Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Archive 1
  • 2

general talk

Well, this looks stalled and I don't know where to go from here... Thoughts?Mike McGregor (Can) 04:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just let it sit for a while ;-) Hopefully more people will sign up (the whole task force thing is pretty new).
Alternately, you could use this page for your own organization (what you're doing on your scrap page at the moment). This has the advantage of presenting potential visitors with things to do rather than a mostly blank page. —Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm new to this shindig and the only way to introduce myself is to but right in. I've added an article on the Battle of Restigouche, but I can't find a way to add it to the French and Indian War campaign box. As well is there any thoughts on adding the battle honours won by the air force and the navy? And is there something being done on recent conflicts like Medak, Kosovo or Panjwaii?Sbmcmull

Objectives

Any thoughts on what's there now?Mike McGregor (Can) 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Category Merger?

The first thing I'd like to do is merge Category:Conflicts in Canada into Category:Wars of Canada, how do I go about doing that? I tried to put up a merge proposal notice, but it only seems to work for articles.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eeek - problem is neither is a subset of the other - so Oka Crisis is not a Category:Wars of Canada, and Korea is not Category:Conflicts in Canada. Hence you might just want to keep both, unless someone can come up with a category to contain both.Bridesmill 00:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Roles

How do I sign up? :-)

Just add your name to the list of participants here ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Canadian_military_history_task_force#Participants

done - sorry for not signing that comment earlier - it was in response to an invitation from you guys on my talk page.Michael Dorosh 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[User: Christy McCormick| Christy McCormick] [Wikipedia: English]s]] McCormick|sty]] 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I seemed to have followed the drill without knowing what it meant, particularly whether I qualify for the post nominal UTC or what it means.

UTC just means universal time. its attached to your signature automaticly (with 4 "~"s) to show when a given post is posted Mike McGregor (Can) 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph uninvited to the Royal Canadian Regiment entry on the unit's role in the Boer War, about which I am a minor maven. I was upset that it was glossed over so lightly considering the elevation of the regiment in 1902 and the picture of the RCR guy in the Wikipedia entrry with his Boer War pith helmet at Buck House. He was expressly there to commemorate the unit's role in that war. I tried to stick within the frame of the Wikipedia definition style and length. I am ex-Canadian Black Watch so I am no RCR partisan. But as the soul of the Canadian Army is the RCR and the soul of the RCR rests in the Boer War, I think my intrusive inclusion is warranted.

I don't think there's a such thing as an "univited" edit on wikipedia ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The "soul" of the Canadian Army is the RCR? Ugh. I hope your POV doesn't ooze into the actual article contents.Michael Dorosh 04:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good question - should there be a wikilink between RCR & Col Sanders? (Pro Patria - 1st & 3rd 1979-1987) Bridesmill 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Never thought I'd say this on Wikiepdia...but LOL.Michael Dorosh 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Category schemes

Given the fighting over the categories for Canadian battles over the past few weeks, I'm wondering if there are some issues here I'm not aware of. As far as I know, the battles should simply be tagged with Category:Battles of Canada; there's no need to create separate sub-categories for each campaign (doing so causes many problems, in fact). Can we just stick to doing that, or is there some reason why that's not acceptable? —Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the category wasn't only to catch battles within "Canada" but also to catch battles that occurred outside the boarders of Canada that have significance in the context of a wider campaign that crossed into the Canada, contribute to the context of events within canada, contribute to subsequent events in Canada or are partially the result of events in Canada. The reason for this is that Canadian Military history During the War of 1812 reaches beyond the present boarders of Canada and is influenced by events in the present American North East during Colonial times and during the American expansion over the Appalachians and into the Ohio Valley and into Michigan and Illinois Country. So basically, I feel that a Category to capture battles in Canada, as well as in the United States, from Maine to Illinois was necessary and not redundant. So, I don't believe Category:battles of the war of 1812 will suffice, because I purposely omitted battles along the Eastern seaboard (d.c, Chesapeake, etc,) and battles in the South because they have less significance to Canadian Military History. I suppose an example of this as it relates to american history would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham which was a major turning point in the French and Indian War, ultimatly leading to the expultion of French authority in north america. Not nessisarily a battle of the United States, but key to understanding events affecting it and leading up the to American Revolution. I wanted to make navigation easier for any one who may not be as knowledgeable as we may be in military history (specifically the war of 1812). Mike McGregor (Can) 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, there's no reason why Category:Battles of Canada need be limited to battles that actually occurred within Canada. You should feel free to add any related battles (within reason), particularly during periods when Canada was not independent.
As far as navigation goes, campaignboxes are the preferred approach to this; the category scheme is rather unintuitive for anyone inexperienced with using it anyways. —Kirill Lokshin 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I've just merged two articles into The Royal Regina Rifles. Unfortunately, they disagree on the order of precedence. Anyone know what the correct version is? Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Moro River operations

Orriginally I was thinking about seperate articles for "the gully", Casa Biardi and San Leonardo, but now I'm thinking that maybe they'd be better as sections of a broader article on all the operations in the Moro River area. What does everyone think?

