Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing navy

We do not appear to have an article on the Royal Sardinian Navy. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

True, maybe start one?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Way outside my area of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Pinging the usual suspects.... G'day, gentlemen, would either of you be interested in taking this on? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Same here, did a quick search to try and start one and found very little if anything usable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It's generally a bit early for me - I've written articles on the ironclads that were ordered by the Sardinian Navy on the eve of it becoming the Regia Marina, but I don't have the sources to do something more in-depth on the navy itself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
That was almost my problem, I could find the odd thing about thee Crimean war, but again nothing really in depth about the navy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860-1905 and it turns out that it had more background info on the Sardinian Navy than I remembered - I've started a sketch of the navy (currently up to Cavour's tenure as naval minister) if anyone wants to add to it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm done with the material from Conway's, but there's still work to be done. I'll probably continue to tinker with the article over the coming days, though Richelieu is calling my name. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice start, would the article benefit from {{infobox military unit}}? Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

For those who may be interested, the article is now in pretty good shape (I think) and is now up for a GA review. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question

This is absolutely a dumb question and I'm sorry to even have to ask it, but: WP:NSOLDIER criteria 2 says notability is presumed for anyone who held a rank of general, linking to general officer. Does that mean just what the article calls the "specific rank of general", or does it encompass any of the "general officer" ranks, like major general, brigadier general, etc? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • All general officers, not just the specific rank. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Just be aware that brigadier isn't always considered a general officer rank, whereas brigadier general is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Although brigadiers, commodores and air commodores are considered to be covered by WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: if "volume" is in a book title should it stay there or be move to the |volume= section?

[1] isn't much help. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example in mind? I'd say it comes down to the question "does what is displayed make it easy to find the book in a library, bookseller etc?" Does it render that differently if 'Volume X' is part of title, or under |vol= ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been doing this

* {{cite book |first1=Major-General I. S. O. |last1=Playfair |author1-link=Ian Stanley Ord Playfair |first2=Commander G. M. S. |last2=with Stitt [[Royal Navy|R.N.]] |first3=Brigadier C. J. C. |last3=Molony |first4=Air Vice-Marshal S. E. |last4=Toomer |editor-last=Butler |editor-first=J. R. M. |editor-link=James Ramsay Montagu Butler |series=History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series |title=The Mediterranean and Middle East: The Early Successes Against Italy (to May 1941) |volume=I |publisher=HMSO |year=1954 |isbn=978-1-84574-065-8 |lastauthoramp=y}}

but someone objected in British logistics in the Normandy Campaign and reverted the volume number to the |title= section.

* {{cite book |last=Ellis |first=L. F. |author-link=Lionel Ellis |title=Victory in the West – Volume I: The Battle of Normandy |year=1962 |location=London |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |series=[[History of the Second World War]] |oclc=456511724}}

I've been looking at WP because I've been separating volume in books like this for ages. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Why is it two volumes? If it's because it's one book, physically too large to handle, then it should go under |volume=. If it's a subsequent volume, written years earlier by another writer, or covering a distinct topic, then there should be some indication in the title. Often this is a sub-clause to the title (frequently a date range), rather than merely a volume number. In which case, that belongs in the title. Often I'd still use |volume= and I'd put the raw number in there too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
* {{cite book |last=Ellis |first=L. F. |author-link=Lionel Ellis |title=Victory in the West – Volume II: The Defeat of Germany |year=1968 |location=London |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |series=[[History of the Second World War]] |oclc=758329926 |ref=harv}}

We all have a preference so should it come under consistency in the article or is there something in WP? Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast rule. For me, I would use |volume= so that the volume information gets into the correct metadata and because a volume name is not the name of the work (the book title) so should not be italicized along with the book title.
Also, the Playfair example above is flawed (I've fixed it at the {{cite book}} doc). Personal titles, rank, affiliations, post-nominals, degrees, etc do not belong in the cs1|2 author parameters. Generational titles, Jr., Sr., III, etc are allowed when necessary to disambiguate a name.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


I'd say that {{cite book |[names removed for ease of reading] |series=History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series |title=The Mediterranean and Middle East |volume= Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy, to May 1941 [publisher etc parameters ]}}
Rendering as Playfair, Major-General I. S. O.; with Stitt R.N., Commander G. M. S.; Molony, Brigadier C. J. C.; Toomer, Air Vice-Marshal S. E. (1954). Butler, J. R. M. (ed.). The Mediterranean and Middle East. History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series. Vol. Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy, to May 1941. HMSO. ISBN 978-1-84574-065-8. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
is a valid option as the "The Early Successes Against Italy, to May 1941" is the volumes contents in the same way a dictionary might comes as Vol 1: A to E, Vol 2: F to M etc GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Graeme; if you look at the format of the title page and the bibliographic info of a multi-volume work, it's usually pretty clear that the subtitle belongs to the volume. And if it's not clear, I do it anyway because I think that it's easier to show what each individual volume covers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
of course it could be that the original intent for 'volume' was that it only applied to journals and periodicals, but if so someone goofed along the way. i did skim the talk archives but it was all about the code to bold (journals?) and when not bold (as in book titles?) volume but didn't see the underlying policy. I note that the examples on the documentation for template:cite book are actually from the Official History. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I believed that the bolded volume number (without explanation) displayed by the "volume=" parameter would serve mainly to confuse the reader rather than direct them to the appropriate volume, so I haven't used it. I admit I did not think of putting the whole volume title there. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A grey area then? When I began to get used to the cite book template I hesitated, then decided to transfer the volume number to volume under the assumption that it was what it was for and closed the gap up to the colon in the title section. I've been doing it for years and it hasn't come up until now. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just be aware that, per the cite book template, "volume: For one publication published in several volumes. Displays after the title and series fields; volume numbers should be entered just as a numeral (e.g. 37); volume values that are wholly digits, wholly uppercase roman numerals, or less than five characters will appear in bold. Any non-numeric value of five or more characters will be presumed to follow some other convention and will not appear in bold." So entering the volume title will not be bolded, as that would appear odd. Personally, I pretty much always use the volume parameter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes (redux)

The infoboxes are still overlapping campaignboxes on my Firefox browser unless I set pics at 250px instead of 300px. Is there anything I can do about it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Becke, Order of Battle of Divisions Part 2A

Does anyone have access to these sources? If you do, would you be able to give the First World War OOB for the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division article the once over? The article currently has 10 sources cited for the OOB (including Becke and the divisional history). If you could aid in streamlining that OOB and updating the cites, it would be much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a page range? If so, you could ask at WP:RSX if anyone can scan them for you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have the page range, based off the existing info on the article. I know there are a few members of the project loitering around with access, but if none are able to help in the next little while I will check over at the resource desk. Thanks :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @EnigmaMcmxc: Reprints of Part 2A & 2B are apparently held by American libraries, so I have put in an interlibrary loan request for it. If my local library finds a willing lender, I should have the copy within a couple weeks. Kges1901 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! On reading through the article, I believe only 2A should be necessary. 2B was used to add, imo, irrelevant information to the article and could be cut. Your comment has also made me do a little research on the subject: when I lived in the UK, it was very difficult, if not outright impossible (might have just been my local libraries) to get books outside of the county you lived in. It seems it is ran very different here in the US, I will investigate further in the future.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#"Manned"_renaming

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22#"Manned"_renaming. Sdkb (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Attentes

In case anybody is interested in uniform insignia, there is a stub at Draft:Attentes. Rama (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We have an article already Shoulder mark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not the same thing. Attentes are a particular type of shoulder marks, like epaulettes, but all shouldr marks are not attentes — indeed, the top illustration of Shoulder mark show a rank slide, a type of shoulder mark that is neither an attente, an epaulette nor a shoulder board. Rama (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The draft is unsourced, and I am having trouble finding the use of this term The wiki entry I posted is the best I could find).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Epaulette#France, c:Category:Attentes - which say it's a gilded strap. Is there enough for its own article, rather than as a mention on "Shoulder mark" and/or "Epaulette"? (Hohum @) 12:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Another unsourced reference to this word. But I do note "shoulder strap called attente" So this is (in English (apparently)) called a shoulder strap (which tallies with the article Shoulder mark). Usually if we have a foreign word for an English term (for which we already have an article) we just put in the fact "In French they are called attente", assuming we can source this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an abundance of military regulations that we can use to source the article, for instance [2] for the Navy or [3] and [4] for the Army. Rama (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
So its a french word, that in English means?Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Shoulder strap [5]. Rama (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
So then we have mention of the fact in the shoulder strap article, not a separate article. We are not a French/English dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Insignia in rank field in infobox

At some point someone asked me to remove the images from the rank field in infoboxes. At a different point, folks added them back in. Curious if there is any policy regarding the matter or if it is a case-by-case basis sort of thing. See Michael Collins (astronaut) for an example. Kees08 (Talk) 08:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What kind of image?Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I assume you mean an image of the rank insignia itself? Not sure what encyclopaedic value such things have. MOS:ICON refers to this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ship ID

Freeman indicates that the USAAF's 467th Bombardment Group ground echelon sailed for the UK on 28 February 1944 aboard the "USAT Frederick Lykes". Looking for a link, I wondered if this was not a ship of the Lykes line. I don't see the ship listed under either USAT or Lykes articles. Can anyone identify this ship for me? --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It was of the Lykes line. [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not familiar with the data card you linked to. Am I correct in assuming that the Lykes Line kept title to the vessel during the war and it should be referred to as the "SS Frederick Lykes"? --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The ship card says that it was under BB (bareboat charter) to the War Department. So I would think that USAT would have been appropriate. Its on the List of ships of the United States Army.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review needed

G'day everyone, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/149th Armor Regiment is getting close to promotion, and needs a source review. If someone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey PM, Kges1901 took the source review, let's hope that it'd be promoted as soon as possible. Cheers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight". – Levivich 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lists of non-carrier aircraft operated from aircraft carriers

You are invited to comment in the merge discussion at Talk:List of carrier-based aircraft#Temporary carrier operations by non-carrier aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ship names

I just ran across Italian ship Trieste and question the title. The "Italian ship" wouldn't be part of the common name. It would work as a disambiguator if one is necessary. I checked the other two article in the Category:Aircraft carriers of the Italian Navy and they are similarly mis-named. Not sure if this spreads to other Italian Navy ships. If anyone wants to fix these go ahead. 17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SHIPNAME. (Hohum @) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup, and since Trieste is a thing, we need a way to disambiguate it and "Italian ship" works as a natural disambiguator. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't seem like a natural disambiguator to me at all. I don't think that name is commonly used in English sources. I did a quick google search on "Italian ship Trieste" and found mostly WP and mirrors. WP:NATURALDIS says the name should not be "made up". But removing the quotes yielded hits with "LHD Trieste"; it seems using that would me more aligned with its commmon name. MB 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't use the role of a ship in the name of its article because that often changes over a ship's lifetime. Consider all of the passenger ships and freighters converted into attack transports or amphibious landing ships during WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you're overthinking the "not made up" thing - the policy is talking about neologisms, and describing the vessel by its nationality and calling it a ship is not one. In fact, using the specific navy designation probably would be a neologism (at least in the cases of arcane ship types like "landing helicopter dock"). Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe follow other naming conventions and have Trieste (Italian ship).Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If you read WP:NATDIS, parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when there is no good natural disambiguator - that's not the case here, so we don't need to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is titled as it is because ships of the Italian Navy do not take a prefix, unlike ships of the British, American, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and other navies. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Given "ship" is generic and there was an Italian heavy cruiser Trieste in the interwar period and WWII, shouldn't we use the pennant number (L9890) as well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that the cruiser performed that role for its entire career, the article should be at Italian cruiser Trieste. Mjroots (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It is. My point is that Italian ship Trieste is ambiguous in its own right and could refer to the cruiser, because it begs the question "what sort of ship?" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Umm, If we were talking about a U.S. ship then it would be the USS Houston for instance. I'm assuming that this is about the RM Trieste? The cruiser? The Regia Marina was its Navy if that was the case. Maybe that just me talking crazy but wouldn't that be what it is called????Tirronan (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Italians have never used a prefix like USS or HMAS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Italian ship Trieste will be the title of the ship index page once it is created so a different title is needed for the page on the LHD Lyndaship (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to turn Italian ship Trieste into a shipindex page. Hatnotes at both articles adequately cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That's my take as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Change the guidelines then - Index pages If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name. Lyndaship (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the guideline should be changed to read "If there has been more than two ships with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

3d Transportation Support Battalion or 3rd Transportation Support Battalion

I came across 3d Transportation Support Battalion and wondering should it be 3d or 3rd? 3d seems to be a common name and 3rd is the official name. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The official USMC website uses 3d. Personally I much prefer 3rd, but we should use whatever the majority of the reliable sources use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall a discussion here last year that resulted in a consensus to use "3rd" on Wikipedia. "3d" is the official US Government convention, but rarely used outside of official publications. Extensive but unofficial publications such as Shelby L. Stanton's "World War II Order of Battle" and Rinaldi's World War I series use "3rd". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks RobDuch, I must have brain fade. As a result of this discussion, MOS:ORDINAL was amended to deprecate 2d and 3d. So, 3rd it is then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Campaign vs campaign

