I moved 353rd Special Operations Group from 353d Special Operations Group. The official 353 SOG website uses 353rd but two squadrons in the group use 353d. In the history of the group on the 353 SOG website, 353rd is used with no 353d. On the AFSOC website, 353 group 353d is used except for the title which is 353rd. On the AFHRA website, 353 group 353rd is used with no 353d.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
G'day, I think it would probably be best for you to post this at the article's talk page, so there is a rationale for your move there. If someone objects, they can continue the discussion there, but currently I don't see any objections to your move so there probably isn't a need for a central discussion here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert:My USAF knowledge was zero being Australian so I had to do some reading. Numerical designations - ordinal numbers - have been discussed before for US Army and USAF. Back in 2014, many USAF units the Fighter Wings were moved to 2nd and 3rd on a discussion on Talk:132nd Fighter Wing. The Manual of Style/Military history does not mention ordinal numbers. There has been several discussions over the years - earlier in 2006-7 U.S. Army "2d" & "3d" or "2nd" & "3rd"?, on here in 2007 Page move for 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery? , in 2011 d to nd designation moves and in 2014 mentioning 132nd Fighter Wing Talk Unit naming conventions: ordinal number abbreviations. The U.S. Army Centre of Military History Style Guide 2014 - Express in Figures - 5.12 "When using ordinal numbers, omit the letters n and r." on page 5-2. The USAF Air University Style and Author Guide April 2005 4.3 Numbers page 113 rule for ordinal numbers "Either use d for both second and third or use nd and rd for second and third. Choose one style, and use it consistently." with options pg 118 42d [or 42nd] Civil Engineer Squadron 22d [or 22nd] Fighter Wing. These were the only two guides I could find.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Organizational actions (including naming) for USAF units follow a certain pattern. First, the Organization and Manpower office (currently DAF/A1M), using its Department of the Air Force (not USAF) authority issues a numbered memo (formerly letter) to the commander of the major command to which a unit will be assigned. This letter includes the official designation of the unit. Procedures for this are contained in AFI 38-101. Figure 5.1 in this instruction, "Unit Designation Examples", includes the "2d Bomb Wing". The memos (and earlier letters) issued by the Manpower office pretty consistently use "2d" and "3d" in designating units below numbered air force level. Other sources may use "2nd" or "3rd" or, as in AFHRA Factsheets, just "2" or "3", but they should not be relied on as authoritative, since they may differ not only from the official source, but from one another. Because WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME states that an article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be . . . the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit . . . belongs. Unless there is a reason to violate that rule, 2d or 3d should be used for USAF units (as it is in the vast majority of USAF unit articles). --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion in Talk:132nd Fighter Wing back in 2014 went with commonly recognised name for titles. As the USAF did not consistently use ordinal numbers even though ordinal is the official AFI 38-101 numerical designation. It is confusing when you go to a wing's official website and they use 2nd or 3rd and also on their Facebook page. The 2d Bomb Wing the title of their official webpage is 2nd but 2d is used in the article, DVIDS uses 2nd and their Facebook uses both 2nd and 2d. The latest USAF Air University Style and Author Guide Second Edition April 2015, is the same as previous edition, "Either use d for both second and third or use nd and rd for second and third" and "Choose one style, and use it consistently", and a new addition is that "If you abbreviate the names of military units, use cardinal rather than ordinal numbers with the abbreviations: 56th Airlift Squadron / 56 AS; 182nd Fighter Squadron / 182 FS; 163rd Air Refueling Group / 163 ARG; 97th Air Mobility Wing / 97 AMW". --Melbguy05 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Heads up, guys!!
That's a BAE Systems Tempest that just took down that next-generation threat!! The UK Govt is going to try and learn from the Tornado IDS and ADV programmes (and Eurofighter) and build a new next-gen manned fighter. Not confident that this will actually ever see service, however.. Buckshot06(talk)05:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. Of all the British nuclear tests in the United States, it is the only one with its own article. (It's also the only one in Operation Julin, but isn't listed there.) Its only claim to fame above the other tests is that it was the last one. What it says is nothing more than what the table in the main article says. The first paragraph is correct but unreferenced and misleading; the CTBT was not the reason testing ended. The second paragraph is referenced but speculative. While I intend to greatly expand the main article in September, Julin Bristol seems destined to forever remain a stub. I'm not sure this is good enough reason to delete it. Opinions sought. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably a merge discussion would be the correct procedure. I disagree this is forever destined to be a stub - one could probably write volumes on each and every nuclear test (assuming enough unclassified material exists - however such material leaks or gets unclassified eventually) - however the stub status might be a good reason to merge and redirect - something that could perhaps even be done BOLDly.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, my A-Class review for Marcian (review link here currently has 2 supports and a source review; if someone would be willing to be the last reviewer (although as many as are willing to review would be appreciated) or perform the image review, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you! IazygesConsermonorOpus meum19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I noted continuing disruption to military-related articles going back several months at least, by IPv6 addresses beginning with "2A02.C7D.". The edits are always WP:OR changes to budgets, costs, nomenclature and sometimes include comments about political scheming in the article. I revert when I see it, though sometimes multiple reverts are needed, and have sought page protection where the edits are ongoing, but perhaps a range-block is called for? I admittedly don't know much about seeking these kinds of blocks, so any admins or experienced editors here that can help? Or any other ideas? Thanks - wolf22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid that cesspit. I figured there are enough admins and experienced editors that frequent here, that perhaps one of them could help address this problem (that only seems to affect milhist articles btw). - wolf15:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose if none of the admins that frequent this page speak up, then in the few days I'll try something else, like AIV. Thanks - wolf14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Kornet assessment
Dropped a question on whether the Kornet articles should be merged or not on the assessment page. Need someone's opinion. Ominae (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a belated response, but I think that the article on the upgraded Kornet is probably better as a detailed few sentences in the variants section of the main Kornet article. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I have one book on the subject. I guess I could go with Dyer Compendiums as well, so that's 2 sources. I only know of one other book that has some information on the 5th Illinois. Adamdaley (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If Adamdaley is talking about Kohl, Rhonda M. (2013). The Prairie Boys go to War: The Fifth Illinois Cavalry 1861–1865. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN978-0-8093-3203-8., which was added to the bibliography on his draft, this seems like a perfectly reliable source to use, and probably superior in detail to Dyer as it is an entire book on the subject, compared to Dyer's long paragraph. Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the 5th Regiment, Illinois Cavalry in the Adjutant Generals' files for Illinois. I cannot find it anywhere. I've downloaded all the files. Adamdaley (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I see on Amazon, that quite a few history books have been created with "Createspace Independent". Does this mean that it's a publishing not independent from actual sources? I mean is CreateSpace a self-publishing source and would that hold up with Wikipedia? Adamdaley (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day Adam. It appears to be a self-publishing outfit, so WP:SELFPUBLISH applies, and they are largely not going to be acceptable as reliable sources. Can only be reliable if the author is an established expert in the relevant field who has previously been published in a reliable third party publication. So probably best to steer clear. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a feeling that it was a self publishing source. Since many Regiments of the American Civil War, have books and it states "CreateSpace Independent". Wanted to make sure if they were self-publishing or what like the other sources I had. I'll stay clear from those books. Adamdaley (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that museums named for a ship are not to be italicized because museums are not 'Named, specific vessels'; see MOS:ITALIC. I tried to ask a variant of this same question with regard to stone frigates which are shore facilities named, in some cases, for actual ships. That conversation went nowhere.
Agree with Trappist. On stone frigates because they are commissioned ships (in the RN at least) I think they should be italicised regardless of if they ever had a floating ship there Lyndaship (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess we can take from this that any ship museum bearing the ship's name, should have the name in italics, and to fix any articles that aren't as such. - theWOLFchild09:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Scuttling is the term used for sinking a ship. Breaking a ship is a term used for taking it to pieces at the breaking yards. They are not compatible.Tirronan (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Success was scuttled, so I have removed it from the category. Swordsman was apparently sold to a scrapper who removed the engines then scuttled the hull. I left the text there as-is. It's possible for a ship to be sold for breaking, but then be scuttled instead, and that may be what happened. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been going through all the ships in the category and template. Success,Swordsman,Tattoo and Tasmania were all sold to the same scrapper on the same day. I've checked my books to see if any of them say partially scrapped and then scuttled (this was the usual procedure in Australia previously) but none do. I therefore agree with kendall-K1, leave Swordsman and remove the rest Lyndaship (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
While the myth of the ‘clean Wehrmacht’ has long been debunked in academic circles, one of the problems in changing the popular perception has been online representations, such as Wikipedia. Here many (but by no means all) contributors to pages about the Wehrmacht tend to divergent from prevailing trends in current (especially German) historiography. There is also sometimes a clear lack of historical training in evaluating sources and understanding the need for contextualization. The article seeks to show why students must always evaluate the process behind the generation of information and engage critically with what they read on Wikipedia (or preferably avoid it in favor of peer-reviewed literature).
He seems to have two major points: Outright Misinformation (by bad sources or even manipulation of the Wikipedia) and the use of sources which include "no critical context of Nazi activities". Leaving the question: Can the latter be used to some extend and maybe later mixed with sources who do present that context - or should they just be banned? Alexpl (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The latter would make it impossible to have articles on many subjects, as not every notable subject will have recent detailed sources which provide critical context on Nazi activities. In addition, as recent sources which specialise in Nazi activities may not be a good source for other aspects that are needed (i.e. the nuts and bolts combat history and military career history) we may just be exchanging one sort of bias for another. We will also not be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Mmm looking at it it seems to be one man pushing an agenda and POV that is not reflected bu Wikipedia. I am not overall impressed with the assertion (in effect) that when it cokes to Germans in WW2 we should ignore polices like no OR. Nor do I see A problem with not having in every damn article about the German military in WW2 saying "BUT THEY WERE EVIL!".Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for bringing this into discussion. IMO, the aforementioned article on Journal of Slavic Military Studies has some strong points to show. Ok, the attitude of its author is characteristic of the academic caution wrt WP but he is not overall dismissive, I think. His strongest point is the use of uncritically published primary Nazi sources (e.g. memoirs) and and I think he is right, we should not use these sources:
There are two major sources fuelling the myth of the Wehrmacht in the Anglo-American world. The first is the persistent presence of the German generals’ memoirs, which is not to say they are not potentially useful sources, but they absolutely cannot be accepted at face value because, as one reviewer noted, ‘half-truths, lies, omissions, and distortions coexist alongside truth’. Exploring the Wehrmacht exclusively through these sources will remain a problem until new editions are produced with rigorous annotations to the text or, at the very least, introductory essays are added that make readers much more aware of the kind of problems they contain
Another strong point is that a self-published work does not become automatically suitable for use in WP just because it was reprinted by a a more reputable publisher.--Dipa1965 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You would vote for banning a memoir until it has been re-published, for example, with an introductory essay? Wouldnt that new source result in many cases in exactly the same contribution to an article? Alexpl (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I am reminded of one of those TV trials of Richard the third were a point hinged on a "more up to date version" (as one of the lawyers put it) of Shakespeare's Richard III.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Alexpl, if it was me I would ban that memoir until it is published as an annotated version. The introductory essay would be fine for a well-educated user who reads for himself. He is free to judge and filter out the content but we cannot do the same here, we cannot make selective use of our sources.--Dipa1965 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Some Nazi biographical articles have been edited by people sympathetic to the Nazis and have glossed over or elided facts regarding their subject's actions or beliefs in support of the Nazis and their belief system. Which violates NPOV and needs to be fixed. One thing that the sympathizers tend to do is to rely heavily on their memoirs which are full of lies, half-truths, and omissions. Doesn't mean that they can't be used in accordance with WP:BIAS (which is one of the fundamental issues of the Arbcom case that Arbcom couldn't resolve because it's fundamentally a content dispute), but that they should be pretty much limited to strictly factual information, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I sounds to me like this is an opinion of somebody who really doesn't understand how WP works. Is there anybody here who'd let an edit with even a smell of POV stand? I doubt it. Are there Project editors who'd know if a source is dubious or POV? IMO, most of us do (depending on subject). Is "whitewashing" Heer a potential problem? Yes, by the "average" (non-specialist) editor; IMO, there are enough specialists to keep "POV creep" (so to speak) at bay. (Which isn't to say we can't use more editors with specialist knowledge.) Tempest in a teapot, anyone? The Red Queenbring me the head of Diego Garcia20:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
But that's just it, POV-pushing stuff had crept in and remained. Most of the problems were with biographies and I don't think that most of our most knowledgeable editors do much with German WWII-era biographies so nobody really noticed until a year or two ago when k.e. coffman started to track that and get rid of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
David Stahel states that: "What these editors fail to appreciate is that in the military history market some books are produced to cater purposefully for the niche world of Wehrmacht apologists and enthusiasts." - it may be very hard to determine, just by reading such a source, if it is "made up". So if a book is the only source for an information and the author and/or the publisher have a questionable reputation, it may be better to ignore it. Alexpl (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at some of the instances cited by Stahel, the ARBCOM case is not only pertinent, but related. The first item Stahel mentions by LargelyRecyclable is one of the items cited by K.e.coffman (namely, the editing and sourcing of the Hoepner article). And as noted by the ARBCOM case, the general locus of the issue regards the use (and alleged misuse) of sources, and related to that, a more general issue of which sources are trusted and why. The conclusion that Stahel draws, it seems to me, is the same as the conclusion drawn by a great many editors here; that we would benefit greatly from a more critical appraisal of our sources (as can by illustrated by, e.g. the overwhelming support for the proposal to add more thorough source reviews to A-class review requirements). I think what is liable to be missed in this is that one of the things that Stahel points out is that the distinction between deliberate choice of distorted sources and inadvertently misplaced trust in the same sources can in certain cases fall away to end with similar results (that is, introduction of distorted material, whether deliberately or not). This in itself is something that can only be remedied by better understanding of the sources (which, of course, an internationally-recognised expert is more likely to have than amateur enthusiasts, which many of us are, myself included).
