Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Infobox military unit"

From Linking experiences of World War One
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
:::::: I'm mostly offline for the next few days but I'll try to find out if the same applies to Canada etc, unless you know offhand? --[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 08:09, 21 November 2014 (PST)
 
:::::: I'm mostly offline for the next few days but I'll try to find out if the same applies to Canada etc, unless you know offhand? --[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 08:09, 21 November 2014 (PST)
 
:::::::I'm not sure if Canada had anything like that, but I'm fairly sure that if it did, it would be a separate service from the CEF and not a subordinate branch. Similarly, Australia may have had some part-time home units that were separate from the AIF.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 12:31, 21 November 2014 (PST)
 
:::::::I'm not sure if Canada had anything like that, but I'm fairly sure that if it did, it would be a separate service from the CEF and not a subordinate branch. Similarly, Australia may have had some part-time home units that were separate from the AIF.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 12:31, 21 November 2014 (PST)
 +
 +
 +
==Types, levels and unusual units==
 +
 +
I see we now have [[No 3 Australian General Hospital‎]]. It should be quite easy to adapt the infobox to deal with this and all sorts of obscure units. A hospital is effectively a unit, it has war diaries and is part of the tactical hierarchy (in this case, its parent would be Lines of Communication, Western Front). The current way of dividing a unit name into type and level is perfectly logical for infantry but doesn't work for hospitals. It also risks confusion where the same level has different names (eg infantry battalion vs cavalry regiment) or the same name can mean different levels (eg infantry regiment vs cavalry regiment).
 +
 +
I suggest keeping the general type (infantry, cavalry, medical, engineering etc) but maybe changing the field name from "type" to something like "role" or "general type". The second field would be more useful and flexible if it was a specific type, eg:
 +
 +
*[[Infantry Battalion]]
 +
*General Hospital
 +
*Field Ambulance
 +
*Field Company
 +
*Field Survey Company
 +
*Tunnelling Company
 +
*etc
 +
 +
These can link to pages explaining exactly what each type of unit is/does.
 +
--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (PST)
 +
 +
==Service Names==
 +
 +
For the values of the "service" field, I recommend using the actual name of the service rather than general terms like Army, Navy etc. Strictly speaking, the AIF isn't the Australian Army, and the CEF isn't the Canadian Army. Also it might be necessary to treat some or all of the following as services in their own right: Red Cross, Volunteer Training Corps, military nursing services, other women's services, various voluntary ambulance units.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (PST)

Revision as of 08:16, 25 November 2014

Some questions/thoughts as a starter for ten: --Mia (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (PST)

  • We'll need a list of country names to ensure consistency e.g. United Kingdom, Britain, Great Britain? --Mia (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (PST)
"British Army" is always the name of the branch/service, but "United Kingdom" is the best name for the country because it included the whole of Ireland at that time. Data for locations/theatres may need to divide "home" service into Great Britain and Ireland to cater for the Easter Rising.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2014 (PST)
  • What's the best label for the 'regular/territorial' field? --Mia (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Not sure. Wikipedia sometimes uses "branch" for this but more often for the same thing as you're using branch for. What you're calling branch is called "service" at IWM Lives.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Service probably works, which would free 'branch' for regular/territorial. Another option would be 'category'. These overloaded terms are going to make the documentation more important but hopefully I can include labels in the infoboxes to make it easier. --Mia (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2014 (PST)
I've tweaked the template to include 'service' vs 'branch', and added 'unit' to record brigade, division, regiment, battalion etc while I was at it. The regular/territorial thing might be a bit messy, especially as it seems to have changed over time (and only applied in the UK anyway) but we'll see how it goes. When it's settled I'll update all the documentation to match --Mia (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2014 (PST)
The distinction between Regular Army, Territorial Force and Special Reserve was stable from 1908 to 1919, although very rarely a unit could change from one to another (the only example I know is from 1913). The US National Guard is more or less analogous to the Territorials.--GavinRobinson (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (PST)
I'm mostly offline for the next few days but I'll try to find out if the same applies to Canada etc, unless you know offhand? --Mia (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2014 (PST)
I'm not sure if Canada had anything like that, but I'm fairly sure that if it did, it would be a separate service from the CEF and not a subordinate branch. Similarly, Australia may have had some part-time home units that were separate from the AIF.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2014 (PST)


Types, levels and unusual units

I see we now have No 3 Australian General Hospital‎. It should be quite easy to adapt the infobox to deal with this and all sorts of obscure units. A hospital is effectively a unit, it has war diaries and is part of the tactical hierarchy (in this case, its parent would be Lines of Communication, Western Front). The current way of dividing a unit name into type and level is perfectly logical for infantry but doesn't work for hospitals. It also risks confusion where the same level has different names (eg infantry battalion vs cavalry regiment) or the same name can mean different levels (eg infantry regiment vs cavalry regiment).

I suggest keeping the general type (infantry, cavalry, medical, engineering etc) but maybe changing the field name from "type" to something like "role" or "general type". The second field would be more useful and flexible if it was a specific type, eg:

  • Infantry Battalion
  • General Hospital
  • Field Ambulance
  • Field Company
  • Field Survey Company
  • Tunnelling Company
  • etc

These can link to pages explaining exactly what each type of unit is/does. --GavinRobinson (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (PST)

Service Names

For the values of the "service" field, I recommend using the actual name of the service rather than general terms like Army, Navy etc. Strictly speaking, the AIF isn't the Australian Army, and the CEF isn't the Canadian Army. Also it might be necessary to treat some or all of the following as services in their own right: Red Cross, Volunteer Training Corps, military nursing services, other women's services, various voluntary ambulance units.--GavinRobinson (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (PST)