Why not just go by the official list on Battle Honours? Seems like a great guide to our article names and is the convention I use on my own site. Michael Dorosh 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, should they be seperate articles or sections of a larger article? (i.e. An article titled "THE MORO" with sections for San Leonardo, The Gully, Casa Berardi, etc? or seperate articles for each?) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a loose proposal--> User:Mike McGregor (Can)/The Moro (battle). Mike McGregor (Can) 13:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I like your proposal; not sure that the gully would ever become much more than a stub, and it very much 'flows' from San Leo through. I'm thinking that approach may be required for some of the other (minor) battle honours which where part of a larger Op as well Bridesmill 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I notice that "The Moro" doesn't seem to catch the other operations on the heirchy of battle honours. Is that a concern? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another proposal: User:Mike McGregor (Can)/The Sangro (battle)

Mont Sorrel/Mount Sorrel

user:Deetdeet asked (regarding a future Sorrel article): OK, I'm going to do it - should I make it "Mount" or "Mont"? I've seen both.

A random sampling of regiment's battle honours turned up "Mount Sorrel" every time, so I'd go with that. the title Mount Sorrel is taken up by a stub about a place in England, so maybe Mount Sorrel (battle) or Battle of Mount Sorrel?Mike McGregor (Can) 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
oops, the battle honour seems to be "Mont-Sorrel" when listed in french, so... we're back where we started.Mike McGregor (Can) 11:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Eeek. My gut said Mount, but being unaware of a real place called Mount Sorrel, it seems more appropriate & avoid potential conclusion to have the article as Battle of Mont Sorrel with a redirect from Battle of Mount Sorrel & disambig from Mount Sorrel (the place); gfiven that the 'real' local name of the place was Mont Sorrel. Bridesmill 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll take that advice unless others have any opinions. I'll have to disabig Mount Sorrel in any case as that name is used in other locations globally. Deet

Battle Honours for a guide to article naming?

Michael Dorosh suggested above that we use the names of battles and campaings as they appear on Canadian Battle Honours as a guide to naming articles where possible. I think that this is a great idea. What do others think? Could someone take the responsability of creating a compleat list for refrence in the "wiki resources" section?Mike McGregor (Can) 11:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

there's a red link waiting to be filled on the taskforce page if this is a go...Mike McGregor (Can) 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
see http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/auth-btlhnrs-1999.htm http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm Mike McGregor (Can) 17:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle Honours and Order of Precedence

I added pages listing battle honours and the order of presidence to the taskforce page. They need to be proof-read. Linkifying could also be useful...Mike McGregor (Can) 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are these pages? Love to look at them. SigPig 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Canadian_military_history_task_force#Project_References
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Canadian Battle Honours
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Order of Precedence

OK, I've started wikifying the battle honours. Some seem to have no attendant articles, being perhaps subsumed into a larger article (e.g. all the smaller engagements of Passchendaele), or perhaps because no one has gotten around to them yet. Should I:

  • include the smaller battle as part of a larger battle? For example, [[Passchendaele|Menin Road]]; or
  • create a battle link ([[Battle of Menin Road|Menin Road]]) and redirect the battle entry to the larger engagement (#REDIRECT [[Passchendaele]]) until someone gets around to creating an article?

Personally, I think the second option would be better. Or is there already a guideline/policy that has been implemented as part of the task force? Thanks. SigPig 07:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guidelines for that yet. I suppose we could develop them. Mike McGregor (Can)

Is this going to work for battle honours won by the Air Force (like 'Fortress Europe') and the Navy (like 'Persian Gulf')? Sbmcmull

Arnhem

Battle of Arnhem redirrects to Market Garden...this makes sense, but there is no mention of Arnhem actually being liberated by Canadian troops. (Post Market Garden)Take a look and let me know if it should be added there, or perhaps a new article discussing the actual Canadian operation.

Motorfix 16:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've included in Market Garden that it was Canadians that Liberated the town. I will start an independant artical on the Canadian operation when I have some time.