To this end, I am coming to believe that the simple distinction between RS and non-RS does not suffice in representing the spectrum of reliability; namely, the degree to which WP:QS can pass as acceptable to those unfamiliar with academic consenses on both the topics involved and the reputability of publishers that cover them. That said, even without an understanding of these consenses, we should be able to see that the memoirs Stahel mentions can be avoided simply by virtue of them being primary sources (which WP:PSTS cautions us against using for the very reason that Stahel cautions us as well: primary sources are inherently biased towards the views of the original author, and even when fact-checked or peer-reviewed, do not stand up in the same way as secondary sources do). This strikes me as a simpler remedy that would more quickly rule out sources that would also not have stood up to deeper scrutiny regarding the publisher and their editorial practices. That is not to say that such a scrutiny is not also warranted; we also need to develop a more nuanced understanding of publishers' practices (which is admittedly difficult without the involvement of academia), but that is a longer-term and more involved project for us to take up together.
In the short term, if we place the burden more on those introducing primary-sourced material rather than on those removing such material, we would be able to certainly improve on the shortcomings in sourcing and content highlighted by these events and the excellent work by K.e.coffman, and in so doing, avoid controversies as have been highlighted by Stahel and ARBCOM. Call it "RSS", for want of a better term. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sasuke Sarutobi, I agree that these memoirs are primary sources. For anything arguably contentious, history articles should only use primary sources the way the scholarly literature has used them. SarahSV(talk)22:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I notice that this article is now discussed in Stahel's article, referenced to the article itself - which is of course written by Stahel - shouldn't we be waiting for secondary sources before adding it to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the proposition to ignore a source (&, by extension, a subject) for want of clear lack of bias. If a biased source is all there is, isn't it better to write it up & tag it with a "reader's health warning", rather than ignore it? A page, even a biased one, may attract editing with less-biased sourcing that may be obscure, but available--& even if not, IMO, more knowledge is better. It's not a great example, perhaps, but (as much as I despise it) the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory page offers a place to raise the issues associated; better that, IMO, than nowhere. As for removing first-party sources, AIUI, that's already okay; a stronger protection for doing so (or a stronger "admonition" to do so), if needed, would suit me fine. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura22:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Stahel says there are "many contributors" to pages about the Wehrmacht who diverge from prevailing trends in WWII historiography. He produces no evidence for this sweeping assertion, and there was (with perhaps one exception) none produced during the ArbCom case either. The evidence he quotes in the article, in nearly all cases is from editors who do not regularly edit articles about Nazi Germany, and who are in fact discussing sourcing on talk and review pages, and few if any of them are diverging from current trends in WWII historiography with what they have written. In at least one case, an editor who was trying to work collegiately and in good faith towards consensus has had their comments cherry-picked out of context by Stahel and have been highlighted unfairly. As others have noted, a handful of (mostly IP) editors probably subscribe to the "clean Wehrmacht" myth and actively seek to remove political/social/ethical aspects such as Nazi beliefs and war crimes from articles.
In my view, what has actually occurred with almost all of these articles is a focus on the purely military aspects of a person (they are almost all biographies), without including material on political/social/ethical aspects of the person's activities. This involves a number of biases revolving around two main factors: the interests of those editing, and the fact that many sources on these figures also focus on the purely military aspects and don't place their subject in their proper political/social/ethical context. In the ArbCom case I used my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History as an example of the latter. It has no entry for the Commissar Order and the biographical sketches of most of not all of the German WWII figures in it do not mention it either. The entry on Erich von Manstein doesn't mention his role in the cultivation of the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". Nevertheless, despite the limitations of many reliable military history sources, Stahel is right about the need to critically evaluate sources and we must also be careful about what a given source is being used to cite. Mundane matters do not require exceptional sources, but claims of someone being "anti-Nazi" or denials of alleged war crimes do. Questionable and biased sources need to be used carefully and attributed when they are ok to use. It is also incumbent on all members of the project to ensure that all articles they edit or review include material about all aspects of a given person (or unit) that are available in reliable sources, not just the purely military aspects. We need to do that at each assessment level, and we have recently instituted a quality and reliability source review at the A-Class review point to help ensure that happens. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Not an error per se, but there should be no leading space before inline references. I corrected that with FN 141 there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (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.
As most people on here I've taken it upon myself to get the American Civil War Units for the Union (for now) names' right. I've started with the state of Alabama (last night) and now Arkansas (today) and I notice most have been changed already but not due to the National Park Service. What am I suppose to do when people take it upon themselves to change and make it more difficult for me? No, I'm not an administrator that can undo some of these redirects which adds to my frustration. Clearly, nobody knows what other people are doing since this was brought up in recent weeks as in the last 2 weeks. Can anybody have a solution to this mayhem and confusion? Adamdaley (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day Adam, I appreciate it can be frustrating, but I fear that given the changeable ACW unit naming methodology, not all regiments will fit into a tidy article title scheme. We need to use the common name for each individual unit in reliable sources, and this may be different in each case, depending on what the sources use. We can't just pick one source and then use the titling from that one despite other reliable sources using different titles. We need to do a survey of what the various reliable sources use for each unit, then choose the one that is most common. I would suggest doing one article at a time, listing the various names used and their sources on the article talk page, then determining which is the most common. And only then moving the articles. When you get to that stage, I'd be happy to help with any moves you can't do yourself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I have been using the National Park Service for Alabama and Arkansas I have changed a couple, but that's as far as I got before posting here. If I can't move them, then what's the point? I just need everyone to work with me and let me change them because people just do one or two, not an entire Union Army/Navy etc. Doing a whole fighting force like American Civil War, I just can't see someone else other than me to do it. Adamdaley (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But the NPS version may not be the common name in reliable sources, so we wouldn't just go with what they say. We need to look at a wide sample of sources and see what title is most common. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I find the U.S. Archives to confusing and I barely manage to understand and to find any Units for the Union a complexed task with NPS. Adamdaley (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I had an idea; why don't we nominate someone and they can do all the Units for the Union to start with. Saves me having to do it. Adamdaley (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I haven't had "second thoughts". You appear to have no intention of following the advice I gave about researching the common names, so I advised you to use the usual RM procedure. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've explained why I don't go with the U.S. Archives. I couldn't find jack in it when I type in the search and is very complex to me. How else can I make that clear? As for the National Park Service, is the only other source besides the Dyer Compendiums, that I have. Obviously, there are several people who think otherwise and rather want other people to do it and not team up to construct a table. There are redirects that complicate it even more when nobody is wanting to put in the effort. Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought no one would. Some people are great at giving advice but when it comes to practical things as complicated as what I've been trying to suggest, sh*t hits the fan in their computer and yeah. Enough said. Adamdaley (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You'd think the American's on here would want to work on the American Civil War when it's in bad shape as it is, would want to help a "lone" Aussie and such a BIG part of WP:MILHIST. Maybe, we all should do something that we don't normally "like" doing. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Just gives me the sh*ts when nobody gives a sh*t and show that so much can be done with only a little help for example with what I've said. Who has a better idea about naming the individual Units? That's what gets me nobody is willing to show me proof it should be this or that way, but they are hell of a good person to give advice. Screw advice and show me results then implement the changes. Adamdaley (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Adamdaley, the NPS entries on Union units are taken directly from Dyer's Compendium, and necessarily use the same style. I believe that we have already established what the typical secondary source order is for these units. Kges1901 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh who cares? No one has shown me any different variations. What does that tell you? That nobody is willing to do jackshit about it. I literally mean it this time. Adamdaley (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've had it with your rage outbursts. First it was about not getting nominated for some imaginary barnstar and now you want everyone drops whatever they were doing to focus on some obscure American Civil War units. Grow up, this is a volunteer based project.--Catlemur (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Funny enough, I had a little help with the American Civil War table on my subpage and I actually didn't mind the help. It was the nicest thing that anyone reading this now has done. Why? Shows me they were willing to help and I appreciate that. Adamdaley (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
What's with all the unwarranted hostility, @Adamdaley? No-one's going to be willing to work with you on any project if that's the attitude they come to expect. Besides, I thought @Kges1901 was creating a table of Union regiments at User:Kges1901/Union regiments based on the table I originally created years ago, aren't you collaborating with him? At the time that I finished making that table it was a fairly complete list of Union regiments with articles on Wikipedia. I gather a lot more have been added since. However, nobody appeared to be interested in maintaining the huge array of articles after a while, including yourself, and so I also grew disinterested. Needless to say, you should consider WP:DEADLINE here. I mean, what's your rush? Yes, it's nice to get a "mini" project finished, but you won't get far if you try to run the project like a drill sergeant. Further, Dyer's Compendium was a contemporary work produced during and straight after the ACW. He used actual War Office records and official documents to compile the Compendium, units and numbers, and interviews with veterans to confirm all their engagements. Read Frederick H. Dyer#Dyer's Compendium, which I know is accurate – I wrote it – it identifies his sources. Therefore the majority, if not all, of the regiments in the Compendium are named as they were named during the war. I'm not sure how you can hope to "standardise" the entire list of articles without presenting some of the regiments inaccurately just to make them "fit" into a nice uniform arrangement. IMO that would be revisionism. I do not entirely agree that WP:COMMONNAME applies, as @Peacemaker67 suggested, as I do not believe the vast majority of ACW regiments will have a "common name", rather an official designation. You should be using WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME and utilising Dyer's Compendium as the primary source for determining the official names of the Union regiments. Please take a moment to cool off, you're taking the lack of interest way too personally and risk alienating with all these angry rants. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of regiment articles involved, and few people are willing to take on a task that big and focus on it and nothing else. What you require is a drive, and while drives are sometimes useful, they can be very boring in their nature because they are more about clean-up and conformity, rather than being creative. It might work for someone who is habitually OCD, but not everyone has that mindset, nor the time and patience required. The solution to this "mayhem and confusion" is to work through the articles at your own pace, fix those you can, list those that require admin attention in a sub-page and ask some admins to work through it and perform any redirects in bulk, say on a per state basis. Take it easy! — Marcus(talk)16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
After having a break today, nobody can show me the actual Unit names? As for @MarcusBritish:, yes I do have OCD. As I said, people here are great at giving advice they have failed to give proof stating otherwise. Adamdaley (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2018 (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.
U.S. Navy numbered fleet articles
I've noted inconsistencies in the articles related to the first twelve numbered fleet articles here. It seems that the 6th fleet structure makes sense:
United States Sixth Fleet starts with the hatnote "Sixth Fleet" redirects here. For other uses, see Sixth Fleet (disambiguation), and the article on the subject follows.
