Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Alansplodge in topic Fletcher-class destroyer
Archive 155←Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161→Archive 165

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2020 are open!

Latest comment: 3 years ago74 comments28 people in discussion
Voting has concluded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Military historian   of the year 2020
  •  
    First place
  •  
    Second place
  •  
    Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2020 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2020. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

  • [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2020.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. Not only writes diligently and well, but is the best at that often unsung outreach that makes a community and keeps editors here and feeling appreciated. Neopeius (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Catlemur (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Incredibly prolific, high-quality work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Great contributor to the project, and tremendous output. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. An obvious choice. Amazing articles, great support to others. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Love the mate's work. But my other candidates would be CPA-5 and Hog Farm. All are great editors! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. I haven't been as active on the project recently as I'd like but I try to keep up with the latest and greatest, and much of both continues to be produced by GtM. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  9. Tireless contributor. TeriEmbrey
  10. Great reviewer, even greater content creator. Well-deserved. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  11. Wonderful work, especially regarding ancient warfare articles.--Darius (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  12. Hit the ground running at MilHist -- and WP in general -- and hasn't let up. Outstanding articles, reviews and participation overall. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  13. Astonishingly prolific (and good!) content creator, reviewer, co-ordinator - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. Hard to believe I'm the first to vote for this user--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. Difficult to understand how we managed before Hog Farm was here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Catlemur (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Worthy of the double, outstanding by any measure. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. Tireless contributor. Hog Farm Bacon 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Another great contributor for the project. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Stellar work, if I do say so myself -- Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Has produced some great output. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. A relentless image and source reviewer, who contributes a significant amount to the quality throughput of this project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Great reviews and content- Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. A great reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Buidhe does outstanding academic work and is an enormous asset to the project. --Obenritter (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. A hell of an asset to the project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. The third vote is always the hardest here but Buidhe earns it for meticulous reviews that we've really come to depend on at MilHist (and FAC) plus strong content creation in a challenging area. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Of course! We are be thankful to have relentless image and source reviewer like Buidhe to improve this to a new level. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. A relentless content machine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Full support MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support for the Cav.--Fondycardinals (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. What can one say. Leads by example. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Basically per Gog. Hog Farm Bacon 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. A major asset for the project. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Full support MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. The best. My full support, too. -- Hhfjbaker (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. Full support -- A true diplomat and a quality scholar. What some of us might call an "elite" admin.--Obenritter (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  9. Strong support. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  10. Full support - has stepped up to do some great work, from what I've seen. Nice one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  11. Definitely deserved, a project stalwart. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  12. I probably bias my votes here more towards strong content creation and review than to leadership and participation in discussion but PM earns points an all counts, a great all-rounder. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  13. Support. An editor who has gone the distance with in depth contributions, this year and before. A pillar in the military history articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  14. Continued excellent project co-ordination work - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  15. Full support - high quality contributions! AntonyZ (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  16. The real godfather of the MILHIST. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  17. Absolute support - The Go-To Man for any wiki questions. OyMosby (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. Hard to believe I'm the first to vote for this user--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. There are a couple editors I wanted to cast a third vote for and who probably equally deserve it. However, I'm exercising personal prerogative to cast this one for Zawed on the subjective basis of how much I have enjoyed their contributions. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Tireless contributor TeriEmbrey
  1. Hard to believe I'm the first to vote for this user--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Full support MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Definitely!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Hawkeye's content creation is amazing, and his continued expansion of Milhistbot's skills is a huge benefit to the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support! AntonyZ (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Have always been amazed at the quantity and quality of the contributions of this editor, this year and before. He should be voted Military Historian of the decade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Continued excellent content creation and reviewing work. Milhistbot has also done great things to clear some long-term backlogs this year - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. An editor who put in a massive reviewing effort in the first half of this year, and it is good to see them back. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Tireless contributor TeriEmbrey
  3. Has put in a heck of a shift this year. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2020 (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.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2020 are open!

Latest comment: 3 years ago36 comments23 people in discussion
Voting has closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Military history newcomer   of the year 2020
  •  
    First place
  •  
    Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2020 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2020. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2020.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. Goodness. An inspiration! Neopeius (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Massive first year. Massive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Obviously.--Catlemur (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Per my nomination above. Hard to believe that Hog Farm has only been here one year. Was editor of the week last week too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Everything I've seen from this editor bespeaks quality, attention to detail, and output, output, output. --Obenritter (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Large contribution of high quality work. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. Without question. I knew I’d be voting this way months ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  9. Yep. Prodigious output. Zawed (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  10. Standout candidate, amazing output both in terms of quantity and quality, and has become a key part of the project, helping with maintenance and reviews. An excellent editor. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  11. Not much more to say. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  12. Stellar contributor Eddie891 Talk Work 23:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  13. Hog, your efforts in ACW articles has not gone unnoticed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  14. Per Peacemaker & Gog. Hhfjbaker (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  15. Prolific editor who's dived deep into some of the less glamorous parts of Wiki. Very "coachable".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  16. Excellent content work. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  17. Second Buidhe here...this is another that deserves recognition.--Obenritter (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  18. A tireless editor whose involvement has been nothing short of laudatory Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  19. I am shocked to find out that Hog Farm is only in his first year here. Constantine ✍ 19:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  20. Piling on, Hog Farm seems to be everywhere (at my other haunt, FAC, as well as here) and contributing strongly all the time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  21. Keeps the MILHIST family busy with the project's new front called ACW. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  22. You got my vote. Major contributions in a short time. OyMosby (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. As my nom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Some nice work Eddie891 Talk Work 23:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Excellent contributions and overall support of the project Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. As my nom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Fantastic all around work Chetsford (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Thanks for all your hard work. TeriEmbrey
  4. Goodness. An inspiration! Neopeius (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Can't believe he's only been here a year, I come across this editor everywhere (in a good way!) - Dumelow (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Am happy we have another Wikipedian to straight the units of the Australian Army and made some significant progress. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2020 (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.

Proposed deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An article on a naval shipbuilding company is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec (2nd nomination). I can understand reasoning behind first deletion due in concerns about notability, however as information has now been added that company will be building ships for the Royal Australian Navy, I believe the company is notable. Please provide feedback at proposed deletion page. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

50th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there. I'm currently in the process of expanding the article on the 50th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment, and I came across a source that seems reliable yet has very confusing information. The book and page are here. The excerpt that I can't make any sense out of is as follows: "There [at Fort Leavenworth] the Fiftieth assisted in quelling a mutiny which broke out in the Sixth Virginia, and spread through other regiments clamoring to be mustered out." The reasons this is so confusing to me is that the 50th was a Union regiment and the 6th was a Confederate regiment; the 6th Infantry and Cavalry were disbanded in April 1865 – when the 50th were in or on their way to St. Louis from Madison; and it seems weird that a Virginia regiment who ostensibly fought on the east coast would be in Kansas of all places. I asked my friend who's a US history buff, and he couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Barring some weird explanation like "The Confederate regiment was in mutiny over mustering out near the end of the war, so the Union soldiers helped quell the mutiny so the regiment could muster out", I really have no idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 I think it's the 6th West Virginia Cavalry Regiment, a Union unit that mustered out at Ft. Leavenworth in May 1865. WV was part of VA until 1863, so WV units were still occasionally referred to as VA units. Probably need a second source to explicitly tie it together, but it makes sense. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Correct, the 6th West Virginia Cavalry Regiment. Apparently some 190 of them refused to move to fight against the Native Americans when the war ended while their enlistment term still had a year left. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thank you both so much; I can't say I expected such a knowledgeable answer this immediately, let alone two. So long as I can find a proper source or two about the Sixth West Virginian's service history, I should hopefully be able to get a second source attesting to the 50th's assistance in quelling the mutiny. If I do, I might also have to take it upon myself to expand the article on the 6th West Virginia, since more can probably be done there. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm – Hi again. I've found a source describing the mutiny, which took place in July 1865. Although it doesn't reference the 50th Wisconsin's help, I believe that the source corroborating that there was a mutiny by the 6th WV at Fort Leavenworth when the 50th Wisconsin would have been there should tie up the loose ends the first reliable source left. I did have another question to hopefully add some clarity to the prose: the first RS references a 'Brig. Gen. Stalbrand' sending complimentary acknowledgement to the 50th; is there anyone this could be other than Charles J. Stolbrand? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What I've been able to figure out about Stolbrand (also spelled Stahlbrand) doesn't quite fit, either. Stolbrand seems to have been commanding a brigade of Illinois troops in the XVII corps at the end of the war, but that corps was in the Carolinas in '65. Unless I misread the source, it seems to suggest that Stalbrand was the division commander. So I have no idea who this is referring to. Hog Farm Bacon 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Stolbrand indeed. What his article doesn´t include is that in June 65 Stolbrand was assigned to the District of Kansas, also for a time commanding it, and served there until January 66 when he left the army. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

C showing up as Start

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Noting an oddness -- when I ran Rater on Discoverer 11 (and Discoverers 3-10 for that matter), adding it to the MilHist Project and assigning it a C, the rating shows up as Start: Talk:Discoverer_11.

Any idea what's going on? --Neopeius (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day, to show up as anything higher than start class the various aspects of the B-class checklist (B1 through to B5) need to be specifically assessed as yes or no in the template. B-class would require all five to be "yes", while C-class has its own requirements. For instance it could be no for B1 (references), but yes for B2 (coverage), B3 (structure), B4 (grammar) and B5 (supporting materials) and would equal C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Fascinating! Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: as an experiment, it looks like the coverage yes/no (B2) is the C class qualifier. In other words, the article has to be good but incomplete in breadth to make C for MilHist. --Neopeius (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The other option under our current system would be good and complete in breadth but unsuitably referenced, I believe. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Can confirm. :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Failure to meet B1 or B2 only (but not both) causes a C class. Both, or B3, B4 or B5 fail will cause it to be rated Start (even if you put class=C or class=B in the template). When the Bot assesses an article, ORES is used to determine B2. In other words, it will be accepted if it contains as much detail as a B, GA, A or FA article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
What is "ORES"? I take it a bot looks for things like citation at the end of each paragraph? It's amazing how much can be automated! --Neopeius (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I think you can find information on ORES here: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The Bot assesses B1 by checking for a citation at the end of every paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

More reviewers needed for a Milhist FAC

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ba Congress/archive1 has image and source reviews, and one editor has expressed an interest in reviewing, but it could do with a couple more, otherwise it is in danger of being archived. Any assistance would be appreciated. NB: My nom. Thanks in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This one is in a similar condition: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Gneisenau/archive1, which hasn't drawn much attention thus far. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you take a look. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Decided to have a stab at reviewing after a very long period of absence. I've chucked my two penn'orth in at Gneisenau and I'll see if I get time to look at Ba Congress tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, if you are on a roll, do feel free to move on to Battle of the Saw.   Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I've taken at look at this one and Ba Congress. If anyone else is at a loose end I would appreciate some input at my "temporary gentlemen" ACR nom, which has been quiet for a couple of weeks - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1925 US officer's uniform - help required

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An expert eye is required over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#1925 military uniform in file - any assistance would be gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Noted and remarked there. A first question should be that if the subject of the photo is confirmed U.S. Army and not USMC then being formally photographed in a Marine uniform is so unlikely as to require extensive documentation. If I recall appearance in another service's uniform — unless for some reason specifically authorized — is an "out of uniform" type offense. The first response on seeing "Army person" in "Marine uniform" should have been "Not likely!" — and there are good indicators (belt buckle & sleeve insignia) is an Army uniform if one looks closely. The early chaos in Army uniforms was quieting by 1920 due to WW I and regulations, but there were still variations down to branch and even specialty that still existed so general appearance in non color images is sometimes a bit difficult. 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian World War I era photos

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found this website which is full of photos of Russian World War I era military personnel. Feel free to upload them to Commons.--Catlemur (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Battle of Svolder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fateh Singh Ahluwalia

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fateh Singh Ahluwalia. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

tidy up some page moves for "A.T. Mine E. P. Mark II"

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone put A.T. Mine E. P. Mark II at a correctly punctuated (orthography-ed?) article name and check the redirects please?

