Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

Proposed article titling guidance for orders of battle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G'day all, the format of order of battle articles is inconsistent across en WP, and in many cases lacks clarity and precision. For example, we currently have Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia and Union order of battle at the Battle of Raymond (probably unnecessarily wordy), and Polish–Soviet War Polish order of battle and Marengo order of battle (Marengo what?), Order of battle for the Viet Cong and many more variations, see Category:Orders of battle for many more examples. The following is a proposal to introduce new MOS guidance on article titling for stand-alone lists known as orders of battle (thanks to Mdewman6 for formulating this, which I have only copy-edited). Please discuss/suggest tweaks and indicate support or opposition in the relevant sections below. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Titles for stand-alone list articles comprising orders of battle should generally be formulated as:

&;t;name of military event/organisation> order of battle

For the common case where the orders of battle for a military event are split into separate list articles by belligerent or opposing forces, then the naming conventions for split lists apply, and the format becomes:

<name of military event> order of battle: <belligerent>

as in Invasion of Yugoslavia order of battle: Axis or Battle of Raymond order of battle: Confederate. The military event should include any necessary disambiguation in the same way as the article about the event does; for example Raqqa campaign (2016–2017) order of battle. The parent list name should exist as a {{List of lists}} with links to the split lists. Redirects should also be created to shorter forms of the title that are likely to be searched, such as Gettysburg order of battle and Gettysburg order of battle: Union. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion/suggestions

• I consider that this is sufficiently precise and clear, gets to the subject immediately, and is compliant with the naming convention for split lists. There may be some orders of battle that don't fit this format, but they should be rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Quoting myself at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_171#ACW_orders_of_battle_titles regarding part of the rationale, the proposed format puts the unique part of the title (the event) first, so the article a user seeks is more likely to come up in searches, rather than us having hundreds of articles beginning "Confederate order of battle at" or "Union order of battle at".

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: could an uninvolved coord please assess the consensus and close this discussion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Support per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support (as primary author) as proposed above, per my comments above. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems entirely reasonable to me, and consistent with our titling practices in general. It doesn't necessarily preclude another consistent system, but I don't see anything broken with this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks utterly awful. The form with the colon looks even worse and is not standard Wikipedia article titling at all. I support the "Confederate order of battle at/for/of" format. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you read WP:NCSPLITLIST you will see that the form with the colon is in fact the preferred Wikipedia titling for split lists. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Loos utterly awful" is too subjective to be very meaningful. Can you put your objection in more objective terms?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously I'm the only one here who can see what bad English this is and how badly it reads. In article titling we usually use the [Foo] of [Foo] form, which in my opinion (and obviously that of many others) is far more encyclopaedic. I don't know why this should be an exception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Bad English"? What reliable sources on English-language usage do you have that would possibly be against this? And a "Foo of Bar" format simply isn't applicable to this. (And your "Foo of Foo" doesn't make sense, since it's using the same metasyntactic variable for two different things.) See all of the inconsistent examples provided by the nom. They are in the following formats, respectively: "Foo force order of battle for Bar event", "Foo force order of battle at Bar event", "Bar event Foo force order of battle", "Bar event order of battle" with Foo force[s] unspecified, and "Order of battle for Foo force" with Bar event unspecified. It's just random chaos, and none of it is in a "Foo of Bar" format, which simply isn't applicable because it would leave off "order of battle" which is really the meat of the subject, the most important part of the article title indicating what the scope is.

  You seem to be arguing for something like "Invasion of Yugoslavia Axis order of battle", but that's unworkable because it presupposes that every reader already knows what the event name and the force name are and that they are separate (i.e. that "Invasion of Yugoslavia Axis" isn't a unitary string).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support This makes sense to me given people are usually searching by battle or campaign name. Not especially bothered by the use of the colon. Intothatdarkness 15:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I missed this discussion, but I completely agree with Necrothesp. The result is hideous, ugly titles. Srnec (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to abolish WP:MILMOS#TANKS

Should WP:MILMOS#TANKS be abolished? Schierbecker (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of uniformity, ease of understanding and clarity, all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end.

