Talk:Pioneer (military)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[trench warfare#Field works|field fortifications]] The anchor (#Field works) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Why? It's a nickname that Republicans themselves use to describe top donors, included in a list of nicknames that members of organizations use to describe themselves. I fail to see how it doesn't fit with the theme or how it's less relevant than Roman Catholic Teetotallers or that particular painting. Stilgar135 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a week and you haven't responded, I'm putting it back. Stilgar135 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this also link to the

I did the same thing. And I didn't initially notice the link to the Pioneer Program (I was scanning for some sort of Pioneer X link). I have added links to Pioneer 10 and 11 under the Pioneer Program that was already listed. While there were many more Pioneer program vehicles that could also be linked to, I think Pioneer 10 and 11 are the only ones famous enough to merit (direct) disambiguation. Noca2plus (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving disambig page tp Pioneer, Pioneer page is currently redirecting to Settler, which doesn't make since as a settler is not necessarily a pioneer, nor vice versa... For example "A pioneer in the education profession..." 75.128.225.15 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is this to be disambiguation page, or an article with encyclopedic content? If the second, it needs better source citations! (sdsds - talk) 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the indication that the lead section contains claims made without citing

The bigger problem is that the article at the moment is trying to deal with multiple, quite different definitions of 'pioneer'. Individual encyclopedia articles only deal with a single definition (see

WP:NOTADICT). You need to pick one and go with it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Wolfkeeper. This article looks a lot more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. Consider moving this information to Wikidictionary and then having this page re-direct to the disambiguation page. If you don't want to follow that piece of advice, consider this opening sentence: "The usage and meaning of the word Pioneer /ˌpaɪəˈnɪər/ has changed over time." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In encyclopedias articles are on a topic. Exactly what is the topic of this article supposed to be? It can't be the term 'Pioneer' because that's what a dictionary entry is about- all the different meanings of the term pioneer. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The point is that you must pick by consensus a definition of the subject that is to be used that matches the article name 'pioneer'. You can only pick one subject. Another subject that also matches pioneer goes in another article. That's how encyclopedia entries work. That's how the wikipedia works.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article was the military occupation (job) or a pioneer. The later meaning me, well, chronologically later. I had expanded this article and referenced it, including adding the other meanings although neither are in wider use than the original military meaning. That a dictionary has other meaning is not material one way or another. Both the settler and the innovator are derived in meaning from the original military term, so there is no need to redirect. Besides that redirecting pioneer to combat engineering is actually misleading. Pioneers were not combat engineers, which are the modern military occupations. Pioneers now are the unit names of combat engineering occupations, and are therefore not same--

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You only get one meaning per article in an encyclopedia article. These are self evidently different meanings, even if, in the dim and distant past they were derived. You can by all means mention the derivation on each meanings individual article page though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper, Pioneer was and is a name for a military occupation. It is not used on its own in Wikipedia to refer to the

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To be perfectly honest, you've almost certainly picked the wrong definition to use. The meaning of the term pioneer as you've chosen to use it here is so close to being isomorphic with 'combat engineer' that it's practically guaranteed that the article should and will merge (along with sapper as well) and any minor differences can be dealt with much better there. On the other hand, there is currently no article for 'innovator/pioneer', but there is one for the process of innovation (which isn't the same thing if you think about it.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of research on the subject? If you must know, the role of the pioneer had changed over time. It started as a non-combat role within armies of employing workers, and was changed to a combat role by the 20th century. Combat engineers on the other hand evolved from military engineers, usually officers and senior NCOs, that had to perform tasks during and in support of combat. Pioneers are almost always limited to the construction tasks (until WWI) while combat engineers are more often involved in demolition. Pioneers were rarely issued with anything more than personal weapons while combat engineers have been known to "pack" heavy weapons, and often use vehicles, including armoured vehicles. The change occurred after the First World War because during that conflict pioneers were often used as infantry, and later during the Second World War necessity forced their training and equipment to become almost like that of the combat engineers, but this was not true for every armed force. With the reduction of post-war forces most were disbanded, and those that were retained, were retained in the pioneer name only rather than the construction role because most of their tasks became mechanised, such as road and trench construction. However, within the military engineering Arm, no one would ever confuse the profession of a pioneer and that of a combat engineer. Also, no one would confuse the sapper with a pioneer, although all combat engineers are these days sappers in most English speaking countries. Sappers too had a different history, and one much older than either a pioneer of a combat engineer. And there is yet to be an article on the mineur --

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But that's my point really, at worst there's huge levels of overlap and common history (which is what you've described above). When there's that much overlap, they become one topic and should be merged. The merged article could point out the few differences with tables, charts etc. Anyway, I've stubbed out the

innovator article and we'll see where that leads.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we are at the poles of encyclopaedic thinking about content. I think that an encyclopaedia should address each distinct subject. You think that the subject article should include all subjects that are conceptually linked. Have a look at how many different types of

Battletech

).

Innovator has a huge potential as an article. Aside from the exploration of the psychology of such people, there are such diverse examples which go to the core of the subject of

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any real benefit to the disorganised and unwieldy list of units here? We probably shouldn't be trying to list every pioneer unit in existence, but it feels almost like this is what's being aimed for. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need three different articles for these soldier types? What are the differences anyway? 88.115.93.18 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807045133/http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/%7Ermallett/Pioneers.html to http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Pioneers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100825043348/http://www.littlewoodham.org.uk:80/research/ord.htm to http://www.littlewoodham.org.uk/research/ord.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—