Motorfix 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review (or change) Liberation of Arnhem. Liberation of Arnhem

Motorfix 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

moved from main page

Looks good, and I don't think it needs to be expanded much from a Canadian standpoint - though if a map can be found, or some histories on the infividual units that fought there, go ahead. Is fine as is.I'll add a bit on the battle honour aspect of the PLF though, as it is interesting to me. Having said that, the British side of things does need to be explored. And of course the German side of things has been ignored completely, no doubt due to lack of sources. I think it is a great start, though, well done.Michael Dorosh 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Should the article perhaps be at Second Battle of Arnhem or Battle of Arnhem (1945)? Offhand, I can't think of any other articles that are named "Liberation of ...". Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. The Battle Honour is Arnhem 1945 - if we are going by the naming convention of using battle honours as discussed before, it should probably be a variation on that? Battle of Arnhem (1945) seems to be the most correct. Second Battle of Arnhem sounds too much like a formal convention, and my understanding is that no one has designated it as such?Michael Dorosh 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Arnhem (1945) would probably be a good name to default to, unless something else is predominantly used in sources to refer to it. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the proposed name change. If anyone feels like doing it, be my guest. Just busy here.Motorfix 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

In Canadian military history articles, I'd suggest some naming conventions be instituted.

  • I just noticed the division names are backwards in the Scheldt article, and even some articles such as 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division were incorrectly titled as "Canadian 4th Armoured Division". Someone on the talk page suggested the "proper convention" is Canadian 2nd Infantry Division, yet any wartime document, as well as Stacey's official history, or Falconer's book BATTLE FLASHES, shows the format was 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. I think we need to be consistent with these, which will help when wikilinking.
  • Also, if an article is focused on Canadian matters exclusively, the title "Second World War" is preferable to "World War Two" or "World War II". While the latter are generally acceptable, the proper term in use in Canadian military history circles is the former - see any official history.

Just a couple suggestions to tighten up our efforts.Michael Dorosh 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur fully on the "Second World War" or "WWII" issue. It would be the same as me giving up the 'u's in my 'armour's! It is proper Canadian English to call it the Second World War. I also agree about the unit notation... I have always sen it written with the number first, eg. 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division. Easter rising 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So Canadian 7th Infantry Division should be renamed to 7th Canadian Infantry Division, correct? Mike McGregor (Can) 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup.Michael Dorosh 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
done.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

merger?

should 1st Canadian Division and 1st Canadian Infantry Division be merged? Mike McGregor (Can) 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah.Michael Dorosh 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes. I mean the article 1st Canadian Division can easily just be cut-and-pasted into the 1st Canadian Infantry Division article.Easter rising 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, as the official designations are different - was "Infantry" part of their title from 1914-18? I don't believe there was a need to distinguish them then. In the Second World War, there were infantry divisions, airborne divisions, and armoured divisions. I'm familiar with cavalry brigades in the First World War, but not divisions - hence, in the Great War it was "First Canadian Division" and in the Second World War, "1st Canadian Infantry Division".Michael Dorosh 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. If that is the case through, then in the 1st Canadian Infantry Division article, it should not date the div back to the Great War... not if they are going to be considered seperate entities.Easter rising 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Never mind... i guess i was seeing things. either that or someone edited it. ANYWAYS, I'm on side, no merger.Easter rising 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History of the Canadian Army

I've made some huge changes to History of the Canadian Army. The entire article seemed to be missing the point and was just rehashing stuff from Canadian Military History and other articles. I've drastically altered the focus of the page to actual discuss the history of the institution itself. It will need a lot of additional work.Michael Dorosh 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Early BC History stuff

Not sure where this stuff fits, but if pre-Confederation stuff back East is part of Canadian military history, then so are events in the Pacific Northwest before BC joined Canada. So here's a preliminary list, some of which need articles written yet:

Only those which involved military deployments are listed; the Rock Creek War, for instance, was settled without troops or threat of troops. The 1818 US despatching of USS Ontario to challenge British claims I'm not sure about, as there was no British military response, rather a diplomatic one.Skookum1 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Copywrite photos

What exactlt are the rules on the copy writes on photos? I want to start an artical on the Skink (Canadian AA tank). At this link http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/3351/allweps/skink.html There are photos, but I am under the impression that you can't use anything you find on the net?

Suggestions? Motorfix 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could try looking for a WW2 era photo taken by Canadian Military or Government personnal. Such photos should not be subject to copywrite laws... Mike McGregor (Can) 02:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we use our own announcements template?