The guideline—written five years ago after a discussion with minimal participation—gives the examples of Type 1 Chi-He medium tank and M6 heavy tank. The latter no longer even follows that guideline.

I don't understand why we need an ostensibly hard-and-fast rule that very few of our articles seem to follow. Going down the list of 100 popular tank articles: Merkava, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, M4 Sherman, T-90, Tiger I, T-72, T-34, Tiger II, T-54/T-55, TOG2, Panzer IV, Panzer VIII Maus, Leopard 1, Challenger 2, T-80, M48 Patton, PT-76, M10 Booker, T-14 Armata, M26 Pershing, T-62, T-64, K2 Black Panther, Panzer III Panther KF51, M3 Stuart, M24 Chaffee, Type 10 and Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte are not using this convention.

M60 tank, Centurion (tank), Panther tank, Kliment Voroshilov tank, Chieftain (tank), Leclerc tank, Arjun (tank), Churchill tank, Type 99 tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank are named that way because their names are ambiguous. Schierbecker (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom Loafiewa (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Doesn't seem to have been followed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support No need to have a guideline that has not been followed. In addition it would likely be difficult, or at least a big chore, to find and revise current article titles. I surmise that most, if not all, interested searchers will include only the name of a tank in the search without adding the word "tank". They would find the article whether or not the word is included in the search. If the article title is ambiguous, the proposal would not preclude inclusion of the word "tank". Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that someone after information on a Patton tank will likely key in "Patton tank", knowing that most hits from the search engine will be for the general. Keying in "Patton" to the Wikipedia will give you the article on the general, and you will then click on Patton (disambiguation) which in turn will point you to Patton tank, a set index article that will ask you if you want the M46, M47, M48 or M60 models. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support however, there is a very specific issue of WP:PRECISION with less well-known bits of kit, which the current MILMOS doesn't have any guidance for. As an ex-Army officer with nearly three decades service and a pretty good knowledge of WWII and Cold War military hardware, I believe I am "a person familiar with the general subject area" per WP:CONCISE, but I didn't know what a TOG2 was. Where a tank (or other bit of kit of any size) has a well-known and recognised name (such as Tiger), or the "model number" and the name together (such as M4 Sherman) are well-known to relate to a tank, that is just fine. However, TOG1 and TOG2 were obscure British heavy tank prototypes in WWII, and it seems to me that in such obscure cases, where there is no "name" such as Patton or Sherman to go with the "model number", then at least "tank" should be included as natural disambiguation so that the article title meets the requirement that "usually titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". In reality, any short alphanumeric combination standing alone is inherently ambiguous in nearly every case (obviously some of the well-known examples above are exceptions, as few who are vaguely familiar with WWII could fail to know what a T-34 is), as it could relate to any piece of equipment or component or even be the international code for something that is not physical. Here is an example of what I mean: yesterday I saw a series of articles about Soviet/Russian ballistic vests that had been titled using their GRAU index, eg 6B23 only. 6B23 could relate to just about anything, and in fact is also the code for hypochondriasis under the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Adding "ballistic vest" to 6B23 as natural disambiguation unambiguously defines what the scope of the article is, and provides for a "more natural and recognizable title" (per WP:PRECISION) than the alphanumeric code alone. I consider we should try to distil this idea into some guidance to replace MILMOS#TANKS but relating to all types of kit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The examples show such general guidance would be helpful. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps if we divided them into a few types: those bits of kit that are so well-known that they can be identified by just their alphanumeric code (such as the T-34 or AMX-30) or name, (such as Merkava) - with or without a model number such as Challenger 2 or Tiger I (a subset of which would be those that need the natural disambiguation of "tank" due to not being the primary topic, like Chieftain tank and Centurion tank); those that need both a code and name, (like M48 Patton and M4 Sherman); and those where their alphanumeric code/type/model is so generic as to be ambiguous, (such as Type 74 and TOG2), where natural disambiguation of "tank" is also needed. Can anyone think of other variations? I've used tanks to demonstrate the types of titles, but they would equally apply to AK-47 and FG 42, Panzerfaust, Modular Tactical Vest and Walther PP, FN Minimi, M16 rifle, M60 machine gun, 6B23 ballistic vest etc. The aim here is to give guidance not create a hard and fast set of rules. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Some articles follow the Make-Model convention. (e.g. General Dynamics Griffin). Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Many heavies, especially prototypes, have received a recognition boost from authors like R. P. Hunnicutt and games like World of Tanks and WarThunder. It's difficult to say what will be recognizable to the average reader. Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that reflects what the general reader will know. The ones above, like Soviet tank models, are extremely well known due to blanket coverage about WWII and during the Cold War. Do you have some examples you would like to suggest wouldn't need disambiguation? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

