This is a great page, and I appreciate the work that everyone has been doing on it! I don't have a military background, so I don't have any guidance changes to propose, but I have been doing a little cleanup on some pages to bring our content within the guidelines of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which we are supposed to follow. That includes the use of sentence case instead of title case, singular instead of plural for page titles and capitalization only of proper names within article text, with capitalization of military terms mentioned here. I also noticed that this page uses "functional classification" to refer to road types in Waze, which is incorrect. So I thought I would propose some corrections. Oh, and I added Kent's new nowrapcode template to the name examples, which is what is used for name examples on the PLA page.

I made a draft, and here are the proposed changes.

subs5 wrote:I think some of the changes are not recognizing Proper Noun Names or how acronyms are identified. Would we say "White house"? Normally you capitalize the first letters of the word to show what it is. Example: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Changes that you proposes that should not be made are:
Continental United States (CONUS)
Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS)
Operational Security (OPSEC)
Departments of Transportation (DOTs)


Ones that also probably should remain.
Posts, Bases, Camps - these are referring to proper place names like Norfolk Naval Base, Camp Stewart, etc
House Number
Visitor Access, Visitor Center formal place names.
Post Security Office or the Visitor Control Center


The capitalization of Area and Point for places was to draw attention such as Area place vice area place.

Also there is a reason that this is all caps and bold PHOTOS OF ANY KIND ARE NOT ALLOWED, I strongly recommend that it not be changed.

Same for the not in: Point and Area Places '''NOT''' Approved for Military Bases. I would recommend: Point and Area Places '''NOT''' approved for military bases

I understand where capitals are used to prefigure an acronym, but the style guide that I linked generally requires that capitalization not be used to draw attention to things. That's what bold and italics are for. Just because a word refers to one or more proper names doesn't mean it is a proper name (and of course White House, if it means 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and not my neighbor's house, is a proper name ). We don't capitalize king, but we do capitalize King George. We don't capitalize union (or soviet in certain contexts), but we do capitalize Soviet Union. However, in the context of writing about, for example, the US Department of State, we should capitalize State Department, because we are using a shortened form of one official name. When writing about the US House of Representatives, we should capitalize House, because that's a shortened proper name. If we were writing about many departments of the US Federal Government, even though each of those have proper names, departments is not a shortened form of any official name and should not be capitalized. I am learning this as I go and have revised my post here a few times.

I think a lot of this disagreement stems from how the DoD style guide favors capitalization much more than Wikipedia, AP or others, so we are used to seeing a lot more Capital Letters in Writings that pertain to the Military. That's fine in DoD writing, but that's not what we're doing here I thought it had been agreed to adopt the style of Wikipedia in writing the Waze wiki, but maybe that's not true or clear. In that case, my proposal is premature and we need to agree on our own guidelines first, which Kent mentions. But if we go with my proposal, I will use anchors and fix redirects.

kentsmith9 wrote:Sometimes people have capitalized terms when speaking of a specific element of a WME feature, like Place Point or General tab. If we don't capitalize WME features and elements, should we be using quotes, bold, underline, or some other indicator that these are "things" on the page and not just the word in a sentence?

Yeah, I'm not sure. We discussed that in the GHO, where it was concluded that most features in WME are not proper names and shouldn't be capitalized. Still it's a bit confusing, and we should probably make our own guideline for WME features.

subs5 wrote: Understand that you haven't served in the Armed Forces, but when using their terminology, it is probably best to keep it in the format that DoD military and civilians and their support contractors understand. More of a when in Rome, do as the Romans do...

That's a great point. I imagine most military base mapping has been and will be done by those who have served in the military.

subs5 wrote:Understand that standardization has a purpose, but with all that needs to be fixed in the wazeopedia because of old superseded guidance, I would recommend fixing for style when content is being adjusted and volunteers focus on not having items that are incorrect.

I think you're right on that too. My wife often tells me I need to improve at prioritizing things so I will go work on the airport page some more. I still think the use of "functional classification" to refer to how we decide road types is misleading, but as Ted has pointed out, there is an established protocol for changing this page, so I will just leave my input here. If the working group decides to use any of it, that's fine, but if not that's fine too.

Hello Friends, can someone please provide a status for updating the Military Bases guidance/wiki? Thank you : )

I'm not. Despite the amazing round the clock coverage we have for tackling real-time events, we are still volunteer based with many relevant parties only being able to devote so much time to waze issues. We need to give people more than a day to voice their opinions.

I'm not sure I understand the US problem. Its not nominated to be a Global Page. I don't see what will prevent a "Military Bases" page from being added to the new Global "Wazeopedia" if it becomes necessary.

I also think we need a specific proposal to approve a change.
I would propose aligning the "Military Bases" language with the "Private Installation" language. Thus, I would suggest replacing the lock level language with something like:

Because of the complexity of routing through military base gates, it is suggested all roads comprising base gates be locked at Rank-5. Alternatively, they can be locked at a lower rank agreed upon by local Area Managers, State Managers, Regional Coordinators, or Champs. Check US state pages and other locations for guidance. If you cannot lock to the agreed level, request help from a higher-ranking editor.

I agree we don't need photos of anything on military bases... other review sites can provide those if they want to. Besides, every building on a military installation has a sign out front telling you what it is.

In addition to the "approved" list of places, I propose the following:

• Dining Facilities (DFACs)
• Chapels
• Fitness Centers / Recreational Facilities

please also note that this page creation is related to a section deletion in the Private as mentioned in this thread

If the page is still under construction, it should then be moved to User:Txemt namespace, awaiting for review and community approval before going live.

driving79 wrote:Is the private installation wiki page really a global page? I did not think anyone else but US were using it?

Yes it is.

deeploz in another thread wrote: Even if this page is the fruit of a huge job performed by US editors, and even if this page was, at its inception, dedicated to the US scope, it has evolved so largely that it is now become a best practice or a thinking inductor in many other communities, especially in Europe, where we have middle-age historical downtown that are often restricted area except for resident and delivery vehicles. This wiki page is the only one proposing a structured approach of the problem, and, as far as the wiki is not split per community, your US page is become a Global page and has been referenced as such in the Wiki Inventory process performed in January-February 2015.

In order to know which page are now part of the Global Wiki, as a Wiki Master, you can consult the related thread in the WM sub-forum and check the Global Wiki Inventory google sheet.

I don't think Federal Installations should be subject to state lock level changes.