Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 165

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Boud in topic WikiProject Peace?
Archive 160←Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167→Archive 170

RFC: 1st Division, 1st Armoured Division, 1st Infantry Division (UK)

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Which of the following histories of British divisions indicated as "1st" should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A.

  • 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, division renamed Western Division in Germany) > 1st Division (1919, division reformed in England-until renamed) > 1st Infantry Division (at least 1939 - until 1950s) > 1st Division (1950s-1960, when disbanded in England) > 1st Division (1960 division reformed in Germany–mid 70s) > 1st Armoured Division (mid-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)

B.

  • 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.

Instructions Enter A or B, with a brief statement, in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section.

Supporting Case for A

Supporting Case for B

  • Charles Heyman
    Heyman is a defense analyst and a retired British Army major. His regularly updated guide on the British Army (example) and websites associated with him, state that the current division was formed in 1940. This argument has been made since as far back as at least the 1997/8 edition of his work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • I've been hesitant to participate in this, given that this is very far from my domain of expertise, but decided to finally throw in my two cents given that nobody else seems to be chiming in. While I can't make sense of the complete lineage, the fact that both the division itself and the British Army in general state rather unambiguously that the 1st (UK) Division's lineage goes back to 1809 speaks rather strongly against B. At the same time, I can't really make sense of the BAOR era stuff, which means that I'm not certain that A is completely correct either. So I guess my !vote is not B, if you'll allow such a weird hedging? -Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. I am sure we can look at other options as well as A and B above, if we can entice more comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • I would argue that not only do the sources not support the status quo, they (while acknowledging that the likes of the self-published would not be used in the articles) outright state the current division is in a lineage with the one formed in 1809. A variety of sources discuss the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division and the current formation as the same entity.
I apologize for any potential 'short hand' descriptions or interpretations of the above sources, and ask that editors read them to see what they say.
I note that in 1942, the 1st Division was converted into a mixed division: a concept to try and find a middle ground between infantry and armor. When reformed in July 1960, the formation controlled armoured formations before the name subsequent name change to "armoured division". The current formation now controls only infantry brigades.
I highlight that several of the sources above, and additional sources not cited, contradict several points made by Heyman. Per Joslen, the compiler of the official order of battle for the British Army during the Second World War, we know that the 1st Armoured Division existed prior to 1940 (it was just renamed that year). Joslen also informs us that this division was disbanded in 1945. Heyman states it carried on existing. He does not explain/discuss the Cold War period, does not support the 1st (UK) Division being formed in 1960 or the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division ceasing to exist in 1960 etc. I understand, per wiki policy, that we are not here to interpret the sources and rather just indicate what they state. I would argue that the rest of the sources outweigh this one. I would also conceded that changes to article should include this opposing perspective in a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, EnigmaMcmxc clearly Heyman is far more concerned with *right now* and didn't do his homework re 1940 etc!!
It's the two divisional histories produced by the division itself that are the most authoritative sources offered here. Without the ability to actually read them and to see whether (a) they present the division's history as a history of a single, not two separate formations (which would be hard since two separate entities definitely existed during World War II!!) or (b) a history of all the '1st Divisions' between 1809 and the late 1980s, we must go on the evidence of the titles alone, which clearly imply a single formation (despite the World War II anomaly!! again, staff officers are generally focused on the right-now and near future to the near total exclusion of all else).
So, for the moment, I withdraw my objections to the inclusion of a template claiming descent from both 1AD and 1ID to the present division in the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article. That may change if anyone gets to the IWM and manages to read both div histories, which we would should do at some point anyway for completeness. But that whole sweep from 1809 is a bit too broad for a single article, and the 1800s temporary formations have never been strongly associated with the 20th-century divisions by secondary sources. Thus I will go ahead with my delayed split out of 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), with its wartime history and 1977-2014 period, and participate as appropriate in summarisation of that history at 1st (United Kingdom) Division. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it would probably be best until the RFC process has came to a conclusion before either of us make any changes to the various articles. For example, I would argue that the 1977-2014 period should not be included on the 1st Armoured Division article as that period is still relevant to the 1st Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought I *was* concluding the RfC process, but, as you wish. It's a bit inarguable to include the 1st Armoured Division material in the 1st Armoured Division article as it's the same titled division with the same insignia!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of the process is, since we disagree on a couple of points, it would be best to garner more thoughts on how best to proceed. I think if we do not end up with any additional input, we could start making changes. Although, it seems we will still butt heads over some of the nuances that may end up requiring further consensus building.
At the moment, based off the variety of things I have read, I feel that the Cold War 1st Armoured Division is kind of like Facebook/Meta. Its the same thing as the Cold War 1st Division, regardless of the name and insignia changes, so should be in the same article as the 1st Division. Yet, I do believe we need a cut-off so that the 1st Infantry Division article can be used as a "history of" article and cover the founding through to some undetermined point after the Second World War, where the 1 (UK) Div article can pick up and discuss things like the Gulf War etc. That would leave the 1st Arm Div article to solely focus on the 37-45 formation, with a special mention for the 6th Arm Div being renamed the 1st for a short while in '47 (no ideas on if they kept the 6th Arm Div insignia or if they switched to the 1st).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As I have said above, I disagree fundamentally with most of these points. The 1st Armoured Division existed from 1937-47 and in 1978-2014; the 1st Infantry Division has a clear, unchallenged, and separate existence from the time the Mobile Division was renamed 1st Armoured to sometime after 1955, depending on exact dates which are in the 'British Army in Germany Organizational History' book; and I would not support any changes to those articles along those lines.
1st (United Kingdom) Division, as I said above, can have a template claiming descent from both 1ID and 1AD, until the histories in IWM are verified; I fundamentally oppose any further changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Which is the whole purpose of attempting to garner further consensus, and hopefully at some point additional editors can chime in so we can build a consensus on how the articles look.
Watson and Rinaldi, while it would pose a challenge to use moving through the various review steps due to the self-published nature, state that the 1st Infantry Division (the Gazette, for example, implies there was a name change before that year to just 1st Division) was disbanded in June 1960 and then reformed by in July 1960 when the 5th Division was renamed (p.25). It states that the 1st Division was retitled as the 1st Armoured Division in 1977 (p. 74): "Towards the end of the decade, BAOR underwent a major restructuring ... The three divisions ... disappeared, reorganized into four divisions ... 1st and 4th Divisions became 1st and 4th Armoured Divisions ... in 1977". It does not state that it is a reformation of the 1937–1945 division, and the only implied connection is the adoption (in the 80s) of the charging rhino.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the 1st Infantry Division's confirmed existence ends in 1960 (maybe not 1958, should have read W&R more closely). Then 1st Division, which cannot be definitively ascribed to either Inf nor Armd, but if there's no descriptor, all divisions are infantry, is the rule (one would place the text in the 1ID article, without trying to make hard and fast claims beyond the sources). 1st Armoured Division 1937-late 1940s, reformed 1977, existed to 2014. I did know about the 3->4 division reorganisation in 1977-78, the British end of experiment with 'small' divisions, from the time I first got hold of Armies of NATO's Central Front in the early 1990s, and AONCF is quoted all over the place here because I've copied the references in. W&R make not one single statement about division lineages at all, through the entire work, so absence of any comment means nothing. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have asked on the resource exchange to see if anyone can access the The First Division 1809-1993: An Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Per the OCLC, there is only one public copy and it is in a library in London.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion under "Inappropriate sanitizing of terminology" in Operation Wigwam

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion at Talk:Operation Wigwam deals with deletion of a key, though now very objectionable, definitional term in the operation. I support purging the repeated use, but the term was the assigned name for the 4/5 scale of the SS-563 class hulls that were the test subjects of the nuclear explosion. In my view must be defined at least once else readers running across the term in the now declassified reports (and if I recall a few published stories after declassification) will not have the definitional reference. Palmeira (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Several "Nazi ..." pages moved to "Nazi German ..."

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments10 people in discussion

A group of "Nazi ..." articles have been moved to "Nazi German ...". See Special:Contributions/Micga. I don't know if this is sensible for all or any of the pages, but interested editors may want to review it. (Hohum @) 00:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this made the mess that those article titles represent better or worse. There never was a 'Nazi Germany' - it was Germany during the Nazi period. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Makes no sense to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Concur with the previous opinions; makes the titles messier and seems completely unnecessary, if not outright incorrect Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, I can relate with the decision though. "Nazi" was never really a national category (in the way "Soviet" was, for example), though people generally see "Nazi Germany" as a unique historical period/state structure in modern German history. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Why it was even called "Nazi" if it was just Germany? Eurohunter (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record "Nazi German" is *not* common in English-language works. "Nazi Germany" is, but the adjective "Nazi German" is not common and when it is used it is almost exclusively by Polish authors and is therefore a poor choice for an international encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I too have noticed this trend previously, and I have unmoved such moved pages/categories/templates etc. I will defer to others here more familiar with a majority of sources about just how common it is, but the only place I have personally observed this naming trend is here on enwiki. Nazi is fine for Nazi party related matters, otherwise it was Germany. Cavalryman (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC).
Having just written the above I noticed an op-ed at the top of the The Australian's webpage using the term “Nazi Germany” in the title [1], so striking part of the above as the terminology does appear to be used (in conservative op-eds at least). Cavalryman (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

Ralph Alexander Spitteler

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. I'm going to be creating an article on this first-class cricketer soon. However, I'm wondering if anyone can fill some missing gaps in his life. He served in the 10th Gurkha Rifles (3rd Battalion) during the Second World War and appears to have been captured by the Japanese, I'm guessing in the Burma campaign? He is recorded as having died from wounds in Java in March 1946 – how he came about these wounds I can't seem to find, mistreatment as a POW, or perhaps he was wounded before he was captured? Or why, 6 months after the end of the war, he was still in Java and hadn't returned to India/UK. Any help filling these gaps much appreciated. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if you spotted from the Commonwealth War Graves site that his grave appears to have been relocated from Muntock. This information is on a rather ambiguously worded grave concentration report. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Latin/South America

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've seen some pages of the military history of Central America and the Caribbean lumped into either North or South American military history task forces. Most of these categorized as South American are actually of the Latin American task force, currently a redirect. For example, Talk:Costa Rican Civil War is labeled as South American military history (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:1917 Costa Rican coup d'état is North American. Talk:Rafael Antonio Gutiérrez is South American (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:United States occupation of Nicaragua is North American. Talk:Cuban Revolution is South American (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:Fidel Castro is North American. This may create confusion and is already erroneous categorization. Aside from that, there is an obvious question: Why does the Latin American task force redirect to the South American one being that there are many countries that are not South American yet still Latin American? Is there any reason for this? In the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Latin American military history task force/Paraguay, there was reference to a discussion, which I can only assume is this. FredModulars (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The geographical distinction between north and south America is (I would expect) geographically defined. That WP articles have not abided by this is another matter that can and should be remedied - though it always requires somebody to do this. You would have my support iaw a clear definition - though this may need to be resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Those are not synonyms and not interchangable. North and South America are geographical terms. "Latin" America is a cultural term and not entirely congurent with the geographical limits. The Guianas do not entirely fit with "Latin" America though they are in South America. The entire isthmus is North America yet Mexico and the majority of other nations there are very much "Latin" as in "Spanish" America. The islands are North America geographically and a mix culturally from Spanish Cuba to British, French, Dutch and, importantly, African on the smaller islands. Even on one island we have the very "Latin/Spanish" Dominican Republic and adjacent the very French speaking, culturally African Haiti. And then we have the biggie. In most popular usage "Latin" = "Spanish" but the largest South American nation is distinctly not Spanish. I know some Brazilians who will not mark "Hispanic" on U.S. Census forms even though Portugal is on the Iberian peninsula. It is Portuguese in language (still as Latin as Italian) with a distinct culture of Portugal heavily influenced by African and indigenous as well as whole areas very Italian, German, Japanese and even "Confederate" (Down south there is a Confederate colony that still has celebrations one might see in Alabama). The problem you raise is to maintain a clear separation in discussions here of whether geography or culture is the subject. Palmeira (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/North American military history task force states "Military activity regarding Central American and Caribbean countries fall under this task force, too." I suspect that some articles relating to these areas have been mistakenly tagged as South American by editors who, as suggested above, believe this is synonymous with Latin America. Such errors should be corrected where found by any editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And I would not be surprised to see some examples of arguments ignoring the fact the geographic and cultural in this case has no 1:1 correlation. Cuba and Mexico are both Latin America and North America. All could probably use a check and scrub. The question of projects and task forces was mentioned. A Latin American project/task force should include all those North and South American countries with Spanish heritage — and despite some occasional Brazilian objections I include Portugal within the larger "Latin" community — so Brazil is a legitimate candidate I think. (If there were an Italian heritage state in South America, beyond some Argentinian aspirations, I'd include that in "Latin America") The geographic projects and task forces should strictly abide by geographic conventions. Ah, the interesting problem of what "Latin" really means here! Some of southern France is far more "Latin" than northern Spain and Portugal which are in landscape and culture a bit more Celtic than most realize. So many of our little bins and buckets ooze and bleed under scrutiny. Palmeira (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Coming out of dormancy to put in some context. When they made the change to realign taskforces years back the "Latin Task Force" was rebranded South America and had it's scope narrowed. Going through a quick spot check, the vast majority of pages I would consider in the wrong task force seem to be hold overs from the transition. --Molestash (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Demosthenes

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Demosthenes 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Are two star major general automatically notable?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Is this person automatically notable? Article lacks WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This user probably has COI. Many of their articles are like that. Also, information not present in the source, yet somehow they wrote it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No one is automatically notable per se, but some people will have reached a position or status in society where they will have been covered enough that they achieve SIGCOV. This doesn't look like one of them at them moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
What Graeme said. Many two-stars are notable because the positions they have held have resulted in SIGCOV. Ultimately, every bio needs to meet the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jubayer Salehin (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

lists / galleries of unit commanders

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I recently stumbled upon 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) § Commanders which is simply a gallery of photos of the unit's previous commanders. WP:SHIPS has Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines § Notable and non-notable crew; does WP:MILHIST have something similar? Are these sorts of galleries, or even the plain-text list that preceded the gallery, appropriate in military unit articles?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought notable commanders were ok, but all commanders of a brigade or smaller unit seems excessive, particularly peacetime commanders that have not led the formation or unit on operations. And the notable commanders could just be integrated into the prose in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the notable ones should be incorporated into the main body of the article and the others dropped since they're not notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
If someone insists on retaining the gallery, one option would be to create a gallery page on Commons. There could then be a link from the article to the Commons gallery, if editors are in agreement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Sturmvogel 66, we used to have "List of Commanding Officers" (and even Chiefs) on numerous ship articles. There were several discussions about this, and the consensus (aside from the non-notable crew outcome) was to add notable CO's to a chronologically appropriate section of the prose and remove the lists (non-notable CO's would only be added to the prose later of they became notable). I don't think galleries should be treated any different than lists in this respect, I don't see a need for an image of CO in a unit article. If they're notable, then people can see their image in their bio. (jmho) - wolf 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. I have deleted §Commanders because none of the named commanders are notable.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Should I assume that this applies to the set of commanders-with-photos that KingEdinburgh has been adding to the new Space Delta 1 etc? I believe for colonel-ranked officers they are inappropriate. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
If you are asking me, I would say that only Lutton and Edmondson should be retained (and perhaps Space Delta 1 § List of commanders should be renamed to §Notable commanders).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ship class disagreement