High Survivability Test Vehicle (Lightweight), M8 Armored Gun System, Main Ground Combat System, Panzer 68, Chonma-ho and Ariete. I have an arbitrary personal preference for article titles that are somewhere between five and 40 characters long. Something like T-95 would be an edge case for me as the title is already very short and the tank is relatively unknown. Schierbecker (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Support with guidance to replace it, as suggested by Peacemaker67. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Include tank or (tank) in article title to clarify what this thing is to the reader is adequate for me. [clarified/corrected wording] -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just making sure that you know this is a proposal to abolish this policy? I am confused by your wording. Schierbecker (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll correct that to oppose. My preference is to only use "tank" in the name where it may be needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: This isn't needed. Tank articles, like all articles, already have enough "guidance", and despite that, it appears that, in many cases at least, that common sense has prevailed when it comes to the naming of tank articles. (jmho) - wolf 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Amend Per PM. Short model codes will generally require some clarification if they do not have a commonly recognised name - ie some lesser known tanks may have a name (eg Japanese tanks) but are not comparable to the M4 Sherman. Panzer means tank. If not consciously know, the cognitive association nonetheless exists and adding tank is redundant. Things like TOG2 will definitely benefit by appending tank. As guidance, it will be applicable in many instances but not across the board. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• @WP:MILHIST coordinators: . I believe a consensus is emerging. Can this be closed? I will carry out the change. Schierbecker (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What emerging consensus do you detect, Schierbecker? Just to be clear what is being agreed to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A compromise to name every tank "Gavin". I was actually hoping you could suggest language to replace the current guideline. Schierbecker (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 Seems like several participants are waiting for you to suggest a text to replace the current guideline with. They appreciated what you said about it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per Thewolfchild's reasoning, but also because "tank" is an ambiguous term open to debate -- including it as a necessary part of the naming convention simply opens the door to arguments about whether something is a tank, a tankette, a tank destroyer, an armored gun system, a fire support vehicle, or some other near variation. Tank should only be used when it's a necessary descriptor to disambiguate the meaning and nothing else applies. Given how most tanks tend to have a model name as well as an alphanumeric designation, this should only come up in the scenario when it's missing the former and the latter is ambiguous (e.g. the scenario Peacemaker67 describes in their comment w/ the 6B23 vest, but for armored vehicles). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Over-policing of results parameter

There seems to me a tendency of some to over-police the results parameter guidance in the MILMOS, and I think that is because it is too prescriptive, effectively seeking to ban some results from being placed in the infobox. We need to make it clear in the guidance that the MILMOS does not trump the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign. Style should not be permitted to trump the academic consensus on the substance. There certainly are battles that resulted in a Pyrrhic victory according to the academic consensus, and the MILMOS can be used as a bludgeon to try to remove the result that is clearly indicated by the academic consensus from an infobox. I think some modification of the wording needs to be made to better reflect the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Colouring schemes indicating results in lists of wars/battles

Are there any conventions regarding colours indicating results in lists of wars/battles? To name a few random examples:

1. List of wars involving Spain has no such colours. The default is a light grey background in all cells of the wikitable.
2. List of wars involving the Republic of China uses a frequently employed colouring scheme in the "Result" (or "Outcome") column at the end: green (#AFA) for a "military victory" of the state which is the subject of the list (ROC in this case), red (#F88) for a "military defeat", blue (#ACF) for "Indecisive or unclear outcome", and white for "Ongoing conflict"
3. List of wars involving Sweden uses a similar colouring scheme (but a kind of lavender purple (#E0D0FF) for indecisive or unclear outcomes), but colours all cells in each row of an entry with the colour indicating the result of the war/battle.
4. List of battles involving the Ottoman Empire uses colours, but to indicate the continent or sea where the battle took place.

