Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 164

• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 159
• 160
• 161
• 162
• 163
• Archive 164
• 165
• 166
• 167
• 168
• 169
• 170

Trolling or new guy?

Hello everyone, I recently got about a million notifications of page moves on articles I recently updated and fixed. As per the discussion on this page already here, the names changes I committed were fine and were accepted as reasonable. However, @Blackshod: has moved almost everything back, including: 39th Signal Regiment, 16th Air Assault Brigade, 20th Armoured Brigade Team, 104th Theatre Sustainment Brigade, Units of the British Army, and many small changes which are driving me crazy seeing that we have already had this discussion. @Dormskirk:, @Peacemaker67:, @Hog Farm:, and @Buckshot06:, I'm asking for assistance here because I don't want to just go around moving all them back without a concensus being reached first.

Note: It would appear this user has a bit of a history of moving pages, removed a lot of information from pages without consent, redirecting major pages without redirects, and having a talk page that is strangely quite. In addition, it seems this user keeps deleting information from his talk page, and in addition has no references for his moves or the meanings for these moves and changes.

Yours truly, J-Man11 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was initially concerned at the potentially WP:CRYSTAL nature of moving the British Army's manoeuvre brigades from 'Armoured Infantry Brigade' or suchlike to 'Armoured Infantry Brigade Combat Team' etc, especially given the annotation 'Combat Team' was only to be added later, according to our own articles on these brigades. But on checking the British Army website for the brigades, 'Combat Team' had already been added. If we cannot use the British Army website as an RS for the very names of the formations, we can't rely on anything for anything!! So I did not post any complaints or raise any remarks. Given that the Army website has made the changeover already, I believe at the very least that the BCT renamings should remain. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

J-Man11 I've just reviewed 104 Theatre Sustainment Brigade and you may be both right and wrong. You may be correct that Milhist has had a WP:MOS discussion and that ordinals, 104th, have been preferred to cardinals, 104 Th Sus Bde; I did not see that discussion (though I know that 16 AAB has been at a cardinal, 16 Air Assault Brigade, for some time, as has 3 Cdo Bde). But where you are definitely wrong is that you are by your actions committing again the error for which I have called out JMRAMOS0109 for a couple of posts above. By reducing the article title, the cardinal, you don't like to a redirect, and moving all the material to the ordinal version, 104th Th Sus Bde, you're splitting the article history among various separate pages and creating WP:CFORKs, which is not what we're here for.

It is very tempting to race around and ensure that the articles have your preferred version of content, cardinal versus ordinal in this case -- I know I've been guilty of that in the past. But you create more mess - WP:CFORK, content forks, by doing so. To make sure that the pages are WP:STABLE, we may need to have the cardinal / ordinal discussion again, or its conclusions reiterated, and then, after that, it won't be you alone having to right great wrongs, it will be coordinators and administrators, if necessary, restoring the pages in accordance with the way the MOS discussion has concluded.

Do you understand? No article title edit wars over 104 versus 104th etc. It may mean that the page histories have be merged, creating extra work, later on. Wait for some slightly less involved and cooler heads to make clear the MOS consensus, and then you'll have the hierarchy on your side, and will avoid making extra work for the administrators down the track. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Same for me here - 39 (Skinners) Signal Regiment (United Kingdom) needs no (United Kingdom) because 'Skinners' is completely unique, but I do not have the privileges to move it back to 39 (Skinners) Signal Regiment. It will have to wait for someone with more privileges to come along. Patience!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Agree with Buckshot06: nothing to add. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the Skinners regiment article and its talk page back to the non-dabbed titles. Wikilinks to the article may need checking and amending. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

J-Man11, DO NOT cut and paste the contents of one article to another about the same subject with a different title then turn the first one into a redirect. That is contrary to policy, and if you keep doing that you will get sanctioned. Follow the instructions at H:MOVE to rename the article. As far as the substantive matter is concerned, Buckshot is right IMHO, the British Army has apparently moved away from ordinals and are now just using cardinals, and their website is as good a source as you are going to get for that. Therefore I think it is entirely reasonable to move the UK brigades to cardinals, but do it the right way and don't make messes for others to clean up. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

British Army usage has been confused between ordinals and cardinals since well before WWII! Consistency would be nice, but the organisation itself has never been consistent (e.g. signal regiments commonly continued to use ordinal numbers even after most other units had gone over to cardinal numbers). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic GAR

I would love to have more opinions at Talk:Tuqaq/GA2. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Rank as Honorific Prefix, Rank insignia in Infobox

Question 1: When should military rank be used as an honorific prefix? I sometimes see it used, such as for General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army and Field Marshal Douglas MacArthur, and Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, but at other times it's left omitted.

Question 2: Should rank insignia be included in the infobox? Certain prominent officers, such as Colonel Chris Hadfield, Colonel Buzz Aldrin, General of the Army Omar Bradley, and General George Patton, have images of their rank insignia in the infobox. However, many other officers do not have rank insignia included in the infobox. Other editors have told me that images of rank insignia should not be included within the infobox, but considering there are multiple featured articles with them, I think it's important to clarify this issue here.Gunwriter (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any specific guidance in this regard. I treat ranks as MOS:HONORIFIC, ie. I use the latest-achieved rank as a prefix in the lead sentence of the subject biography but never again in the article. I generally use rank (alongside a link) at first mention in other military history articles where it is useful in providing context, eg. "... Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery commanded the 21st Army Group...", but afterwards just "... in 1946 Montgomery became Chief of the Imperial General Staff...". I have never added images to the rank section of the military person infobox, but have seen it before, generally on American biographies. I note the template documentation doesn't mention images, but seems to infer a text-only entry. I would support this being made explicitly a text-only parameter - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding #1, I doubt there is any universal rule. Introducing a person by rank might be appropriate in some cases (e.g. in an article about X, writing "X spoke to General Y" emphasizes that Y was acting at the time as a soldier, which might not be obvious for some values of "Y" if the word "General" was omitted) but repeating the rank every time is not necessary. Consider also whether the person is mostly known as "<rank> <name>" in general. See MOS:HONORIFIC and more generally MOS:PEOPLETITLES. Regarding #2, MOS:DECORATION seems to discourage the use of icons when they do not provide additional information. Personally, in the case of a rank insignia, I don't see what useful additional information is provided by going from "Rank: General (1944)" to "Rank: <insignia> General (1944)". If in doubt, I'd settle on the side of omitting the icons. Note that flags have separate guidance at MOS:FLAG. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of rank as an honorific in the past here and at WT:MOSBIO. There are several factors which have not been reflected above as yet. In many militaries, rank is used as an honorific even for retired officers, the Commonwealth standard being that it is used for officers of the rank of Major (equivalent) and above. This means that even though they have retired, they are addressed as "Major" etc, invitations are addressed to "Major Billy Bloggs" etc. On top of that, tertiary references in the field of military history such as the Oxford Companion to Military History include the rank of officers along with honorifics such as "Sir" in the title of the entry. For example, "Browne, Gen Sir Samuel", "Gneisenau, FM Graf August Wilhelm Neihardt von" (FM meaning Field Marshal), "Tito, Marshal Josip Broz" and "York, Sgt Alvin". I'll add that in Commonwealth countries, people are addressed as "General Sir Samuel Browne", or Colonel Doctor Billy Bloggs", meaning that the military rank is given priority over the knighthood. This is reflected in protocols in Debrett's A–Z of Modern Manners. So, why would we single out military ranks for exclusion as an honorific, but continue to include "Sir" per MOS:SIR? Perhaps we should adopt a guideline that specifies using the honorific field for ranks of Major and above, and the rank field for lower ranks? Finally, I have half-a-dozen military biography FAs of Australians and Germans that have included rank as an honorific, and it has never been raised in a review, which reflects a weak consensus that it is actually fine. For rank insignia in the infobox, see WP:ICONDECORATION. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but a follow-up question: What should we do about cases where people have multiple ranks? IIRC, it's common for a commissioned officer of the FDF to have a peace-time ("service") rank of e.g. captain, but a higher war-time ("reserve") rank that they do not wear in peace-time service. This would align with the difference in their peace-time duties as e.g. a company commander and their war-time duties as e.g. a battalion/regimental commander. Do we do the line-drawing based on the (in a sense theoretical) reserve rank, or the very concrete service rank? A random text I found also mentioned temporary service-rank "promotions" from colonel to brigadier to avoid any rank-related inconvenience when e.g. leading a peace-keeping force, which would make "highest rank" a bit weird, with a person potentially being promoted to a rank multiple times. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is common in major wars in many countries. Many pre-war regular officers reached high rank during the world wars but reverted in rank afterwards (generally because there just wasn't a posting for them at that rank in the much-reduced post-war army etc). I just put the highest rank achieved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I put the highest-achieved rank in the lead sentence and infobox, even if not permanent. The place for elaboration is in the main text - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Would "highest rank" here include the reserve rank for a hypothetical active-duty FDF officer? The point I'm struggling with here is that an officer might be referred to as "Captain X" in all official contexts, and only ever wear the captain rank, but would concurrently have a "if war breaks out, you are a major" paper in some filing cabinet somewhere. Calling such a person "X is a Finnish major..." would be misleading in my view, "X is a Finnish active-duty captain and reserve major" seems overtly verbose, and "X is a Finnish captain" goes against the "highest rank" unless we agree that the reserve ranks in this case are "not real" in cases where the person is never activated to that rank outside of refresher training. Similarly, writing "X is a Finnish brigadier general" sounds misleading if the person is currently a colonel, but had the brigadier rank for 3 month peace-keeping stint in Afghanistan just so that he'd have a bit more authority. As a final example, I personally wouldn't write "X was a Finnish CEO and reserve Major" in the lede of an article regarding a Finnish CEO who never was in "active" duty outside of the their conscription and refresher exercises. So I guess I'm advocating for a view where certain types of ranks, no matter how high, based on circumstance, might not be honorifics? Presumably this kind of analysis would need to be done on a per-person/per-country basis. I might be overthinking this, as is my habit. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Being one of those who initiated such rank discussions before, I'll throw my two cents in, but I only have American-centred knowledge. In the United States, ranks were tied to the individual as personal titles and accolades until the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 was passed, making three-star and four-star ranks tied to specific appointments and offices. Now, individuals promoted to three-star and four-star grade hold that rank for as long as they hold an office requiring a rank of that level, and require Senate confirmation for every new appointment at the same level. At present, these ranks are no longer personal accolades or titles, which in my opinion would be a tipping factor towards including it as an honorary prefix. The ranks of General of the Army and Fleet Admiral since 1946 are permanent ranks granted to the individuals in question (i.e. Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur), hence the inclusion in the prefix section of the infobox. The further we go into the 20th and 21st century, the less I see honorary prefixes on pages of American military officers. Prefixes interchange between being present and absent on officers immediately following WW2 and in the early Cold War era, but entering the 21st century there is a sharp decrease in the frequency of prefixes (David Petraeus, Tommy Franks, Jonathan Greenert and Mark Milley are among a few noteworthy examples). SuperWIKI (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a rank an honorific prefix. It's a rank. And I believe that the highest rank gained, even if only temporary, should be included in the lede of an individual's own article as a prefix to the name. It is normal in Commonwealth countries, as already stated, for officers of the rank of major (and equivalent) and above to retain their ranks even after they retire. Some more junior officers did as well, but it was often considered bad form. In other articles, it should be used the first time the individual is referred to if it's relevant. Incidentally, in Commonwealth countries, military and academic ranks are not combined. "Colonel Dr Billy Bloggs" wouldn't commonly be seen. That's an American and European thing. Medical officers (and those with a doctorate) in Commonwealth service just use their military rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a rank in any practical sense after retirement, rank relationships no longer exist etc. I have had no powers or authority as an army officer since I retired. The use of the rank for retired officers is purely honorific, ie it is a mark of respect for prior service. My view is that if an officer has served on active operations (even peacekeeping operations) at a given rank, then we should refer to them as being that rank at the top of their article and in the infobox. Perhaps it is a bit different for people holding different regular and reserve ranks at the same time in peacetime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Are you suggesting that an officer who has not served on active operations should not have their rank listed in their article? Or that any rank achieved after service on active operations should not be listed? That would mean us listing many generals, admirals and air marshals at a considerably lower rank than the rank they actually retired at. For instance, the current First Sea Lord would be listed as a captain (the highest rank he held while serving on active operations) rather than an admiral. That would be pretty damn weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, of course not. I was talking about the situation in the world wars when many regular officers were promoted War above their substantive rank then reverted after the war. We should use the highest rank held. I was referring to the weird Finnish arrangement that might need to be handled differently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume the above was in relation to the FDF reserve-vs-service rank distinction discussed above. In any case, I think the take-home here is that while "use highest rank" is a good general (haw) guideline, there are cases where a bit more consideration needs to be given w/r/t what ranks are mentioned. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Ogilby Muster

This may be of interest to those researching military history in the period 1900–29. Going live 3 November. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests needs work from an expert in History to fix the bias and weight issues. Venkat TL (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Open featured topic nomination

If anyone with even a smidgen of interest and/or knowledge of the Medieval period could look over Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Hundred Years' War (1345–1347)/archive1 I would be grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And promoted. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Orders of battle

Where should orders of battle be placed in articles? I've seen, and have added to, many articles that include large grids of OOB. Equally however, many articles provide a separate page for their OOB. I'm not sure if this is meant to be based on whether the OOB makes the article too long and thus needs to be created separately, but from what I've seen there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule for when OOBs should be in the main article or placed elsewhere. Am I missing something? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure we need detailed OB's, that is the kind of detail best left out to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

An order of battle may be useful for ease of reference but some OOBs are very detailed starting at division level and drilling down to the smallest units. Perhaps in some cases, it would be sufficient to list the fighting units and just mention that medical corps, supply corps etc assets were attached. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

A detailed Order of Battle gives the reader a better understandaing of the complexity of 20th century warfare. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

In the various division articles I have worked on, I have placed the orders of battle at the end (see 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division for an example). That way, they are not breaking up the history of the formation. Granted, most of the articles I have worked on have had simple orders of battle that are not huge hogs. However, for my last project I did create a separate list article for them all as they were too unwieldly to be in the main article and it took up to many kbs. No one, so far, has objected to either method (List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division, is now a featured list for another example). The only objection I have hit, was for using collapsible boxes for easier navigation. They apparently don't work all the time, and especially on phones (I should really get around to going back through and getting rid of the boxes).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer separate OOBs for campaigns and large battles, formatted as lists. For a campaign, I rarely go below divisional level for land units, and wing for air units, Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia is one of mine. For a divisional article, I usually include a section covering all sub-units in the wartime organisation down to company level, see 42nd Infantry Division Murska for an example, before the action starts, as they can pop up in the narrative. Bit different for formations that have existed over a long period and had many iterations, in that case I suggest a separate list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Australian Air Force journals digitised

From the Trove email newsletter:

In celebration of their centenary in 2020, the Australian Air Force Association digitised Air Force News (1997-2020) and its previously titled RAAF News (1941, 1960-1997).
But if that wasn’t enough, they have also kindly made current issues of their contemporary Wings Magazine freely available to read in Trove!

Links:

• RAAF News
• Air Force News
• Wings.

Hope these are of use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: thanks Andy. I've been able to draw on these resources to bring an article to FA status (Peter Raw) and create or flesh out other articles. They're very useful. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for IG Farben Building

I have nominated IG Farben Building for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting opinion and assistance on a particular user

Here asking for an opinion on how to deal with a user named LemonJuice78. I have seen some of their edits, a majority of them on U.S. military-related pages, and am worried they may be, with WP:GOODFAITH in mind, a case of incompetence, which at least one editor has remarked on in their image edits to United States National Security Council page. Bear in mind I do not say this lightly. On one hand, they have been very helpful in adding new content to certain pages, including transferring and converting list content into a form that can be read as prose, including their edits on Norton A. Schwartz and Paul J. Selva. On Wikimedia, they have also been very prolific at uploading historical images originating from Department of Defenses documents and PDFs. On the other hand, their edits are written in very poor English which is unnecessarily long, and they have also ignored image policy when adding his uploads to Wikipedia. Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers are examples of when they consistently add a "Gallery" section to pages despite being told this is a violation of WP:GALLERY policies.

