Army.ca Wiki

[Michael Dorosh]

Not sure I understand George's new organizational scheme. I wonder if we need a forum specifically for wiki issues? I've made use of the talk page on the new Category.  Why is it called "Regiments of the Armoured Corps"?  The correct title is Royal Canadian Armoured Corps. It also restricts articles in that category to just articles about the regiments.

George has proceeded to write separate articles on RCD Music, RCD colonels, etc., which is fine, so I categorized them all under Category: Royal Canadian Dragoons and made Category: Royal Canadian Dragoons a subcategory of Category: Armoured Regiments. IOW:

*Category: Armoured Regiments
- all articles on armoured regiments here, none of which are more than a single article
**Category: Royal Canadian Dragoons - in which all the residual RCD articles went

It also mirrored the structure already set up for

*Category: Infantry Regiments

So the RCD now belong to Category: Regiments of the Armoured Corps and the Windsor's and King's Own are still under Category: Armoured Regiments and all the infantry are under Category: Infantry Regiments.

Probably best to lay down a uniform scheme now when we're just starting; the more work it will be to undo later.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

That's the downside to a wiki is that the free form nature means there is no structure, at least initially. For the most part we're working out the kinks as we go along... I've seen many of my pages and conventions corrected or tuned up, which is great. We seem to be gravitating to a standard format, though it may take some time and bumps to get there.

I think I've consolidated the info into a single category. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I posted a book review to a new category "Book Reviews"; I kind of stepped outside the boundaries of the wiki trial, but it seemed an extension of the article on the Airborne Regiment, and also was done with a view to what I think will be the wiki's greatest asset. Namely, importing hard to find content buried here in the forum into the wiki structure where good stuff will be easier to find. (I think the wiki will be especially useful for recruiting information, for example, and answering questions by prospective recruits - I've started a little bit on Career Progression but hope others more knowledgeable than me pick up the torch - check out the recent discussion on the forum on DEO, for example - there is a need that is not being met on any other websites that I think a wiki will be great for meeting).

Specificially I'm thinking of Danjanou's and Mike's book reviews from the literature section of the forum. Mike, do you think it would be appropriate to move some of your book reviews to the wiki?  I think they'd be a natural though I'm not sure if a straight review is really "wiki-like"?  A page on Starship Troopers there would be something to consider, for instance, given how often it is discussed here on the forums.

If so, we can probably expend the reviews to include publication information, ISBN, even links to other reviews ie Amazon.com, Chapters.ca etc.

 

[George Wallace]

I'll tell you what Michael...you keep in your corner and I will stay in mine.  So stay out of what I am working on, especially while I am working on it.  Nothing pisses me off more than working on something and seeing if it works, only to find some arse has been friggin around with it, editing it in another window as I go. 

AS for your little Sub Categories.  Stick them.  With only two Regiments being worked on at this time, you little meddling and creating these little sub-categories may work fine for you; but they are not what I am looking for.....I can also see them being a dogs breakfast once more than two or three Regiments start filling them up.  Right now as you have set it up, you are deadending everything.

So If you stay out of my business, things will be fine.....if not You're going to hear more.  You work on your little project and I'll work on mine.  As for gratuitous links to your Website, perhaps you may ask me first, via PM.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Certainly didn't mean to offend, George, just thought you could use some help given your obvious inexperience with the software.

For example, you don't need the following:

"Return to Armour Main Page."

Most wikis run on internal links, and the Category system prevents the need for overt links such as that.

You've also chosen to break up information into separate pages whereas all the other regimental pages have kept that information consolidated in one.

As well, I linked to a bio of Churchill Mann as an item of interest - the only content you've put on that page was a laundry list of regimental officers; I thought readers might appreciate a bit of history behind some of the personalities.

As a final note, the project will live or die based on the level of constructive collaboration and assistance we provide each other. The entire point of a wiki is to allow free collaboration; given your previous comments on how you feel a wiki is bound to fail, I have to say, your attitude of non-collaboration seems to be creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.  I wouldn't have helped edit your pages unless I thought you were on board with the whole spirit of the project.  I suppose I know differently now.

Oh, wiki etiquette over at wikipedia has always been "be bold", so checking details via PM isn't necessary. I would expect anyone to edit stuff on anything I've created there without checking; if there was a problem or a disagreement, that is what the talk pages are for.

If you need any additional help with your editing, let me know.

 

[big bad john]

Nice work on the C7A2 page!

 

[Cloud Cover]

By any chance, there isn't any cutting and pasting from other web resources going into these pages, is there? 

 

[vangemeren]

I only use information that is supplied from this site, nothing else right now.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

If there is it needs to be scrubbed. I know much of it is "original" content, but some of it I'm not sure of the source...

 

[couchcommander]

On the equipment stuff? Lots, in fact almost all.

It's referenced and cited in accordance with the policies of where it was taken from though (if it's not, it should be).

Take a look at http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Leopard_MBT for an example of that.

It's nice, IMO, to have it consolidated in one place. If you like, feel free to write your own articles (in fact, please do).

I, myself, don't have the experience or knowledge to do much better than what is already availible, so I just pull it together and make it look nice (and cite it).

 

[big bad john]

As long as you HAVE permission and cite your source you are in the clear.  For the Irish Defence Forces pages I cite my source on the bottom of page 1 and have permission.

 

[vangemeren]

If there is it needs to be scrubbed. I know much of it is "original" content, but some of it I'm not sure of the source...

umm, all I have used is information from your "information" section.

edit Is that going to be a problem?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Heheh, no that info's ok.

That's part of the "original" content that I can vouch for.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

umm, all I have used is information from your "information" section.

edit Is that going to be a problem?

Battle Honours are public knowledge, that doesn't have to be sourced. Stuff like lists of commanding officers, etc., that is all public domain - the concern is with longer articles, like big bad john's excellent information on foreign units. Properly sourced, it is fine.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Battle Honours are public knowledge, that doesn't have to be sourced. Stuff like lists of commanding officers, etc., that is all public domain - the concern is with longer articles, like big bad john's excellent information on foreign units. Properly sourced, it is fine.

Agreed.

The C7A2 page looked familiar, then I realized the place where it came from it was the original author.  You don't want to piss off that guy and infringe his copyright or he will infringe your larynx!!!

 

[big bad john]

I have been remiss on sourcing all my material, I had intended to do so upon completion of the pages I was working on.  If it is making everyone nervous, I will go in and cite all sources now.  I wrote some of the copy while I was in the RM and have permission from from the RM and MOD to reproduce the copy with proper references to them.

 

[couchcommander]

Just make sure you do not ever, under any circumstance, represent something that is not your own creation as such or as property of this website.

Different places have different policies, check what they are. Generally speaking you are in the clear as long as you cite where it came from. DND and some others ask that you mention some things, so link to their copyright notice if you are using their stuff.

Generally though, check.

 

[Cloud Cover]

no, you're good BBJ-it's a work in progress!!

 

[big bad john]

I checked at work today with the PIO and comfirmed clearences.  It is nice to be 3 doors down from him even if he is a brylcream boy.

 

[vangemeren]

Okay, every infantry regiment except JTF-2 has at least something on each page.
I surprised that some haven't been worked on, (I looking at the 48th and other units that have a lot of members here)

On a side note, the spell check three times in a row did not recognise the word "the"