Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Infobox command structure"

Revision as of 05:03, 27 November 2014

Open questions

Allowing for administrative and tactical parent relationships with units

There's an existing Template:Infobox service record on Wikipedia which 'may be used to summarize information about an individual military unit's or ship's service history', perhaps this should be extended to include tactical command instead a version of Template:Infobox command structure?

I've started editing 21st (Reserve) Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, British infantry to test the infoboxes. --Mia (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST)

I think Template:Infobox command structure looks closer to what is needed. The other one seems to be more about battle honours and commanders.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2014 (PST)

(Continued from Talk:British_Army_Hierarchies) Are there any major disadvantages to leaving the tactical/admin distinction out of the structured data? Is it enough for readers of the page to see the infoboxes grouped under different headings? Is it enough for reusable data to say that a thing is a member of another thing between certain dates and leave it at that? The fact that the dates overlap and the parents lead to different grandparents may be enough to signify the difference.--GavinRobinson (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2014 (PST)

My main concern is not repeating information in too many places so we don't risk replication errors and end up with data out of sync. I think it wouldn't hurt to label the different bits for tactical and administrative units as it'll help cue newer researchers in to the differences between them. --Mia (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2014 (PST)

Good point. I was just trying to challenge my own assumptions. I've thought of some odd cases where something might need 2 administrative parents at the same time or 2 tactical parents at the same time, but I don't think that'll be a problem.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2014 (PST)

For now there's nothing to stop you repeating an infobox to allow for two parents - it's one advantage of not modelling directly as database relationships! --Mia (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2014 (PST)

Recruitment areas?

I've been wondering whether to include 'recruitment areas' for battalions, as they were often raised in specific regions, towns or even workplaces. It's probably the kind of thing that's best left in text, not least because the data is so variable and messy, so this note is mostly to record the decision (though of course it's open to review if the data supports it).

This is irrelevant for many British units because pre-war regulars and early-war volunteers could choose to join any regiment, and late-war conscripts could be posted to any regiment. For the units where it does apply, it might best be dealt with as part of the creation event if you have an infobox for each major change of organisation. The text could also say whether a unit was part of one of the Kitchener Armies.--GavinRobinson (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2014 (PST)

Sounds like it's simpler to leave it out. Which attribute would Kitchener go under? I've been thinking of it as similar to territorial/regular in terms of regimental history and expectations of recruits but does it need to be a separate field? --Mia (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (PST)

It's conventional to divide the Regular Army into pre-war regulars and Kitchener's New Armies but I now think that's problematic. There are lots of regular units that aren't pre-war because they were created during the war but weren't specifically recruited as part of a Kitchener army. There isn't a common name for this category but it's very significant because it includes all of the Tank Corps, Machine Gun Corps, Labour Corps, Welsh Guards, Guards Machine Gun Regiment, Household Battalion, and various new infantry battalions that were neither Territorial nor New Army. Because of this, I think it's best for the branch field to just say regular, territorial or special reserve.

If you're doing infoboxes for changes of organisation, each battalion will need an instance of this to show when it started to exist and another to show when it ceased to exist. It would be very useful to have a free text field to explain how it was created or disbanded. Did it merge into or split from another battalion? Was it converted to or from something completely different that needs its own page? That field could easily accomodate an explanation of where it was recruited and which Kitchener Army, if any, it was raised as part of.

None of this data will come from WO 95 imports so it can be left until later.--GavinRobinson (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2014 (PST)

Canonical names for battalions that change regiments?

Presumably historians for those units have worked out the best label for them? If not, then what? Names need to be unambiguous at a page title level but redirects and 'see also' can get around some things.--Mia (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Not sure. James, British Regiments and TLLT enter them under both regiments - the way they're structured means they don't need to decide a canonical name for a unit page. In the cases I know of, neither name is more or less ambiguous than the other. I suppose it's a toss up between the first and the last, but as you say, there will have to be redirects in any case. There are some cases where a change is so drastic that it justifies a new page, but I don't think an infantry battalion changing regiment is necessarily in that class.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (PST)

I've been thinking about an infobox for names. Are units likely to have more than one nickname in WWI? If it's just one, I can add it to the main military unit infobox, if more than one it might be best in a repeatable infobox. (Or in repeatable pairs within a single infobox)

Unit name changes and restructures

Do names ever change without a related re-organisation? If not, one infobox could cover both (and I'll need to investigate the requirements for recording re-structures). --Mia (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (PST)

Most British territorial units and formations changed name at least once during the war without a related change of organisation. Territorial engineer field companies did it twice. There are also changes of organisation that don't result in a name change, eg if a unit absorbs another, or splits off part of itself to form another unit. (I'll answer more questions later.)--GavinRobinson (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2014 (PST)

Having asked this on twitter I've had useful responses from Ashleigh Gilbertson ‏@ACPGilbertson: 'Names of Oz WW1 units static, e.g. 1st-60th Battalion https://www.awm.gov.au/units/ww1/' 'Army - Corps - Division - Brigade - Battalion - Company. Battalions in Brigades stable, but changes above & below this' 'Also note 'doubling of the AIF' in February 1916. Units split to form new ones' http://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/pdf/RCDIG1069541--1-.PDF

And David Underdown ‏@DavidUnderdown9: 'Army Service Corps gained title Royal… in 1917'