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, interested editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brooklyn-class_cruiser over the proper classification of USS St. Louis (CL-49) and USS Helena (CL-50); whether official terminology or the preponderance of secondary sources should be followed. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate of Maj. Gen. Sterling Price

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm finding fairly inconsistent dates of birth for Sterling Price, a Major General in the Confederate States and Missouri State Guard forces in the American Civil War. Ezra J. Warner's Generals in Gray gives his date of birth as September 20, 1809, Albert E. Castel's General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West and the Missouri State Historical Society have September 11, 1809, and our article currently gives the date as September 14, 1809 citing this 1893 source. Robert E. Shalhope's Sterling Price: Portrait of a Southerner doesn't seem to be more specific than 1809. Anyone familiar with this case or know of anything that would explain the differences? Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, there could be a number of reasons for the discrepancy. Older church records would record the date of christening/baptism rather than the actual date of birth. In the absence of "definitive" evidence, I would tend to report the most consistent date with a note appended to acknowledge the other source|s. Even if there appears to be a definative source, I might still add a note. To my mind, this is the most neutral way of dealing with conflicting "facts". Anything else might fall to OR or SYNTH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Cinders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Who moved my US Navy media files?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

G'day all, does anyone know what the USN did with the DefenseLINK media files it had at dodmedia.osd.mil? File:Jadran saling ship.JPEG which was originally at this address is now not resolving as the server IP address cannot be found. Ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like all US DoD media activities were consolidated under the Defense Media Activity group around 2011. I was not able to find anything with the "061026-N-5330L-271.JPG" filename or Jadran sailing ship under all *.mil sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Anyone else have a clue where they could be? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Some ended up in DVIDS, but a lot fell into the internet memory hole. The only saving grace is that the US military has generally been very good with metadata, so the metadata at Commons is usually marked with the key details (e.g. that they are US military images and PD, as well as who the photographer was to confirm this). Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The US Navy also maintains a semi-independent photo database here Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with new article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just created the article for Kenneth Shugart. He was an All-American basketball player at the Naval Academy but I feel like his service and later military career summation could be improved. I would appreciate anyone here looking at it and seeing how it could be improved. Thanks! I had previously posted about this subject when considering writing the article about a year ago, but just got around to it. Prior discussion is here. Rikster2 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Well you can still try and utilize the sources that people suggested to you in the previous thread. E.g. Mention that he died from cancer, his exact retirement date, the unit he served in during the Korean War etc. I am sure there is more out there.--Catlemur (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I have a question about Category:Battles by country.
What is the specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)?

I guessed 3 meanings of involving. For example, Category:Battles involving South Korea.

(1) Battles took place in South Korea territory.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.

(2) Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.

(3) Battles took place in South Korea territory and Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.

If meaning of involving is (3), I think scope of classification is ambiguous and wide. Footwiks (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the classification does men "3". One only needs to look at the sub-categories for South Korea. I see no problem given the clarification inherent in the the sub-categorisation in the particular example. Any other example can be resolved by sub-categorisation in much the same way (if it isn't already). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Footwiks. If it were up to me, I'd split all these "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X". (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
That's what I meant to say! I think we chose the wrong scope of the classification in the early days of wikipedia. if possible, I hope that we rearrange category - "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X".Footwiks (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
As something to consider: For "Battles involving Germany", it's quite clear to me that for cases where "Germany" is used in the locale sense, we're talking about the contemporary borders, i.e. I read it as "Contemporary Germany was involved as either the location or one of the combatants" But for "Battles in Germany", I'd be less clear whether we are talking about contemporaneous or modern-day borders or both. Admittedly, I'm a non-native speaker of English so this might be just an idiosyncrasy of mine. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the ambiguity is present in both formulations. I would support assigning the meaning "what the borders of Germany were at the time" to both. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Most country naem have similar territory issue - (Germany means contemporaneous or modern-day borders, China means contemporaneous or modern-day borders.)

But I think this is a side issue. Current category - Battles involving X (country name) is too comprehensive. We have to narrow scope of current category. I have a good idea.
We keep current categories - Battles involving X (country name) and then We created 2 subcategories - "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X" and subdivide the current category
For example
Category:Battles involving South Korea
- Category:Battles in South Korea
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of South Korea
Category:Battles involving the United States
- Category:Battles in the United States
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of the United States
What do you think of this idea? Footwiks (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but I'd phrase the latter subcategories as "Battles involving armed forces of X" to preempt weirdness related to, say, a hypothetical peacekeeper force getting stuck between two more active combatants or something like that. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I hope that native speaker user polish belows category names convey the same meaning

Category:Battles took place in X country territory.
Category:Battles carried out b yarmed forces of X.
Footwiks (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

WTS

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there anyone who has an interest in helping with the cleanup needed at William Tecumseh Sherman per the problems laid out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1#FARC break and on the talk page of that FAR ? Hog Farm and I have done a lot of work, but there is much more to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Very low-quality article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Horizontal escalation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just encountered this wreck of an article that is written in an incredibly unclear, essay/textbook mishmash manner. I've already removed two sections that are about conflict escalation in general, but I'm not sure if any of the remaining content is relevant at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I've finished removing all the irrelevant content and an essay-like analysis of the Ronald Reagan administration's strategy in the Persian Gulf. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Merry Christmas from sunny Australia! I hope that all members of the project are able to enjoy a good Christmas and a break over the holiday season, albeit in less than ideal circumstances in many places. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Merry Christmas (or whatever other celebration floats your boat) everyone! Let's hope for a better 2022! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to all from me as well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Tis the season of surplus gift money for new books with which to write Wikipedia articles. At least, that's how I like to see it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
+1 to Indy's book money comment, I've ordered a couple myself today. Hog Farm Talk 22:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This is true. Happy Boxing Day book sales everyone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Sunny is a relative term for such a big place but let's not let the damp dampen the spirit (some of us need it). :) Best to all. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Any body with a copy of Anderson handy pls

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, does anybody have a copy of Anderson handy that you could check at p25 and the date that B Coy 39th Bn arrived at Kokoda. Sources consistently say 15 July but for some reason, I have said (quoting Anderson) 14 July at Invasion of Buna–Gona. This is clearly wrong. I just want to check if it is my error or Andersons. Hawkeye7?

  • Anderson, Nicholas (2014). To Kokoda. Australian Army Campaigns Series – 14. Sydney, New South Wales: Big Sky Publishing.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, I have a copy. I think the relevant paragraph is: "B Company, led by Captain Sam Templeton, was the first sent across the Kokoda Trail to implement the battalion's orders. The men left a staging post at Uberi on 8 July with Kienzle guiding them, and arrived in Kokoda on 14 July". Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert, best wishes. I am pretty certain that Anderson has made a mistake. Brune and McCarthy both give 15 July. I could go back to the NGF war diary. Any thoughts? Have you seen the recent edits at Invasion of Buna–Gona and Battle of Buna–Gona? I have some concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
G'day, it doesn't hurt to check the War Diary, but ultimately I would suggest dealing with the discrepancy between Anderson, Brune and McCarthy with a note as all would be considered RS. I personally probably would try to avoid citing Teague until it can be determined whether or not it is considered an RS. What are his credentials, what is the editorial policy of the website for instance? Anyway, probably best to outline your concerns on the talk pages of the individual articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, the war diaries of both the 39th Bn and 30th Bde give 14 July, so my apologies to Anderson. Yes, I guess I should take my own advice (per Hog Farm above) but the diaries are definitive. I will have to work on it since it affects a couple of articles and it will be one of those complicated notes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PS, I'm curios as to what Williams says, if anybody has him handy.

  • Williams, Peter (2012). The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality. Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-10701-594-4.

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

G'day, unfortunately, I only have a photocopy of one chapter of that book and it isn't the relevant chapter, I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I only have an electronic copy; the book is inaccessible at the moment. I can't find anything in Williams about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I have a hard copy - please ping me if you need anything checked. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all and many thanks. I was able to get my hands on the hard copy. Williams avoids the matter in that his narrative does not touch on how the 39th came to be at Kokoda or when (as far as I can see). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, could you have a look at Anderson again (probably p25). B Coy departed Ilolo to Uberi on 7 July and Uberi on 8 July. Uberi/Ower's Corner is considered the start of the track. McCarthy and the war diaries are consistent with that. The Teague source says they started on 7 July but it is really a case of where they were considered to have started from. I was just wondering what detail Anderson gave re their departure (from where and when). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, prior to the paragraph on p. 25 about B Coy departing the staging post at Uberi (on 8 July, according to Anderson), Anderson provides that the full battalion was in a "reserve area within the Port Moresby defences" around 24 June. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Everbody is in agreement on when they left either Ilolo or Uberi except for Teague, who desn't say. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Civilian airports with RAF origins

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started a discussion re the scope of this category at Category talk:Civilian airports with RAF origins. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#World_War_I

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question about last veteran of World War I. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas 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) 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would highly appreciate all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive3. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago48 comments16 people in discussion
Voting has closed, Happy New Year! Awards will be handed out shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Military historian   of the year 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

Nominations have closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Voting

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

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

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm

  1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely, per my nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

  1. Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Hard to go past. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  6. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Zawed

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumelow

  1. Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)
  3. StickyWicket (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

  1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D

  1. Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Kierzek (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  6. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  7. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rickfive

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 30 December 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.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2021 are open!

Latest comment: 2 years ago33 comments14 people in discussion
Voting has closed, Happy New Year! Awards will be handed out shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Military history newcomer   of the year 2021
  •  
    First place
  •  
    Runners up

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

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 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 editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 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

Nominations have closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Voting

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

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ljleppan

  1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Hog Farm Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  6. FredModulars (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  7. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

  1. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Hog Farm Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  8. Zawed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  9. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  10. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

KiwiSpike1

  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 17 December 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.

Italian War of 1521–1526

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Amitchell125 has almost fully cited Kirill Lokshin’s Italian War of 1521–1526 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. If anyone is able to address the three remaining citation tags, and glance over the article, it should be a FAR save. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the remaining tags have now been sorted.Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Then perhaps some MilHist regulars will glance over the FAR in terms of Keep or Delist ... thanks, Amitchell125! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Italian War of 1521–1526

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Post-RfC cleanup?

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Hi y'all. Since the WP:RSN RfC regarding theaerodrome.com was recently closed with a consensus of "generally unreliable", something should probably be done about the 1639 articles referencing it (including at least one FA-class article with an indirect reference). At the same time, it's not quite obvious to me what the proper next step is. To wit, any suggestions from the more experienced Wikipedians? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

One way of less intrusively diagnosing this problem is to tag all instances of it used as a citation with a "better source needed" tag (see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). In instances where it is used marginally or the claim seems out of step with everything else, wholesale removal of the citation and the info it purports to support is probably fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, this sounds close to what I had in mind before I got concerned about this being seen as WP:TAGBOMBing. I've made a snapshot of the search results (see here in case anyone wants to contribute) and will try to slowly work through the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Indy's nuanced approach in this case. With clearly unreliable sources such as axis history etc, I recommend deleting the source and any citations to it, but leaving the information unless it is a quote or could be considered in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. This accords with WP:V, and can help later editors to find more information on the subject in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been adding an "rs/unreliable source" tag when I can't find an easy replacement (which is maybe a little stronger than the "better source needed" tag - and deleting external links where they havn't been cited and don't add significantly to the references that are already thereNigel Ish (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

At what point did we decide to create all those "List of aerial victories of X ace" articles? Some are so small they could probably fit into the parent ace articles. They're also poorly sourced with improper notes vaguely saying where the information came from, which makes cleanup difficult. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just came here to comment on the "List of aerial victories of..." issue myself. Any short ones should definitely be considered for moving to the pilot article (losing the time of day of the incident along the way IMHO). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It arose out of the insistence of some editors that they were unbalancing the bios (the old excessive detail argument among others), and are not supposed to be collapsed. We should probably have a rule-of-thumb for numbers. Say 20 or 25? If over that figure, then a separate list is recommended? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems fine enough to me. I think it's much less crufty to include air ace tallies in a main article Is there any MOS guidance on including collapsed tables in articles? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Related to this, is there any consensus on whether things like this list of members are appropriate? My intuition says this should be instead "Notable members" or something equivalent, with every name then a wikilink. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And the relevant MOS section for collapsed tables is WP:DONTHIDE, which IIRC summarizes to "don't collapse by default; if you think you should collapse, consider either turning into prose or deleting per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" -Ljleppan (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Lists of members seem a bit clunky like that, even if they are all wikilinked, do they not? If the men are notable enough members of the squadron then surely they should be mentioned in the prose anyway. If a list of notable members is still deemed necessary, would a template called something likes "Aces of XXX" not work better? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, that was more along the lines of "at the very minimum". Folding the information into the prose would indeed be better. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

List of last World War I veterans by country

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country#Blank rows about the scope and presentation of this article. All contributions would be welcomed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Some eyes appreciated

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I'm working on a re-write of the First Carlist War article as it is terribly biased towards the Basque region and lacks in analysis of one of the most important wars in Spanish history. I'd appreciate it if y'all could take a look at the section I recently wrote on the Royal Expedition here and tell me if there are any major issues with my way of writing. I am aware I only use one source for that section but I'm working my way through some long volumes on the economic and political context of the war for now so it will be some time until I can add another source. The rest of the draft is seriously under-written for now and it will take me probably until next Christmas to finish it but hopefully it will be at FA level by then. Nonetheless, it is a terribly influential conflict in modern Spanish politics (origin of the idea of Two Spains) and so if I can get the article to FA level and then translate to Spanish I hope future Spanish generations aren't as easily brain-washed by demagogues into a simplistic view of the war. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Santacruz, I'm glad to see someone working on Spanish history but I would say that, although the source looks reliable, I would hesitate to rely on a single source for large areas of content. It can introduce POV issues since different historians often put their own spin on things. (Also, with so much detail on this expedition, maybe some of it gets put in the Royal Expedition article and summarized in the First Carlist War article?) This book looks like it might help you; you can probably get chapters of it from WP:RX. There's also an entire book The Basque Phase of Spain's First Carlist War (accessible via WP:TWL) so First Carlist War in the Basque Country would be a notable subtopic. Lastly, historical connections between the Carlist War and the Spanish Civil War seem to be getting more attention recently so that should also be covered. Let me know if I can help with anything else! (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, buidhe! Funny you mention it, Basque Phase is the book I'm working through right now ^u^. I'll make sure to check out the other link you've sent as well.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Just opened the link, turns out its the same book I read this summer when starting work on it. For some reason I forgot to continue once I'd gotten past the background stage of the book due to uni deadlines distracting me. You'll notice the author is the same as the source I used for the Royal expedition. On the Basque subtopic, there are essentially two relatively separate theatres within this war, the Basque-Navarrese one and the Maestrazgo-Spanish Levant one. I expect both to be possible to split off once the main article reaches a good size but that'll be a latter step. On the matter of sources, hopefully the UvA will allow me to check out some other books they have on the subject, as I am currently working on this article and other articles on battles (like the Battle of Alsasua) based off four sources: Basque Phase, Mark Lawrence's History of the War, Mark Lawrence's work on Cabrera, and Galeria Militar Contemporanea. All of these works, except the latter, frequently reference physical books I neither have access to nor can assess for quality. Nonetheless! We do what we can with what we have :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


Protector (RWS)

Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Protector (RWS), Protector Remote Weapon Station or just Protector which is remote weapon station? Eurohunter (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Protector remote weapon station or Protector (some disambiguator), not "Protector (RWS)" which looks like some obscure disambiguator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the article to Protector RWS several hours ago, as I was unaware of this discussion. I chose "Protector RWS" as it's shorter, but I'm fine with Protector remote weapon station if that's preferred. BilCat (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: I thought it's obvious that is should be disambuaged if the name is just "Protector". There are rules about disambugating names so if "Protector RWS" isn't a name but only "Protector" is the name so it should be called Protector (remote weapon station) or ratcher Protector (remote controlled weapon station) because remote controlled weapon station is the main name and remote weapon station is redirected. Other examples are Protector (Atari Jaguar game), Protector (2009 film), Protector (novel) etc. Eurohunter (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Both the Kongsberg and Thales product websites refer to it as the "Protector RWS", not "Protector", so that's what I went by. BilCat (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Same Polonez (MRL) should be moved to Polonez (multiple rocket launcher) because multiple rocket launcher is the main name and article isn't under shortcut MRL and because it need to be disambugated then MRL (rocket artillery system). No need to use shortcuts. Eurohunter (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There is big mess with names.