I think US Sixth Fleet should stay the primary topic, because having existed since 1950 and being the primary force in the Mediterranean of one of the world's largest navies, it is mostly likely to be searched for than the Japanese fleet (which only existed during WWII) and Luftflotte 6 which is more likely to be searched for as Air Fleet 6. Normally I would not support US predominance but 6th Fleet is the exception where even searching 6th Fleet in Russian in Google brings up the US 6th Fleet. [2] Soviet sources mention only the creation of the 4th and 8th Fleets in the Baltic and the 5th and 7th Fleets in the Pacific. This implies that those were the only such reorganizations.Kges1901 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The way I understand policy, it is OK for redirects to point directly to the article when it is the most common usage of a name. The article then transcludes {{Redirect}} to provide a note and link back to the dab page (e.g. GPS redirects to Global Positioning System, which transcludes {{Redirect}} to produce:
It seems to me that, at least on enwiki, the most commmon usage of most of these (with some exceptions♯) refers to the US fleets, no? When Fourth Fleet (Soviet Union) gets created, it gets added to Fourth Fleet (disambiguation) – I think people typing "Fourth Fleet" into enwiki will mostly be looking for United States Fourth Fleet.
♯a.First Fleet (18th century UK) and United States First Fleet (20th century) are two different things, each with its own article. It seems that the current structure of this one is correct, except a dab page needs to be created at First Fleet (disambiguation) and 1st fleet should redirect to it, the lower-case "fleet" being a description instead of a proper noun (name) and therefore more ambiguous. The same reasoning could apply to make the other [[nthfleet]] pages redirect to the dab pages instead of the [[United States ordinal Fleet]] pages. b.9th Fleet currently redirects to 9th Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy). It should probably instead point to a dab page listing the IJN article as well as Structure of the United States Navy § Numbered fleets, which has a short description of the U.S. fleet. c.United States Eleventh Fleet currently has no article, but should redirect similarly to Structure of the United States Navy § Numbered fleets, which has a description. Other variants should also redirect there.
I propose to juggle the 7th fleet around first, since it's probably the most visible, and see if there are any issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]—10:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, I'm wondering if it would be better to have a set index article at the primary name (e.g. Sixth Fleet), with generic redirects pointing towards that. It may be worth gauging some opinions from WikiProject Ships as well, given not only the overlap, but also that I get the impression that they are exemplars for use of set index articles.
With regards to the common name of the article; it may be that the US version is the most searched, but I'd personally take guidance from WP:BIAS to have the set index article/disambiguation page at the generic name. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The current dab pages appear to be what you're after. I think it's reasonable to redirect the "U.S.*" and "United States*" to the "United States ordinal Fleet" articles. It also seems reasonable to redirect the other variants there as well, believing they are the most likely intended target when someone types in just e.g. "7th fleet". However, I'm only following the status quo in this regard – the U.S. articles were being redirected to already. —[AlanM1(talk)]—07:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Fold3 can be a big help
I suspect many members of Milhist may have access to the U.S. military documents and other records available through the Wikipedia Library's partnership with Fold3, but if you don't and are researching American history, you might want to consider signing up for Fold3 (eligibility requirements include having 500+ edits, an account that's 6+ months old, etc.). I've had some great research discoveries over the past several weeks, including finding a carte de visite image of a Medal of Honor winner (taken when he was in uniform). It was tucked away in a grouping of letters written after the Civil War. (I might have missed it if I hadn't found that record grouping from the U.S. National Archives by using the browse function on Fold3, rather than the search tool.) I got about 3 pages in, as I was clicking through each page of that particular group, and there he was, staring back at me. So, in addition to giving my fellow Milhist members a heads up about a resource they may not be famiiar with, I just wanted to extend my thanks to @Iazyges: for helping me to obtain access to Fold3. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, this article about a US air ace of WWII and Korea is in need of an additional reviewer. Please take a look and make suggestions for improvements against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Category for discussion nomination of military history by year
I've been "tweaking" the those unassessed military history articles. I'm sure, if we could get others involved to assess 1-per-day, it'll be down to zero in no time. Adamdaley (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
United Kingdom, a belligerent in the Spanish American wars of independence?
Hello
I have come to tell you that there has recently been a problem with another editor on the validation of the belligerency of the United Kingdom in the article on the Spanish American wars of independence, as an "ally" that gave "military support" to independent governments.
That editor insists on adding the United Kingdom in the infobox as a belligerent, arguing mainly the following reasons:
1.- That during the war there were British soldiers in the patriots armies.
2.- That the British sold arms to independent governments.
While these two arguments are true, they are incomplete truths. I will explain why they are incomplete and why I believe that the United Kingdom should not appear in the infobox.
First of all we must take into account a fundamental situation, the United Kingdom declared itself neutral with respect to this war, it is an objective fact. The British State did not support any of the parties to the conflict.
As for the presence of British soldiers, although it is true, that editor ignores or gives little importance to the fact that these men were mercenaries. That is, they were recruited through individual contracts to serve under the authority of independent governments and in their respective military forces. They were not soldiers fighting for their country, because, as indicated, the United Kingdom was alien to the war. In addition, the motivations of these individuals were generally of an economic nature, since by the end of the Napoleonic wars, many soldiers were unemployed and with financial uncertainty. I must add that this situation occurred not only with the British, but also with the French, the Prussians and other European military men who served as mercenaries in the patriots armies, for the same reasons.
As for the sale of British arms to independents, although it is also true, the editor ignores that this sale of arms (or rather arms trafficking) was done by British merchants, and not because they were aligned with them, but by business. In addition, military items were also sold to the royalists. The British merchants were not supporters of anyone in the war, only took advantage of the situation to sell arms and get rich.
These are the reasons why I do not consider that the United Kingdom should be included as a belligerent, being eliminated from the infobox. Nor do I believe that mercenaries should be in the infobox as separate entities, since they were not, they were subordinated to independent governments and should be understood as included.
Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, please make your argument on the article talk page, not here. All you should have here is a brief neutral notice that the discussion is taking place. Also note that you are conducting an edit war, which is strictly prohibited. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I should have checked this editor's talk page. He has been warned multiple times about edit warring, and is currently blocked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The appropriate course of action would be to engage in dispute resolution, as the edit history of the page indicates you do not have consensus for the deletion. I suggest a neutrally-worded RfC would be a good place to start. Continuing to edit war will result in escalating blocks. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Muwatallis I think that you have the particular purpose of eliminating all traces of British participation, especially in the independence of Chile, where your country, you can not accept that Lord Cochrane and his sailors were British and not Chilean. The american and British sailors won the key actions at sea in the Pacific. On ground scenarios, Bolivar call the British as "Saviours of my Country". The Britons won the key actions in the battles of Carabobo or Boyaca. But you erasing where there is British participation.
What means "neutrality" in the international relations in early 1800s?. That UK declared itself "neutral" do not mean that not support the insurgency (as you mistakenly say). Or means that UK support Spanish empire? Sorry???. The postnapoleonic dispute over colonialism, and the international balance of colonial powers, can not be ignored. UK send tons of suplies, ships and thousands of soldiers for insurgency (of unrecognized states). Not true as individual contracts. Not true as mercenaries only. They goes as military formations, as Legions, with own flags, national identity and british commanders in chief. For adventuring, politics and payment.
For the contrary The UK forbids that its military aid to Spain against Napoleon, is sent to America. Without of the anecdotes, I ask you for, tell us how many tons you talk, which British ships was bought by Spain, or which British expeditions fought on the Royal side. The "Comisión de Reemplazos" of Spain, who are the ones who pay the bill, do not say nothing about.
Another key point is the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 (see Foreign Enlistment Act 1870), this shows that the United Kingdom can suppress the military support, if desired. Belligerent is not only who fight for own country or declares war. Muwatallis you have eliminated the British Legions from the infoboxes without consensus.
G'day all, this interesting article about the part-time volunteer organisation of the British Army between 1908 and 1921 could do with a couple more reviewers. Feel free to take a look and assess it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre assessment
Hi, this article has long been rated Start class, which does not seem add up in any respect. The sources are all right per reliable sources, except for one, which has my full credit all the same, but fair enough if it is not accepted by EN WP standards. Still it qualifies at least as a C by ORES, so please review it again. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Assessed. Good work there. B1=no because there are plenty of unreferenced paragraphs. You can always assess an article yourself if you haven't edited it significantly yourself. If you have, post it at assessment requests and someone will be happy to look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
If the organisation doesn't have a clear military link, as seems to be the case with the Oath Keepers judging from a quick read of the article, they're probably out of scope IMO. I agree that it's marginal though. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Haven't got time to add them to the article at the moment but his service history from the London Gazette as follows (I have omitted the events already mentioned in the article):
The information from the obit in the Gentleman's Magazine, Or Monthly Intelligencer is already in the article, it was digitized on Google Books. Kges1901 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk MM-1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the Patriots (Ethiopia) article some time ago about the Ethiopian resistance movement that was active in Italian East Africa but was revisiting it recently. I'm considering renaming it either "Patriot movement" or using the Amharic term, Arbegnoch. Suggestions? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
While I've never supported the use of Ethiopian (Amharic?) before, it seems to me that the use of the English word "Patriots" introduces unneeded WP:POV problems, even if it meets the standards of WP:COMMONNAME. I'd prefer the use of Arbegnoch with a translation to English in the lead. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Christianity and Shamanism
I have two requests here:
1. Improve the article "History of Christianity" (like History of Islam)
2. Make an article on "History of Shamanism" (Shamanism was the official religion of the Mongol empire).
I've noticed the term "military practitioner" starting to appear quite often, particularly as the self-identified profession of South African soldiers (as seen on Linkedin, Facebook, blogs, etc). This may of course be a perception biased by my own location (Google is funny that way) or, as I suspect, it may be a quite recent coinage that has for some reason become fairly popular among members of the SANDF. Is the term in more widespread use or not? How new/old is it? Does its meaning significantly differ from the far more common "soldier"? Do you think a military practitioner article might be viable or is it doomed to be a mere WP:DICDEF only suitable for a line or two in Wiktionary? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 49 and SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 51? I've received the only book, that I'm aware of and the publishing was done by Merriam Press #SR3-P. This book got their information from Die SS-Panzergrenadier-Brigade 49 Parts 1-12 by Wolfgang Vopersal in Der Freiwillige, Deceber 1971-February 1973. and Die Sturmflut und das Ende by Hanz Stoeber and Die Eiserne Faust by Hans Stoeber. Adamdaley (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know much about Merriam Press, but this is all they say about themselves. Who is the author and what is the title? I think you'll find that Der Freiwillige was the official organ of the HIAG, the Waffen-SS veterans' organisation, and is likely insufficiently independent of the subject to be reliable. Stoeber was published by Munin Verlag which was the publishing house of HIAG. Read the HIAG article to get an idea of what the issues might be regarding anything published by them. I wouldn't be relying on these sources as the basis for an article, especially for anything contentious such as casualty figures or battlefield successes, although they may be useable for mundane matters of where these formations went when, order of battle and who the commanders were etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Strictly factual material from Landwehr should still be usable, dates of formation, movements, and the like, IMO. Tessin gives a thin outline of the units, which would suffice for a stub.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to find something on the German's in World War II that I could do from like a stub or start. What would be good that I can order the books? Adamdaley (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll build the stubs tomorrow using Tessin so they'll be immune to PROD. AFAIK the only source that I know of that covers them in any significant detail is Landwehr. They had a very short existence and were ultimately absorbed into the 17th SS-Panzergrenadier Division as replacements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
No, but my German is generally good enough to translate an entry and I don't have good German. There's not much out there in English other than Mitcham's later books that's worthwhile aside from some histories focused on individual units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Erich Gimpel was born in the German Empire (between 1871–1918). But was a spy for Hitler (...in America) in World War II. What would his nationality be? If Nazi Germany was between 1933–1945. Adamdaley (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This is probably more appropriate for the Village Pump, but I thought I'd look for input here.
A military history article on my watchlist was recently changed to add an umlaut to a place name. Apart from other considerations about this particular change, should articles written in English contain diacritical marks that do no exist in the English language? If not, (perhaps unique to umlauted vowels), should redirects be to a o u, or ae oe ue? If there is a WP:MOS that addresses this issue, direct me to it and I'll be quiet. Lineagegeek (talk)
Could someone show me where to ask the bot to reassess the Military Biographies? It was the en.wikimedia bot for all of the wikiprojects. Just selected one to update and it updates a little later. Adamdaley (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to the version it was already at before, not my "to preferred version". Considering you are so set to only change this article, and not the other countless articles that run contrary to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, including big name articles such as the world wars and those that are more controversial than the one above, you are the one who wants your preferred version. EtherealGate (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Checking up on Chinese companies that made unlicensed FN MAG/Minimi clone
Hello.
