# Army.ca Wiki



## couchcommander (17 May 2006)

Hello Everyone,

Mike has been gracious enough to set up an army.ca wiki, as announced in the admin section, availible here http://army.ca/wiki/

In the wiki spirit, this site is going to require the input of many members in order for it to become a useful source of information.

Who better to make an authoritative wiki about the CF than CF members, i.e. you?

The framework for the page is already there thanks to Mike himself and includes Recruiting, Operations, Military History, Combat Arms, Physical Fitness, and Foreign Militaries. 

I have started an Equipment category, with land, naval, and airforce subdivisions. You can access the Land Force subdivision via this link http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Land_Force. 

Please, edit and add away!

I took the liberty to fill out the LAV III article with information directly off of the www.army.forces.gc.ca website - but given the wealth of experience and knowledge on these forums I am sure we can do a better job. 

Any page, including the category or disambiguation pages can be edited to add new articles or categories by clicking the edit tab. You must be logged in with your army.ca login. 

If you like, you can follow the schema I and others have to help you with editing, or feel free to invent your own better one and change my hastily done attempt.

Help about editing can be found here: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Help:Contents

A red article name means there is nothing behind it, which is almost as bad as having no article at all!

Generally, with editing:

[[articlehere]] links to an article on the wiki site
[webaddresshere] links to a web address in form of a notation
[[Image:imagename.jpg]] will put an image into the article if you've uploaded it using the upload feature in the wiki
* produces a bullet
== headlinehere == makes a headline for categories or whatever

Good luck!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2006)

I've added a "Tips" section to the help page at the army.ca wiki - some of your info would work out well there, couchcommander, if you wanted to put it there. Good start on the LAV III page, too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2006)

Excellent.  Maybe we should invite some of our well-informed former (now banned) members to write the army.ca JTF-2 wiki article.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2006)

Ha! Ha!

But that is one of my fears. 

People's egos or malice may be the undoing of this affair.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ha! Ha!
> 
> But that is one of my fears.
> 
> People's egos or malice may be the undoing of this affair.



I think negativity and timidity poses a far greater threat.

"Fortune Favours The Bold"


----------



## paracowboy (17 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I think negativity and timidity poses a far greater threat.
> 
> "Fortune Favours The Bold"


just gotta look for them buttons, don'tcha?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> just gotta look for them buttons, don'tcha?



Explain?

Not looking to push buttons; just expressing my disappointment in the manifestation of a "can't do" attitude which is somewhat anathema to someone who has studied the history of this institution we all serve. I mean, George has expressed his opinion that the wiki won't work, yet hasn't typed a single word into it.

I'm for trying, not for dissuading others. Given the amount of work that has gone into it in just a few hours, I'd suggest there are a few people rather excited about it. No point being a killjoy. Like I said, if it fails, it won't be because of anything I've done - or been too timid to do. Fortune favours the bold.

Looking forward to your input, para, given your knowledge and willingness to use it here in the forum, I'd suggest it can be put to very good use over there as well.  George's too.


----------



## couchcommander (17 May 2006)

Well I've added a few more equipment articles...

I could use some assistance though, seeing as I'm not a member of the CF and my only source is the web and a few publications.

One particular question, how many C&R G-Wagons do we actually have (or planning to have) in service? I know we will have more than 289, but the precise amount..?


----------



## big bad john (17 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Well I've added a few more equipment articles...
> 
> I could use some assistance though, seeing as I'm not a member of the CF and my only source is the web and a few publications.
> 
> One particular question, how many C&R G-Wagons do we actually have (or planning to have) in service? I know we will have more than 289, but the precise amount..?



I've looked at the pages you've added, good work.  I have also added a few pages under the Foreign Militaries section, my content is good but feel free to edit the style. Bold face, margins ect..


----------



## couchcommander (17 May 2006)

Yea I noticed you, Vangemeren, Michael and others have been busy, good stuff. Hopefully we can get more people involved!


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

If you are trying to get one going on your regiment, check here out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_regiments

Any suggestions for my regiments wiki?

http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/The_Grey_and_Simcoe_Foresters#Training


----------



## big bad john (17 May 2006)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> If you are trying to get one going on your regiment, check here out
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_regiments
> 
> ...


You seem to be going along just fine, I would just follow the templates that are outlined on the pages of those regiments already completed.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## vangemeren (18 May 2006)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> If you are trying to get one going on your regiment, check here out
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_regiments
> 
> ...



All I've been doing is going to the top of the page under information, (right beside the orange chat button), clicked infantry, then clicked on the unit link. On the pages that I've worked on, all there is, is the battle honours, motto, and anything else Mike B has on his pages.