I was on the main project page looking at the Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and thought somthing similar might be useful here. Perhaps we could tailor it to our needs... Mike McGregor (Can) 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the task forces are meant to be much more work-area-like than the main project page (and as there's little need to transclude the thing everywhere), I would think that simply having an announcement/open task section on the task force page would be sufficient. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, see my comments here for another approach that might be worth considering. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

NRS Aldergrove

Finally!! The last remaining Canadian base without a page now has one. Please check it out and help me Iron out the bugs! NRS Aldergrove Motorfix 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lend-Lease Sherman Tanks

I'm not sure what is wanted for this article. While the army was certainly equipped with Shermans in WWII, Canada did not receive any direct Lend-Lease aid in WWII (ie: no Shermans — or any other kit — were supplied to Canada from the United States via Lend-Lease).--Ggbroad 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the task force

It looks like the task force could use a boost it's membership. If you browse Canadian Military articals, it seems there are lots of people who share our interest. I have a few ideas, and Welcome yours. For a start, maybe we could create a wikipedia user catagory "Wikipedians who have served in the CF" That would be an easy way to see who else has served, and perhaps shares an interest. I would also like to see a Canadian Soldier userbox. Questions? Problems? difficulties? Motorfix 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Straight invitations of editors on articles of interest might be more effective than creating a category for servicepeople—which would then need to be populated, and which wouldn't necessarily indicate an interest in editing on these topics—but either option is probably workable as a long-term strategy. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
you could try going through the edit histories of related articles and soliciting contributers that look like they might be intrested on their talk page, or leave a brief messege/banner on the talk pages of related articles. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Membership in the Canadian Forces doesn't automatically impart an ability to edit articles on Canadian military subjects, either. I don't think we want to give the appearance of excluding those without military experience - some of the leading and prolific military historians out there never served a day in their lives.Michael Dorosh 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New Stub category?

Should we start a "Canadian Military History Stub" Category with a template to go with it? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but it should be proposed at WP:WSS/P before being created. Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, I still stumble across Canadian Military History Articals I did not even know about! Hopefully this will help out the membership.Motorfix 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
alright, I made the proposal at WP:WSS/P. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point brought up there: the basic {{Canada-mil-stub}} doesn't seem to be listed on the task force page! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right, no slacking and restricting yourselves to "history", just because you have "history" in your title. :) Alai 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the distinction won't be too much of an issue now that we've done the little scope description dance on the main project page. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Canada-mil-hist-stub}}

{{Canada-mil-hist-stub}} template has been created. Tagging stubs with this template will place articles in category:Canadian history stubs, category:Canadian military stubs and Category: Military history stubs. The folks (folk?...) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/August felt that there are too few Canadian military history stubs to warrent their own category. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

category:Canadian armoured fighting vehicles and category:World War II Canadian armoured fighting vehicles are moving