A few years ago, I cited a Chinese company named “Yunnan Xiyi Industry Company Limited” for making clones of the Minimi and the MAG. So far, I’m not too sure if they’re actual manufacturers or just subcontracted. The only English source to go on is with Max Popenker via his book “Machine Guns”. My Mandarin’s bad, so I hope someone can help out a bit since a few sources cited before mentions State Factory 356, which IIRC has links to Changeng Machinery. Ominae (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw you had added it as HMS Admiral Spaun to the List of ship names of the Royal Navy (A) and in the article to the cat Cruiser of the Royal Navy. College does not include that name and there's nothing in the article to say she was commissioned by the RN so I'm wondering if we should? Lyndaship (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure this category is needed. While A-H transferred these ships on paper, the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs wasn't internationally recognised, and was soon replaced by the internationally recognised Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (which became Yugoslavia). Also, the transfer was a very short-lived arrangement lasting less than a month, as Italy seized them all pretty much immediately and held on to them until the treaties sorted them out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 - I'd argue that the category is needed. The article states that A-H transferred the bulk of its ships to the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Not sure how many vessels are involved, but it would seem to be several at least. That the state was not internationally recognised, or that the ships were only in that state's navy for less than a fortnight should not matter. By not having the category, to my eyes there would be a gap in the categorization.
On the British question, we could move the category from Cruisers of the Royal Navy to Cruisers of the United Kingdom. This is not inaccurate, if we accept she wasn't commissioned into the Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I consider being, for a brief period and really on paper only, a ship of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, is not defining. Being ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy would be defining, but not this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't a paper exercise, as the vessels were moved to ports in the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Their navy wasn't a paper one either, it had personnel. Happy to argue the case at WP:CFD. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
They remained in the same ports actually. Trieste, Pola and Fiume. They didn't sail anywhere. All that happened was they ran down the A-H flag and ran up the new one, and those elements of the A-H crews not from the new state (Austrians, Hungarians and Czechs, for example) left for home. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Krakkos has been creating stubs most recently from Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. University of California Press. ISBN 0520069838. They have been consistently marked as patrolled by WP:NPP (including myself) however I wanted to reach out here where there might be people with more expertise to evaluate as to whether these topics are actually notable and/or whether sourcing exists on them beyond Wolfram's book to support an article. Please ping as I am not watching this page Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The SOLDIER SNG is not really geared to the Roman era. Notability here is similar to other ancient bios - they often are notable as if they were covered at some detail by the surviving period PRIMARYish they will be analyzed to death in subsequent SECONDARY RSes (for Roman (in the greater sense) figures - always, for more obscure locales maybe not). The non-notable exceptions tend to be those who have one-liner/blurbish appearances in the surviving primary accounts - which then just get repeated. In short - it depends on the bios in question.Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well some appear very brief mentions, and a search of Google Books doesn't come up with much else, but some like Tufa (and his treachery) and Frigeridus are mentioned in numerous books that cover the period. Those two are certainly notable enough for an article, and Suomarius also seems notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Largely concur with Peacemaker67. I'll note that when mentions are very brief (and limited to one event, or to another person (e.g. father of X)), but the individual played a significant leadership role, that the result at AfD would often be a redirect/merge to the battle/war/other-person.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The terms Kaketsuke Keigo refers to the JGSDF intervening in a situation to assist fellow peacekeepers or civilians employed by the UN (Mostly). Should there be an article for this? It's getting some news lately in Japan and overseas since it's an attempt by Abe to get them more involved in being involved in PKO operations. Ominae (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Questions on military biographies
Given recent conversations, how should we deal with Military Biographies? And if the tables listing individual victories are excessive, do they need to be revised? Do we have guidelines? Will they apply to all pilots or just to the Nazis. I'm looking for guidance! :) auntieruth(talk)17:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like to see tables of victory claims 'cause I think that that's excessive detail. Collapse them or turn them into daughter lists, either way is fine with me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking of subpages, which are explicitly disallowed. So amend my statement to separate lists or collapsed tables.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I've included tables of victories in several bios of Allied pilots and there's never been an issue -- even about making them collapsed -- at ACR or at FAC. Granted, the biggest of those tables was about 50 victories; for the huge totals racked up by some Luftwaffe pilots I would understand making them collapsible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
My thinking on this is we should do the same thing for the Brit and US pilots (etc.) that we do for with the Nazi pilots. Do we agree: Tables over 50 should be collapsible? I've done this on Hans-Joachim Marseille See what you think. auntieruth(talk)15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:DONTHIDE, it should not be done, but is permissible if the table repeats information in the prose (which many of them do, they really just expand on what is in the prose). However, I think given the size of these tables for some Luftwaffe pilots, some wriggle room is permissible per IAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I really dont like it when we hide stuff like this, if it is good enough to be mentioned then it should be shown, or as in this case it should be in a child article as it overwhelms the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but I'd be wary; typically, the sorts of mechanisms that ensure a source's reliability are independent review processes like editor approval and peer review. To some degree (pardon the pun), you'd have some sort of pre-submission review by the advisor, as well as of course the grading, so having a final grade may help in defending a choice of source. If it's a high-graded history degree from a respected university, that would of course have more sway than a lower-graded degree from a less well-known university. WP:SCHOLARSHIP expands on this a bit more. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have said WP:SCHOLARSHIP is quite clear that Bachelor theses are not considered to be acceptable. Masters theses can be used only if they have had "significant scholarly influence", and even PhD theses should be used with care. Factotem (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Good point. The more relevant question would then be, "Why the thesis and not another source?" While my degree was not in history or related fields, so I can't speak to typical patterns of research in academia there (I studied a field that tended more towards quantitative statistical analyses), I would be surprised if there was a high rate of Bachelor's theses bringing novel insight or uncovering obscure sources; I'd expect they'd be more along the lines of typical summary of existing knowledge. In which case, they're probably just best for pointing you towards the higher-value sources. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. My bachelor's dissertation was for a history degree and it was precisely that kind of summary. And I think you're right, dissertations and theses at those levels are not in themselves reliable, but can be a good indicator of the best sources on their subject. Factotem (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I've used a couple of PhDs as sources without issues being raised. As it happened, one of them was from a published author, the other later became the basis for a published work. I think I've only used one Masters, and again that was from a published author, which I believe was a WP requirement for employing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. Completed PhD theses tend to be uncontroversial sources, as they represent the culmination of years of research and have usually been vetted by multiple academic experts in the field. Many are turned into books and journal articles with relatively minor revisions (many have already been published in part in journals before being completed). I use Masters thesis with care as the same level of vetting hasn't taken place - though if they've been accepted and published at least one academic expert has given it the thumbs up. I wouldn't touch Bachelor's theses with a barge pole, except as a source of references. I don't worry about the perceived quality of the university: if it's from an accredited university in a country with a solid scholarly tradition it can be assumed to be fine (the quality of universities in developed economies doesn't vary as much as lots of people think). Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Ian Rose and Nick-D. In eighteenth century naval history at least, there are PhD theses which may represent the only scholarly source for certain historical activities. This one, for example, is a reliable analysis of one class of RN captains and the circumstances of their ships, but is too microhistorical to be replicated in this detail in other published works unless the PhD candidate republishes it themselves. I'd say this PhD thesis serves fine as an en-WP source, but I wouldn't use a bachelor's or master's thesis for the reasons given above. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Some PhDs get published (with original typos and solecisms) reviewed and cited which helps to establish their value. I might add lesser work to further reading but would hesitate to cite them in the text. Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Battle of Cannae 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. DrKay (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
ANI discussion about possible misuse / fabrication of sources
I've written an article about the Sumpul River massacre and would like help improving. In particular, I would appreciate if some fresh eyes and more experienced writers would look at the sources and write a better description of the massacre itself for me. The information is mostly if not entirely there, but not really written in a way that provides a comprehensive view of the entire massacre; no such comprehensive view of the massacre exists and must be created out tidbits scattered across the sources, and that is not something a college freshman is well-suited to write. I can point out the best sources to be looking at for anyone interested. —Compassionate727(T·C)00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the identity of HMS Auckland that was wrecked on the north coast of Australia in 1847, or possibly late 1846? Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it is probably the East India Company Ship HCS Auckland. It is mentioned in this 1841 edition of the Asiatic Journal and this c1841 copy of Blackwood's magazine which describes it as a steam frigate. This source describes it as active during a great storm of 1847 which may account for the description of tis wreck. In any case it seems to have survived to be absorbed into the British Indian Navy following the mutiny and seems to have served as HMS Auckland during later conflicts such as the Second Opium War. If you do a search for "frigate auckland" there are quite a lot more sources, she has been listed variously as HMS Auckland, HCS Auckland, East India Company Ship Auckland, HC Steam Frigate Auckland etc. - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the reference is a dead link. Will make the entry live in the 1847 list with what info I already have. Will be easy enough to move it to an exact date if further references can be found. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mjroots, this Queensland government page states "On 8 January 1847, the Lord Auckland sailed from Sydney with the new colonial officials and their families arriving at Port Curtis on 25 January 1847. On entering the port the Lord Auckland grounded on a shoal" which may be of use? - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Source for free images of US service academy athletes and coaches?
Hi - I was wondering if someone at this project can help me with the protocol for obtaining pictures of service academy athletes and coaches? I know many government/military photos are free use. I work on college basketball (and some football) articles and these would be greatly enhanced by photos. I am interested in historical figures, but also recent names like Nick Welch, who was an All-American at the AFA a few years ago. For example, can I use this photo of him? Thanks for any advice you may have. Rikster2 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
He identifies Wikipedia (and this project specifically) as a safe haven for the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. It is an interesting read and I think the key valid point is that Wikipedia has a tendency to compartmentalize topics and issues as way of scrubbing articles. So rather than put in details about atrocities into the articles of German generals, some editors will argue (deploying a level of wikilawyering that cannot be bested) that the information belongs not 'here' but in the article on the topic. This issue is not unique to articles on German generals--the child abuse scandal was repeatedly deleted from the main article on Pennsylvania State University. I think the article is behind a paywall but it would be great if there was some way to make it available to this wikiproject. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day AugusteBlanqui. Without wishing to hash over what was discussed in the thread that Nigel linked, Stahel overreaches in several areas in his article (possibly through lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia works), and also quotes comments on talk pages out of context, IMO unfairly to the editors in question in several cases. From my recollection there was no evidence produced during the ArbCom German War Effort case which supports the statement, "So rather than put in details about atrocities into the articles of German generals, some editors will argue (deploying a level of wikilawyering that cannot be bested) that the information belongs not 'here' but in the article on the topic." I would be very interested if you can name any editors that have argued that and/or point to the wikilawyering you say is involved in it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
In response to the recent ArbCom case on the German War Effort, I've boldly made an addition to the Military history content guide regarding biographies, as follows:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context. For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
That looks good to me. I've added sentence which aims to strengthen the importance of the contribution individuals made being clearly explained (this is also helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with various military campaigns). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This now reads:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper military, political, social and ethical context. For example, the contribution individuals made to military campaigns should also be explained in a neutral way, including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing. Biographical articles should also detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
Might it be useful to add something along the lines of "... ,atrocities or other possible breaches of the rules of war, if applicable."? "War crimes" has a specific meaning and giving a broader definition may avoid future Wiki-lawyering. (The article Razing of Friesoythe springs to mind as an example.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This could easily drift into WP:UNDUE territory - particularly if the political views bit is applied rigidly to all articles, even those where the subject has not been involved in war crimes/atrocities or been politically active.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well it's a project guideline, not a policy, so rigid adherence isn't a requirement. I think the key point is "what reliable sources say", so if they don't say anything, then there is nothing to include. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking that too much emphasis is being placed on the "political context" for general advice. This is partly because of the reasons for making these changes (ie the GWE Arbcom case). The political context is probably more a construct of modern conflicts. It is also an element of the social context. Ideological context is perhaps better, in that it is broader than just political ideologies. It also captures religious and ethnic ideologies but it is still part of the social context. An ethical context is also part of the social context. Suggest: "placed into their proper military and social" but with further explanation of what constitutes the social context (political, religious, economic, ethical etc). The phrase: "including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing", seems (reads) a little trite. I don't think that it is capturing the intent it is meant to represent. I think that we want to say is something like: that the article should capture the social and military constructs of the "time"; how these shaped the individual and their actions; and in turn, how the individual influenced the military and social constructs.
All this, of course, presumes that such advice is applicable to the subject and that sources actually delve into these aspects. This advice may not be generally applicable and consequently not good general advice. What may be true for a senior commander may not be true for a private soldier notable for valor. Perhaps we need to contexturalise the advice rather than implying it is universally valid. Also, if the sources do not delve into these aspects, then we are creating an expectation that cannot be fulfilled.
As advice, "proper" is subjective. It lacks any definition of what that constitutes and therefore fails. Balanced might be better but is still subject to how an individual editor construes its meaning. I would agree with Peacemaker's concept of what this is but we need to capture and communicate this. I am not certain how this might be better phrased.