This itself can be easily remedied if communication with them was possible. I don't exactly know or understand the situation on their end, but they haven't responded to a single concern of editors on their talk page, including those warning them of edit wars. More seriously pointing to lack of communication, their Wikimedia talk page records several violations of copyright policy, which earned them a block from editing Commons in May 2021. Even after the block, no change seems to be apparent in their editing style. They always use CC-BY-SA 4.0. regardless of source, even after I informed them of the PD-USGov (public domain) templates on their talk page.

What should be done here? I correct their edits at times per WP:JUSTFIXIT, but their prose additions to pages of military figures are expansive enough to take an entire afternoon to fix, such as the case of Mark Kelly for me. I'm concerned for their complete lack of response to messages and communications warning them to not engage in this style of editing on Wikipedia and Commons, as lack of response may lead to more serious mistakes in future.

Secondly, was reporting here the right thing to do or just an overreaction on my end? SuperWIKI (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mongol invasions of Đại Việt

Mongol invasions of Vietnam has just been moved to Mongol invasions of Đại Việt. There has been no RM for this. This appears to be contrary to WP:CRITERIA and specifically, naturalness. Not certain of the best way to deal with this. Please note that the lead has been changed to reflect the move. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This move has been reverted TY. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Hah, I didn't even notice that you posted here until just now! By the way, I opened a discussion at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam#Article move by YLoGM necessitating an article split in case the editor still wishes to make the move. Also, a similar move was made at Ming invasion of Đại Ngu (formerly Ming invasion of Vietnam) but I haven't taken a close look at that yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

TY MarkH21, just don't know about moving articles - my primary concern. Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy supporting document. It pretty much says that we should use the most common name in English. So the same concern exists for other articles that have been similarly moved. I will go to the discussion you started but it might be good to notify here about the other. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Listing of unit awards on individual's bios

I'm seeking some community clarification on the view of placing unit level awards on individual bios. This has become something a pattern for bios of Tuskegee airmen who have found their way to AfD, such as Herbert V. Clark and Willie H. Fuller. The Tuskegee Airmen, as a 922-strong group, were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal as a group in 2006. Is it appropriate to list this under an "Awards" section in a bio? Is it appropriate to mention it at all? Is there a scale on unit size or position in the unit (such as a bio of the unit's commander) where this is or is not appropriate? Personally I don't think it's right to treat it in this fashion when concerning a mere airman of a nearly 1,000-strong group, but that's just my opinion at this point and I'd like to hear other thoughts. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Wrt to the two bio's you mentioned, is there sometning you would like to see changed? And if so, why? Thanks - wolf 03:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well personally I think something like that does not belong in an "Awards" section. The users who added this were sometimes opposed at AfD, with people saying this was inappropriate and lacked consensus. I'm trying to ascertain what the standard actually is here (I don't do that many mil-bios on Western soldiers who's "awards" are often available online) and if one does not exist, I think we should probably create one either within MilHist guidance or, if we want to make an MOS or project guideline change, seek wider consensus at an RfC. This is purely exploratory at the moment. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it is an award after all so it would seem appropriate to list in either the "awards" parameter of the infobox and/or an "awards" section on the page. There are even military regs for uniform use, (at the discretion of the secretary). This seems like a very minor issue, if one at all. IMO - wolf 04:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The Keep argument being made on the Tuskegee Airman AFDs is that the unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006 satisfies #1 of WP:ANYBIO, effectively meaning that all Tuskegee Airmen are notable. I oppose such a view. As has been pointed out in several of the previous AFD discussions, by that logic every member of the 369th Infantry Regiment (United States), U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia officers on 6 January 2021, crew of the USS Indianapolis (CA-35), Chinese-American service in World War II, Office of Strategic Services, Filipino WWII veterans, 65th Infantry Regiment, Monuments Men, WWII members of the Civil Air Patrol, men and women killed on 9/11, Montford Point Marines etc. is notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

But I believe this is about whether or not to include the award in the bio and if so, how and where (correct me if I'm wrong). This doesn't seem the place to debate an issue at AfD, even if there is somewhat of a connection. (JMHO) - wolf 04:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am providing the context. Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My response is qualified rather than being a simple yes or no. D Coy 6RAR was awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation of the Battle of Long Tan. While any member of the D Coy wears the citation/medal, any member of D Coy during the battle wears the citation/medal regardless of posting. Hence, I would believe that Harry Smith (Australian soldier) would continue to wear the citation/medal. If such an entitlement attaches to other unit awards, then it probably does have a place in an individual's article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct regarding Harry Smith and any other officer or soldier that was actually at Long Tan, they still wear the "swimming pool" with their medals at commemorative events. I thought it was a "non-portable" award, and that in this case, only one was minted and it is held at the Smithsonian. If that is the case, it is not an individual award at all, it is a collective one, and because the award hasn't been made to the individual, it can't be used to meet ANYBIO#1. Perhaps ANYBIO#1 needs to be tweaked to reflect that the award has to have been to the individual, not to a group of which the individual was a member? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just n+1:ing this: "an award that a person is permitted to wear has a weird interaction with ANYBIO" is (at least in my view) clearly a problem that needs to be addressed by modifying ANYBIO rather than by omitting information from the article. At the same time, we probably want to anticipate a (hypothetical?) scenario where a highly prestigious award is awarded to a very small group, for example of 5 people. Also, it's probably prudent to add a small note into the article next to the award to explain the nature of it in the context of that specific person (i.e. is it something the person is only permitted to wear while in their current posting, but will lose if they transfer, or is it something they will continue to be permitted to wear) -Ljleppan (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an argument made that Nobel Prizes are often awarded to small groups and that satisfies #1 of ANYBIO and I think that is valid, but not for awards to groups with hundreds or thousands of members. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That specific example sprung to my mind as well, but I wasn't sure if the shared Nobel Prizes were technically given to multiple people as individuals, or to the group as a whole. Other hypotheticals that sprung to mind - and might help in teasing out how/if the intuition here would be codified in the MILHIST context - would be an award that is granted to a two-seater aircraft or maybe an infantry fireteam. –Ljleppan (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think shared awards are given in those cases, typically the pilot gets the higher medal and the back seater gets something lesser or nothing. Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the point was to use a hypothetical to tease out how, precisely, we would want to phrase the standard for a case where there is an unambiguously "group" award, but the group is of minimal size. –Ljleppan (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's a group award the individual must have received significant coverage to be notable. Best way to do it IMO. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If a individual was in a unit at the time for which the unit was awarded a given award, I would expect it to mentioned in the running text and, if a separate awards list section was present, separately too. With the caveats that 1) if it's the only award, then it wouldn't be worth creating a separate tiny section and 2) that it was clear that it was awarded to the group. I wouldn't mention a group award in the article of an individual who subsequently joined the unit and 'inherited' the award GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• IMO coverage in reliable sources that connect the group medal award to the person should be necessary before mentioning such award in an individual's bio. Otherwise it's original research to assume it's relevant to that person. (t · c) buidhe 11:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Surely you don't mean that in situation where there's a RS that lists a person's awards, including a PUC, it would then be OR to say in the prose that X was eligible to wear the PUC? -Ljleppan (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, I meant if there is no source that connects the award to the individual, it may be original research to bring up the award in a bio. In the case you are describing there is a source that connects these two things. (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment The unit award question has popped up in other articles, too, not just the Tuskegee stuff (although it is the lynchpin of many in my mind thin "keep" opinions there). Unit awards, at least in the US, are awarded collectively to the unit for an action or event deemed notable. They go to the person on the front lines, the clerk 50 miles from the action, and the replacement who just stepped off the plane but happened to in-process during the time period covered by the award. Unit awards can go down as far as the troop/company level, but the same qualifier applies: it goes to anyone associated with the unit in any capacity. You're frankly not going to find much of anything connecting an individual to a unit award because that's not what they do. If an individual did something notable during an action or time period covered by a unit award, they would likely be nominated for an individual award for that action. For example (loosely based on reality): a cavalry troop is awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its collective actions during the Tet Offensive (1968)...say they played a major role in events around Saigon. During that same time, Private Snuffy took out three RPG teams and a machine gun nest covering his squad's advance outside Cholon. Snuffy's actions aren't recognized by the PUC, but by the Distinguished Service Cross he's awarded later. His actions may be part of what led to the award of the PUC, but they wouldn't be recognized in the award write-up. He'd get to wear the PUC based on his unit membership, as would Private Jones who just processed through the replacement depot and drew an assignment to troop HQ as a comms guy. The PUC makes the troop notable, but it doesn't really add anything to Snuffy or Jones...any more than Snuffy's DSC would add to the unit or Jones. Intothatdarkness 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Being part of a notable team, and mentioning the award the team won, is a valid thing to put into someone's article. The medal was won for what they achieved, and this person in question did more than most. As pointed out in the AFD by User:Lightburst There were a total of 932 pilots who graduated from the Tuskegee program. But only, 355 served in active duty during World War Two as fighter pilots. Dream Focus 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, a unit award is in no way an indication of individual notability. I understand the example is a touch long, but Jones is in no way as notable as Snuffy. He just happened to be assigned to the unit at the right time. Unit awards are NOT awarded for what an individual achieved. This has cropped in non-Tuskegee discussions as I mentioned before. I'm not sure why the concept of a unit award is so difficult to grasp in some cases. Intothatdarkness 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "this person in question did more than most" Really? What exactly did he do? Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • As I said, most of them did not become fighter pilots. Also how many fighter pilots total, not just Tuskegee Airmen, did enough combat missions to be able to leave active combat? I read fighter pilots had to do far more missions than bomber crews before they could leave active duty. Dream Focus 14:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • At the risk of this turning into the AFD discussion, he didn't do "more than most". There's nothing special about a U.S. fighter pilot in the Italian theatre completing a combat tour in 1943. Mztourist (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is a unit award. If the man in question was part of the unit that received the award then surely you can and should note that during his service unit XXX received the YYY award, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as the person particularly being given the unit award. When it comes to notability I disagree that any person part of a unit that receives the award (I realise it's a little more nuanced than that in this situation) is notable. If that was the case, why does every single member of the population of Malta not have an article for their winning the George Cross? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Clearly there's a problem of scale here. I could see the award being mentioned for someone who was either the CO of a unit or if the unit was small, say, company sized. Every bio on every Maltan national who was alive from 1939-1945 probably does not warrant a "this person belongs to the population of Malta, which received the George Cross etc." The notability thing is more tightly bound. If you were a member of a 5-man unit that won a major award, I think we could presume notability. But 922? I don't think so. Also @Dream Focus, the medal wasn't awarded on a distinction between those Tuskegees who became pilots and those who did not, so if you are arguing that that gives the said pilot notability under ANYBIO you are effectively undermining the medal argument. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Joint specialty officer

The newest nominee, Christopher W. Grady for Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) is a joint specialty officer, but there is currently no article for this kind of officer. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of a commander in template

Interested editors are requested to participate at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#S. J. Thapa. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

William Hutchinson (British Army officer)

Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. Just created an article on the above British Army general who played first-class cricket for the Marylebone Cricket Club. I can't really find out much about him beyond his promotions in the Gazette. So leaving him here to see if anyone with an interest in RA officers can expand the article and include more stuff about his family and military career in the RA. His final mention in the Gazette was in 1909, so I also don't have an end date for his military service. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

From the Army list of 1896: he passed the Staff College in December 1873 (p104), p41 has him placed on half pay on 23 May 1890 but he must have been brought back for the deputy adjutant-general appointment in 1897. I couldn't find any war service listed. Interestingly in an advertisement in the Army List of 1877 he is quoted: "all goods supplied by Messrs. Jefferies & Co for the use of the R.A. Cricket Club have been of the best quality, and have given every satisfaction". From Armorial Families (1929) p1013: he married, in 1872, to Charlotte Annie Susan Woodford the son of a Lieutenant Alexander Woodford of the 56th Regiment and grand-daughter of Field Marshal Alexander George Woodford. They had at least one son. From Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons (1865) p86 he passed the examination for appointment to the staff as an ADC in November 1861. There's a photograph of him in The Victorian Army and the Staff College (2015) p222 which states he was commandant of the Staff College 1899-1900 - Dumelow (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Armament of the Iowa-class battleship 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No task force for 1900th century

Whilst adding task force tags to articles, I noticed their is no task force for 1900th century e.g 1815 - 1914, subjects Early modern goes to 1800, Napoleonic to 1815 and then it jumps to the American Civil War and then World War 1. What can be done about? I feel like this is quite the gap in coverage. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that would be 19thC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a task force for that would be very beneficial. It was a pretty transitional time - compare, say, Waterloo in 1815 to Petersburg in 1864-1865 to 1st Ypres in 1914. The conflicts themselves were less disparate and seem to be a more effective way of organization here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

GAR

Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, a page within the scope of this project, is up for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant/1. Your help to improve the article or give feedback would be most appreciated! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

One image, published by three different military entities, with three different licenses

• 1st: from the DoD, public domain (could be used in Wikipedia)
• 2nd: from CARAT, CC-BY-ND 2.0. (could not be used in Wikipedia)
• 3rd: from USPF, full copyright. (could not be used in Wikipedia)

Any idea whether this image is eligible? Thanks. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Jeromi Mikhael The sources claiming it is not public domain is pure license washing. The DoD source calls it a "DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class David A. Brandenburg, U.S. Navy". All works created by US military personell in the course of their duties is public domain. Use {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} and upload to Commons. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Uh, I'm sorry but All works created by US military personell in the course of their duties is public domain even if they say otherwise? Or is there other regulations regarding that? For example this and this image are the same and they are published by a US military entity. Both images are licensed in such a way that makes it ineligible for use. Since this image is a works created by US military personell in the course of their duties, should we ignore the license and just upload it straight to commons? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, ineligible for copyright, even if they say otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Is somebody writing up Admiral Nora Tyson's career more, or the Indonesian Navy? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Buckshot06: Planning to crop the image for the guy sitting on the left of her as well as the standing admirals. The guy standing in the middle would later became the defense secretary general --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm doing this for quite a period of time now. For example, this image only mentions the guy sitting in the left as an Indonesian navy counterpart. Little did they know that 8 years after this image was taken, he was the one who caused Nanggala's demise (he was the one who told Nanggala to dive). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Good stuff, thankyou for working on the TNI. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Armoured cars at Malawi Defence Force Museum, Zomba

Vehicle one, unidentified armoured car, MDF Museum, Zomba

Vehicle two, unidentified more modern armoured car, MDF Museum, Zomba

Dear all, the Malawi Defence Force Museum up the hill behind Old State House in Zomba, the old capital of Malawi, in the south of the country, is currently an empty shell. What collection there may be resides nearby at Cobbe Barracks, Zomba, the headquarters of 93 Brigade (Malawi) and homebase to 1st Battalion, Malawi Rifles. Visiting there yesterday I found the building empty and two sleepy soldiers in a room at the back just detailed to look after the place as guards.

But the interesting thing was the two postwar / WW II armoured cars mounted on plinths at the front. I have no access to any sources at present that might show what armoured fighting vehicles entered service with the Rifles/Malawi Army after World War II, so would much appreciate our expert AFV spotters giving me some help.

The first, whose registration plate appears to be 042MA, appears to be a Second World War era light reconnaissance vehicle.

The second, whose registration plate might start with something like '162..,' appears to be much more modern.

Can anyone looking help identify these two?

Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Buckshot06, the first is a Ferret scout car, a very successful post-War British design, the second is a Fox armoured car, basically a Ferret with a 30mm turret, my understanding is not such a successful design. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Looks like an an FV701 Ferret armoured car and an FV721 Fox armoured reconnaissance vehicle. The Military Balance 2021 (p475) says they still have 8 of the former and 20 of the latter in service - Dumelow (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I was pretty sure of the Fox, having seen numerous pictures, but not wanting to presuppose any answers, but thanks regarding the Ferret - my vague memory of the Ferret would have had me looking for a gun turret. Was not expecting also for the MDF to put vehicles on display that were still in first-line service. I can amend the captions now. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ferret's turret is reversed, so the machine gun would be on the other side if still fitted.Monstrelet (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: You should probably go ahead and ask for file renames, cause the current ones are not really helpful. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of days for Battle of Crete

Hi. I'd like a second opinion on Battle of Crete to confirm that my logic is sound. The battle started on 20 May 1941 (day 1) and ended on 1 June 1941 (day 13). We report in the infobox that the battle lasted for 13 days. We are getting edits from IP users replacing the duration with 12 days. I am guessing their logic is that 20 May is day 0 and they are counting each full 24 hour period. The battle occurred over 13 days but only lasted 12 full 24 hour periods. Which figure should be placed in the infobox? I've reverted the IP editors a couple of times recently,[1][2] and I'd like to avoid doing so again without a consensus. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

License change request for some military images

I don't know if this is the appropriate forum, but I want to request help for requesting image license change in flickr for some military images. Apparently the National Defense University has some pretty neat images that I want to use and it is licensed with Creative Commons, but unfortunately they are non-commercial license. I'm not too good at writing request and I might have some of my words mixed. Thank you. Link: [3], [4]

This request was posted by User:Jeromi Mikhael (User_talk:Jeromi Mikhael)

(scribe helping is Buckshot06 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) )

User:Jeromi Mikhael You're correct that images that have been released under a non-commercial license are not suitable for upload. Sadly there's nothing we can do about it. (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Yeah. I thought someone studying/lecturing at NDU could do a bit of lobbying for that. Or anyone serving in the military. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: sorry for bothering you again, but according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#One image, published by three different military entities, with three different licenses it says that works created by the government is ineligible for copyright, even if they say otherwise. Since the National Defense University is a federal staff college, funded by the United States Department of Defense, and operates under the guidance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does it mean that the NDU is part of the federal government in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

British 1st Division

Is anyone familiar with the modern British military, and unit histories etc.? We have the 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, which describes the infantry division from 1809–1960, and the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article that details the 1937–1945 armoured division, and the division that was formed in 1960. From what I understand, the 1st Infantry Divisoin was in the UK around June 1960 and was disbanded. Then the 5th Division, in Germany, was re-designated as the 1st Division and at some point over the coming years became an armoured division. The article about the modern division seems to imply some sort of associated history with the Second World War armoured division and not the infantry division that was disbanded.

At present, I was thinking that the division formed in 1960 could retain the "1st (United Kingdom) Division" article, which should include a brief history that references the "1st (United Kingdom) Division" and a "1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)" article. These latter two articles could focus on their respective histories, and leave all the 1960-modern stuff where it is. Additional articles for their respective orders of battle. One article to cover the GOCs for all three, since they seem to be the same (at least according to the British Army's website)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @EnigmaMcmxc: so, the 1st INFANTRY Division was disbanded back in the 1960s. The 1st ARMOURED Division was formed in the 1930s, when the 1st INFANTRY division was in fact still around. During the 70s, the 1st ARMOURED Division was reformed, and following the Army 2020 reform became simply the 1st (United Kingdom) Division, taking the lineage of the ARMOURED formation, NOT in the infantry formation. They are in-fact two different formations with two different titles. Yes, they share the term '1st', but does that mean the 1st US Cavalry and 1st US Armoured Division are the same thing using this logic? Hopefully this helps explain it better for you :). J-Man11 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw that wrote on the article, but both 1st Division articles seem to imply some sort of continuation as they both mention the reformation. The British Army's website seems to indicate a continuation as does the Imperial War Museum. Lord and Watson's The Royal Corps of Signals seems to suggest signal units being redesignated and continuing the history of the infantry division? I am kind of use to weird British unit histories, but this one is confusing. Its like it was all merged into one lineage?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, it may initially appear confusing, but the lineage that was continued is clearly that of 1st Armoured Division, not repeat not that of 1st Infantry Division. 1st Armd served continuously from 1977 to c2020; retained the black rhino badge that you see on the divisional webpage you linked; fought in the Gulf 1990-91, as indicated on that same webpage, neither of which 1st Infantry Div did, whose last existence *might* have been c1977, depending on which lineage you believe the 1st, 3rd 4th [no-specific-designation] Divs in Germany had for a decade or so (see Watson & Rinaldi, ref below). 1st Infantry Div has none of that history and a different badge. When 6th Div was reformed at York after 2001, the initial website the Army put up almost made the same level of error, including mentions of 6th Infantry, 6th Airborne, and 6th Armoured, before the details on 6th Abn and 6th Arm'd disappeared in a correction. The confusion may be heightened by 4th Infantry and 7th Infantry Brigades -- as they are now named -- actually have their lineage, badges, etc from 4th Armoured and 7th Armoured Brigades. But the Army wanted to hold onto the history of 4th & 7th ABs which had fought in the Gulf, not infantry brigades which no one had served with in living memory. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So excluding what the army's website has to say. I think what adds to the confusion is what the IWM page indicates. I know the IWM website can be wrong. But, it notes that when the "new" 1st Div that was formed, by the 5th Div being renamed, it reused the "old" 1st Div's white triangle insignia. It seems to imply that the 1st Div then existed through to around 1977-78*, when it was redesignated as an armoured division. It then states they incorporated the "old" 1st Arm Div's insignia. So the current insignia is a mash-up of both the 1st Inf (1900-1960 + 1960-1977ish?) and the 1st Arm (WWII). On top of that the signals regiment book seems to indicate this same kind of merger.

Is there a source that outlines the lineage of the formation (excluding the army's website)?

(*)The flip side to that would be DeVore, Marc Ronald (2009). Armed Forces, States and Threats: Civil-Military Institutions and Military Power in Modern Democracies; in which he talks about the 1st Armoured Division pioneering the BAOR's anti-Red Army tactics in the 60s.

My head hurts!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What you're talking about, and what causes the confusion, is that the divisions from c1960 to c1977 were simply '1st', '3rd' '4th'. There is no 'official' lineage that attributes those periods to either Infantry or Armoured. Those formations could have been either or neither; there are no 'official' British divisional lineages to indicate either way - only the kind of clues that we are picking over now. US Army / USAF are much more specific about this kind of thing. But the consensus from all concerned is that the last existence of the 1st Inf Div *might* have been 1977 (or it might have been when the three divisions in Germany lost their identifying descriptions, either armd or infantry, circa 1960 (see for example Mackie, who lists the divisional commanders in the 1960s with the 1st Arm'd Div at Colin Mackie. "Army Commands" (PDF). pp. 204–205. Retrieved 11 July 2020. rather than with his listing of 1st Inf Div commanders), see Graham Watson, Richard A. Rinaldi, The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947-2004, 55-57 shows the transition). Then the 1st Arm'd existed continuously since; kept the rhino badge; indeed picked up the badge of the 1st Armd from WWII from 1977, showing heraldic connection; and only lost the title 'armoured' in 2020 or so.

Any mergers of divisional signals regiments don't actually bear on the lineage of the division / division headquarters as a whole, and they have no official lineages either (the only crystal clear affiliation to either is the 1970-80s term 'Armoured Division Signals Regiment'). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was looking over Rinaldi's work earlier too. I noted that on the current article's talk page, someone else pointed to the MOD website for the division (no longer functioning) over a decade ago, and it apparently presented similar info to what the current army website shows. While I know it does not meet WP:RS, BAOR locations mentions how the divisional engineers were garrisoned in Germany from 1950 to 1978 under three different names. Not quite a smoking gun, McNish, Messenger, Bray, Iron Division, 2000, p. 151: mention that the 3rd Div moved homes in October 1959, which displaced the 1st Div "which reformed in BAOR".

It seems like all the sources just seem to suggest that the various incarnations are all one and the same (from a modern perspective, and not nitpicky perspective of their being two actual different formations between 1937-1945).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just been repeating myself that Mackie among many others differentiates the 1st Armoured Div and 1st Infantry Division - and does so by stopping listing any commanders for 1st Inf Div after 1959. What he lists are commanders for 1st Armd Div. McNish, Messenger, Bray means nothing unless it specifies either the 1st Armoured Div or 1st Infantry Division, which it couldn't with great authority, as the divisions which were established in 1959-60 partially caused our current dilemma by not having either the Inf or Armoured title. I have seen nothing anywhere in 30+ years of studying British Army formations that the three divisions in Germany 1960-1977 (my error - they were 1st, 2nd, 4th) had universally accepted lineage linkages to either previous Infantry or Armoured Divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The BAOR locations page you linked isn't definitive, because there's no reason why there couldn't be '1 Inf Div Engineers' after 1 Inf Div had been disbanded, to preserve the history of the regiment with that name. Actually there were never such 'Inf Div Eng Regts.' Engineer regiment designations were changing constantly (again see Watson and Rinaldi). Interestingly the page talks about 1 Armd Division Transport Regiment throughout up to 1978, which is an example of why other commentators have tended to assign the continuing lineage to 1st Armoured Division rather than 1st Infantry Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Mackie's list has one list for the 1st Arm Div (37-47) and the 1st Div (1902-present), although granted the latter list notes the disbanding and renaming etc of 1960. His list, to me, seems to be lining up with what the MOD, British Army, and IWM websites are suggesting (a continuation of the 1st Div from Waterloo to present). But, if there is no evidence to suggest a linkage between the modern divisions (1960s onwards) and the old ones, why does the current article (discussing 1960s 1st Div, modern 1st Arm Div, and then a whole bunch of names since then) also include the 1st Arm Div (37-47)? Shouldn't the latter have its own article?

It kind of feels like the same situation for the 2nd Infantry Division article (disbanded in Asia in 1947 and a BAOR div renamed around the same time, 'infantry' dropped from the title in 58, reorganized in 76 as an Arm div and disbanded a few years later in Germany, then a new 2nd Div raised in the UK, disbanded and reraised again in the 90s), and probably most of our other articles about the modern British formations. One of the reasons, in the reviews, for it incorporating the 'modern' 2nd Arm info was people were looking at it as a continuation of the Cold War-era division, just reorganized, renamed, all new divisions carrying the number being linked, and the link in insignia. With that in mind, I cannot see why we are using 1960 as the cut off? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I did find that the modern division celebrated their birthday, celebrating their formation in 1809, on twitter. I feel that is strong enough evidence, when coupled with the British Army's website and the IWM's suggestion that the first commander of the modern 1st Arm Div mashed up the old 1st Div and the old 1st Arm Div's insignia. To me, it looks like they are viewing it as a continued and shared lineage. While the 1960 cut-off does not make sense to me, would the below work? This would require removing the redirect for the 1st Arm Div (and moving info into that new article), and potentially renaming the 1st Inf article/or just leaving it alone and having it named as such in a nav box like below.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Leave the 1st Armoured Division, with all the formations holding that title, exactly as it is, linked to the current 1st (United Kingdom) Division. I do *not* agree with *any* of your conjectures you've laid out; what I believe is what the community has put together: 1st Armd from 1937-47, 1977-onwards exclusively; 1st Infantry with a separate history.

The only 'break' in the history of 1st Armd Div (37-47) and 1977 onwards, or 2nd Inf Div for that matter, is the period between 1960 and 1977 when divisions did not have the identifying term either armoured or infantry. Otherwise all the material for 1st Armoured Division or 1st Infantry Division or 2nd Armoured Division belongs exactly under their own names.

Please change *nothing whatsoever* unless you find some very solid WP:RS to back up these weird theories. And then before you do so, bring the whole matter back here or somewhere similar for discussion, otherwise you will get yourself into move wars of staggering dimensions. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Lay off the threats, you're not at home. Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out, the above specifies proposal and that is all.

You are saying it is conjecture, but so far we have: the division's own twitter stating they have a 300-year history, the British Army's website for the division stating it has this history, the IWM suggesting the same thing and including a discussion about the two formation's insignia being merged into the current one, and the list by Mackie who lists all commanders from 1902-present as being commanders of the same formation.

No evidence has been presented to explain why the current 1st (United Kingdom) Division (formed 1960) and the 1st Armoured Division should be on the same page, or why the current 1st (United Kingdom) Division should not be on the 1st Infantry Division's page.

You have argued that the divisions formed in the 60s do not have a lineage with the ones that existed prior, so why does the current article include the 1st Armoured Division information? If it is about the names, they no longer share the same name so by your own logic they should not be on the same page.

You state you believe what the community has put together is correct, yet the statements within the various articles stating that they are all separate formations, are not sourced. The websites that have been used to point out the 1st Infantry Division was disbanded in 1960, specify that the division was then reformed in Germany by the 5th Division being renamed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Army Notes, from 1960, stated that the 1st Division was disbanded in Colchester on 1 July, due to there being no need for more than one divisional HQ in the UK, and "the title 1st Division has, however, been transferred to the 5th Division in Germany." Transfer implies a continuation. ((1960) Army Notes, Royal United Services Institution. Journal, 105:619, 430-434, DOI: 10.1080/03071846009421132, https://doi.org/10.1080/03071846009421132). This is reflected in the Gazette, to an extent, when it shows Hobbs relinquishing command of 1 Division and Jolly taking command of 1 Division on the same day. This change of command is also shown on the list by Mackie.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I had anticipated that you'd reply. Look, there are some inconsistencies with both our sets of arguments, but generally what I am arguing is that all the history attached to a formation labelled '1st Armoured Division' or '2nd Infantry Division' should be in the same article. That's consistent with all the use of divisional histories elsewhere. The problem arises because this current formation, 1st (United Kingdom) Division, isn't clearly attributed to either 1st Armoured Division or 1st Infantry Division.

My understandings don't really well apply regarding the current formation *because* it does not clearly descend from 1st Inf or 1st Armd, and I really don't care what is written there. So what I suggest is that you rewrite the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article in whatever way you like - but we remove the redirect from 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), the formation that has a history, unquestioned, from 1937-47 and from 1977 onwards until the title 'Armoured' was removed in JUly 2014.

Your focus seems completely about this one division, 1st UK as it is today. I'm not too worried about this current thing, partially because it isn't a real deployable division, it's Headquarters, Light Deployable Brigades, British Army + being a district as well. What I am concerned with is the precedent of amalgamating all '1st's into one division, all '2nd's into another, etc, which I think is completely ill-founded and fatutous (no matter how things are worded by some news tracker person in RUSI in 1960 who may never even heard of the previous history of 1st Armd Div in the Second World War, or by Colin Mackie who makes innumerable mistakes in the constantly changing titles of British Armed Forces appointments/formations (you should see some of the cleanup I've been having to make regarding the Royal Navy)).

How does that sound? You can rewrite 1st (United Kingdom) Division as you like; there's no clear arguments either way from the existing divisional lineages. Even division badges mean nothing when divisional commanders have previously just changed them on a whim.

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) would be split and reduced to the periods 1937-47 and 1977-July 2014, probably with some notes on the '1st [nothing] Division' in between that cannot be clearly attributed to either 1st Armd Div or 1st Infantry Div.

But please, stay away from trying to amalgamate or associate 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) and 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) together. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe we have found common ground. I would like to make clear, I was not suggesting merging the 1st Inf and 1st Arm Div articles together. Its more of the modern division being a pain in the arse ;) , as the current formation seems to suggest its both or at least taking the history of the infantry division (but whatever). Would something to the effect of the below work, as a navigation tool to be at the bottom of them all? This would allow three key articles to be focused on the three separate formations/periods, and a bunch of lists to breakout other info into a more streamlined process.

For example, the 1st Infantry Division article would explain the division being disbanded in England, and the infantry title dropped and it being reformed in Germany. A short para on whatever happened then, a final sentence to note it was redesignated as an armoured div and a link to the Arm Div article. In turn, the Arm Div article would explain it was formed in the 70s by the redesignation of the other formation, and link to that article. It would end by noting the further restructuring and linking to the present formation etc.