_EDIT_

Wow FW that's really good, I think you treated the battle honours better than I did.


----------



## big bad john (18 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> All I've been doing is going to the top of the page under information, (right beside the orange chat button), clicked infantry, then clicked on the unit link. On the pages that I've worked on, all there is, is the battle honours, motto, and anything else Mike B has on his pages.


You have done a lot of work in the Infantry section today.  I added some cap badges to some of the pages you put up.  I hope that some other people get in on the act.  Keep up the good work.

Mike thank you once more!


----------



## vangemeren (18 May 2006)

I noticed that, thanks a lot, I don't have access to the pictures. I did a lot of work today because it was raining in Petawawa today. I figure  since I'm going to be working at a provincial park for July and August,  I'm going to get my time in now. I feel as if I'm doing something productive like my list.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (18 May 2006)

Thanks to everyone who's contributed, I'm pleasantly surprised at how the trial is coming along, even with a handful of contributors. (33 people have logged in, but there seem to be a few core contributors at this point.)

Good work!


----------



## foerestedwarrior (18 May 2006)

I threw up a list of current Ops in the Operations page, as well as i did the OP Archer(ran out of time to do the rest). If anyone else could contribute, it would be sweet.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (18 May 2006)

All,

I finally have a first cut of the "Army.ca style" for the wiki. New users will automatically see it, but for users who have already registered, you'll have to select it from your preferences page. If you find it too horrible to bear, you can always go back to monobook, the original default.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2006)

It's definitely consistent.   I like it; maybe the "dead links" could be done in a lime green or something rather than that crimson - for visibility?


----------



## big bad john (18 May 2006)

I like it!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2006)

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 (18 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

Nice work on the C7A2 page!


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 May 2006)

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


----------



## vangemeren (19 May 2006)

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


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> 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 (19 May 2006)

Heheh, no that info's ok. 

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


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> 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 (19 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> 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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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 (19 May 2006)

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


----------



## big bad john (19 May 2006)

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 (20 May 2006)

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"


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 May 2006)

Wow, thanks for the hard work on the Regiments. I'm sure we'll have a few people come in to fill in the gaps for us. In the mean time, I'm taking a look at the spell checker issues...


Thanks
Mike


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> 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"



I added the Colonel and chief, and the birthdate!! 

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (21 May 2006)

That looks like a place that could answer a lot of question filled first posts.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 May 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> That looks like a place that could answer a lot of question filled first posts.



Exactly; think we can bribe kincanucks to start writing articles there?


----------



## McG (21 May 2006)

I've added a few things that provide a skeleton to answer the oft repeated "how is the army structured" question.


----------



## vangemeren (22 May 2006)

I put in most of the units in the Res CBGs. Please correct any mistakes that I have made, particularly in the the two french ones, (my french is bad)



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> That looks like a place that could answer a lot of question filled first posts.



FR(epeated)AQ in the Forum:

"I've just finished a joint, if I smoke one tommorow, how will that affect my application"
"So how do I get into the JTFninjasnipercomando Force?"



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Exactly; think we can bribe kincanucks to start writing articles there?



I Like aesop081's answers better.. :blotto: 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43026.0.html



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I added the Colonel and chief, and the birthdate!!
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I saw that.  ;D Good work.


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

Along with the FAQ's (Which will take a lot of work), an idea that springs to mind after reading yet another of Big Bad John's daily "Today in History" posts, is exactly that; Today in History.  Perhaps we could move that over to the Wiki side; divided into two segments; Candian and Foreign.  On the same note, a Calendar of Events, Past, Present and Future.  Just some crude ideas, that just 'arrived undeveloped'.


----------



## big bad john (22 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Along with the FAQ's (Which will take a lot of work), an idea that springs to mind after reading yet another of Big Bad John's daily "Today in History" posts, is exactly that; Today in History.  Perhaps we could move that over to the Wiki side; divided into two segments; Candian and Foreign.  On the same note, a Calendar of Events, Past, Present and Future.  Just some crude ideas, that just 'arrived undeveloped'.



Please do, I stopped posting them because of work/time constraints.


----------



## vangemeren (22 May 2006)

We could also move over the dictionary.

37 CBG doesn't have a picture yet, I was wondering if someone could take it from the photo gallery
http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Insignia/37_CBG_CREST.jpg

make it smaller and move it over. There are also some insignia's that might be useful for future use in the photo gallery.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> We could also move over the dictionary.
> 
> 37 CBG doesn't have a picture yet, I was wondering if someone could take it from the photo gallery
> http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Insignia/37_CBG_CREST.jpg
> ...