Finally, there is my pet hate. The role of history is to understand events (and people) within the constructs in which they occurred. Only then, can we gain an insight into the dynamics leading to the event. Only after this, should we compare and contrast the past with the present and if we do, the contemporary should be clearly distinguished and discernible from the contemporaneous. For example, in the nineteenth century, western cultures moralised on the "heathen savage". It would be just as wrong to moralise on nineteenth century western culture now. No insight is gained by applying contemporary social and ethical norms to another time and culture. However, after understanding the constructs of the time, we can have a better understanding of our present and of the human condition.
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their wider military and social context. In a military sense, the contribution an individual made to a military campaign should be explained in a neutral way, including the wider context forof military operations, and the person's actionsnot just the individual's combat decisions or actions. The social context should include, but is not limited to, how the individual fitted into the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time. Where high quality reliable sources refer to a person's political or ideological views these should be included. If an individual has been alleged to have been involved in breaches of the law of war, these allegations should also be included, along with the results of any legal action taken against them.
Hi Peacemaker67. Suggest: "including the person's actions in the widest context of military operations, not limited to combat alone." (or similar wording) The underlined text might be tweaked. Also suggest breaking last sentence "... these should be included. If an individual has ..." I think this is pretty close to the mark. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Undecided I am concerned that the guideline has been authored with the best of intentions to cover a modern context. For example, numerous medieval commanders oversaw the massacre of civilians, often in the context of the sack of captured towns. Should all biographies referring to siege work therefore include the rules of war as understood at the time? Or just when a massacre was considered particularly notorious to contemporaries? I'm not asking for a specific answer but for some thought as to how the new guideline should be applied before the modern period and whether further guidance will be required. My other query would be what impact the addition will have on the assessment process. Will this guidance only apply above B class, or will all articles need to be reassessed because they will no longer meet B1 coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs)
Contributing to the draft, I considered your concern. According to the article, the law of war has only been formally codified internationally in the late modern era (19th and 20th centuries). For earlier events, "atrocities" may be identified in sources and should be reported in a neutral way (ie. without applying modern moral perceptions). If there is any moralising to be done, it is a POV that should be attributed. I concluded that, since this is largely a modern concept, it applies to modern events and, as such, was not unclear. However, I am not opposed to some clarification if this is a sticking point. In which case, I might suggest a note that puts the law of war into a modern context.
To your second concern. On the assessment process, I see no issue. Additional coverage is only required where there are reasonable concerns of insufficient coverage. The amendment is not a checklist that must be ticked off as having been covered. It is guidance on what should be included from sources. If editors raise concerns that relevant material in sources has not been included, this then falls to the normal edit and continuous improvement cycle. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks on this. Seems a sensible approach on a resource-based approach - I was dreading the need for the project to reassess thousands of articles.Monstrelet (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the "context of the time" covers the first part of Monstrelet's comment. If a medieval commander massacred prisoners or civilians and this is mentioned in reliable sources, we would include it, regardless of how common it was in the context of the time, and despite the paucity of formal rules of warfare at various stages of history. I would expect to read of the massacre of prisoners by Tancred during the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, in his article, for example. As far as the assessment process is concerned, I consider we should be implementing it for new articles being put up for A- or B-Class, and if we come across articles that are already at those classes that clearly lack this coverage, then they should be updated or re-assessed in light of the expanded guideline. I don't foresee a review of older articles except on an as-required basis. It would be an iterative process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Support. As for any reservation about putting ancient actions and ethics into undue modern context, we should always remember that any assessment of one's actions should be derived entirely from reliable secondary sources. OR should be avoided in any case. We would hardly need additional clauses and detailed guidance had we stuck to the simple rule of avoiding original research.--Dipa1965 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I am being misconstrued here. The critical bit is how the individual's actions " fitted into the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time." People in earlier periods also conducted wars within a social context, with rules. These rules can be counter-intuitive to modern readers. To what extent is the editor obliged to spell this out to avoid misunderstanding by a modern audience? Do we need to augment the putative guidance to cover this situation? BTW, if the Middle Ages is too distant to grasp, try thinking about applying the guidance in the case of 19th century imperialism. Monstrelet (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time" This raises a concern in my mind. Today, we tend to accept military officers are obliged to disobey unethical orders. In the Heer in the '40s (& before), disobedience of any order was next to unthinkable, even when your "CinC" was Hitler. I picture a conflict between what editors today expect & what was typical in that ere, & disagreement about what the "correct context" is. I also agree, in the medieval context (& before), the "rules of war" were more notional than actual in many cases, & massacres of civilians & prisoners was pretty usual; do we mean to judge them by modern standards? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura22:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No, this is meant to refer to the "context of the time". However, regarding the Germans in WWII, the Wehrmacht high command knew that orders like the Commissar order were not within the rules of war, but carried them out anyway. And they were held to account for that within the context of their time, not in retrospect from today's vantage point or ethical framework. But essentially we are talking about what reliable sources say about these things, we are not talking about what some editor's opinion is on it. There might be disagreements, but they will be resolved by using the reliable sources and be compared and contrasted where sources differ. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't need to even go back as far as the 20th century. The obligation today is to disobey order which are unlawful, not just unethical; different armies have different attitudes here. The idea that disobedience of orders was next to unthinkable in the Wehrmacht (I am starting to get annoyed at references to the Heer here - what's that about?) was "unthinkable" is not really correct. Like in our Australian Army (which took its cue from the German), commanders had wide discretion to disobey orders that was not present in the US or British Armies. Disobedience to the Commissar Order was unthinkable for many only because of their Nazi principles. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
For curiosities sake how would this be construed to apply to articles within our scope but not strictly speaking about people in a military? I know that Osama bin Laden, for example, is listed as part of our project but properly was considered a terrorist and not a military person by the public. There are also other cases where such a rewrite could potentially be troublesome - seizures of slave ships back in the day, for example, could be construed as piracy which could make the captain a milhist related person. Granted these are extreme examples, but I'm interested to know how the suggested new guidelines are gonna effect cases like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
TomStar81, In a nutshell (my take), the amendment is saying: provide the big picture neutrally (relying on sources) without unduly emphasising or omitting detail or aspects of the subject. This is good advice regardless (per your comment on Osama). Your example of "piracy" should be placed in the historical context (per the advice). If something is being "construed" by an editor, as opposed to sources, it is an editor's POV and outside more general policy/guidelines. I don't think that the amendment changes how the majority of the project (editors and articles) are treated. It does address issues of a relatively small but contentious nature. Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"No, this is meant to refer to the 'context of the time'". I understand that. What I'm concerned about is the average editor, unaware of the guideline, making gf changes, & maybe getting in an edit war. Most of what the average (casual) editor does never impinges on guidelines, so ignorance of them makes no difference; this change, IMO, makes it more likely there will be problems in that regard. Should we, as "serious" editors, pay more attention to this? Absolutely. I just think there's quite enough conflict with the casual editor as it is, & I see no reason to go creating opportunities for more. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Tentative Support As others have noted, a great deal of this (e.g. the law of war, rules of engagement, and more general notions of "acceptable behaviour" and "permissible disobedience", for want of better phrases) are relatively modern developments. While it is more than reasonable that such contemporaneous contextualisation would be drawn from RS in the same way as any other material, to what degree does this place the burden upon the editor to demonstrate that reliable sources have not dealt with such context? And with regards to B-class criteria, would it be understand that absence of such context would be an "obvious omission" (B2)? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think any editor bringing an article to MHAR for a B-Class assessment should be able to state whether RS say anything about breaches of the law of war as it existed at that time etc, and should be able to respond to any inquiries regarding whether such coverage exists. Regarding your last point, essentially, yes. Obviously some subjects are going to raise a higher level of scrutiny regarding such possible omissions, for example senior Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS officers, senior officers in the various warring factions of the Yugoslav Wars etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I felt that would be the case, but I wanted to be sure my understanding was correct before putting my full support to it. I've now updated my !vote accordingly. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 10:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. To be precise, I support the first half - "It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context", I am opposed to " For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.". We should follow what premier RSes write. For many military personnel - we don't have info (or have very scant info) on their political views and "alleged involvement of the person in war crimes" is often present in fringey conspiracy theory sites. We shouldn't be whitewashing Nazis (when good sources with "dirt" exist on the individuals) - however we should avoid forcing inclusion. Looking a present (and retired in the past 20 years) US military personnel - their political views are often simply unknown, and war crime allegations are the purview of highly polemic, and in some case conspiracy minded, outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
That is precisely why the proposed guideline includes "what reliable sources say" and "if applicable". If the reliable sources do not say anything about someone's political views and do not mention war crime allegations, then such things cannot be included, because we only include information that can be reliably sourced, and we don't use highly polemic and conspiracy-minded fringey outlets. We don't, for example, use Breitbart for material on third parties, because it is a questionable source, and it can only be used a source on itself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not sufficient. As you know RSes are a continuum - it isn't black or white. What the current phrasing suggests is that editors purposefully search for this and insert this - possibly based on a single borderline or medium quality source. That's not how we are supposed to work - we are supposed to read the sources and then build articles per WP:BALASP. This is particularly true for biographies of (possibly) living persons. I think the Arbcom case did highlight a problem of whitewashing in some Nazi bios - in a manner contrary to the way these individuals are covered in high quality sources (while, possibly, favoring lower quality "fannish" bios). Editors should write bios according to the way individuals are covered in (when available) high quality academic sources. What the language suggests is digging for this - so we might have actual RSes saying a US military person was a registered Democrat or Republican - it does not mean that including this factoid in the bio is DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree about DUE, as I think someone's political views, if mentioned in a high quality reliable source, is a part of their biography. For example, in the bio of Raymond Leane it mentions that he was active in the conservative Liberal and Country League after he retired. I wonder if your concerns might be assuaged to some extent by putting "high quality" ahead of "reliable sources"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Political views are often DUE (and Leane was the inaugural president of the Plympton branch - most certainly notable for a bio). I would cut out the example - we cover politics (and war crimes) per BALASP.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Peacemaker67. The article "United States Navy SEALs" shows Team ONE, Team TWO, Team THREE, etc. I'm probably not the correct person to be editing the Navy SEALs. Anyone interested? Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I came across this CIA article on Roderick Stephen Hall and his mission to the Brenner Pass while doing some work on the Axis war crimes in Italy article. Currently the Heinrich Andergassen article states "He was executed by Italy for his role in the Holocaust" but, according to the German Wikipedia article, he was executed by the Allies for the murder of Hall, as well as 6 other allied soldiers, alongside August Schiffer and Albert Storz. I haven't been able to verify this through reliable sources however. Has anybody come across a reliable source that could confirm this? Turismond (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to add that a nomination for TomStar81 to be appointed as a Coordinator Emeritus has been added to the election page here. Voting has commenced for this part of the election, and all project members are encouraged to participate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article lead currently reads The Mark 46 torpedo is the backbone of the United States Navy's lightweight anti-submarine warfare torpedo inventory, and is the current NATO standard. These aerial torpedoes are designed to attack high-performance submarines, and current, since September 1996,[3] variants, such as the Mark 46 Mod 5, were expected to remain in service until 2015. In 1989, a major upgrade program for the Mod 5 began to improve its shallow-water performance, resulting in the Mod 5A and Mod 5A(S). (my emphasis)
Variants introduced in September 1996 were expected to remain in service until 2015. Any variants introduced after September 1996 might be expected to remain in service until after 2015. Check which variants have been placed in service since '96, I'd say.. Buckshot06(talk)05:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I searched around a bit and couldn't find any sources that talk about this. If anyone knows a good place to look, more info would be good to have. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This one is going to be tough, the latest version you are talking about is a service life extension program. That being the case how many were upgraded and are they still carried in the loadout? Well, 1st the Navy isn't going to say until they are declared obsolete. Secondly, the MK 56 head is a drop-in replacement to the MK 46. How many are installed again the Navy isn't going to say.Tirronan (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It is from a press release, so not the most reliable source, but this page says the US is selling kits to the Netherlands to convert their Mk 46 to Mk 54. As the page is dated August 2018 I think it is safe to assume they are still in use by Nato for the moment. The availability of non-primary sources at this stage is unlikely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Reddit is often the driver of massive spikes in page views. The Emu War article (and its old infobox declaring it a victory for the emus!) is periodically highlighted there, leading to tens of thousands of page views and a surge of vandalism. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule against Wikipedia editors promoting "their" articles on Reddit, as long as it's done in a neutral kind of way. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just written this article on an important Australian naval dockyard to fill a big gap that had gotten missed over the years - it built or worked on an awful lot of ships with articles. I'm more of a built heritage person, though and I don't know too much about ships, so I'd love it if anyone from here who does could take a look at it and fill in some gaps. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this article - it's amazing that we didn't have an article on this key Australian (and Allied in WW2) naval facility. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. Does Milhist consider organizations that have been labeled by government agencies as "terrorist organizations" to be within the scope of military history? If so, are individuals or groups who have been identified by similar agencies as "domestic terrorists" classified differently by Milhist than those that have been operating against multiple countries, or would both be within Milhist's scope? Also, would a "domestic terrorist" be classified differently by Milhist than an "anarchist" or "armed radical"? I just did a very quick search online to see what the FBI might have published about the SLA, and found its website page re: Patty Hearst (see excerpted text below). Will be interested to read what other Milhist members think. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Hearst ... had been kidnapped by a group of armed radicals that billed themselves as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA. Led by a hardened criminal named Donald DeFreeze, the SLA wanted nothing less than to incite a guerrilla war against the U.S. government and destroy what they called the “capitalist state.... They were, in short, a band of domestic terrorists."