Why are editors here nowadays obsessed with templates? I don't see any need for any template, when we have these amazing WP:LINKs, and the category structure. What you would do by adding and creating that template is to imply that the current division traces its history from both divisions when that is exactly what I have been arguing against. As far as I'm concerned (and J-Man11's concerned as you see at the top) the current formation is the heir to 1st Armoured Division, not repeat not associated with 1st Infantry Division. So no I do not want such a template, giving this site's seal of authority saying the current formation descends from both (which is different from however-well-referenced conjecture in the text of the 1 (UK) Div article, because there's no source unequivocally saying that that you can quote). If you wish to subdivide the two divisions' articles as you imply above, stick all the extra articles, if and when they are created, including if you get around to doing the 1st Inf Div articles, in the See Also section. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Templates aid navigation and make things more user friendly.

If such an implication is a stumbling block, then I believe we need to obtain additional feedback outside the discussion by the three of us as I feel the 'conjecture' makes that very point and have yet to see anything to suggest otherwise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely more inputs would be super valuable!! Would have been much better if it were not just you and I for the vast majority of this discussion!! Would make it much less purely adversarial, for one thing.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer, maybe

User:EnigmaMcmxc, User:Buckshot06 -

I was asked on my user talk page whether this issue would be appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard. My opinion at this point is that we can continue to discuss it here, on a WikiProject talk page.

My first question is whether this is a dispute which can be resolved by compromise, or whether it is a case of Choose A or Choose B. If it is the former, we should identify what we are compromising between. If it is the latter, we should define the choices and formulate an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering.

Based off our amicable and prolonged discussion, I believe we are viewing this from two polar positions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

First statement by mediator

Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement indicating what they either want to change or what they want to leave the same? Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion with each other. Address your posts to the community, and I am trying to represent the community. After the statements are made, I will decide what the second step is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Statement by EnigmaMcmxc

I believe there is suitable evidence, which I can collate and display in an easier fashion later (with only one source found, so far, which provides a counterpoint), to show a continued history of the 1st Division from 1809 through to present (or, at the very least, an acknowledgement by the current division to a heritage shared with its predecessor). I acknowledge that the history becomes a little muddled in the 1970s and beyond due to a name and insignia change. At present, I feel that the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article should acknowledge that background, but with say just an opening paragraph or something so that it can focus on the division's modern history (however anyone wants to define that). Based off what I have read so far, I believe the 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article should acknowledge that the 1st (United Kingdom) Division is the same division renamed and that the two articles cover different periods of time (at present, they - unsourced - state they are separate). Finally, I think the the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article needs to have the redirect removed, and the Second World War material from the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article moved to it. I am open to debate on if the 1st Armoured Division should discuss the Cold War armoured division or not (there is some precedent for noting doing so).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Buckshot06

I believe that the 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) are entirely separate entities, and the current 1st (United Kingdom) Division traces its lineage from the 1st Armoured Division of the Second World War and 1977-2014. This is effectively based on WP:BURDEN: I have never seen any official, authoritative, British Army statement, clearly and identifiably endorsed in some way by the Army Historical Branch (as opposed to corporals being told to write websites), that explicitly says that 1st (UK) Div from 2014 is the identical formation to both the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry Division. Both have existed simultaneously, which rather militates against EnigmaMcmxc's statements above. WP:BURDEN must be met before inserting such claims into a WP article. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by mediator

I don't know anything about the history of these divisions. (The very limited experience that I had with data on order of battle had to do with American units, not with British units.) Will each editor please identify what they think are all of the different divisions? How many divisions are involved? What does each editor think is the history of each of the divisions? (We are probably going to resolve this by RFC, and, if so, the information needs to be available for the community to see.) After we identify the history of the divisions, we can see what the discrepancies are. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:: Ping to alert that both editors have now made statements.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Statement by EnigmaMcmxc

Well, basically:

• 1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918)> 1st Division (1919-until renamed) 1st Infantry Division (-until 1960) > 1st Division (1960–mid 70s) > 1st Armoured Division (mids 70s–1993 and disbanded) > 1st (UK) Armoured Division (1993–2014) > 1st (UK) Division (2014-present)
• 1st Armoured Divison (1937-1945) and then another 1st Armoured Division (1947)

-EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment: With all due respect, but I feel like I am being wiki lawyered. I believe there is substantial enough evidence to prove my point, without breaching WP:RS or WP:SYN, and can demonstrate that when we move to a point where evidence is requested (and presented in a more clear fashion rather than the scattershot approach in the above discussion). I would also argue that all the below cited policies work both ways. The 1st Infantry and the 1st (UK) articles both make a very particular claims about dates, heritages, and what should not be confused. If we are going to argue for status quo and dropping this discussion, those statements either need to be sourced or they need to be removed. I think the RFC, or whatever is proposed as the best means to move forward, has to be the next step rather than just dropping this entire issue.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I think your claim of wikilawyering is fatuous. Your entire series of points seems to be you wish to settle a question of descent in a series of military formations, correct? Can you put forward any source that the longtime historians of the British Army, or Army Historical Branch, could happily all agree is authoritative, that would unequivocally resolve this matter in your favour? No. None such exists (unless somebody brings forward a hitherto unknown source).

So why are you trying to 'create' an unambiguous line of descent inside this website when it does not exist beyond? We should not go beyond the sources!! That's the entire basis of wikipedia!! By all means, if you think you can put forward authoritative sources, go to an RFC. But the (lack of) authoritative sources won't change whether you stop here; or there; or even if, which they should not, the collective interested editors, here or there, decide to definitively pronounce on something that the facts don't support -- and in doing so ignore SYNTH and ORIGINALRESEARCH.

I would entirely agree that any unsourced statements in the 1st Infantry Div, 1st Armoured Div, and 1st (UK) Div articles should be pared right back to what their sources say, exactly, and nothing more. Any elaboration or extrapolation beyond *exactly* what the references say should be removed, because it would not meet WP:BURDEN. However, anything that does meet BURDEN should stay, though it might need to be reworded. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You claim fatuous, and go right back to wiki lawyering. Prove the assertion of WP:OR or WP:SYN. Quoting sources is neither. Highlighting a common theme is neither. Not to mention, since when does whatever the army historical branch have to say on the subject been the bottom line for any of the articles? That is not a burden shared by any other article, and is a burden you are attempting to enforce. You cannot simply say a line of descent does not exist outside of the wiki (and apparently I am the only one trying to create it), because you have already been shown that other sources claim. You have just decided to write them off because you disagree with ('websites written by corporals' etc.).

Its not just a question of lineage, the articles make several unsupported claims. At least five points within the two articles that need to be verified:

What source states the 1st Infantry Division was disbanded for good/ended its lineage in 1960?

What source states that the 1st Division formed in 1960 is not a continuation of the one just disbanded?

What source states the current 1st (UK) Division was formed in 1960?

What source states the current 1st (UK) Division is not the 1st Division renamed or does not share its lineage?

What source states that the current 1st (UK) Division shares a heritage with the 1st Armoured Division?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I should note, 1 source that makes the latter claim. That is compared to six plus that support an ongoing lineage. When we are in a position for next steps, I can post them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I am wikilawyering. Let me put it around the other way. To satisfy some kind of descent from both 1st Armd Div and 1st Inf Div in the 1st (UK) Div article, in accordance with WP:BURDEN, I believe there must be a clear unambiguous statement along the lines of "1st (UK) Division [formed mid-2014] draws its [lineage / history / traditions] from both the 1st Armd Div and the 1st Infantry Division," from some solid reliable authoritative source, secondary or tertiary.

What kind of source? Something like a recent version of Anthony Beevor's 'Inside the British Army' [1988 or 1991]; Charles Heyman's annual 'British Army Guide,' for example 2016-17; an article about divisional histories in British Army Review or RUSI Journal; Oxford History of the British Army; something by David French; Strachan, 'The Politics of the British Army;' Strachan, ed., 'The British Army: Manpower and Society into the Twenty-First Century;' a modern rewrite or version of Gander 'Modern British Army' of 1980 or 1982; Ben Barry's 'Blood, Metal and Dust,' or suchlike; some modern analogue of Peedle, Bob, 'Encyclopedia of the Modern Territorial Army', England : Patrick Stephens, 1990; an analogue of Christopher Elliott's 'High Command: British Military Leadership in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars;' "British Generals in Blair's Wars" or suchlike; or, or, [not and!!] for absolute platinum standard authoritativeness, anything by the Army Historical Branch. I've never seen such things on recent events by the AHB, but that would settle the question beyond any doubt.

Personally if you wish to prove your case I would go very carefully through Heyman's annual 'British Army Guide', issued every year, and see if he actually says something unambiguous about descent from both divisions.

The absence of references to such authoritative sources, as opposed to picking for clues in different kinds of webpages, is why I argue your case is SYNTH / OR. This isn't dealing with the Malawi Army; there are whole libraries of histories of the British Army - just find me one good reference in a deadtree book by a respected author!!

Now, you've made a number of correct points about flimsily sourced statements in the 1ID and 1AD article. Let me pare those back in accordance with WP:BURDEN, and split out 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), and then I will come back to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Buckshot06

• 1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918)> 1st Division (1919-until renamed) 1st Infantry Division (-until 1960, existed simultaneously with 1st Armoured Division during Second World War.) Last confirmed existence 1960.
• 1st Division (1960–1976) possibly aligned with 1st Infantry Division (all divisions infantry unless specified otherwise, would be the reasoning).
• 1st Armoured Division: 1937-1945, existed simultaneously with 1st Infantry Division; 1947, 1976-2014 with a brief consolidation/amalgamation in 1993, lost its armoured character in July 2014 as became a headquarters for light brigades, but retained the lineage, especially visible in parenting former 4th and 7th Armoured Brigades. Continues in existence.

But more importantly, WP is not supposed to rest upon WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The discussion above and the clues we both brought to try and argue our cases were scraps; no-one is able to relay a scholarly secondary or tertiary source on the issue because the question has not been settled, to my knowledge. No such source exists, to my knowledge. WP is supposed to follow the sources, not get out it front of them. Making a definitive decision - either way!! - for WP purposes would be WP:SNYTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH - creating 'facts in wikipedia' where they do not exist outside this website. I propose this whole issue should be dropped for the moment, but as soon as EnigmaMcmxc is able to bring forward for discussion a relatively reliable secondary or tertiary source, the issue can be raised for discussion again. This argument is made more forceful by the fact that this is how the various articles affected have evolved up to this point - they do not try to settle the question because WP:BURDEN - for either position - has not so far been able to be satisfied. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator

I have created a draft RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/1st Div RFC and am requesting that you enter the supporting cases for A and B in the draft page. When you are ready, we can move the RFC to this page, and remove the nowiki stuff, and the robot will bring the RFC to life. If either of you has a different idea than an RFC, please state what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors

Statement by EnigmaMcmxc

I have entered the evidence that I have located that support the argument being made, and even one source that opposes the position I have taken. I would note that none of them would support (even considering Buckshot and I's opposing points of view) the status quo of the articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

CIS United Armed Forces

I created a draft for the Draft:CIS United Armed Forces. It oversaw parts of the former Soviet Red Army and nuclear weapons during the dissolution of the USSR. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at RM at Collaborationism

Hello. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Collaborationism#Requested move 7 November 2021. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads up on IP editing on WW2 German articles

Just a heads up about the editing of this ip who seems awfully interested in reverting edits by User:K.e.coffman and promoting a specific point of view regarding Germany's participation in World War 2. Some of the articles could probably do with more eyes.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948

Pls see discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#Infobox bloat. There are lots of issues with this, the first of which is an exhaustive list of commanders where the article does not naturally support their inclusion in the infobox. Many are not mentioned at all except in the infobox. This is the initial issue. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Combat Assault Battalion

strange recent vandalism on Combat Assault Battalion (e.g., changing all 3rd to 3d). Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not Vandalism (although I'm not sure that it is appropriate)- see [5] - the 3rd Marine Division is often written 3d.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The change is contrary to guidance at MOS:ORDINAL. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinderella157 is correct. Per the MOS, we use "2nd" and "3rd", not "2d" or "3d", even though some military units have used the single letter variant before, which still shows up from time to time. I've changed this on numerous pages, so I hope someone isn't switching it the other way. - wolf 03:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant MOS discussion can be found here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Warship costs

I would like to draw the project's attention to this discussion on my talk page. My edits adding useful cost information of pre-WW1 German battleships attested by reliable sources have been reverted by editor Parsecboy. In my view, if there are reliable sources giving the cost of a warship, it should be included in the infobox field provided by the template for precisely this purpose. As I point out in the discussion, cost information may be useful for readers in a variety of contexts, whether they're studying the escalating Anglo-German arms race, economic dislocations caused by navy outlays in Wilhelmine Germany or micro-history of German private shipyards at the turn of the century. Merrybrit (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion around aircraft costs a while back. The outcome was the removal of the cost parameter from the aircraft infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found that there is often a number of different costs quoted such as hull-only, inclusive of machinery, inclusive of weaponry, fully fitted out etc. This makes simple comparisons sometimes difficult even between ships built in the same period by the same country. I would suggest that the infobox is not the right place for the level of explanation that is required and, where useful, costs should be discussed in the main body - Dumelow (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Which means that the cost parameter should be removed from the warship template. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The commercial ship template as well. Old costs have little meaning except as comparisons at the time and we get into the issue of current value templates as seen a while ago. Ships in particular have many "numbers" for those boxes over time (I mention tonnage in that discussion) that if fully covered in the box would have boxes running column inches beyond text. Nearly every characteristic number requires some definition. Length, beam, depth and draft for example. Which "length"? Even the same type can vary by measuring authority. What beam? Molded or other? Same with other units. Within basic stability standards there are all sorts of "draft" numbers possible. Which one and when? The boxes attempt to simplify and snapshot things that in reality are far more complex. In some ways with some elements it is somewhat akin to describing the physical characteristics of a notable person at birth or at twelve or thirty as simple numbers in a box. Palmeira (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, as noted on the user's Talk page discussion. Infoboxes of both ships and aircraft, though probably more so ships, are full of "numbers" that lack context. Some are virtually meaningless and even misleading as isolated numbers. Palmeira (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek a major WW2 leader?

See the discussion and leave your comments. Merrybrit (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Longest Milhist article

And the winner is...

• 187th Infantry Regiment (United States)
  • HTML document size: 732 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 496 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 70 kB
  • Wiki text: 445 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 390 kB (65422 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 6394 B

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironically for a long article, it defintely qualifies for a {{lead too short}}. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's huge! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting...Earwig has the article at an 87% chance of copyright violation with the CSI Battlebook. Moving past that, it seems like way more than a regimental history in its tone and scope (Also, what a strange citation style it uses) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Skimming through the article, chunks of this feel like a copyvio. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur that this just feels like copyvio. I'm of the opinion that this needs to be stubbified and started over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've started on the citations. But may also cut uncited material. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: I've hunted down the last version before this was expanded via the page history. I don't know if some of the remaining text needs further improvements/citations, but feels like a start. If you can find specific examples which are copyvios, it might be worthwile to go to WP:CCI for this specific editor (Special:Contributions/Charles Shaulis). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks for that Hawkeye7. Do you by chance recall any of the runners-up? Cheers - wolf 19:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I know a few articles I worked on became a little bloated and one or two slipped over the 100k mark, so I really am hoping I am not making the runner's up list. But, damn, that is a huge article!