Now, my personal preference is the type no. #2 colouring scheme (which appears to be most common), although I also prefer using less vivid colours, and no bold text, as shown in no. #3. It is a subtle extra highlight that may be useful for the reader as an overall assessment of how the war or battle fared for the state involved, even if it will never quite capture its nuances (but that is what the text is for, after all). An example of that may be how I set up List of wars involving Kievan Rus': only in the Result column, soft colours, no bold text.

However, I do not think it is helpful to colour the entire row in very vivid colours and to bolden the outcome, so as to emphasise particularly how many victories and defeats a particular country has had in wartime, as if it is a competition in numbers, or something to be proud of, or praiseworthy. (By contrast, marking a defeat in a very vivid red with bold text might suggest it was very bad or a shameful humiliation that country X lost that war/battle). Such an overuse of vivid colours and bold text undermines readability, and may verge on WP:POV/WP:SOAPBOX. We really don't have to "shout" this information to our readers. The point of colouring schemes is to make things more understandable, not to convince people of a particular perspective (namely, that of the country/state which the list is about).

Similar examples to no. #3 include:

• very strong green/red colours: Wars and battles involving Prussia;
• very strong green/red/purple colours and bold text: List of wars involving England;
• strong green/red/purple colours across the entire row: List of wars involving the Kingdom of France and List of wars involving Francia (which I split off from List of wars involving France last year; I did not change the existing colouring scheme). The original List of wars involving France (1792 to present) used to have it, too, until +JMJ+ decided on 7 January 2024 to begin removing that preposterous colouring scheme. I, for one, agree with +JMJ+.

But are there any conventions regarding this? Or is everyone just making it up as they go along? If the latter, maybe we should begin setting some standards of what is recommended and not recommended, granting editors a range of options to choose from, but within certain limits? Would like to hear your thoughts. NLeeuw (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that a table which is a wall of colour is a poor choice. I don't think that there is a strong need for consistency between articles. Choice of colour (particularly red and green) can present accessibility issues and there is guidance at MOS:COLORCODING, MOS:COLOR and MOS:COLORS. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I (rather unsurprisingly) am absolutely in favour of going more in the direction of no. #2 and totally eliminating the colours that extended through the whole row. It's a clear case of overcolouring. I commend your effort to bring in uniformity, because it would definitely help. I was also concerned about this issue.

I think it's impossible to find unanimous agreement about what precise shade to use, but I think the ones that are already established in these articles (List of wars involving Australia, List of wars involving England and List of wars involving the United States) are a roughly good starting point. Wars and battles involving Prussia has a red colour that is way too strong. I think we should probably lighten the colours, because it is a bit too vivid to look at and tires the eyes if you stare too long, so going in a more pastel direction that is still very visibly of a certain colour is probably the right direction.

Bolding is necessary in my opinion to give a short overview whereever possible - with the explanations below if one is interested into looking more into it. I think it is especially important to make the information approachable to complete beginners - and they will obviously be confused if they have to read a paragraph about the outcome of each war. Many countries have histories of fighting wars that stretches back centuries and just beginning to learn about it is obviously going to be overwhelming, so we should keep some colour and bolding to facilitate the process of education. That said, the colours should be more pastel, as MOS:COLORCODING says. Even if the colours should be pastel, MOS:COLOR says that contrast is necessary. +JMJ+ (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! It's good to know that we can find some tentative agreement on not colouring entire rows, and thereby creating a wall of colour. To be honest, I had never read MOS:COLORCODING and MOS:COLOR before, and my question here was not primarily intended for people with colour vision impairments, but I never knew that e.g. red and green are hard to distinguish for millions of people, and the WhoCaseUse tool has given me, well, an eye-opener. I've tested some of the colours discussed above, and indeed the 4 colours of List of wars involving Australia appear quite apt for people with all sorts of impairments, as well as those with regular vision (never knew we numbered only 68% of humanity):