@Dicklyon: Have we reached consensus about lower casing the word Campaign? Several articles have been moved again. Regard Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure we have. Four more RM discussions have closed in favor of using lowercase campaign, like the previous discussions. Exceptions are possible, of course, if there are campaigns that are mostly capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are some recent relevant discussions that I could find, where nobody presented a reason to cap any of these (except for the occasional unsupported assertion of "it's a proper name" from an editor or two):
Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussion here. Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Where? Did you forget a link? Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see there was another section archived: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Capitalization_of_"Campaign"_in_articles. Maybe if you see someone there pointing out a reason to cap some of these, you can summarize or quote that here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You haven't managed to alter the consensus; I suggest you stop altering titles unless you do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What consensus do you refer to? The discussions I linked were closed with a consensus that we follow our capitalization guidelines. If you think any of my moves were contrary to that consensus, please point them out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles regarsa Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I already linked that. That's where an editor first pointed out the inconsistency, and we decided to work on it. Consensus was challenged, then tested and affirmed with multiple RM discussions. In the process, nobody provided a good reason to use caps on any of these – unless I missed it, in which case you should point it out here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You aren't a judge of what is a good reason, you are an advocate for a point of view. I suggest that you stop moving titles unless you have obtained consensus or be ready to be reverted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm always ready to be reverted and discuss. I asked if I missed any good reasons so that others could help judge. It's not up to me, but up to discussion, such as those I linked. If you find anything there that look like good reasons to leave some of those campaigns capped, let's talk; or bring up your own good reason. Otherwise, I see no challenge to the well-tested consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a list or RS on the East African Campaign (1914-18, 1940-43)? Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What with so much forum shopping going on with regards the capitalisation of "campaign", you'll be lucky to find a credible consensus. The whole situation is being manipulated by POV-pushing. Makes you wonder why we have a military history project when all the views of the military historian members have been ignored and changes/moves made regardless behind their backs. — Marcus(talk) 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Was the project not notified of all these discussions? What are you calling forum shopping? Was there some irregular procedure? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're the bureaucrat, professor, I'm sure you can find your own answers to those questions. When you can't find excuses for poor conduct, do what you do best – invent them. Little point in me answering, when we both know you'll apply your own spin to anything posted that challenges your almighty opinion. Speaking from my own experience, I always thought this project worked best when issues were resolved based on the consensus of proactive members, as opposed to meddlesome pedantic editors who bully their way in thinking they own the place, citing guidelines like they were law, yet contributing no obvious interest in historical content creation. But it seems more editors these days are only invested in their own self-importance than letting projects function effectively within their own remit. Little wonder many of the MilHist members I see active now are new faces, a lot of the veterans seem to have drifted off, probably sick of being dictated to by pompous editors who spend more time creating and editing guidelines then throwing their weight about on project boards. — Marcus(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll take that as no, you don't have any good reasons to capitalize campaign in any of those, nor any specific conduct complaint. Thanks for your feedback. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How you "take it" is of no interest to me. Quit acting like you have the final say on everything by imposing your own interpretations of guidelines and comments in order to undermine consensus – it's pretentious, arrogant and belittling to the long-term members here who actually study military history rather than number crunch a bunch of artificial statistics with google; what I'd like to see is a specific guideline that advocates the use of these N-grams you keep throwing up as "evidence" – in my mind they are little more than WP:SYNTHesised data. I believe Google_Ngram_Viewer#Criticism also details reasons why reliance on N-grams as a "source of usage" is not only over-rated, but questionable. [[7]] uses the specific example of the word "figure", which N-Grams reports as having more capitalised results than lower-case. Yet this is known to not be the case; OCR is flawed and "c" can easily be mis-scanned as "C". And that alone throws a spanner in the works and makes your entire singular argument and your "evidence" – since N-grams is the only thing you have offered to date – highly questionable. Google cannot account for the accuracy of its results, nor does it offer access to metadata, i.e. the titles evaluated, so that we can verify the results and determine some degree of accuracy. We are having to take the graphs on faith. And that is not a "reliable source", it's as bad as citing a text book with no bibliography. And FYI, WP:CIVPUSH describes the conduct I specifically take issue with. You've changed a ton of titles based on N-grams, which you revere like it's some higher authority than the combined expertise of the members here, but I'm beginning to suspect a conflict of interest, from a self-proclaimed Google employee/associate, and strongly oppose this continual pushing of a single "source" that is lacking in merit, per numerous sources. You asked for evidence, again and again. Well, evidence suggests N-grams is not a reliable source. Go figure, professor. — Marcus(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My employer in no way influences my Wikipedia editing, except that I avoid editing about them. I've been doing Wikipedia longer than I've worked there. I see the majority of your edits this year are about capitalization of Campaign; this discussion is a small part of my editing, which is wide ranging. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
To get an idea how often a "C" might by misrecognized as "c", you can test other words or bigrams that you know are usually capitalized. For example, for Cambridge University, which occurs in lots of books, you don't see any "cambridge University" or "cambridge university", from which it's fair to conclude both that this is a proper name and that OCR case errors are not so common as to affect the stats much. Similarly for Toyota Camry. Campaigns don't behave that way in the stats, except when part of a name like Burma Campaign UK. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 to downcasing "campaign" per our project's manual of style. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we conduct a survey of Milhist members before proposing an addition to WP:MILMOS#NAME on this issue. Could project members please indicate whether they support or oppose the capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles? I suggest further discussion of this issue is done under the Discussion subsection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that capitalization "in article titles" is something different from capitalization in the text of the article? Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 - Can we get some closure on this matter before it loses momentum, which may suit the POV-pushing editor crusading to revise dozens of articles but doesn't close the book. I am concerned that Dicklyon has proceeded to move dozens of campaign articles in the last week or two despite there being a number of concerns expressed in the survey and discussion. RMs are not being notified to us, when MILHIST in nature, which I believe is intentional to prevent challenges. This needs to be addressed and resolved properly, given the underhand way these articles are being renamed en masse. Since there are a number of concerns regarding using N-grams to determine language usage, I wonder if it would be better to have the matter taken to Village Pump for a broader debate and determination of its validity? It would seem that MilHist burned out on the matter and a few who responded to the survey below from MOS don't think MilHist is the right place. So what is? — Marcus(talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that we need to have this discussion at WT:MOSCAPS rather than here, for a number of valid reasons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I find the terms of this standard offer to unblock Dicklyon interesting. It states: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. In light of the fact that a large number have of military campaigns have and are still being moved, many without at attempt to reach consensus and some via RMs offering no verifiable evidence, which some members consider controversial changes, within this discussion. In my mind, this is a direct breach of the unblock terms specifically stated. I stated a while back that this was disruptive to the project, but wilfully ignoring unblock terms determined by the community in accepting a standard offer has greater implications and is a blatant disregard for policy. A great deal of WP:PLAYPOLICY is being practiced and MilHist is proving very ineffective in challenging it and/or upholding the integrity of articles produced by its members. I wonder, if this behaviour is allowed to continue, especially behaviour that once got the editor blocked, whether it might alienate members who work so hard to research and create those articles in the first place? The standards set by MilHist are some of the highest on Wikipedia, but they appear to be held in disdain and not only is the project and article creators not being notified of RMs relating to MilHist articles, out of courtesy foremost, and as a result vast amounts of work is being revised by one editor on a crusade, using nothing but trivial percentages of data polled and synthesised by Google. And nobody here is overly concerned? Don't you find this disrespect for a project you dedicate most of your efforts to disturbing and an insult to the commitment required to keep MilHist successfully creating content? You don't need to "own" articles to know right from wrong, and everything about this revisionism is wrong. Letting this go is as good as giving a free pass to anyone else who wants to violate their unblock terms, use dubious data as evidence, or simply rehash articles to suit their own warped POV. — Marcus(talk) 01:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Support

  • Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cadar (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Qwirkle (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A local consensus allows us to update WP:MILMOS specifically, since the primary MOS is generalised and open to interpretation in some cases, hence why we have MOS detail pages: for standardising formats to avoid disputes or continued use of unreliable sources. Since this matter is drawing significant attention, possibly due to its controversial nature, consensus is required to help resolve the matter and prevent further disruptions based on one POV. — Marcus(talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A new local consensus contrary to the MOS will not help resolve anything. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    That’ s begging the question. The MOS does not oppose capitalization of proper names; the question is whether the word campaign is being used as part of one. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • But this conversation should be happening over at WP:NCCAPS. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    More like WT:MOS or WT:MOSCAPS. NCCAPS had free watchers, and is just MOSCAPS adapted to title questions (the case rules originate in MoS, not in the naming-conventions pages). — AReaderOutThataway t/c 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Use lower case. WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (esp. MOS:DOCTCAPS), and years of consistent consensus results at RM can't be defied by over-capitalization fandom in a topical wikiproject. WP:CONLEVEL and several ArbCom rulings are clear about that. Wikiprojects are not magical kingdoms subject to their own invented "rules", and do not WP:OWN any topics they claim are within their scopes. Wikiprojects' style preferences are essays, not guidelines.

    English capitalizes less and less, and WP follows (didn't invent) that shift in practice. If sources (reliable ones in the aggregate, not just specialized ones) don't capitalize something with near uniformity, then WP doesn't either – first rule of MOS:CAPS. See also WP:SSF and WP:CSF. We've been over this stuff many times before. The habit of people writing for a particular audience to excessively capitalize things important to that audience, and of governmentese/militarese in particular to over-cap for emphasis/signification, creates zero obligation on WP's part to mimic that clumsy style, doesn't make the over-stylized term a proper name, and it doesn't generate any expectation of capitalization in the mind of the typical reader.

    Someone mentioned tendentiousness above. Shopping such a question, already settled in favor of lower case by multiple guidelines and numerous RMs, to a "house organ" venue clustered with "gimme capitals just because it's military" thinkers is what's tendentious, by definition – it's anti-guideline (anti-WP:Consensus) advocacy of an off-site viewpoint about how to write English, putting military-history buffs' preferences above the broad-audience needs of the encyclopedia. While consensus can change, it doesn't do so via selectively localized votestacking. If you think MOS:CAPS should and would change on some point, then appropriate venues for a proposal are WT:MOSCAPS, WT:MOS, or WP:VPPOL, in order of increasing number of eyes and brains.
    — AReaderOutThataway t/c (SMcCandlish via untrusted public WiFi) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe we should be using lower case in general, and I weighed in on a few of the move discussions linked above. I agree that this discussion really should be happening on WT:MOSCAPS. CThomas3 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I consider it should be in lower case, per North Africa campaign, unless the majority of reliable sources use an initial capital. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Upper case on the grounds of OR if lower case is used, unless the majority of RS use lower case, determined by a list of sources acceptable to editors, not a quantitative analysis. Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
See my comment on N-Grams above, and why we should not be considering it a "reliable source" to revise article titles. If Wiki requires verifiable sources, and it does, then N-grams fails to provide that basic requirement and this whole crusade to alter historical articles and rename every "Campaign" event on Wiki falls at the first hurdle, because the only evidence offered cannot be validated, but is supposed to be taken on trust, because "reasons" – aka, Google is holier than thou with dozens of hard-earned books on the shelf. The fact that numerous sources (https://www.google.com/search?q=google+n-grams+inaccurate) challenge the accuracy of N-grams should be a concern for everyone. Because if we allow one editor to go on a crusade aiming to rewrite dozens of articles simply based on what Google says, without any way to verify the data sources, we are opening a can of worms and giving other like-minded editors a free pass to manipulate the grammar of an indefinite number of articles based on what amounts to little more than digital polling. I believe that if this form of "editing" is to continue it needs to be cast in stone, i.e. approved by the wider community and added to guidelines, or we could see a widespread abuse of unorthodox evidence taken from Google software being thrown about without sufficent means to challenge its integrity. — Marcus(talk) 10:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've always advocated exactly the opposite of letting sources vote on our style. The point of the n-grams links is just to make it really clear that in those cases the sources are nowhere close to the "consistently capitalized in reliable sources" that we use to decide to capitalize, per MOS:CAPS. The n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story, but in these cases it appears to be enough; if you see some where you think seeing the other side in important (e.g. here), say so and we can talk. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, because I think that is missing: What are the positiosn within this survey? Support means supporting what exactly? Oppose means opposing what exactly? ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: Per the above, support of the proposal is supporting a move to formalise capitalisation of the word "campaign" in article titles where the proper names of military campaigns are (or should be, by English correct usage) capitalised. Eg. the WWII Burma Campaign. Cadar (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Let’s not exchange one straitjacket for another. Campaign paired with a place isn't always used as a proper noun, and the older and more classically educated the writer, the more likely they are to sometimes use campaign in its original sense, for the season of taking to the field, even if the same sort of fighting immediately followed on after breaking camp from winter quarters, and to see what another might describe as The Such-and-Such Campaign as a series of related campaigns.

That said, in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed, campaign was being used as part of a proper name by the article, if not by all the sources, and should be capitalized. Qwirkle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You say "in most of the articles which have recently been controversially renamed", but could you point out one or two explicitly that you think were "controversially renamed" and say how sources support what you are saying? Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
All of those which you have moved. Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Many of those that I moved had RM discussions that closed with consensus to use lowercase, and the rest were similarly pretty well aligned with policies and guidelines that suggest lowercase unless sources support interpretation as a proper name. If you're not going to show one that is controversial, or wrong based on a reason that you can state, what do we have to discuss? And I was asking Qwirkle, since he claims such things exist but has so far declined to point one out. If you guys are just complaining about how much work I do, and won't point out errors or reasons to do differently, it comes across as nothing but personal attacks and whining. I get that you prefer caps usually, but that's not WP style when sources mostly use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I explained earlier why your moves are controversial, in detail, with links. Your "evidence", your so-called N-grams, are a load of crap because they cannot be verified. So get off your high horse and address the cocnerns I raised about your "sources". Given that you claim to follow "policies and guidelines" I consider your wilful ignorance of WP:V the elephant in the room here. Verifiable evidence is a core policy; MOS stylings are only guidelines. Therefore you're being a hypocrite, by refusing to comment on the fact that your evidence, for what it's worth, is potentially bogus. Sticking a couple of words in a Google N-gram search box hardly amounts to "hard work", in fact it's as lazy as you can get in terms of historical research, so don't push your luck claiming to put in more effort than the guys who wrote the articles you're subjecting to this crusade of yours, which now comes across as a vanity project than a sincere attempt to help build an encyclopedia. And for your information, not only can consensus change, so can guidelines. And as no one guideline sufficienly addresses this problem, it's open to discussion and potentially requires MOS clarification. Why do feel the need to constantly undermine attempts to discuss the matter on the project pages where people who create and edit these type of articles almost daily probably have more experience and understanding of the situation than you seem to appreciate or allow them? Don't become a diva with that "personal attacks and whining" rhetoric now you are overwhelmed with editors are genuinely concerned about the issue; to me it seems like you're just saying that as an idle threat to your detractors. Prove us wrong. Take a seat. Shut up. Let project members consider the options since they're the one mostly involved in maintaining these articles. Isn't that why such projects exist in the first place, or do you intend to argue that they're worth less than the sum of their parts? — Marcus(talk) 23:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Marcus, nobody is relying on n-grams as a "reliable source" nor as the only way to look at usage in sources. I've always encouraged clicking through to book sources to understand what's behind the stats. And a generalized "something might be wrong" complaint is no substitute for pointing out an article or two where I might have got it wrong. Arguing hypotheticals is useless. I don't mean to undermine discussion, I just can't get anyone to present any specific challenges to what I've done so we can discuss them. And whether people complain about my work being too much or too little is not relevant either way; let's talk specifics. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I neither support or oppose a blanket "capitalisation of Campaign/campaign in article titles". It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo. Then again, I think lengthy discussions on it make a mountain out of a molehill, and are as useful as considering the numbers of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone here could be doing something productive instead of obsessing over needless "standardisation". (Hohum @) 16:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hohum: I'm afraid that rather misses the point irt THE MOS: it exists in order to provide those with only peripheral interest in writing the encyclopaedia a cover—albeit one as transparent as a birthday suit—in the guise of "maintaining" it. This results in the regular over-indulgence in peripatetic fucking trivia that we see before us on a regular basis.Shout out to Gog the Mild ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notifications have been made at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hohum has crystallised my views on the various aspects of this almost perfectly. (Thank you.) I write as an editor whose last FAC was renamed four times during the review and then had a requested move discussion opened - still while it was being reviewed. It ended up, shortly after the FAC closed, as Crécy campaign and is mentioned by Dicklyon above; this discussion may result in another name change. Frankly I don't care. I made no comment nor contributions regarding the five name changes to date and have nothing to add to Hohum's summary, especially his second sentence. So I am returning to "doing something productive". If anyone would care to check my current FAC, or any of the others, for departures from the MoS and record their thoughts as a review, I am sure that it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Totally agreed on Hohum's second sentence: "It depends on what the sources say on a case by case basis imo." Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be, why are you not doing that before making RMs? N-grams is not sources. N-grams does not list titles, and N-grams does not provide context - the search criteria simply pulls the term you search from a bunch of undisclosed titles that Google bothered to scan into its database. That is not. I repeat – NOT – how accurate and verifiable referencing works. It's randomised polling, without any form of control to guarantee the results are impartial; we don't know if N-grams results came from genuine history texts, because there is no proof to support their figures, and that's in addition to the OCR inaccuracy issue. So, on a case-by-case basis, using N-grams as evidence is spurious and should be challenged as such. Any suggestion that Google's results can be trusted on face value is paramount to trusting a brand, and that a form of bias, which wiki policy does not tolerate either. So, back at the guy who is always demanding evidence – where is yours, and where has it ever been, besides linking to that unconventional N-gram, in order to manipulate editors into supporting RMs based on a fallacy? I say that, based on something an editor linked earlier, that I read, and from it I'm lead the believe that N-grams, in some cases, can amount to original research (See WP:CSF#Trying_to_"prove"_style_by_search_hits_is_original_research), simply because N-grams determines "trends", but does not determine what actual sources say about campaigns, or whatever term is searched, to allow the data to be relevant to us. — Marcus(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming. Is there a case where you think I got it wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's your position, you defend it. As Marcus points out, n-grams are a blunt instrument which fail the test of relevance. Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Go back and look at your opening post for this entire discussion, Dicklyon, where you list several RMs. In some of those you linked to N-grams as your evidence. In each of those N-gram graphs, the difference between "Campaign" and "campaign" results is often something as insignificant as 0.00000001%, e.g. Borgainville Campaign: 0.0000000384% vs campaign 0.0000000976%. Seriously? You requested a move and claim a consensus based upon a 0.0000000592% difference? That's not just "getting it wrong", IMO, it's complete and utter bollocks! Can you translate 0.0000000592% into historically revelant terminology that does not amount to defering to a specialised or common style supposedly determined by N-grams and remains relevant to the general reader? When some passing Anon-IP/new editor says "why is this article using 'c' instead of 'C'?" and decides to move it can you explain in common terms why you moved it, and numerous other campaigns, based on RM consensus which only had N-grams thrown at them as evidence? I mean, seriously... I don't accuse people of false pretences without evidence, but these RMs were loaded with them. The only evidence you offered was N-grams or nothing at all. Can you explain that pattern, which you just claimed to look beyond, yet the RMs do not support your claim since no other evidence was presented? — Marcus(talk) 21:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, only around one bigram in a billion is "Bougainville Campaign", in English-language books, so the numbers look a bit silly (that's about 10 million times more rare than the bigram "of the", which is about 1 in 100). Still, there are enough to pass the significance test, and you can see the ratio of caps to not, and how it evolved over time. I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. Nobody is suggesting that these stats are of any interest to the reader. I generally click through to get a look at the books and their hit snippets, to make sure I'm not counting inappropriate hits. E.g. if a significant number of books used the lowercased "Bougainville campaign" for something other than what we refer to with caps in "Bougainville Campaign", I'd likely notice that; or if I didn't, someone who wanted to challenge the evidence would look for that and point it out. I've been wrong before, and it will probably happen again, so if you can find a problem please do let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
As for which books were selected for the stats, if you have some good books that don't appear in Google book search, that weren't found in the libraries of Oxford and Stanford and such, please do point them out to us. I'm sure Google missed a lot of books that these libraries didn't have; maybe military history is poorly represented in those libraries. If so, it shouldn't be hard to find a few example of what they missed, and see what they say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think this ngram thing is a useful metric either way. Let's look at high quality general texts, like the Oxford Companion to Military History, and the texts being used in the specific campaign articles. For example, in my copy of the Oxford Companion, the entries are "Gallipoli campaign", "Italian campaign", "Norwegian campaign" and "Mesopotamian campaign", among many others that have a lower case c. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that input! But I'm pretty sure if I had found a set of books like that I would have been accused of cherry-picking sources. Stats are more neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, these stats are unequivocally not “more neutral”, they merely have a spurious feel of authority, kinda like back in the day when somone would print their own calcs on tractor paper because...computer!!! They can not address the usage within the books cited as to whether the phrase is being used as a proper name or not.