And if someone knows what "EP" is short for in British WWII anti-tank mines and write that on the article that would be helpful. Ta. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett It seems to match the other comparable articles in category:Anti-tank mines, mainly A.T. Mine G.S. Mark II and comparable articles and based on the sourcing available. The redirects look to be from incorrect puncts, which is fine. E. P. could stand for "Egyptian Pattern" per this book, though I'm not positive. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
At the moment that article is at "A.T Mine E.<space>P. Mark II" rather than "A.T. Mine E.P. Mark II". The redirects from incorrect puncts have occured in trying to get the article at the right punct.
Egyptian Pattern makes sense given the usage of mines in North Africa fighting. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that E.P. with no space is correct. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Me too, but that form is a redirect and ordinary editors like myself cannot move the page over the redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I've correctly moved it. Let me know if this isn't the case. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of spaceflight

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, all.

I've adopted the Timeline of spacecraft, which includes a great many military flights so I've added them to the purview of this project. Thus far, I've completed to FLC level the following articles:

Spaceflight before 1951
1951 in spaceflight
1952 in spaceflight

All of these have been submitted for FLC review, and I hope they might get some eyes on them. I look forward to the completion of the series -- all are welcome to join me! :)

--Neopeius (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Move of Admiralty

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Spotted this just now. Admiralty moved to British Admiralty and replaced with disambiguation on basis of brief discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I only put an "Admiralty" wikilink in an article this afternoon without checking - now fixed. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure "British Admiralty" is the right name, it's almost always just "the Admiralty", with nationality inferred by context. If it is not the primary subject (which I am not convinced on) it should be at Admiralty (United Kingdom) or similar. I see there's the start of a discussion at Talk:British Admiralty - Dumelow (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Paris Gun?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is File:Photograph Q65801A.jpg the Paris Gun? Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sturmvogel 66, it's better than the existing image in the infobox, but being un-captioned made me think twice. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  Resolved

Non notable articles cleanup

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments12 people in discussion

Hi all, there are currently over 500 military and warfare articles tagged as being of unclear notability, if my search is right. Members of this project may be interested in helping assess their notability-- either removing the tag if they are notable or nominating for deletion if the topic isn't. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a good project. I passed notability for Military_Secretary_to_the_Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps. --Neopeius (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Good idea Eddie. Not all of these are within project scope (I am not sure what determines if the article gets placed into the "articletopic:military-and-warfare" category?). Petscan can do an intersection of pages with both Template:Notability and Template:WikiProject Military history which gives 558 results that might be easier to work with? I think this would be a good backlog to target for clearance - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Smart! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Article Dokumacılar recommending deletion. Primary cause, alleged group, alleged attacks. Group size supposedly 60-70 which alone would give one pause because of the unit size, if it existed, and if it was involved. Both questions would take a lot of research to validate. Tirronan (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I have marked-up Mº 44 E.T.A. de Paracaidista and Nikonov machine gun for merger into marginally better articles. Any comments gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Good work all, we're now down to 507 with this set to reduce further once the first batch of PRODs and AFDs go through. Some 45 of those tagged for notability are recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and a further five of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves (you can see them listed by [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=18129638 this query). Obviously WP:GNG overrides but I'm interested to know if there has been any previous discussion on which rank of the Knight's Cross counts as "their nation's highest award for valour" for WP:SOLDIER? - Dumelow (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The KC is problematic because it wasn’t always awarded for valour (also leadership and success in command) and its highest level was only awarded once, and that wasn’t for valour. My experience is that Oak leaves recipients clearly awarded for valour are often notable, but plain KCs even when awarded for valour are very patchy. There is no one-size fits all approach to the KC. Each article needs to be assessed on its merits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Just had a quick look at the KC list, and I would leave the Oak leaves recipients and the three or four Obersts and above for a detailed look, along with any submariners who commanded a flotilla (not just a single sub), and PROD the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I’ve PRODed all the ones I reckon definitely have major issues with notability. Only three editors involved in creating them, and nothing has been done in over four years to make their notability clearer. Let’s see how that goes. I’ve left the oak leaves, anyone who commanded a regiment, flotilla or above. That’s not to say they are notable, just that they may be, when I don’t think the others are going to meet the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients be included in this investigation? If the guiding principle is WP:GNG then many of the men listed fail this criteria, random examples James Madison (Medal of Honor), Alfred Ramsbottom, ... MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No. there may be a few that need attention, but there were over 7,000 KCs handed out. That is comparable to second-level awards in other armed forces during WWII, like the DSO and Navy Cross. The basic KC was just too common and the grounds for award too wide to place it alongside the MOH or VC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 But would you agree, if a MoH recipient fails WP:GNG it should be deleted? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
And what about Hero of the Soviet Union? There are 12,777 recipients? Surely not all meet WP:GNG MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, they certainly seem too common as well, even with the numbers in the Soviet armed forces. But this an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which has no real impact on whether bare KCs are notable, which is what we are talking about here. I haven’t PRODed any oak leaves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, any KC recipient failing WP:GNG is subject to deletion, just like any other person MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just weighing in that in my experience quite a few MOH recipients from the civil war can be redirected to the list of recipients because there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG.

List is down below 480, and falling still! Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

MOH = notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Standards for MOH were much lower during the ACW, although a bunch were later revoked. There are some ACW MOH recipients that simply just don't have any coverage beyond getting a medal for capturing a flag, so those should be redirected to a list. Most we should be able to build an article out of. Hog Farm Bacon 23:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I'm not a particular fan of the idea that "topic X is in category Y, so X is inherently notable". Topics are notable if there is significant coverage, and many of the ACW MOH recipients (like the one MB linked above) don't pass GNG. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

136th Civil Engineer Squadron presents an issue that I haven't seen discussed. Component units, particularly support units, are rarely notable unless they have demonstrated notability apart from their parent headquarters. I see nothing in this article showing the squadron has such notability. However, the squadron has a number of Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards, primarily because of USAF practice when making awards at the wing level, to make the award to all the wing's subordinate units. I don't think this makes this squadron notable (if it did, there would be about 5,000 new "notable" units in the USAF alone) --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

While air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons are generally notable per MILUNIT #7, this is generally taken to refer to those capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations. I see nothing in the article that makes that ground sub-unit of the Texas Air National Guard particularly notable, and notability isn't inherited by the parent formation. It could be AfD'd with a view to becoming a redirect to the parent wing. None of the sources are independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Did I do it right?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Did I do it right?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from MILHIST could take a look at this post and try and help this editor out. I believe they're asking about some recent changes they've made to List of equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force, in particular List of equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force#People's Liberation Army Ground Force Equipment (2020). It appears that entire section was recently added here y an IP (maybe the same editor). I can say whether the content itself is accurate or otherwise worthy for inclusion, but the way it's added seem completely different to the formatting that's being used throughout the rest of the article. Maybe there's a way to better incorporate into the article, or may be it should all just be removed. Anyway, I figured someone belonging to this WikiProject would be better at assessing such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lisa Nowak needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lisa Nowak; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Has two supports and an image review, just needs another positive review and a source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! This one is the same, two supports and an image review so far, just needs another content review and a source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

HMS Escape

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Can anyone shed any light on "HMS Escape"? A Court-Martial was held at Foo Chow Foo on 18 OCtober 1870 to enquire into the loss of the Escape, wrecked on the coast of Formosa on 3 October 1870 ("Naval and Military News". Portsmouth Telegraph. No. 4006. Portsmouth. 7 January 1871.). No pages link to HMS Escape. Would a Court-Martial have been held if she was an Admiralty vessel? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An entry about the official inquiry in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette 9 January 1871 makes no indication that it was a military ship. "circumstances connected with the stranding and destruction by natives of the British brig Escape on the Coast of Formosa, on October 2, when on a voyage from Newchang for Hong Kong." The Captain was Thomas Lloyd. It has a long and detailed description of the events in the newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Think she was a merchant. this report gives a registry number (43847) and notes she was carrying Chinese-owned cargo. She was wrecked on Pak-sa Point - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Presumably the brig Escape on page 192 of the 1870 Lloyd's Register, built in Jersey 1861 and owned by Lewis of Liverpool. It's noted as being wrecked and doesn't appear on the 1871 register - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The Glasgow Daily Herald of 10 January 1871 says it was a court of inquiry (presumably a Court of Marine Inquiry), perhaps a misprint in the Portsmouth Telegraph? - Dumelow (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks all, especially Dumelow. Have managed to find the Glasgow Herald report via Gale News Vault, which I have access to. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Would a battle flag be considered a 2D or 3D work?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm aware that 2D art that's old enough can fall under public domain, but I'm not sure if a battle flag would be considered 2D or 3D. I've found a source related to the Missouri Secretary of State that has pictures of the Missouri State Museum's collection of ACW Missouri battle flags, and would like to add them to some of those Missouri CSA unit article's I've created. If these 1860s flags would be considered 2D, then images of them would be faithful representation of public domain art I believe and would be PD as well. However, if it's 3D art, things get a lot more complex with licensing and I don't think many would be usable. I've personally seen both arguments used and I don't know which is correct. Hog Farm Bacon 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't those be long since PD by date (and possibly by country, since the CSA kinda hasn't existed since 1865)? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

South African regiments renamed

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

In July 2019, a number of South African Army regiments were renamed as per this link. Now, I was going to clean up all the articles concerning the regiments and input the new name into the infobox/header, however I was wondering, whether the article titles themselves should be changed? For example should the Transvaal Scottish Regiment be moved to the Solomon Mahlangu Regiment? Obviously, these units have been know by their old names for the majority of their existence, but WP:MILMOS states that newest name should be used, yet it could be argued that these regiments are more commonly known by their old names. Any input would be helpful. Thanks – SmartyPants22 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving them. As I understand it, most of these reserve units aren't particularly well known and the rationale for changing their names given by the South African Government carries a lot of weight as well (e.g., we don't want to be seen as encouraging the use of unit names the South African Army has discarded on the grounds that they are a legacy of the Apartheid era and not reflective of the military history of the majority of South Africa's population). Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D @Peacemaker67. Alright, thanks for your input guys. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Endorse Nick-D's view. Also, these pages are pretty sparse, mostly. There's lots more to be added to the pages about virtually all these units, both pre and post 1994. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the guidelines and do what is best for the articles. If sourcing and policy support name changes, then it should be done for those reasons, and not out concern for WP's appearance in a social justice context. - wolf 18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the page moves carried out, it is probably best for current regiments to reflect their current formal names (from MILMOS: "The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature."). In this case many of these units have long and distinguished histories under their former names and were the regiments to disband in the near future I would support a return to their former names as the more common. The Natal Carbineers is an interesting case (perhaps unique?) of a regiment being renamed after a unit which they fought against. The Carbineers played a not insignificant role in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War and a party of around platoon strength formed part of the British right flank at the Battle of Isandlwana, where they were almost completely wiped out. The Zulu left flank, against which they fought, was formed from the uVe and INgobamakhosi regiments - Dumelow (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that a number of these regiments are actually very well-known to students of Commonwealth military history. I'd be very wary of moving them to new names that they've had for a few months rather than names they've had for over a century. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Necrothesp - many of these units have a direct lineage from The Somme and Delville Wood in WWI to Abyssinia Campaigns, North Africa / Western Desert and the Battles in Italy in WWII. If moved, there must be a redirect that will allow readers to easily locate the unit by referencing the WWI or WWII unit name. Farawayman (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Our units guideline specifically makes clear the article should be at the current title. And yes, all the previous names should have redirects and be given the correct Category:Military units and formations established in 1938 (or whatever date) and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 2019 categories. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Daniel R. Nichols

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Daniel R. Nichols. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from MILHIST could help this editor out. Draft:Daniel R. Nichols seems at first glance like it might meet WP:NSOLDIER, but I’m not sure and there might also be some COI editing involved given the description given for the infobox file and some of the others uploaded to Commons by this editor. Maybe someone could also help explain WP:CONSENT or figure out whether any of these photos might be {{PD-USGov-Army}}. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Toward a more welcoming Wikipedia

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

Hello, gang.