M1 mortar or M1 Mortar? This is probably named just "M1" so M1 (mortal) or no - it's probably called exactly M1 Mortar? How even such a simple thing can be so complicated? Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
M19 mortar probably same as above but here is also "US M19 60 mm Mortar" in the infobox so I have no idea what is the name/names of this mortal. Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
GIAT LG1 or LG1 (howitzer)? I bet it is "GIAT LG1" so why is "GIAT" cuted in the lead and not in infobox and article name? Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
M18 smoke grenade → M18 (smoke grenade) or it is actually (officially) named "M18 Colored Smoke Grenade" but "M18" is just a common name? No one knows. Eurohunter (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Eurohunter (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME comes into it. And going with what the sources say. Plus consistency - 99% of mortar articles are "X mortar" form. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: So there should be included official name too in the lead "oficially". Consistency - 99% of Wikipedia articles are "X (mortar)" form and "X mortar" is missleading because you expect this is a part of name especially if there is such a mess with name in lead and infobox (sometimes there are 3 different names without any xplanation). Eurohunter (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If a thing has a bunch of different names it's knosn by they go in the infobox. If it's not well explained in the article text, then that's an editorial issue GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA is a balancing act and WP:QUALIFIER doesn't "require" parenthetic disambiguation. We don't actually prefer an official name or its capitalisation but WP:COMMONNAME. We don't use army-double-back-speak for article titles. I would tend to agree with Protector remote weapon station since it is a natural term, recognisable, concise and sufficiently precise and I see no issue of consistency that would suggest it should be otherwise. Furthermore, we only capitalise "if necessary". "Protector" is the name. All the rest is a description that serves for disambiguation. To all the rest, I am not seeing any particular issue with the names of choice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I can say in service it is known by the acronym RWS and as soon as I saw the section header I knew what this thread is about. I like the current title, Protector RWS, as it is what I know it as, but would be happy with Protector remote weapon station. Cavalryman (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
Hi Cavalryman, per WP:TITLEFORMAT at WP:AT (a policy), we are told quite specifically to avoid acronyms (and consequently initialisms, which are the same but different). While you might instantly recognise the acronym, our readers are not necessarily going to but they will nonetheless see that the Protector is a remote weapons system in Protector remote weapon station. I know what I wrote (it was a slip of the fingers) but this just goes to prove the point. Ultimately, it is not what "we" think is the best title, but the title that best serves our readers. I get where you are coming from but there are other considerations. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Go with Protector remote weapon station of that’s preferred, no need to capitalise remote weapon station. Cavalryman (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Example of a C-class assessment with b2=no

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to WP:MHA#CRIT, the C-class rating follows from failing either the b1 (referencing) or b2 (coverage) criteria of the B-class criteria. The current C-class example rather handily covers the referencing failure, but I think it would be useful for newcomers to also have an example of a coverage failure. Any thoughts on adding a second example or what a good example would be? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The example (Yellow Turban Rebellion ) seems to be aiming to demonstrate the b1 failure rather than a b2 failure, but I have recently downgraded Milhistbot ratings of B to C due to b2 failure (as I'm sure other have, as it is far harder for the bot to assess coverage than seeing if there is a citation for every para). Recent examples across diverse topics include: 1st Infantry Regiment (Lithuania), Andrew Rawlins and Inns of Court War Memorial. In each case I explained my reasoning in the edit summary on the talk page. I would have thought either Rawlins or the memorial one could be used as an example. Interested in the views of other experienced assessors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Would it be useful to have comparisons of different versions for different kinds of b2 fails that later succeeded? E.g. battle articles might lack coverage of the context of the battle, the aftermath, tactics or strategy common in that war that is relevant, etc. I'm not as familiar with unit, weapon or officer blp articles but I'm sure there's examples of all those as well.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Falklands War

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

2nd April 2022 is the 40th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War. It it is to appear on the MP as part of OTD, those unreferenced statements will need to be addressed. Other Falklands-related articles could be nominated to appear as part of OTD, but referencing will need to be up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FAC review needing attention

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jadran (training ship)/archive1 needs reviewers. You don't need to be a sailing ship expert or even a maritime type to review. Look in if you have some spare time (NB my nom). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles proposed for proposed deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The following articles have been nominated for Proposed deletion (not by me).

USS LSM-422
USS LSM-478
USS LSM-479

This may be of interest to the project.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Another prodded article - USS LSM-355Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Now at AfD

USS LSM-110, USS LSM-316, USS LSM-355, USS LSM-422, and USS LSM-479 are all currently listed at Articles for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer review?

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

So I'm working on creating pages for some of the "minor" units of the British Army (minor in the sense that they aren't combat infantry/armoured units). This is roughly the basis for what I'm going for if a few could review it, that would be great. Here: 1st Regiment, Royal Military Police. Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Coming from the recent RfC regarding theaerodrome.com, I took note of the use of british-army-units1945on.co.uk as a source. Are the people behind it sufficiently established for this to fall into the SME exception of WP:SPS? I found this old RSN discussion which doesn't fill me with confidence. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've personally been using 1945on for years now, and as far as I'm aware, and what I've looked into, it is very reliable. The reasoning for this is because the author used a mix of primary and secondary sources, and as the author even notes ("The information is being continually updated with information received and research results and is by no means complete."). In addition, the author uses a mix of primary and secondary sources, and in-fact uses the secondary references I use myself, including the History of the Royal Engineers, History of the RedCaps (/Royal Military Police), or Units and Organisation of the Royal Corps of Signals. I will additionally tag @Buckshot06, @SmartyPants22, @Dormskirk, and possibly @Rickfive as they also use the site in addition to myself often. But overall, as far as I'm concerned, yes it is reliable. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
J-Man11 / Coldstreamer20, do note that "major" units = battalion (or above); and "minor" units is usually attached to company strength or below, please. The distinction you talked about above is combat (Infantry, RAC, RA); combat support corps (historically like RE) and combat service support corps (for example, the Adjutant General's Corps). Heyman explains this categorisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Coldstreamer20, on what basis (ie the criteria outlined at WP:RS) do you consider this website reliable? The 2018 discussion at RSN linked above has three editors stating it is unreliable, none who state it is reliable. Given you have form for using unreliable online sources in the past, if I was you I would be avoiding using sources of dubious reliability. Surely there are reliable sources on these units? There certainly are reliably published books and journal articles that provide detail on the RMP regiments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, Coldstreamer20? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ship disambiguations

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've seen a number of articles for naval warships created 10+ years ago contain a year disambiguator in the title, even when not needed. (See Talk:USS Indianola#Requested move 22 July 2021, Talk:USS Maria J. Carlton/GA1, Talk:USS William Bacon (1863)#Requested move 6 January 2022 for examples). More still abound - see USS Maria Denning (1858), USS George Mangham (1854), USS General A. E. Anderson (AP-111), USS Norfolk Packet (1848), etc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Hull or pennant number or disambiguation suggest that these dabs should not be present if not necessary, but yet there are loads of these long-standing. Can the majority of these be moved non-controversially (I personally wouldn't wander outside of moving the ACW vessels), or are individual RMs required for all of these (even clear-cut cases), or is there a compelling reason for leaving them as is? I was recently asked to move Maria J. Carlton from USS Maria J. Carlton (1861) at a GA review, so I'm wondering. Hog Farm Talk 19:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I routinely remove dabs when they aren't necessary, whether they're years of launch or hull/pennant numbers. There's no reason to discuss this every time when WP:NCSHIPS is long settled. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Chiming in as the Maria J. Carlton reviewer to say that I agree they're unnecessary and don't believe they're controversial moves either. As there were no other ships of XXX name, there's no need to disambiguate it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Right - on a basic level, it complies with WP:PRECISE, which is policy. There's no local consensus that would override it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, go ahead and move any you find as long as you do a check for other ships of the same name first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Crimean War

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Crimean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome, since there is a persistent IP editor who doesn't understand that we don't write articles by dropping unattributed quotes in the middle of prose for no good reason. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we do not want articles to become mere collections of quotes, particularly when the quote is already summarized in the previous sentence, as it was in this case. However, the quote is correctly attributed as it does come from the cited source. Indeed, I have a link from the earlier edition, here.
I would recommend warning IP editors. This will help other editors to quickly sum up what is going on with a particular editor, especially in the case of activity spanning multiple articles or separated in the history by other edits. I have done so after my reversions. Peaceray (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
You surprised me a little. Let's assume that such a stylistic edit is better. Although the historian Figes is most likely a good stylist and writing articles in the SMS style, as I think, is not very good. But, nevertheless, let it be so. But if the text says that Russia and the Ottoman Empire were already at war, then it is necessary to specify exactly when this state of war began. When, in fact, was the Crimean War declared? This article about the Crimean War does not say anything about it at all. Shouldn't I be saying that? 93.81.219.212 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. My point about unattributed is that we aren't attributing the quote in the prose itself, we're just dropping a quote from a book in in without saying who said it. See also this, this and this from earlier IPs used by the same editor. FDW777 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed infobox changes on Crimean War

The article has an infobox from hell? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you there, Cinderella157. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have made a proposed change on how the infobox lists casualties. I sadly do not know enough about the war to make proposals to the officers that deserve listing as well. You may wish going to the article talk page to discuss my proposed change. Pinging editors in this discussion that haven't discussed the talk page section already (I assume Cinderella has it watchlisted already): @FDW777 and Peaceray:.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added an additional heading to differentiate this infobox discussion from the previous discussion on quotes. If you are familiar or experienced with WikiProject Military history infoboxes, please join this discussion at Talk:Crimean War#Infobox from hell. Peaceray (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Resistance in World War II by country

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would be very grateful for input at Template talk:Resistance in World War II by country#On anti-communist resistance on whether anti-communist resistance movements fit within the scope of the "Resistance in WWII" template or whether it should be primarily reserved for anti-Axis resistance movements. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Making a Wikiproject

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am making a WikiProject named Millitary Policies, the name says everything so I need some help in making the WikiProject Yodas henchman (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

G’day, military policies fall under this project. Our Military science, technology, and theory task force and National militaries task force are both relevant. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this would be a redundant exercise. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I'm working on revamping a lot of the TA units for the British Army (or Army Reserve) which have been left out. I just finished the 30th (Lowland) Independent Armoured Brigade, but I'm requesting assistance regarding the brigade's history. Any help is welcome! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, why are you using orbat.info, Coldstreamer20? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the site where the link is, but the works are by Dr. Graham Watson. So, in short, the website where you can actually find it is on that website, but it's an independent publication by a very well known author. I'm sure it looks strange that way. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that Watson is the author, Coldstreamer20? What is the title of the independent publication that this content reproduces? There is nothing on this page (for example) that indicates who is responsible for the content hosted there or that it is extracted from another publication. Can you provide some links that show what you are saying is correct? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't add that, that had been on the page, I had nothing to do with that part. I only did the Post-War section. My bad, I thought you meant here. I don't use the order of battle website, it's very unreliable, I agree with you there, that happened to be on the page. I mean I thought "Retrieved 9 August 2018." kind-of gave it away as something I hadn't actually done. I just needed the post-war help with. Sorry for the confusion. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: this is what I added (at least the main changes) here. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which WP guidelines specifically instruct us *not* to use.

In accordance with previous concerns raised about Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, I advised him on his new Coldstreamer20 talkpage (User talk:Coldstreamer20#Smaller unit Templates) on 4 January, several days ago, that he should not use the 1991 Master Order of Battle, in view of longstanding WP:CIR - Competence Is Required - concerns.

Now I find it utilized and added at 51st Infantry Brigade and Headquarters Scotland, on 8 January, after my warning. This breaches at least two sub-clauses of WP:PRIMARY, those being:

  • "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.

I was advised after the last post at WP:AN to seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.

I would now like to seek any additional opinions from any interested editors regarding this potential site topic ban. I will advise Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 of this post. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Any discussion of a community ban should take place at WP:ANI or WP:AN (per WP:CBAN). Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the forum for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all. Having now gone along to WP:CBAN in accordance with Nick's note, I shall relocate this discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
A copy of the above post and a (second) request for a topic ban can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) - repeat my request for a topic ban. Any interested editors are encouraged to comment there. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comments at Sri Lanka Armed Forces

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A Request for Comments on statements about human rights violations by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces has been posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#RFC_on_Human_Rights_Violation

Your participation is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with user refusing to source or discuss edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Anonimus Croatus (talk · contribs) is edit warring at Armed Forces of Croatia‎‎, Croatian Army‎‎ and related articles to be found in their list of user contributions. I have been reverting them and have posted at ANI, but in the mean time I'd appreciate some support with rolling them back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User has now been blocked by an admin. Thanks to anybody who rolled stuff back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments10 people in discussion
See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 156 § Missing/broken references; and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157 § Missing/broken ref, follow up

Several (well over 3000) articles in this project are in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references create via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

Since there are so many, I've focused the following list on FA/FL/GA/A/AL/List-class articles, and left B and below out of it. These could use some of your attention