This is why I think you raised an interesting and important question. Although the FBI phrasing above seems to indicate military (via the phrase "guerilla war"), it also seems to indicate civil by terming DeFreeze "a hardened criminal". Does Milhist have a threshold for defining when an individual/group/action transitions from civil law into military? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
An interesting issue that is on the fringe of the project. In my opinion, if either the organisation is paramilitary in practical terms (organised and operate in a military way) or it is engaged by paramilitary or military forces, it comes under our scope. If it is predominantly criminal (including terrorists) and is engaged by civil law enforcement only, then I don't think it does. There is plenty of grey around this, and I think we look at orgs on a case by case basis. In relation to the orgs listed, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, Women's Brigade of Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army and May 19th Communist Organization were dealt with entirely as criminal orgs by civil law enforcement, and there was no military response I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What exactly was paramilitary about the organisation and operations of the Black Panthers, for example? I see nothing in the article. Did they form sections or platoons? Adopt ranks? Did they conduct attacks using such organisational elements? I'm also not aware of them being opposed by other than civil law enforcement. The Black September Organisation was organised as a classic terrorist organisation, using cells, not sections or platoons, and they were dealt with (at Munich at least) by police, not soldiers. The Red Brigades were also a criminal, terrorist organisation, and military force was not used to deal with them, just specialist police. So all your examples are marginal at best, none are clearly paramilitary in practical terms, and none were opposed using military force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed on Amazon (U.S. and Australia) quite a few books now are through some sort of publishing source called "CreateSpace". Would these be unreliable due to the fact that it's not a reputable publishing company and secondary, the author could also be suspect. Any thoughts? Adamdaley (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is Amazon's self-publishing house. So to me, the answer is a very qualified maybe. I know nothing about knitting but if I wanted to publish a book on it through Createspace I certainly could. So if the author is an well-known expert in his field and it is well supported with citations then I'd say yes. Otherwise, I'd consider it someone's opinion that got published.Tirronan (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It should be considered not an WP:RS publication or work, unless it is by someone who is very well known in their field, who has very good credentials; and frankly if the writer/author has good credentials in their field they could get a known publisher to put out the work instead. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Merge/split suggestion for Dongfeng military vehicles...
The compendiums of the Confederate Armies (by each state) by Stewart Sifakis reliable? Or are they reliable as the Union books, I have from ebookondisk.com if anyone remembers the discussion on my articles for artillery Connecticut. Adamdaley (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
They look suspect to be honest. Are they reprints of earlier books? Judging from Worldcat and a quick Google search the publishers look to be genealogical publishers printing mainly primary sources. The compendiums don't appear to be held by any university libraries (mainly public libraries), but other titles by Sifakis (like his Who's Who of the Civil War) are, even in Australia. So, the compendiums seem a bit marginal to my eye, but I would defer to the Civil War buffs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sifakis is published by Facts on File, a fairly reputable publisher. They are not reprints of earlier works and there are some scholarly reviews of them. I would say that Sifakis is selectively reliable (having looked over them at my local library) – his documentation of units with better records available (ANV) is more accurate than, say, his coverage of Missouri units, which is hugely inaccurate. An example of this is when he conflated two different Missouri units. Sifakis can be used in perhaps most cases, but if you have sources that are specifically focused on the unit the latter would be better. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Voting for the project coordinator election is now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. Please vote here by 23:59 UTC on 28 September! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for handling all of the admin work related to the voting process. Are members still allowed to ask questions of the coordinator candidates now that the voting phase has opened? 47thPennVols (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I see no reason why not. Some nominees only nominated near to the closing, so I think continuing to ask questions is quite reasonable during the voting period if it will help you decide who to vote for. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
OK everyone, we are nearly at the half-way mark of the coordinator election period, so if you want to have a say about who superintends our processes over the next year, have a look at the nominees and their answers to the questions posed, and support those you think should be on the team! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh Confucius Engvar B question
Does anyone know what's happened to importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');? There is something called Regex editor in its place. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Keith, I have that installed, but didn't notice it going offline. I saw that there was some discussion on Ohconfucius' talk page about the script, maybe it has been suspended pending a fix? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed on the NORAD page that it states; "...the deputy commander is always a Canadian three-maple-leaf general" (Lieutenant-general). I know that Canadian rank insignia use maple leafs (leaves?) instead of stars, like the US and other countries, but the UK doesn't use stars either, and you often hear UK general and flag officers referred to as "n-star" generals and admirals, even though UK rank
insignia use combinations of crowns, pips, and crossed swords & batons. Are Canadian general and flag officers always referred to as "n-maple-leaf" generals or admirals? Is the word "star" ever used in place of "maple leaf"? Thanks - wolf19:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm basically just wondering if "three-maple-leaf general" is accurate, or even appropriate, or if it should just read "three-star general". It just seems... odd, when I read it like that. Cheers - wolf22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems odd to me, and I would change it. If "three star" doesn't seem right you could say "lieutenant general" or whatever the Canadian equivalent is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggestioning this for the quote from the NORAD page? Or in general? (no pun intended) I ask becasue this is something that affects more pages (perhaps many more), and is likely to come up again. Cheers - wolf03:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps as an alternative use the NATO OF code, especially since it’s relatively universal and applies to all service arms? Garuda28 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply, and effort to resolve, but again I gotta ask; are you referring to just the quote from NORAD page? Or suggesting something wider? While "three-maple-leaf" General or Admiral sounds kind of... quirky, I again refer to the use of "n-star" Generals and Admirals in the UK Armed Forces, and while they don't have maple leafs (leaves?) as part of their rank insignia|, neither do they have stars like the US Armed Forces, yet the phrase is still used. In fact, many countries (especially Commonwealth) use variations of pips, crowns, swords and batons, like the UK Armed Forces, instead of stars, but many of these countries flag officers are referred to "1", "2" "3" or "4"-star officers. So do we need to go bigger here? Perhaps a proper RfC? Some written guideance? Thoughts anyone? - wolf03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Specifically for this whole maple leaf/star thing. It seems star is in such common use it could/should be used universally (even having its own articles), so I really just proposed the OF code as a standardized way in the case that someone has an issue with Star verbiage. (Which, as maple leaf is unsourced, I do not see happening) Garuda28 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is needed here. One-etc star is a common appellation for generals across the board, and I think reliable sources would be needed to justify the use of "three-maple leaf" as the designation for Canadian general officers. I would be boldly changing them to "three-star" and only resort to a RfC if that position is challenged with reliable sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's good enough for me. I agree that "n"-star is used commonly enough that it would, or at least should, be recognized when used in reference to flag officers from militaries that don't actually use stars for flag rank insignia. I have no problem with boldly using the phrase and referring to this discussion should there be an issue. Thanks for the replies. - wolf13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Great question, I've been thinking about that a bit lately. I had a scratch around for likely suspects based on size, and found there are a lot of tumbleweeds blowing around in WikiProject Land. The only ones I could find were Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Coordinators (it isn't obvious how active the coordination is) and, based on there being a category for them, I believe WikiProject Germany has at least one coord. Maybe others are members of other WikiProjects and know of some that have something like what we have? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
GOCE has elected coordinators, a lead coordinator and coordinators eremiti, explicitly "based on the excellent system running at the Military history WikiProject". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, the TBAN in question covers a subset of twelve years from over 2,500 of years of military history covered by this project. There is a huge amount of work done by members of this project in areas which aren't covered by the TBAN. Being able to demonstrate diligent work as a coordinator in areas outside the TBAN would also be of benefit in appealing the TBAN when that is possible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as do WP:FAR, WP:TFA, WP:FT, WP:FL, and perhaps others. Like FAC, these are process/assessment projects, not subject/topic projects like MilHist. In most cases, their coordinators are not elected per se, but are proposed and approved of through community discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Should the article "Psychological Operations (United States)" be moved to "Psychological operations (United States)"?
As far as I can tell, the term "Psychological Operations" or PSYOP shouldn't be considered a proper noun. There are various units, found across different branches of the military, that use the term "Psychological Operations" in their names, such as the 2nd Psychological Operations Group and the 7th Psychological Operations Group - and those two specific units are obviously considered proper nouns. But there doesn't seem to be any specific subdivision of the US Military simply called "Psychological Operations".
I know very, very little about military matters, so I can't say anything for certain - but I'm not seeing any reason for the term "Psychological Operations" to be treated as a proper noun, which would suggest that the article Psychological Operations (United States) should probably be moved to Psychological operations (United States). I don't want to move the article unless I know for certain though, so I'd like to hear from some people who are actually knowledgeable about this topic.
I opened a discussion about this over a week ago at Talk:Psychological Operations (United States), but I haven't received any responses. I also opened a discussion about this at the Humanities Reference Desk; you can read that here. The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn. --Jpcase (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
"The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn." - So that's your answer; there was no consensus to move, which should be the end of discussion. But, it seems you're not getting the response you want, at the RefDesk or the PsyOps talk page, and you are starting to WP:FORUMSHOP. (all this for an 'o'... ) - wolf22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
But it's also a proper name, so no, not an option. What's next? Delta force? Navy sEALs? United States marine corps? - wolf23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
As I noted in my opening comment, there doesn't appear to be any specific subdivision of the US Military called "Psychological Operations" or "PSYOP" - which is why the term doesn't seem to be analogous to the Navy SEALS or Delta Force. And if there isn't a specific subdivision of the US Military called PSYOP, then PSYOP probably doesn't count as proper name. Again though, I don't actually know much about this topic, which is exactly why I'm seeking wider input on the matter. It might be that there's a subdivision of the military called PSYOP - I just haven't been able to find any evidence to suggest that there is. --Jpcase (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"there doesn't appear to be any specific subdivision of the US Military called "Psychological Operations"" - You just named several, including an Army Command. Are you looking for some kind of Joint Command? There aren't many levels above Command level. How far up the Armed Forces hierarchy does it have to be for a big 'O'? - wolf01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of subdivisions that use the term "Psychological Operations" in their name, but there doesn't seem to be any specific subdivision just called "Psychological Operations". So when the term is part of a larger title, like "United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command", then yes, it should be treated as a proper noun. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to treat it as a proper noun in its isolated form. --Jpcase (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: The Reference Desk discussion wasn't even about whether or not to move the article. It was just about whether or not the term "Psychological Operations" should be considered a proper noun - and the general consensus established at the RefDesk was that the term doesn't seem like a proper noun, but none of us knew for sure. So I'm asking here in the hopes that someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. --Jpcase (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Having had a read of the article, PSYOP appears to be treated here as a type of operations, like defensive or offensive operations, counterinsurgency operations etc. This is military jargon drawn from doctrine (often the title of a training pamphlet on the subject), and we don't have any articles with those titles. My sense is that the military globally tends to capitalise things unnecessarily, and acronyms and initialisations compound the issue. I would just move it to Psychological operations (United States), as I don't think it is a proper noun, unless it is the title of the relevant pamphlet. In that case, this article isn't about the pamphlet, it is about the type of operations as conducted by the US, so decapping Operations is warranted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for looking into this! I've done some more digging around and have turned up something interesting. According to these two sources [6][7], Psychological Operations became an official branch of the US Army on October 16, 2006. Around 2010, the PSYOP branch was renamed as the Military Information Support Operations (MISO) Branch. Then, in 2014, the name MISO was reverted back to PSYOP [8]. And apparently, at some point, PSYOP changed back to MISO, because in 2017, MISO changed back to PSYOP again. [9]
So it does seem that the term "Psychological Operations" or "PSYOP" could be treated as a proper noun, if it's referring to the branch of the US Army. But the article Psychological Operations (United States) doesn't seem to be specifically about the US Army branch - rather, the article seems to be about all PSYOP components of the US Military, including not only the Army, but also the Navy and the Air Force. In fact, the article even seems to cover PSYOP components of the CIA (and the infobox indicates that there are PSYOP units in the Marines as well, although there isn't any mention of this in the article text).