Since Mil Hist is possibly the most organized and active WikiProject, and since it's one for which I do frequent work, I wanted to open up the conversation here.

It has been my observation that Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly stagnant community. We still have our regular editors who have been here forever and are still diligently working, but new blood has dropped off, as has a lot of the conviviality that made WP a welcoming place back in the day.

I'm fairly new here, despite my ancient first-edit date. I didn't really start editing in earnest until about two years ago. I floundered at first, figuring out the Wikipedia style. I'm a professional space historian with thousands of articles to my credit, but I hadn't done encyclopedias before. The review process was intimidating.

I was fortunate to have been mentored and helped by a trio of great editors: @Kees08:, @Gog the Mild:, and @Balon Greyjoy: who very patiently made suggestions and improved articles I was working on (rather than just telling me what I did wrong; they let me learn by their example). They gave encouraging praise and pretty barnstars. Because of their support, I stuck with the project, and now I like to think I'm one of the more accomplished of the (scanty) new crop of Wikipedians. This is what I've managed thus far, most of it just in the last year.

With the departure of Kees08, things have gotten a lot chillier for new Wikipedians, at least in the Spaceflight and Mil Hist communities. I've been working hard to recruit new contributors, either by bringing in external writers who are new to WP, or tapping existing editors who have been mostly at the fringes. But it's been tough. I just lost one today -- when I let him out into the wild and he attempted to GA one of his articles, the reception was demoralizing. It's not that the suggestions people made were necessarily bad, but they were framed in ways that were discouraging and highly critical, especially for someone new to the process.

For example, here I nominated the new Wikipedian's article for GA for him since he's new, and it was summarily reversed, the article's assessment expressed in completely discouraging rather than encouraging tones. The subtext reads as "You submitted it wrong, and the article sucks anyway." Better phrasing might have been "Do you have connection to this article despite your name not being associated with it? Also, while the article has merit and I can see the author put significant work into it, it could use improvement in the following areas before it's ready for GA status (and if the editor be new, I'll be happy to offer advice and assistance.)"

The second attempt can be found here, in which Balon offers a fine review. However, I don't think "this article needs a lot of work. I would currently put it at B or C class. It doesn't do a comprehensive job of discussing Crippen and his career;" was necessary. It dismisses the work done thus far, and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. When I do reviews, I tend to start positive and end positive so as not to dispirit the editor.

Most new Wikipedians aren't going to have the experience and skills that I do and thus have the interest or stamina to become regular editors unless we go the extra mile to help them adapt.

We have to remember that not all of us are grizzled veterans. It doesn't hurt to be friendly, to praise what's good in an article while noting what can be improved. It doesn't help to be brusque or demeaning. It is important to remember that tone never carries well in a text-only medium. "Assuming good faith" is extra tough for newbies unfamiliar with the process.

Now, you may be thinking at this point: "Why should we coddle new editors? They can sink or swim just like I did."

I get where you're coming from if you're thinking that. After all, this is a volunteer gig for you, too. You've only got so much energy to spend, and your experienced comrades require less of it since they already know the ropes. But the consequence of that sentiment is what we are seeing: increased barrier to entry, greater attrition for existing editors, and a declining number of new editors to replace and augment the community. If we can't recruit and maintain new editors, we will eventually fall below the minimum needed to maintain Wikipedia. I'm already seeing this happen in Spaceflight.

Even as a somewhat experienced editor, I have been adversely affected by the growing chilliness at Wikipedia: Despite doing a lot of reviews and producing dozens of solid articles, this last year I've gotten barely a notice for my work. Often, I don't even get a "thank you" for my reviews. I've done my best to be positive and improving for editors, giving out praise and awards (many of which I've made myself), but such overtures are often ignored. I recognize virtue is its own reward, but it's a bit dispiriting to put positive energy out into the community and get virtually none back.

More than any other Project, Mil Hist has the potential to reverse this trend. What does Mil Hist do to welcome and encourage new Wikipedians? How does it keep current ones engaged? I know there's a "Best New Editor" and "Best Editor" although even those can be more negative than positive as they create clear "Winners" and "Losers." I've been trying to greet every new person who joins Spaceflight, and also to give out merit awards for contributions. Are there folks who do that on this project? Who is actively maintaining the community, making editors feel valued and appreciated, maintaining the espirit d'corps?

I'm going to be bringing on more apprentice editors this year. I'm hoping that, if all of us work together, we can make a community that welcomes and retains these and other new editors so that Wikipedia does not ossify.

I welcome, encourage, and look forward to your thoughts. Please let me know if my experience mirrors yours or if I'm missing something.

Thank you for listening. :)

--Neopeius (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: I think telling a new editor to nominate an article for GA is way too high of a bar to set. My first GA nomination had a snowflake's chance in hell of succeeding and it took for me quite a while to figure out how it is to be done. One must first be able to bring at least a dozen articles to B class before attempting such a thing.--Catlemur (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a point. I had 14 articles formally assessed as B class at MilHist and copy edited 160,000 words for GoCE before I got my first GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind for the future! :) This is perhaps a topic for a different place (I don't want to lose the main thread) but it would seem to me that B and GA aren't that far apart, and if an article merits a B, it probably merits a GA. --Neopeius (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been editing WP since 2013. I do it out of a strong personal drive to put material on my favorite subjects in a public forum. I have not sought recognition and have received little. I haven't nominated anything for GA or higher because I fear the emotional stress. I edit mostly in two areas, the US Army's coastal defense history and US Navy ship class articles 1884–1945 (except battleships, well covered by WP:OMT). Few others edit in these areas (especially US coast defense), thus I've received little positive or negative feedback, which is fine with me. I'm just saying that not every new editor expects recognition, though all could use help. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@RobDuch: Why not write a Bugle OP-ED on US coast defense? It's not a subject one comes across much these days, since the days of the United States fearing foreign blockade and invasion are somewhat past, and I'm sure many people would find it interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't remember receiving much mentor-ship early in my Wikipedia-career, and I'd say that it turned out decently-- albeit after a fair number of mis-steps. With that being said, I'm sure there are quite a few people who helped me along the way that I've forgotten, and I was honestly rather lonely on-wiki for several years. I try to be extra nice and understanding to newer users, hopefully playing a little role in helping them out, though I could be doing a much better job of that. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
As much as WP:Milhist may be a relatively welcoming environment, my feeling is that these days many newbies have pet projects that they immediately want to bring to GA/FA and aren't prepared to invest the time and effort in learning the systems. They tend to be easily put off when other editors make improvements to their work, regardless of how well that is articulated. Not sure what the solution is other than to ensure that we as a project continue to encourage new editors, while making sure they can walk before they go running. I took a lot of articles to B-Class before even considering going onto GA or A-Class. In fact, it has only been in the last 18 months that I plucked up the courage to go to FA, and that is after nearly 10 years of being on Wikipedia! PM, I totally agree with the suggestion to modify the welcome template. Zawed (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As a new Wikipedian in English Wikipedia, I think it is hard to make a new article, and it is also hard to make review for articles which exists. I think it has two reasons. First, I came here because I am interested in Mil His. Of course I can review some articles, but mainly I don't know how to. New Wikipedians have to understand the policies, and we should check for the historical facts, and we should view for the references to make our views much clear. It is quite difficult and complicated for new Wikipedians to reviewing articles. Second, it is hard to know which Wikipedians are new, and which Wikipedians are old (I don't think old is quite right word in here). So it is important to make agora to cooperate each other. We can use online meetings, make Task Force, or adopt Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user system to connect editors. Well, I believe Mil His can become successful experiment agora if we start workshop to make this place much better. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, @웬디러비: I must say, I've never seen "agora" used that way, but I understand what you're saying. :) I generally welcome people as soon as they add themselves as members to Spaceflight. I also try to reach out to folks who have worked on articles that I contribute to as I imagine we have common interests. I would be happy to help you with articles you are working on. As for reviews, I'm afraid that does seem to be a skill that comes with practice. As @Hawkeye7: can attest to, I was glacially slow on my first FA for him and lightning quick on my second. @RobDuch: I do understand that being judged can be stressful, and indeed, my first FA was a drawn out and difficult (though rewarding!) process. G.A. should not be, and if it is, I wonder if our GAs are too rigorous. GA is essentially reviewed B class, as far as I can tell. That said, I also understand that we don't want to sacrifice the high standards of quality we've achieved. All I can say, Rob, and anyone else afraid of submitting articles for review, is that once you've done one review, they all get much easier. You learn by doing. :)
As for working diligently without expectation of reward, that's admirable. :) I still love the awards. Every one of them.
Thanks, everyone, for taking my letter seriously and responding. It means a lot to me. --Neopeius (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the easiest way to learn how to review a GA is to follow along with one, preferably with the knowledge of the reviewer. Read the article and then the reviewer's comments and see if you can follow why they made the comments that they did or ignored things that you thought needed to be addressed. If they're agreeable, ask 'em to explain whatever comments you didn't understand; they might be policy or WP:MOS (Manual of Style) issues that you're not aware of. You needn't actually know anything about the subject of the article being reviewed, but an outsider's perspective can be very handy as it can be hard for a subject-matter expert to write for a more general audience like the readers here.
And once you've followed some reviews and perhaps even done a few yourself, you'll have a far better idea of what a GA-quality article looks like and what it should and shouldn't have in it. The same process can be done at A-class and Featured Article reviews as well.
I'd also suggest just reading through the GA or better-quality articles in your particular specialty/interests, they may very well serve as a model for your own work. I based my first FA-class articles on other FAs in terms of how to structure things and the appropriate level of detail. It was also helpful in avoiding getting tripped up by MOS issues. Now they're ingrained in my writing style and the only difference between my GAs and FAs is how deep I want to dive into the sources and maybe fuss over the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent ideas there, Sturm. I have to say I disagree with Neopeius that the Milhist B-Class and GA criteria are close. They are actually quite far apart, especially in regards to MOS issues, but also with content requirements, especially if the subject is at all controversial. I have had several easy B bios hit a major hurdle at GA which they have never gotten over because of a lack of coverage of all aspects of the life of the subject (which I have come to agree with over time, as it reflects GA criteria 3a, which is clearly more onerous than B2). Also, B-Class rarely involves an image review, and there are many images in B-Class articles that would not pass a GAN image licensing check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that feedback, Peacemaker67. I hadn't considered the extra rigor demanded of biographies. --Neopeius (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
From my experience, this also applies to non-bios as well. The GA comprehensiveness is just higher. Barrett's Missouri Battery in its current incarnation has been assessed as B-class, but it would likely fail the GA comprehensiveness due to my inability to turn up detailed post-Chickamauga information. B-class is a lot easier to get to than GA, but it's still a good accomplishment. So I'd recommend pointing most newer editors towards B-class at first, and then working up to GA. Although keep in mind that a one-size fits all approach won't work for everyone. Some take longer to get the hang of article writing, others take shorter. I second Sturm's comment about watching or performing reviews above. GA reviewing really helped me hone my GA skills. Hog Farm Bacon 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about organization of articles on dynasties

