Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Priority vs workload[edit]

In creating a list of key topics it would be useful to know at what levle the current article stands from stub through to FA. That way the possible editors might be able to identify what sort of task is involved for each.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Obviously, anyone should feel free to suggest topics, and to add that kind of information :-)=== The Land (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added some status. Where there is a mixture of ratings with other projects, I've gone with the military project rating.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Where would users put suggestions for topics that could be covered by this Special Project? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe they are core topics then add them to the core topics list. Which obviously begs the question of what is a core topic. I would suggest for the minute:
    • General articles which cover large aspects of WWI from an international angle
    • All major battles and operations ('major' meaning 'wouldn't be summarised in an article on another battle or operation'; so Battle of the Somme would eb core, but Battle of Bazentin Ridge would not be)
    • All combatant armies (as relevant to WWI)
      • Navies and airforces where significant
      • Individual units only where there is particular significance to them, e.g. because they represented a national contribution - so Australian and New Zealand Army Corps is a core topic but not I Corps (United Kingdom)
      • Lists of armies, corps, divisions, warships etc which participated
    • The most important weapons, equipment, tactics and technologies
      • So Sopwith Camel might be a core topic but not every fighter model deployed by the UK
        • corps technologies should be based on the princaple of- "move, shoot, and comunicate, or vehicles, weapons, como. Brian in denver (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Individuals of major strategic importance - specifically....
      • Any supreme commander of combatant nations
      • Most theatre commanders, Prime Ministers, Ministers of War etc
      • The most important army commanders, diplomats and other influential politicians
      • Other individuals regardless of rank/position who had a genuinely profound strategic impact
      • Other individuals who achieved international, historic reputation from their actions in WWI, regardless of their impact (e.g. Manfred von Richtofen)
Any comments on this list? The Land (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What about the home front?GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Where do you think it best fits in? The Land (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There are several articles on WWI by country: (eg. Portugal in World War I, Canada in World War I). What do we think about adding a "by country " article list? - Canglesea (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. The Land (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will populate one today. - Canglesea (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Goals[edit]

So what should the goals of this drive be? for the time being, I would suggest:

  • Create and maintain a list of core topics
  • Improve all core topics to a minimum of B-class; i.e. a broadly accurate article with no glaring ommissions, and at least minimal referencing.
  • Improve a significant number of articles from the Core Topics list to A-class, GA or FA status. These articles should be distributed across areas and should include a high proportion of the most popular pages. This will inevitably involve the creation of some Featured Topics.
  • Improve the article on World War I to Featured Article status.

What do people think....? The Land (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be worth trying to get "core groups" defined and decide if we can reasonably create them - divisional histories, for example, or articles on all corps commanders or above. They're certainly within our scope, and there's a definite potential for "complete sets" on a lot of topics. Shimgray | talk | 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We could do! However that would markedly increase the number of articles we were trying to deal with... The Land (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
How about listing articles which do not yet exist yet? Should the redlink be included in the list? For example, I'm fairly sure that Marinekorps Flandern warrants inclusion (German naval force which occupied the Belgian coast, manned the front line, operated U-Boats against merchant shipping and destroyers in the English channel and had its own naval airforce. It of course also fought off the Zeebruge and Ostende Raids in 1918. It would tie in fairly nicely with Dover Patrol, which ought to be listed as well. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Where an important topic has no article, create a redlink - you'll notice there are a few in the list already... If you feel that Marinekorps Flandern and Dover Patrol are important enough to be on the list, do add them. I imagine they count as significant naval operations. The Land (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I replace Convoy in the naval section with Battle of the Atlantic (1914-1918)? "Convoy" is at best going to be a summary of the events of World War I, while one day going into detail in the Battle of the Atlantic article won't pose a problem (provided someone can sort that article out). One of these days someone will have to create some new topic articles, such as Commerce raiding in World War I, Naval aviation in World War I and perhaps rename some of the existing ones, which seem a bit of a hodgepodge: Mediterranean U-boat Campaign (World War I), Mediterranean naval engagements during World War I, Naval warfare of World War I, Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918), Adriatic Campaign of World War I, Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign. Is it worth trying to produce some order in these? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In some areas it will be appropriate to have separate articles on doctrines/tactics/methods and on operations/engagments - e.g. 'barrage' is probably worth including in the list. That said I agree that Battle of the Atlantic will cover the relevant material... And yes, do suggest new articles and imposing order onto existing ones. The Land (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War I by country cleanup[edit]

The articles are named "country in/during/and World War I". We should probably standardize that. See also my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Poland_during_World_War_I. PS. Many of those countries in that category need to be added to {{WWI history by nation}}. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

It doesn't look like there's been a lot of activity here (unless I'm missing something), but I figured I'd throw this suggestion out there: how about we standardize the country articles? Right now there's a variety of titles:

I know there is a difference between 'military history' and general history, but because there isn't both Australia in World War II and Military history of Australia during World War I, I propose that we rename them all under one name. Or, at the very least, can we change all the "during"s to "in"s?

