Template talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.


The template code is confusing me. There's a switch that defaults to put articles into Category:Unassessed military history articles. There isn't an "importance" switch like there are in other WikiProject templates that would normally control this behavior. What am I missing? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The error occurs if the article is a class of "stub" or less, but not if "start" or better. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject doesn't use importance ratings, so that's why there's no code for them in the banner. Was this the only issue you were seeing, or is there some other issue you've encountered with the template? Kirill [talk] 09:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That's the only issue. I've been trying to sort through the unassessed history articles and I don't want to leave the stub WPMILHIST articles in that category unnecessarily. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner[edit]

I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick and dirty insertions[edit]

Hi all. Could you give some example insertions reviewers can use without signing up for a three year course in it? Something that signals a decent start, that kind of thing. Thanks. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you really do not want to take the time to figure out the details simply use the banner without any parameters, someone will add them later. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-Cold War[edit]

The template needs a "Post-Cold War" era parameter. A lot of history has happened since the Wall came down. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Military science task force icon change[edit]

The current image used for the Military Science and Technology Task Force is unrecognisable at the size used in this template. How about changing it from from MilHis Sci.jpg to Fire and movement.svg ? (Hohum @) 17:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes that seems like a good idea. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Any other opinions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That image looks like an improvement to me Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I concur with the use of the new image. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Big improvement. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


See first post in the thread. (Hohum @) 00:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donexaosflux Talk 00:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Only just saw the coord notification (I admit I don't have this page watchlisted) but you can add me to the bunch in favour of the change... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Main icon too?[edit]

In my opinion, the main icon is a little confusing too: Waricon.svg I can't find anything instantly suitable, but I could make something like a rifle crossed with a sword or spear, or perhaps the silhouettes of a spearman and rifleman (by combining Medieval Infantry.png with Soldier svg.svg or Modern infantry.png)?

(Or find a map fragment that is obvious as a map at a small size) Any thoughts? (Hohum @) 01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a more "obvious" icon is necessarily going to be all that useful in this instance; we've used the current icon for close to ten years now, and I think people recognize it as the MILHIST "brand" even if they don't necessarily know what it actually is. Changing to another icon would remove that sense of familiarity, so I suspect that it would be less recognizable as something representing our project as a result, even if the icon itself is easier to understand. Kirill [talk] 02:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely the point of a project related image is for *new* users to recognise it intuitively? (Hohum @) 12:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Wouldn't most new users read the text of the banner rather than just looking at the icon? I don't have any real evidence one way or the other, but I would suspect that identifying project by glancing at the banner icons isn't something that new users would try to do regardless of what those icons are. Kirill [talk] 13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So what is it for? (and why wouldn't something intuitively related to the subject be better than what looks like a detail from a Jackson Pollock painting?) (Hohum @) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't find those silhouettes much more 'recognisable' than the icon we have now. I'm not saying what we have is perfect but I'd want to see something that really grabbed me before considering a change. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No worries. Not much support for this. I'll ponder what might grab people. (Hohum @) 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)