The wiki will size it automatically, just put |150px  in the Image tag.


----------



## vangemeren (23 May 2006)

I've noticed lately that the wiki options are scrunched over the forum options. I have the page fully maximized on IE.

I think it is also time to start working on the non-combat arms, the problem is that I don't know their structure.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (23 May 2006)

Yeah, I've taken the menu out all together, it doesn't seem to work well with the Wiki. The sidebar now has links back to Army.ca. Not perfect, but it'll do for now.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

Gee, talk about well informed guys!! Sheesh...I'm intimidated by all that knowledge running around loose ;D

Actually, I am just amazed at how the wiki has taken off and the value and depth of knowledge being contributed...kinda makes me feel like a romper room reject :crybaby:


----------



## vangemeren (23 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Gee, talk about well informed guys!! Sheesh...I'm intimidated by all that knowledge running around loose ;D
> 
> Actually, I am just amazed at how the wiki has taken off and the value and depth of knowledge being contributed...kinda makes me feel like a romper room reject :crybaby:



I don't know, I have no military experience, you've got more than I. All I do is cut, paste and change around.


----------



## McG (24 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Actually, I am just amazed at how the wiki has taken off and the value and depth of knowledge being contributed...kinda makes me feel like a romper room reject :crybaby:


but, there are still a lot of blanks waiting for someone to add thier 2 cents & fill them in.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2006)

First I have to go to "How it Works.com" and find out how my Tonka toys really work ;D


----------



## vangemeren (25 May 2006)

I can help teach, its just that my information bucket is empty and I've given all I could in regards to content.

GAP, if you need help, I can try to help you, I have a technique that might help (I think, I haven't tried it yet).


----------



## big bad john (25 May 2006)

I've put up pages for the Royal Marines and associated Commando Units, as well as a good start on The Dutch Marines and The Irish Defence Forces.  If anyone else wants to have a go at putting up pages for other foreign forces, in particular Australia and the US I'd appreciate the help.


----------



## clasper (25 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> I think it is also time to start working on the non-combat arms, the problem is that I don't know their structure.



Just added my favourite branch.  Even resisted the urge to add a section of jokes about military intelligence and other oxymorons...


----------



## big bad john (26 May 2006)

You will notice a new section on the main page entitled "People", with the first two entries being a work in progress on Gen. Hillier and Capt Goddard.  Please feel free to contribute to either of these entries or enter your own for people past and present in the Forces.  Just a reminder about biographies on present commanders, remember OPSEC please.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2006)

Army.ca Wiki is really starting to look good! Keep up the good work guys.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Jun 2006)

I think the trial has been a success! It's safe to say the trial is now over, and the Wiki is a permanent part of Army.ca. Many thanks to all those who have contributed so much to the Wiki... your time is appreciated by very many!


Cheers
Mike

P.S. Some wiki statistics:

288 pages
214 uploaded files

25,497 page views
2,227 page edits 
1.11 average edits per page
11.45 views per edit


----------



## GAP (28 Jun 2006)

Wow !!!    Impressive Stats and not one mention of water  ;D


----------



## big bad john (23 Jul 2006)

I have tried to use the "Recent changes" feature a number of times tonight and get "The page cannot be displayed" message.  Do we have a problem?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (23 Jul 2006)

Thanks for the heads up! There was an issue, but it has now been resolved.

Cheers
Mike


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Jul 2006)

> A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
> 
> (SQL query hidden)
> 
> from within function "LinksUpdate::getExistingInterlangs". MySQL returned error "1146: Table 'wikidb.army_langlinks' doesn't exist (localhost)".



There is an error message showing up after editing - I am getting this on my own website using mediawiki also.  It happens when you hit "submit" on an edit. The edit does go through, but the message still comes up.  Weird. I'm having the problem on my own site looked at. Thought you might like to know here as well.


----------



## big bad john (24 Jul 2006)

I was trying to upload images unsuccessfully, the following message appeared:

Database error
From Army.ca
Jump to: navigation, search
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: 
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "Title::isDeleted". MySQL returned error "1146: Table 'wikidb.army_filearchive' doesn't exist (localhost)".
Retrieved from "http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Special:Upload"


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (24 Jul 2006)

Thanks guys... I think I've fixed both of those issues. It would seem that when I upgraded the Wiki tonight the new database schema was not updated as well. Michael, in case it helps you, I had to source the mediawiki/maintenance/mysql5/tables.sql file to have the new tables created. It would not recreate older tables, so any field updates will still be missed, but this seems to have made the error go away.

