Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military science task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject
General information Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk Collaboration department talk Publication department talk Review department talk Image, map, and media resources Showcase  → Featured picture gallery talk Portals
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk Awards talk Outreach department talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Guidelines Naming conventions Notability Article structure Content and style Infobox templates  → Infobox design style talk Categories Featured article advice
Infobox templates Firearm cartridge infobox talk Military award infobox talk Military cemetery infobox talk Military conflict infobox talk Military memorial infobox talk Military person infobox talk Military structure infobox talk Military test site infobox talk Military unit infobox talk National military infobox talk War faction infobox talk Weapon infobox talk Campaignboxes talk Command structure box talk Service record box talk
Task forces General topics Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Polish military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk Spanish military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Ancient Near Eastern warfare talk Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Modern warfare talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Banner icon 2 Establishing the scope of the project 3 Categories 4 military tactics 5 Collaboration of the Month: Military science 6 Strategy vs Tactics vs Doctrine 7 Requested articles 8 Peer review request for Leapfrogging (infantry) 9 Scope

[edit] Banner icon

I'm not sure what a good banner icon for this topic would be. For the moment, I've used a battle diagram (), but if anyone has a better idea, please feel free to change it. Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does it look like as a whole?--Dryzen 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Economy of force, for example. Kirill Lokshin 17:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe use a campaign map of some sort, or something on a larger scale since its not just strategy or tactics, but military science as a whole. maybe something like this:--Gw099 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice map, but it just looks like northern France at that scale, as the diagram elements aren't really visible; I'm not sure whether it would be an improvement. We really need something smaller-scale originally, preferably with heavy lines. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats just a example of what Im looking to use,something on a larger scale than the current banner, but I'll look for better map--Gw099 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the original but enlarging the manoeuvre could work, I Could work on that that weekend.--Dryzen 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

() Hmm, how's this? We get to see the formations better, but its still blurry on whats actually goins on.~ --Dryzen 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice to me. (But I'm not the most artistically talented person, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it you can see the units clearer.--Gw099 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've put it into the banner. Kirill Lokshin 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What about commander's insignia, like a staff? would be easier to recognize Wandalstouring 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could work, we'dd just need to land on an image that convey's the message to all.--Dryzen 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing the scope of the project

In establishing this new space, I'm a bit concerned that though the three new task forces are bound to overlap, we should develop some sense of territory and responsibility. For example, I think of technology and engineering as physical manifestation (all articles referring to tangible items and places), this task force as technique, theory and development (those articles which refer to most intangibles, substance of history and new classes of tangibles), and the historiography group as military journalism and controversy (article about recording history and meta history, humanizing, and noting anomaly, all tangible or no).

That's a very imprecise summary, but I wonder how best we might help keep each of the groups clearly divided in focus. It's clear we're all going to cover the same raw articles; what will distinguish the task forces is their dedication to scope. Do we have any critique of my not too well-developed partition approach? BusterD 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. I suspect the overlap will actually be pretty small, aside from the really core topics; most specific things (e.g. particular historians, tactics, devices) will probably be covered by only one of the three. Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I'm involved in moving lots of disorganized structure to this page and will be sorting out the mess in both places, so please don't change the category structure until I've had a chance to throw the net as wide as possible. Thanks for forbearance. BusterD 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot of categories! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As you can see there is a bunch of repetition (especially drek), but before I sort any categories I'd like to know what's there now. I think the structure I transcribed is wholly unworkable as a framework; it merely is an accurate depiction of the Military science category structure as of this datestamp. BusterD 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm more disturbed by the fact that there seem to be more categories dealing with Naruto and James Bond than with actual military science on that list. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(Below three comments reposted from BusterD's talk)

I would try to keep this somewhat limited in scope, rather than trying to have it absorb all of Category:Military; in particular, adding top-level categories like Category:Military history or Category:Military organization probably isn't useful, as they serve more to collect specific articles on all individual events or units than on issues of military science per se. Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a breath here for a bit. I was trying to bring the primary category structure with the basically working structure in the Military science article. I was also categorizing; was almost finished. I'd love some feedback here; not trying any mucking. Let's take this to task force talk, if that's ok. BusterD 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, basically. My concern above was more related to the point that those two categories were much broader in scope than just military science per se, so having them directly in the top-level military category might be better; but, other than that, your improvements have been great. Thanks for taking the time to do this; categorization cleanup isn't the most exciting of things to do! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to defend the addition of Military history and Military organization to this category structure, at least in as much as it applies to this task force. I say this based on the existing structure of the Military science article, which looks entirely workable. I do agree there will be some duplication of cat structure, but at this moment, I can't help but assert my view that the study of MilHist and MilOrg is essential to MilSci. If you as project coordinator say otherwise, I'll revert or modify any edits I made. BusterD 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh, fair enough. They need to be kept in the top-level military category as well, though. Kirill Lokshin 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(saluting) I'll put dupes back where they belong. Or you might have already done it. BusterD 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, can categories get tagged for Wikiprojects, and is that a worthy practice? I could see it as a neat way of netting up some relevant articles. BusterD 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the categories themselves, I would use {{catwikiproject}} on them, but wouldn't bother tagging their talk pages, as they tend never to get any traffic. If you mean the articles inside a particular category, see the automation department. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I spotted catmore and the project tag as I was cleaning up. Please look at MilSci category now. I'm satisfied. We're missing a Military technology article, but I suspect the new task force could could make that a collaboration. BusterD 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. We'll need to sort out the distinction among tactics, strategy, and doctrine at some point, though, as I suspect a lot of articles aren't tagged quite correctly. Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Grist, my friend! Will try to tread as carefully as possible. BusterD 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] military tactics