Runners up:

• List of later historians of the Crusades [425,403 bytes]
• List of sources for the Crusades [402,562 bytes]
• Russo-Ukrainian War [387,693 bytes]
• 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war [386,778 bytes]
• Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) [381,464 bytes]
• List of paratrooper forces [377,072 bytes]
• Timeline of the Second Libyan Civil War [360,432 bytes]
• Timeline of the Syrian civil war ‎[352,226 bytes]
• United States Army Futures Command ‎[351,366 bytes]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That last one suffers from a lot of jargon/military biztalk. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett you might have to talk to Ancheta Wis (an admin) about that. From the edit history, they seem to have added most of the jargon. SuperWIKI (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SuperWIKI I tagged it with 'jargon' hatnote last month. Also citation overkill in places. I don't think the style will be corrected.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It may be that a lot of our biggest articles, especially for US military units, may contain or are constituted almost entirely by copyright violations. I invite interested editors to look at this list I had assembled of WP:CCI cases that extensively involve MILHIST articles. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly likely that the US military articles here contain lots of text from US government websites, which is PD. The paratrooper article is weird in that it confuses 'paratroopers', who are elite light infantry, with airborne-qualified special forces despite the roles being pretty different (e.g. SF are generally not expected to take or hold ground while paratroopers are). Some of the 'paratrooper' units listed are also non-combat units (for instance, the Royal Navy's Submarine Parachute Assistance Group ‎ who are submarine rescue specialists. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we don't create a guideline that discourages copying PD text. It may not be copyvio, but it is plagiarism, and most of the time the text that's being copied wasn't written for a modern encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is not with copying PD text, but with failure to put quotation marks and appropriate citations. I have recently marked up an article on a US military unitthat was mostly unattributed quotes from USAF websites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Charles Shaulis who made the massive largely unreferenced expansions to 187th Infantry Regiment (United States) made similarly problematic edits at Battle of Yongyu (which the 187th participated in) which took a while to resolve with the input of several members of this project. Given the previous copyright warnings given to him it may be time for some more forceful remedies. Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regarding US Army Futures Command (AFC) I have just come across a CSIS source which synthesizes the issues which face a future war using Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The AFC article lists plenty of sources which can be used in the documentation of this future war. (The current deputy secretary of defense Kathleen Hicks is a CSIS alumna. The 28th secretary of defense has recused himself from acquisition matters, in favor of Hicks.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This note is not just academic. Billions of dollars are already being spent on JADC2 and Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found a couple of very long articles which don't appear above, because a portion is not counted as prose:

• Aircraft in fiction (404,483 bytes)
• Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762) (358,611 bytes)

The first article is very strange, being positioned as an unachievable list of every appearance of an aircraft in fiction; its length is added to by 765 references. The second article is long in the prose already but has a more modest 228 references; however many of these include lengthy quotations or additional commentary - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Anything in a bulleted list isn't counted as prose either, nor do the 60-odd word long image captions. A bit of application of the MoS would reduce the word count and article size. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The first is basically a glorified "in popular culture" list, except instead of being in the relevant articles it is all in one place. The less trivial information could probably be merged to relevant articles; although that would require finding an appropriate redirect for after the merge (List of fictional aircraft seems like the only appropriate one, although that very obviously has a different scope). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction was at one time called "Aircraft in popular culture", and allows pop culture to be kept out of aircraft articles and keeps it in one place where it can be better curated (i.e. delete the unsourced and obviously trivial) There have been occasional attempts on the article talk page to reduce the size - which normally result in a purge on some of the more crufty, non-notable entries.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

While the pragmatism of the solution is probably a good thing, this still feels like "moving the problem elsewhere". If it isn't good enough to go in the main article (which needs to be watched and cleaned-up if necessary in either case), I don't see what is gained by having it incubate indefinitely in a fan-cruft-magnet list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References

FAC reviews needed

Anyone have any interest of reviewing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1? It is in danger of archival. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've left comments on the article, hopefully it will get some more traction. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521–1526 Featured article review

I have nominated Italian War of 1521–1526 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation of US battles- by date or by state

There doesn't seem to be much consistency here. Sometimes the date is used - Battle of Charleston (1861) is used instead of Battle of Charleston, Missouri, or Battle of Dover (1863) instead of Battle of Dover, Tennessee. Sometimes the state is used - see Battle of Jackson, Tennessee instead of Battle of Jackson (1862) and Battle of Jackson, Mississippi vs Battle of Jackson (1863). Slightly different examples include Battle of Glasgow, Missouri and Battle of Carthage, Missouri, where the Missouri towns are by far not the common meaning of the place name. Sometimes disambiguation is used for no apparent reason - Battle of Fayetteville (1863).

It seems like standardization would be good here. I'd have a preference for using the state - it seems to be generally more common to refer to the battles by state, instead of by year. Of course sometimes, the year will still need to be used - Battle of Franklin (1863) and Battle of Franklin (1864) were both in Tennessee; Battle of Athens (1861) was fought on a state line, and situations like that. Any other thoughts? Hog Farm _Talk 07:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would much rather see the year (and month if necessary) used. It means that the reader gets some temporal guidance in the article title, and it is more flexible when there are multiple battles at the same place. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that where disambiguation of battles, or other military conflicts, is necessary it is near universal practice to do so by year. Although I can see the problem with Battle of Carthage (c. 149 BC), Battle of Carthage (698) and Battle of Carthage (1861)! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd also prefer to see years in general, but w/r/t universality there are also 700+ articles/redirects of the form "First/Second battle of..." (and presumably lesser numbers for higher ordinals) to consider. I suppose WP:COMMONNAME means we'd keep Second Battle of Bull Run rather making it Battle of Bull Run (1862). Along these lines, I'm not a fan of how WP:MILNAME is phrased currently: If disambiguation is needed, the year may be added in parentheses. Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (examples removed). I think this clashes with how ordinals are often used in the common parlance, with e.g. First and Second Bull Run happening in different years. Using both years and ordinals together is not really helpful either, as demonstrated by the DAB Battle of Wissembourg: the title Second Battle of Wissembourg (1793) kinda implies there would've been multiple battles titled "Second battle of Wissembourg" and the lack of an ordinal for the third battle seems inconsistent. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Shocked, and an invitation

A gif of someone being disappointed

Park sign in 2012

After reading through the discussion in the archives and links, I am shocked that our community was unable to defend WP:SOLDIER or get it elevated to WP:SNG. A baseball player can play one game at the major league level, and for some reason that's sufficient. But a servicemember who has worked their way up to flag/general officer, or a servicemember who has received their nation's second highest medal for valor/valour multiple times, needs to have an article defended against deletion by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO alone is ridiculous IMHO! I guess that just shows those who show up are more likely to win, and my absence here has been a detriment at least as far as this issue is concerned. Thanks to those who made the valiant attempt to defend it!
That said, for those in the United States, I would like to invite those willing to travel to a meetup which falls within the scope of this WikiProject. The meetup is a staff ride commemorating the 175th anniversary of the Battle of San Pasqual held by US-SAN. I look forward to having this event hopefully lead to improvement of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, "our community" (MilHist) is the one which overwhelmingly decided to deprecate WP:SOLDIER. Plenty of us showed up to that discussion. It was not a "failure to defend". I think you'll find this is part of a pattern of editors placing increased emphasis on notability being determined by sources rather than simply presuming it based off some arbitrary criteria (WP:NOLYMPICS was recently tightened because of this). Just because the guidelines involving sports players are lax doesn't mean soldier ones should be. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Indy beetle. I would point to User:EyeSerene's comment near the end of the [discussion that led to SOLDIER] in which you participated: "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." That seemed to get lost over the years, with many Users treating SOLDIER as an SNG (which it never was) and if someone satisfied any of the 8 criteria that established their notability no matter that they had minimal sources. This was arguably worst for criteria #2 where we had numerous pages for 1 or 2 stars with negligible coverage being created or kept. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag Officers/General Officers were/are seen as equivalent within the field as other high level individuals within their field, such as politicians in sub-national legislatures, professional athletes at top tier sports leagues, high level ecclesiastical individuals, academics in named positions, etc.

As stated in the discussion, there were plenty of instances which showed that criteria #2 individuals usually met GNG and/or anybio. Moreover, since anybio has receiving a notable award being a criteria for inclusion, without SOLDIER it can be argued that even those who have received a non-valor notable award have not met the criteria set forth in anybio. Thus by removing SOLDIER the debateability of notability of servicemembers has become more arduous for those at AfD. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlike for those other individuals which mostly have SNGs, SOLDIER was never an SNG. We had many 1 and 2 star generals with minimal detail and sourcing being kept at AFD because certain Users acted like #2 was an SNG so just having that rank made you notable completely ignoring WP:BASIC, which was clearly never the intention right from when SOLDIER was first adopted. Mztourist (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Indy beetle. WP:SOLDIER was depreciated by this community through a discussion held on this very talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

theaerodrome.com as a reliable source

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

---

A recent B-class assessment led to a brief discussion between me and Georgejdorner regarding the website theaerodrome.com as a Reliable Source. The website has been briefly discussed on the RSN here in 2020, with the arguments for reliability seeming to boil down to The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable and I've certainly never caught them out publishing incorrect information, sometimes I can make a very good guess as to the sources they've used even without citations. I don't see how this is sufficient to reach the WP:RS standard for a website is a clear example of an WP:SPS. Now, WP:SPS states that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. In this case, there is zero indication of who the authors of the individual articles on the individual aces (e.g. [6]) are. There is also no indication (insofar as I can find it) of who the writing staff of the website is as a whole (there's only an email to "webmaster@..."), who authored any individual piece of content in the Aces section, what their editorial process is, etc. Granted, some general articles do have bylines, but there is no indication that the same people are responsible for the ace articles and the by-lined articles themselves are published using the website's forum as a content platform (e.g. [7]) which, at the very least, makes it difficult to establish a bright line between staff-authored content and user-authored content. In addition, many of the by-lined articles seem to simply copy content from other sources (e.g. [8] which is in reality this report, [9] and [10]). The website has a "books" section, but that makes no claims regarding the authors of the books being the authors of the website.

I'd like to hear some other thoughts on the reliability of this source to establish whether it should be viewed as RS or not. In my view, a by-lined article/essay from a well-established author on the website might be considered a RS (but with heightened scrutiny over a non-SPS), but an article with no byline should not be seen as an RS. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC) (Edited to fix links)

If you search in google books, you will find a number of publications referencing theaerodrome.com. Maybe this helps establishing the website as a reliable source? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the relevance of this. You would similarly find a plethora publications referencing wikipedia.org, but that would hardly make Wikipedia itself a reliable source. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem with simple searches like that is understanding the purpose of the reference. It doesn't tell us the proportion of books that are refuting statements made by the website compared to those that are using the site as a source to support their statements. For example, if we found that 90% of books that refer to the site only do so to disagree with them, that is hardly an endorsement of reliability.

On the main subject, Ljleppan's description of the source makes me wary. As with many online sources they are probably well researched by a dedicate group of writers and editors. However, the lack of transparency of their editorial process and authorship makes them less reliable than Wikipedia. At least with Wikipedia you can track all items of content to a named account or ip address. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up because this topic has similarities to a recent discussion about uboat.net. Back then, many editors felt that uboat.net was reliable due to the many references found in other publications. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate any other comments on this matter (or am I to assume that the silence is indicative of nobody else wanting to bat for the view that the website would be RS?), given how it's used as a source in over 500 articles, including at least two GA-class MILHIST articles (see Karl Allmenröder and Kurt Wolff (aviator)). -Ljleppan (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased, but "used in articles on sexy German World War-era flyboys" does not positively impact my perception of a source. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased, but I am heartily tired of bad faith assumptions about my ability to vet a reliable source. My nine years in military intelligence gives me a pretty good grounding in judging reliability of a source.

In my 13 years of creating articles for WP, I have created over 1,300 articles about WWI aviation, while further developing perhaps 400 of these. For sources, I have used the series of biographical encyclopedias published by Grub Street, as well as the aviation history series published by Osprey Publishing. I also use the Aerodrome as a secondary source, as well as a link to military medal illustrations. About 95% of the information on the website can be confirmed by the texts. Given that some Aerodrome pages attribute their info to the very same texts I just referred to, that shouldn't be a surprise.

Ljleppan gives as an example http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/richthofen2.php. If you take a look at it, scroll to the bottom, past the list of aces conquered, past the list of aerial victories, and note the bibliography of 17 books. Of course, all 17 of these must be unreliable, right?

Ljleppan complains about the Aerodrome forum being unreliable. This makes as much sense as complaining about the truth of letters to the editor in a newspaper. Naturally, their reliability cannot be confirmed. That's why I never use a forum in a cite, and delete such cites when I find them. I recommend all editors follow suit.

The B Class assessment that brought this on, Alois Rodlauer, has had all references to the Aerodrome removed, just to satisfy Ljleppan. Net effect is no factual change to the article, but a loss of links to "unreliable" illustrations of military medals. In other words, I unimproved it into a weakened B-5 requirement to satisfy his/her shaky assessment. S/he does not acknowledge that, and in contrast to ordinary WP custom, has not re-evaluated the article that was dumbed down to satisfy his/her demands.

Now, can we quit wasting time beating this deceased equine, and get back to writing?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: First of all, I want to note that your comment is written in an extremely hostile/condescending tone, while I believe I've been nothing but cordial. I do not understand how anything I've done or said can be interpreted as indicating I'm acting in bad faith approach. I categorically deny any such allegations. Both the tone and the accusations are unhelpful, uncalled for and, frankly, hurtful.

Second, with regard to the original assessment that stemmed this discussion, I'm afraid the reason I haven't re-assessed the article is that I have received neither a ping nor a comment on my talk page asking me to do so. The only comment you left on my talk page was a thank-you note stating I have added some explanatory notes to the review, which may help your future assessments. I don't see how I was supposed to interpret that as "please re-assess". As for unspoken rules, I believe I noted in my reply to your message that I'm new to assessments. Indeed, whereas you have been here for 13 years, I've only been active for approximately one month. Expecting me to be familiar with every unspoken rule is not productive. Given the hostility, I propose you relist the article in WP:MILHIST/ASSESS so that a third party can re-assess it.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't see how a section entitled "books" which simply lists a selection of books related to the article's subject, especially without any inline citations indicating that any specific books (never mind pages or page ranges in them) would have been used as sources for any specific piece of information, would be sufficient to turn an anonymous (as far as I can discern) and self-published webpage into a reliable source. Even if it did, many if not most of the articles do not even have a "books" section. E.g. of the first 15 aces by alphabetical order on this page, only 4 do. With the regard to the forums, the point I was raising is that the website mixes forums content and "staff content" by providing some of the articles as forums posts, which makes it difficult to ascertain for certain what content is "staff authored" and what content is "user authored". -Ljleppan (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You should take a better look at the site. If you do not click the Forum button, you do not see forum content. If in doubt, check the URL. As I already said, forums are not reliable.

You keep mentioning articles. However, the ace bio pages have only notes, a victory listing, and sometimes a small list of enemy ace downed.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you do not click the Forum button, you do not see forum content. If you click on the "Aces" link in the left side bar, the page that opens literally has a section labeled "articles", with all but one of the links leading to the forums. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• My interjection was not meant to insult anyone, it was more of a comment about the historically less-than-ideal quality of articles about the much romanticised fighter aces and their shiny aircraft. As for the "books" thing, wouldn't it be ideal to actual acquire those listed sources and find the info directly (if that's in fact where it came from)? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I do have those books. That's how I know that about 95% of the website content comes from those books.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that this website meets the requirements of WP:RS. All three (author, publisher and source) need to be reliable. If you argue they are rarely wrong about a detail, that only meets the third requirement, if true. We still need to know about the author and the publisher, and I can't see anything above that says that the authors (obviously they vary, but are any of them published aviation authors?) and the website as publisher (reputation for quality copy-editing, fact-checking etc) are reliable. I recommend that it is considered unreliable and deprecated. If the website has list of sources used for a given article on a pilot, then examine those listed secondary sources (assuming they themselves are reliable) and use them to source the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As I previously mentioned, the Grub Street and Osprey Press authors are indeed published, and indeed they are considered experts in their field(s). They are never questioned when they write on dead trees, but always seem to be questioned online.
  • The no byline excuse is bogus on two counts. 1) There are no real articles in the aerodrome, just Notes. 2) It is common practice in WP to use unbylined news articles as sources. A parallel case.
  • And finally, your slur of, "if true" about my assurances of accuracy is basically calling me a liar. I resent that incivility.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    • George, you need to take a deep breath and stop taking offence with everyone that disagrees with you or questions this website. You will not get a definitive answer here about the reliability of a source. You can try to get that at WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I do not call my fellow editors liars. In turn, I do not see any reason to tolerate being called a liar.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Sources I have verified as referenced in theaerodrome.com

For Alois Rodlauer:

• Above the War Fronts: The British Two-seater Bomber Pilot and Observer Aces, the British Two-seater Fighter Observer Aces, and the Belgian, Italian, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Fighter Aces, 1914-1918: Volume 4 of Fighting Airmen of WWI Series: Volume 4 of Air Aces of WWI Norman Franks, Russell Guest, Gregory Alegi. Grub Street, 1997. ISBN 1-898697-56-6, ISBN 978-1-898697-56-5

• Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1914-1918. Dr. Martin O'Connor. Flying Machines Pr, 1995. ISBN 0-9637110-1-6, ISBN 978-0-9637110-1-4

In general, I depend on one of the Grub Street biographical encyclopedias.