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a general question about how articles about dynasties (including articles within this project) are organized, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Organization of articles on dynasties. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 19:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Nagorno-Karabakh War

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A Request for Comments is in progress on identifying the belligerents and non-state actors in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#RFC_on_Infobox_(Listing_of_Parties) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lend a hand?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day all, it is mid-month, and time to knock over the remaining human checks of Milhistbot's December work. Any assistance with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for December would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! For the coords, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Raised at WP:MPE and WT:DYK#Current DYK: John Reynolds, It appears that Francis Reynolds (Royal Navy officer) and Francis Reynolds-Moreton, 3rd Baron Ducie are one and the same. Amakuru has suggested a history merge of the two articles. Suggest any discussion of this issue is best kept at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Current DYK: John Reynolds. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Thrasybulus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable articles clean-up

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just reviving this as it was recently archived. You can find a list of MilHist articles tagged for notability reasons here (let the page load, PetScan may take 30 seconds or so to complete the query). It currently stands at 424 articles, reduced from 558 at the start of the month thanks to the work of several project members. You can help by reviewing the articles: remove the notability tag if the article meets the guidelines (you may need to add additional reliable sources) or else nominate the articles for deletion, citing a reason from the notability guidelines. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated Robert Saint George Dyrenforth for a merger, users here may be interested in weighing in.
thanks for bringing this list back, Dumelow, I'll try to get through some more. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Likewise I've proposed Coast Guard Officers' Sword is merged into Model 1852 Naval Officers Sword and would welcome any comments - Dumelow (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian historiography

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm looking to salvage some information on Russian/Soviet military historiography from ru:Кронштадтское восстание (1921)#Оценка_событий. Историография but I don't know the language and cannot verify the citations. Are there any Russian-reading milhist editors with topical interest that might be interested in helping? (please {{ping}}) czar 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: I can help.--Catlemur (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kges1901: @Ezhiki: please consider assisting. Also I run Google Translate on other wiki language articles all the time.. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone fancy reviewing Draft:Christie M1931?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I came across Draft:Christie M1931 on one of J Walter Christies influential designs and got a bit carried away improving it to the extent that I reckon it's more or less fit for mainspace with a fair number of articles pointing to Christie M1931 already. As I'm not a reviewer, I can't take advantage of the clever tools to shift it into use and automagically update AfC lists, notify the original creator etc and so forth. And as it's sat there since October with no-one taking an interest, it might be a while before anyone gets round to looking at it - so if there's a member of the project with who is a review could give it the thumbs up (yeah!) or down (boo!), that would be much appreciated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: I think you should take a look at other tank articles such as T-34, M4 Sherman, Tiger II or Cromwell tank for making basic lines of paragraph. Maybe you can add more features about M1931 through comparing draft with other article. Or you can look Panzer VIII Maus, T20 Medium Tank or IS-7 which are all articles about tank prototype. I really want to thank you for your edition. But I think we have to develop it much far. conclusion is not sure... Half-thumb up, maybe? -- Wendylove (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's good enough as a start, and as a live article it'll get more attention than stuck in draft. As I said, I'd happily shift it to mainspace myself but there are tools which I don't have that make a clean job of the move. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's now been assessed and moved to mainspace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett, For future reference you can post at WP:RM/TR to request the assistance of an administrator or page mover in carrying out a move. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Otto Skorzeny § Funeral

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Otto Skorzeny § Funeral. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Orbat naming discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a RM discussion at Talk:Raymond Confederate order of battle that has the potential to set a bit of a precedent. Orbats are titled in many different ways, and I think it's probably best to address orbat titling consistency. Please participate at this discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Structural history of the Roman military for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

I think the definition of WP:SOLDIER is a bit too narrow. I think it should include individuals who have a warship named after them. In the U.S. Navy, Destroyers have been named after Navy Cross recipients with only 1 Navy Cross. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Milhist Notability guide is recommendations based on the projects experience and as it says "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline." You can read WP:SOLDIER as a guide as to whether it's worth starting an article on a military person or thing. It also notes that "material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions" isn't generally an independent source as GNG requires. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it should not. The ship is not an "award" and Notability is not inherited from the ship named after them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it is an honor. The notability isn't inherited, the ship was named for the individual based on their merit and notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia notability does not work that way. The "awards and honors" are medals awarded, not 'things named after you'. A ship being named after someone does not indicate Wikinotability. I understand you don't like it, but that's how things work. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, nowhere in WP:GNG does it say that material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions" isn't generally an independent source. It may be the opinion of some of the authors of this essay but that is where it ends. Per WP:SNG, Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards and as a corollary, don't exclude reliable sources.
@Bushranger: we can do without the condescending attitude too. This is a conversation about something I think could be improved, which is one of the fundamentals of "how things work." Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You have me very confused now about where whether or not armed forces material was considered an independent sources or about reliable sources being excluded came up, because literally nothing was said about that [ed: by me]. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Literally it was. You have to read. See Graeme's comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
...then why were you repling to me about it? Anyway as Peacemaker points out below - DoD sources on U.S. military affairs are primary sources. They can be used to establish facts; they cannot be used to establish notability as they are not independent of the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that SOLDIER is an essay, the long-term consensus of this project reflected in SOLDIER is that a single second-level gallantry award is insufficient to give a presumption of notability, which can help a new article survive long enough to be expanded on enough to meet the GNG. To be retained long-term, a bio still needs to meet the GNG, and plain Defense Department or single service sources like press releases or website posts that don't involve input from historians are not independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The whole "it's only an essay" thing is really tiresome at this point. We don't say "it's only consensus" (at least I really really hope we don't), but apparently compiling that consensus onto a page so that it can easily be referred to somehow renders it invalid. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with the majority here, that a single Navy Cross, while it might get a sailor or marine a ship named for them, it might not necessarily be enough to have a BLP page named for them. But that said, I appreciate where Toddst1 is coming from, and at the end of the day, it would have to come down to the individual. It's entirely possible for a Navy Cross recipient to have enough secondarily and reliably sourced notable info about their heroic act or other life events to merit a BLP.
(btw: "We don't say "it's only consensus" (at least I really really hope we don't)" - perhaps "we" don't, but some do, if said consensus is just from a WikiProject talk page and not from an MOS talk page. Just sayin') - wolf 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Certainly and absolutely, if GNG is met, nothing else matters. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's reverse the question: Have we found that in the vast majority of cases, a Navy Cross recipient with a ship a ship named after them has enough coverage in reliable sources to create a reasonable article? That's the criterion for addition to WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Good question but I don't think that there's sufficient data for that question to be answered yet. On one hand we have all the names listed under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Henry_Allen and on the other during WWII, the USN had a lot of ships named after Navy men killed in combat. eg the 80 John_C._Butler-class_destroyer_escort ( of which - picked at random - one namesake Henry W. Tucker is reliant solely on DANFS for sourcing at moment) and then there's the 90 Gearing-class destroyers and the 50 Allen M. Sumner-class destroyers. So we've a lot of work ahead to even assess if half of those recipients have/can/should meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
And it's not like being namesake of a ship has major hurdles to clear. Sometimes all you have to do is get elected to Congress! Jokes aside, there are a lot of these namesake articles that are "enlisted sailor died in the line of duty and a ship was named after him". They deserve respect and honor, yes, but respect and honor =/= notbility, and given the sheer numbers of ships named after people it comes THIS close to being run of the mill. And, with all good faith assumed but at the same time calling it as it is, my gut is telling me this is, if not an intentional attempt at a runaround of the "Heroic Soldier = Wikipedia Article" that SOLDIER was made to put a lid on, it's a feature-not-bug side-effect... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Having put a number of single Navy Cross recipients with a ship named after them up for AFD, I believe that the correct approach is WP:GNG, i.e. is there SIGCOV in multiple RS? If yes then a separate page should be retained, if not then the page should be a redirect to the ship. WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay setting out presumptions of notability. Just meeting one of the presumptions without SIGCOV in multiple RS means the subject isn't sufficiently notable to have a page, while failing all presumptions but having SIGCOV in multiple RS means that the subject is sufficiently notable to have a page. Personally I think that most of the presumptions in SOLDIER are reasonable, but its far from a complete current consensus, for example we treat Flying aces as notable, but they're not mentioned in SOLDIER, nor are submarine "aces" and we have far too many pages of one and two Stars who did nothing and have no SIGCOV in multiple RS, but which are often retained because some Users treat SOLDIER as a guideline, which it clearly isn't. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict - and I think I'm saying similar to just above this) I think this comes to what WP:Soldier is for. On the one hand, if someone asks "Should I write an article on this person who was in the war", we say "go read WP:Soldier". Though that only comes up when editors ask first, or come across WP:Soldier. On the other when it comes to deletion discussions we use it to say "well someone who only did that in the war probably won't reach notability threshold, come up with some good cites to sources or the article gets shown the door" or "yup, they're probably well-covered somewhere even if the references are sketchy at the moment". Though the latter still needs its sourcing fixed - WP:Soldier is not carte blanche to write an article based on one paragraph in a book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Example

Just noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin Walsh, an O-6 Navy Cross recipient and namee of USS Quentin Walsh (DDG-132) as a possible example of what's being discussed here and the real outcome of enforcing said guidance. (I believe only an admin can now see what was deleted and why.) fyi - wolf 11:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably either a DANFS entry (possibly via Hazegray), or something like Ralph Houser which is mostly the medal citation.
It would probably be a useful adjunct to the project guidelines, that if one finds that an entity (ship, aircraft, fortress, airbase, vehicle) is named after someone and the someone doesn't pass GNG for an article themselves that Merge is considered in the AfD nomination. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the deleted content of Quentin Walsh, it was a longer bunch of mainly uncited text only supported to two DOD documents. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The article was a copy paste of this Coastguard blog entry with the medal citation tagged on the end - Dumelow (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lisa Nowak needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lisa Nowak; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Revolt of the Admirals; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Uganda–Tanzania War needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Uganda–Tanzania War; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tracked motorcycle

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we have an article on this tracked motorcycle? It's different to the Sd.Kfz. 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Correcting an article with original research

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all, I've posed a bit of a quandary over at Operation Deadstick, where I believe Wikipedia is promulgating a myth, but one that at the moment, can only be challenged with original research. Views on how to deal with this would be especially welcome. Talk:Operation Deadstick#Appropriateness of Operation Deadstick as article title. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and I strongly suggest other editors also bring their opinion on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Just made a couple articles for some minor RNZN ships, could someone give me some feedback/advice for the future?