  #AF9 Victory

  #F88 Defeat

  #BBF Another result (e.g. a treaty or peace without a clear result, status quo ante bellum, result of civil or internal conflict, result unknown or indecisive, inconclusive)

  #FCE883 Ongoing conflict

These hues are close to the shades I myself have been using recently in wars/battles lists.

Incidentally, a blue like   Azure /   #ACF and a green like   MintCream /   #AFA /   #AF9 sometimes appear to be too indistinguishable according to WhoCanUse. I happened to notice that myself earlier yesterday when editing Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv (about textual analysis), and I had to remove Azure from the table. (Perhaps I should do that in Confession of Peter#Narrative comparison as well now?). When I write articles in which I am comparing various source texts with each other, the ability to close-read the texts is more important than the colour of the background . I use a rainbow spectrum just to indicate an order in which the texts have been divided for close-reading purposes, but the colours themselves don't mean anything. Therefore, I use even softer colours that are, however, still distinguishable. The four colours   #FFE6E6 (close to MistyRose), OldLace, MintCream, and   #E6EAFF (close to Lavender) seem to work quite well together: they are soft, "white colours" according to Web colors#Extended colors which work well with black letter texts, and are sufficiently distinguishable from each other:

  MistyRose

  OldLace

  MintCream

  Lavender

That may not be necessary for lists of wars/battles, where close-reading of texts is not necessary, and the colours have actual meanings related to the texts upon them. I agree with both of you that there is not a strong need for consistency between articles, and it's impossible to find unanimous agreement about what precise shade to use, but that the Australia scheme serves as a useful recommendation for our purposes here. Editors should have a range of options that diverge from that recommendation.   #ACF blue and   #AFA green as seen in no. #2 List of wars involving the Republic of China are probably different enough to be okay. But we seem to agree that standard   Red (#FF0000) in Wars and battles involving Prussia is way too strong and too vivid to look at and tires the eyes if you stare too long; I'll WP:BOLDly change that to   #F88 now. Speaking about being bold, I'm not sure about the bolding of text yet, but +JMJ+ has made some good points why perhaps it's a good idea. Especially if background colours are confined to just the Result/Outcome column, it may not be that bad. NLeeuw (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Two tangentially related questions: I assume we agree the words ""victory" and "defeat" are not to be capitalised per MOS:EMPHCAPS? Just removed them here.

Secondly, I assume we agree there should be no "counting" victories, defeats and indecisive/unclear outcomes, as in List of battles involving the Franks and Francia? Frankish military victory - 37. Frankish military defeat - 17. Indecisive or unclear outcome - 0. That seems evidently WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and not just a matter of WP:CALC, because these are usually Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Dynamic lists. Therefore, nobody can really say which, and thus how many, battles to include and exclude. Besides, 3 minor victories in skirmishes (that might not even merit stand-alone articles) may give WP:UNDUE weight over 1 crushing defeat in a huge, drawn-out siege; maths is just inadequate to accord overall "weight" here. Moreover, there is frequently disagreement about the outcome of particular battles, so attempting to calculate the victory/defeat ratio can be contaminated by WP:POV. Therefore, I would strongly recommend removing all such calculations. Only scholars in RS should be cited to give such assessments, not Wikipedians themselves. NLeeuw (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed the wall of colour from List of wars involving the Kingdom of France. I think   #FFCCCB for defeat is slightly preferable over   #F88 as in the Australia scheme, although both are probably acceptable. NLeeuw (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed the wall of colour from List of wars involving Francia. NLeeuw (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Good work! You're definitely going in the right direction and I can't say much because I mostly agree with your edits.

