"But it also includes model or computer simulation of possible scenarios in military planning". Wouldn't this be a better way to phrase it: But it also includes computer simulation of models of possible scenarios in military planning", the other way round seems like redundent phrasing. Mathmo 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think 'modeling' and 'simulation' are considered slightly different things in technical computer programming parlance, but I'm not sure. They're certainly related, and that's probably good enough considering the lack of detail in this article right now. Actually, with how junky it is, I'd say be bold and do any clean up that occurs to you. --Rindis 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- They do have somewhat very slightly different meanings (which I'm aware of, seeing that is part of my area of expertise), so I changed it. Should have been bolder. Mathmo 06:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Other types of exercise include the TEWT (Tactical Exercise Without Troops), also known as a sandtable, map or cloth model exercise.
Is "to modelize" a real verb anymore? A google search shows it as an obsolete usage. Wouldn't just "to model" serve as well? Autopilot 16:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC) .
I created the above article before running across this one, so I added the link to Military Simultaion in the Types of Exercise section. However, it might be better to merge the two articles... any thoughts? 220.127.116.11 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) oops not logged in EyeSerene 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, though that looks like a significant amount of work. But does a military exercise really equal a military simulation? Simulations can take place in both virtual and real settings, while exercises can exist only in the latter, no? magpi3 12:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Who was it who decided that "manoeuvre" should redirect to this page, as if "manoeuvre" is not the correct spelling, but "maneuver" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2007
- Well I won't comment on that directly but it may inform or enlighten some editors if I say that in my opinion and experience as a Commonwealth English speller (give or take the odd mistake) that the N American spelling of this word looks completely, (and if I may I'd like to add) utterly, hideous. In fact to me, it doesn't even look like a word. More like the scene of an accident. And I've a feeling that N Americans feel the same way because, after years of reading North American publications, I've only recently come across it. And that tells me that even North Americans are embarrassed to see it in print. And that's perfectly understandable. That was over at the article PIT manoeuvre btw. I nearly logged in (I'm telling you the truth) to correct what I thought was some hideous typo. Maybe even vandalism. I've really never been so affected by a word, but then there's probably never been such a Crime against Spelling. Just so you know, as I think there may be others who feel the same. Thx :)
- Reasonable article tho imo.Hakluyt bean 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The (incoherent) lead sentence of our article Cultural imperialism may be right in saying the term implies efforts by outsiders, implying the term is not relevant to the cultural items that displace others by winning in the marketplace of ideas. In that event, the section title "Cultural imperialism" turns out to state only the agenda of (at least) the immediately preceding contributor, who denigrates what Andrei Codrescu has called the stink of the neighboring valley (the assembly of en: Wikipedians) in seeking to promote the stink of one's own valley (in this case the Commonwealth of Nations, or at least one of its members). Granted, that promotion is not effected by cramming Commonwealth spelling down WP's throat with the butt of a rifle; nevertheless it is by hostile language like "completely, [and] utterly, hideous" and "Crime against Spelling". And i call it an effort by an outsider because it ignores our agreed-upon handling of spelling differences (see my comment below, on the IP's contrib), and bcz i find that in this particular instance the Google tests
- about 12,200,000 for -manoeuvre maneuver
- about 1,330,000 for manoeuvre -maneuver
- reflect the preferences of English-language Web authors, while
- about 4,390 from en.wikipedia.org for -manoeuvre maneuver
- about 1,190 from en.wikipedia.org for manoeuvre -maneuver
- suggest that "manoeuvre"-preferring editors are, relative to the rest of the English-language Web, either
- overrepresented on WP, or
- more likely to use the manoeuvre/maneuver term in their writing, or
- less likely to respect WP policy (see my response, below, to the creator of this section) in regard to regional spellings.
- --Jerzy•t 07:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- _ _ Before i respond to your question, let me deal with your assumptions:
- Manoeuvre is indeed a redirect (to the article accompanying this talk page, as you presumably meant).