As far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the Psychological Operations branch of the US Army - and it would probably be worth creating such an article, although I wouldn't be capable of doing so myself. As for the existing article, I agree that Psychological Operations (United States) seems to be about a type of operations, as opposed to a subdivision of the military. So moving the article to Psychological operations (United States) would probably be the best option. I'll wait a day though, just in case anyone else has relevant information to share. --Jpcase (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67:@Nikkimaria:Hello. I am looking to resolve this dispute. Last week I spent discussing its copyright status, and the Fair Use was deemed valid for the subject per BU Rob13. The subject is documented in the Wiki article and in 3 books, but images of items is very rare. Why is it important? I shows the Do 17 was used in ground attack missions, not just in level bombing. Regards. Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If other images of the bomber and cannon exist (as it appears they do?), then it becomes much harder to justify the use of a fair-use image on that article. The image currently has a detailed rationale for an article that doesn't appear to exist (Do-17z Film fragment) - if that article did exist then the use might be justified there. The rationale as currently presented for Dornier Do 17 is inadequate, and in the absence of the specific article on the fragment I'm not seeing justification for the historic-images tag either. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Dear Nikkimaria, to answer your question: there is no copy-free image of the Do 17 aircraft with the 20mm cannon (and very, very few images with the cannon). I have told BilCat he needed to replace the current image with like copy-free, but never did (because he cannot!). I spent 3 weeks arguing about this photo because it is a one-of-a-kind image, and is acceptable for Fair Use. Now, this image is a portion of a much larger scan of a 3 frames of the film. I uploaded that image for the Film stock article, however in that case there was other acceptable alternatives, thus I did not argue that removal (I can provide you that image if you wish to see). Regardless, that other image has no bearing to this one and you can ignore.
Rational: During the Battle of Britain the Do 17 was equipped with 20mm cannons, in particular was a mission on The Hardest Day which is considered the peak of the Battle of Britain, all of this is well documented but images are rare. I can provide source data for any question you have regarding this. It is all documented. There is no question the image is valuable, photographic proof of one of the pivotal days in one of the most important engagements in WW2.
Over the I have uploaded a dozen or more photos, a number moved to commons, at least 2 have been removed with no protest. I have also had some of my edits in past removed with no protest (but did have lengthly discussion in 1 case). I have been a wiki editor for over 11 years, so I have have some understanding of the rules.
Looks like the image has now been deleted - did the rationale contend that the image was of The Hardest Day? What additional value do you feel is provided by an image of the plane with this specific cannon, on top of other images of the plane? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
All the other images depict the aircraft in its high altitude level bombing role. This image shows the aircraft equipped for a very low altitude ground attack role, another role described but rarely shown for this bomber. Thus the image supports source claims and displays the multiple roles employed by this warplane. As to your question, the squadron this aircraft is in (KG2) was known to be a participant in "The Hardest Day". If the image is of that day is yet to be research, however it is for certain a participant of the Battle of Britain. Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing to remember about fair-use is, it's subjective. I'm not convinced that the image you propose provides sufficient additional value, on top of free options in the proposed articles, to warrant its use. However, I'd encourage you to explore that further research about the context and provenance of this particular image. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Good morning @Nikkimaria:, I have discussed the value of the image with copyright moderator who agreed with me the image does have justification to be included under FU. There is a lot of detail about the image in the info page for that image, which I do not think you can read right now. If you could, your questions will be answered. regards, Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
African-American Civil War Units (as United States Units)
I found a list of the African-American Civil War Units that needed to be created. Can I have some help in locating that list? Adamdaley (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS sources, such as books on the subject; also United States Holocaust Memorial Museum "Concentration camps" [10]. Do not use blogs or non-RS websites. Kierzek (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked it but could not see a refs needed banner, I see (now) the OP has already removed it. Though I have to say I am a bit iffy about the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If I remember the ship naming conventions here on the EN-wiki correctly the year of the ship`s launch should be used - which in this case would still be 1935 as it was launched over a year before it was commissioned. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day Stuart. The guideline for ship article titles is WP:SHIPNAME, which is where it says the launch year is used as disambiguation. But for your original question, I think you are referring to the category at the bottom of the talk page? Is that right? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, just over from WP:Cricket. The above cricketer had a noted military career in the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, including a DSO in WWII. However, I seem to be able to find very little on his military service. The London Gazette wasn't all that helpful either. I wonder if I can leave this here for someone with a little more knowledge on where to look to expand his article? Apologies if this isn't the place to post this request! PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An RFC has begun at Talk:Tom_Crean_(explorer)#RFC_SEP-29-2018, an FA-status article governed by this project. The RFC concerns a COI edit request received from an editor who is author of a self-published book on the subject. Advance Thank you's to editors able to stop by and offer input. Spintendo 15:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Regex editor
My first attempt to find out how to get rid has failed, can anyone suggest where to ask questions about this feature please? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Coordinator election results
G'day everyone. The coordinator election has now concluded, with the result that the following were elected to the ten coordinator positions for Tranche XVIII: Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66, Auntieruth55, Kges1901, Zawed, Iazyges, Arius1998 and myself. Thanks to everyone who volunteered to serve, and to everyone who participated. The voting turnout this year was higher than we've had for around ten years. A special welcome to the coordinator team for new coordinators Kges1901 and Arius1998, and welcome back to Hawkeye7 and Sturmvogel_66. Thanks to AustralianRupert, Biblioworm, Cinderella157, HJ Mitchell, KCVelaga, The ed17 and TomStar81 for their service to the project over the last year, as well as to the continuing coordinators. And finally, TomStar81 has been unanimously elected as our third Coordinator Emeritus. Well done, Tom! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) for the new coordinator team.
To reiterate Nick's comment, nice to have some newbies on the team, welcome! It is also good to see the high voter turnout as well, bodes well for the project. Zawed (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Congrats to the newly elected coordinators. Thanks to all the previous coordinators for their contributions to the project, it was a great experience working with you all. Also, on a side note, I have a pending task to complete from the previous coord fold, the project audit. I have personally been passive on that work. Since most of the academy is complete, if the new coord fold agrees, I would like to work (probably at a slow rate) on this unfinished task. KCVelaga (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
per the thread at campaignbox, we need to use em units instead of px units to allow the box to fix the text. I can increase the size to say 25em, but we should still use em units. Frietjes (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it has to do with Campaignbox switching from pixel width to font size (em) width, and the other infoboxes not. This should probably have been coordinated somehow. But I could be wrong, I haven't really been following. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Frietjes, thanks for your help on this. As far as I can tell the campaignbox is still narrower than the infoboxes even where no images are used. Eg. in the blank versions at the top of this section. Could you check this, or is it just me? - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Dumelow, the four examples at the top of this section should be the same width. if you search the HTML source for this page for "width:25.5em" you will find the HTML for all four. the only major difference between the four is that one is that the campaign boxes use <div>...</div> containers while the infoboxes use <table>...</table>. but, all four set the width of the outer container to "width:25.5em". if you are still seeing a difference, please tell me your OS/browser/skin. you can find your skin in your preferences. a screen shot would be useful as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Concern over Cropped images of senior U.S. Leaders
I have been noticing a number of images of senior U.S. military leaders being cropped (primarily members of the Joint Chiefs, service staffs, and senior enlisted advisers), with the affect of removing awards, ranks, and other badges that could be quite useful to the reader. This is all on a divers number of pages, so I figured a centralized discussion could be started here on weather the MILHIST community agrees with these changes or what the opinions out there are. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This is what I am concerned about . As you can see all rank and many of the badges have been removed from the frame, which provides a significant amount of background information for military individuals. Garuda28 (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey Garuda28, thanks for bringing this here. I would opine that the cropped photo (in the example you've given, at least) is more useful to all people, even including people who would actually know what those medals mean. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, remember, and those medals should be covered in prose. Ed[talk][majestic titan]05:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, particularly for enlisted ranks with sleeve rather than shoulder/collar insignia, the wider shot might be best. In general though, as Ed alludes to, a front-on head and shoulders shot providing a close-up of the face is the gold standard for infobox pics on bios, mainly because it provides the best idea of what they look(ed) like. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This issue was raised before (and recently), with a few users, or even one in particular, persistently cropping images, with no particular policy, guideline or consensus in support, but only instead by seemingly their own personal preference. I agree with Garuda28 (and Peacemaker67's first sentence). There is no benefit to cropping these images, simply to create the effect of zooming in on the subjects's face. That can be done by simply clicking/tapping on the image. Meanwhile information is being lost, including that of the uniform and what may be in the background. - wolf08:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
PM has indicated conflicting, competing criteria. I could also indicate others, such as the degree of crop and other images used. I think that this comes down to a case-by-case basis to be resolved by consensus at each article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's something that proves that cropping gives no benefit. The two images are set to frame sizes that makes the individual's face identical in size in article space. Ergo, there is no benefit to cropping, it doesn't serve a purpose, it's an artificial form of photo manipulation to draw a viewer's attention to a particular area of the original photo. One could argue that this was a POV-pushing exercise, since it forces readers to only see what the photo editor wants them to see rather than a wider scope of original information, i.e. medals, ranks, etc. IMO, this kind of practice is unencyclopedic and should not be permitted. Ed17 said "Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, remember, and those medals should be covered in prose". Yeah, that's true. We could also use prose to say the individual has brown hair, blue eyes and a nice smile, in the interests of "general interest". However, I feel that most people studying history also want to see things for themselves... that's why we go to museums and visit graveyards, perform reenactments, or collect and maintain historical artefacts. Because history is about seeing, not just reading boring black-and-white modern textbook interpretations of the past all the time. Cropping a soldier's uniform is paramount to hiding his proven role in history from the public, limiting them to only reading about it instead of giving them both a visual and textual source and manner of seeing his awards. However you see it, support for cropped images like this is backwards-thinking... Wikipedia isn't short of space or bandwidth, and neither are most viewers when it comes to saving loading a few KB of extra data or pixels on the screen, to get the full picture without questionable cropping practices. Commons also has the ability to tag "other versions" so if someone really needs to see right up the individual's nose, they can always find a link to the cropped copy there. — Marcus(talk)09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
... But why would you set the frame size in that way? The images would be approximately the same size when appearing in an infobox on desktop, and anywhere when on mobile. See above, which clearly demonstrates the benefits of cropping.
For the rest of your comment, while I disagree with your framing of the issue, I will play along (because it doesn't work even within your chosen boundaries). ;-)
First, although this isn't your main point, photography is in itself an artificial manipulation. We don't get to see what's out of frame, and photographers crop images all of the time. If you only need a portion of the photo, why keep the rest?
Second, infobox images are meant to assist with identifying the subject. In this case, a person. Cropping some images to focus on a person's face isn't to save on bandwidth—although that's also a separately noble goal, given some non-Western internet speeds—but to assist with a reader's understanding through removing visual distractions.
Third, showing the medals without context is useless to 99% of our readers. They don't know what the medals mean. For those people, images of medals are simple decoration that don't say anything about a person; notable medals will already be listed in the infobox and in the prose.
Fourth, if there's an argument that a person's medals are visually important for some unique reason, you can always add another image to the article. They're not required to be in a lead photo.