To do
  1. Battle of Borodino
  2. Battle of the Yarmuk
  3. Belligerents in the Syrian civil war
  4. Bosnian genocide denial
  5. Crusades
  6. Easter Offensive
  7. First Crusade
  8. Frederick Russell Burnham
  9. Hindu–German Conspiracy
  10. History of cannon
  11. History of the United States Navy
  12. James A. Garfield
  13. Joseph Stalin
  14. List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft
  15. List of active rebel groups
  16. List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
  17. List of battalions of the Royal Scots
  18. List of battles by casualties
  19. List of battles of Rajasthan
  20. List of blade materials
  21. List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala
  22. List of Chinese military equipment in World War II
  23. List of conflicts in Algeria
  24. List of conflicts in Ireland
  25. List of countries by level of military equipment
  26. List of equipment of the Algerian People's National Army
  27. List of equipment of the Indian Army
  28. List of flags of the Republic of Vietnam Military Forces
  29. List of generals of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Armed Forces
  30. List of German weapons of World War I
  31. List of heads of the military of post-imperial Russia
  32. List of inactive AFCON wings of the United States Air Force
  33. List of leaders of the Soviet Union
  34. List of main battle tanks by country
  35. List of massacres in Kosovo
  36. List of massacres in the Croatian War of Independence
  37. List of massacres in Turkey
  38. List of massacres of Indigenous Australians
  39. List of military installations in Massachusetts
  40. List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021)
  41. List of military special forces units
  42. List of modern conflicts in the Middle East
  43. List of NATO installations in Afghanistan
  44. List of peasant revolts
  45. List of people responsible for the Treblinka extermination camp
  46. List of prisoners of Jasenovac
  47. List of RAF Regiment units
  48. List of sieges of Constantinople
  49. List of Texas Revolution monuments and memorials
  50. List of the lengths of United States participation in wars
  51. List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
  52. List of wars by death toll
  53. List of wars involving Albania
  54. List of wars involving Hungary
  55. List of wars involving India
  56. List of wars involving Nepal
  57. List of wars involving Nigeria
  58. List of wars involving North Korea
  59. List of wars involving Thailand
  60. List of wars involving the Central African Republic
  61. List of wars involving the Ottoman Empire
  62. List of wars: 1990–2002
  63. List of wars: 2003–present
  64. List of weapons of the Philippine revolution
  65. List of World War II aces from the Soviet Union
  66. List of World War II weapons of China
  67. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
  68. Louis XVIII
  69. Massachusetts in the American Civil War
  70. McCarthyism
  71. Minister of Defence (Vietnam)
  72. Muammar Gaddafi
  73. Napoleon
  74. North African campaign timeline
  75. Rafael Antonio Gutiérrez
  76. Raynald of Châtillon
  77. Southward expansion of the Han dynasty
Done
  1. 2nd West Virginia Cavalry Regiment
  2. Axis naval activity in Australian waters
  3. Basil II
  4. Battle of Corunna order of battle
  5. Battle of Jajau
  6. Bombardment of Salé
  7. Chinese ironclad Dingyuan
  8. Christmas truce
  9. Constantine VIII
  10. Dartmouth Castle
  11. Deddington Castle
  12. Domestic of the Schools
  13. George Gosse
  14. HMS Bulldog (H91)
  15. Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II
  16. Jack Rae
  17. Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
  18. Kenilworth Castle
  19. Krak des Chevaliers
  20. List of aerial victories of Friedrich Noltenius
  21. List of aerial victories of Josef Jacobs
  22. List of aerial victories of Max Ritter von Müller
  23. List of castles in Ireland
  24. List of decommissioned ships of the South African Navy
  25. List of former Royal Air Force stations
  26. List of Imperial German artillery regiments
  27. List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
  28. List of motte-and-bailey castles
  29. List of shipwrecks in January 1918
  30. List of wars involving Argentina
  31. List of wars involving Cuba
  32. List of wars involving Finland
  33. List of wars involving France
  34. List of wars involving Sweden
  35. List of wars involving the United Kingdom
  36. List of wings of the Royal Air Force
  37. List of World War I flying aces from Germany
  38. List of World War II infantry weapons
  39. Muslim conquest of Sicily
  40. Paddy Finucane
  41. Pat Pattle
  42. Richmond Park
  43. Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)
  44. Special Boat Service
  45. Stede Bonnet
  46. Stefan Baretzki
  47. Sunda Strait campaign of January 1794
  48. Timeline of World War II (1939)
  49. Treaty battleship
  50. USS Philippine Sea (CV-47)
  51. Utah Beach
  52. Vettore Cappello
  53. Walter Model
  54. Women in post-classical warfare

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Note - there may be overlap with the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors - so check there if an article has been fixed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Headbomb - Just as a note for the future, for MILHIST, "list" class is equivalent to start-class, which is why that query flagged up so many lists with significant problems. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I mostly picked them because there weren't a great many of them, and list-types will often have the same source reused often (and be relatively easy to track if each entry in the list has a corresponding article [For example in List of wars involving Albania, the Kosovo War entry has Elsi 2010 borked up.... but there's an Elsie 2010 entry in the Kosovo War article, which is probably the one meant here]). There's also relatively high visibility, if only for navigation purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Side conversation about unrelated issues

A|lso note there may be false positives thrown up. E,g: I was surprised to see John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter listed as it was my FAC nom and my citations are usually perfect. But in this case, it's throwing up Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (30 with; 1 without). That's because the one, lone, single, individual, discrete, sole, solitary, exclusive cite that doesn't use a location is a Gmap reference using {{Cite map}} (which is also calling for an ISBN! Wtf?). The other two problematic refs are from ODNB which are now demanding page ranges for chapters, which they don't do with {{Cite web}} but do request from {{Cite ODNB}}. Since my source is the ODNB website and not the blooming 21-volume dead-tree copy, I don't even see how this conforms to WP:V any longer: the digital version is regularly irregularly updated, while the print copy is obviously not.
The one thing I can actually change is to archive the WaPo ref, and shall do so. But it doesn't make much of a dent on the rest of that bold black scrawl  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 17:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where you are seeing 'Inconsistent use of Publisher Location' but it is not from {{sfn}} and Module:Footnotes. {{Google maps}} does not support |isbn= (though the underlying {{cite map}} would were there a mechanism in {{google maps}} to pass-on an isbn). {{cite map}} does not care if you include or omit |isbn=. Where are you getting the idea that there is such a requirement? {{Cite ODNB}} (which cites the online version) does not [demand] page ranges for chapters; where are you getting that notion?
This whole discussion is about {{sfn}} errors. At John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter, there is one (false positive) {{sfn}} no-target error. The remedy for that is to add {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFGoogle2018}} somewhere in the article.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 
This is where I get the bloody notion from TtM; I assume we're using different scripts, but, frankly, that's not my problem, as this is the script that most FAC reviewers use. The real issue here is that your defending your post above on the grounds that 'it's not a sfn error', but, you see, I doubt many here care about your how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff and more about how Featured articles are consistently abused by random bodies with multitudinous scripts and bots, most of which would seem to be violating at least one policy and have landed you personally at WP:ANI in the past. I advise colleagues to remove articles from this list unless Trappist mends the bloody things himself rather than continually trying to blame others for not a) instinctively knowing what he's talking about and b) begging him for an opportunity to do more clearing up... /RANT SN54129 — Review here please :) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ooh! That's a lot of errors. I can't think why they weren't picked up by the FAC source review. Should I redo my source review of your current FAC do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's weird that it passed in that state, and that none of the reviewers mentioned it  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Your script would be User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js? I'm not going to pick apart all of the John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter 'error' messages but I did look at the Google maps isbn thing. {{Google maps}} uses {{cite map}} and |map=. |map= is treated by the template in the same way that |chapter= is treated by {{cite book}}; in other words, using |map= tells {{cite map}} that the citation is to a 'map' in a 'book'. For {{google maps}}, that is incorrect because Google maps is not a book. I'll make a note of that at the {{google maps}} talk page. User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js at line 200 sees the citation's metadata rft.genre=book k/v pair and so assumes that the citation is a book citation. At line 240, the script looks at rft.date. At line 242 et seq. compares the date in rft.date (2018 in the Google books citation) against the fixed value 1970 and so emits the missing isbn message.
Alas, Editor User:Lingzhi2 has, as of 7 October 2021, apparently left en.wiki so the script is no longer maintained; any fixes to reviewsourcecheck.js will have to be done by someone else.
Umm, I was defending nothing. You came to a discussion that is clearly labelled "List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" and complained about a number of error messages that are wholly unrelated to the discussion topic. I wanted to know where you were seeing those errors and how you were associating them with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. I wanted to know if there is somewhere that someone has written something that associates those error messages with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. Were there such a place, I could then remedy that incorrect association. I also wanted to make sure that you understood that your complaints are not the fault of Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}} and that you need to look elsewhere for a solution to those complaints.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Note posted at Template talk:Google maps § misuse of |map= parameter
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Am I missing something here, or is not using |map= the way you labeled "misuse" exactly the same one of the examples in the {{cite map}} documentation? See last example of Template:Cite map#Maps contained within larger works -Ljleppan (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed the example. Thanks for pointing it out.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't know what kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you're bringing here, but I suggest you drop it. It's both irrelevant, and counterproductive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No battleground, Headbomb, merely pointing out the paucity of Trappist's own arguments, and the fact that he would rather argue, obfuscate, distract and patronize than actually confront the issue (which I note you have actually done, thanks). Looks like the system works. Season's greetings to you all! :D SN54129 — Review here please :) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discernible difference in tone and language between Ttm's comments and your own, self-admitted "rants", SN. (jmho) I'm sure you guys can work this out without any further hostility. - wolf 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

Borsoka - For Raynald of Châtillon - should the Runciman source be 1988 or 1989? That's what's causing the issue on that one. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

1989. Fixed. Thank you for your query. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Zawed - Would you be able to add the Shores & Williams 1994 that's no-targeting at Jack Rae? Hog Farm Talk 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to fix the problem at Richmond Park were reverted by Headhitter. Pointing them here so that they are aware of this larger discussion. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to Contribute!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there everyone, I'm working on a sandbox here: User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the Japanese Self Defence Force regarding the structure of the Japanese Army in 2018, with changes to the end of 2021. I'm hereby asking anyone who has further references to feel free to contribute. I would ask that if you do you add a comment at the top of the page and sign it or add a small brief of what was added/removed, etc. Or new units in italics and removed units to be crossed out. Any help is welcome, thanks all! Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 04:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation key for "Gneisenau"

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I think it would be helpful to add a pronunciation note for articles with Gneisenau in the title. It seems most English speakers mispronounce it with a silent G, and I do not believe it should be assumed that English speakers know that most letters are not silent in German. However I am not 100% sure on this and the help of German speakers or other experts would be much appreciated to render it in IPA.

Relevant articles can be found at the Gneisenau DAB page, but I think the most important would be:

Thank you for your consideration. 93 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A pronunciation key is probably needed for uncommon foreign words and names if there is any doubt, imo. But double check WP:MOSPRON in the "Appropriate use" section. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I believe it would satisfy appropriateness as a foreign name that is not common, on par with Khrushchev. I would also argue it is counterintuitive due to "gn" usually being pronounced as /n/ in English as in gneiss, gnome, or Gnosticism. To minimize intrusiveness I would add it as an explanatory footnote for the two pages bulleted above.
I don't know German but here is a draft IPA made using a YouTube recording, German phonology and Help:IPA/Standard German:
German pronunciation: [ˈgnaɪ̯zɛnaʊ̯]
Thanks, 93 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
If you still need a German speaker to confirm, the folks at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language should be able to help. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, opened a discussion there. 93 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Old A-class articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know if this is the most appropriate place to ask this, but ... Okay, during the early days of Wikipedia (long before I was here), few other Wikiprojects like Bio and Math used to have their own A-class reviewing system (See this and this). Articles like Alan Keyes and Peano axioms were successfully nominated, and are yet rated A-class, when, in my opinion, they don't even meet GA criteria. Since all other Wikiproject A-class review system are marked historical, I was wondering what is the process to re-assess/delist them? I asked this in Wikiproject Bio, but was suggested to ask the same here. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If there's no A-class process, I don't think anyone can object to unilateral delisting. WP:IAR and the articles clearly do not meet A-class by any reasonable definition. I reasesessed the Keyes article as C-class. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
G'day Kavyansh.Singh. This project has an operational A-Class delisting process, and if someone thinks a Milhist article is sub-standard they need to use that, but if another project doesn't have an existing process for A-Class, and it is currently a GA, then the article should be put through a WP:GAR, individual or community, and at the end of that re-assessed where it currently sits. If it isn't a GA as well as A-Class, then presumably you can re-assess it in the normal way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've started a GAR for Alan Keyes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Re non-milihst A-class reviews in general, they tend to be done unilaterally and without proper consideration for what A class "should" probably be. Technically, A class is a criteria which can be defined by any project, but since milhist has been so active in this regard and we've moved towards near-FA standards we've set a really high bar for the rest of the project (though we make mistakes). Thus it can mislead editors to list an article as A class without any formal review, since it can appear on the surface a better rating than GA. I'll try and stop someone from listing an article as A across multiple project quality ratings. If someone from a specific project gave it that rating on behalf of their project, it might be worthwhile to consult them on their reasoning and explain why you think the article is faulty. Recent attempts to revive or create A-class procedures in other projects have generally fallen flat. It is useful to look at the June 2018 edition of WikiProject Conservatism's The Right Stuff, where it celebrates the passing of its first A-class article (and only one to date) alongside lots of whining about ANI proceedings with grievances from other editors of the project's gratuitous backslapping and ideological bias which it appears eventually killed the project (though the ANI itself was inconclusive). Long term that kind of A-class system would've certainly become a system of rubber-stamping. I know SandyGeorgia has expressed some worries about friends helping friends at FA in the past. As editors (not MilHist members), we should not allow the rating system to be misused. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to identify a VC winner from Gallipoli

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I have just uploaded a series of images from the Second World War about a ceremony linked to the Gallipoli landings in the First World War. Some of the images, such as this one show a " Sergeant Dick Richards, VC," from the Lancashire Fusiliers, who earned his Victoria Cross at the landing on "W" beach at Gallipoli. I have consulted the lists of VC winners but I can't find his name. The closest I can get is Alfred Joseph Richards, whose story sounds similar to how the Imperial War Museum describes Dick's story. Does anyone have any sources available that would suggest whether Alfred also used "Dick" as a nickname? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone with the surname of Richards is highly likely to be nicknamed Dick. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost certainly him, based on regiment and VC event, apparent age, medal ribbons, that Richards served in WWII and lost his leg and this fellow has a cane. All OR of course, but too many coincidences to be someone else. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Experienced eyes needed at List of major arms industry corporations by country

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There doesn't seem to be any inclusion or exclusion criteria. I recently removed the entire North Korea section as none of the listed entities are actual companies and they were also all redlinks. The page is regularly edited by only a handfull of editors. I tried to raise a concern about inline external links and WP:WTAF on the talk page but got no response at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just removed the Australian government's space agency, and an Australian small arms company that hasn't existed since the mid-2000s. This article is full of total rubbish. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick-D There seem to be several space agencies and other government/state institutions all over the page. I'll remove the ones I find. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The whole article is a real throwback to 2000s-era Wikipedia, where we had lots of articles providing semi-random lists of things with no supporting references. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to lack any attempt at referencing. Is it serving a purpose? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Those external links in the body... wow, that's really bad. I say nuke it and start over (or just nuke it, period). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree on nuke. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A little help?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day all, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for November still has a few Milhistbot-rated articles that need checking by human eyeballs. Any help knocking off the rest greatly appreciated. The December report has already dropped, so if you scroll down a bit from there you'll see some more that need a look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thai navy flag

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an issue with {{Navy}} re the calling of the correct flag for the Royal Thai Navy. I think I know what the solution is, but need confirmation before I make any changes to the {{Country data Thailand}} template. Discussion underway at Template talk:Country data Thailand#Template:Navy displays naval ensign flag from Template:Naval instead of navy flag as shown in the template documentation. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

New Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With International Holocaust Remembrance Day coming up on 27 January, after discussing in WP:GERMANY I created a Taskforce on Wikipedia to address coverage of Nazi affiliations of individuals, companies that are possibly whitewashed on Wikipedia. Please join and make some recommendations including any scholarly source that are relevant! Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinions requested at requested move

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:CSS Governor Moore#Requested move 16 January 2022. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:South America Articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Everyone, per this discussion that occurred last month, I went through all articles in WP:South America and sorted articles geographically. This will hopefully prevent anyone from dealing with confusion about where Central American and Caribbean articles fall in the future. Any thoughts on having a bot go through all the talk pages and having any "Latin-Task-Force" updated to South America? It might be overkill but that was the second or third discussion I remember about the issue. --Molestash (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Seneffe#Casualties (again)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, some eyes would be welcome on this. I am not certain if this is past the point of being constructive and has passed into the realm of disruptive? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

UK MOD insignia images issue - Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Apparently, a Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence permits the use of low resolution MOD logos from their insignia lists available on their Defence Brand Portal website for use on Wikipedia (see 4.7 of the Ministry of Defence copyright licensing information guide).