- That fact has nothing to do with spelling:
- An editor decided that the concept manoeuvre/maneuver had "military exercise" as the primary encyclopedic topic users would have in mind if they looked it up.
- With a lapse of about minute between, the same editor created the Rdrs from the "American" title, and even-handedly, the other spelling; at the time you wrote, they both were as that ed left them.
- So the redirects to the accompanying article reflected no difference in the status accorded to the two spellings.
- On the other hand, a few weeks before you wrote, a different editor took note of at least the Maneuver Rdr. Even if they were aware of both, they rightly decided that typical users coming via either Rdr could be expected to be reasonably served according to the principle of least astonishment by adding the Rdr-motivated ToP Dab (a statement beginning " 'Maneuver' redirects here ..."), since the connection it asserts between "Maneuver" and "Military exercise" immediately suggests a corresponding one between "Manoeuvre" and "Military exercise". Putting both spellings there, in a navigational (not informational) structure would have been clutter without significant benefit.
- Partly bcz it can be seen only by admins, and partly bcz it never lk'd to the accompanying article, and partly bcz it does not arguably affect the bottom line, i omit the details of the deletion of the earlier article (and eventually the other spelling's Rdr to it), based on a ProD that argued "At present nothing more than a dicdef...." (and a DBR1, respectively).
I'll make no response to your implication , except to say that i cannot see how anyone could conclude that in this context.
- The mistaken conclusion that someone at WP acted "as if 'manoeuvre' is not the correct spelling, but 'maneuver' is" could have arisen if you observed Manoeuvre being a Rdr to Maneuver, but
- there never was such a Rdr;
- if there had been a "Manoeuvre" or "Maneuver" article (other than one so titled because that was the spelling of the title of a novel, song, etc.), or a Dab page with one of those two titles, our guidelines would support one WP-page title being a Rdr to the other. But which was the article or Dab, and which the Rdr would depend
ingnot on some judgement about the correct spelling, but on which was created as the article -- or the earlier article, if both were created;
- i am truly at a loss to understand why you included that wording.
- Having said all that, i need to also say that since then, Maneuver has been converted from a Rdr to a Dab; this will require changes described at the end of this contribution of mine.
- _ _ I don't presume, despite a persistent rumor (perhaps paralleling a rumour) about the mutual intelligibility of American English and, for instance, British English, to say that "manoeuvre" is the correct British or Commonwealth spelling. I'm pretty confident it's the correct French one, and i'm inclined, when i see it in used in English, to assume it is probably the correct British one. On the other hand, i will say confidently that "maneuver" is a correct spelling.
Although Noah Webster used "manoeuvre" in 1806 (at ¶ 21 on p. 127), it was he[I was careless in attribution: Webster's 1802 role was quoting, apparently verbatim, a group statement dated 1775.] It was Noah Webster who said, in 1828 to a wide and moreinfluential audience that "maneuver" was the correct spelling in American English. We could argue he was wrong. He presumably would have defended it as an act of "cultural independence" (or "cultural anti-imperialism"), and we also could argue over the possibility that the facts and principles relevant to it in fact participate in the "artificiality" that our article suggests is one hallmark of cultural imperialism. In any case, his answer, via the credence it's been given, has created a fact on the ground (see the Google tests in my other contrib above) about proper spelling -- in the US, and AFAIK perhaps elsewhere.
- _ _ Given that there are regional variations in correct English spelling, the relevant WP guidelines, amounting to a screen and a half, are more relevant than all that. The operative portion says that
- In the early stages of writing an article, the [national] variety [of English] chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used....
- This implies that the conversion of Maneuver from Rdr to Dab requires conversion of Manoeuvre to a Rdr
towhose target is the Maneuver Dab. (Removal of the ToP Dab from Military exercise is also called for.)
- --Jerzy•t 07:54, 08:59, & 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Political uses of military exercises
Shouldn't there be something about the use of military exercises and "war games" for political purposes, e.g., to intimidate a potential enemy, to encourage a doubtful ally, or to move troops and materiel close to a likely trouble spot without actually declaring war? Or is there another article which deals with that? RandomCritic (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)