Looking at one example -Burma- in depth, I’d suggest that Burma Campaign is a growing usage, “Burma campaign” a declining one; BC a leftpondian, Bc a rightpondian, ≠and that the two best general books on the subject each use different conventions. Since one, Bill Slim’s own work, is lowercasical, this convention should not be ignored completely, whatever the final outcome.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the older a work is, the more likely campaign will be used in an etymologically correct sense, lasting only the fighting season, the time armies took to the field, after winter, or the monsoon, or such. Qwirkle (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the cap C has been becoming somewhat more common in recent decades for the Burma campaign. But looking at sources, it's still clearly "optional"; that is, we're not yet (by 2008 at least) at the point where sources cap it consistently. Also notice that the Wikipedia article started out capped in 2004, and many books since that time were likely influenced thereby (not just these that say so). And a lot of those uses in recent books are about the org "Burma Campaign UK" (founded 1991); that's why such stats from recent years need to be regarded more carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is an explicit look at correcting for "Burma Campaign UK" in n-gram stats. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice that if you set Smoothing to 0 you get a higher number of results for capitalised Campaign, but with Smoothing of 3 lower-case campaign gets a higher result. Further evidence, IMO, that N-grams cannot be considered reliable. N-grams relies more on algorithms than actual results. Call me a Luddite, but I'll be buggered if I ever consider this digital-age crap conquered up by programmers better than professionally researched and verified history. History is something you experience on a human level, through dedicated studies, sometimes lasting a lifetime, not by number crunching nouns from a database. Google bosses would digitise their own dead mothers if they thought it would give them control over more information. I've never trusted that company, nor its motives, when it comes to it domineering the data our world has access to as well as its constant under-mining of democracy on behalf of big tech corps. Google may not own Wikipedia, but I'm sure it'd love to get its grubby mitts on the Foundation somehow. For now, I remain suspicious and skeptical of its agents, editing here on Wikipedia, whether openly or covertly, working to influence a wide variety of articles using Google-crafted data, as opposed to genuine sources which should take priority. — Marcus(talk) 00:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Poppycock. Here's the link. It shows a bump in "Burma Campaign UK" in 2008; not increase otherwise. Your opinions are noted. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Your last response amounts to a lot of opinionation, but no facts, no certainty, is presented. As for your claim that N-gram results "pass the significance test" – who says so? That's a very subjective opinion based on your own expectations, not Wikipedia's. There are no established benchmarks defined in Wiki policy that allow you to claim that any results you found "pass the test" and are therefore final. I'm more inclined to accuse you of cherry-picking N-gram results, since it's the only evidence you have ever offered, because it works in your favour. But neutral? There's no such thing as neutral data; all data is subject to some form of systematic bias, however slight. All Wiki articles are subject to selective sourcing, since editors can only ever write material or edit content with the sources they have to hand. But at least those who do use actual books are capable of citing their claims, from a title and page, giving others access to material that can be cross-examined and verified. N-gram fails to do that. Your "significance test" is based on blind faith, there is no data to support it. Wiki doesn't allow non-verifiable refs. Wiki doesn't allow synthesis. Once again you're trying to force us to rename articles based on what suits you alone, not what is generally used us those with a true interest in military history. — Marcus(talk) 17:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
By "pass the significance test" I only meant that if an n-gram's stats are in the database, or in the plot, it's because that n-gram passed the cutoff of appearing in at least 40 books in the selected corpus. In most cases it's a lot more than that. No claim about statistical or other kind of significance was intended. By "neutral" I only meant that the stats were not collected with arguments such as these in mind. They are just stats from a bunch of books that were scanned for other reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible duplicate articles

It seems there are two military history articles on the same topic. I am wondering if anyone from this project would take a look at these two articles and make a determination as to whether or not these are duplicates. One is a very brief overview (here) the other is, of course, much more in depth (here). I'm out of my depth on these topics, so that is why I'm asking for help. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day Steve, that is not so much duplication of an article, but an article on a brigade-sized formation that forms part of a larger divisional-sized formation. I agree that the brigade one is underdeveloped. Generally it is accepted that formations of brigade-size (particularly fighting ones) can have their own article, as well as having a summary in the parent article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - thanks for (ahem... ahem) keeping the peace :>) I appreciate your explanation and showing me the value of both articles. Well, on to other editing activities. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Impostor again?

[ [134.36.250.200]] Can I have a reminder of the notice board to refer this to pl. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPI Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for Yuri Gagarin

G'day everyone, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yuri Gagarin could do with another reviewer, maybe someone with some knowledge of astronauts? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • We only need a source review before this could be promoted. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Move request notification

Talk:Waterloo_Campaign#Requested_move_18_July_2019 — Marcus(talk) 16:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich

Article: Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich

Recently, this has been assessed as "B class" for WP:Biography and WP:England, unfortunately, I don't think it would be that for WP:MILHIST. Possibly "C class" at most. Adamdaley (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day Adam, thanks for that. I've assessed it as C-Class, a few missing citations there, but the coverage seems ok for B2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

German Air Force (disambiguation)

The hatnote atop German Air Force links to all three earlier German air forces (those of WWI, WWII and East Germany) and has for a long time. I therefore removed the link to this unnecessary dab page. A PROD has been rejected. Should the hatnote at the main article be reduced to {{other uses}}? Or should this dab page be nominated for deletion? Srnec (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Overlapping designations of unrelated US Army units

I am seeking advice here on the correct disambiguators to distinguish unrelated US Army units. The specific issue is with the usage of the designation '26th Cavalry', which was used twice by two unrelated units.

The first '26th Cavalry' was the 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts), which was destroyed in the 1942 Philippines Campaign and officially disbanded in 1951 (meaning that the designation was permanently retired from the US Army). However, the designation '26th Cavalry' was used again for a National Guard parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System from 1963 to 1988, with entirely different heritage (the number '26' was likely used because it was part of the 26th Infantry Division (United States).

Complicating the problem, the 26th Cavalry was renumbered as the 110th Cavalry in 1988, likely to preserve the number of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry Regiment. However, the 110th Cavalry of 1988 did not inherit the lineage of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry and so they are historically unrelated.

Would it make sense to disambiguate by date in this case, having separate articles for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States, 1921–1940) and 110th Cavalry (United States, 1988–1996) with redirect from [[26th Cavalry (United States, 1963–1988)? Presumably, the use of (Phillippine Scouts) for the 26th Cavalry that fought in the ill-fated Philippines Campaign of 1942 (the most famous as it made what may be the last American cavalry charge in combat) is an adequate disambiguator. Kges1901 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that the 110th didn't inherit the lineage of the earlier unit as both were National Guard units and they tend to stretch things a bit more than Regular Army units to preserve their heritage. That said, your plan seems fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I've carried out the moves accordingly. Interestingly, the lineage was not inherited because the 110th Cavalry of the interwar period's lineage moved to the 180th Field Artillery when it was converted into the latter in 1940. The 180th FA became two different Field Artillery Battalions during WWII and postwar was reactivated in the Massachusetts ARNG, but was consolidated under CARS in 1959 to become part of the lineage of the 101st Field Artillery Regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, that seems more reasonable. The NG cares less about what branch the unit belonged to than maintaining continuity. I know of one unit in Illinois that's switched from artillery to infantry, back to artillery and recently to combat engineers in the last quarter-century or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You could add "U.S." directly to the title (e.g. 110th U.S. Cavalry Regiment), thus saving the clunky brackets with several entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, 'U.S.' has never been part of official designations in the US Army since 1917. Unfortunately, this simple distinguisher between state and Regular units used during the Civil War would be anachronistic in this context. Kges1901 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, context. Forgot about that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Kges1901 I disagree and I think the answer is simple. One article for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States), and one for the 26th Cavalry, with our standard Soviet-style 'First Formation,' 'Second Formation' etc. The regt was reformed, number was reused, and links can adequately link the lineages. Why should we associated non-lineage-linked Sov divisions with the same numerical designation, and not do so for the U.S. Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about the splitting up of formations in some cases over time. I now believe that it would work better if units with enough coverage on each formation to maintain separate articles could be split. This can be done on a case-by-case basis, as some Soviet units just won't have enough coverage (like units with brief existences destroyed in encirclements) to maintain separate existences, while with the famous Guards units it seems pointless to have an arbitrary break when Guards conversion occurred even though the personnel remained the same.

In regards to this situation with the two cavalry units, I reason that the 26th Cavalry (PS) is the most famous 26th Cavalry by and large because of its mentions in secondary sources and being the only US unit in WWII to see mounted combat. Because there is enough material on the 26th Cav (PS) alone to stand as a separate article, it should be split from the 26th Cav of the National Guard. Kges1901 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MILTERMS

I know this was discussed before, within the past year or two at WT:MOS however I would like to add some context as to why some of us still see room for movement on the style. At least here in the United States, most style guides for the different services capitalize the terms Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coast Guardsman. Thus there is a MOS:TIES argument to create an exemption/caveat. Just wanted to mention it, as looking in the archives I am not sure it has been mentioned in the past.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking my latest arrival, The Washington Post Desk-Book on Style, I see they support that capping for Marine. No mention of soldier that I can find. They list seaman as a Navy rank (not capped). They list Coast Guard ranks (lowercase), but no Coast Guardsman. Air Force ranks include airman first class, airman, airman basic (no caps). It might be fun to look at some others and see what they suggest. Not too surprising that each service's guide likes to cap the own stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
They would only have initial caps when used in front of the name of the person, ie "Coast Guardsman Billy Bloggs", but not when used to describe the person, ie "Billy Bloggs, a coast guardsman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
I would tend to agree, especially on WP where we have the guideline MOS:JOBTITLES. But some guides do differ, especially for Marine. The stats on that one do show more caps in recent decades, unlike the others; not enough to compel us to cap it, but enough to be worth discussing perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions (military ranks)

I have a problem with WP policy as regards Naming conventions (military ranks). It is awkward and confusing.Whereas to Capitalize military ranks, wherever the useage makes it clear that the word has a specific application (i.e. Military Rank). Most military ranks are also adjectives and nouns with more than one useage. I could be a talking about an able seaman who manned a gun or an Able Seaman who manned a gun. In the article George Pickett it starts: This article is about the American Confederate general. I ask general what?. How about major screwup John Doe. Or Major Major (I knew a Major Major),also a Sergeant Major (Sergeant David Major). Why would Confederate be capitalized but not General as in Confederate general.

Most military ranks serve as adjectives and nouns. The only way to clarify the term is by Capitalization.

How about phd. David Jones is a phd. what about ceo vs CEO? It continues on for titles President vs president. John Doe became president of Alpha Kappa PSI or John Doe became President of the United States of America? Secretary General or secretary general or Secretary general? 

 Just because the "Military may capitalize everything" (a blanket and ridiculous claim". Does not mean that we should disregard and deviate from the organizations that created the term.

John Doe is a private. Private what? John Doe is a Private in the army. John Does is a private in the army. John Does is a Private in the U.S. Army. John Doe is a Private in the British Army.Oldperson (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There you have it, Oldperson: Catch-22. "That's a helluva catch". "It's the best there is". ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Good ol' Major Major Major Major. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a WP policy, it's standard practice everywhere but the US military (and probably some others) - military ranks aren't proper nouns (nor are any other titles - the difference between a rank and a PhD. or CEO is that those are abbreviations or initialisms, and thus should be capitalized [and by extension, if you said someone had a doctorate in philosophy or was the chief executive officer, they should not be capitalized]). Similarly, President of the United States of America is a proper noun, president of a fraternity is not. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A rank can be used either as a title or a descriptor, John Doe is a captain (descriptor) - Captain John Doe is a soldier in the US Army (here it's a title). The same applies to other personal titles, Professor/Pastor/Doctor/Congressman Doe - Doe is a professor/pastor/doctor/congressman. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)::
Not a policy, but a guideline MOS:MILTERMS: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.
Contrary to popular opinion that the US Army capitalises everything, this follows the US Army style guide, which says: Capitalize military titles preceding a personal name. Lowercase military titles when standing alone or when following a name. (p. I-16) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: certain capitalization seen in operational military writing reflected technology, not usage. In the day of typewriters and mimeographs, ALL CAPS was used as a replacement for italics - which normal typewriters didn’t do, or for underscore, which could cut a mimeo stencil. Just as with banning blue ink (which did not reproduce well on thermofaxes (the origin of “burn me a copy”) and some photostat clones), the effect so long outlived the cause that it became seen as a requirement in itself.

Regarding the ongoing “proper name” flap, a couple points. We want to avoid the 18th century’s styling, In Which Our Hero Capitalizes Every Word on His Journey Toward His Meritted Succefs. We also avoid -wrongly in some cases, if you ask me, the capitalization of platonic ideals, which is what encyclopedia articles are about. We do not write about dog, which could be any old mutt. We write about the essence of doglitude -Dog. Stereotypes were similarly capitalized, for similar reasons, and that may be part of the reason for the usage’s downplay.