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Howdy, new to wikipedia editing but decided to try create a few articles for RNZN ships that haven't had articles created yet, so far I've done the HS Maunganui and HMNZS Mako. As I'm new I tried to look at some other articles before contributing but if there's any structure I missed or just something I could do better I would appreciate feedback, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiwiSpike1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome KiwiSpike1, and thanks for your work on these ships! Great to see someone working on Kiwi navy articles. We have a few resident gurus on warship articles, including Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66, who I’m sure will give you a steer in the right direction. In the meantime, take a look at the guidance at WP:SHIPMOS and take a look at some of the Featured ship articles listed at WP:MARITIME to see the standard we are striving towards. When you have developed the articles a bit more, added some more sources and a structure, I recommend you ask for an assessment and feedback at WP:MHAR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to put a fly in the ointment, but is HS Maunganui the same ship as TSS Maunganui? They were both the same length. Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out.KiwiSpike1 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article (I assume based on the NMRNZN source) says HS was 30 yrs old, and the age of TSS matches, but the other details seem different, in addition to the fact TSS is said to have been a troopship... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think they're the same vessel. This book has the same construction date/builder and post-war career as our troopship article and looks to be the same from the photo (some of the dims are different though). It states that the troopship served as a hospital ship in WWII - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
See also here: "In January, 1941, the Maunganui was taken over by the New Zealand government for conversion into a hospital ship, primarily to serve the needs of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary force. This fine old shup, then thirty years of age, had served throughout the First World War as a troopship" - Dumelow (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the gross tonnage numbers match from my source to the TSS Maunganui article. I might try merge them soon.KiwiSpike1 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@KiwiSpike1 and Dumelow: Then a merge between the two articles should be done... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Belgian SOR

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all. Can a military expert look into Special Operations Regiment (Belgium) and Immediate Reaction Cell? There are a couple things that are confusing about their lineage: Both articles cover the Light Brigade, (the infobox of) the second article mentions the SOR but does not mention 'Immediate Reaction Cell'. 7th Brigade (Belgium) redirects to the SOR article but this old version content is gone... Thanks in advance, cheers LittleWink (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@LittleWink:, I think you are right that they overlap. The SOR is one of the two surviving brigades of the modern Land Component and is the direct successor of (i) the Para-Commando Brigade, (ii) Immediate Reaction Cell and finally the (iii) Light Brigade. A merger seems sensible. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been aware of this for a while, but with lots of other things on, did not actually merge the two. Go ahead, making sure that all worthwhile content under all designations of the organisation is maintained in the final result. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Merging of Podporucznik to Podporuchik

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please express your opinion in Talk:Podporucznik#Merge_to_Podporuchik about merging similar ranks in Slavic militaries. Does this wikiproject have any regulations for this kind of issue? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to discuss about WW2 belligerents problem.

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Fragmented discussion - see big section above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

There are two problems which has a conflict in users.

1. Whether USSR is Axis or not in WW2

2. Big Three& Big Four problem

I think many users have quite reasonable to explain their thoughts, but this doesn't seem to end, so we need to put our efforts to get this argue done. I think user of WikiProject Military history can give their own view, especially who is working for WW2 articles. By hearing from others we may get another view or we can find facts that was clouded by discussion. Why don't we talk these topics at this agora? Let's show what collective intelligence is! -- Wendylove (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed above. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone argues for 1. Only argument is whether USSR was ally. Volunteer Marek 18:01, 27 January 2021 (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.

Mark C. Yerger

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clearly, this author is in the wrong, but the article about him is rather messy and does not read very well (at-least in my opinion)

Can somebody who is better versed in this area of history try and take a look?

Mfernflower (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: MAC-11 and MAC-10

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article MAC-11 be merged into the article MAC-10. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for MAC-10. Thank you!

--Loafiewa (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone. I would ask connoisseurs of military history to say: Should Pir's victory Battle of Vukovar be on the Military Disaster List? here is the talk page [[2]] ,and here are the changes [[3]]. Thanks89.172.24.203 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors trying to revise articles to state that the USSR was part of the Axis

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments10 people in discussion
Nothing further to be gained here. All comments should be directed to the thread "Infobox" on the Axis powers talk page. - wolf 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Some editors are trying to revise Allies of World War II and Axis powers (here as well) to state that the USSR was one of the Axis powers, rather than the Allies. FYI. François Robere (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My first reaction was "Oh well, just mundane vandalism". But then I looked and some names of rather experienced editors there: don't tell me there's an actually serious discussion being had about this? In which case everybody involved should get a WP:TROUT for what must surely be an excessive amount of WP:SYNTH... - Soviets might have been in negotiations for a short moment with the Nazis (Ribbentrop-Molotov et al.), but really they were never part of the Axis and there's no serious history book which suggests otherwise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Soviet Union from 1937 to 1941 didn't have consistent policy toward Axis. If you see, Soviet Union supported ROC in Second Sino-Japanese War, and they had battle with Japan at Khalkhin Gol and with Romania during occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. We cannot conclude which side Soviet was before 1941, because its policy was dueled, and that is the reason why we cannot put Soviet Union as Axis power and Co-belligerent of Axis power. -- Wendylove (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Just people trying to push Polish nationalist POV at all cost.--Catlemur (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
How about you stop it with offensive and obnoxious personal attacks Catlemur? Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS say they were actually part of the axis powers?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As I understand the discussion, it is a question of whether the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis for part of the war, before becoming a member of the Allies, eg not unlike Finland. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Gog the Mild. Yes, that's what the discussion is about. It is NOT about what Francois Robere is pretending it's about. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, @웬디러비: User:François Robere characterization of this disagreement is 100% false. NO ONE IS TRYING TO CATEGORIZE USSR AS AN AXIS POWER. Sorry for the all caps but it's extremely frustrating to watch FR repeatedly keep trying to frame the disagreement this way, asking them to stop since that is not the disagreement, then him do it again and again and again. The persistence in portraying it at this point has become disruptive.

The discussion is about whether the Soviet Union can be described as an "ally" or "co-belligerent" of Nazi Germany in the period 1939-1941.

Francois Robere, stop it. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what the disagreement is about just to win an argument on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

------------->diff, the Soviet Union was added as a State that adhered to the Tripartite Pact to the infobox of Axis powers.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah he should've put that in the "co-belligerents" section and I expect things got confused because of all the reverting and restoring to older sections. But the content of the edit itself is correct. Volunteer Marek 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: The title of Piotrus's message is Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?.[4] He then states multiple times that the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. You then state that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact.[5] If it seems like your point is misunderstood, then next time instead of casting aspersions try checking what you did wrong. François Robere (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What did I do wrong exactly? If you are accusing me of something then, please, be explicit. You're the only one casting aspersions here.
Soviet Union did agree to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940.
Soviet Union did NOT join the Tripartite Pact because Hitler changed his mind and never replied to Stalin's agreement.
The distinction between "agreed to join" and "joined" has already been explained to you several times. You keep ignoring it and pretending that I said that USSR did join it. I didn't say that. Stop misrepresenting what this discussion is about. Stop misrepresenting what I said. I shouldn't have to ask you repeatedly to stop making false claims about other editors' and their statements. You should be doing that already on your own. Volunteer Marek 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I suggest you listen to Slatersteven and stop making these accusations.[6] I do not view kindly being accused of dishonesty. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't care how you take it. Stop doing it. That's it. That's all you have to do. Don't claim people said one thing when they said another. And especially don't do it after you've been asked to stop repeatedly. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I obviously read that discussion very different from you, but arguing about it would be a futile endeavour, so instead I offer you these words of wisdom: If you think that this person did something wrong then report them. Don't try to use it as an excuse for your own behavior. Seriously, strike that personal attack.[7] François Robere (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And are there reliable sources which state that the Axis powers and the USSR were co-belligerents? A quick search throws up Shirer (Rise and Fall p. 629) "... though they were accomplices of Nazi Germany in wiping ancient Poland off the map, the Russians were ..." A couple of other writers seem to avoid going so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources which state that Nazi Germany and USSR were either co-belligerents or allies (gimme a sec here to post them). The question is how that relates to the relationship between Axis Powers and USSR. I would really like to hear a good proposal on how to capture the thrust of the idea that USSR was an ally/co-belligerent of Nazi Germany but not Axis Powers as a whole. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This source [8] refers to Soviet Union as a "co-belligerent of Nazi Germany". So does this one [9]
Most other sources use the term "ally": [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with François Robere. You guys say that none of you had insisted on "USSR is Axis power", but what you try to say and what you try to do makes me feel that how ironic that your statement was. You guys are only focusing on that Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Yes, it is historic event. But it is only "Nazi Germany" things. This is what we call "You can not see the wood for the trees." Narrow view, Narrow perspective. I think you guys mislead others by only focusing on relationship between Nazi Germany and USSR. If you want to put co-belligerents, why don't you find other resources which describes Italy-USSR relation or Japan-USSR relation, or even concurrent events that happened in 1939 to 1941 related to other Axis countries. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And my conclusion is that those who insist on Soviet is co-belligerent or former Axis power are just focusing on Nazi Germany-Soviet relations which may seem not neutral, and Nazi Germany is not sole country of main Axis power, so it is not right to discuss on Allies or Axis section. It should be discussed on German-Soviet Union relation or Nazi-Soviet Union relation, which fits to those arguments. -- Wendylove (talk)

And we do not need to have this discussion in 15 separate places, can we please discuss this at the relevant articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just came to say the same thing. What a train-wreck. That page needs to go back to QUO, and then admin-level locked until a consensus on the content is reached on that article's talk page. The only thing that should've been posted here was a notice of the discussion, (or RfC), there. - wolf 20:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Please stop fragmenting this between 3 pages (one of which has two open sections on it!). If you absolutely think this should go here, then come to agreement to halt the existing discussions on the 2 article talk pages and then submit an RfC here: otherwise having to track 3 different locations is very likely not a very productive way to go about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @François Robere: As this edit you have posted four comments to this page, but you have edited them five times, quite significantly in some cases, and all after others have responded to you. This is a violation of the Talk Page Guidelines and needs to stop. If you feel the need to further alter any of your comments, then consult the guideline on how to do so, otherwise you are causing possible misrepresentations, both on your part and those that have responded after. - wolf 22:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know about "comments", but the one you cite I edited before it was replied to, and you can see that in the diff (and yes - the edits were significant, since I wanted to produce something that is as cordial as possible even in the face of repeated PAs). If you think I've done anything improper you're welcome to my TP so we can discuss it. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"Comments" means plural, (more than one). As I had stated, at the time of the edit you had posted four (4) comments, this is readily seen in this thread and supported by the page history. There was at least one comment in thread posted before your changes, and direct reply or not, changes to comments at that point are bad form. But then again, this thread, like the overall discussion, has become a train-wreck. This really needs to be moved to the new "Infobox" thread on the Axis powers tp. - wolf 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I started a separate section to discuss general criteria for in/exclusion of co-belligerents in the Axis infobox, but people seem to be too obsessed with in/exclusion of the USSR. I would be grateful if other users commented on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2021 (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.