category:Canadian armoured fighting vehicles and category:World War II Canadian armoured fighting vehicles are moving to Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of Canada and Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles of Canada respectively. see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 for details. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some resistance to the categorisation of vehicles used by the Canadian Forces into these new categories if the vehicles were not built in Canada (even though the renaming was meant specifically to facilitate this)... I personally don't see why such a category can't hold both vehicles built within the country and used by the country's armed forces. Are there any prior discussions about the categorisation of military equipment by nationality that resulted in a decision to make the criteria for categorisation the origin of the equipment, ignoring users of the equipment? Mike McGregor (Can) 07:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I would assume that there must have been some discussion for, say, US-manufactured fighters (F-15, for example, doesn't have any non-US user categories), but I'm not sure where it might have taken place. Kirill Lokshin 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You would have to think very carefully about it. For instance the M113 page lists 40 end users, meaning taken to it's logical extreme there would be a list of around 45 categories at the end of the article at which point it would create a visual mess and cease to be of any use since no one would bother looking through it all. In most cases the article lists the users anyway. You would have to do strange things like list the Ram as a Dutch AFV and the Sexton as a British one. It's probably best if the category is only used for country of origin and the article lists the users, so for example the Universal Carrier would end up under British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/etc. cats since they were built in all those countries, and list anyone who used it. It may be easiest to simply create an article listing all Canadian used AFVs if you want them all listed in one place.
What's the harm of having a visual mess at the very end of an article? By the time anyone gets to that, the article has already been read. Is there a way to add categories so that they're not visible on the article page (similar to the language tags)? I just think that it's more likely that someone who is interested in the equipment used by the Armed Forces of Foo and is perhaps not as knowledgeable as us would look first in these categories for the equipment, whether its built in Foo or not. I dunno, I see categories as a tool to help people find information as easily as possible, even if it means putting something is several appropriate categories. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should ask this over at the Weaponery Task force. I woulden't want to cut their grass;-) Mike McGregor (Can) 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ehh, Weaponry hasn't gotten to anything on categorization yet; we're still working on infoboxes there. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I could just link directly to Michael Doorish's excellent page instead of trying to maintain a category populated by 'pedia pages. ;-) Mike McGregor (Can) 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
By default Catergories aren't searched, a search for vehicles used by the "Armed Forces of Foo" will only turn up articles related to it not the catergory it's in. Listing the category(s) at the end of the article is useful for a variety of reasons. If I'm looking for an M113-like vehicle (say the M114) a search may only turn up the M113, which would be a good starting point in any case, I know it's a similar vehicle so I can scroll to the bottom and hit the "American armored fighting vehicles" category and have a look at the articles listed there. If that category was buried in the middle of ten lines of catergories it's not going to be so easy is it?
If you want all the equipment used by Canada listed in one place that will appear by default in a search something like this may be the way to do it: List of equipment of the Hellenic Army
Well, I think that we'd be missing out on a lot of potential by limiting ourselves to a narrow scheme of categorisation. I personally often find it easier to navigate categories to find what I'm looking for, especially If I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for, or what the article is named. But, even if there was a consensus on in favour of keeping equipment used by each armed forces in multiple national categories, They probably would be impossible to maintain (as editors would probably still come through and remove category tags for the same reasons as before...) I guess I'll just go with the lists, which will probably be easier to maintain... I started a draft at User:Mike McGregor (Can)/List of Second World War military vehicles of Canada. If folks could look this over and add omissions, remove errors, etc. I'd appreciate it. Mike McGregor (Can) 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Over at www.mapleleafup.org there's a forum of guys, enthusiasts, who know more about Canadian vehicles in WWII than anyone in the world, I'd imagine. They could probably help in this regard. Also, the Army Engineering Design Branch produced a two-volume work called "the Design Record" which some people have now made available in CD format. It's a pretty comprehensive list of Canadian made vehicles in WWII. Keep in mind that Canada's total production of military vehicles was something in the neighborhood of 900,000 and there were many, many types. It will be quite a feat to catalogue them all. --Ggbroad 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I created the second world war list at List of military equipment of the Canadian Army during the Second World War. I decided to include artillary, and this leaves room for inclusion of things like small arms, radio equipment, web gear, uniforms, etc... I guess I'll start a modern (post-war) equipment list next. Mike McGregor (Can) 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the guideline for vehicles built in a country for export only? MCG 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Now that I've committed myself to helping out, I'd like to get clarification on several items.

1) Anecdotal accounts of events; if someone was there and relates an event as a fact of history and this event has been documented as having happened, but the documenter was not present at the event and his description is not as full and rich as the participant's version, even-though the participant recalls the event from memory; who's version do you cite and how do you verify the accuracy?

2) Writing or adding content with verifiable material; do we paraphrase the information and cite the source, or do we quote the author's work verbatim, then cite the source?

3) Web Site material; I'm not clear as to whether or not we can use a web site to verify information and how one might include the site as a footnote. Case in point, in the article HMCS Prince David, I found a reference to the ship in the Juno Beach site (Juno Beach Centre) and I included it in the LSI (M) section, should I cite that as a source?