Coldstreamer20 has uploaded approximately 80 images from the Defence Brand Portal website largely in the past month onto Wikimedia Commons. An administrator on Commons has advised Coldstreamer20 that they are of the view that the Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence is not compatible with Commons. Coldstreamer20 was advised that they could upload a Defence Brand Portal image to Wikipedia as fair use if they complied with Wikipedia's fair use policy. Coldstreamer20 had started to upload images to Wikipedia as fair use, however, they have recently been blocked indefinitely (pending appeal). Coldstreamer20 asked for my advice on whether they should delete the Defence Brand Portal images on Commons and I hastily told them that they should delete the images. Coldstreamer20 has now nominated the images for deletion. I started to have a look at what links to the Commons images and there are many Wikipedia articles. If the images were deleted there would be many articles without images mostly I think in their infoboxes. As Coldstreamer20 substituted these images in articles the existing fair use images that other users had uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5 (F5. Orphaned non-free use images) for example this image.

I've asked on the Commons Help Desk if there is a way to resolve this otherwise Wikipedia editors will have to upload replacement images if the Defence Brand Portal images are deleted on Commons.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited to fix Commons links.--Melbguy05 (talk)
  • Question: Should Coldstreamer20 perhaps be temporarily unblocked with the strict proviso that it would be only to for him to participate in this discussion? (no other editing would be permitted of course) Otherwise, should he wish to contribute to this discussion, would it be permissible for other editor(s) to copy his comments from his talk page over to here? I ask because after reading Melbguy05's comment above, it seems that edits made by Coldstreamer20 could have a significant impact of numerous articles, which might necessitate his participation. - wolf 07:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be clear that Coldstreamer has made a mess up of this; what can they add in a discussion? If there's anything they need editing back for it would be to sort out this out by removing any badly licenced images they've added to articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Endorse GraemeLeggett. Coldstreamer20 should not be unblocked. I do not wish to have to go chasing around again after Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11, whose number and lack of comprehension of mistakes, WP:IDHT is practically legendary, this time over images. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Not long after receiving the advice from the Commons administrator, Coldstreamer20 uploaded an image for No. 1 Parachute Training School RAF to Wikipedia at the existing File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png with a comment that "Better quality image added". However, Coldstreamer20 did not change the image's source URL or what may have been prudent to add an author. WP:FAIRUSE requires the identification of the source. I gave Coldstreamer20, after they had been blocked, a user warning {{Uw-nonfree}} on their talkpage January 2022 Non-free content image for not changing the source. After the initial upload to Wikipedia the following uploads by Coldstreamer20 were as a new image. --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, a correction to my above post for the No. 1 Parachute Training School RAF updated version image. Coldstreamer20's initial upload to Wikipedia was a new image File:Royalcots Fusiliers Cap badge.png with a source of "Ministry of Defence Brand Portal" at 20:27, 10 January 2022‎. The uploaded new version of File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png was at 14:26, 11 January 2022 which I count (I may be wrong) was their 19th upload. Also, I thought I had changed the source of all of the uploads to "Defence Brand Portal https://www.defencebrandportal.mod.uk" together with adding "Ministry of Defence" as the author except File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png. I must have overlooked File:Royal_Scots_Fusiliers_Cap_badge.png. I gave Coldstreamer20 the user warning {{Uw-nonfree}} as there had been a pattern of uploading images to Wikipedia that had a source of Defence Brand Portal prior to the Badge_airborne_delivery_wing_1024x1024.png upload and subsequent to that upload. Apologies to Coldstreamer20 for the inaccuracy in my earlier post on the order of their uploads.--Melbguy05 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Jewish ghettos or Nazi ghettos?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Sammi Brie's addition at Białystok Ghetto of a much briefer short description than the previous default version from Wikidata was a helpful improvement. I then modified it from "Nazi ghetto in occupied Poland" to "Jewish ghetto in occupied Poland". But after looking at the WP:LEADSENTENCE of the article, which in fact defines it as a "Nazi ghetto", I self-reverted. But I have to admit to being more than a litle surprised at the term "Nazi ghetto", which I suppose means, "Nazi-constructed or -defined ghetto containing Jewish inhabitants", or to my mind, "Jewish ghetto".

As a first-cut search, I checked Ngrams, which shows a roughly 25–1 preference for "Jewish ghetto" (Ditto for a more complex search including the plural.)

Any other kind of encirclement or imprisonment of or enclave with some identifiable group that I'm aware of, names either the place (when talking about a specific one (e.g. "Lodz ghetto") or the group being victimized, encircled, or grouped together, e.g. "Black ghetto" (also: Aboriginal *, Armenian *, Christian *, Hindu *, Kurdish *, Muslim ghetto.

The lead of Ghetto says: "A ghetto, often the ghetto, is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, especially as a result of political, social, legal, environmental or economic pressure.[1]" The third paragraph says, "The term was originally used for the Venetian Ghetto in Venice, Italy, as early as 1516, to describe the part of the city where Jewish people were restricted to live and thus segregated from other people." But, two sentences later, it goes on: "During the Holocaust, more than 1,000 Nazi ghettos were established to hold Jewish populations, with the goal of exploiting and killing the Jews as part of the Final Solution." citing the US Holocaust Museum, and Yad Vashem, however neither source says "Nazi ghettos". Is this just poor sourcing, and the unsupported wording from Ghetto has gotten picked up and replicated?

I do see some usage of "Nazi ghettos" in books, and I haven't analyzed the frequency, but is it really used that much in reliable sources? The Ngrams link at the top would suggest not. It seems to me that using "Nazi ghettos" and "Jewish ghettos" to describe the same thing is at least problematic. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jewish ghetto" is not a Nazi phenomenon—it includes pre-Nazi Jewish ghettos such as, you mention, the Venetian ghetto. Therefore, "Nazi ghetto" is more precise as it refers only to those ghettos set up by the Nazis. The term "Nazi ghetto" is definitely not a Wikipedia coinage as it is also used in reliable sources and exclusively refers to those ghettos set up by Nazis to confine Jews. I do not think that using different wordings for the same thing is an issue, as long as we're expressing a consistent concept. There are many Wikipedia articles where multiple names or terms are used to express the same underlying concept; it's not a concern which of the names for a thing are used in the reliable source so long as the meaning is accurately conveyed. (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Addenum: the term "Nazi ghetto" is likely preferred by some researchers as it clarifies that these ghettos are a Nazi rather than Jewish creation (and not, as Nazi propaganda and some negationist historians have portrayed them, some sort of Jewish self-governing settlement, or "Jewish settlement area") (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I based the description on the lead sentence. "Nazi Jewish ghetto" could also be usable while remaining under the SD goal of 40 characters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie:, yes, so I noted (after the fact) which is why I self-reverted and thought your change an appropriate one. Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of navweaps.com

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

What is the reliability of navweapons.com? Some documents hosted on it (and apparently originally published there) are cited as sources in the old FA North Carolina-class battleship (listed at WP:URFA/2020A). It appears to be a passion project run by Tony DiGiulian. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be replaced - there was a time when it was accepted at FAC, but standards have risen since then. I can probably take care of it with Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War II (but it might take me a few days to get to). Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Loaded up website, saw an advert with a woman displaying her genitalia, closed website. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's actually navweaps.com - shouldn't be any genitalia there ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Oops for typo. Well, I think we can all agree that gratuitous genitalia displays are also not in line with WP:RS. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Except for Gratuitous genitalia display. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, there go all the FAs I've worked up. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RAF question

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I posted this at Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but I suspect that page doesn't have enough traffic for me to get an answer to the question, so I thought I'd try here. Currently Royal Air Force Reserve redirects to Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but in Royal Auxiliary Air Force's "Formation" section we have "The Royal Air Force Reserve (RAFR) differs in that its members...", with the link going to Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. If "Royal Air Force Reserve" is usually read to mean the RAFR, shouldn't the redirect from Royal Air Force Reserve go there rather than to Royal Auxiliary Air Force? This came up because T. Stanhope Sprigg, according to a source I have, was in the Royal Air Force Reserve at the start of WWII, and I don't know which article that ought to link to. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion Royal Air Force Reserve should be a redirect to Regular Reserve (United Kingdom)#Air Force Reserve, as we have no specific articles for the separate British regular reserves which comprise the RAFR, Royal Fleet Reserve and the Regular Reserve - though I may be a little out of date and the latter may be "Army Reserve (Regular)"? The RAAF is the air force volunteer (part-time) reserve. The RAFVR was originally another volunteer reserve force but now exists only to host the university squadrons and glider and flight experience squadrons for the cadets, it is not liable to call-up. Your man Sprigg was in the RAFVR, he left as a squadron leader in 1954, though was granted the use of higher rank of wing commander - Dumelow (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed the link from the article on Sprigg. I'll leave the redirects to someone who knows more about them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the redirect - Dumelow (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

CGS Joy Bangla

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just created the list of ship launches in 2022 and noticed that CGS Joy Bangla in listed in Category:2022 ships but there is no evidence in the article that she was launched in 2022. From what I can see, her lauch date probably falls in the period 2018-21. Can anyone confirm? Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

USS Kitty Hawk riot article in a poor state

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently ran across the article USS Kitty Hawk riot from a link elsewhere and noticed that there are a number of problems with it in terms of presentation and potential bias. The actual description of the event itself is well done, though could be better sectioned so it's not just walls of text, but it's the combination of detail and lack of detail in the Court martial and Aftermath sections that are concerning to me. Especially with ending the latter with the rather incredibly racist and ridiculous subcommittee quote. It's a good quote to include to show the problematic stance of the military and politics at the time, but just having that be the end of the article more or less is a poor construction.

I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been any form of scholarship at the time or in the 50 years since that have criticized and debunked the subcommittee's claims. But none of that is evident in the section in question right now. I see that the Gregory Freeman book is used as a reference, but only for information early in the article. Did that work not cover after events or impacts? Is there other scholarship on this event that would provide better context? Is anyone available to help in that regard? I'm not a military history person myself and I work through online available sources, whereas I know many of you are real history buffs that go for actual physical copies of the reference material. So you all would know best on what's available to improve this article. SilverserenC 03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick question on theatres of war

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is the Mediterranean part of the Atlantic theatre? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Were you thinking of a specific conflict? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
WWII. Naval operations. Came across an article where the Med is comprehensively covered as sub heading of Atlantic theatre. Could it be an American definition of "Theater"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
We have Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, but maybe the navy had different ideas. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ta. If you were talking about the war from a general angle rather than specific USA though, one wouldn't class Med naval as sub-part of Atlantic ops though? (Leaving aside that convoys crossed the boundary) Different battles with different focus and all that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Max W. Noah

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is really bad if someone needs a project. I think it was basically copypasted from an obituary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/New articles question

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure if I can ask about the WikiProject Military history/New articles, but I noted that the Special Security Response Team was added. I wrote the article and I just wanted to point out (somewhere) that it's basically a law enforcement unit under the Ministry of Justice's Correction Bureau. Ominae (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that list is automatically generated, and it was likely listed there as the article likely includes some key words. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Help requested with military person infobox

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Christine Hunter was in the U.S. Air Force from 1996 to 2006. She then joined the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and is currently a Capt. Could someone help add this into the infobox? TJMSmith (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article lists that she was at Wilford from 2000 to 2001, then Air Force Medical Support Agency from 1996 to 2006 and National Institutes of Health from 2006 to present. The overlap between the first two that does not make sense to me, but I'll leave it to others to correct or clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, this article actually uses a Template:Infobox scientist, not a military infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I figured out how to embed the uniformed service infobox since the PHS service is not technically military. TJMSmith (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Is she even notable? Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the article, her military career seems pretty standard. The inclusion of that "Research" section makes me think that whoever created it probably had WP:NACADEMIC in mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Moroccan Royal Forces on Armed Forces

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'd like to add the Moroccan Royal Armed forces on {{armed forces}}, but I'm not sure how to do that without screwing up something (I'm not really experienced with templates yet), if I could get guidance, that'd be great. MakhzenHuman (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Navy

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I gonna post at this place as well to get some more attention.

Since when {{navy|United Kingdom}} become   Royal Navy rather than   Royal Navy ?

Can somebody change it back to Royal Navy ? I never heard of United Kingdom Navy in any books , websites and find it so disturbing when checking articles.-- Comrade John (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Same thing happen to some British Commonwealth country navies such as   Royal Canadian Navy ,   Royal Australian Navy ,   Royal New Zealand Navy etc... rather than   Royal Canadian Navy ,   Royal Australian Navy ,   Royal New Zealand Navy etc...-- Comrade John (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

But Thailand   Royal Thai Navy , Netherlands   Royal Netherlands Navy didn't happen this situation. What exactly happen here ?-- Comrade John (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides the various "Royal" navies the names of most of the others are also rendered incorrectly. Most navies' proper titles, or at least the English versions thereof, use the adjective form of the country name - "Belgian Navy" not "Belgium Navy". In addition the flags are almost all wrong too, using national flags instead of naval ensigns. This template is basically unusable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't find the source of changes ? Got any clue ?--Comrade John (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion at WT:WikiProject Flag Template#Template:Navy doesn't display navy flag as the documentation says it's supposed to to find out why these had to be broken and how they were easily fixed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Would this new briefing book fall under the purview of this project?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, if you weren't aware, the National Security Archive (which has been briefly mentioned on this discussion board before back in 2014 and 2017) just published a new briefing book/posting/article about the U.S. pursuit of military exemptions to the Kyoto Protocol. I think it could fall under the purview of the project, and if so, perhaps it could be added as a citation into some articles. Just a thought here. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Shivangi (pilot)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just discovered Shivangi (pilot), which needs a lot of help. I'm tempted to AFD it, or move it to draft space. Instead, I'm posting here in hopes that someone with a familiarity with Indian topics can salvage it. The article should probably be at Shivangi Singh, but I'm uncertain of that either. To further confuse matters, there are now claims of two pilots with the same name in the article. Help please! BilCat (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about a merger Soviet re-occupation of Latvia in 1944 into Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944)#Merger proposal, which is about articles that are within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issue with Tunisian campaign

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was looking to fix the broken short citations to "Murray 2006" on Battle of Kasserine Pass. After some investigation, the references should actually be to Murphy, not Murray. Original edit: [2]. Archive of the original article: [3]. That's straightforward enough, but I think there are two other issues. First, I would have some concerns about the suitability of America in World War II as a source. Maybe this has been addressed somewhere already, but I can't see using it when Atkinson exists. It appears to be online-only, and I could find out very little about it. Second, while trying to establish what this source was I ran across [4], a new history of the 34th Infantry Division, that pretty clearly copied from our article without attribution, unless we're supposed to believe the author made the same mistake the IP did. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Ukrainian crisis"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ukrainian crisis#Disambiguate, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Request for Comments has been initiated on that talk page. Please !vote in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Luftwaffe terms question for Convoy PQ 16

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started adding material from Claasen 2001 (Luftflotte 5) but his unit names seem a bit all over the place. Are there any aficionados who might have a look pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II as war leader

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
 
"Can I have another medal, mummy?"

