[edit] Priority vs workload 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)
[edit] Proposed Goals 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)
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) [edit] Suggestion 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) |
