Jump to content

Talk:Military step

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

}}

Merge proposal: Military step into Foot drill

[edit]

Now THIS is a good comparison to the article on Foot drill! However, it is common sense that it is SO similar, that the two should be merged...Edit Centric 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I propose; I'm going to try and get a hold of the creator of the article, and collaborate on the proposed merger. If I cannot contact, or have not heard anything back after a week, I'll go ahead and start integrating the text from this side over to Foot drill. After this article is fully integrated into that one, then military step will be submitted for deletion / redirection to the Foot drill article. Edit Centric 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge: "Foot drill" is a more general topic than "Military step". It is a standard procedure of growth in Wikipedia to split longer articles into sub-articles dealing with some subtopic. Both articles have a very large potential for expansion. The Military step article, besides brief introduction, must contain only desciptions of various types of step and nothing else. If you look into "Foot drill", it is much more than just step. In addition to other exercises and ceremonies, it may contain training, parades, history, etc. In addition, there is article, labeled "USA-centric", will definitely benefit from input of other countries, especially non-English and non-Western cultures (which themselves may be potential or separate articles). `'Míkka>t 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mikkalai, while I agree with you wholeheartedly on the premise that Foot drill is a more general topic than Military step, that is also where I am coming from in the suggestion of merging of the two articles. What I am proposing is a full integration of the material from Military step, which would serve dual purposes; 1) Bring a more multi-national feel to the article and "De-USA" it, and 2) Expand the article's substance overall.
As the primary editor of the Foot drill article, I would definitely NOT be against a major contribution of material and substance by another editor at this point. The article is a bit stale, and needs a good kick in the pants. As no one editor "owns" any article here at Wikipedia, I view it more as a concerted, team effort. The more we work together, the better the articles get.
Rest assured that my sole motivation for this proposal is for the betterment of both articles, and of Wikipedia as a whole. This little project in open editing has, historically, not been viewed with much credibility by either the academic, or the media establishments. If we are going to make the "W" a force to be reckoned with, and a compendium of knowledge, we need more good editors such as yourself. I realise that you have a lot of time and effort vested in the Military step article, and it shows. (That's another reason for wanting to integrate this material into Foot drill. It's good material!) Edit Centric 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the "foot drill" article and now I understand your desire. Indeed, it is not good that it has almost no text about military step. However I would suggest you to refiew the following practice of the integration of particular subtopics into general articles: please see wikipedia:Summary style. Under this approach you may write a section "Military step", keeping it reasonably complete, but without greater detail.
BTW, you are a bit mistaken that I spent much effort on this article. Quite often I wander into topics very far from my primary interests, in the process of disambiguation of terminology I intended to write about in the first place. In this case all started from "Lock Step (dance move)". It turned out that wikipedia didn't have an article about the original word "lockstep", so I wrote it as well, although I have a very remote knowledge of American penitentiary system. While googling I noticed that many people use the word "lockstep" having in mind "military step" and at this moment I detected that wikipedia does not have the latter article either. So here you have one, written without special enthusiasm, but just to fill a pit. `'Míkka>t 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Arm Movement Intervals...

[edit]

During the time that I was enlisted, even the cadences that we would march to made clear reference to the intervals of arm movements and distances; "Nine to the front and six to the rear, that's the way we do it here", and "Dress it right and cover down, forty inches all around". Edit Centric 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody remember "Break-Step"?

[edit]

I remember Break-Step from my time in CAP but I have no reference for it. Can anybody help with a reference for Break-Step? That's when the soldiers just walk, not in step, until Forward March is declared again. The theory, at the time, was to keep bridges from collapsing under the rhythmic resonance of the marching feet. Padillah (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard that discussed too. Every structure has a resonance, a compound structure may have more than one resonance. A damaged or improvised wartime bridge, or a lousy third-world bridge, may not be strong enough if you stumble on the resonance. Mythbusters debunked it then withdrew the debunk. http://mythbusters-wiki.discovery.com/page/Break+Step+Bridge --Harpwolf (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to jump into this discussion with the aim of perhaps helping fill in some of the gaps. I am a student of the evolution of drill (British and American) from the 17th century through today. I also have references for drill in the ancient world. For ancient Greek drill, a useful reference is found in the 1st century BCE "The Tactics of Asclepiodotus the Philosopher" (Aeneas Tacitus, Asclepiodotus, and Onasander. Translated by Illinois Greek Club. Loeb Classical Library, 1986. ISBN 0-674-99172-9), which contains quite detailed descriptions of facing movements, drill and marching. Other ancient Greek authors, such as Xenophon, are useful as well, and their writings may also be found in the Loeb Classical Library. Although no Roman drill manuals from the time of Caesar have survived, Vegetius exists in various editions. He was attempting to re-introduce the virtue of the 1st century CE legions to the Roman Army of the 4th century CE, so much of what he wrote is supposed to be extrapolations of earlier Roman manuals (Flavius Vegetius Renatus (ed. Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Phillips USA), "Military Institutions of the Romans," Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1944 (no ISBN given). Another excellent reference on marching is James Cramer, "Military Marching: A Pictorial History," Tunbridge Wells (UK): Spellmount LTD, 1992, ISBN 0-946771-79-0. Period drill manuals of the 17th-20th centuries are also good references, of which I have originals or facsimiles of some of the American and British manuals, as well as books too numerous to mention here. I look forward to working with all y'all. Orvice (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)orvice[reply]

Seeking step instructions

[edit]

I am seeking actual military step instructions / animations / videos for different militaries across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parody

[edit]

There should be a chapter about parodies of military steps. A reference to The Ministry of Silly Walks might be appropriate. Also there might be some reference to military steps which are parodies by themself, for example the goose step. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.209.126 (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military step. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_step&oldid=1201721948"