As an entirely random comment, one of my amusements is spotting and fixing infoboxes where Queen Elizabeth II is listed as the national commander. Here for example. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding at times of the role of constitutional monarchs in liberal democracies... Technically she's the commander in chief of the British military, but of course has never played any role at all in setting or executing government policies. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Some users like listing people based on official titles vs. actual roles. One idea to alleviate or reduce this stuff might be adding hidden notes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
"Constitutional monarch" is a terminological inexactitude; England had been a republic de facto since 1688; she is the most highly-paid caretaker in human history. Britain is not any sort of democracy. Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
King William III of England personally commanded armies in the field and was quite good at it, the last being the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 as far as I can tell. George II of Great Britain was at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 but was a bit of a nuisance and was politely asked not to attend battles in future, advice which his descendants have wisely heeded. Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
George III seems to have had genuine influence over foreign policy and military strategies during periods where he wasn't totally mad, though the PMs and ministers had a lot more. Monarchs as late as Victoria could explicitly nudge things when they really wanted to. But since the 20th Century the British monarchs have had no real influence, aside from occasionally asking sharp questions or offering advice in private discussions with the PM (George VI had a positive influence on Churchill, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely better to go with actual roles over official titles. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 
Lords, ladies and gentlemen, the C-in-C cheeseburger of Great Britain.
There was a recent question to something like this at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#Commanders and leaders. My answer there (in part) was as follows: "Practical advice: for a major conflict, we would include the "controlling mind" of a nation. For the US, this would be the president. For the UK, this would be the prime minister." Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Another terminological inexactitude, there are no minds in the British government. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Only mind the gap. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that Queen Elizabeth II would be a considerably better war leader than any of the collection of lawyers, journalists, economists, political activists and other assorted people with zero military knowledge who make up the government of the average country. In fact, giving them control of a department that requires any sort of specialist knowledge and then deferring to them as though they're some sort of expert is generally a terrible idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of "union" in American Civil War articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago35 comments11 people in discussion

In his book Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause, Ty Seidule has this to say:

In Northern Virginia in the early 1970s, we should have been focused on the civil rights movement. Yet I remember the echo of the Civil War centennial that ended in 1965. While the civil rights movement raged, the [American] Civil War centennial highlighted the of the martial valor of those in blue and gray. President John F. Kennedy refused to attend a ceremony celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation; it was too controversial for white southerners. Instead, everything I saw showed blue and gray as equal. North and South. Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. Union and Confederate. Both sides were equal, except everyone I knew saw the Confederates as more romantic, the underdogs, the heroes.

I grew up with language about the Civil War that mirrored that parity. The names we gave the war itself and those who fought it matter. Our shared understanding of the war comes from the language that we use. For decades as a child, as an Army officer, and as a historian, I called the side wearing the dark blue, almost blue-black uniform the Union army. I refuse to use that terminology any more. Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and more than two million soldiers didn't fight in the Union army as though they belonged to an organization that only fought one war. An army relegated to the dustbin of history as Karl Marx would say. No, the boys in blue fought in the U.S. Army for the United States of America. The names we use matter. By saying Union and Confederate, Blue and Gray, North and South, we lose the fundamental difference between the two sides. The United States fought against a rebel force that would not accept the results of a democratic election and chose armed rebellion. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and a dozen other U.S. Army posts, the successionists fired on U.S. property and seized it.

The southerners were not fighting some foreign or lost-to-history called the Union. The Confederacy fought the United States of Army, the country I spent a career defending. I will call those men who fought to save their country and, by 1863, end the scourge of race-based slavery by their proper name: U.S. Army soldiers.

In Wikipedia terms, the justification for the use of the term "Union" is that it is used in the sources, at least in those from the 1890-1970 period. However, per WP:Verifiable but not false, I don't think that is sufficient justification for us to repeat in Wikipedia what we know to be outdated and untrue. However, I am not an expert on the subject; my knowledge comes from a single unit of American history, covering the period from 1800 to 1865. I really wanted to take the one that covered the period from 1865 to 1930, but it wasn't available that year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

While not an expert or active editor in the U.S. Civil War topic, at least in Spanish civil war topics (whether the Carlist Wars, the 20th century civil war, or other wars of similar nature) I have found strong support in neutral sources to support using term dichotomies like loyalist-insurrectionist, government-rebel, etc. through Spanish terms that indicate a similar perspective to the quote you've added above. U.S. coverage seems terribly complicated due to the centuries of historical revisionism (e.g. Lost Cause) and continued support (state flags), so I don't think I can contribute much here, but thought perhaps considering how other countries' civil wars use terms would be helpful here. As a final note, I strongly agree with doing all we can to prevent biased and whitewashed terminology from seeping into our encyclopaedia and therefore the public. Is "union" such a term? Maybe, but I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough in the topic to know. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The consensus of scholarly military sources is to use the term "Union". (AC Santacruz, "loyalist-insurrectionist" and "government-rebel". I've done a semi-random sampling of books in my personal library that are modern and not Confederate-focused (eg excluding Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Foote, and bios of Confederate officers). Kyle Sinisi's The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015); Harry W. Pfanz's Gettysburg: The First Day (UNC Press, 2001); Gordon C. Rhea's To the North Anna River (LSU Press, 2000); Russel H. Beatie's Army of the Potomac: McClellan's First Campaign (Savas Beatie 2007); Donald L. Miller's Vicksburg (Simon & Schuster 2020); Peter Cozzens's Shenandoah 1862 (UNC Press 2008); and John J. Hennessy's Return to Bull Run (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster 1993) all use Union, with some equivalencies thrown in for variety (Federals, Yankees, bluecoats, etc.; much like the Confederates are sometimes referred to as Rebels). Frances Kennedy (ed.) The Civil War Battlefield Guide (Houghton Mifflin 1998) includes pieces by multiple authors; different authors use Union or "US". Clarence R. Geier and Stephen R. Potter's Archaeological Perspectives on the American Civil War (University of Florida Press) consists of multiple essays by multiple authors; the various authors generally use either Union or Federals. Ed Bearss's Fields of Blood (National Geographic, 2006) uses Federals. While I concede that UNC and LSU are both in the South, they are among the top publishers of Civil War material in the US. I think there's a strong consensus for the use of Union - from what I've seen, the majority of modern works that avoid the term are either those written by ex-Lost Cause people who don't feel right using the term or revisionist/leftist works. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Hog Farm I don't understand your reference to my comment above, as the parenthesis is not closed and I feel you might have left it hanging halfway through writing it. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I did, as the cat interrupted me. I meant to add 'are not commonly used for this conflict)'. Hog Farm Talk 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
If your cat wants to edit, they need their own account. If you two are going to coordinate... BusterD (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
They mainly seem interested in adding extra whitespace by pounding on the enter key Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Myself a native-born North Carolinian, I fully sympathize with Seidule's points. The duality posed by the use of "Union" and "Confederacy" does, for political purposes, seem to lend a sort of balanced "legitimacy" to the Southern secession enacted to protect the right of rich idiots to not work and rape and abuse black people *ahem* "freedom" and is part of why you nowadays still have people paradoxically screaming their American patriotism while waving the Virginia battle flag. That said, I must agree with HogFarm that "Union" still has plenty of currency in modern scholarship (I'll also see "Federals" when there's discussion of troops). It is also worth noting that we have the article, Union (American Civil War), which describes Union as the appropriate label for the collective of states which did not reject the idea of the US, and indeed this was a bloc (though not as clear cut as things may seem on the surface; look at how many Kentuckians fought for the Confederacy and how many North Carolinians opposed the secession) that behaved differently than states that sided with the Confederacy. At a nominal level and in international affairs, the United States (with both the loyal and insurrectionary states) existed during the conflict as it had before and after the war. To say "the United States during the Civil War" would thus technically refer to all of the states, not just the loyal ones, because the Confederacy lost and was never formally recognized as a proper country. "Union" is thus convenient shorthand for the political bloc that was fundamentally opposed to the course the Confederates took. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Union (American Civil War) has this to say: In 2021, the Army University Press noted that it was replacing usages of the word "Union" with "Federal Government" or "U.S. Government". The Army University Press stated this was "more historically accurate" as "the term 'Union' always referred to all the states together. It is important that the Wikipedia reader understands that "Union" in this context refers to all the states, not just the non-succeeding ones; the Union was the United States, all of them, and Union troops were raised in all states, including the revolting ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting, because that stands in opposition to “the North” which the article treats as synonymous with Union. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To reiterate: I am not an expert on the subject. My purpose in opening the issue was to ensure that the project has consensus on the mattar. I accept Hog Farms' contention that the literature uses the term. I find the characterisation of the U. S. Army as a leftist organisation a little odd, but the majority of soldiers did vote for Lincoln (and Biden). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's worth considering the degree to which the Lost Cause mythology came to dominate the discussion on the Civil War for a significant period of time in the US. And in light of that, should we be propagating an ahistorical and tendentious framing simply because it has infiltrated the public discourse? Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think HF was classifying the US Army as a leftist organization. It's also worth noting that historical revisionism is a normal and not inherently good or bad thing. I agree with buidhe that it's definitely worth mentioning the critique of the use of Union at the relevant article (historian Michael Landis has also criticized the term). I think it's unfair, though, to universally see it's use as a negative thing. Steven E. Nash's 2016 Reconstruction's Ragged Edge: The Politics of Postwar Life in the Southern Mountains and Sam McGuire's journal articles from the early 2010s, which are both revisionist and more sympathetic in nature towards Republicans (and Southern Unionists) in Reconstruction still make hefty use of "Union" when relevant. The US President gives a State of the Union address annually. As for Parsecboy's point, older views of the Civil War (and Reconstruction) have remained pervasive for a long time; only in the past 20 or so years does the Lost Cause seem to have come called so utterly into question by the historical establishment (the earliest questions raised about the Lost Cause I've found come from the 60s/70s). That said, it's not our place to try and run out ahead of scholarship. Right now, use of "Union" seems somewhat mixed. I think it's perfectly valid to say "federal government" or "United States government" instead, but we shouldn't go about purging the term until a better consensus in historiography is reached. "North vs South" seems more anachronistic than "Union". -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree that we shouldn't be running ahead of scholarship here. I'm not as familiar with social-focused scholarship of the period, but military-focused scholarship of the last 20-25 years is still very much using Union, and there's no real consensus on what the best alternate term is ("Federals"? "United States"?) Until things change more, we shouldn't be discouraging use of Union. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. Hog Farm was definitely NOT classifying the US Army as leftist. Wow. This is like my daughter slapping me for using the word "oriental" (which happened). I'm glad we have actual subject matter experts to keep us posted of the latest revisionism. I am one of those who grew up as a military brat with my family all over southeast Asia during the Vietnam War (during which we never called a war, btw). Part of my connection to history is through the many books and games of American Heritage I read and played in childhood. Bruce Catton and T. Harry Williams are my heroes. Wow. This may take me a moment to wrap my head around. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    In a way that's the beauty of editing Wikipedia, isn't it? Learning so much and seeing how knowledge progresses as we contribute our grain of sand here and there until we realize the stuff we grew up learning maybe wasn't so accurate after all. And that feeling not being a bad one either, making you almost excited for the new knowledge that'll come up in the future :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    I was definitely told things as a child about the Civil War that ranged from overly romantic to flat out wrong—I only learned in a college history course just how many people in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee were opposed to the war to begin with, on the grounds that it was a war for rich people in the flatlands to keep their slaves. Wikipedia has largely opened my eyes to things that were never spoken about in school or just never heard of, like the Kirk–Holden war, Wilmington insurrection of 1898, Third North Carolina Regiment (1898–1899), and East Hargett Street (Raleigh, North Carolina). Shame or guilt has no part in it for me, I'm just happy to learn. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, moment over. First, thank you Hawkeye7 for raising this unasked question. If US Army historians themselves are mostly moving away from such framings, we must pay attention and plan a route towards modernizing our usages as the broader academic community does so. I'll choose to move past the myths created in my youth towards what reliable sources will decide. This re-languaging itself may make an interesting article someday. FTR I went to my trusty, well-worn general index to the OR. This "newfangled" idea of not referring to Federal troops as "Union" starts in the OR (page 983 in my edition). When the entry "Union Troops" appears, a brief list of topics follows including, where such are "mentioned" a redirect to United States Marines, United States Regulars, United States Veteran Reserve Corps, United States Volunteers is given. It looks like I might be forced to take responsibility for helping to unmake the myths I cherished as a child. It's a lot to take in, is all I'm saying. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't know if I am quite getting this. The proposition appears to be that we should not use "Union" to refer to the "North" (for want of a better term) but we should use some other term. If I have this right, we should use "US" or more fully, "United States" instead of "Union"? But isn't the "Union" synonymous with the "United States" which is a union of states? Doesn't Union (American Civil War)#Etymology pretty much say this? I'm not quite getting what the "real" distinction is? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • If I understand correctly, Ty Seidule, the former head of the department of history, professor emeritus at USMA (America's professional army school), and perhaps America's most qualified military historian ever, says maybe we should be moving away from this usage in our contemporary MOSs. This page's first applied citation includes statements very similar. Hog Farm makes the reasonable argument Wikipedia always follows the sources and must repeat those usages so far as practical. Other editors make sage comments and generally seem to agree this is an issue worth (at the very least) awareness. Questions are raised that I was somewhat brainwashed by the literature produced after the re-reconstruction. I looked at the sky and got a bit dizzy. Somewhere or other a cat joke was made. Then you asked your reasonable question and now it's now. BusterD (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • To answer your question Cinderella, the historian Landis argues at length I suggest that we drop the word “Union” when describing the United States side of the conflagration, as in “Union troops” versus “Confederate troops.” Instead of “Union,” we should say “United States.” The employment of “Union” instead of “United States,” implicitly supports the Confederate view of secession wherein the nation of the United States collapsed, having been built on a “sandy foundation,” as Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, put it in his “Cornerstone Speech.” In reality, however, the United States never ceased to exist. The Constitution continued to operate normally; elections were held; Congress, the presidency, and the courts functioned; diplomacy was conducted; taxes were collected; crimes were punished. Yes, there was a massive, murderous rebellion in at least a dozen states, but that did not mean that the United States disappeared. The dichotomy of “Union v. Confederacy” lends credibility to the Confederate experiment and undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a political entity. One can argue this is historical revisionism for the sake of satisfying modern political trends, but the Lost Cause attitude on the Civil War which dominated historiography for a very long time was also for the sake of satisfying political trends (Jim Crow and Solid South, particularly). In the opinion of Landis and the Army University Press, to use "Union" makes an other out of the people who fought against the secession. This is because it's easier for a Confederate sympathizer in modern times to villainize "the Union", "the North", or "the Yanks" (I'll use the last one for funzies to mock the New Yorker transplants who have never eaten at the almighty Cook Out (restaurant)); it's much harder to complain about the "U.S. Army" or "America" as a modern day unreconstructed Southerner without looking like a traitor or a dick. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it is because I am an outsider, but I don't see a distinction between "the Union" and "the United States". The succession of states did not dissolve the Union (the United States) just as the admission of new states did not create a new country. So, from my perspective, it appears to be a matter of pedantic semantics. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Us Americans have our own relationship with historical sentimentality, particularly in the South. While "Union" refers to our country in a sort of anachronistic sense (and is mentioned in our constitution), to say a person "hated the Union" would come across very differently today than saying a person "hated the United States", even in the context of a discussion about the events of the 1860s. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, that makes some better sense. My comment would be that we tend to give greater weight to recent scholarship but it is still "weighed". Scholarship in the arts will inherently have some degree of POV, since it is generally about proposing and supporting a thesis. Reliable sources are not necessarily NPOV (and generally aren't). We would balance a POV against a "consensus" in sources and in this case, a consensus in recent academic sources. WP is not an agent for social change. It does not lead but follows at a discrete distance. Ty Seidule and the Army University Press are taking a social lead. We should certainly be reporting such opinion now in articles that deal with the historiography of the war, as opposed to the history - including Union (American Civil War). However, unless I missed something, we are not nearly at the point where this could be described as a consensus in the sources? Certainly, we should keep a close watch on where this heads and be prepared to act. We should even plan to act. Do we start by suggesting how new articles should be written? As I have said, personally the terms and the distinctions being made have little meaning to me. However, WP policy is fairly conservative when it comes to pushing wagons and righting great wrongs. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
But our policies don't follow the cutting edge, for the same reason we haven't moved our article on the nation of Turkey to the country's new preferred name yet. Seidule and AUP may be using one thing, but they are still decidedly a minority of sources - see for instance Donald L. Miller's work on Vicksburg from only a couple years ago. We just need to wait this out - if other sources begin to reject Union, then that'll be a stronger case to abandon usage of the term, but our naming policies don't follow the cutting edge for a reason. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite so. Intothatdarkness 03:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, perhaps an article along the lines of Naming of parties to the American Civil War (preferably something less stilted) could be created, assuming naturally that it's currently possible without straying to OR. As a non-English example of a similar thing, there's a not-insignificant fi.wp article on Names of the Finnish Civil War which discusses how the various names used emphasize different aspects and represent different views of the conflict. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, there is Names of the American Civil War. I heard "War Between the States" a fair bit growing up in rural southwest Missouri. Somewhat interestingly, with the table of battles, I would know 9 by the Union name (1st Bull Run, Wilson's Creek, Balls Bluff, Pea Ridge, Chantilly, South Mountain, Crampton's Gap, Antietam, and Stones River), I would know 9 by the Confederate name (Shiloh, Seven Pines, Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, 2nd Manassas, Perryville, Olustee, Mansfield, and Winchester), and I'd refer to Mill Springs/Logan's Cross Roads as "Fishing Creek". Full disclosure: I'm descended from a Confederate Lt. Col. executed as a bushwhacker. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally like the sentiment of the OP and prefer to think that way. But I think that it would be a bad idea to make the switch. A few reasons;