4) Pictures; as a designer, I find many articles to be in need of more visuals. Are we limited to photos of our own creation, photos off copyright and in our possession or can we lift good quality scans of photos as long as their source, authorship and copyright status is documented, i.e. off copyright Naval Photos reproduced and catalogued in a book? Alberg22 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Some (brief) respeonses:
1. We don't need to verify accuracy, only to check that the source is a reliable one. How to present conflicting versions from sources meeting that requirement is probably best decided on a case-by-case basis.
2. In general, overuse of lengthy quotations should be avoided; while direct quotation is sometimes useful for particularly significant passages, paraphrasing + citing is usually preferred.
3. Some websites are considered reliable, and can be cited; most personal sites, however are not. In general, though, wherere both are available, more scholarly sources are to be preferred over less scholarly ones.
4. Under U.S. law, a copy of a two-dimensional out-of-copyright work is still out-of-copyright, so scans of photos can be used if the original's copyright status is acceptable.
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have obtained written permission from the Canadian Science and Technology
Museum for the use of images of the Prince David, Prince Henry and Prince Robert in their pre war configurations. These photos are for use in the Wikipedia articles or future articles of these ships.
I'm wondering which copyright tag would be appropriate.
Thanks.Elusive/Alberg22 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not too helpful; Wikipedia doesn't accept by-permission images (and any new uploads of them are to be deleted) because they cannot be safely used by anyone who copies our content (including mirrors and third-party distributors). Having said that, you may be able to make a valid fair use claim here, as it's quite unlikely that replacements for the photos could be created. Kirill Lokshin 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Bear with me on this one....Judging by the response that I received from the Canadian Science and Technology Museum, I don't think that there is an issue as long as they are giving a photo credit somewhere in the article. Not only that, but I'm using images that are already on their web site. I'm just not clear as to which tag to use in this case. Maybe PD Canada, as the shots are all from the 30s?Elusive/Alberg22 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, that might work. If that template is correct, Canada seems to have shorter copyright terms than the U.S., so those photos may indeed be PD there. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go with that and live in hope that the credit in the article is sufficient. Elusive/Alberg22 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of post-war military equipment of the Canadian Army, I need a better title...

before I start on a list of post-war equipment used by the Canadian army (err, Land Forces), I think I need a more specific name for the list (post war? which war?). Maybe something like List of post-Second World War equipment of the Canadian Land Forces? Any other suggestions? Mike McGregor (Can) 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, this is one of the cases where the AmEn version ("post-World War II") seems to parse better than the ComEn one ("post-Second World War"), at least to my ear. Ah well, I suppose nothing can be done about that.
Maybe go for the simplistic List of post-1945 equipment of the Canadian Land Forces and let the curious reader figure out why the date was chosen themselves? It's not exactly obscure, after all. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

UseList of post-1945 equipment of the Canadian Army because this implies a distinct time period (World War 2 to Unification). Another category could be List of equipment of the Canadian Land Force Command (Unification to today). MCG 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

canadian Churchill tank?

Does any one know where I can find a good refrence of which Churchill variants were used by the Canadian army during the second world war? Mike McGregor (Can) 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

HMCS Prince David

What to do? How do you handle a situation in which reference to an event from one source is completely repudiated in another. Case in point; In my research and entries on the HMCS Prince David page, I used information from a source which I assumed to be reliable. The event was originally told to me by my father who served on the ship during that period and although the details differed somewhat, the facts were confirmed from the source material. I entered a shorted version (just the facts, mamm) and carried on. Recently I have discovered an excellent document from the Canadian Forces History and Heritage Archive. Judging by the document's contents, it's wonderful detail and official status, one would have to assume that this document is, if nothing else, accurate. So now what? Here is the abbreviated version from my original source:

From early 1941, HMCS Prince David served as convoy escort from West Indies Station in Bermuda. In the spring of 1941, while steaming alone, a heavy upper mast of a major warship appeared on the horizon. As there were no friendly forces in the area, it was decided to alter course and make a hasty retreat. Fortunately, the other ship made the same decision and turned away toward the north. It was later reported that the ship was a German pocket battleship. The enemy's decision to turn away may have been influenced by Prince David's resemblance to an 8-inch cruiser.

The author also stated that an American patrol plane had later confirmed the the ship was a pocket battleship. I did not include this statement because given the location of the event, I found it inconceivable that a shore base plane would be in the region, maybe that could be called doing original research by omission.

Here is my paraphrased version of the same event from the new source (note the discrepancy in date):

At the end of August, Prince David was ordered to rendezvous with the HMS Circassia, an 11,000 ton AMC. Their task was to patrol the central Atlantic to intercept enemy supply ships and raiders. At dawn, 29 August, before the rendezvous had taken place, Prince David sited an unknown vessel The vessel, which was seen stern on, in poor visibility, at a range of 12,000 yards, was reported by Prince David to be a heavy cruiser, steering Southeast at 25 knots. She did not reply correctly to Prince David's challenge and steamed off after 50 minutes.

Some rather fanciful stories arose from this brief encounter, and authorities were hard pressed to counter newspaper reports that Prince David had forced the Admiral Hipper to turn tail and run, some even classified the encounter as a shooting engagement.

A press clipping from a British newspaper: "`We took after her at

once, emitting loud yaps from our six-inch guns,' said Prince David's captain, describing the action, and, deceived by the aggressive spirit

of the small ship, the powerful German fled at high speed." pg41

The identity of this ship remains a mystery. The Admiralty considered that she might be the auxiliary cruiser Thor, but this raider had returned to Breast.