Poor quality US army articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, in the ongoing NN article cleanup, I'm coming across quite a few articles (such as: VIRTE, Deployable Virtual Training Environment, Joint Semi-Automated Forces, USACEWP) that are on parts of the US armed forces and are just in terrible shape. I haven't really found any coverage to indicate that they are notable, but does anyone have more expertise to weigh in? Could they be merged anywhere, perhaps? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikolai Vasilyevich Travin

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:Slatersteven, User:Kges1901, User:Buckshot06: Following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 158#Is WW2 general Nikolai Vasilyevich Travin notable? I cleaned up User:Leaftree1 a bit. There are still issues (mostly a lack of sources) which are difficult for me to fix. The article should be moved to article space before the bots find out that the fair use rationale for the image references an article that doesn't exist yet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Kges1901, and Buckshot06: You mind if I move it to article space now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes do go ahead and move it to Nikolai Travin; I have also translated the stub of Polish Air Defence Force which was among his last assignments. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussed on this page above, is at Talk:Axis powers#RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maurice D. Jester (up for deletion)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coast guards operator that we can find sources. There is some urgency here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with awards and decorations

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I have recently created the article Waverly B. Woodson Jr.. The article has a section on Mr. Woodson's awards and decorations, but currently this is just a list. Any help on formatting it properly, e.g. as seen here, would be appreciated. McPhail (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC review or two needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Charles Green (Australian soldier) is at FAC, nominated by Peacemaker67. It could do with another pair of eyes or twp on it, if anyone could spare the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've claimed a spot. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gog and HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been suggested that the Chemins de Fer d'Aire à Fruges et de Rimeux-Gournay à Berck article, which falls under this WikiProject, is moved. Discussion is taking place at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Sonnenblume

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Operation Sonnenblume. Warning: Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – please check (this message is shown only in preview) Anyone know how to resolve this? My attempts have failed. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes you can ignore these warnings when it's just a difference in opinion as to an entry on Wikidata for the link and what editors on en:wiki have actually picked (this can be due to picking a higher or lower category, or a page move etc). In this case, there doesn't seem to be a commons category and there isn't one listed at the wikidata nor findable by search on Commons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme PS might be able to put my notes for Jericho into the article in a week or two's time.Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Images from the Library of Congress

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is an image hosted online by the Library of Congress with "no known restrictions" going to be usable for an article I'm trying to bring to GA status, or will I need more specific licensing information? Image is at [16]. Hog Farm Talk 21:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the LoC's copyright page: On the item in the Library’s digital collections, look for a statement called “Rights and Access” or “Rights Advisory” ... Items in the public domain may be freely used for any purpose because the rights to reproduce and distribute these materials belong to the public as a whole. These items will be identified as "public domain" or "no known copyright restrictions" in the rights statement. So, since the page says 'no known restrictions', that means it should be tagged on Commons with the PD copyright tag, and useable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm In this case, the answer is yes because it's freely donated by Carol M. Highsmith. Her photographs have been released into the public domain. See commons:Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith. There is even a template:PD-Highsmith. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Highsmith is actually a distant relative of mine. She's very proud of the fact that all of her photos in the LoC are public domain and would be happy that you are using them! -Indy beetle (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of Campaignbox East African (World War I) needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Campaignbox East African (World War I) is chock full of tiny stubs and red links. My initial research suggests that the supposed "Battle of Kiawe Bridge", one of the constituent articles, did not occur on the date claimed by that article and wasn't really even a battle. It would be nice to have help verifying what actually warrants an article and what doesn't. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've detailed the Battle of Karonga a little at Nyasaland_Volunteer_Reserve#Early_actions, I think there's enough coverage for an article and intend on creating one at some point - Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about U.S. National Guard service

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. This is outside my area of expertise, so I figured I'd ask for advice at this WikiProject. Any help would be much appreciated!

Brian Sicknick formerly served on the New Jersey Air National Guard as a staff sergeant. On that article, an editor recently made an edit that replaced the "New Jersey Air National Guard" with "U.S. Air Force" as the "branch", and added an image of the Air Force insignia for staff sergeants. I partially reverted it, but I'm not sure about the rest, so I'd appreciate guidance from someone with more expertise in this area. Is someone who serves on a state's air national guard also part of the federal air force? Edge3 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Air National Guard airmen serve in both the state Air National Guard and the Air Force. Under what is termed "Title 32 orders" they are activated by the governor of the state for service for emergencies like floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, riots and other state emergencies and remain under the control of the state adjutant generals office. They may be sent to another state if there is an agreement with the other state. Under what is termed "Title 10 orders" they are ordered to active duty with the Air Force on federal orders and are no longer under the control of the governor of the state. Under Title 10 orders they may be called on to serve anywhere in the world. Normal Air National Guard weekend drills are not considered active duty time and are supervised by the state adjutant generals office. Air National Guardsmen take two oaths of office, one swearing allegiance to the state and another swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Air National Guardsmen wear the U.S. Air Force uniform and are paid the same wages as the Air Force whether in active state service or active federal service. What is true for the Air National Guard is also true of the Army National Guard. Hope this helps. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wonderful. Thanks so much for the detailed response. So in regards to the Brian Sicknick article, is it appropriate for the infobox to display the Air Force insignia for staff sergeant? Your response seems to indicate that the infobox is correct as-is. I should also note that since my previous message, another editor has added the Air National Guard emblem. Edge3 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Typically rank insignia doesn’t need to be shown in an infobox like that, but the branch should be Air Force, since ANG is a reserve component of it and not itself a military branch or service (members in the ANG wear U.S. Air Force name tapes regardless of title 32 or 10 status). (Could specify state ANG under AF for service) Garuda28 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
not itself a military branch or service This may be slightly muddled as of late, what with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau having a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff now. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Garuda28: Thanks! Could you please take a look at this edit and let me know if it's what you had in mind? If not, is there an example of another notable ANG veteran that I could look at? Edge3 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Mironov

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This NN stub has been tagged for 9 years. If you propose or nominate its deletion, please tag me. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

having a military ship named after you proves notability

Latest comment: 3 years ago29 comments15 people in discussion
Not happening, a clear case of WP:SNOW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

WP:ANYBIO reads: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor

A lot of articles have been nominated for deletion recently with some arguing that having a military ship named after you in recognition of your heroism is a significant honor confirming the person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Others object. I suggest adding this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Suppose or oppose, please state your reasoning below. Dream Focus 09:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I take it "suppose or oppose" means "support or opppse" - wolf 05:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Specifically the text having a military ship named after you in recognition of your heroism is a significant honor confirming the person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in case that wasn't clear. Examples of this happening: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William B. Ault Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold John Ellison Dream Focus 09:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • From memory, this has been discussed here previously. Again from memory, the consensus was the individuals who have had a military ship named after them but lack sufficient references in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO should be covered as part of the article on the ship. I think that this continues to be a good practice. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose Mostly per Nick-D, but I don't see the naming of a minor surface or subsurface combatant in a navy the size of the USN in WWII as creating a presumption of notability. This is essentially a backdoor for single-instance posthumous WWII Navy Cross recipients to vault over the existing presumption that they are not notable per criteria #1 of WP:SOLDIER. From the look of it, the USN named a bunch of minor surface combatants of various sizes after single-instance posthumous Navy Cross recipients, in some cases the ships were not built, or they were in service briefly before being scrapped, and they are after all, quite small ships. Some will say it meets WP:ANYBIO, but not me. These articles should just sink or swim based on the GNG, with no presumption of notability given via WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "Significant award or honor" is referring to things you can wear on your chest. Having a ship named after you is all but run of the mill given how many destroyers were named after "was an Ensign/Private, fought in a battle, died, no other history" namesakes. Heroic, yes. Wikipedia-defined notability, no. And notability is not inherited from the ship, either. As mentioned above this is very clearly an attempt, or would become such, to weasel around the notability standards for "heroes who deserve a Wikipedia page". I'm sympathetic, and as a rule am inclusionist. But people whose only reference is, and can only be, a brief blurb in an obituary (and in one case I saw, not even that, merely referencing the ship's DANFS entry!), should be covered in the ship's article. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and The Bushranger. If the ship's namesake doesn't have SIGCOV in multiple RS they are not notable and don't warrant a standalone page. Their role as namesake can be summarized on the relevant ship page. Most of these recent AFDs are of WWII single Navy Cross recipients and the relevant biographical detail is on the DANFS entry for the ship. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose' on the same basis. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose Can't really add much.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose per above, especially per Nick-D, Peacemaker687, and The Bushranger. There's just too many instances of individuals who thoroughly lack GNG-bringing coverage but would meet this bar. This would simply create a backdoor to rule individuals as notable without them actually having the coverage. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose as listed by Hog Farm, per above Eddie891 Talk Work 20:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose as per above arguments and reasoning. Zawed (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment - some people seem to equate "non-notable" to "non-heroic", or just the idea that someone not meeting the notability requirements is somehow a sign of disrespect. Well, perhaps some people could word their noms and !votes a little more tactfully, but that said, not every ship namesake has enough RS coverage to support an encyclopaedic article. Some people need to better understand the notability guidelines, while others need to remember that even if a namesake doesn't merit his or her own article, they still merit some respect. JMHO - wolf 01:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't see any disrespect when editors say someone isn't notable. I have the greatest respect for someone who was awarded the Navy Cross, it just doesn't give them a presumption of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm sure you don't see any disrespect, but it seems others do, this can be a difficult medium for communicating sometimes. I 100% believe you have respect for these award recipients, and I'm sure just about everyone else here does as well, but in some of the comments here that respect may not always be obvious to the uninitiated. (JMHO) - wolf 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nick-D et. al. Intothatdarkness 02:32, 1 February 2021 (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 suggested in one of those discussions (and suggest again here) that we should have a dedicated List of American military personnel for whom World War II warships were named, and perhaps comparable lists for other eras, and point the names there. BD2412 T 15:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree lists should not be a way of getting around notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Lists have their own established standard for notability. BD2412 T 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, that is (one of) exactly what lists are for: collections of things that are not individually notable but are as a group notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    We basically already have every US Navy ship listed, I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out which ships are named after war heroes and of those people, who has an article and who doesn't. Should someone want to work that out on a page, list or table somewhere, I don't see how that would be violating any policies, nor how anyone could tell said someone that they 'can't do it'. (JMHO) - wolf 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - @BD2412:@The Bushranger: I noticed today that the article relating to Ensign Robert E. Brister was deleted after the action Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Brister was closed as delete and the article USS Brister fails to include any mention of Ensign Brister. No mention of why the ship was named Brister or who Brister was or why the Navy thought his actions were significant enough to name a ship after him. This is an all to common occurrence and leaves the reader with the question of "just who in the hell was Brister?" This is happening way too many times to ship articles because the persons so eager to sponsor Article for Deletion actions do not want to do the editing process of putting the biographical information in the ship article. I would support creation of a list article similar to the one proposed by BD2412 if only to identify who was honored and a short reason why they were honored. Once upon a time, an article existed that stated what Brister did to deserve the naming of a commissioned ship after him. Some editor or editors actually did the research and created an article on Brister, but that information no longer exists because the article was deleted and the information wasn't included in the ship article. I am not contesting the deletion action, I am questioning the actions of those who don't follow through with what information is literally right in front of them and they ignore it as unimportant to the reader. The rush to delete lower ranking military personnel articles that have ships named after them but did something heroic doesn't only include World War II ships. The whole U.S. Coast Guard Sentinel-class cutter series of articles that are specifically named for enlisted Coast Guardsmen who were notable as far as the Coast Guard is concerned but would fail Wikipedia notability guidelines. I am seriously considering writing a list article named perhaps List of Sentinel-class cutters and their namesakes. I would entertain any suggestions or advice relating to non-recognized namesakes and the ships that they were named for. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cuprum17: I was thinking of doing something similar with another class of ships. Be interested to see what you come up with. Cheers - wolf 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Cuprum17 most of the WWII ship pages are based almost entirely on the DANFS entry which usually contains a bio of the namesake and that same DANFS entry is often the only or one of the few sources for the namesake pages. I agree that a short para about the ship namesake should be included on the ship page. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you think it is better to organize such lists around types of ships rather than periods of service? BD2412 T 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    That would be one way to do it. Perhaps by different classes of ships. The number of destroyers commissioned during World War II number in the hundreds, but there were several different classes of destroyers that only had maybe a dozen or so ships per class. Classes would be a more manageable solution and one perfect for the Sentinel-class cutters that I mentioned above. Periods of service would be somewhat tricky in that some classes of destroyers were actually being constructed before the U.S. entry into World War II. Thank you for you suggestion and interest. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A few eyes pls