  • To make the distinction....for clarity / avoiding confusion. When talking about areas, the South is a part of the current US. So saying just the US when referring to only the North would be confusing.
  • The succession was not legally legitimate under US law, and so arguably the South was still a part of the US, making using the "US" to refer only to the north arguably technically wrong
  • It's overwhelmingly one of the two commonly used names, the other being "the North". IMHO it will almost certainly remain that way due to the above reasons.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But "United States government" and "federal government" to refer to Lincoln administration, which Seidule is proposing, are not ambiguous at all. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: You have it round the wrong way. The Union was not the non-succeeding states; it was always the whole country, including the South, which was part of the US then, as it is now. This is the very confusion that we want to avoid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Yes, you are both logically correct and I also agree with you in spirit. Much of your post is in essence repeating what I said. But my point was that substituting "the US" for "Union" would cause lots of problems and make the wiki articles very confusing. So, IMO a bad idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Advice on unit naming re US Spanish–American War regiments

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking at Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Spanish–American War, I can see that almost all regiments therein are styled to as to have a numerical value (eg. 1st, 7th) represent their number. I just wrote Third North Carolina Regiment (1898–1899), which formed part of the United States Volunteers in 1898 and 1899 but did not see combat. Most sources seem to prefer "Third" to "3rd". Most also call it "Third North Carolina Regiment", but one source indicates its official name might have been "Third North Carolina Infantry, United States Volunteers". Part of the problem here is that there was a 3rd North Carolina Regiment which served in the American revolution. Help with naming and disambiguation would be most appreciated! -Indy beetle (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:NUMERAL & MOS:ORDINAL for guidance. (fyi) - wolf 11:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Bofors 40 mm gun

Latest comment: 2 years ago61 comments12 people in discussion

Anyone want to have an opinion on the recent move of Bofors 40 mm gun to a set index and renaming of the content that is about the WWII weapon used by Allies on land and sea?

I figure at the least that of the two Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 the former is actually what is meant in 90% of articles when 40mm Bofors is mentioned. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It certainly seems to me that the L/60 has a strong case to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The move probably should have been discussed first. Pinging @Blockhaj: so they're aware of this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and doing a disservice to our readers. I am sure that the L60 is the primary topic. Should be reverted. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The editing following page moved means it's not a simple matter to untangle.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this reorganisation is sensible 'Bofors gun' tends to be applied to any model of this long serving weapon, so it makes sense to present readers with a choice upfront. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Nick-D, there are three versions of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The L43 is a subsection of the L60 article. The L70 is a hat note redirect from the L60 article. Just saying. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
And the L70 article has exactly one incoming link, while the dab page now has thousands, almost all (I’d wager 99%) are intended for the L60. That’s a strong indicator that it’s the primary topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that while there will undoubtedly be many more links to the L/60 gun (partly as a result of the gun's use during WW2), there will still be a lot of links to the L/70 gun - which is a major post-war anti aircraft weapon, still being built and in large scale use - it still warrants a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the L/70 article - just that the L/60 article should be at the generic Bofors 40 mm gun page it had been at for years, and that the current dab page should be at Bofors 40 mm gun (disambiguation). In a nutshell, my argument is that if somebody says "Bofors gun", "Bofors 40 mm", etc., they're talking about the L/60. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
So you are saying that sources like Jane's Fighting Ships are deliberately lying when they refer to what are clearly L/70 guns (in mounts like the DARDO) as just Bofors 40 mm guns? That is rediculous and does not reflect sourcesNigel Ish (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to note the same thing was done at Bofors 120 mm gun in December, while Bofors 57 mm gun has been like this since 2018 (but done by the same user). The validity of those moves should be evaluated as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Should this new page be classified as a set index or is it rather a dab page? Lyndaship (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added some brief descriptions to save clicking through the articles to find the right one. Feel free to edit if I've got it wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I have just noticed this thread, I agree the L/60 version is the primary topic whilst the later L/70 version was historically far less significant. Cavalryman (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
I stopped counting at over 4000 links to the dab page. So I'm being bold and have redirected Bofors 40 mm to the L/60 as primary topic as the closest to a return to the status quo. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion raises some other issues with the 120mm and 57mm gun families. An L designation represents the barrel length, while an M (or m) designation (as used by Bofors) represents a year/model. In the case of the 120mm guns, it appears that the L designations used in the titles might actually be M designations? The Bofors reference that would claim to source the L designation is not web available. The L/50 is clearly at least also an M/50. Whether this is an error or a coincidence should be resolved. The L/46 is actually an L/46 but whether this is either the official or common name is another issue. For the 57mm family, Bofors 57 mm gun lists Bofors 57 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/60 but this is a piped link to Bofors 57 mm m/54 anti-aircraft gun and that article doesn't actually make any reference at all to the L/60 designation. That is confusing. The article refers to it being based on the Bofors 57 mm m/50 naval artillery gun. This is a redirect to the Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60. The Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60 makes no reference to the m/50 designation in the lead but does in the body. I am starting two headings for each of these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems i totally missed my ping. As an avid Bofors fan and someone who regularly deals with the 40 mm L/60 and L/70 in conversation i can easily say that the L/70 is about as common if not more common than the L/60 depening on the subject, especially considering combat post the vietnam war. The point that "Bofors 40 mm gun" refers to the L/60 more often than the L/70 is from my point of view mainly a modern internet phenomenon, widely fueld by the previous Wikipedia article name and name usage. Historically however, both guns have been referred to generically as the 40 mm Bofors gun. This in turn has to some degree downplayed the usage of the 40/70 over the 40/60, as the 40/70 at times have been confused for the same weapon as the 40/60. To avoid this for future generations it is important in my opinion to indicate that "Bofors 40 mm gun" can refer to either the 40/60 or the 40/70.
Cinderella157 Bofors rarely uses model/year in their product names, and when they do it is represented by an X, followed by a space, followed by a double-digit number for the year (X 62), not to mention iv'e only seen it for abbreviation names in Swedish: here are two example snippets from the Swedish archive. The most common model/year names found across the internet are either Swedish military designations, or un-formal names. And no, the L numbers are not model/year numbers. Some just happens to coincidentally have the same barrel length caliber numbers as the Swedish military m/ designation. Here are some snippets of the classic Bofors namich scheme from some Bofors publications i have. The first one is a 1936 publication in German, the second one is a 1958 publication in English. When it comes to the Bofors 57 mm m/54 anti-aircraft gun article, i intend to rename it eventually once i have gone over more historical names for it. The current name is a weird english hodge-podge translation of the Swedish military designation '57 mm luftvärnsautomatkanon m/54' (57 mm anti-air autocannon m/54). The Bofors designation for it differs, especially since there is a naval version of that gun as well, but at its absolute core its name is simply Bofors 57 mm Automatic Gun L/60, while the Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60 is the Bofors 57 mm Automatic Twin Gun L/60. However the 57/60 single gun is historically more known as the 57 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/60, so thats the name i would propose for it. I'm against using the Swedish service name as that gun was initially requested and purchased by the Belgians, and potentially also exported to Spain.
All in all, tons of renovation is needed for current Bofors articles. I have most information at hand but not enough time to update the articles quickly.--Blockhaj (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that post WWII usage of the 40mm Bofors L/70 is relatively small compared to WWII use of the L/60; and hence the majority of warship and land warfare articles were pointing to the correct article and now aren't. Which is why I put the redirect onto the L/60 (now reverted by you) The existing article discussion was in favour of splitting but there was no consensus there on final article names or any thought in how it would affect primary topic. I think this is BRD territory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Its better if we go through and correct armament for each article linking to Bofors 40 mm gun instead. It will take some time but its better than picking favorites of which gun is more deserving of the super generic confusing and problematic name of 40 mm Bofors gun. Blockhaj (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not generally how Wikipedia operates, however. If one subject is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that should have the primary location. The point is to provide readers with the article they're looking for, not make them jump through hoops to find the correct one. In other words, if 95% of the people who type in "Bofors 40 mm gun" are looking for the L/60, we should deliver that up front, not make them click through a dab page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a sweeping assumption that 95% of users will be looking for the L/60 - according to Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 1992–93, 51 countries used the L/70 gun in army or navy configurations in 1988, and that doesn't count users like the British Army which has stopped using the L/70 Bofors.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that The Bofors Gun describes the L/60 as "one of the most famous and widely used artillery pieces of all time". Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
So? That doesn't mean we should deliberately point to the wrong article, which is what we are doing if we force all the links where the original editor didn't know what gun was meant, or just put an link to the only article available at the time to point to the L/60 gun. We should help readers not mislead them.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Those articles already were pointing to the L/60 article before Blockhaj moved it. In any event, your point is entirely irrelevant to whether there's a primary topic here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Parsecboy That book is full of errors, even though that statement is correct. But the same can be said for the L/70.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel Ish for the good point. We cannot assume that the L/60 is more common than the L/70 without data to back it up. Remember that the 40/70 is still actively being used and sold by lots of nations today. Finland recently bought 40/70 Mk4 naval systems for example. The 40/70 is also seing a bit of interest as an ifv gun, being fitted to the Indian Abhay IFV, Korean K21 IFV and ofc the Swedish Strf 9040. Poland among some others has also shown interest in using the 40/70 as an ifv gun. With that said, a lot of links i can find about the Adhay and K21 just says 40 mm Bofors or similar for their armament, showing that the 40/70 also commonly goes under the generic name Bofors 40 mm. Here is an exaple: https://tanknutdave.com/the-indian-abhay-infantry-fighting-vehicle/ In general i doubt most people can even tell the 40/60 and 40/70 apart from eachother.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Also note that there are cases when it may not be clear which is the correct gun - for example the Army of North Macedonia is listed as using an unspeficed version of the Bofors gun - which presumably are ex-Yugoslav, with the Yugoslavs using both the L/60 and L/70 guns.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet another perfect example of why Bofors 40 mm gun should be a disambiguation page.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But you've made it a set index page and not a dab page and a dab page makes every link to it a dab needed! Lyndaship (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I am no Wikipedia veteran, could u explain the deal with dab pages?--Blockhaj (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I still dont understand what u want me to do.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Nearly every WWII RN, USN, RAN, RCN and RNZN warship article (both individual ship and class articles), a dozen WWII AFV articles, various WWII land unit articles and no doubt multiple biographies of Commonwealth and American WWII veterans would link to the L/60, whilst the L/70 saw relatively widespread service after the war it was not nearly as significant as the original. Cavalryman (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
There might be more articles referring to the L/60 on wikipedia, but that goes for anything WWII really. Historically however the L/70 has arguably been just as important for piece time as the L/60 has been for war time. The L/60 really faded away from stardom after the Korean War as the L/70 entered the market. It saw some resurgence during the Vietnam war but at that time it was more or less relegated to an anti-infantry role. The L/70 on the other hand was arguably the most common western intermediate anti-aircraft gun throughout the Cold War, especially for naval applications. The L/70 is also very notable in technology history, being the first 40 mm gun to fire proximity fuze ammunition, and probably the first 40 mm gun to fire programmable ammunition. There is tons of significance to the 40/70, its just coming from a different direction than the L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation issue with essentially two alternatives (noting that the L43 is a subsection of the L60). It is ultimately about how many hoops a reader needs to jump through to get where they want to be. With two targets we select one as the primary topic and use a hat direct to the other alternative. That is what we have done here in the past and what we should continue to do. The best indicator of primary topic is page views. I tried looking at that but the result seemed screwy, as both pages were only reporting hits for a small recent period. Has this moving stuffed up the data? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Pageviews won't be of much assistance because the L/70 article was recently split from the L/60 one. I agree, given there is only two articles there is no need for a DAB page and I remain convinced that the L/60 is the primary topic. Cavalryman (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC).
That explains things.Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont see the problem of having a two article DAB. I see it as a problem of picking sides for the generic name "Bofors 40 mm gun" which commonly is used for both guns.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A potential solution to the issue is for Bofors 40 mm gun to be written so as to be a parent article for both the L/60 and L/70. It would also become the effective repository for the L/43. It is interesting that the article is silent on the L/56. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Cinderella157: The L/43 might be unique enough to get its own article in the end. While its basically just an L/60 with shorter barrels and less hot cartridges, it does have its own distinct history and performance. As for the L/56 i can explain, the L/60 is in fact an L/56 in terms of barrel lenght (L/56.25 to be specific). The reason its called an L/60 is because Bofors at the time (and at times today because logic) also counted the breach to the overall barrel length, making it an L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I am already sufficiently aware of these things. Wouldn't that be a solution though? Your explanation of the L/60 - L/56 designations is incorrect though. 3.75 x 40 = 150 mm The breech (or perhaps chamber), if defined by the length of the cartridge case would be 311 mm for the 40 x 311mmR cartridge. I think you will find that the difference is the unrifled section of the barrel which I understand forms part of the chamber. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
So i checked specifics in my archive. L/60 is the overall length from muzzle to the end of the weapon box according to the Swedish army (end plane to end plane). With the flash hider it is an L/62 according to the Swedish navy. However that document also states that the flash hider is 250 mm long. Anyway, it all comes down to weird measurement systems and not different barrel lenghts.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It is just a case of having used different reference points for taking the measurement. The usual measurement is the rifled section of the barrel which is L/56.25. It is fairly clear that the additional L/3.75 (150 mm) is the forward part of the chamber which has the same nominal diameter as the rifled section of the barrel. If one or more sources erroneously suggest (use a poor or ambiguous description) that the full length of the chamber is 150 mm, then at the very least we should be circumspect in how we explain the difference. I would note that the "weapon box" is not a standard term that would certainly need clarification. As for the flash hider, that is likely a similar issue. The simple (and accurate) explanation is that L/56.25 measures the rifled section of barrel (as usual) and that L/60 uses different points of reference for the measurement. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"Weapon box" is just me being lazy instead of being formal. The correct term would either be reciever, breech casing or mantle depending on which nomenclature u wanna use. Bofors said mantle. Accoridng to this film the US said breech casing. But to the point, its important for the future to properly explain the reason the gun is called L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Concrete? proposals

I feel it is time to see what the feeling is for specific actions.