I was initially sceptical of choosing a lighter red than #F88, but it works fine, so I am also in favour of it now. I'm interested to see how the MistyRose, OldLace, MintCream and Lavender colours actually look in practice in an article. It seems like a pretty prospective choice.

I think victory and defeat should only be capitalized if it's the first word. I think that it's better to streamline with just "Victory" instead of e.g. "[insert country] victory", as the focus of the article is necessarily from the country's view, so just "Victory" and etc. should be enough. At most, the "[insert country] victory" should be used to distinguish from when it won alongside allies, so it can be "American victory" or "American-allied victory" as in List of wars involving the United States.

I think it's probably best to remove the counters for the reasons you state, partially because the counting has to be done by hand.

Overall, I think most of the articles about "wars involving ..." require a lot of attention because many of them are extremely bare-bones and could be more informative. There's clearly quite a lot of views on those articles, especially for the larger countries! I'm glad sometime is taking it up the work! +JMJ+ (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@+JMJ+ Thanks! Glad my suggestions and edits are appreciated. I've been cautiously waiting for some time to discuss these issues before actually implementing these changes, as some editors can get rather agitated if their colouring efforts are (partially) reverted or overwritten in lists of wars/battles of a state that they are rather fond of (usually they live there, come from it, or see the state as a predecessor of their current country). I'd rather not start edit-wars about wars lol.

Choosing softer colours also helps making the whole editing process sowewhat less tense and controversial between editors; e.g. if someone changed a very vivid red into a very vivid green, and someone else disagrees with that, it's more likely that they get frustrated and start an edit-war over it, instead of calming down and talking it out on the talk page. That's just what colours do to our minds. That is also one of the reasons why I have chosen even softer colours for wars involving former countries located on the current territories of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and their neighbours: List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, and List of wars involving the Novgorod Republic (just tabulated a few minutes ago). Here, I have used   #D4F7D4 for "Victory",   #F6E4E7 for "Defeat", and   #E6EAFF for "Another result*". I'm not sure exactly how I came up with these specific shades; I was just experimenting a bit between various hues and these are the shades I eventually settled on, because they come across as calm, but clear. Both our readers and editors will need calmth in order to deal with this content area, as (understandably) tensions regularly explode because of what is currently going on over there.

Hopefully that answers your question I'm interested to see how the MistyRose, OldLace, MintCream and Lavender colours actually look in practice in an article. It seems like a pretty prospective choice? I'm not sure if it is necessary to go for such soft colours in these lists, let alone for all lists of wars/battles articles, but so far, it seems to be working well. They are close to the soft-coloured rainbow shades I've been working with for textual analysis article sections, first for comparisons of stories in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Some examples include:

Template:Trial of Jesus narrative comparison;

Template:Anointing of Jesus & Luke 10;

Template:Great Commission narrative comparison; and

Template:Triumphal entry into Jerusalem narrative comparison.

Since 2023, I've also been applying it to Textual variants in the Primary Chronicle: e.g.

Calling of the Varangians#Texts;

Rogneda of Polotsk#Texts; and yesterday

Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv#Text of the Primary Chronicle (which I referred to above; it's a bit experimental, because I highlighted full sentences instead of rows).

Hopefully, they help readers better understand what particularly well-known (and revered) source texts such as the Bible and Primary Chronicle actually say. The purpose of colours here is very different from lists of wars/battles, but some of the reasons for choosing soft colours on the background in textual analysis tables are the same.