Note: be sure to replace /*$wgDBprefix*/ with your actual table prefix if you do this.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Jul 2006)

Thanks Mike - I have been unable to upload images also, so hopefully this will fix my condition too.
Mike


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> That looks like a place that could answer a lot of question filled first posts.


Since it has a recruiting section (http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Recruiting), I've added a link to the Wiki in the recruiting FAQ on the board.  If you have a favourite recruiting question to answer, you can add the information to the Wiki.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Aug 2006)

I've added some info about my unit. More info to follow when I get a chance to get our history book when I get back to work.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (31 Aug 2006)

Thanks! And thanks for your patience tracking down the login issue. We now know that any forum username with a _ in it will not be able to properly log in to the Wiki.

At any rate, it looks like the Wiki has been a busy place again the last couple of days. My gratitute to all those who have contributed.


----------



## patrick666 (8 Sep 2006)

Mike,

I was just poking around the Wiki pages, and I must say, you guys have done a superb job organizing it. The recruiting pages should be linked from one of the FAQs as they contain pretty much any required reading. Keep up the good work with the site, just gets better and better. 

Cheers,

Patrick


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2006)

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> I was just poking around the Wiki pages, and I must say, you guys have done a superb job organizing it. The recruiting pages should be linked from one of the FAQs as they contain pretty much any required reading.


It has been done.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17703.0.html

Feel free to recommend any other FAQ that you feel it fits into (because these are the only two I know to include a wiki link)


----------



## freakerz (14 Jun 2009)

Hey guys,

I'ld like to start a Communicator Research Operator (291) career wiki page, but it would be great if there could be a more generic page for BMQ/SQ than the current Career Progression for a Reserve NCM (for example) since uses the Infantry as an example, could we make it more generic (e.g. what QL3, QL5, etc. goals are in general) so each career wiki page could link back to that generic BMQ/SQ page, reducing conflicting data. Then each career page would explain the career opportunities, what's going to be learned in QL3, QL5, etc. and the advanced/specialty courses.

(I realize this thread is old, and do not know if the wiki is even an active resource anymore, hope it is though!)

Maybe we could even create a standard/template for career pages?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jun 2009)

There's going to be very little that can be put on a 291 career page, with all of the tasks you would want to list requiring secret or higher to learn about. There's a reason why the Recruiting Center doesn't carry a lot of info on the 291 trade, its not open source.


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2016)

I have added some structure to all of the uploaded images.  You can look through them by theme here:  http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Category:Images


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (15 Feb 2016)

Very nice, thanks MCG!


----------



## McG (21 Feb 2016)

Several years ago, I uploaded this picture to the site:  






It is not particularly great resolution and you cannot grab an individual map symbol to use for your own purposes.  So, the new and improved map symbols aid is under development here: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/NATO_Map_Symbols 
The files can also be viewed here: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Category:Military_Map_Symbols

Not everything from the old picture is currently available on the wiki, but I will slowly work towards it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Feb 2016)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Very nice, thanks MCG!



...again!


----------



## McG (25 Feb 2016)

I think I have all the old symbols recreated and several new ones too.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Feb 2016)

I think I have a power point somewhere with all those symbols on it....


----------



## McG (26 Feb 2016)

I think everyone has that somewhere ... But mine are nicer.   [


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (26 Feb 2016)

Have to agree with you there... as vector drawings, your symbols scale up very nicely. (In theory, forever!) Do you have a .zip of all symbols? Out of curiosity, what did you use to create the symbols?


----------



## McG (26 Feb 2016)

I use Inkscape, because I am cheap and it is free.
I have not zipped them, but the files are small enough that I could probably email all uncompressed.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (26 Feb 2016)

Nice! I didn't even know Inkscape existed, that's a good find.


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2020)

So, what's going on here:  https://army.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Corps,_Branch_and_Regimental_Insignia

Does that page look like a train wreck to everybody, or is just my connection?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Mar 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, what's going on here:  https://army.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Corps,_Branch_and_Regimental_Insignia
> 
> Does that page look like a train wreck to everybody, or is just my connection?



It's got the RCE; what else could you possibly want?


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's got the RCE; what else could you possibly want?


I suppose that's true.  Even when everything else implodes, the Engr are still there working.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Mar 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> I suppose that's true.  Even when everything else implodes, the Engr are still there working.



So true brother...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Mar 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's got the RCE; what else could you possibly want?



RCE is army only, CME is the entire family...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Mar 2020)

Thanks  for the heads-up, I will take a look when I have a moment. Shouldn't be that way.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (14 Mar 2020)

Fixed! Thanks again for the notice.


----------