Nevertheless, at some point we are often using particular phrases as the contextually unique name for something, and at that point it becomes a proper noun, and capitalized. The fact that it could be used in other ways does not change this. Qwirkle (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are Tobias Smollett and I claim my £50. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it. And what is this theory that a "contextually unique name for something" becomes a proper name? By this logic, Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house should be at Sewer Cover in Front of Greg L’s House, no? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
In both cases that is still a descriptor - not a title. If your protagonist has a unique reputation for the production of sewer covers, he may be called "Sewer Cover G.".Alexpl (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing decorations to official photos

What is the sense of the project on the question of sourcing decorations to official photos? If a military BLP appears in an official photograph wearing "XYZ" medal is that photograph WP:RS for purposes of crediting said medal to the person? Or, is visual analysis of photography always WP:OR? (I ask this as I just wrote Jason Fettig and credited him with the Meritorious Service Medal based on his official USMC photo.) Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally I would consider it OR because it relies on an editor's interpretation of the image (and on the wearer wearing the right ribbons). It is also only a snapshot of the ribbons worn at that point in time. We would generally rely on bio blurbs and primary service records for details of decorations awarded where they are details worthy of inclusion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The image does seem to show the MSM, but I note it is also mostly covered up. So it is a bit ORy. It may be a valid conclusion in this case, but what about others where the image is not so clear? It would be best to reply on text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 and Slatersteven, thank you both for your feedback. That makes perfect sense and, on reflection, I agree. Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS

Given the rise and fall of several "Campaign vs campaign" discussions here, and suggestions that this is a MOS issue, not for MilHist to determine alone, I have introduced a detailed argument regarding the use of "campaign" as a proper noun at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Campaign vs. campaign in military history articles for anyone who wants to weigh-in and consider the matter in the right place. Ultimately, I hope to see WP:MILMOS updated to provide more certainty with regards to formatting such articles and the name of military campaigns, given the lack of consensus, and now we have an editor – Dicklyon – taking upon himself to move a ton of articles with, it might be argued, a controversial lack of reliable sources to do so, it might be prudent to reach a consensus and establish whether to favour such events as proper nouns. — Marcus(talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair point but I'm not sure the debate with Dicklyon over his moves is part of the question of whether c/Campaign is a proper noun. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Well since that's where this concern originated, I thought it best to give some background, otherwise editors have no reason to consider an individual term for the MOS to specifically cover. — Marcus(talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Campaign is pretty clearly not a proper noun; that's not where the debate lies. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Too late to move the goal posts or stall the debate again. What sources do you have to support that Campaign is not a proper noun? N-grams don't count, since they don't provide clear examples of how sampled sentences are structured. WP:BURDEN — Marcus(talk) 01:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion is better kept centralised? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We could, but for reasons unknown these discussions keep fizzling out and nothing is ever decided. Hours of time wasted, yet plenty of concerns raised in each. Any clue why these discussions just die while Dicklyon's move log keeps growing regardless of concerns about such moves?

What I mean to say is, if this wasn't a big concern, it wouldn't have cropped up three months in a row. Now we have a debate at ANI and an attempt to conclude the matter once and for all at MOS. Given the number of editors who made their opinion known in one or more of the "Campaign titles" discussions here, listed above, I'm kind of surprised that none appear keen to see the matter resolved by weighing-in at the WT:MOS, which was determined to be the best place to establish a consensus. I've debated the matter with Dicklyon ad infinitum, but am not quite feeling "backed" by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution. Would be really nice to get some comments, reflecting Milhist editor's views, either way, at the MOS discussion, and then perhaps we won't see the same bloody issue cropping up again next month, and the month after... I can think of nothing more tiresome than that. — Marcus(talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, there have only been a small handful of MilHist members with concerns. The reason these discussions keep fizzling out is that when people look into the moves, they are not able to point out a single one where I got it wrong (or if somebody has, please remind me). You tried at Talk:Gettysburg Campaign, but you got that badly wrong. So, if I've done wrong, why will nobody point it out? And why do you keep after me with theoretical issues but without any good example of a campaign that should be capped? Even at the currently open discussion at Talk:Waterloo Campaign, your best argument is just that it doesn't need fixing; sure, lots of people don't care about conforming to WP:NCCAPS, but not caring is not a good argument for leaving it wrong. It was my impression in all these discussions that there is no significant controversy or pushback to conforming to WP:NCCAPS; practically nobody from the project participated in the move discussions (all of which were automatically notified to the project on it's page alerts page which members should be watching), and the few who did participate did not present reasons to capitalize. All you have presented are some vague reasons to not take n-grams stats at face value (which is fine but not very useful), and the use of those stats to look at caps in context has been extensively discussed and you still got it wrong at Talk:Gettysburg Campaign. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And you pretty quickly converted that centralized discussion from a discussion about the issue to a discussion about me. This is not a way to move toward a resolution. Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Everything in that first paragraph sums up your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance from the start and disdain for consensus. The comment I left at your talk page shows what was said at these May–July discussions, and the fact that you still proceed based on conjecture highlights your refusal to stop moving articles in mass numbers. Even the discussion at ANI turned tables on you and you have to defend yourself more than I do. FACT: More editors have expressed concerns for your moves than not. FACT: When your edits are bing questioned you don't keep going. You just said "only a small handful". That number, however "small" you subject it to, is still >1, which represents you alones. If your moves are totally appropriate, why is no one helping you? You ask slanted questions because you're either missing the bigger picture or aiming to misdirect everyone as you continue obsessively to move those articles without fulfilling the core requirements of core policy, WP:V is more important than WP:NCCAPS – how can N-grams data be verified again? And your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction. — Marcus(talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen WP:V invoked in a styling question before (except by Marcus in this one a few times already). Very creative. Does anyone understand this argument? Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? Let me break it down for you in small steps, then you can do what you do best and try to poke holes in the logic, since you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you:

  1. You're renaming articles based on the singular argument that "Campaign" is not a proper noun and should be lowercase.
  2. Any argument that is disputable is traditionally considered a "point of view".
  3. All POVs should be supported by evidence, especially those that may be challenged.
  4. Evidence is needed to support all POVs during discussions RE:controversial edits, even if thy do not become in-line refs.
  5. Your evidence is, and always had been, N-grams charts produced by Google. This is "for office use" evidence to garner consensus.
  6. N-grams are graphs made by Google using data they gathered.
  7. Their sources are books which they scan and put every word into a database for their algorithms to search.
  8. Those books, their individual titles, authors and page numbers, where the results came from, are not detailed to support N-grams charts.
  9. We are given vague references to date ranges and usage in those years.
  10. Because there is no breakdown of sources, editors here are unable to verify the data that N-grams shows.
  11. In some cases, not all, we get a link to Google books, but many of the titles have copyrights with no/limited access, voiding their viability due to inaccessibility.
  12. Without verification we can't assess the accuracy, context or reliabliity of given N-grams data.
  13. It's like being told 1,000 people in a million have cancer but not being allowed to know the type, the demographics, the background of sufferers, etc.
  14. Blind data which cannot be verified by anyone is useless. Like a book with no bibliography is generally unsuitable for precise research.
  15. WP:V is policy; "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source".
  16. WP:MOS are guidelines; "Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting".
  17. Policy is generally considered a higher level recommendation than a guideline; WP:POLICIES.
  18. Providing verifiable evidence generally takes precedence over most policy, except perhaps neutrality; WP:5P2.

Creative? No. Sound and logical argument. Check. You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written. And, it would seem, you often get mass-reverted by other projects. Glad to see some editors have the integrity to uphold standards instead of cowering away from their responsibilities and not letting editors push them about with rhetorical nonsense.

Here's a further policy that potentially applies directly to you: WP:TITLECHANGES — Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. How many moves have you performed without discussion that were stable? Before you ressurect the "I don't consider them controversial moves" circular argument... we're long past that moot point; if there was no controversy there would not have been discussions here lasting 3 months. I hope that is clearer for you to understand and comprehend. As ever, anticipating your response and attempts to refute it in favour of your own self-righteous opinion.\ — Marcus(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I've never seen WP:V as being related to style questions. Has anyone, that can point me at such a case? Do please try to understand and excuse my extreme ignorance of such things, and help me out. I do understand that WP:NPOV can some into title selection, as sometimes different names for things come from different points of view on them, and a more neutral name can often be found. Applying that to title capitalization seems impossible, though, even if one claims that those who cap and those who don't represent different points of view on the subject (which I think is rarely the case). It says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We're not going to embed the proportion of caps somehow in the title; we have to decide. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Either capitalisation of "campaign" is *important*, because it is content, and therefore WP:V applies. So:
  • Follow what reliable sources say, per article, if there isn't a clear winner, keep it how it is, and stay consistent in the article.
Or it isn't important, WP:V doesn't apply. So:
  • Keep it how it is, per article, and stay consistent in the article.
Or argue for a few thousand more words. Also, it's definitely seven. Seven angels can dance on the head of a pin. Four more than the number of roads a man needs to walk down. (Hohum @) 18:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does something have to of happened on Wiki before in order for you to accept it? Think you'll be able to claim that if there are no similar cases you can disregard the argument completely? There's a first time for everything, sometimes cases set a precedent – some policy expresses itself without the need for examples, unless you're claiming all policy is reactive rather than preemptive. Besides WP:V isn't being used here to question the style itself. WP:V is being used to ask whether the evidence you supply is good enough. WP:V is required to prove that your evidence supports your case that Campaign isnt a proper noun. Pass the WP:V test first, apply MOS second. It's the same as any content: Verify a claim you want to make, then add it. Two different stages. It's not rocket science, and you understand that. — Marcus(talk) 20:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, so you were "shocked at my ignorance" for never before having "seen WP:V invoked in a styling question", and you are saying now that you are equally shockingly ignorant of any such prior use of this concept you made up? Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, makes no sense. You can't make up policy when it's there in black and white. Though it seems that you're in the habit of changing things while discussions are on-going, to subtly stregthen your argument. This edit is a COI because you're changing guidelines relating to articles you are editing that are being disputed; expect this concern to appear at the ANI thread, since you're so unwilling to heed my advice. And FYI, no I haven't looked through Wiki's entire history to see if WP:V has been used in this way before? Why the fook would I trawl through 18 years of wiki talk pages to satisfy you? Do it yourself if you're that curious, but since WP:V was written based on community consensus it doesn't require any other consensus to apply it. The only case that's relevant is this one, here and now. Your demand for former cases is paramount to WP:LAWYERING. Just because I can't prove it hasn't happened in Wikipedia's 18 years of activity doesn't mean it hasn't, and whether it has or not changes nothing. Policy isn't law, it doesn't have to be applied in equal measures. Your attempts to be dismissive changes nothing. You appear to be denying the need for WP:Verifiability which implies that you don't feel the need to be accountable for your moves. — Marcus(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Verifiability of article contents is crucial. Verifiability of my comments on talk pages is a different thing altogether.[citation needed] Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. You know fine well I mean verifiability of N-gram charts that you present as evidence and nothing to do with comments. Go back to the steps I listed, see 10 thru 12. — Marcus(talk) 03:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I get that you're not comfortable with n-gram stats from millions of books chosen by some unknown criterion unrelated to our purpose here. So show us some other reason to think we should capitalize "Campaign" instead of just criticizing my work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show why we should lowercase "Campaign" since your sources are, as you just said, "unknown criterion". You'll find that the WP:Burden is a section within the WP:V policy and states, very clearly, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.... Tell me, is an article title part of the title? Are you not only changing titles, but in-line usage of "Campaign" to match the the moved title? That being the case, you are affecting the content. The burden is on you to provide verifiable evidence to support your edits. Looking at an N-gram I see no means to verify the data. Sure, you can say "from millions of books" like it means anything. But it means nothing, since I don't know the titles, authors or page numbers of just 40 books (the minimum for inclusion) to pick up, and turn to the pages where Google scanned the term "whatever campaign", and then read the full sentences or paragraph surrounding those entries. That is how editors verify content for ALL of Wikipedia. You and your N-grams are NOT the exception. Your data is inadmissable as evidence, because WE CAN'T SEE THE BOOKS!!! Which means you should never have moved anything in the first place. You should have done what you're demanding everyone else do, and go find evidence that "campaign" is not a proper noun, or that upper-case usage is not common. We need to know the actual books you determined that with. Blind faith N-grams don't prove anything. No titles means no context to verify. N-grams data undermines WP:V in the fashion you use them. I am not just critisicing your work and never have. Since the 27 June, since crarifying my position in my second comment on this entire matter, I have remained consistent in my stance regarding the use of N-grams. It is you who has engaged in circular arguments, moving the goalposts and not willing to comprehend the importance of WP:V before moving every campaign article on Wikipedia, which appears to be your goal. I doubt you've ever even clicked WP:V and read the requirements, because you haven't once mentioned or disputed it, you've simply acted like it doesn't exist or isn't important. Either way, I suggest you read it and tell us why you think it doesn't apply to you, or N-grams, or article titles, or whatever your issue is with it needs to be known. — Marcus(talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have taken on the burden of researching the caps usage in sources for these things, and presented the best evidence I could find. In RM discussions, it was found to be convincing, especially since nobody provided any counter evidence (except at Talk:Waterloo Campaign where one guy found one source that treats it as a proper name). I am not adding or changing any fact-like article contents. WP:V has no applicability here. I've done what I can, things have been decided, and now you want to somehow disrupt that. For what? What makes you think any of these decisions were wrong, if you've found no evidence? What makes you think you can suddenly invoke WP:V and say that style decisions need to be verifiable to some high standard? Just because I've never heard of such a thing doesn't make it wrong, but it sure makes it seem odd to me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
"What makes you think you can suddenly invoke WP:V and say that style decisions need to be verifiable to some high standard?" – Because it's not a styling decision, you're challenging the naming convention of dozens of articles written by a multitude of editors over the last 18 years. That makes your claim accountable, therefore your evidence automatically falls under WP:V the minute you present it. I'm not invoking it – it's always there for such cases; you have evidence, I want to verify it – why can't I? You didn't like WP:V so you ignored it. One fact also remains, that you're skirting the truth on: the majority of your campaign moves were never posted to RM, you moved most of them yourself without requests. As for the few that did pass RM, we have no prrof that all the supporters even looked at your N-grams or understood it, and evidence was also not given on every RM case, just a few. Disrupt? Strong word. "Challenge" is the term we use here, unless you feel threatened. If I was being disruptive I'd be reverting all your moves. To date, I BRD'd only one, of dozens or moves, remember that numbe: 1. Can't claim disruption when all we've done is talk. I'm not stupid enough to war edit with you on so many articles. I've followed the proper process of discussing everything. You've persisted moving articles. Even ANI are not pleased. And because I'm not only disputing your evidence, but your conduct in applying that evidence so liberally, in light of your standard offer and past conficts with other projects, this could ascent to Arbcom quite easily. And while editors at Milhist and ANI may have grown weary of our dispute, they would scrutinse your edits down the the DNA, if necessary, at ArbCom, given the overwhelming amount of evidence I could pull from your history. A few "personal attacks" from me doesn't outweight the vast number of contrived comments and moves you've made. That latest comment "WP:V has no applicability here" – you might want to rethink that. We're building an encyclopedia. You're not making something bold or fancy with CSS, you're changing its case based on a position you hold, not regarding its style, but its function as a noun. I can challenge that claim. But I'm doing it as we have discussed over and over, by questioning your evidence. I don't need my own evidence, I need to be convinced that yours is good enought to meet Wiki-policy standards. So far, you've not proved it is. I haven't seen a single source that Google used to make one of those charts. Since you don't agree with WP:V have you been WP:POINTEDLY opposing it? — Marcus(talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points just to be clear where I stand on all these complaints from Marcus:

  • I support WP:V. If I were to add "Most authors don't capitalize campaign" or something like that to an article, that would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR unless I could provide a WP:RS that had come to that conclusion. But we make capitalization styling decisions all the time based on our own research; how could it be otherwise?
  • Most of my unilateral moves were made after discussions that led me to believe that there was no significant opposition to following WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and using lowercase when evidence showed that capitalization in sources is unambiguously far from consistent.
  • A few of my technical move requests were contested, and went to discussion, where the consensus to move several groups of them re-affirmed the idea of following guidelines and evidence. It is not usual to ask the move nominator to "prove" that all the supporters applied due diligence to their examination of the issues and evidence. I made no attempt to prove anything about that.
  • Only one of my "undiscussed" campaign moves was reverted (by anybody) iirc, and that was based on n-grams evidence from an incompetent attempt to prove me wrong.
  • Nobody has alleged that any one of my moves was incorrect per policy, guidelines, or sources, with the exception of the one mentioned above (if I've forgotten one or more, please remind me). Some have alleged that they were "controversial", or that some unspecified ones might be wrong, but the basis for that has never been clarified. When policy, guidelines, and sources all point unambiguously the same way, such case fixes are routine, not controversial.
  • N-gram stats often give insights into caps styling over the years, for terms that are popular enough. These stats graphs should not be taken at "face value" or "bottom line", but also as a suggestion of what other searches to do to make sure that what's being counted is what you're looking for. These books N-gram stats are well known to over-count capped uses, compared to what we care about in WP, due to counting titles, headings, citations, etc., rather than just in sentences which would be what we want. And they often get metadata such as dates wrong, especially in older books and magazines. In older items, sometimes misrecognition can be a significant issue, but styling decisions are typically made on the basis of "modern" (last half century or so) usage, so this is typically unimportant. For proper names there will generally be a strong signal that most sources cap the term consistently (e.g. see stats for Battle of the Bulge). When we don't see that signal, it's because capitalization is treated as optional.
  • Questioning my evidence without evidence comes across as just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • I have fixed many capitalization errors in the "dozens of articles written by a multitude of editors over the last 18 years" in MilHist other than the title caps we are talking about. These articles are not unique in needing some style gnoming – I've done it in many areas of Wikipedia, most often without pushback or fanfare.

Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the point-form breakdown of your position, very helpful. I would like to respond to each point, as briefly as possible:
  • Use of N-Grams does amount to WP:SYNTH, per Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You are using N-grams, which combines multiple sources to form a graph, from which you conclude "'Campaign' is not a proper name". Further, N-grams do amount to WP:OR, per To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. [...] The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. You are using N-grams, which use "millions of books", but neither you nor I nor anyone else can see if the sources counted in your evidence directly relate to the topic. We already know that Google scans material that has zero context. Such material being regurgitated in N-grams charts only serves to create false-positive results. That is why we require WP:Verifiable data. To confirm the results are relevant. You can't really call N-grams "source based" since you can't identify a single source used by Google to compound its results, "speculation based" seems more apt.
  • Arguing in favour of MOS:CAPS brings us back to the point: You've never presented evidence that military campaigns are not proper names. The fact that some sources capitalise and some don't only strengthens the argument that this is a debated matter amongst historians, and that automatically makes it controversial to take it upon yourself to revise the entire catalogue of Wikipedia military campaigns and lowercase them. You are making a determination that is unsupported by a consensus of directly related sources. As for opposition to MOS:CAPS and MOS:NCCAPS, one editor in particular raised concerns at several RMs: User:PBS. Instead of engaging in civil discussion with him, you and another editor conspired to attack him with petulant claims of asking "vexatious questions" until the RMs expired. A very simple conclusion can be drawn: usage in sources in the manner given by N-grams is not proof that "campaign" is not a proper name. Essentially, you are using quantitative data to make qualitative determinations. Multiple editors raised this point in past discussions. This brings us back to why WP:V is applicable: if the data can't be verified, context has to be assumed, that is conjecture because you base your conclusion on incomplete information, which equals WP:OR.
  • "It is not usual to ask the move nominator to "prove" that all the supporters applied due diligence to their examination of the issues and evidence." See: proof by intimidation, ...giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding. Plus the fact that some editors just take MOS for granted and support cases without due diligence. Wikipedia doesn't consider the competence of those who respond to tasks, so we can only speculate as to their understanding of various factors: use of English language, MOS application, quality of your evidence. The outcome of all your RMs is not guaranteed, regardless. Consensus can change. BRD is always an option. Evidence of greater value that N-grams can be presented for each case.
  • "Incompetent attempt" terminology. Pretentious. No further comment.
  • "Nobody has alleged that any one of my moves was incorrect per policy, guidelines, or sources..." Really? And just what on earth do you think we've been discussing all this time? I contend they're all incorrect per policy, or rather your lack of respect for it, because you have no identifiable sources. Just inaccessible data, synthesised by Google, per the first point.
  • You seem confident of what N-grams pros and cons are, but you don't indicate where you got these. e.g. "These books N-gram stats are well known to over-count capped uses" – says who? Well known by whom? Fact or speculation? If fact, prove it. We don't work for Google, we don't have insider knowledge or contact with developers of N-grams. You might. These impressions may be your own or from them. Hearsay has no value here.
  • WP:IDONTLIKETHAT would be a valid argument if I had a personal POV rather than policy-based concerns; since you failed to cite any of my personal issues with N-grams I'll assume you can't support that claim further and will redact it. If you paid attention for the last few weeks you'd have read genuine reasons why I oppose changes to titles. I posted links regarding third-party critique of N-grams weeks ago. I have never commented on my personal tastes, so that debunks this nonsense. However, given the number of comments made regarding your moves, disregard for other editor opinions, your data, your violation of a standard offer, lack of evidence conforming with WP:V, your vast history or moves that were reverted, continued efforts to move massive numbers of articles with only N-grams, I can only say that your entire effort, or "work" as you call it, has been nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the very start. You've cherry-picked every bit of policy that works for you and disputed the rest, in a highly subjective manner. And by calling me "nutty" and calling WP:V irrelevant to your moves, you applied WP:IDONTLIKETHAT to the value of verifiable evidence. Even your churlish terminology here, "questioning my evidence without evidence", suggests your contempt for how Wikipedia works and higlights your habit of POV-pushing and trying to derail detractors with informal fallacies or made-up policy. More than anything, I think you're an amazing WP:Fillibuster and that you WP:PLAYPOLICY and WP:CIVPUSH like a pro. It's hard to WP:AGF in such cases, especially when you try to fuel arguments with misnomers.
  • "I have fixed..." WP:OTHER stuff.
— Marcus(talk) 01:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for laying out you position clearly aligned against mine. Can we stop now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for this very interesting discussion between you. Do you feel that there is anything that you have missed, in your comments so far? MPS1992 (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, we missed talking about something more productive, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"Can we stop now?" — That all depends on you. I can make no promises at this juncture. If your editing patterns with regards to moving campaigns using only N-grams as evidence is going to continue, then I have no intention to withdrawing my challenge and insistence that WP:V policy be adhered to, and may need to seek steps to remedy the problem. While you're thinking about that, consider: Your moves raised concerns and have been criticised by several editors. In contrast, not a single editor, beyond yourself, has contradicted my "nutty" claims regarding WP:V in support of you. I take that as a good sign, or you can take it as a warning that ArbCom might also uphold WP:V as described, if that route becomes necessary. It all depends on your conduct, not mine. My position will be reactionary to your edits. I believe the conversation has been exhausted of everything I need to say otherwise. It's up to you now to review the policy more closely and consider where you stand. For me, nothing has changed until you do. — Marcus(talk) 10:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To all project members: OK, I will proceed very carefully, not moving anything where usage in sources is ambiguous. Please check my most recent downcasing moves (did 6 this morning) and see if any are problematic; I've also listed 2 at WP:RMTR; please check or view, and revert any that you think I got wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Army Combat Training Centre (South Africa)

I noticed that the Articles to be Created section includes the above mentioned Army Combat Training Centre (South Africa). However both the SA Army Training Formation and Lohatla itself have existing Wikipedia pages. Lohatla has been pulled into the military history project, but the training centre has not. I think that that pulling the training centre article into the project would meet that page creation requirement. Alaric Silvertongue (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 / Rikhter R-23

Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 and Rikhter R-23, This is the same Soviet automatic gun. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading the two articles, they appear not. One is described as a gas-operated revolver cannon while the other is described as short-recoil operated. Also the Koll ref is cited to different pages. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I've checked Anthony William's Rapid Fire and Flying Guns books - they are definitely two completely different guns, with different actions firing wildly different ammunition - the R-23 is a very odd gun indeed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Old merge discussion

I started a discussion about whether or not Sapper and Pioneer (military) should be merged into Combat engineer back in December, however few people have taken part in the discussion. If anyone is interested in participating, see here. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 17:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Stalin's Falcons" book by Tomas Polak

Please do not cite claims from this book in articles as fact (it's OK to note in a listing that this book claims one thing or another), but it contains a lot of huge yet basic mistakes, and the bibliography is rather worrying. A detailed explanation for this can be found at the Soviet Aviation task force.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is your private project with no other members. Nor has this book been discussed at RSN. Because I never like the idea of the community not being involved in such decisions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Polak can be easily replaced as a source by more recent Russian publications, and has relatively little information compared to others. Kges1901 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Frankly, the name gives me pause. But some sort of community scrutiny is required before we discount it completely. A RSN discussion thread would be a good start, using examples of why it isn't a RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I have never heard of him, so have no idea of his reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
[[8]], so it may well be it just parrots soviet propaganda (I think that is what you are implying).Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Precisely. With aviation books, I've found there can be a tendency to only present one side's victory claims and not compare and contrast them where they conflict, so they can slide swiftly into perpetuating propaganda. However, Christopher Shores, who is a contributing author, has a good reputation from the aviation books he has had published by Grub Street, so it may just be Polak that is unreliable for material likely to be challenged, but is ok for basic biographical information, maybe not even for that. Either way, this book needs to be examined by the community at RSN rather than here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but a blanket ban should be discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe an editor's opinion about the quality of the content in any given source is a valid criteria for identifying reliable sources. Factotem (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
What criteria do we have to go on besides editors' opinions? Is there an objective criterion that we can apply to assess the book in question? Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally independent reviews are used to inform these decisions (if available), but reliability is always based on arguments about the work, author, and publisher, arguments made by editors who have looked at the source and are in a position to compare it to other books on the subject etc. Who else is going to decide on reliability? We have RSN to conduct centralised discussions of sources, and a thread should be started there with a link provided here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of France needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of battleships of France; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! If you are not sure about the A-Class list criteria, they are the same as the A-Class article criteria, but you just need to be familiar with MOS:LIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Commodores and brigadiers

Do commodores and brigadiers meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER because they aren't considered to be flag or general officers in their own countries, although they are completely equal in rank and responsibility to one-star flag and general officers in other countries? We have always held that they do. Now some are arguing that they do not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not by a fair reading of WP:SOLDIER as it stands, frankly. It probably needs a tweak to make it clear that criteria 2 starts from commodore, brigadier, air commodore, because while there are differences between countries about whether these bottom rung ranks are flag, general or air officers, our collective experience has shown that one-stars generally meet the GNG, regardless of the country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER #2: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents..." That seems to cover it, although maybe the wording needs to be tweaked simply to "their equivalents". But notwithstanding, a number of AfDs have established that we do consider Commonwealth one-star ranks to meet the criteria. That would seem to be common sense. There even seems to be a suggestion that no one-star officer is considered to be a flag or general officer, which is clearly nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus at AfD, per my recollection, is that they generally do meet SOLDIER. More importantly, they should meet SOLDIER. We should have a uniform cutoff (e.g. 1-star in this case). I will also note that SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability - 1-star generals/admirals (OF-6) can definitely pass SOLDIER and fail GNG (and conversely - colonels and naval captains - may fail SOLDIER but pass GNG. But there is little point in setting a different threshold for commonwealth vs. other countries. Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
If that has been the consensus at AfD, then we should change the SOLDIER reference to flag, general and air officers, and just state one-star and above, or their historical equivalents, for criteria 2. This will clarify matters for future AfDs and save going over the same ground over and again. Of course, SOLDIER doesn't trump GNG. I too see no value in making a distinction between different nations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Probably still need to leave in "flag officer" for historical ranks - the concept of "1 star" IIRC is a modern one - e.g. I don't think it applies to earlier naval ranks. But for modern cases - specifying 1-star (or OF-6) - covers at least all the 20th century ones. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
How about changing criteria 2 to "Held the rank of commodore, brigadier general/brigadier or air commodore or a higher rank, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest (given that commodore in modern parlance is very British, and in colloquial usage (widely used) can also mean "commanding" the squadron of a yacht club, and in the historical sense - commanding a squadron of small military vessels (even when actual rank was commander) + the current use (as opposed to past use) in the US - Commodore (United States) is honorary (given essentially to senior captains) and not 1-star): "Held a rank considered to be a One-star rank or higher, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents". Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why criteria 2 should be changed. I get that different nations consider 1-star flag/general officers differently, but if commonwealth nations have the same type of promotion to flag/general officers as they do here in the States, then that should be sufficient to meet GNG, and thus why criteria 2 is a criteria at all.
Now as for Commodore, if the individual held that position, and was involved in combat and is noted for their action, it is not the title that gave the individual notability, but meeting criteria 4. Heck a lowly recruit could play an important role in a significant military event, but still not get an article even though they might meet GNG and criteria 4, cause someone will point to BIO1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The point is that in the Commonwealth, commodores and brigadiers are not considered to be flag/general officers, although they hold entirely equal rank to rear admirals (lower half) and brigadier generals in the United States and to Commonwealth air commodores, who are considered to be air (i.e. flag/general) officers. It's purely a difference in terminology. If someone is using criterion #2 (as they are) to claim that commodores and brigadiers do not meet the criteria just on the technicality that they are not flag/general officers then it probably does need to be changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Per Icewhiz, I propose a change to criteria 2 of WP:SOLDIER, to make it read: "Held a rank considered to be a one-star rank or higher, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • Per my comment below - 1 star ranked officers are generally little-known outside their military. While a significant proportion would meet WP:BIO, most would not and we should not encourage people to write articles about them on spec. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Nick-D comments here and below, this seems excessive. Some alternative clarification may be in order; emphasize WP:GNG please. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nick-D; we should just emphasize GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact that we're having this discussion means it's uncertain and so we should resort to WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Nick-D. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment below. I am fine with the present wording, and the ambiguity it provides. I would also be fine with a compromise, where a footnote is added to the current wording, showing past consensus on the different views on the notability of OF-6 for different nations.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers; local guidelines like this are subsidiary to the GNG, and this would take it too far away. The list at SOLDIER begins: "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:...". This presumption would be wrong for a high proportion of 1 stars. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the regularity that this comes up is an indication that criteria 2 isn't clear enough, and should be clarified to ensure that one-stars are included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Defence Force, which is a fairly small military, had 139 one star officers as of 30 June 2018. I'd be surprised if more than a dozen of them meet WP:BIO. While this is a senior rank, the holders of these positions generally do not have a profile outside the military. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Specific military ranks mean little to me; however, I would caution against simply trying to internationalize a standard that makes sense in a few countries, without looking at what that would mean for the number of articles we're recommending including. That mistake has led us to the incredibly low bar that NFOOTY (for instance) sets. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


Perhaps we need to put stress into WP:Soldier that it's guidance about whether it's worth starting an article in the expectation that the sources will be there to meet GNG, and that, of itself, it does not stand in place of GNG and is not a defence against challenge on the basis of lacking sufficient sourcing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