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we get a few familiar with ww2 sourcing to take a look at Talk:The Holocaust#Source issue.--Moxy 🍁 02:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Liberation of France

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've released this article from Draft and there is still plenty to do to expand and smooth it. Sections in the article covering military campaigns will become parent summaries of existing campaign articles, but these summaries are currently choppy, abbreviated, disproportionate in their coverage, or simply incomplete when I abandoned them to go work on some other part of the article. Your assistance would be welcome at Liberation of France. There are also some sections on the Talk page that may give you ideas, or to which you could contribute. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh Navy and "Moderation"

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Eyes are needed at the Bangladesh Navy page. User:Battosai-sama claims that they are the "regular moderator" of the page [17], having been "assigned" by User:MSIs 2001 [18], which apparently allows them to own the page and removes any requirement for sourcing. Opinions of Wikiproject members would be useful here.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User informed about WP:OWN on their talk page. Edit warring over a reference error seems particularly fruitless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: On second look I think this might be a case of CIR, particularly the "ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively." part... If anybody else thinks this is correct, then maybe a simple comment to the user in question to attempt editing the Wikipedia in their native language might solve this situation? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

William John Corbet

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been tagged for nine years. Let's fix it for send it to WP:AfD. Tag ne please. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a typical case of WP:BLP1E (additionally based on only a single source), and, well, the fact it happened nearly 80 years ago and that the article's subject was apparently quite humble means that its unlikely there is more information readily accessible, if at all... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era"

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments13 people in discussion

I've seen this in the "see also" section of many aircraft articles, for example SNCASO SO.8000 Narval. My concern is that usually there's no source cited that the aircraft are actually "of comparable role, configuration, and era". Although some sources do compare aircraft, I worry that it may lead to WP:OR if it is just a Wikipedian who checks different aircraft and decides if they are "comparable" or not. I'm starting this discussion to see what the consensus is for this type of claim. (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a valid question. I've reviewed the odd aircraft article in the past and probably let these go through to the keeper as it's a convention but I'd agree it really should be supported by sources, if not in the section then somewhere in the main body.
I found a similar situation with succession boxes in bios. Often there was no sourcing whatsoever for the predecessor and successor of the subject in these positions so in "my" bios I started putting in cited statements about the subject succeeding so-and-so and being succeeded by so-and-so in their roles. If succession box contents should be cited (as I think they should) then why not comparable aircraft? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a good question in general, but regarding aircraft, it is probably better asked at WT:AIR. All aircraft types, not just military, have that part of the {{Aircontent}} template, so if anything, a note needs to left at WT:AIR about this discussion. However, I've noticed that other military equipment articles sometimes have similar sections, such as Leopard 2#Main Battle Tanks of comparable role, performance and era, which is quite a long list there. (Coincidentally, a link in that section was just added to that article, which I noticed right after reading this post.) So the overall issue of the use of such sections in all military equipment articles, not just in those about military aircraft, is within this projects scope, and needs to be addressed. BilCat (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I think a reasonable amount of lee-way is sensible in this area. For example, aircraft that were considered for purchase in competition with or in addition to the aircraft in question by the same country, or aircraft that it flew against seem to me to be directly comparable without needing a citation for a source that says so. For example, with the Rogožarski IK-3, the list is probably too long, but it certainly flew against the Bf 109, aspects of the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire are compared in the article, it was purchased alongside the Hawker Hurricane, and test pilots compared it against the Hawker Fury, Heinkel He 112, Morane-Saulnier M.S. 405 and Hawker Hurricane. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67's approach makes sense to me, however as we all know there are often arguments about more modern aircraft like Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, Su-30 etc. and Gen 4, Gen 4.5 and Gen 5. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Both of these last two points are reasonable, and we aircraft article editors actually do make attempts to keep the lists short in most articles. In some cases, especially nationalistic edit warring, or other squabbling about which aircraft are or are not comparable, WPAIR has removed the Comparable section entirely from individual aircraft articles. BilCat (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The suggestions by Peacemaker67 are good, but that presumes that the general article content that shows, for instance, the other aircraft considered for/used in the role cites references to support that content. There are books that group aircraft (particularly military aircraft) by era and role that may be useful as a cited source in some instances.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, this is kind of my point -- aircraft that are specifically compared to the subject of the article in the main body will presumably have that comparison cited so they certainly warrant a place in the comparable aircraft list. When these lists don't require citation anywhere, they invite additions by anyone and can become suspect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole concept of a “See also” section is original research. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you perhaps clarify and support that? I can't agree with that statement as is. - wolf 10:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you're suggesting that See also sections be abolished, that proposition is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. BilCat (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SeeAlso says "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." If the problem is that "comparable role, configuration, and era" needs specific sourcing because it's making a claim then merely moving the aircraft listed outside that heading would remove the issue? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Aircontent provides some standardised See Also subheadings for aircraft articles, and this is where the subheading under discussion originates. Its usage is briefly addressed by the Aviation Wikiproject style guide, and of course is subject to the Wiki-wide MOS:SEEALSO. A big problem is where the main MOS is ignored and editors do not "provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent.", or try to shoehorn any relevance into the templated subheadings. As the Aviation style guide says, "[the template] will not always be suitable". However the MOS does not say anything about citing the claimed relevance. As far as I am aware, there is no further consensus. Thus, we fall back on WP:COMMONSENSE and local talk page consensus. Personally, I am not convinced that more detailed prescription would solve anything, the world is not that clear-cut and it would just provide food for the wikilawyers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In my experience most aviation authors don't discuss comparable, etc., aircraft so it's generally hard to find a cite for classifying aircraft. Furthermore they often don't distinguish between specialized types like interceptors like the Spitfire and the Bf 109 vs generalist fighters like the Typhoon or the Fw 190. Another issue is that authors toss around terms like "light fighter" without really defining them, causing many electrons to be wasted on trying to come up with a definition that those of us at WP:Aircraft could agree with (and failing!) not that long ago. Frankly, I'm not very fond of the whole idea as some editors try to include everything that might be broadly comparable while others are much more strict. And ne'er the twain meet without much ado! All that said, I don't think that cites should be necessary as I don't consider anything in any See also section to be specific enough to warrant a cite. Not to mention that I rarely ever see cite used in that section in any articles and would be be willing to put money down that the vast majority of See also lists are not cited at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I generally regard it as being, if not exactly, akin to WP:BLUE. If the aircraft are similar enough to be comparable, it's clearly obvious and not needing citing. If it needs citing because it's not clearly obvious, they're not similar enough to be comparable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
What he said! BilCat (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This should be moved to WP:AIR as aircraft are civilian as well as military. Anyway, this section can be referenced, eg Pilatus_PC-24#See_also. And I concur with The Bushranger: some are sufficiently obvious to be cited directly (specific config, very similar role...). As everything else in wikipedia, it could be challenged with CN to get the editor to cite its additions. WP:RS rules.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

C. G. Roberts: Australian head of the Allied Intelligence Bureau

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came at this from his civil engineering career (he's linked to William Glanville whose article I am working on) but it turns out he had quite an interesting time in the Second World War. Unfortunately, I don't know a great deal about the Pacific Theatre, Australian Army records or military intelligence so would welcome any contributions from better informed users! The draft is at: User:Dumelow/Caleb Grafton Roberts - Dumelow (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Map of participants in World War II

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Map of participants in World War II

I've made a proposal to alter the world Map of participants in World War II to change the colors used for France and its colonies. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Colorization of historical images

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, this discussion, Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo, may be of interest to project members. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Barents Sea submarine campaign (1941) rfc

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Barents Sea submarine campaign (1941) Evening all, I've been whiling away a day of by using * {{cite book |first1=Jürgen |last1=Rohwer |first2=Gerhard |last2=Hümmelchen |title=Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two |year=1992 |orig-year=1972 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |location=Annapolis, MD |edition=2nd rev. |isbn=978-1-55750-105-9}} to replace online citations but it contradicts them frequently on matters of fact and timing. Do the navy aficionados think that I should follow R & H unquestioningly or look further afield. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're going to want to use the third edition, but there are also several books on US submarine claims on losses that ought to be consulted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ta, did US subs operate in the Arctic? Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
40 quid! I should have married a doctor. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
<Emily Litella voice>Never mind! I was thinking of the Bering Strait on the opposite side of the world.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha! See what you mean. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

List of International Brigades personnel and possible need to pare down

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

List of International Brigades personnel was recently created, which I believe should meet notability requirements. However, it appears to currently be a massive Namecheck of International Brigade members regardless of whether or not the person was actually notable. The vast majority of the names entered should probably be removed but I just want to double-check that paring the list down to notable members with articles is the appropriate course of action. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Doing...... (trimming down, of course) Give me a wee bit of time RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"Pare down"...? Or delete? - wolf 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@GPL93:   Done (just let the bot do its thing and replace the refname sources that were removed, can't be bothered to do it manually, there's too many) I'd suggest also removing the biographic blurbs (done so for a few of the more uninformative ones), but I guess you're free to act on that. @Thewolfchild: I just trimmed everything that didn't have a wikilink. Usually, having an article is the criteria for inclusion. I agree the subject is certainly valid for list notability purposes. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Would the list replace the unreferenced International_Brigades#Notable associated people? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@RC, when I first glanced at it, I saw what seemed to be a looong list of guys that served in brigade in a conflict. It seemed most of them were just plain text names (but many with refs). My initial reaction was "we don't have a list of every guy that served in every regiment/battalion or ship's company in WWII, why this? But on further thought, it is a notable entity, and there are several members with BLPs. We do have similar lists for some military units, (eg; these guys) so this should be treated the same. Good on you for putting the effort in to clean it up. - wolf 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR nomination

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union armed conflicts has been nominated for merging to Category:Post-Soviet conflicts

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union armed conflicts has been nominated for merging to Category:Post-Soviet conflicts. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Names

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

What is the name of this grenade? It is "F-1 grenade" (article name), "F1" (article lead) or "F1 anti-personnel hand grenade" (infobox)? Eurohunter (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The other articles to be moved:
S-300 missile system → S-300 (missile system) or it is "S-300 Family" and "Family" is really the original name?
S-400 missile system → S-400 (missile system) but isn't it S-400 Triumf?
Pantsir missile system → Pantsir (missile system)

Eurohunter (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's F-1 grenade (Russia) = disambiguated article name, F-1 = designation and "F-1 antipersonnel hand grenade" = description. The last is the only one that, if anything, needs to change. As to others, they are written in natural disambiguation form, see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation, and are fine where they are. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: Pantsir (missile system) would be natural for Pantsir missile system so? "Pantsir missile system" isn't any name like "French people" but just description. Eurohunter (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As article naming says "Parenthetical disambiguation: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title" but "X missile system" adequately describes the article, and WP:BROKE also applies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: So why there is no "Spider-Man film" and "Grand Theft Auto video game"? Eurohunter (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:PRECISION is clear that even if something is unambiguous, following usual conventions is preferred (so Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and not Leeds North West). Whether that applies here, I don't know, since I don't have much clue what the actual convention is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC),
Following the usual convention might mean using as examples: Sea Dart, Starstreak, ASRAAM, Skyflash, Fireflash Sea Skua, Storm Shadow, S-75 Dvina, 9K32 Strela-2, AAM-N-5 Meteor and so on ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with Wikidata and Commons categories

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I need to somehow get Field artillery in the American Civil War to relate to the Commons category "American Civil War artillery". I believe I need to do this on Wikidata but I don't know how. Another user recently deleted the commons category link due to the mismatch in titles; I've undone that but apparently a fix is needed. Much of what is in the commons category is discussed in that article. There's a similar situation at Siege artillery in the American Civil War. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

your options are
1) with editors who can't understand that we do know what we are doing when we choose to make these links, revert and explain.
2) go to Commons and create a category by that name.
3) do something in wikidata.
no. 1 is easiest. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding no. 3; there's Q9419438 (Category:American Civil War artillery); and there's Q4369616 (Field artillery in the American Civil War). Update: Well apparently you can't have two pages from the same wiki under a single item (the simple thing to do might be just remove the category, since the page should be included in it anyway); and you can't cite the same page under two different items... I've filed a request here, in case any of the people there who actually know a thing about WD wish to respond. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt suggestions and action. There is also Q6125947 (Siege artillery in the American Civil War). I'm sure there are numerous article titling vs Wikidata issues. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Year in dates

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Most consultations of Wikipedia do not involve reading the entire article. Editors need to have this in mind when using dates, especially in military history. I suggest that it is good practice to put the year in a date at the start of any separate narrative in an article. This might translate into using a full date at the start of a section.