Finally, I fully agree with what you say about "Victory / [insert country] victory". I'm also glad you agree with removing the results counters; I'll begin removing those soon. NLeeuw (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The colours look good in practice, so I think they should be indeed chosen as the new default. It's good that the colours are light but clearly distinguishable. Thanks for all your effort! +JMJ+ (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

battles by geographic location

The section "Battles in ..." WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN is being used by one editor to justify/require the deletion of all geographic subcats in 'Battles in/of xx War', including any/all wars in modern history and modern places. Is this the purpose of this section or is the purpose something else? Thanks. Hmains (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Invalid category advice

Probaby due to semi-recent CfR, CfM, and CfD activity, a large number of the recommended categories in this page are now redlinked, and need to be repaired, either by giving the current names of the intended categories, or removing nodes that no longer exist due to mergers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TITLECON for WW1+2 aerial victory accuracy articles

Hi fellow MilHist editors, I've been doing a lot of improvements recently on these two articles:

• Aerial victory standards of World War I
• Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II

I think these article titles should be harmonised per WP:TITLECON. But I can't decide on a formula that would work well for both, and makes clear to all readers what they are about. There are so many options we could choose from, so I think this could use some broader discussion over here at MILMOS.

Some suggestions:

1. Aerial victory standards of [war X], the current WW1 article title
2. Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during [war X], the current WW2 article title
3. [war x] aerial victory claim accuracy, the Template:About description I came up with for both articles
4. Aerial victory overclaiming in [war x], perhaps the most straightforward name.

Option no. #4 might be the best. The problem discussed is overclaiming. The standards only arose in response to the problem of overclaiming. Confirmation can only happen in accordance to a standard established in response to the problem of overclaiming. Accuracy is merely the difference between reality and claimed aerial victories, i.e. how much overclaiming is going on. So while standards, confirmation and accuracy are all relevant, the problem that they seek to deal with is overclaiming. So I think that should be in the title, and the other words belong in the main text.

On a related note, we may consider splitting off a separate article on Aerial victory overclaiming as a general concept, because this has essentially happened in every war involving aircraft since the advent of military aviation in the early 20th century. We shouldn't need to explain to our readers the same terminology, causes, and attempts at mitigation in every article dedicated to a particular war; that would create needless WP:OVERLAP. But for that, I think we should first agree on consistent article titles for these two. Your input would be appreciated. NLeeuw (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the most prolific editors of both articles @Georgejdorner, The PIPE, Soundofmusicals, MisterBee1966, and Dapi89: I'd like to know what you think of these suggestions. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The WW2 article was created in 2008, a time when article referencing was weak, and words like "aerial victory claim", "credited with X victories" and "aerial victories" were used ambiguously here on Wikipedia, leading to many heated debates. The WW2 article was an attempt to explain the problem, how different air forces addressed this topic, and what might have been deliberate overclaiming (falsified claims). In WW1, aerial combat was much more contained over the battlegrounds. I would assume that the issue of overclaiming was much smaller in comparison. In consequence, I would prefer if we retain the words "confirmation and overclaiming" in the title. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Conformation with WP:NCWWW

WP:NCMILHIST should be updated to conform with WP:NCWWW. I recently closed a RM where Manbij offensive was moved to Manbij offensive (2016). Then I went to bypass the links to the new dab page. There, I came across several instances of "X participated in Manbij offensive in 2016", "In 2016, X died in Manbij offensive", etc. Each of them could be written as "X participated in 2016 Manbij offensive", "X died in the 2016 Manbij offensive", etc. As such WP:NCWWW provides us a form of WP:NATDAB. But, when we use parenthetical disambiguators, it is far from natural disambiguation. Every time you want to use it in running text, you would need to use piped links. That is not great. Secondly, it is more consistent with the "nth Battle of Someplace" articles. Thirdly, conforming with WP:NCWWW would also provide WP:TITLECON across the encyclopedia. No value would be lost from the article title by doing this. In fact, election articles were moved to conform with NCWWW a few years ago after decades of being at "where what, year" titles, again no value was lost. I think NCMILHIST needs to be rethought now. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCMILHIST was part of the original MOS and predates our WP:MILMOS being split off in 2007. WP:NCWWW was a WP:BOLD unilateral change added to the MOS in 2015. As few people watchlist MOS pages, it is a common tactic to add stuff in without consensus and then allow an implied consensus to develop. RGloucester protested this change in 2018. Because of the manner in which the MOS was changed, WP:NCMILHIST was not changed, although it too is part of the MOS, and therefore overrides WP:NCWWW. That said, I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the rationale. We will see if there is consensus for such a change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)