SOLDIER is indeed a guidance - nothing more, nothing less. Passing or failing SOLDIER is just a predictor of GNG - you still need to "pony up" sources if GNG is challenged. The line of "1 star", or "2 star" - is fairly arbitrary. I'm not opposed to it being 2-star - however we also need to stress that failing SOLDIER doesn't mean an officer isn't notable. Even under the current regime - some colonels will pass GNG - usually when they command highly visible units - e.g. officers in United States Special Operations Command (if they've published their exploits, etc.) tend to have more coverage than officers of the same rank in United States Army Materiel Command.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Endorse Icewhiz; GNG trumps everything. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_148#Notability:_first_Commonwealth_air_force_woman_group_captain,_had_squadron_command, where it was generally agreed that Group Captain Leanne Woon MVO RNZAF [9] is notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The distinction between a brigadier and a brigadier-general is semantics when it comes to the guidance when the two are equivalent rank levels. A threshold will always have outliers, however; the guidance should not discriminate on a matter of semantics. I think this generally follows this sub-thread. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Those who are opposing seem to have misunderstood the proposal. They are voting to keep the current wording, which still suggests that one-star officers from countries which classify them as flag or general officers have a presumption of notability, whereas those from countries that do not so classify them do not, which makes no sense whatsoever. They are not voting to disqualify one-star officers from criterion #2, as they seem to believe. Also note that in some countries (e.g. pre-1945 Germany, Russia), major-generals and rear-admirals are equivalent in rank to one-star officers elsewhere, not two-star officers as their rank titles would suggest. It's all just a matter of terminology. Better to clarify completely that all such officers meet criterion #2, otherwise we'll continue to have debates about it just like we did about recipients of the Légion d'honneur and Knight's Cross all meeting criterion #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is not an improvement to the flawed wording IMO. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not the point, though. The point is by opposing it you're still supporting brigadier-generals definitely having a presumption of notability and brigadiers maybe or maybe not having and therefore not clarifying anything and continuing the ridiculous uncertainty merely due to differences in terminology in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If you think we could have better wording of it, Nick-D, I'm not glued to the way I've worded the proposal. If it can be better clarified, we should do that rather than leave it ambiguous. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: To be honest, I'd prefer to delete this point. I'm not convinced that there's any level of command below the command of an entire service that can be assumed to generate sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't agree though, as I've managed to find more than enough material for FAs on several WWI half-colonels, and the Australian Dictionary of Biography has articles on most battalion commanders from WWI who spent a reasonable time in the job, and numerous brigadiers from WWII, as well as a few battalion commanders from that war. Perhaps we should be linking the command criteria with the rank criteria in some way? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I've also had success in writing articles on fairly junior-ranked officers, but I don't think that there's an arbitrary level of rank at which notability can be assumed, especially at an international level. For instance, I agree that Australian infantry battalion commanders of the world wars can be assumed to be notable due to the excellent literature on this topic, but most of those who led battalion-level deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in recent years are sadly little-known. Conversely, I suspect that few US Army battalion commanders of the world wars are notable for this as the literature is focused on more senior officers in these much larger armies. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


As I have stated above, I am fine with the present wording, as it allows for interpretation whether one-stars are considered notable for their achievement depending on the nation. If a commonwealth nation doesn't fine, that can fit within the present wording. If the United States does fine, that can fit within the present wording. If clarification of this is needed by adding a footnote, I am fine with that too. For those who say that GNG is sufficient (and perhaps alluding that SOLDIER/MILPERSON isn't necessary), this SNG was never meant to override GNG as NNBASEBALL and other SNGs appear to do, rather as others have said before it is suppose to provide guidance on what the past consensus of our editing community have considered to meet SIGCOV.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Heinkel He 231

The Heinkel He 231 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Rif War

Infobox collage.
This is a bit gruesome.
This is a very cool picture--if Alfonso XIII gets to be in here, why not these guys?
Because there's four pictures of Spanish troops in the collage.

Hi all--I'm looking at this article and I am very struck by the image in the infobox, this collage by User:Barbudo Barbudo. It's six pictures, but only one side is shown: all these represent the Spanish side, and all are either neutral or what you might call positive toward that side. There's no decapitated Moroccans, for instance, and not even a picture of Moroccan fighters--when that image of Kaid Sarkash is really powerful. I don't know how to make/edit a collage, so I'm not (yet) going to mess with it myself, but I do want to draw some attention to the fact that the infobox completely obliterates the Riffian side. (And if you want to know why I posted here and not on the talk page...) Drmies (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Favonian, I saw you were all over that article history, blocking Krajoyn socks of course--and now I discover that Barbudo Barbudo is also a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libessart100/Archive) of some dude who has a "Spanish, aristocratic focus"--which makes sense here, given the politics of that image. Considering that sockiness, we might as well tweak their original image, which they plugged all over the Wikipedias, to get it right (and neutral). Drmies (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that some balance would make the infobox more Pillar-compliant. If only the pictures of "the other side" were of better quality. The group shot, in particular, is rather muddled. The one with the severed heads would be more appropriate on WP:AE, I guess. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ooooooh the supercool admin is going political... ;) Yes, I looked through the entire category on Commons, but this is about all it is. The group picture is muddled, and I cannot find material on this Kaid Sarkash (there's lots of possible reasons for this, of course); the quality of the images, and the paucity of some images, only reinforces the basic content gap we have here, and that the victor writes the history books, and illustrates them too (I think that's the sock part). Drmies (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
As something of an aside, Kaid is a title, not his first name. That'll make tracking him down more difficult. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

Albert Kesselring] has now reached the voting phase of WP:FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. Interested parties are encouraged to drop by. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign capitalization discussion

The discussion that MarcusBritish started at the MOS is continuing. Please join if interested:

Move discussion in progress as to "PT boats"

FYI: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, which affects that page and others of a similar nature in relation to article title and style to be used; naming process. Kierzek (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There are now a couple of competing proposals there; more inputs to help decide would be useful. Kierzek, I don't see what you mean by "others of a similar nature"; this is pretty specific to finding the right type descriptor for US PT boats; in our discussion over at Wikiproject Ships, they couldn't decide and mostly stopped trying to, after accepting that the original "Motor Torpedo Boat" titles weren't right. Is there anything else like that elsewhere that you know of? A more general principle worth discussing? Dicklyon (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters, which has started about torpedo boats. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Dicklyon, a valid query. By "others of a similar nature" I meant, other American PT boats, besides just the PT-109. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Honorific prefix in biography info boxes

A discussion has been started, located here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:HONORIFIC_& "honorific_prefix" in bio infoboxes. Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Specialised Infantry Group

I have as of this date taken one of the talkpage drafts that J-Man11 created, made perhaps 20 separate edits to fix numerous inconsistencies with Milhist house style and proper referencing (J-Man11, - an automatic filter reminded me we no longer count the "Daily Mail" as a reliable source, so, note that for the future) and have created this article. Most of the credit for the research and organisation belongs to J-Man11. I will repeat this notice at WP:MILHIST. I hope that J-Man11 will carefully note what I changed, and act in accordance with such guidance in the future.

Carefully note that we link British infantry regiments, not battalions, thus Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, *not* The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment and *not* 2nd Battalion, Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Also now Berlin Headquarters and Signal Regiment as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Tôn Thất Đính

I have nominated Tôn Thất Đính 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. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Calty's Horse?

Hi all. I've started a page on Thomas Taylor (cricketer, born 1825) and some info I have from Harrow says he saw action in South Africa with "Calty's Horse at the Cape" for which he was mentioned in dispatches (which will be sometime between 1842 and his death in India in 1859). I've never heard of it and can't seem to find anything online which sheds some light on Calty's Horse. Any ideas? Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Suppose you mean the Harrow register entry over here. Can´t find anything quickly. When he saw action at the Cape that most likely means Xhosa Wars but that doesn´t solve anything. There were e.g. many colonial volunteer units over time. Any more info on the despatches he was mentioned in? ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly Catty's Rifles, an irregular European unit raised during the Eighth Xhosa War of 1850–1853. [10] Kges1901 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the one GELongstreet, I couldn't find any mention of him in dispatches in the Gazette between that time period, even after playing around with his name. Catty's Rifles could be a possibility too Kges1901, I reckon I'm just going to have to leave it as he served in South Africa and was MID. Thanks for the looking :) StickyWicket (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi StickyWicket. He is mentioned in HG Smith's dispatch of 17 March 1852: "On the morning of the 10th instant, Captain Taylor, with his company of Hottentot levies, had a sharp affair with a party of the rebels, and captured eleven horses. This was the last occasion on which the enemy appeared. Colonel Michel describes Captain Taylor's company of levies as deserving the name of soldiers." - Dumelow (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Possible but inconclusive that this is our man and I'd be reluctant to use this without more evidence that it's the right person. Nthep (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC) I see that some corroborative evidence to tie the two names together has been found. Nthep (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dumelow, seems like he joined a locally raised militia then. I wonder where Harrow got the Calty's Horse bit from? Maybe a nickname for his company of levies? StickyWicket (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think they are two separate units (eg: "Lieut. FitzGerald served as a lieut, in Catty’s Rifles and in the Hottentot Levies during the greater part of the Kaffir war of 1851-53" and the numbers given here). I suspect Catty's Rifles may have been a mounted infantry force drawn from the European settlers of the Cape whilst the levy would have been made from the black African population (similar units existed in the Zulu War with which I am more familiar). It could be that our man served first with Catty before being given command of a company of the levy - Dumelow (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Can somebody keep an eye of this. A editor who hasn't heard of Douglas MacArthur's famous speech "I shall return" keeps removing the word "famous" from the front of it the text. Thanks scope_creepTalk 11:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ship issue

Probably not the best place for this, but it would seem to me this is more a matter of (naval) history than a naval issue. Ship in question ist the French ship Royal Louis (1780), supposedly renamed Republicaine in 1792, then under the new name participating in the Third Battle of Ushant of 1782, as per the ship's stub. The latter article also does not mention a Republicaine. Anyone care to clarify the inconsistencies, or bring them to the attention of a competent author? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The ship's stub incorrectly identifies the action, though the wikilink goes to the right place. It links to the Battle of Ushant in 1794 aka the Glorious First of June. The ship is mentioned in the wiki article of the battle.Monstrelet (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Missed that. Thnx. Guess the ship really didn't take part in the third battle, then. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:British Army for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:British Army is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Canadian Armed Forces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Canadian Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canadian Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

uboat.net

I have raised a question at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding uboat.net as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#uboat.net. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Up for deletion Andy Auld (pilot)

I've improved sources, but more always helps. Important Falklands War squadron commander and successful pilot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Karen Offutt

Karen Offutt, about whom there is not currently a Wikipedia article, belatedly received the Soldier's Medal (the highest non-combat award for heroism/valor) in 2001 for her valorous actions to save several people from a fire in 1970.[1][2][3][4] Notable enough for an article?

References

  1. ^ "She Served In Vietnam, But 'Nobody Had Ever Welcomed Me Home'". NPR. 11 November 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  2. ^ Gonzales, James (10 November 2017). "Vietnam veteran earns the rare Soldier's Medal – but she had to wait 31 years to receive it". YourCentralValley.com. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  3. ^ Fortin, Noonie (2001). "Vietnam Woman Veteran Receives Soldier's Medal". northwestvets.com. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  4. ^ Google search

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day Alan, per WP:SOLDIER, for a US Army soldier to be assumed to be notable, they would need to have been awarded the Medal of Honor or multiple awards of the Distinguished Service Cross, but she might meet WP:GNG regardless if there are enough reliable sources on her life etc, and not just on the actions that led to the award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say that she meets GNG based on repeated press coverage and the fact that few women have received the Soldier's Medal. Kges1901 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just on the gender disparity of recipients of the Soldier's Medal, I would say any Woman earning it is noteworthy enough under GNG. Will (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Frontier conflict and war

I am genuinely interested in opinions on War of Southern Queensland and my renaming proposal on its Talk page. I don't think we should be downplaying the historic and brutal events that occurred between European settlers and Indigenous people but I am concerned about its characterisation as a "war". Kerry (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

We should be using what the common name for the conflict is in modern reliable sources. Unfortunately, the sources currently used (with the exception of the UTS one) are all very old and not up-to-date or representative of current academic consensus on the subject. I suggest looking at the Australian frontier wars article for reliable sources about the fighting in Queensland, there are several I can think of off the top of my head, such as Ørsted-Jensen, Robert (2011). Frontier History Revisited – Queensland and the 'History War; and Bottoms, Timothy (2013). Conspiracy of Silence: Queensland's frontier killing times. See also works by Henry Reynolds. Based on the albeit single UTS source used, I would have thought that Black War (southern Queensland) would be the right title for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that 'Black War' is usually applied to the Black War in Tasmania - I've never seen the term applied to other frontier fighting. I'd suggest something generic like Frontier warfare in Southern Queensland unless RS generally use a specific title. As to the use of 'war', many (most?) Australian military historians and lots of other historians regard the frontier fighting as having been warfare, and related terminology is dominant in the literature on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:War and the several other portals that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals in the scope of other WikiProjects have been recently deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Cold War

It has been suggested on its talk page that Cold War meets neither the A class nor the GA criteria. This is not my area and it is a thumping great article (15,500 words!); maybe someone familiar with the topic could run an eye over it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Raid on the Medway

The Raid on the Medway article could be a lot better than it is. A great many ships were lost, some of which are mentioned in the article, but referencing is too poor to allow their addition to the List of shipwrecks in the 17th century. I've added what I can from Threedecks, but many more could be added with suitable references. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sup, Mjroots. Wot are the reliable sources? ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is large areas of text are unreferenced. There are a number of sources given in the "Literature" section which could probably be used to reference said text, but I don't have them. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
As to numbers, Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7. says the Dutch: "captured the Englsh flagship Royal Charles, of 100 guns and 1,200 tons, and set fire to 6 other enemy warships, including 1 first rate and 2 second rate ships-of the-line, all at a cost of only 100 Dutch casualties". So a toal of 7 ships were lost, only 4 of any size. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but what about the large number of vessels scuttled but subsequently salvaged. They count as "shipwrecks" too. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review needed

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/10th Battalion (Australia) just needs a source review to be ready for promotion (my co-nom with AustralianRupert). Any takers? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Crusades

Portal:Crusades, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crusades and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Crusades during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wounded Knee Medals of Honor

Legislation has been introduced to rescind the Medals of Honor awarded for the Battle of Wounded Knee (I use the term in use in the 19th century). I don't think we're pre-mature in discussing whether the soldiers who were awarded the medals still rate pages if their medals are rescinded. WP:SOLDIER doesn't specifically address the issue of qualification if an award was received and then lost. I've done some work on the individual pages and, as near as I can recall, none of the recipients qualify for other reasons, such as rank (I think the highest was colonel). I think the people DO qualify for pages because they were awarded the medals, even if history has re-evaluated the events.

A side issue comes from the like of Frederick E. Toy. While working on his page, I could not understand why a man who retired as a ordnance sergeant had a headstone that read "captain." I learned that he was recalled and commissioned during WW I to serve in a stevedore regiment. That factoid led to Stevedore operations, American Expeditionary Forces and Services of Supply, American Expeditionary Forces. There is more rear area stuff that needs to be done, but I've been less than active lately.

--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, WP:SOLDIER is subservient to WP:GNG, so in many ways this doesn't change anything. If the presumption is that being awarded the Medals of Honor would result in "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then I would expect that to already exist. The medals being rescinded is likely to create more, rather than less coverage; albeit that coverage is unlikely to be in-depth for the soldiers themselves. Harrias talk 21:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. If they meet GNG already, then they will still meet it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Also agreed. The articles should obviously be updated, but this doesn't affect notability given that it's dependent on the amount of sourcing rather than the medal per-se. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. That was entirely too easy.<grin> There are five guys who don't have pages yet.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
"Five Guys Enterprises LLC is an American fast casual restaurant chain focused on hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries" -- just mentioning this for humor, thank you to everyone for dealing with the original question. MPS1992 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sign up now for the Backlog Banzai edit-a-thon

G'day all, we already have 28 editors signed up to participate in our September edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. If you would like to be involved, you can sign up yourself here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC) for the coord team

Edward Foord (British Army officer)

A lieutenant-general in the Royal Engineers I stumbled across while creating an article on a first-class cricketer, I've only filled out his military career (perhaps partially) with references from the Gazette. Leaving him here if anyone fancies expanding him. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move - change title of "Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States"

It has been proposed that Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States be renamed and moved to Veterans benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States. Please see my rationale for changing the title (removing the hyphen in "post-traumatic" is the only change proposed) at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States#Requested move 27 August 2019. Please discuss on that Talk page too. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been withdrawn. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Napoleonic Wars has been nominated for deletion

I'll concede nobody has been maintaining the portal, but the assertion that this isn't a broad content area seems flawed. Is there anyone in this group who would be interested in helping me maintain this page? BusterD (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See section above, which got no takers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your doing what you've been doing. A content area with 44 FAs seems broad to me... BusterD (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
With a few exceptions, Portals have died a death. They simply don't serve a need in most cases. As noted at the MfD, the number of views is tiny in comparison to the main article. I would let them continue to die out, personally. Effort is better put into improving encyclopedia articles. Harrias talk 15:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The very broad topics that are linked at the top of the main page, maybe, but everything else is dead and continuing to maintain them is just wasting the time of editors who are maintaining something nobody will ever see. Even Portal:War itself gets minimal pageviews despite being linked from almost every page in the MILHIST remit; the readers just aren't interested in these. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Most if not all portals are just not read/used. Even if people could be found to maintain them, the lack of traffic shows that they just aren't a useful addition to the encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This portal is a good example of that. While the Napoleonic Wars are particularly suited to a portal given their huge but somewhat fragmented nature, the portal gets around 15 views per day while the Napoleonic Wars article averages almost 3,000 views per day. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai has begun!