Grub Street Publications

• Franks, Norman; Bailey, Frank W. & Guest, Russell F. (1993). Above The Lines: The Aces and Fighter Units of the German Air Service, Naval Air Service, and Flanders Marine Corps, 1914–1918. London, UK: Grub Street. ISBN 978-0-948817-73-1.

• Franks, Norman; Bailey, Frank (1993). Over the Front: The Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the United States and French Air Services, 1914–1918. London, UK: Grub Street Publishing. ISBN 978-0-948817-54-0.

• Shores, Christopher; Franks, Norman; Guest, Russell (1990). Above the Trenches: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the British Empire Air Forces, 1915–1920. London: Grub Street. ISBN 0-948817-19-4.

• Above the War Fronts: The British Two-seater Bomber Pilot and Observer Aces, the British Two-seater Fighter Observer Aces, and the Belgian, Italian, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Fighter Aces, 1914-1918: Volume 4 of Fighting Airmen of WWI Series: Volume 4 of Air Aces of WWI Norman Franks, Russell Guest, Gregory Alegi. Grub Street, 1997. ISBN 1-898697-56-6, ISBN 978-1-898697-56-5

• —, Norman; Giblin, Hal (2004). Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces: Böhme, Muller, Von Tutschek and Wolff: The Complete Record of Their Victories and Victims. London: Grub Street. ISBN 978-1904010029. {{cite book}}: |last1= has numeric name (help)

I also refer to the Osprey Publishing aviation series on World War I.

• Guttman, Jon (2001). SPAD VII Aces of World War I. Oxford, UK:Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-841762-22-7

• Alsoby Guttman: Naval Aces of WWI; Bristol F.2 Fighter Aces of World War I

• VanWyngarden, Greg (2016). Aces of Jagdgeschwader Nr III. Oxford UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-0843-1.

• VanWyngarden, Greg (2005). Jagdgeschwader Nr II: Geschwader Berthold. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-727-7.

• VanWyngarden, Greg (2006). Early German Aces of World War I (Aircraft of the Aces 73). Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-997-4.

• VanWyngarden, Greg (2016). Aces of Jagdgeschwader Nr III. Oxford UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-47280-843-1.

I have as many more books on WWI aviation, but they tend to the specific: i.e., on Rudolf Berthold or JG III, etc. Not confirmation for website.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source -- a self-published resource by a non-expert; no indications of a reliable publishing process or fact checking. The site appears to be someone's personal project. @Ljleppan: that said, it might be better to have future discussions about reliability of sources at WP:RSN, for wider community input. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointer, still learning the ropes of what's the best venue for each discussion. RSN seemed rather, well, formal when I took a brief look at it. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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

MOS: Inappropriate use of boldface

The article List of cruisers of the United States Navy has a MOS violation: boldface has been used to signify that a ship had been in combat. This has to change, but I would like to respect the original intent of the contributors who created this situation and see if another means can be developed to flag the ships on this list as combat veterans. I've also been concerned with the fact that this is a list and that lists need to be concise. If the list includes the count of battle stars awarded to a ship then that not only tells if the ship was in combat but also the magnitude of the combat. So for example this list:

• • (CL/CA-26) Northampton † (1930)
  • (CL/CA-27) Chester (1930)
  • (CL/CA-28) Louisville (1931)
  • (CL/CA-29) Chicago † (1931)
  • (CL/CA-30) Houston † (1930)
  • (CL/CA-31) Augusta (1931)

would change to:

• • (CL/CA-26) Northampton (1930), 6 battle stars, sunk
  • (CL/CA-27) Chester (1930), 11 battle stars
  • (CL/CA-28) Louisville (1931), 13 battle stars
  • (CL/CA-29) Chicago (1931), 3 battle stars, sunk
  • (CL/CA-30) Houston (1930), 2 battle stars, sunk
  • (CL/CA-31) Augusta (1931), 3 battle stars

Would this make sense? Which would be preferred, '†' or 'sunk'? The principal negative is that the pre-WWII use of battle / campaign / service stars is spotty and so removing the boldface will require something different for that timeframe.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the level of effort you want to put in but the ideal would be to aim towards one of this project's Featured Lists. For example, List of cruisers of Germany. If this information was placed in a table, I don't see a reason why a column couldn't be dedicated to indicate combat experience in some way (so long as the information is supported by reliable sources). I am not familar with "battle stars" so I will leave it to other editors to comment on that aspect. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably better ways to do this. The "*" for a cancelled vessel is largely redundant since about two-thirds of uses explicitly state this in text in any case. In the first instance, the bolding could thenbe substuted with "*" or another common character used as a superscript for this purpose. Even "B" and "S" could be used. Though ultimately, I see the value in From Hill To Shore's suggestion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's between that and just straight out removing the bolding and leaving no means to signify which ships saw combat, then I think this is certainly and suitable solution (and thanks to Tfdavisatsnetnet for the effort). Cheers - wolf 05:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved from WT:SHIPS § MOS: Inappropriate use of boldface

"Sunk" and remove all types of boldface except for in the lead. No need to list awards as awards should be kept for individual articles. See List of battleships of Germany for an idea of a good version of one of these articles. Llammakey (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How about ⚔️ for a battle or engagement, ⚔️3 for multiple? —Michael Z. 18:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of this, to be honest. For one, how does this work with accessibility standards related to e.g. screen readers? At the very minimum, I believe this should be an image with an appropriate alt text rather than an unicode character. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with Llammakey -"Sunk" and remove all types of boldface except for in the lead. No need to list awards as awards should be kept for individual articles. And certainly no pretty graphics as suggested above Lyndaship (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with removing boldface. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, my reason for suggesting listing awards is to allow the reader of the list to decide which individual articles are of possible greater or lesser interest for further perusal, which is presumably the same reason for the original boldface, though that is a cruder method than what I'm suggesting. Yes, it is true that most of the articles themselves describe these awards (a couple don't, which I'll fix when I 'get a round tuit'), but it remains true that such info in this list article could still be useful to some. I think this debate comes down to just how useful this information is in a list, which should be the determinant of whether it should be included. OTOH, if this info is added then the RS for this info would need to be added. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The boldface in the body should be removed because it isn't MOS-compliant, and an alternative implemented. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

While you’re at it, the parentheses around the hull numbers is unnecessary clutter. Looks cleaner and reads at least as well in the section List of cruisers of the United States Navy#Battlecruisers. —Michael Z. 23:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Antonio Luna

Antonio Luna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Aircorn (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FAC

If anyone has any interest in reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1937 Brazilian coup d'état/archive1, it would be much appreciated. This is my first time nominating an article for this, so I hope this isn't a premature request for reviews, and I apologize if I am not supposed to be soliciting criticism like this. It has one general review so far, nominated on 31 October. Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"US border battle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US border battle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#US border battle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Knight's Cross recipient notability?

Anyone have an opinion on the likely notability of Christian Lohrey? Came across this while patrolling. My gut instinct is that he's unlikely to be notable. (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I would think that the recipient of the highest military award, even in Nazi Germany, would suggest that there are (probably German-language) reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. But I doubt that there are so many reliable sources dedicated to recipients of Nazi awards just a month or two before its collapse... If the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross doesn't count as WP:ANYBIO#1, it will be hard to find good RS coverage of the person. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Our polices apply to Nazis just as much as any one else, of SNG's are used to keep recipeiant of wards it applies here as well. Yes its an "other stuff argument" but we have plenty of stubs on one event wonders.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

But the award Lohrey received isn't the highest one, which was actually Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds. (t · c) buidhe 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We have generally not considered the Knight's Cross to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Like the Légion d'honneur, it's one of those awards that while technically the "highest" award of its country, can actually be awarded for so many different actions that it can't be considered anywhere near a par with, say, the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor. To compare it to British awards, the majority of awards of the Knight's Cross would have merited the Distinguished Service Order (for officers) or the Distinguished Conduct Medal (for other ranks) rather than the VC. A single award of neither of these would count for ANYBIO #1. It's just not comparing like with like, as it was effectively used as both a first- and a second-level award in today's terms. In general, we have only considered the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and above to qualify, even though that effectively meant a second award. That may be seen to discriminate against those who won the Knight's Cross for an action where a VC or MoH would have been awarded by the UK or USA, but that's just the way it is. Allowing it to pass ANYBIO would likewise discriminate against personnel from other countries who won second-level awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical issues about notability and awards, the prime concern is and always has been "are there enough adequate sources to write an encyclopedic article?". If there are, then those adequate sources can be used to trivially show the subject meets WP:GNG. If not, then your gut instinct is correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Concur with the idea that the KC w/Oak Leaves probably qualifies for ANYBIO#1, as that is the level that corresponds best with equivalent awards in comparable systems of other countries. But of course GNG trumps all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Technically, it doesn't. ANYBIO is an SNG, and they are on a par with GNG. GNG is not actually the "trump all" clause that many presume it to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. The page makes clear that the subject is simply likely to pass GNG if they meet the relevant points of the SNG. See for instance this line: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis mine). Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you may have misread what I actually wrote and what I was replying to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not at all; Peacemaker said GNG trumps ANYBIO (and any other SNG); you said it didn't. He is correct and you are not. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: There was a 2016-2017 discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2017#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners that concluded with: "There is a rough consensus in favor of K.e.coffman's proposal. ... In the case of the Knight’s Cross the community has established a consensus at AfD that sufficient reliable sources are lacking for many recipients." Since the 2017 close, WP:SOLDIER itself has been deprecated. So unless the entry meets WP:BASIC, the article should be redirected to the relevant alphabetical list of Knight's Cross holders. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• G'day Necrothesp. The difference is that the GNG details what is required for someone to be presumed notable. Meeting the criteria for ANYBIO means they are likely to be notable. This is a significant difference and means that the GNG does in fact trump ANYBIO. Just because someone has "has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (for example) only means they are likely to be notable. They are only presumed to be notable if they have also "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com open at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

A Request for Comments regarding the reliability of the website theaerodrome.com is ongoing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com. Readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ljleppan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Migration diplomacy#Merger proposal with regard to whether Refugees as weapons should be merged into Migration diplomacy. Your opinions are welcome. Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Jolly article

Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask for help. I came across Stephen_Jolly_(academic). He appears to specialise in military commentary and be an advisor on military matters, which is outside my field, so I can't judge whether he's truly notable. The article on him has problems that need fixing. Its promotional, it contains a lot of embedded links to external websites, and its references are horribly inadequate (the subject's LinkedIn profile, staff pages at universities where he has worked/works). It was written by one IP editor and one other editor, the other editor having only edited Stephen Jolly and the Barony_of_Stobo whose current holder is " The Much Hon. William Jolly", where William Jolly actually links to Stephen Jolly, sort-of suggesting this might all be a bit of an in-house edit-job. The article also refers to a publication that hasn't yet been published, which is a bit of a warning-sign. I was half minded to drag this to AfD but I don't want to do so if Stephen Jolly is genuinely notable for his military publications and role as an advisor. By normal academic standards, it's hard to tell. In academic-notability world things like named chairs, editorships of major journals, highly-cited work, and influence in his field would count. But I'm not sure if his Killam fellowship is a named chair or just a grant, and I haven't a clue what sort of citation rate is normal for the sort of publication he writes. He's been on a lot of think-tanks. The article assigns him tremendous influence, but since it's based entirely on what he says about himself, or his employers say about him, I can't assess his influence independently. So can I ask: is this an article about a subject notable enough for WP? Is its current form appropriate or is it a vanity-CV? Any help appreciated! Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the article tries and fails. I did a number of searches including "Rainbow in the Dark doctrine" and I'm really not finding anything to establish notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Jolly (academic). I'd suggest moving any further discussion to that venue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Need help to finish requests

Hi, I'm a graphic worker and I have two requests that got stuck (stale) in 2019. I have tried several times to get back in contact with the users for the requests without any success. So I'm now looking for someone who are willing to help me finish them. I will of course provide all the needed drafts and other stuff on how far we got.
1.
Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944
This is an extensive request as it includes all movements during 7 days, each day is a separate map. We were working on day 6 (almost done) when I lost contact. When requested it was intended for Nikopol–Krivoi_Rog_offensive.
I would really like to complete it as there is a lot of time and effort invested in them both from the requester and me. To me they seem to have a lot of information in them and ought to be useful.
2.
1796 Italian campaign maps
This request is not that extensive but to me it is, and will be, a useful map with clear information. Also here we both has invested a lot of time and effort.

At that time they were intended for Battle_of_Arcole and ru:Бой_при_Арколе

So is there anyone here that would be interested in helping me complete them, or do you know of anyone who would be?
Any information is deeply appreciated, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fyi, Kges was still editing on Commons up until June and here until August, which is a shame. ——Serial 19:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Thanks, but what do you mean by "which is a shame." I don't understand.

Kges1901 Why wont you finish your request if you are still active here? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• RE: 1796 Italian campaign maps. I created "Arcole 1796 Campaign Map.jpg" and "Siege of Mantua Campaign Map 1796 1797.JPG". The maps were created with MS Paint and you may edit them however you wish since I published them under Creative Commons. The "Nap07.pdf" map is copied from the West Point Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars belonging to the US government. As for the spelling of Vaibois (it should be Vaubois) and your critique starting with: "Davidovich corps (18k troops) present in Ala by the 12th is not shown...", unfortunately you can no longer refer those issues to the authors Vincent J. Esposito (died 1965) and John R. Elting (died 2000). Djmaschek (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Djmaschek Thank you for your reply and information. What I need is help with checking my draft against the two last post's visible below "Extended content" here at the request 1796 Italian campaign maps . This to make sure it's correct and complete so it can be uploaded to commons. This draft is as PNG but the original file which will be uploaded is SVG. Can you do that, it would mean a lot for me? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: The draft "1796_5.png" looks very good. There are only two minor issues. (1) It should be Mincio, not Mincia. (2) Proper nouns like Chiese River should be always be capitalized. It should be Brenta River, not Brenta river.

Djmaschek Thank you I'm ever so grateful. You didn't sign your last post so I didn't get any ping.

• Draft 6.
• If this draft is fine is it possible for you to provide me with the following;
  • Name of the file
  • Description (/language)
  • Captions/s (/language)
  • Category/ies at commons
  • Structured data/Items portrayed in this file, the Q#, to be able to upload it at commons, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Goran tek-en: Draft "1796_6.png" has a spelling error in Chiese River. (1) Suggestions for file names are: "Arcole campaign first phase.png" or "Second Battle of Bassano.png". (2) Description: Map shows the first phase of the Arcole campaign, after the battles of San Michele, 2nd Bassano, and Calliano. (3) Caption: Map shows the battles of San Michele, Second Bassano, and Calliano. (4) Categories: Battles of the War of the First Coalition, Maps of the War of the First Coalition, 1796 maps of Europe. (5) I don't understand your question about the Q#. You have created a new unique map. You should upload it yourself and create a new Wikipedia Commons file. Then add it to the following articles: Battle of Arcole, Second Battle of Bassano, Battle of Calliano, Battle of Caldiero (1796). You may replace my old "Siege_of_Mantua_Campaign_Map_1796_1797.JPG" to make room - I don't mind. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Djmaschek Now you can find it here Commons:file:Arcole campaign first phase.svg.