Or is there something I'm missing in the MOS? Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the new names *Egypt in World War I, *The Levant in World War I and *Mesopotamia in World War I should be added to the categories to encourage growth of scholarship in these campaigns, currently lumped together as Middle East. Also I suggest the 'Sinai and Palestine campaigns' page should be separated into two pages; 'Campaigns in Egypt' and 'Campaigns in The Levant' so that the dynamic, fluid and therefore complex operations can begin to be more easily understood. --RoslynSKP (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Core Impact and Aftermath Topics[edit]

I noticed there isn't anything yet listed under the "Core Impact and Aftermath Topics" section. My interest is mainly in this area (currently WW1 memorials), and I thought maybe giving some examples here might get ideas going for what could go there. As well as memorials, there are the commemoration events themselves, a timeline of 'legacy' events since WW1, articles on the centenary events themselves, articles on WW1 historians and the development of the study of the history, museums, archives, education, and other stuff. War poetry, art and literature as well (both during and after the war). And reconstruction efforts and political treaties and such things. That's all I can think of for now, but which of those (and other stuff I've forgotten) would be core topics? Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor/Victoria cross recipients[edit]

I wanted to suggest that a mention of the Medal of Honor/Victoria cross (and potential other major awards) recipients be included as well. I am not trying to suggest that every recipient be included but in regards to World War I we have a list of recipients and several very well known individuals (Sergeant Alvin York or Eddie Rickenbacher for example) that could be included. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Refocus?[edit]

This project hasn't had a large amount of work done since July. Should the focus of the project be altered to get all of the articles up to a B-class standard, so there is actually an outside shot at achieving the goal? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Something more attainable might be wise. That said, for the moment, it might be simplest to focus on actually getting a clear list of core & secondary topics so we can spot the biggest holes! I'll have a look at the main lists and see what's still missing... Shimgray | talk | 21:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Setting new targets[edit]

Similar to the above section, I'm posting here to see if there is any interest in moving things forward here again, starting with some fairly easy goal and then moving on from there. Maybe a good starting point would be to tidy things up a bit, and see where things have got to at the moment in terms of article quality. And then pick an area to focus on and maybe even try and set some broad goals for the next year or so. One key point is to distinguish between what this specific project is trying to achieve and what the WWI taskforce is doing. The latter currently has 12,812 articles tagged within its purview. Clearly the list currently on the front page here ('Operation Great War Centennial') is only a high-level subset of that, but in my view the current list is too long. What is needed is to either focus on a limited area for a few months and then move on to another area, or to identify a smaller list of articles and work on those. But it is vital to avoid falling into the trap of making lists and plans and not doing any actual work. My suggestion would be to take a high-level template such as Template:World War I, and concentrate on those articles. Though having now looked at that template, even that is a bit much. Maybe identify a limited number of subtopics. Anything so long as it can be broken down into manageable chunks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

General discussion of special projects[edit]

Posting a brief note here to alert anyone watching this page of the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Special projects, regarding the special projects in general. Carcharoth (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK - activity plan and microgrant[edit]

Hello all,

Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia movement and recently achieved full charity status. As part of its 2012 activity plan the WWI centenary is listed as one of the things time, energy and finances will be devoted to. There will be outreach to institutions with a view to collaborating with them to bring WWI resources to the public with Wiki-friendly licenses. The chap that's going to be running it (whose name sadly escapes me at the moment) is going to kick off activities in early 2012 and I'll try to make sure MILHIST knows what we're up to and when.

As part of the activity plan I have initiated an application for a microgrant for UK editors who wish to get their hands on some WWI resources they can use to improve our articles. A microgrant can be of up to £250 in value, although Wikimedia UK does have a significantly larger proposed budget for the World War aspects of their activity plan. Please do take a look at the Microgrant application even if you're not eligible to receive the resources as I would like us to collaboratively decide which books (etc) would give us most bang for our buck, ie the best resources to aid article improvement.

I am personally committing to spending 2 to 4 hours a week on WWI Wiki-stuff from now til the centenary. Unfortunately I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a military buff (though I can see myself growing into it). I approach WWI as very much a newbie but I do at least have a long track record of involvement with Wikipedia and have solid article creation and editing skills. I hope to make myself useful. I look forward to seeing how this Operation develops and helping out where I can. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Memorials...[edit]

Just to say that I've taken a stab at a page on World War I memorials as an overview of the theme; in particular, if anyone has any info on the creation of the Turkish memorials to the war in the 1940s and 1950s, that would be really useful, as I couldn't find much in English! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding classicons[edit]

Just been adding classicons to the Sinai and Palestine campaign articles and I wondered if they need to be rearranged into chronological order at this stage? Happy to do so if necessary. --Rskp (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)