Considering the location of German raiders at this period, it's unlikely that it was a ship of this kind and despite newspaper articles claiming otherwise, was not the Admiral Hipper. HMCS Prince David probably sighted the U Boat supply ship Python or a supply ship for disguised raiders.

The interesting thing about this, to my mind is, that the first version clearly illustrates the power of propaganda. In those very dark early days of the Battle of the Atlantic, good news was hard to come by. In fact this version almost takes what sounds like shipboard scuttlebutt and adds the reference to the American patrol plane. The second version states the events in a more reasonable manner and shows how a small story can be blown out of proportion I am re-writing this section so I'd like some direction on this matter. Thanks Elusive/Alberg22 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

There's a new peer review request for HMCS Prince David that may be of interest to editors here; any input would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming Question

Per the new naming guidelines, I've begun moving unit names around, but I came across 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division, and was unsure how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know if this was the official name of the division? Or should it be moved to 5th Armoured Division (Canada)? Or something else entirely? All comments welcome. Carom 16:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! I think the official designation was 5th Canadian Armoured Division. hopefully someone with more knowlage can confirm that. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I interpret your comment to mean that the article should be moved to remove the parentheses - that is, the article should exist at 5th Canadian Armoured Division, rather than that simply being a redirect. Is this correct? (Thanks for the prompt response, by the way) Carom 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion

There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Categories

I've noticed the main page lists several categories related to this task force, but there is no presentation of organization. Would it be helpfull to develop a more structured & complete list such as this:

- MCG 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. A number of the military unit categories are misnamed, incidentally; they're all supposed to be of the form "X of Canada" (or similar) rather than "Canadian x". Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Forces

Category:Canadian Forces is up for merging with Category:Military of Canada, which is odd, since Category:Royal Canadian Air Force and Category:Royal Canaadian Navy are not being considered, even though CF is a force structure just like the RCAF, RCN, and CA it replaced. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18#Category:Canadian_Forces

70.51.8.140 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems the decision was to keep it. - MCG 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unit naming conventions and WP:NCD