The sort of change I have in mind is [19]. If an encyclopedia user wanted to know the date of the Guadalcanal landings, a quick way of doing that is:
search for "Pacific war" in Wikipedia - gets you to Pacific War
edit find "Guadalcanal" - gets you to that heading in the contents box
choose the section heading Guadalcanal - gets you to that section, but (before edit shown above), the first date reference is "On 7 August, US Marines.....". If the encyclopedia user then has to go hunting around in prior text, the first year they find (in the preceding section) is 1943. They have to read the preceding section to understand (probably) that "At the same time as major battles raged in New Guinea" means 1942 - and then only with some degree of uncertainty.

Military history editors tend (if I can say this politely) to have a somewhat microscope view of their subject. Whilst this is commendable for accuracy and completeness, it should be remembered that a good encyclopedia is something that can easily reveal the facts for which it is consulted. I am aware of no English usage rule that demands reducing dates to just the day and month - so including the year more often would make editor output much more readable. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair comment, I've dropped into the middle of a narrative before now and had to go scroll forward or back to get a handle on the year. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you are thinking of MOS:YEAR: Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with hunting around? It's a way to learn. Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Members vs. participants

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This project may be interested in efforts to replace "members" by "participants" in all wikiprojects. The matter is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. (cc Peacemaker67)--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service TFA

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service has just been posted to the main page as an 'emergency' TFA. As a result, it will run largely at night Australia-time. As it's also a low profile article, I suspect that it's not heavily watchlisted. I'd be grateful if editors in European and American time zones could keep an eye on the article and revert the inevitable vandalism. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out; though there doesn't seem to have been more than one so far, so this is likely to be rather quiet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. The article got off pretty lightly, possibly due to its rather technical subject matter. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pacific Island Coastwatchers

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently wrote a short article on the Cook Islands Local Defence Force, and was in turn contacted by a descendant of a Coastwatcher who is interested in the subject area. This person was kind enough to provide me this link (which I unfortunately cannot view due to geo restrictions) to a documentary about Coastwatchers that he contributed to, and so I though I would drop it here in case any of our New Zealand/South Pacific editor wanted to view it (and maybe contribute edits to this subject area). SamHolt6 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested edits

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, all. According to this query, there are four MILHIST articles with open requests for edits:

The number of unanswered requested edits seems to have gone up during the last few months. While there are relatively few that affect MILHIST, I ask that several of you bookmark that query and try to respond to them periodically (or maybe put them in the newsletter?). It is probably better to have MILHIST editors handle some of these than a random editor with no specific subject-area expertise, and many hands make light work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Equal Protection Clause article does not have a Military History project banner now. How is this article tied to this project? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The astronomical number of EDITREQ is caused, at least partly, by this; I was doing it a while back but the number has grown since and well it's not encouraging. Anybody who has some spare time and is not busy with something else is welcome to go ahead and try fixing that backlog... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
That might be partially caused by the fact that it's also related to the American Civil War, i.e. "WikiProject United States / Government / History / American Civil War"; so probably some auto-inclusion of anything that's in that American Civil War bit in this project too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but it's a pretty tenuous connection and I wouldn't tag it with a MilHist banner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Claw-Eagle 2

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Matter dealt with RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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.


There's edit warring in relation to a few issues, including the occupations of the hostages, how they were killed & who by. Also, who won the operation. This has escalated to several personal attacks on its talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no opinion on the issue, but I have fixed the talk page headers, and I'd be warning some of the users involved but they seem to have had their fair share of warnings so now it's time for administrative action, to be reported at the usual place. Scratch that, this seems something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 17 February 2021 (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.

FAC reviewers needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) are both at FAC and each in need of a couple of further reviews. As they were each nominated by editors who have gone way above and beyond in terms of reviewing others' nominations at GAN, ACR and FAC I would like to think that some project members would feel able to spare a little time to cast their eyes over them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I've nabbed the source review for the conference. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you muchly. Any further takers? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving page for 1997 Cambodian coup

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are encouraged to join the discussion on moving the page 1997 armed clashes in Cambodia to 1997 Cambodian coup d'état. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Now closed, having been open 16 days. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

William Mahlon Davis nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Another of the WP:Soldier deletions. Canadian soldier in WW I. Article is minimally sourced and in need of a transfusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination says "Non-notable soldier." You are right, they didn't mention the linked discussion. But the nominator and seconders are the usual crew for he usual reasons. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So your point is what exactly? Mztourist (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § defseca.com

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § defseca.com. Worldbruce (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I would like the WikiProject to comment and assess Mexican Revolution article, because there is a nomination for FA in Thai Wikipedia (which is translated from English Wikipedia). In your view, is there any article problems that prevent the current revision from reaching FA status? Thanks. --Horus (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day, I only took a quick look, but IMO yes there are a few issues to rectify before a FAC. IMO, the lead is too long (four paragraphs is the max IMO per WP:LEAD) and there are quite a few maintenance tags to deal with first. Additionally, at a bare minimum each paragraph would need a citation at the end to satisfy referencing requirements. Additionally, image sandwiching should be rectified and the citations are inconsistently formatted. There may also be deeper issues (prose, content, image licensing for instance) that I have not checked. I would suggest a peer review if you are looking to improve the article further. After that, I would suggest aiming for GA first (before a run at FAC). Good luck and thanks for your interest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Horus. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. That's fairly enough. --Horus (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Presidential Unit Citation - Allowed to be worn by induviduals?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can somebody please settle a discussion here: Talk:Eirik Kristoffersen#Awards, again--Znuddel (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

George Alexander Smith, RAMC

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone kindly furnish service data for George Alexander Smith (d:Q105533228; died 1932) who (per this obituary) served in the Royal Army Medical Corps in WWI? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Champion Warfare

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I want to expand the section on Champion Warfare, I will be doing so as a part of my university course, CMN2160, at the University of Ottawa. The following is a small collection of sources I will be using to begin expanding the section, please let me know if this is acceptable.

  • Lendon, J. E. (2005). Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11979-4.
  • Udwin, Victor Morris (1999). Between Two Armies: The Place of the Duel in Epic Culture. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11038-0.
  • Low, J. (2016). Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-05589-7.
  • Riess, Werner; Fagan, Garrett G. (2016). The Topography of Violence in the Greco-Roman World. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11982-0.

Dowd1996 (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dowd1996: They look fine to me (reputable publishers; reviews about them in reputable journals; ...). I've formatted them according to the usual citation style. See also File:How to cite a source.png for a helpful tutorial for that matter. You might want to also leave this notice at the talk page of the relevant article (Talk:Champion warfare), so that people who watch that page in particular might be aware of it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dowd1996: See also Wikipedia:Be bold! It's not a well developed article, so I doubt you are going to tread on anybody's toes. If in doubt, you can drop a note back here when you have finished and somebody will cast an eye over it for you. Bon chance. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: Votre français pourrait bénéficier de quelques améliorations. (It's "Bonne chance") :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Je suis vraiment désolé! :-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Thank you so much for doing that, that is super helpful! I will be sure to leave a talk comment on the page, I just noticed it said to direct inquiries here first so I wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on anybody's toes.Dowd1996 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Young's Point

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've nominated an ACW action for deletion, and would appreciate some input from other ACW specialists on this topic as well. Hog Farm Talk 06:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Division needs attention

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This just needs a source review now (thanks for the content and image reviews, Hawkeye!). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
On it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Mughal-Sikh Wars

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is a big mess; poorly sourced and lots of original research. The main issue, however, seems to be that it lumps together all conflicts and battles involving Mughals and Sikhs over the span of almost three centuries and calls it 'the Mughal-Sikh Wars'. It appears to me that this is an arbitrarily defined concept which is not used by reliable sources or anywhere else. So I'm wondering, can this article be saved in some way or would it be better to take it to AfD? Any input would be really appreciated. Lennart97 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as hagiographic rather than historical. There's an outline there of conflict but lacks context and the encyclopaedic prose to lay it out. I'll do some structural/format cleanup that doesn't need knowledge of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Battle of the Atlantic has become unbalanced with a huge amount of material about Bermuda having just been added. If anyone fancies a job trimming this back to something in proportion to the RSs on the subject, you are very welcome to do so.
(I am reluctant to do this myself as I have just completed the research to tackle some other articles.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This particular editor has been adding a lot of Bermuda-centric content to WWII articles of late. There have been issues with sourcing and quality of writing. The editor does not appear willing to engage to discuss these issues, (see talk page) and in fact very rarely uses talk pages. (pinging Dormskirk) - wolf 11:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I have asked this editor to add citations as they go along on a number of occasions but with very limited success. In my opinion, any of the new material which is unsourced should be removed; this would have the additional benefit of making the additions less Bermuda-centric. Dormskirk (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I note that all the Bermuda-centric edits in this article have been reverted by another user. I would hope there are now enough editors with an eye on this to keep it under control. I have tried to add to the helpful advice to the problem editor on their talk page, but I am not optimistic as the user had been on Wikipedia a long time - if they haven't learnt some of the basics by now.... ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

U.S. services lead image discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:United States Space Force#Lead image which could use some additional viewpoints/comments. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Music infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I was wondering. Is there an infobox for military march music? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick skim through Category:British military marches and the only one I found which had any sort of infobox was The Athole Highlanders' Farewell to Loch Katrine, which uses Template:Infobox song. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Liberation of France

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I want military project participants to look and review Liberation of France. I got a talk with main editor of article, but I think it needs more reviews to make it much better article, because the article might be sided to editor's idea. So, I hope many would review to the article. -- Wendylove (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The International Conference on World War II

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For interest, the The International Conference on World War II is being run online over 5-6 March (US time), with registration being free of charge. The conference features a very impressive list of speakers. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a worthwhile event— I will try to make it to some of the speakers. Thanks for bringing this up. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fletcher-class destroyer

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is anyone aware of a book that refers to the careers of Fletcher-class destroyers? Lettlerhello • contribs 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lettler, ISBN 9780870211935 (Raven, Alan. Fletcher-Class Destroyers, Worldcat) comes to mind, though I've not read it. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
And Fletcher Class Destroyers by Lester Abbey (2007), Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley UK, ISBN 9781844156979, has a Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_159&oldid=1238719852"