If you were thinking of participating, it is not too late. Sign up here and get cracking! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Help request for reviewing List of commando units

Hi for me the above article is a real mess. I came across it when new pages reviewing and expected to find an article along the lines of List of military special forces units but restricted to Commando units. Instead of being a real list it is a mix of prose (a lot that is unsourced) and lists. There are some obvious errors such as Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) who are airborne troops and do not systematically participate in the All Arms Commando Course so do not wear the commando badge. If you call a Para a Commando you would get a very short reply. A good number of the unit articles have no mention of them being a commando unit e.g. Life Regiment Hussars, 45th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine), Army Ranger Battalion (Sweden), 76th Guards Air Assault Division, Special Support and Reconnaissance Company etc etc. This article mixes Commando units, Special forces, and Elite units. I'm on the fence about taking this to AFD as per WP:TNT or maybe moving it to draft space but would like the project's views on this. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of room in Lists of' for prose, see eg List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. Cleanup not AfD (I don't think the latter would reach a consensus to delete). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a mess I moved out of Commando in order to clean up that non-list article. Cleanup preferred over AfD.
I wanted to cut the duplication out of Marines, preferring it be in List of marines and naval infantry forces, but talk page interest was low, and against it. (Hohum @) 20:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
When we started to clean up List of military special forces units the first thing required was a definition. One would need to insert some sort of definition of 'Commando' first, from as solid a reliable source as you can find. I would suggest that first. But will do a first sweep. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No. 605 Squadron RAF

Is there a policy or guideline about having tables of Commanding Officers in articles? Lyndaship (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not likely a specific one on that topic. Prose and simpler lists are generally preferred over tables, e.g. MOS:TABLES, MOS:LIST. The bases and Commanding officers tables could probably be converted to prose and/or lists imo.
Never really convinced these CO list add any real value to the article, most COs dont have articles and are otherwise not of note. A better approach may be just to mention any with a wikipedia articles in the prose and ignore the rest. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that they don't contribute much. Often they are far from complete and I've seen variance in whether or not the rank of the individual used on the list/table is that at the point they were commander of the said unit/station or the highest rank they achieved - which I'm not sure is how it should be presented (e.g. RAF Waddington). I would agree that the information on any notable COs is better in the prose of article. Perhaps also a check done to make sure that it is added to the page of any notable COs to capture from both angles. For what it's worth, when the RAF Lossiemouth went through good article review the incomplete list of commanders was removed to the talk page and information on any notable commanders (e.g. Eric 'Winkle' Brown, Stephen Hillier) inserted into the Lossiemouth article prose. Thx811 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mystery frigate

What is the identitiy of the frigate Clemence lost at Cádiz on 20 March 1857?

Cadiz, March 20. - The Clemence frigate, from Swansea to Marseilles, was wrecked on the Rocks near the Lighthouse during a gale - crew saved. Ship News, The Standard, 30 March 1857.

Doesn't appear to have been British, and Shipscribe doesn't have a Clemence listed either. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd's List said it was French. Harrias talk 10:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Harrias. Just need the article title and issue number to reference fully. Apparently not a frigate then, but a two-masted schooner. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Issue number 13,415, title "Shipping Intelligence". Harrias talk 10:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: If you want more entries for these lists, I would recommend getting NewspaperArchive access; Lloyd's List has at least three that aren't included, just on page five of that issue alone. Harrias talk 11:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: - I'm working from the Gale News Vault, which gives me access to The Times and many local and regional newspapers. It is probably that the missing three will be picked up as I work through the newspapers for April 1857, as many newspapers used to crib from Lloyd's List. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Schichau-class torpedo boat needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Schichau-class torpedo boat; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for French battleship Brennus needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for French battleship Brennus; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia image for Liddell Hart

Opinions for which wikipedia non-free version of an image of Liddel Hart should be use,d are sought at File talk:B H Liddell Hart.jpg. (Hohum @) 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Translation of "voyska" in Russian articles

With my concurrence, Kges1901 has moved Russian Airborne Troops to Russian Airborne Forces. He writes that "I think ..the RS translation of voyska is forces. (Don't forget that all other articles on voyska are titled forces not troops, such as the Russian Ground Forces, Soviet Air Defence Forces, and Strategic Missile Forces) The titling of Russian Airborne Troops stems from the official translation on mil.ru, the Russian MoD is internally inconsistent in its English translation of the name of the VDV (see this search of press releases) Also, compare google books on Russian Airborne Forces and Russian Airborne Troops.

The problem is that the gold standard reliable sources vary back and forth between 'troops' and 'forces'. Routinely Russian official / authoritative sources translate 'voyska' both ways. Note for example Robinson 'Forces', 2005, and 'Troops', 2006, just a year later, and it appears he was grounding his work in many Russian language sources. But WP can settle on a consistent translation, and so after Kges1901 came to me, I thought it would be good to make a note here for the archives that we'll go for 'Forces' rather than 'Troops'. Inviting comment from the other members of the Red Army editors' group, Wreck Smurfy, Ryan.opel, and also Ezhiki for the native-speaker perspective. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this where the centralized discussion is happening? Pinging PlanespotterA320, as they probably have valuable input to this discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
To elaborate on my reasoning, this move brought the title of the VDV article in line with the Strategic Missile Forces and Russian Ground Forces articles in terms of the translation of the same word. mil.ru press releases are inconsistent on Strategic Missile Forces too, also frequently using Strategic Missile Troops. Kges1901 (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, войска can be translated both ways. The idiom is at the English end. I think "forces" is better, as it better conveys that we are talking about organisations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Orders of battle

Is there a preferred naming convention for articles about orders of battle (see Category:Orders of battle)? Currently, there is a great deal of inconsistency in article naming, though I see four main conventions (ignoring obvious capitalization, grammatical, and other errors):

  • X order of battle
  • Order of battle at X
  • Order of battle for X
  • Order of battle of X

An additional source of inconsistency is how articles treat X—sometimes it is the full conflict name (e.g. Battle of Ayacucho order of battle) and other times it is abbreviated (e.g. Bayou Fourche order of battle). I was planning to clean up some of the obvious errors I mentioned but realized there is no single standard being applied across these articles. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don´t think there is a naming convention for this. The numerically largest group is X order of battle (e.g. about consistent within the American Civil War category), which I personally prefer as I think it to be the shortest version of a title that gets more complicated with each additional of/for/at etc etc. Battle of X order of battle seems to be the second largest. Of course there are cases were the formulation needs more info, e.g. when there were several battles on the location or OoBs are made for each side. It is just my opinion but I think the simple short version is the best option. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree some standardisation may be appropriate. It seems to me there are two main types, overall ORBATS like "Battle of Fooian/Fooian campaign order of battle" and side-specific ones like "Fooian order of battle for the Battle of Fooian/Fooian campaign/invasion of Fooian" I think we should standardise on an ORBAT being "for" a certain battle or campaign, rather than "of", but beyond that there are good reasons for variations, for example, when an ORBAT is for a specific year, like "Fooian Navy order of battle in 1939". There is another version, which is "Battle of Fooian: order of battle", which is quite concise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia merger proposal

It is proposed that Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be merged with Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wish to invite editors to give their input on proposal in merger discussion at Talk page Bosanska Krajina. It would be helpful if editors are willing to express their neutral POV, especially since discussion is already afflicted with involved editor(s) WP:CANVASING, resulting in inputs from WP:Single-purpose accounts.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Third Servile War

I have nominated Third Servile War for removal from the FA list, because it almost exclusively uses primary sources. See discussion here. T8612 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Question Concerning Military Unit Articles

I have been reviewing certain military articles recently (1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union), 1st Maine Battery, 34th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry) and have found the pages absolutely unreadable. The service detail is so densely and monotonously packed together such that many of the rich and detailed history of the units have been lost in a mountain of words. However, after editing the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment page, I discovered that many of these incomprehensible articles were written in the same style. Are minor military unit articles all supposed to be written in this style or is this is a major problem that I should continue correcting? Thanks GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

They look like info dumps from their unit diary. Possibly all the original author(s) had access to. Somewhere to start from, at least. (Hohum @) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume what you´re referring to are sections that aren´t written at all but directly copied public domain material from respective entries in Dyer's Compendium (like e.g. the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union) over here). A compact way for lots of information without going into details per se as the compendium needed. I´m sure that nobody has any objections if you want to do the work and turn that into actual prose or expand any articles accordingly. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, articles that are copied and pasted from Dyer's Compendium like most of the Union regimental articles with service details should definitely be rewritten to both make the prose readable (coherent sentences) and to add information from recently published secondary sources. Kges1901 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In case anybody's wondering, for better or worse the Dyer's Compendium online info that makes writing Union Civil War unit articles so easy is at CivilWarArchive.com. Although the site also has links for Confederate units, these were not included in Dyer's and for most of these units the site has no info. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bot proposal

Hi. I'm not a member of this wikiproject, but I decided to try it out and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai. One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of times an article will be tagged as both a biography and as part of this wikiproject, but it isn't part of the biography task force. Would it make sense to automatically add the biography task force if an article is tagged as a biography? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be correct if someone could write a bot to do it, otherwise it has to be done manually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a difficult a task for a Bot, and our MilHistBot could do it. I will need to file a bot approval request form though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I was thinking of helping with DannyS712 bot, would you be okay with that? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 60 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I propose that this bot be expanded to do some other gnomish work, like if a Milhist article has a WikiProject Ships banner, the bot could add the Maritime task force, and if it had an WikiProject Aviation banner, it could be put into the Aviation task force. There are definitely others, like the weaponry task force for article tagged by WikiProjects Firearms and Blades, the intelligence task force for articles tagged by WikiProject Espionage, and the Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force for articles tagged by WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. Any objections or issues with Danny developing this further? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No objections here, although I would support incorporating this feature into our Milhistbot in the long term to keep pages up to date. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict unknown criterion

Just checked this to make sure that it tells us not to use unknown in infoboxes (because it appears in the one for Battle of Vimy Ridge) but it doesn't. Is my memory wrong or am I looking in the wrong place? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If my eyes aren´t fooling me it precisely tells us to use unknown. There indeed is a problem with it though not the unknown itself but the code. In all the split fields something must be entered into the second field or there will be no border between 1 and 2. Unknown is one way to make it; I personally just put a linebreak markup in there. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahem! pardon my blushes, it was my memory again; didn't read that bit, just looked down the list. Do you mean <br>? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Aye, <br> or <br /> is my workaround for that indeed. Invisible, no effect beside the border and easily removable when somebody has real material for it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ranks and post-nominals?

Hi all, I'm not terribly familiar with Military biographies. I did, however notice this assertive change from a somewhat inexperienced user, who says "The Rank and Honours of an officer should always be there", so I thought I'd float it by you all. Should honorifics/ranks and post-nominals be used to wrap around that fellow's name in the infobox and lead? Looking through some FAs, I don't see this in the infobox at Ian Dougald McLachlan though it does appear in the lead. I don't see anything at John McCain, or at Ernst Lindemann, but then at Prince Louis of Battenberg I see the whole shebang. What, if anything, is the preference here. Thanks, and if you wouldn't mind pinging me, I'd appreciate it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Most countries don't use post-nominals. Britain and many Commonwealth countries do, and these should be included in both the lede and the infobox. But people from countries that don't use them shouldn't have them added. Editors certainly shouldn't make up abbreviations and stick them in after the name, as we sometimes see for non-Commonwealth countries. I'm really not sure whether India commonly uses them or not, but if they do then they can be added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure? Doesnt that create a whole set of new problems? Is there some sort of WP-rule-page where people can look the details up? Alexpl (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Am I sure about what? That postnoms are used on Wikipedia? Absolutely. I've been writing bios on Wikipedia for years. WP:POSTNOM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was more wondering about the first line in the Prince Louis of Battenberg article, the rank "Admiral of the Fleet" as an opening in particular. Alexpl (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, it varies. Commonwealth articles usually use military ranks; articles for other countries often don't. There's no hard and fast rule. Linking them or not is optional. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like such a practise should somehow be limited to relevant "higher" mil. ranks only. Alexpl (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The usual practice in Commonwealth countries is that only army officers above the rank of captain continue to use their military titles after retirement, ditto naval officers above lieutenant-commander. Very senior officers such as field marshals and admirals of the fleet hold their ranks for life. [11] This would seem to be a sensible rule for WP bios. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Up to the moment somebody entitled to hold such a rang chose not to use it and maybe was even more famous for doing something non military. Like beeing a politician or a writer. Alexpl (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I use ranks above captain in the first sentence and also rank and postnoms (where applicable) in the infobox, have only had one editor ever question it, and it has never been brought up in a Milhist ACR or FAC I've submitted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The infobox isnt a problem, I only find a nameprefix in the title sentence odd. MOS:BIRTHNAME: "(...)the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (...)." and MOS:HON: "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included". (I accidentally did use a rank in the title sentence as a prefix myself,[12] copying a seemingly accepted style - but having a rule would be nice.) Alexpl (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:HON: The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference. To this, I would add titles such as Admiral of the Fleet. While some degree of consistency might be nice, ultimately, there are too many variables for a "one size fits all" solution. Ultimately, this comes down to a case-by-case local consensus, which is informed by the guidelines, the consensus for similar cases and how the sources treat the specific or similar subjects. My best advice is to roll with the flow. However, a statement like, "The Rank and Honours of an officer should always be there", carries no weight by itself. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd be opposed. We don't add "The Honourable" in front of ambassadors' or magistrates' names, and we don't put Dr. in front of persons' names who have acquired a PhD. Why should military officers be different? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It's much more comfortable to have the same rule for every bio-article. Alexpl (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that just isn't realistic. Consistency might be nice for some, but others will want to highlight the rank of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't wait for this to become the bolded lead in for an article then: "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular". -Indy beetle (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well... if you do that, it might speed things up. Alexpl (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
First, titles conferred by oneself don't count! Second, only the name is bolded. So his name as it stands in the lede of the article is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection required

Can someone please protect Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 and Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) due to sustained vandalism and disruptive editing. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 for three hours (as this is on the main page, there's a preference to keep periods of protection short). Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) only seems to have been vandalised once, so falls short of needing protection at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Motorpool

Eagles Meadow contains the following statement:

During World War II, the area was used as a motorpool for elements of the U.S. Army's 83rd Infantry Division.

motorpool is a dab page, and the best article there would be Fleet vehicle. Does anyone know of a better target for motorpool? MB 04:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought that parking is the obvious target for this? Essentially a motorpool is a common vehicle park. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's a particularly good target either; motorpool also can refer to the the group of shared vehicles, the place where they are parked, the operator (e.g. dept or agency), etc. Since there is no article covering a motorpool, I have just unlinked to resolve the dab. No other articles wikilink motorpool either. MB 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In this case though, it is saying that the location was used as a motorpool. A location can not be the group of vehicles, nor an operator, so I would concur with Peacemaker67 that parking is the appropriate dab in this situation. Harrias talk 20:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Question relating to project infoboxes

I have been working on the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack article, which is presently using the {{Infobox military operation}} infobox - which is fine. The only problem is that this box does not support multiple coordinates on the map. It would need something more like what {{Infobox civilian attack}} had with an extra |map= parameter that can be used to spell out a custom map (such as one using {{Location map many}} as an option, though the editor would have to be familiar with that.