• Structured data or really wikidata is a place for data which can be linked to and used, a repository for data just as commons is one for media. With Q# I meant the ID Q"number" like this item. There are several types of items and namespaces, I don't really understand the whole content picture. But I'm pretty sure this is and will be big, both humans and computers can search in it. What I use this for is to add wikidata in an media page at commons.
• Look at this image, Commons:file:Arcole campaign first phase.svg. At the bottom of the Description part I have added two wikidata items. If you click on the name in one it takes you to a wikipedia article for that subject. If yo click the wikidata symbol it takes you to that wikidata post.
• Just above Summary you can click on Structured data and that shows you another tab of the media page with the wikidata added to it.
• I'm a graphic worker and I have no experience in editing articles at wikipedia so if you please could do what you think should be updated I would be very greatful.
• Finally but the most important, THANK YOU so much for helping me out here, I'm so so grateful and I hope there will some use of this map. If you ever think I could help you with something just ping me, thanks.  Done --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Goran tek-en: Thank you for a wonderful map! I added it to 4 articles. Djmaschek (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Russian navy losses 1857–77

Assistance required with the following please:-

• The identity ("Russian ship [name] (year)") and date of loss of the steamship Cuba, lost in the Caspian Sea in 1857
• The identity and date of loss of the tender Kamtschadal lost with all hands on the coast of Siberia, probably in the period 1857–59.
• The identity and date of loss of the clipper that exploded and sank off Cronstadt in 1860 with the loss of 75 crew. She had just completed a circumnavigation of the planet.

Looks to have been the Plastun, a Razboynik-class clipper launched in 1856, and which (having left Cronstadt c.1857) was just returning from the Pacific. Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860 page 430 says it was lost "off Gotland on 18 August 1860" - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Added. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• The identity and date of loss of the clipper Opritschnik, which was lost in a hurricane in 1861.

According to the Russian wiki, Oprichnik, a Razboynik-class clipper launched in 1856, was lost in a hurricane in the Indian ocean after leaving Batavia on 10 December 1861. Merrybrit (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals that the date of loss was 26 December 1861. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• The identity and date of loss of the steamship Gremyatchi, which was lost at Cronstadt in in 1862.
• The identity and date of loss of the corvette Nalk Nevik, which was lost whilst on a voyage from Hakodadi to San Francisco in 1863.
• The identity and date of loss of the schooner (Iataya?) Pervaya which was lost "on the Island of Nipon" with the loss of a crew member, probably between 1863–68.
• The identity and date of loss of the gunboat Schalun which was lost at Cronstadt in in 1868.
• The identity, location and date of loss of the schooner Vyecha, which was lost in in 1868.
• The identity and date of loss of the yacht Volna, which was lost of "Stastalen", probably between 1868–77
• The identity and date of loss of the schooner Aleuta, which was lost on "Matsma Island" late in 1877.

The above from "Losses of Russian Ships of War". Pall Mall Gazette. No. 4157. London. 18 June 1878. and "Losses of Russian Ships of War". Star. Vol. 65, no. 6. Saint Peter Port. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a pirated version of the book Погибли без боя. Катастрофы русских кораблей XVIII–XX вв. here, if you can read Russian of course. If not I can scan through it later today.--Catlemur (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: - I can't read Russian, and Google Translate won't translate that webpage for some reason. If you could go through the book and add to the relevant lists of shipwrecks - by year up to 1819 and by month from 1820 - it would be appreciated. It's good to expand coverage of those countries where information is lacking. The Royal Navy and US Navy are well documented, others, less so. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

MS Edge seems to be able to translate it (at least for me).Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Works for me too. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a start, breaking off to watch the Grand Prix now. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Still working through it. Will need a Russian speaking editor to check through when I've finished to correct any errors (I'm ru-0, so relying on translations). Will post a link to enable easy checking of articles when I'm done. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Ping me when you need help.--Catlemur (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: - I've finished. My edits to articles are here, first edit from that source was the one datestamped 13:46 14 November 2021. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I checked a couple and they seemed fine, my only question is whether it is appropriate to translate ship (Princess instead of Princessa) names instead of transliterating their names. For example we have an article called Russian gunboat Korietz, which is a transliteration whereas a translation would have been Russian gunboat Korean "Man".--Catlemur (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: - that is what I was hoping for help on. I realised that ship names were being translated, and have tried my best to use the transliterations, so yes, Princessa is preferable to Princess. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: That's a whole lot of checking that needs to be done then. I will try to tackle it little by little.--Catlemur (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Territorial changes vs. territorial control

This edit by Paul Siebert alerted me to the fact Template:Infobox military conflict parameter "territory" displays as "territorial changes", which can be misleading when applied to articles of battles where control of territory passed hands but not permanent territorial changes. Is it possible for a template editing wizard to add a parameter called "territorial control" to this infobox? Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems the "Territorial changes" field works for infoboxes in the articles about wars, not about isolated battles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert For operations such as Bagration where a significant amount of territory changed hands (in terms of effective control) this should be noted in the infobox under an appropriate parameter. Otherwise we would be omitting one of the most important results of the battle (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this article: Territorial Changes and Militarized Conflict. Author(s): Paul F. Diehl and Gary Goertz, Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Mar., 1988, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 103-122. It seems "territorial changes" have somewhat different meaning. Territorial changes may occur as a result of war, but not during the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If the terminology is an issue, that's why I suggested adding another parameter to the infobox for changes in effective control of territory. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

[informal] MilHist Discord?

Hello, this is an informal question, not looking for assistance or any of that. Do we have a Military History Discord, and if not, may I ask that one be created? We have one for the Elections and Referendums (Politics project), and I've found it, in addition to a lot of my colleagues to be really useful. Using a discord helps for quick communication, sharing milhist pictures, maps, etc. and ideas. I've personally also been able to learn quickly through screen sharing and such in the server. I've therefore decided to ask if we have one, and if not that one could be created if it's not too hard for anyone, I could create one, but having an admin do it would be a better option. J-Man11 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of off-wiki comms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a part of the main Wikipedia discord and enjoy participating there, but don't think it would provide much extra to MILHIST considering how active the talk page is. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Communications about editing should stay on Wiki and be open to everyone - off site forums are entirely counter to that and create elites and hidden content manipulation block. Strongest possible oppose.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see the draw to a more communication-friendly venue, but I agree with Nigel that it would only end up concealing information from the larger editing base and fragment us into various cabals, no matter how well-meaning we are. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, for the good of everyone involved. The use of Discord by MILHIST has already previously been rejected. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC still in need of feedback

Howdy all,

The RFC, near the top of the talkpage, is still in need of feedback if interested editors can read through the discussion and material/links and then chime in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

French Royal Navy flag

A discussion is taking place at template talk:Country data Kingdom of France re the flag of the French Royal Navy and coding it on the template. I'm not an expert on this subject, so would welcome confirmation that the flag currently called is incorrect, and we'll need to decide what name its label should take. There's likely to be quite a lot of article affected which will need flags checking/changing too. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the flag of the French Royal Navy before the revolution was , so many articles will have the incorrect flag showing. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Louis Nizer - What to do with Germany

He was a famous trial lawyer from New York City and in 1944 he wrote a treatise "What to do with Germany" which focused on plans for post-War Germany. Probably because he's Jewish, conspiracy theorists have cherry picked quotes from either the book or reviews of it to propose that he was advocating the outright genocide of the German people when he in fact dedicated a chapter arguing against such viewpoints. For a year his Wikipedia article included such lies, and was only removed in 2020. But critically the article didn't have any information on the book at all. So I used two 1944 book reviews to include a few sentences summarizing what the book actually says.

Since it's a low traffic page that is subject to insertion of fringe ideas, I'd like more people to add it to their watch list. And if others can improve upon what I've added that would help as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Thank you for bringing this up and addressing the article's shortcomings. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Would the article benefit from indefinite semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

As an admin, I wouldn't do that. Not enough IP/new user disruption. Generally if there was enough, I would semi it for a week or two, they usually go away. If they persist I would protect it for longer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

US Army Women's Foundation Hall of Fame

G'day all, this has been brought to our attention by the great team over at Women in Red. If you are interested, have a look and think about contributing to an article or two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo

Can anyone see what I've done wrong here?

• Theotokis, Georgios; Yıldız, Aysel, eds. (2018). A Military History of the Mediterranean Sea: Aspects of War, Diplomacy, and Military Elites. History of Warfare (118) (e-book ed.). Leiden/Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-36204-8.
  • Birtachas, Stathis. "Stradioti, Cappelletti, Compagnie or Milizie Greche: 'Greek' Mounted and Foot Troops in the Venetian State (Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries)". In Theotokis & Yildiz (2018).

I'm getting harvc error no target. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yildiz is not the same as Yıldız.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahem! Thanks for that....Keith-264 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon Featured article review

I have nominated Rhodesian mission in Lisbon 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesia-related article and WP:FARGIVEN

Several Rhodesia- and military history-related featured articles have been determined to have been problematic with sources used. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roy Welensky/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Smith/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/archive1. Would some editors familiar with African history/Rhodesia be able to look at the sources for Shangani Patrol and William Harper (Rhodesian politician), which have been listed as potentially needing featured article review for almost a year and half, as well as the Rhodesian mission in Lisbon FAR listing in SandyGeorgia's post above? Hog Farm _Talk 07:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Article creations by globally locked sock account

About 200 articles, mostly biographies of Italian military men, were created by now globally locked account Jannizzero1 (talk · contribs). A list of these articles may be found here. Not sure what, if anything, needs to be done about this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Despite being on the receiving end of Jannizzero1 and their IPs harassment/disruptive editing, I would petition that these articles be judged along the lines of notability, using reliable sources and ensuring WP:NOR, and not because Jannizzero1 was a sock. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944

Hi, I'm a graphic worker and I have been working on this request Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944 which was requested by Kges1901. Unfortunately I lost contact with him so the request is not complete. At the time when I lost contact we were working on day 6 out of 8 so it's pretty close. It's one file for each day in SVG.
When requested it was intended for this article here Nikopol–Krivoi_Rog_offensive.
I would really like to complete it as there is a lot of time and effort invested in it both from the requester and me.

So I'm asking if there is anyone here that has the knowledge and possibility to work with me and help completing and finish those maps. It would really mean a lot for me and hopefully also for that article.
 --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hallo,

Is here really no one that could help me out with this. This is a draft of Day-1 so you can see how extensive the maps are. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories by specific rank

Should we categorise military officers by their specific rank? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:Royal Air Force wing commanders and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:Royal Air Force squadron leaders. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is probably a bit fruitless, since an individual tends to rise through the ranks and may well be notable for holding a lesser rank than their ultimate rank, though a bio would give their ultimate rank. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I too think it would be a pointless exercise, often senior soldiers are promoted immediately prior to their retirement, or in some cases after. Cavalryman (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC).

A-class reviews needing a little bit of input

A couple of current A-class reviews need only final checks to pass:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty - needs image and source reviews
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Berlin (Atlantic) (my nomination) - needs a source review

Most of the other current ACRs only need one or two extra prose reviews to pass. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

British Army Future Soldier re-organization

On 25 November the British Army released a brochure with its future organization: Future Soldier Guide (pdf). Here is the full organization at the end of the reform in 2025-27 copied/edited into wiki format: User:Noclador/sandbox/British Army Future Soldier 2021. Here below follow the graphics. My question is: where to insert this information? New article? Overwriting the existing Structure of the British Army article? Or? Also: how to cite it properly? It's based on one document and I would like to add the pages in the document to each of the divisions/brigades/groups without having to cite the whole url/title/publisher stuff every time. Thanks, noclador (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

British Army

• 
  1st (UK) Division
• 
  3rd (UK) Division
• 
  Field Army Troops

Question: Could the existing information not be moved into its own article? Something like, structure of the British Army between X and X? That way there is no complete overwrite, and the information is still available.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is as it might turn out to be, not as it is. As such detail if anything belongs in an article on the future of British Army and the current structure should only mention a summary of the planned changes. Verifiability requires proper citing. If a single document covers the full structure then it is sufficient to use that cite repeatedly. But it does need proper citing to page numbers etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Cited all the page numbers for the units. An article Future of the British Army redirects to the never fully implemented Army 2020 Refine reform. I think an article titled Future organization of the British Army or Future Soldier reform of the British Army would be better. noclador (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Create Future Soldier (British Army) (short and to the point), and get Future of the British Army deleted (there'll be another review or reform coming along in a few years) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Created: Future Soldier (British Army). Editing it now to remove red links and include the graphics. Also: I saw there is Future Soldier (United Kingdom) and proposed to merge it into Future Soldier (British Army). noclador (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the discussion, but check some of the mil symbology in the Land Warfare Centre, some infantry and engineer units seem to have opposite symbology. Cavalryman (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Oops! Thank you Cavalryman for spotting these errors. Fixed them. noclador (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Military history of Italy during World War I

Hello, this article is unusually short, given the depth in related articles. Please have a look at it. --190.99.107.218 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Article on Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force sent to draft space

See Draft:Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force which was an article created by HumCoArchivist, but on 28 November 2021 was moved to draft space by Mccapra.

I thought about providing citations so this article could be moved back to main space, but I was concerned about whether an organization this small was notable enough for an article. I reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It certainly is national in scope, but it would hard to find independent reliable sources that would write about CAP-USAF. Perhaps the members of this project have a better understanding of the notability, or lack thereof, for small military units. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

First, how does that draft relate to the existing History of the Civil Air Patrol? Next, the Civil Air Patrol was not a "small" organization. It was rather widespread and played a fairly significant role in the very early days when U-Boats were operating off the East Coast and before the regular forces got air patrols fully organized. It lasted after the war as chapters all over the country. The adult pilots engaged in search and rescue fairly often in some areas. They had a "cadet" corps open to high school students and attracted no few hoping to one day fly. There are a few books on the subject of that wartime role, but as often the case many other references are either government or from the organization. Wikipedia has a real problem, probably based on its "popular culture" aspects, in which some downgrade references by "interested" parties. When it comes to government, military in particular, there are no "independent" sources in some areas. This is not one, but particularly with regard to classified or just sensitive areas contemporary "independent sources" are often of little value and often proven to be absolute garbage based on speculation or even the official covers and deceptions. I've seen a few persisting in cover stories as fact decades after the facts were declassified. Some of those "sources" are rich in conspiracy theory now. A few refs:

• Civil Air Patrol: A Story of Unique Service and Selfless Sacrifice
• "Definitely Damaged or Destroyed" Reexamining Civil Air Patrol's Wartime Claims. (Perhaps not a reference but a caution on popular sources)
• Ribbon, Antisubmarine Coastal Patrol, Civil Air Patrol (National Air and Space Museum Collection as an item of interest)

In any case the draft should not become a new "article" until fully compared with the existing page here and most probably merged — assuming there is new information. Palmeira (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

CAP also still exists. It's not a "was" organization. There's often a relationship between state CAP organizations and Air Force ROTC programs, and CAP can play a role in air search and rescue in some states. Intothatdarkness 14:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not kept up. Interesting. My "home" units are indeed active. National Capital Wing, Maryland Wing and Virginia Wing appear to be going strong and are part of the Civil Air Patrol Mid-Atlantic Region. I was a bit puzzled about the D.C. wing (HQ Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling) as the whole city is "no fly" (even for hobby drones) but see it includes parts of close in Virginia and Maryland and uses airports outside the area where fighters scramble to investigate small aircraft and with flight areas outside the restricted airspace for routine flights. Even more interesting is this (my emphasis):

"Wing aircrews routinely fly over the national capital area acting as tracks of interest to test and train military and law enforcement air defense capabilities, which includes recurring monthly training with the Joint Air Defense Operation Center. Aerial missions also include route surveys, sensor tests, hurricane recovery efforts, aircrew training, pilot proficiency, and youth orientation flights. The wing staffs the D.C. Emergency Operations Center during National Security Special Events and major disasters to provide air, ground, and radio communication resources. Teams also provide counter-drone support to help train military and homeland security personnel."