I'm crossposting this from my talk page -

Please stop moving the names of Canadian regiments without consultation. Many Canadian Regiments have "The" as part of their official title, while some do not (Governor General's Foot Guards come to mind). WP:NCD also states "This also extends to some non-musical groups, and even beyond "official" naming, for example The Invincibles (which is the nickname of several sports teams).", i.e. keeping the definite article. In short, these are not uncontroversial moves. Please refer them to WP:RM and cite your rationales there. Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone has decided on a consistent policy for using 'The' at the beginning of unit designations for Commonwealth regiments. Before I started making changes, I surveyed the categories and it seemed that the most common convention was to drop the "The" in article titles, while retaining it in the first line of the intro. Appreciate any clarification and apologize if I've stepped on any toes. (See The Canadian Airborne Regiment and The Governor General's Horse Guards for examples.) - RJASE1 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the unit naming conventions call for us to use whatever the official name of the unit is; whether that actually includes "The" probably varies on a case-by-case basis, and needs to be determined by someone familiar with the specific unit in question. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense - I hadn't realized until now that the Canadian naming scheme wasn't standardized. I'm not really emotionally invested in this one way or the other - my thoughts are that the benefits of consistent unit categorization would be worth offending a purist or two, so long as the first line of the article includes the definitive article. In the meantime, I'll treat any moves as potentially controversial as suggested above.
If we get a consensus, it might be worth including a mention of military units in WP:NCD to avoid further confusion. - RJASE1 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:NCD already allows exceptions when offical names are used; we can just add some examples there, once we're sure that they're right. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict): :RJASE1: Thanks for crossposting my comments over, and responding so promptly. I think WP tries to trod the line between covering all the bases and instruction creep WRT guidelines and policy. I don't know about the UK regiments: I know that in Canada, the definite article has some official standing within some regimental names. Regiment.org's web entry for the GGFG lists the dates that their regimental name was changed to add (1887.09.16) and drop (1958.04.25) the article.[1] Tho' the reasons for doing so may be esoteric, so is a lot of military tradition. The fact that NDHQ went to the troubl;e of officially dropping an article gives weight to the inclusion of it having some formal status. On one of the official Canadian army pages, for example, you can see that the Van Doos omit the article Le, but the RCRs include the "the" (1st Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment vs 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment; same convention holds on the French version of the page). We have Governor General's Foot Guards, Sherbrooke Hussars and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders vs The Algonquin Regiment, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise’s) and The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada.[2] These coincide with the regimental namings listed in the old Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO) for "precedence"[3]. I would propose omitting the article for those regiments that omit and retaining for those that retain IAW the Canadian Forces list in conjunction with the pertinent extract from WP:NCD dealing with "exceptions to the rule." --SigPig |SEND - OVER 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the conclusion we came to just above. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So 'twould appear. (annoyed grunt) That's what happens when you're so desperate to get a word in you don't notice that the conversation has already moved on. Sigh. Maybe I'll go stir up some yoghurt. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wish there was some way to fix the automatic categorization caused by the project banners - i.e. if you look in Category:Canadian military history task force articles, The Kent Regiment gets filed under 'T' instead of 'K'. Similar things had annoyed me enough to send me on this crusade to start with...but it's livable if there's no easy fix. - RJASE1 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it would be possible to add an explicit sort key to the project banner; but I don't know if that would be overthinking the issue. Do people actually care enough about it to go through the bother of setting it manually? Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not worth it...it's only the Template:WPMILHIST categories that are affected this way. I'm going to go back and fix what I messed up. Nobody's complained about the UK or Indian regiments I changed (yet) so I'll leave those alone, but will hold off changing any more. (They were already a mixed bag by the time I started looking at them, anyway.) - RJASE1 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked through the DND sites; the following units OMIT the definite article:
  • 12e Régiment Blindé du Canada [4]
  • 1st Hussars [5]
  • 48th Highlanders of Canada [6]
  • Royal 22e Régiment [7]
  • 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's) [8]
  • Governor General's Foot Guards [9]
  • Sherbrooke Hussars [10]
  • Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders [11]
  • West Nova Scotia Regiment [12]
  • Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry [13]
  • Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) [14]
I don't know about the Canadian Airborne Regiment...their unofficial website omits the article. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I got all the Canadian regiments back where they were before I messed them up - there were two I couldn't move back (Saskatchewan Dragoons and Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada) - if an administrator wants to stop by here to move them, I've put a watch on the pages and will fix the redirects myself. - RJASE1 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done; please check the redirects. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirects fixed, thanks. RJASE1 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Missed a couple of moves:
  • Princess Louise Fusiliers → The Princess Louise Fusiliers
  • North Saskatchewan Regiment → The North Saskatchewan Regiment
  • Royal Westminster Regiment → The Royal Westminster Regiment
And one that actually needs to lose the "the":
  • The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders → Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders
This will bring the articles in line with the DND website I referenced above, plus extant copies of the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders regarding precedence and authorized marches. Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Verrieres Ridge

This is user climie.ca. I've started to work on the Battle of Verrieres Ridge. Nobody panic that it isn't good. I will continue to work on it when I have more time, likely over the next week. If anyone can give me any help at all that would be much appreciated. Climie.ca 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force by Kirill Lokshin 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917)

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

task force admin

I've been thinking...and looking on a bunch of other wikiproject task forces....

Should we have a task-force co-ordinator/administrator? Many of the other task forces I'm on do.....maybe we should too.

Climie.ca 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

Hmm? I'm not aware of any task forces (at least in MILHIST) that have dedicated coordinators. To be quite honest, I don't see the point; the bulk of the maintenance work is already done by the project coordinators, and there's no shortage of admins around to do anything that requires those tools. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right...as always....I know that WWII Task force sort of has "unofficial co-ordinators", simply because they do a lot of editing, maintenance work and stuff like that. Nevermind. Cam

A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion

There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of the Plains of Abraham that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Carom 19:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

French Canadians in the American Revolution

For those who are interested, there's a new category, Category:French Canadians in the American Revolution, which also includes some requested biographies. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Class Review for Battle of Verrieres Ridge

Just to let you all know that there is a GA Class Review Request for my article, the Battle of Verrieres Ridge. If any of you have time, please review it. Thanks!

Cam 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Template fix

Just a courtesy note - I've corrected a typo in {{CanMilHistNotice}}, where Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History was referred to as WikiProject MIlitary history. Maralia 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for John Babcock

There's a new peer review request for John Babcock that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo Question

Just a general question about photographs. I have a large collection of photographs that a cousin left to me, mainly WW2 era, and then later on he spent time in Germany after the war. If I were to upload these photos to add to articles, how do I treat them as far as licensing and all that stuff goes? Thanks, and pending the answer I will look around to see what I have and where they could be added. Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France Good article reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the article can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Canadian_military_history_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1137374419"