I would propose tweaking the {{Infobox military operation}} template so that in addition to the current set of map_ parameters, which would be used in absent of |map=, to do the current single-dot location, that it could do a custom map if |map= is filled out (ignoring the other map_ parameters). This should be a graceful backwards compat with all existing uses of the template.

I want to make that this addition is reasonable, and that if there are suggestions for any current uses of that infobox that would be reasonable test cases just to make sure there's proper graceful failure or the like in a test sandbox. --Masem (t) 00:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems eminently sensible to me. I was looking at this sort of functionality for a page a little while ago, but can't remember which now. Harrias talk 10:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

How many years is too many?

A dispute has arisen here about how often years should be repeated in an article. Interested editors are invited to weigh in. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Operation Swift Retort (film)

Are there any editors who can look at this article? And fix it or comment on the AfD? It was created by a new editor. Thanks! TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Publication date question

I'm using an online facsimile version of the 1939 edition of Der Weltkrieg XII [13] for an article on Lagnicourt 1917 and wonder if I should use 1939 in the citation? The site copyright is 2018. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say both if you can.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You are not citing Oberösterreichische Landesbibliothek, you are citing Der Weltkrieg 1914–1918 so use the publication date of the source that you are citing. If I go to the library to look for a physical copy of the book, will I find a 2018 edition? Unlikely, I suspect, but pretty sure that in some library some where, there is a 1939 edition to match the facsimile.
Because Oö. Landesbibliothek is not the publisher of Der Weltkrieg 1914–1918 and because you are citing a facsimile, you should consider adding |via=Oberösterreichische Landesbibliothek
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The version online is a scan of the original, so citing should the same as if you were working from a copy of the physical print book. A facsimile is an exact reproduction, but the scan is not a facsimile, its a scan of the original edition. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put the Oo in as edition but via seems a better label. Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Anne Puckridge

I'm wondering if anyone from MILHIST could help find some sources for Anne Puckridge. It's a fairly good article, particular for a first-effort, but pretty much all of the content about her military career and early life is unsupported. The article's creator The Retiree is working on finding sources, but someone from this WikiProject might be able to find some as well or at least suggest where to look. Right now, the article has a bottom heavy feel to it when it comes to sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate she is a "political activist" but the article keeps repeating her "cause" a number of times ad nauseam which make the article a bit chunky and overbearing about her campaign rather than as an individual. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this MilborneOne. I tried to explain this to the article’s creator on the article’s talk page, but they seem to have mistook this for criticism of Puckridge and veterans in general. This is one of the reasons I decided to ask for input from WP:MILHIST; the creator may be more inclined to listen to some with a more experience in editing military bios. My personal opinion is that much of the details about her cause might work better in an article like Frozen state pension with a brief summary specific to her included in her BLP with a WP:HAT to the primary article. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Action of 22 September 1914

(North Sea Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue) Can anyone cite Robert Johnson (killed) in the infobox? My sources barely mention him. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the CWGC Robert Warren Johnson was captain of the Cressy and died on the day of the action - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
He's mentioned on page 131 of Submarines at War 1914-1918 by Compton-Hall who states he was late in taking evasive action, but managed to avoid one of the torpedoes fired at the ship. There's a fleeting mention in the snippet on page 126 of The King's Ships Were at Sea: The War in the North Sea, August 1914-February 1915 by Goldrick which states that he commanded a submarine flotilla pre-war - Dumelow (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
His death is also mentioned on page 56 and 59 of Monograph No. 24: Home Waters Part II: September and October 1914 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. XI. Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1924.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the edits, I always have trouble downloading from that site. Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD

I'm not sure where you folks make note of such things, but I suspect that you'll want to be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons — Ched (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

List of SS personnel

information Note: For information.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

HMS Sultan (establishment) - possible copyright issue

I've just noticed a user called "HMS Sultan" has been adding a large amount of content to HMS Sultan (establishment), I suspect it has been taken from a copyrighted source. The first paragraph looks very similar to https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations/training-establishments/hms-sultan/history but the rest is not showing up anything else online.

Is anyone to check any other sources to see where it came from? It does look very suspicious.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Roon needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for SMS Roon; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arthur Blackburn needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Arthur Blackburn; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Link to Wiki de question

Could someone remind me how to link Generalmajor [[Axel von Petersdorff]] to German wiki pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

[[:de:Axel von Petersdorff]] → de:Axel von Petersdorff but that looks like a dab page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You can also do {{ill|Axel von Petersdorff|de}}, which produces Axel von Petersdorff [de]. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that it was a red link. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The Croatian wiki has a page on him: hr:Axel von Petersdorff - Dumelow (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Still cant work out what benefit a foreign language link gives to the English reader. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
One advantage is that if a multilingual editor comes across the link they might be prompted to create a translated English-language version, particularly where the ill template is used (as it preserves the English Wikipedia red link) - Dumelow (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
OK I can understand that but the other thousand of so readers it adds not value. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Google Translate does not support that idea ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that interlanguage links can help the creation of en WP articles. I've done it myself once or twice. It can also assist with identifying foreign language sources, which I've utilised many times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Last day or so to vote for the next coord team

G'day all, voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September, so if you haven't already voted, you can do so here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism by related IPs

We are suffering continuing problems with vandalism to the 101st Airborne Division (see the page history) by a series of IPs beginning with 2603:9000:9907:1100:; I suspect all the IPs are the same person. I don't know whether to approach this as page protection or a range block.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I get off of all this project's mailing lists, but still remain as a member?

I am not talking about The Bugle. I am not on its mailing lists:

-- Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day, are you referring to mass messages? If so, I think if you add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page, it will stop mass messages being sent to you, per Wikipedia:Mass message senders. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. So I guess I can't opt out of mass messages from specific groups or projects. I will have remove my membership in those groups. -- Timeshifter (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a shame, we don't send out many mass messages, this month is just a bit busy because of the drive and coord election coinciding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Need separate lists for membership in a project, and mass messages from that project. -- Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidates Roy Inwood and Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship both need a third reviewer

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roy Inwood/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship/archive1 both need a third reviewer if you have a spare few minutes (the former is my nom). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II

Looking at the category Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II, there is no subcategory for preparations and actions against Japan in 1945; if so what would be a suitable subcategory title? Some relevant articles are Soviet-Japanese War, Soviet invasion of Manchuria (or Manchukuo), Invasion of South Sakhalin, Project Hula, Battle of Mutanchiang, Evacuation of Manchukuo etc. PS: In 1998 it was claimed that Allied classified information from Australia was leaked to Japan with the object of delaying an American victory until the Soviet Union could join the war against Japan; see Royal Commission on Espionage#1998 claims. Hugo999 (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the article, all of the subsections are named under the assumption that the entire piece is devoted to the war on the Eastern Front. This is understandable, but this will need some revising once content about the actions against Japan are added (e.g. "Final victory" should become "Victory on the Eastern front" or something similar). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Start tallying your claimed points for Backlog Banzai!

G'day all, our project-wide edit-a-thon Backlog Banzai is ending later today. Could all participants tally their claimed points? I will start checking claimed points from 1 October. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Punjab War article - notable?

Hi, Punjab War has no citations and I can't find any sources that refer to a conflict named the Punjab War in this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.78.243 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not my era but A Global Chronology of Conflict lists Ranjit Singh as conquering the Punjab in the period 1810-20. His opponents are listed as the Afghans and the Punjabi princes though, not the East India Company (I think it would be too early for the British to be that far North_West?). I think it may be covered by our article on the Afghan–Sikh Wars? - Dumelow (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Map question

[File:German retirements Somme 1917.png] [14] can anyone remember the address of wikicartography, to try to improve the contrast on this map? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop? Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
That's the one, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Have toned back the grubby white background - see if that works... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner

Is there something up with the MILHIST wikiproject banner? A couple examples of articles that are assessed as one class, but displaying as a different class: Talk:USS Oregon (BB-3) and Talk:1st Battalion 21st Field Artillery Regiment (United States). The first article is rated as c-class, but displays as start-class. The opposite happens with the 2nd article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

They both seem to be displaying correctly. The first displays as start class, having both B1 and B2 set as no. The second as C class having all criteria set as yes except B2. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The template automatically upgrades an article assessed as Start to C if 4 of the B-class checklist items are marked "yes" (though of course it doesn't change the raw text of the template). Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this explained somewhere? I'm not a member of this Wikiproject and just stumbled upon these articles today. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that really explains it. It is alluded to in the third point in the B-Class FAQs. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We probably ought to add an entry in the FAQ to cover this. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In one particular instance, the problem is that the C-class criteria for WP:Ships does not require either B1 or B2 to be satisfied, so our start-class articles with neither of those satisfied are shown on the article page as C-class, although our assessment correctly displays if you go to the talk page. I believe that the Wiki software displays the highest assessment given by any project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a confusing feature (but maybe it's just confusing to me). I expect that an article will be rated based on the input into the class= field, not on inputs to other fields. It would seem like a maintenance category would be more beneficial, i.e. "Articles that are assessed incorrectly" or something similar. That said, I just came looking for an explanation, which I got. Thanks for the help. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support the addition of this to a maintenance category, so such articles could be given a more proper assessment. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you be a peer reviewer for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States?

I requested peer review for this article: Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Would you help improve the article by reviewing the article on its peer review page? You do not have to write a comprehensive review. Every little bit helps! Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red's stub contest is starting now

Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs up to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve women's coverage on Wikipedia. There are plenty of opportunities in connection with military women.--Ipigott (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, Ipigott! No doubt there will be a few takers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lyon-class battleship FAC

The FAC for the article is getting a bit long in the tooth and would benefit from another review or two, if anyone has the time to take a look. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Craig Cailloc, 1441

Does anybody know anything about the Battle of Craig Cailloc?. The only reference is a page on a clan website, the rest of any Google search seems to be Wikipedia derived. Any help please at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Craig Cailloc. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Stand easy, apparently everyone except Wikipedia calls it Craig Cailloch with a final "h". Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Article now expanded with some more reliable (albeit rather elderly) references. Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and similar articles

Prof. Havi Dreifuss of Tel Aviv University and Yad Vashem said this: "in the [English] article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the fighting forces [that battled the Germans] are misrepresented in the info box on the side. A reader that is not well versed in history could think that it was a joint struggle by four equally important organizations - two Polish groups and two Jewish ones. But that’s not true, the uprising was the result of Jewish actions and the Jewish organizations led the fighting, while Polish groups played an extremely marginal role."[15]

The "strength" sub-box and the article body provide more information, but anyone taking a cursory look will indeed get that wrong impression. How should that be addressed? François Robere (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It not that uncommon for an infobox on a war or battle to list all combatants, no matter how minor, the info box is not capable of subtly. Itr is why people should read the article.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox isn't the place for nuance. Too many people obsess over the contents of infoboxes. Put them in order of impact, but make the point in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Lead it is then, as not everyone will read a lengthy article like this. François Robere (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As long as everything that is in the lead is reliably sourced in the body and reflects the academic consensus, then there shouldn't be a problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Something like "the bulk of the fighting was by Jewish forces" or some such is about all that is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Weren't most of the ghetto prisoners Polish? Keith-264 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is Jewishness.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox? I haven't studied it for ages but weren't ZZW Polish nationalists? Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Our article for ZZW is called Jewish Military Union. Alansplodge (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification of new essay - Wikipedia:Casualty lists

Closing an RfC at Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the victims, I became aware of the recent creation of the subject essay. I made this notification following the close:

I note the recent creation of the essay Wikipedia:Casualty lists. This edit by the essay's creator, Locke Cole, states: victim lists [link added] implies the issue only applies to attack events (shootings) where casualties can apply to really any event where some people are killed (deliberately or not). The term casualties clearly has applicability to military history. I am making a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to inform the project of the essay's creation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For your information. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

HMS Sceptre (1917)

An unsourced claim that HMS Sceptre (1917) shot down a Zeppelin on 17 July 1917 has been in the article since it was created in 2004. I cannot find any source for this apart from Wikipedia mirrors or other online sources where the text appears to have been copied from here - certainly it isn't in the official history. Has anyone any decent source for this or should the statement be removed?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly seems dubious. The National Maritime Museum mentions it in relation to a painting of Sceptre and the Royal Naval Association on their page about the modern nuclear submarine but they are passing mentions and it's not inconceivable that they got it from us. There seems to be pretty good records relating to the fate of the zeppelins online but I found no reference to any lost in July 1917 - Dumelow (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The wording on the National Maritime Museum page looks in parts suspiciously like the wikipage, with things like "'Sceptre' saw action as part of Admiral David Beatty's force, primarily employed in convoy escort and patrol duty in the North Sea and Atlantic" comparing with "Sceptre saw action as part of Admiral David Beatty's force, primarily employed in convoy escort and patrol duty in the North Sea and Atlantic."Nigel Ish (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the dubious text, along with more unsourced stuff about trial speeds and simply wrong information about the ship being part of David Beatty's force (which was the Grand Fleet) rather than being a member of the Harwich Force as supported by sources like Navy Lists and the official history.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The date quoted for the Zeppelin incident on some web pages like this one is 17 July 1917, which matches the loss of Zeppelin LZ 95 (L 48) which crashed at Theberton in Suffolk. It was attacked separately by four British aircraft, including Captain R.H.M.S Saundby in an Airco DH.2 who was awarded the Military Cross for his part in it. This wasn't too far away from Harwich, so perhaps Sceptre took some potshots as it passed, but I can't find any confirmation of it. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Cole and Cheeseman's The Air Defence of Britain 1914–1918 (Putnam, 1984) L 48 was shot down on the night of 16/17 June 1917. Cole and Cheeseman do not mention any involvement of ships in the shooting down, just the four aircraft, three of which claimed to be solely responsible for the Zeppelin's destruction. H.A. Jones in The War in the Air: volume 5 mentions accurate anti-aircraft fire from Harwich, but as L48 was at a height of ~17000 ft at the time and Sceptre' anti-aircraft armament consisted of a pom-pom, it's not really credible that the destroyer shot it down (and if Sceptre did claim to have done so, surely someone would have recorded it, after all, everybody else's claims were recorded.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite so, but at least we have identified the suspect and eliminated it from our inquiries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see RFC about potential confusion for Air University vs. Civil Air Patrol

Please see Talk:Civil Air Patrol#RFC: Should the word "university" be used in connection with education provided by the Civil Air Patrol?

Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military unit discussion

There is an RfC on the use of the native name field in the Infobox military unit template happening at Template talk:Infobox military unit#RfC on the usage of native name field. Feel free to chime in there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

If anyone can work out what is wrong with the Milhist banner on Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads I'll buy you a virtual beer. I've been mucking around with it, but can't work out why it is in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, which is otherwise cleared out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if you have already tried this Peacemaker67, but the portal link to war, that displays Selected is a redlink, meaning no subarticle exists at Portal:War/Selected article/10. So if you click on a selected or featured article link on a talk page such as Talk:Ivan Bagramyan,the word selected is a blue link. Could possibly be it? Maybe, maybe not? Good luck with the solution. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
That could be it, but I'm at a loss as to what the alternative target would be. I've asked at Portal talk:War. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed it. With this edit Gog the Mild removed |portal1-name=United States Navy and mistakenly |portal2-link=Featured article/19, rather than |portal1-link=Selected article/10. "Selected article/10" referred to the United States Navy portal, not the War portal. All sorted now. Harrias talk 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Gah! Apologies all. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Meh, easily done, particularly when mass editing. It's not like it majorly broke anything, so no real harm done. Harrias talk 07:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Harrias, the category is now (temporarily) empty and your virtual beer is waiting. Gog, I did something similar today while deleting old portals, a common problem while gnoming. Sometimes I don't even know exactly what it is that I did that fixed a given problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Blackburn

This ACR of a rather fine article could do with another review and with someone running their eyes over the sourcing, if anyone fancies it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_152&oldid=1142260018"