I'm using current article names. I'm not convinced either meets Wikipedia naming policy but the issue so far has been around WP:Primary Topic and Disambiguation not article naming. The submarine gun variant is not even a paragraph at moment and definitely not a contender for Primary topic

1) Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 moved to Bofors 40 mm gun as primary topic and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 is hat-noted

2) Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 moved to Bofors 40 mm gun as primary topic and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 is hat-noted

3) Bofors 40 mm gun is redirect to Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 is hat-noted

4) Bofors 40 mm gun is redirect to Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 is hat-noted

5) Bofors 40 mm gun is disambiguation for Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 - this forces a necessary update of article linking where a set index won't.

6) The current situation - a set index page.

What do people think as to which of these are acceptable or unacceptable or even missing the point? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A further option is to expand Bofors 40 mm gun into a real article with "main articles" for Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to see an overview type article as well, with the pages on the L/60 and L/70 going into more detail. They are different weapon systems, but there's enough in common to justify a common article covering them both more broadly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Im starting to like the idea of an overview type article as well. It could be a good way of explaining the Bofors action used in the majority of their automatic guns, which was invented and introduced with the 40/60. It consists of (in their own words) a QF-cannon and autoloader fitted into a common reciever. This action is commonly referred to as falling block but that name is already taken up and its neither a good name for the system overall.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The Bofors actually does use a falling breechblock, similar to the Ordnance QF 25-pounder. This can be clearly seen in this film MANUFACTURE OF THE BOFORS 40mm ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUN AT CHRYSLER BOFORS GUN TEAM 58844 at about the 16 min mark. How the movement is automated is quite a different matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes im aware that it uses a falling breech block but the system as a whole (autoloader and all) is commonly just called falling block in Sweden (fallande kil). This term is flawed and confusing if u are not aware of what its actually referring to as a whole. Here is an animation of the 40/60 action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnDwlqbAEmQ --Blockhaj (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Blockhaj, please see User:Cinderella157/sandbox, where I have started a draft for replacing Bofors 40 mm gun. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft article

I have produced a draft replacement for Bofors 40 mm gun at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 4.

Blockhaj has made some edits to the work in progress at User:Cinderella157/sandbox.

You will note the differences in the lead. I have written the lead with the intent that Bofors 40 mm gun also become the primary target for the L/43. Material would then be stripped from the L/60 article. It is also the initial target for the L/56 (which is actually a US designation for the L/60). I would disagree with the expansion of the lead. I would also disagree with the description of the gun mechanism, particularly: The core system is simply just an ordinary quick-firing gun (QF-gun) employing a vertical sliding breechblock. [italics added] I think there is a misunderstanding of what a QF gun is - in that it is just a gun that fires a cartridge. QF guns can have a variety of breechblock configurations and not just a (vertical) sliding breechblock. QF guns do not intrinsically perform an unload function, though some may.

I would initially ask for some comment on the lead issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If we strip the L/60 article of the L/43, were should its history and data go? I have lots of Swedish manuals with data for it which would be nice to have on Wikipedia.--Blockhaj (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I also think that the full L/60 article should be the primary article for the L/56, as its just a different name for the same gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Since i wrote the QF-gun part i should explain my wording. In most sources describing the action it is described as a QF-gun. The oldschool European definition of a QF-gun differs from the modern article on the subject. A QF-gun is basically just a single shoot breech gun that automatically closes the breech upon loading and ejects the cartridge after firing. Some historical variants had a mode were the gun would fire the cartridge upon closing of the breech as well, meaning the fire rate could be increased at the cost of accuracy. If a magazine was added to the action, like the 1-inch Nordenfelt gun, the gun became a machine gun on most nomenclatures (French, Swedish, etc). This was prior to the Maxim gun, which was called an "automatic machine gun" initially.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
QF definitions vary - eg Glossary_of_British_ordnance_terms#QF where it means the breech-sealing is by the metal case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
also "I have lots of Swedish manuals with data" sounds like a) WP:PRIMARY and veering into b) WP:NOT. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that you will find the the "common usage" of QF and the QF designation is simply that a gun fires a cartridge rather than a separate projectile and propellant bags. Guns that automatically unload are more often referred to as "rapid firing". Regardless, QF does not have the meaning that you intend. That is my point.
Any data for the L/43 can be added to this article in the appropriate section. The infobox will work. The L/43 is not a varient of the L/60, it is the predecessor.
You misunderstand what I have said about the L/56? At present, there is no easy way to search for the L/56. Actually, there is no way. My intent is that this article becomes a redirect for L/56. It gives readers some initial detail to inform them that it is just an American L/60. They can then go to the L/60 article. The L/60 article doesn't even mention the L/56. Bofors 40 mm therefore becomes the "initial" target. If you want to fix the L/60 article, then go ahead but in the interim, this isn't a bad fix (IMO). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have some ideas but il return once ive figured them out.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Belize Defence Force

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Belize Defence Force#image2 parameter on infobox. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Is this useful? The subcategories seem to be a whole hodge-podge of various connections, and I suspect that this is WP:NOTDEFINING anyway. For instance, looking through Category:United States Navy Missouri-related ships, we've got ships named after Missouri, ships named after places in Missouri, and ships named after people from Missouri. I really don't think that this would be defining at all for say USS Meyerkord, and I doubt that these are helpful or defining categories at all. I'm considering a bulk CFD, but thought I'd post here for thoughts beforehand. Hog Farm Talk 05:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Might be barking up the wrong wiki project. It's possible WP:SHIPS has had something significant to say about categorization to date. Don't get me started on Category:Ships of the US Navy (which clearly ought to be containerized and might better be moved to Vessels and craft of...). A cursory look, some ships so classified might be sorted subjectively or counted more than once: ex: does the USS Lincoln fall under KY, IN, IL, or DC cat? Why is USS Frank E. Evans listed as an Hawaii-related ship? Why is USS Glacier Alaska-related? To my eyes the parent category ("Ships of the United States Navy by namesake", which I think inevitable from ship-related perspective) ought to have a sub-category People/Person-related ships. It is possible this entire category tree needs some pruning and training. But SHIPS would want some say in any such discussion. Am I going to have to hand-move large quantities of units again? BusterD (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll cross-post this to WT:SHIPS. If any bulk changes need to be made, I can help with it. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
No takers there yet. So I did the obvious read of category creators and it turns out we can attribute this particular branch of the category tree to a User:71Demon who created and worked with many of these cats back in 2006 and 2007. I see there was CfD in November 2011 to rename some of this. It appears this is not a particularly well-attended issue. Almost everyone who participated in the CfD is still around, btw (several admins and a steward!). At least one admin in that discussion has largely the same response as Hog Farm. Let's gather some consensus and more this forward, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to do a mass-CFD after I get off of work. I suspect that may be the best way to get a final decision on these things - part of the concerns in the CFD seem to be that the container categories were nominated, rather than the categorization scheme itself. And from my (minimal) experience with CFD over the last year or two, WP:NOTDEFINING seems to be more strictly enforced than it was in the past. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a feeling there's some version of this categorization that makes sense, but the current system is confusing and unclear. For instance, we could have a cat for "ships named after U.S. States" and another for "ships named after U.S. cities". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping SHIPS was interested but it turns out not so much. IMHO, this is non-standard branch of the cat tree, proposed and supported by a single editor 15 years ago. The previous CfD clearly was unprepared to deal with the consequences of removing the container cats. This process should propose to completely resolve this confusion. Good eyes, Hog Farm. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
CFD here. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

mission analysis

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just randomly noted pl wiki has a decent article about this under pl:Analiza zadania, maybe someone feels like translating it? Could even by DYKable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Viktor Petrovich Taranovsky

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Can anyone help with sourcing for Viktor Petrovich Taranovsky? I can’t seem find anything that looks reliable to me. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only mention in English sources I can find is in this 1935 book which places him as a liaison officer with the French forces on the Macedonian front. If you search his name in Russian there are more results, such as this one which appears to be from a Moscow museum, that appear to confirm his notability as a Russian WWI general and after the war as a leading White émigré figure in France. Could use a Russian speaker to look at the Russian Google results and advise if any are RS - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If this is the same Taranovsky, it seems that he was involved with a Russian Legion force in Macedonia. Agree with Dumelow that there'll probably be much more available to Russian speakers. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right in having him as a divisional commander. I got an electronic copy of the book I linked and it makes it clear - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've expanded the draft with info from this source and the museum site, which looks to be reliable. Would welcome a check by a Russian speaker that Google Translate hasn't made some errors, though - Dumelow (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
An English-language source which might possibly mention him, or at least the actions of his regiment/division (don't have access to it, so can't confirm) would be the British OH of the Macedonian front (Military operations: Macedonia (Volume I: From the Outbreak of War to the Spring of 1917), Cyril Falls, 1933). I've scrolled rapidly through the Austro-Hungarian OH but see no mention of the Russians on the Macedonian front. Otherwise Russian sources would seem to be the go-to. Kersnovsky's multi-volume История русской армии (The History of the Russian Army) [cited, for ex., on Aleksei Brusilov.] seems (from a quick search) like a decent guess for where one could find this kind of information. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Kges1901. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Thriley: I've just got the British volume via inter-library loan, I'll take a look at it later today when I have more time and I'll see if there's any mention of Taranvskiy or his troops (unlikely, but it's the best I can find unless there's someone here who speaks Russian) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Thriley: No luck. Cpt. Falls and Maj. Becke (for the meager sum of 12 shillings 6 pence - alas, the book's long out of print so I'm afraid the reprints are nowadays a bit more expensive if it's not available from your library, darned inflation) give some cursory detail about the two Russian brigades in operation on the front, but the most detail they give is that of the brigade commander's names (Dietrichs commanding the first, Leontiev the second [p. 343]); and a summary order of battle, identifying the brigades as the 2nd and the 4th, "each of 6 battalions, but without artillery" [Appendix I, p. 364]. Russian Expeditionary Force in France doesn't give more detail nor sources. I'll look up the French OH (available online), but don't expect a miracle there either (although the French are for more wordy and one would expect complete in their volumes, so there is some faint hope I'll be able to find something). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Tome VIII/Vol. 1 gives that the Russian 2nd Brigade, which disembarked in the area starting in August, was formed of the 3rd and 4th I.R.s (3 bns each), totaling 9560 men. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Annexe no. 2392, "Dissolution de la division russe de l'A[rméé] [d']O[rient]" [Dissolution of the Russian division of the A.O.] mentions 'général Tarnowski'. I have also a quite complete OOB for the Russian division, pieced from that particular document and some others:
Russian division (at dissolution, January 1918)
  • 2nd I.B.
    3rd I.R. (3 bns)
    4th I.R. (3 bns)
    4th Infantry Brigade
    7th I.R. (3 bns)
    8th I.R. (3 bns)
    Divisional artillery (3 btys) and related support troops
    Engineer bn
    2nd march bn
    4th march bn
    Training bn
@Thriley: However, that's about the only mention of Taranovsky/Tarnowski I've found, no significant action done by him or the like (although there is quite a detailed account of all the preparations taken to prevent the Russians "fraternising with the Bulgarians" [by shooting artillery at the Bulgarians], and to prepare and effect their relief from the front - something which, due to necessity of maintaining some semblance of order, and then triaging the Russians according to their willingness to take part in further actions, apparently stretched the meager reserves of the French in the sector). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Listcruft problem at List of major arms industry corporations by country

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The previous discussion here about this page has not had any effect. Attempts to get the attention of the two major (and ongoing) contributors to the page, by pinging them on the article's Talk page, have also failed. Some active help is needed please, don't just comment here and do nothing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if you think it's just cruft, take it to AfD and see if you can get consensus for it to be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings I don't think the problem is the existence of the page, it's just the pair of currently very active contributors that are repeatedly adding the cruft that should not be there - such as government agencies and others that are not actually companies. Also the refusal/failure of the editors concerned to engage with others about the issues. I simply cannot go on constantly fixing their mess - a few more page watchers who would help out is what's needed at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

120-PM-43 mortar

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no clue what is the name of this mortar. I don't guess Soviet mortar would have English "Mortar" in the name. "120-PM-43" or "M1943"? Article is ofcoure under misleading title "120-PM-43 mortar" instead of "120-PM-43 (mortar))". Eurohunter (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Wesley Clark

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Wesley Clark 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) 16:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Algerian War

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Algerian War of Independence has not been featured on the main page 'On This Day' since 2014 due to the 'more citations needed' tags inserted in 2014. The page can be eligible again for WP:OTD, if the tags are resolved. --Mhhossein talk 03:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Jane's to The Wikipedia Library

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that User:The ed17 made a suggestion to add Jane's to The Wikipedia Library. There is a poll here if you would like to upvote ed17's comment, or maybe suggest your own proposed additions to the library.

As an aside, lately I have really found JSTOR's archive of Inside Defense (early 90s to present) to be extremely helpful. I've recently re-written articles like M8 Armored Gun System and M1128 Mobile Gun System using this resource. Schierbecker (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. I'd also recommend signing up to Taylor and Francis via the Wikipedia Library: this gives you access to The Military Balance and a large selection of journals which cover military history. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Section "Modernisation programme" should be moved to Albanian Armed Forces because this is a list and Albanian Armed Forces#Equipment is actually empty. Eurohunter (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What to do about Big Wing?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! Curious after falling into a blue-link rabbit-hole after reading Hugh Dowding's article linked by GraemeLeggett above, I found Big Wing's article. It's been flagged with OR and no citations since 2014, so I was wondering what should be done about the article. I'd propose to merge it Battle_of_Britain#RAF_strategy but wanted to get y'all's thoughts first. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Its a bit bizarre as this was a major strategy. I suspect it needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Additional citations not none. But it does need work. If you tried to fit the description of the Big Wing and the back-and-forth between the commanders and the post war analysis of it in the BoB article you'd then find you'd need to split it out again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

New article: Operation Ivory Soap

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just published this article about a Operation Ivory Soap, a classified operation to refit Liberty Ships as aircraft repair depots for the Pacific Theatre of Operations during World War II. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Peace?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Feel free to add your name to User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace and do some related editing if you are interested. Boud (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_165&oldid=1241395401"