The no drone area is pretty much the area as the highly restricted D.C. airspace joins the restricted spaces of federal installations and the three big airports. Palmeira (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There is an existing (a good, formerly featured, article by 2008 standards) at Civil Air Patrol. As such, that draft isn't going anywhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify some points brought out above, Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force is a unit of the US Air Force, and is not part of the Civil Air Patrol. It serves as the main liaison between the rest of the US Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol. The fact that it is just a liaison explains why it is a small organization. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So does it deserve its own article then?Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. The information here could be easily folded into the main CAP article. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

KInd of my thinking, its not a major sub command.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Relationship to the military would appear to be a good place in that main article to locate a description of the small USAF office associated with CAP matters. The Civil Air Patrol page would seem to be the top of the pyramid of pages on the subject with the "History" page I found and thought the draft should be integrated with a second tier. In refreshing myself on the topic (Had not thought of CAP in decades!) I found state pages to which that top page already links quite well. Some of those template links do not seep appropriate, for example " United States Armed Forces" is a stretch for CAP. Palmeira (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Drill terminology

Stand at ease redirects to Military parade#Rest positions, but the target section no longer exists and the term is not found on the page, despite there being several inbound links.

slope arms, shoulder arms and stand easy are red links.

Please can someone familiar with the terminology and sources fix them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed to Drill commands#Rest positions for now, but feel free to change if anyone has a more specific target they know. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I've pointed the red links to Drill commands#With weapons, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2021 are open!

Military historian of the year 2021

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

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

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

• OK, I'll kick this off. Hog Farm continues to make significant contributions to our coverage of the ACW. In 2021 he has received three A-Class medals, so at least nine A-Class articles, and many more GAs, and is everywhere. A stellar year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Hog Farm for being civil, pleasant in conversation, supportive, and highly competent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild, for a tremendous output of GA, A, and FA articles across a range of subjects. Finds time to be a Milhist co-ordinator and a FA delegate as well. Zawed (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• EnigmaMcmxc - Many A and FL articles about British divisions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Zawed - prolific content work, primarily with New Zealand military figures. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Dumelow - An excellent assortment of DYK content. Hog Farm _Talk 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 - Among many contributions to the project, the ones to WP:BORA (WWII in Yugoslavia) alone warrant recognition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Voador or Volador?

We have the Voador (1790 ship) article, but Threedecks has her down as Volador. Which is correct? Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Threedecks also has a Voador. Are these the same or two different vessels? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a spelling error on the part of Threedecks. Von Pivka, one of the sources they use, spells it Voador here. It looks suspiciously like that the people behind Threedecks have read some different sources that provide different specifications for the ship and have decided that they're two different vessels. Personally I try to never use Threedecks, having discovered many errors and omissions through the years; it is of course totally amateur. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, should this article be moved to Portuguese brig Voador? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - given that Threedecks do quote their sources, it is useable. No objection to anyone with the book sources quoted correcting any errors in the various lists of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

French frigate Aréthuse (1801)

I've just created the list of ship launches in 1790. There is an entry for a Sicilian-built frigate which became the French frigate Aréthuse (1801), original name unknown. There is also an entry for Sicilian ship Sirena (1790), a fifth rate frigate. Are they the same vessel? Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958) The Struggle for Guadalcanal, August 1942 – February 1943, vol. 5 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II

Hi, would anybody have access to this? In USS Minneapolis (CA-36), Morison is quoted as saying: "It is a painful truth that the Battle of Tassafaronga was a sharp defeat inflicted on an alert and superior cruiser force by a partially surprised and inferior destroyer force." However, there is no citation to this quote. Presumably, it is from chapter 13 on the subject battle. Would be great if somebody could confirm the quote and page. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at Battle of Tassafaronga, a Featured Article, to see if the same info could be found there, but no joy. It's also somewhat messy and missing some citations (or relying on ones of low quality), having been promoted in 2008. Could probably use an FAR. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  (Takes the book down from the shelf.) Page 313. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a note, most of Morison's official history series is now available via the excellent archive.org library service via https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Morison%2C+Samuel+Eliot%2C+1887-1976%22 This volume unfortuntely isn't one of those currently available. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou all for the responses (particularly Hawkeye7 - I pretty much knew the page [within one] but couldn't actually see it). Since promotion, the article has grown in raw size by over 25%. Perhaps it needs a critical eye to see if it still meets the standard. As a project, we have become much more critical, in that we expect the highest of standards for the highest standard. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Indy beetle, there are two "citation needed" tags. You will see that I recently added the quote from Morison. The ref I added supports the quote but not the initial part of that para. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Google Books has a "snippet view" of the quote from page 313 [11] Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Corinthian War

I have nominated Corinthian War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand FAR

I have nominated Siege of Malakand 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Mountain Corps Norway copyright check

Dear all, who are our current copyright hounds? Need to check about my insert of a reviewer's comment, clarifying the linkage to the clean Wehrmacht myth, at the above article. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The quotation is attributed, which is good, but it's entirely unnecessary. I'd advise replacing it with a smaller, hidden comment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FURTHER says that 'Editors can include brief annotations.' We've had several long debates on this page about how to appropriately treat the 'Clean Wehrmacht' myth, so I disagree that the note is unnecessary. The book is biased and glosses over German war crimes: that needs to be said. The question is how. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There have been a few recent works on World War II in the arctic that discuss German war crimes there (which included crimes against the Finns in 1944, as well as against the Norwegians and Soviets). Historians seem to have paid a lot more attention to the misconduct of the German military in western Europe over recent years. The article could have a 'historiography' section or similar that discusses the literature on the corps if the sources support this. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I support Nicks suggestion, but generally I think it’s bad form to put “disclaimers” on individual sources. If it was so bad it shouldn’t be used then we shouldn’t use it. If there’s a scholarly debate concerning how this unit is written about them we can have a historiography section. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Quite a few works once considered reliable on World War II are now not regarded as reliable due to a critical reassessment of the literature, so we shouldn't list works that aren't RS as further reading or similar. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also supporting Nick-D's suggestion, as as been done at Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the book itself being used as a reference, or is the review of the book used as a reference? At the moment it's not clear at the article in question. If the latter then no quote is necessary, if the former then the work needs to be properly referenced before the disclaimer (a work could be cited as a single cite and a separate note attached to that ref) a That a work doesn't mention (or deliberately avoids) a topic does not -of itself - mean the work is not useful or unreliable as a source for the things it does cover. More worrying would be a source that actively denies things did happen. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, thanks for your comments. Originally I saw a new source which mentioned Mountain Corps Norway and thought it would be useful to add it to the list of works in the article. Did not expect it to lead to this!! :) Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Graeme, not every book on the Germans in WW2 has to cover war crimes, etc., if they're not relevant to the specific subject covered. Many books are still useful/relevant regardless of any lack of coverage. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Future unit pages?

Hello, so I know a lot of most (indeed most of us) focus on history of the past, and not the future. However, I was looking into creating a page for a formation which is due to form next year (late 2022 to be specific). So my question here is, is this ok, or should I wait a bit or..? I have multiple refs supporting it and its structure, base, command, etc. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If that coverage is sufficient to meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:ORG), the article can be created now. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, will do! I do have several references for it, both primary and secondary, so should be all good. Thanks for the quick reply! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, I completed the page here: Cyber and Electro Magnetic Activities Effects Group if you wouldn't mind quickly checking it over, that would be fantastic! Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think as long as it complies with WP:CRYSTAL, its fine.--Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Technical discussion - Infobox

Hey there! I recently started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox military conflict. Given that 7 days passed without an answer I thought that maybe I can get some more help here. Please take a look here if you can. I thought I'd try here before going to another Infobox specific talk page. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

A question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Fate of Yugoslavian yacht Istranka

Bit of a long shot but does anybody know the fate of this ship, whose article I have just created at Dalmat (yacht). Built as Ossero in 1896 she later served in the Astro-Hungarian Navy as Dalmat. She carried the body of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 was the last surviving vessel of the Austro-Hungarian navy. After the FIrst World War she was transferred to the Royal Yugoslav Navy and was captured by Italy in 1941, serving in the Regia Marina as Fata. She was restored to the Yugoslavs in 1943 and renamed Vila, remaining in the navy under Tito until at least 1972 (under the names Orjen and Istranka). She later became a floating restaurant before being put up for sale in 1998. The last mention I found of her was in a 2003 news article which stated she was prevented from being exported from Croatia as a national treasure by an Italian politician who had restored her - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's this [12] 2020 story on a Croatian news portal. I suspect google will offer to translate it, but let me know if that's not working.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And this [13] from December 2020.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And the final one (also Dec 2020) [14]. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tomobe03, I can get a readable Google translation of those. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If any part of the translation is messed up, I'll help. Crossed my mind Peacemaker67 covered lots of Yugoslav Navy ships, he might have something more on this one too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I came across it from today's featured article Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao, which is one of Peacemaker's. I think it is the Vila mentioned there as a Yugoslav royal yacht from the start of the Second World War, though my sources state it did not receive this name until it returned to the Royal Yugoslav Navy in 1943 - Dumelow (talk)

Right then. Apparently the boat is now moored (if that's correct term) in Kaštela (in its new fishing port) this [15] is a website on the port (apparently showcasing the port in terms of architecture) offering several photos (and a newspaper article link) where Istranka is clearly visible. Those photos appear to have been taken in April 2021.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hilary Doyle - notability

Doyle got draftified: Draft:Hilary Doyle. I thought it might be trivial to find some refs covering how much work he's done that could be added and the article restored to main space but doesn't seem to be easy as that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this needs a lot better sourcing..Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Major General Timothy Sulivan (British Army)

Aka Tim Sulivan. Okay, I have hit a brick wall. I have been able to source all other GOCs for the List of commanders of the British 4th Division, but this guy. The Gazette seems to have a blank spot on the 4th Div between 1998 and 2001. We know that the prior GOC retired in mid 1998, and nothing I have read suggests the division was disbanded in the late 90s. I have not been able to find anything via the Times. Heyman and Tanner do not mention GOCs in their books, when discussing the division. There does not seem to be any accessible Army List for the period (although I am not aware if the modern ones are like the ones from the first half of the century with complete OOBs and list who is in charge etc.), and I have not had have any luck checking out Taylor and Francis. There seems to be very little information online about this chap, which details his army background in the mid to late 90s. The only thing I have is Colin Mackie's unsourced list of GOCs. But, I don't believe that meets WP:RS. Any thoughts, ideas, or a link to where I can source this chap's command?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: He's in Who's Who - "GOC Fourth Div., 1998–2001". It all seems to line up with what's currently in Timothy Sulivan, plus a couple of extra details. No specific dates, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

My hero for today! Thank you, it has been driving me absolutely batty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:FASA for Battle of Tippecanoe

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Battle of Tippecanoe/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:FASA for War of the Fifth Coalition

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/War of the Fifth Coalition/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Desert warfare in need of any sources since 2011

Hi! Just saw the article on desert warfare doesnt cite any sources, with the relevant template dating to April 2011. The article in general is in dire need of improvement, so I'm posting here in case anyone is interested in taking that up. Cheers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Naming (oobs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have a question which I'm surprised I actually don't see being asked. I have plans on adding orders of battle (oobs), regarding the Napoleonic Wars. Especially large ones as a matter of fact since many articles need them and are being requested for me to do. So, with that in mind I wanted to ask what the standard/rules are regarding naming? I see some pages named as such: Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign (Oob of xx), some are Eylau order of battle (xx Oob), and some are the standard Sacile 1809 order of battle (xx year oob). See more here: Category:Napoleonic Wars orders of battle. Any help with the naming would be fantastic, and if needed I can provide examples of the pages I'm planning on doing if that would help! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

They need to be concise but provide enough information, and often uses the article title of the campaign or battle for clarity. So they can be a bit long sometimes. For example: Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia which is one of mine, or Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806. Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign is far clearer than Sacile 1809 order of battle. That certainly isn't the "standard" among higher quality orders of battle on WP. The latter immediately begs the question "Sacile what?". Obviously the Battle of Sacile in 1809 (presumably there are other battles of Sacile?). I would go with Order of battle for the 1809 Battle of Sacile, for example, or Order of battle for the Battle of Sacile if there aren't any others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no specific requirement for consistency across all Oobs but it is "nice" to have consistency in closely related articles. I would tend to use "XXX: order of battle", (ie Oob is a subtitle) since smart matches for searches will clearly show the relationship between the parent battle article and the Oob. Using "Oob" as a subtitle also tends to be concise when compared with alternatives. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

I need some reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign/archive1. I know that logistics isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's crucial to understanding what happened and why. If anyone could spare a little time to give it a look, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I know how frustrating it is to wait for reviews on a FAC, I'm waiting on mine right now as well. I will take a look and leave some comments, at least. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon

An issue re the wording of the lede of the Napoleon article is being discussed at talk:Napoleon#Recent edits. Input from Milhist editors is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Zhao–Xiongnu War

Hi guys. I created a new article today. Would be nice if someone can look at it and mark it off as reviewed. Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

German occupation of Byelorussia during World War I

This article is brand-new as of a couple of days ago, added all in one go and almost completely unsourced. It needs attention from Russian speakers if possible, but anyone who knows more than I do about early 20th-century Belarus can probably make a dent in it. Posting here to get some more eyes on it, because I'm concerned given the current Belarus-EU political situation that this article might attract some seriously non-NPOV edits that no one notices otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with articles like that is that its probably worth it to just rewrite it from scratch. There should be plenty of sources on the topic in Russian anyway, its just very time consuming.--Catlemur (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you, Catlemur. I think the mis/disinfo potential of long, almost completely unsourced articles is very high, and that any new article that looks like a machine translation of who-knows-what should be immediately draftified or deleted outright. It's way more work to try to track down sources for something than to just start from scratch. But since I don't know enough to write this from scratch right now, and I know if it goes to AfD it will get a pile of "keep: topic is obviously notable, AfD is not cleanup" responses (in almost all cases, from people who won't fix it themselves), the best I can do is try to get some more people watching it. I'll be able to notice patent nonsense - at least, I hope - but I won't catch dogwhistles. I don't even know if the old spelling of Belarus in the title is generally used for this period or if it's making some political statement. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

asilvering You can remove any unsourced information as desired on the grounds that there is no verifiable source. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

buidhe Well, that's most of it... but I'll do that then. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

SS General von Steuben

Hey there! I started a discussion at SS General von Steuben, about the problem of diving to ship wrecks, and whether the article advocates it. Any input would be appreciated! Renerpho (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Rullion Rattray

Hi, it looks like Arthur Rullion Rattray is in need of a good clean up, but this is far out of my comfort zone and I'm hoping that somebody with more knowledge than me can tackle this to do it justice. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mexican Navy

Mexican Navy needs significant work, especially its history section. It is an article of relatively high importance and modern relevance, but currently omits a lot of information and is mostly in bulleted lists. It should be fairly easy to find sources and content. David Porter is what brought this to my attention; he should probably be mentioned on this page. Toadspike (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I put an expansion template linking to the Spanish-language wikipedia article, even though that lacks sourcing, there and added an expansion request to the North American and Maritime taskforces open tasks. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

GA nomination for Battle of Singapore

Hello all, I just want to inform you all that I've nominated the article Battle of Singapore for GA and ask for your help wherever possible. Thanks, Nigos (talk c) 14:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.eduApolo1991 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox award icons

I usually just remove award icons in an infobox, leaving the text name of the award. But in Alexander Imeretinsky, there is no text. And there are many more icons than in the award section of the article. The entire article is unreferenced, except for one link to a bibliography in Russian, so I'm not sure which, if any, should even be in the IB. If anyone wants to clean this up, please do so. MB 02:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Each individual award svg/png is linked to its file homepage with a name of the respective award, so the names can be found that way. At any rate, it's no good if the awards are unsourced, and if they aren't given textual description it's of next to no use to the average reader. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• to the first question, see google's English translation of the WP:RU article here. The WP:EN article gives a single source which appears to be an SPS and which clearly doesn't cover the detail in the article. The WP:RU article appears to be in better condition. As it stands, it looks a lot like an AFD candidate. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• At the very, very, least these should all be accompanied by alt tags per MOS:ACCIM. I'd much prefer them to be replaced by more accessible content, i.e. a text list to avoid MOS:XMASTREE issues. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• It isn't an AfD candidate, Imeretinsky is clearly notable. Entries in Burke's Royal Families of the World and mentions of his performance in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 more than suffice for GNG, but his administration of Warsaw is also covered extensively. I agree the article is currently terrible, and needs trimming of anything outlandish and conversion of the awards in the infobox to text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)