries. I feel the nationality of these mercenaries should not be mentioned. Hiring swiss mercenaries did not make Switzerland a participant. Also, many mercenaries were professional soldiers, hired on an individual basis. What mattered, were the nationalities of the nations at war.
The situation gets different when the troops were on loan to another ruler, such as the Hessian soldiers fighting the american revolt. And even then I'd vote to keep the Hessians out of the infobox, mentioning them in the text. TeunSpaans 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Same thing for the 16th century; and it's really confusing when you have the same "nationality" of mercenaries fighting on both sides of a battle. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont consider the situation any difrent with forces on loan. Unless of course intrigue was involved, such as in the Seven Years' War, were French forces where loaned to Autsria so that France could enter the war with Prussia to get at Hanover wich was under British rule.--Dryzen 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maximum enlistment ages

Just a heads up, maximum enlistment age needs to either be some sort of an article or point to a location that already has that information. I don't know enough to do it myself. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

May I surprise you: There is no such thing. All German grandpas within reach were armed with guns somehow and their grandchildren with Panzerfausts shortly before the end of the Second World War in Germany in 1945. So if somebody tries really hard, there is no age limit. Most reservist soldiers are usually not drafted if over the age of ~45. On the other hand you can enter the Indian army up to the age of 30-35, while for the German army 25-28 is the limit. Wandalstouring 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
We could probably get away with something like Enlistment age by country, as I think there are similar lists for various other topics (age of consent and drinking age, although I don't remember what the article names are). Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Krill Enlistment age by country would be the appropriate article, it also allows you to also talk in an historic sence. Enlistment age over time in each country such as Germany in WWII. Hossen27 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Interessting proposal, the Enlistment age by country should be very informative, even more so should we include periodes. --Dryzen 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox war

Battle o' Hong Kong Michael Dorosh 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If there is already an article on "History of Hong Kong", wouldn't it make sense for that project to claim History, and for the Battle article to be a Military History project page exclusively?Michael Dorosh 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Meh. It's probably not worth fighting over exact scopes; the convention that summary templates (i.e. infoboxes) get higher placement than mere link or series templates should be sufficient for our purposes here. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)