There are some articles out there about basic tactics and most of them are quite a pain to read if they do not actually misinform. Just making a suggestion for a start. Wandalstouring 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Will certainly be a major focus of this group. BusterD 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Flanking maneuver badly needs some help. Wandalstouring 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the Month: Military science

As I was looking over categories and articles (as a group, we are badly needed on WP), I see one article which jumps out for dire attention, especially in view of its flagship status to our group: Military science. In order to focus our efforts on what we're trying to accomplish here, I propose that our first monthly collaboration be Military science. By working out what we're trying to say there, I think we can build some organic structure for what we're trying to accomplish here. We'd certainly be in a better position to set goals for accomplishment. What do people think? Can we acclaim? BusterD 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy vs Tactics vs Doctrine

I've love for the group to provide some input on one of the fulcrum idiom sets with which this group will deal. I'm not 100% sure I agree with what I've seen written in pagespace, but I hesitate to change good page space without knowing I have consensus of some kind. Here's the way I see it:

• Military tactics relates to the business end of the operational group, methods and techniques on a meta level. Tactics operate in space and time, and aim at achieving objectives. Articles meeting these criteria should be tagged as [[Category:Military tactics|(insert PAGE NAME here)]]
• Military strategy relates to planning/thinking which coordinates tactics into a coherent overall operational plan. Like tactics, strategy operates in space and time, but of a more comprehensive and less definitive nature); Unlike tactics, strategy has the broader task of coordinating timing and directing targeting of objective achievement. Articles meeting these criteria should be tagged as [[Category:Military strategy|(insert PAGE NAME here)]]
• Military doctrine relates to underlying principles of warfare, independent of specific context, but by necessity flexible over operational context. Doctrine is independent of space and time, and provides operational references upon which strategy and tactic is devised. Articles meeting these criteria should be tagged as [[Category:Military doctrines|(insert PAGE NAME here)]]

I'd love someone to deconstruct and reconstruct these definitions, because if we can't correctly use this specific terminology, we'll be off to a very shaky start. BusterD 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The hierachy described follows my own understanding and find itself suitable, your point of contention was that this could be made more fool proof from the less semanticly inclined readers correct? Our own articles on the subject could use some work as well, Doctrine above all, wich in its article has more the meaning of policy than its ingraining nature. More things to work on, seems this young task force already has its hands full!--Dryzen 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are trying to define "doctrine" then this is a worthwhile read:[1] Military operations are conducted at the tactical, operational, and stratigic levels. "Tactics" and "strategy" apply to the philosophies, practices, and procedures that are followed in order to execute missions in the parallel level of operations. -- MCG 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I was recategorizing Military tactics today I stumbled into Operational art which makes the same comparison. S & T, much like doctrine, are theoretical, sort of like Aristotle's universals. Such terms are used as relative references to operational planning, but refer to individual operations in much the same way number theory represents relative references for exploring individual quantities of tangibles and intangibles. BusterD 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested articles

The requested articles departement gets reorganized. The requests get moved to the specific taskforce. In case of error move it to a concerning task force.

• Diametrically Opposed (contrast to asymmetric warfare)
• Black Reconnaissance (secret service operations with legal issues)
• Economics of warfare
• Free Companies (mercenary units)(but also see Freikorps)
• Military linguistics
• Military sociology
• Nuclear monopoly
• Political warfare
• Post-Apocalyptic Scenarios
• Presentation of the Flag, as in military funeral rites

Wandalstouring 11:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Added to open task template. Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a real expert write something on the Clausewitzian concept Friction (military)? - bit of a missing major topic. Buckshot06 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request for Leapfrogging (infantry)

There's a new peer review request for Leapfrogging (infantry) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

I just put the project tag on the Urban warfare article. would the other articles in Cat:Warfare by type fall under your project's scope? Mike McGregor (Can) 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I would think so. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn your quick, I was just coming bback to throw a header on that! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)