Point five is utter nonsense, Ed, and you know it. WikiCommons currently hosts millions of images for the singular purpose of supporting the text on the Wikipedia sites. And please don't accuse me of "pontificating" just because by opinion differs from your limited view of reality, I consider that remark priggish and condescending, and also beneath you – that was a very Trumpesque retort. Photographs are primary sources, and contrary to your statement that photographers crop their photos all the time, that is besides the point. They do that pre-publication in their dark rooms so we never see what was cropped (i.e. what you don't know can't hurt you), we're not the photographers, we're second-rate volunteer editors on a freebie website which has poor ratings in the academic world, and most of this cropping behaviour is amateur. Cropping photos to this degree suits an agenda, and it's a deceptive agenda at that. Another example of MILHIST's spiraling devotion to transparency, if you look at the state of how the German war effort case turned out, the battle results RFC and now this nonsense... it all compounds into diluting history for simpletons. MilHist is no longer providing respectable content for an internation audience, it's hacking away at existing content and revising, reducing and redacting huge amounts of valuable content. I wonder how the once-outstanding principles of this project were undermined by these neurotic behaviours. Little wonder that this year's Coords noms has such a weak turnout, can't you sense the embarrassment recent determinations are causing long-standing members? I've sat in the shadows these last couple of years watching MilHist rot from the inside, so I certainly know what I'm talking about even if others are blind to it. Photos aren't the only thing that have been cropped lately... the best of the MilHist project has also been... castrated and limited in certain forms of productivity. I could point fingers as to who and why, but I'll let you figure that out... assuming you're not scared to open your eyes rather than retort with another bunch of subjective bullish points. — Marcus(talk)10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If you crop a photo on Commons, the usual practice is to upload it as a different file, with a clear link back to the original. If you overwrite the file instead (which is not recommended), earlier versions are visible in the file history. As such, nothing is being lost. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I said as much in my original comment, but some editors don't like to accept the common sense approach. "Commons also has the ability to tag 'other versions' so if someone really needs to see right up the individual's nose, they can always find a link to the cropped copy there." — Marcus(talk)14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you rather I said over-dramatic? Both apply, and only more so after your second comment. I'm not going to debate this further, as you're not bringing up substantive points and clearly have larger issues with the project that aren't really pertinent here. Cheers! :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]22:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I cropped some senior officers images from WWI, removing some potentially helpful information by doing so. But the 22 MB originals like this one just were of no realistic use for somebody reading a WP-article. Not to speak of a person accessing the net with some inferior type of device. In those cases the cropped copy seems to be the better choice for an article, while the origninal can be checked on commons. Alexpl (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who clicks on "Original file 8,447 × 5,717 pixels" gets what they deserve. The rest of us are unlikely to see anything bigger than the 66 KB version you linked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If a user needs to look at a photo to see relevant and pertinent information the problem lies with the text of the article, not a cropped photo.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As someone familiar with the top US medals, I'd rather spend less than 5 seconds looking at the image to know what the individual has received (usually only the first 5 or 6 are really significant), than trying to figure out where in the article medals are listed and then reading the paragraph, especially if the text lists them out of order of precedence. Properly constructed "ribbon racks" in the article would be a big help here, though I realize they've been shot down and are presumably being removed. I also submit that far more than 1% of the people who actually view US military personnel articles are familiar with the more important awards. RobDuch (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
But our articles are not really written for such people, but rather we have to assume our reader will have no idea what the difference is between a three years long service medal and a five years long service medal is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
So just came across some interesting guidance at the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Cropping that states "Within reason, crop an image to remove irrelevant areas. But do not "throw away information"." I would argue that the full image provides more information at a quick glance (even if it is only to a portion of the reader-bases). Furthermore, since these are used for military positions with unique ranks, I would argue that the rank is an integral part of the main image. The intent is not to say things that are not written (and perhaps we need to write more down anyways), but rather to supplement the information in the text. Garuda28 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree, but along with rank, would also want to mention medals, badges of office and background items such as flags and other accoutrements, that add visual information but are being cropped out. This issue was also recently raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Cropped images, but without much in way of a resolution. - wolf01:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I frequently crop biography (all kinds) infobox photos. Per MOS:PERTINENCE, "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone." The definition of portrait is a photo "in which the face and its expression is predominant" or a "photograph, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders." I support such cropping of infobox portraits. Other info can be conveyed in other ways. MB02:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
While I generally agree for personal biographies, I think a big point would be that this is for a military position rather than a biography, where other rank (specifically looking at Senior Enlisted Advisors) may be more appropriate to show than on a personal biography. Garuda28 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
My perspective is that "awards, ranks, and other badges that could be quite useful to the reader" are probably only useful to a small percentage of readers. I myself would not recognize the meaning of most of these from a photo. Especially consider a worldwide reader base. Such information is better conveyed in other ways. While showing awards/medals may be desirable to some readers, I would rather get a better view of the person in a quick glance. We should optimize towards usefulness to the majority. Of course, while I could be in the minority, unless that can be proven I think we should default to treating biographies of military people like any other biography and emphasize the face. MB03:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
My counter-point would be that although for regular individuals the face is the most identifiable feature, with a military portrait rank and badges (less so the awards, but with a focus on rank and qualification badges) can also serve to help individuals identify aspects of an individual quickly. My second point would be that military photos are almost always focused on the upper body (and photographed with this intent), and thus I believe that we can achieve both goals at once. And either way, even without a consensus, this discussion has been great and I'm seeing things from another perspective that I didn't even realize before. Garuda28 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@RobDuch: "Properly constructed "ribbon racks" in the article would be a big help here, though I realize they've been shot down and are presumably being removed." - Say what? - wolf15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm recalling a discussion a few months ago in which some persons were vehemently against them; one in particular had a long rant against putting them in the infobox. I made an (apparently bad) assumption that these people got their way. RobDuch (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This discusssion? It was about displaying ribbon racks in the infobox. There was nothing against them being included in the main body; in fact, that was offered as an acceptable alternative. Factotem (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Bah, don't worry about it. Anyway, agree with adding ribbon racks in BLP awards & decorations section, like here for example. - wolf01:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There are widely differing opinions on ribbon racks in articles. Some (mainly US military bio editors in my experience) support them, others are against them. The main issues I can see is that they need to be reliably sourced, and interpretation of a photograph is really not the way to do it particularly if the image is in black and white and may require some original research to determine which ribbon is which. Also, a photograph with ribbons worn is only correct for the moment in time at which the photograph was taken. Subsequent awards and clasps will not be shown, and therefore a ribbon rack derived from a photograph may not be comprehensive. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Per PM, there seems to be consensus to permit ribbons (either in the infobox or in a section at the end of article) in US milbios, but that's not the case for Commonwealth ones. Personally I'd prefer to see them out of all articles as I think they put undue pictorial emphasis on the awards (and are also often poorly sourced) but we do operate by consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to add that I agree with PM67 and Ian Rose; sourcing is paramount. But that said, if the awards are reliably supported, then I believe the ribbon rack, with accompanying table, is a good visual representation of the medals awarded to a military BLP subject. Now, I say this with experience primarily from editing US military BLPs, but I don't see why this couldn't apply to any other military BLP subject of another nationality. Most, if not all, other militaries have ribbon racks on their uniforms. I think this is preferable to either the basic list in the awards section, and/or the condensed and collapsed list in the infobox. (JMHO) - wolf06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
An additional complicating factor with attempting to determine medals from a photograph is that in the case of the US, some ribbons of higher awards and badges are hidden under the collar when wearing dress uniform. Due to the lower number of awards in Commonwealth countries, the wearing ribbons four-wide except for females, and uniform differences, this is very rarely a problem for Commonwealth personnel. Personally I find the ribbon farms unencyclopaedic, but we work on consensus, as Ian says. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
However, the higher awards that may be under the collar are usually those mentioned in the official biographies, which can be used to verify awards. Kges1901 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Is necrometrics.com (and the book for it) - apparently written by Matthew White (historian) - a reliable source for numbers of casualties? The Wiki article and the PR comments on Amazon describe him as popular historian. It seems odd to base such complex and controversial numbers to a popular history source. According to his own website, White is a librarian with only "a couple of years of college" and no listed academic degree. If the source is not reliable, it would be great to remove it from Wikipedia as it is currently used 120+ times in various mainspace articles and lists. GermanJoe (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
He's not claiming to have researched the topics himself, but he merely aggregates the data from published sources. So his own qualifications matter far less than those of his sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A meaningful and thorough in-depth analysis of numbers and findings from academic sources requires more than a simple aggregation, especially on such a complex and broad topic. So his own lack of academic credentials does matter. With reliability being atleast questionable, there is really no good reason why a popular history source recycling better sources should be preferred over the underlying academic sources. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the records, before the Arbitration Committee Elections of December 2018 begin there already is an active RfC in which election procedures and changes, inluding e.g. percentage of votes needed for being elected or the total number of arbitrators, are being discussed and also endorsed and voted for (or against). If I see it correctly it will be closed soon so maybe it is worth a look for those interested in that election. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
.. Need assessment, Need assessment as lists, Need task force assigned, Need project tag fixed and Need work on grammar are all without a backlog! Great work all! Eddie891TalkWork12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The signs are applied to categories below a certain threshold, so grammar is relatively less backlogged (below 10,000) as opposed to the other attention backlogs which are above 10,000. Kges1901 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Whilst we are looking at the open tasks page I have often though the first three items in the left column serve no real purpose. They simply list the number of C-class, Start-class and Stub-class articles. Aside from the fact that these numbers are never likely to decrease, most of these are covered by the more specific and useful "specific improvements" backlogs which are next in the list. Are there any objections to removing the first three items? It might focus attention on the other backlogs that can be usefully addressed - Dumelow (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if moving them entirely is the way to go - there may be members who are looking to work on just generally improving an article, rather than picking a particular focus of what needs improving. That said, perhaps we could re-structure them to make the "specific improvements" backlogs more promiment. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have also been wondering about a section on the open tasks page. It seems to me that two of the subcategories under "Articles that need assessment or tagging" may only be prolonging part of the backlog rather than helping members to effectively reduce it. Unless I'm missing something, if editors only add B-class checklists to the articles tagged as "Need B-Class checklist added" without also completing the assessment of those articles, it will only shift those articles (currently numbering 24,109) from "Need B-Class checklist added" to "Need B-Class checklist completed". Wouldn't it be more efficient from an operations standpoint if those two categories were merged into one (as "Need B-Class checklist added/completed")? 47thPennVols (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but the latter list should theoretically be lower-hanging fruit, so some editors may only wish to work on finishing off those articles (and there are, in my mind, valid cases in which an editor will start but not complete a checklist, such as there being current work ongoing on a certain aspect of an article, or if an editor does not feel qualified to judge an article's coverage, but can look at its grammar, structure, and supporting materials). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The references I've used are basically included on the profile on Lives of the First World War that I've been building up in parallel https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/2128506. There are quite a few contemporary newspaper reports etc listed under "External Evidence" on that. I feel it would be a conflict of interest for me to edit Johnson's article here based on these, but others may like to flesh out the article/ The Lives profile does link back to the Wikipedia article, but hasn't actually been used for any facts. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Polygonal fort article rewrite.
Our Polygonal fort article has had a "multiple issues" header for a few years now. I thought it could do with a complete rewrite; the result of my labours is at User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Polygonal fort. I would appreciate any comments.
I have never rewritten an article before, so if the above meets with your collective approval, some advice on the way forward would be helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the user page article had too many "The"s in the section labels. I edited those out and did some formatting. Change back where needed.
You can start replacing the wiki article with the content from the user page now as far as I'm concerned. Maybe keep the mention of surviving Polygonal forts in a later section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I´m writing as to inquire about the status of our special projects. 3 of the 4 had given themselves a deadline - 2 of those, Operation Brothers at War and Operation Normandy, have been reached years ago. The third, Operation Great War Centennial, will be reached (more or less) in six weeks. I find it suboptimal to have them displayed prominenty on the main page as what might appear as active failures, as none reached the set goals within their deadline. Or worse, a sign of project stagnation as nobody cared enough to update anything. Just doesn`t give a good first impression, a problem that plaques many projects. Maybe that could be improved by changing text or position (e.g. shifting below the taskforces). Or the status itself as they are essentially over thanks to the deadlines, if not changed. Admittedly a rather superficial, and of course just my personal, point of view of course. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I would tend to agree; the event-based special projects should be archived as no work has occurred on those pages for several years now. Of courage we would leave OMT as a positive example. Kges1901 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we're still chopping away. I know at least White Shadows, Sturm, and I are still actively working on articles. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree to archive them all apart from OMT - there is still some activity there, I think. There has been some good work done in the other three projects but their time has now passed and activity is minimal/non-existent. Retain the pages for reference/historic purposes - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've retained links to the inactive ones on the main project page (stating that they are old ones), and removed them from the navbox, leaving just OMT explicitly linked in both places. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late, i'm off my 5-day work night work. In (belated) answer to the question, yes OMT is still active, there are a few people who still edit within the special project's scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Imaginary unit and formation titles
Navops47 has done an amazing amount of very valuable work, now currently mostly on the Royal Navy in the twentieth century, but previously on fighting our recentist WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by working on the early English and Royal Navies.
However, I and other editors have had to continually come along later and restore titles of RN appointments, units, and formations to what the sources say. Navops47 is continually capitalising Command and adding it to unit titles, thus 'British Aegean Squadron Command' instead of what the sources say, which would be either Aegean Squadron or British Aegean Squadron.
Apologies for that will amend them per my navy list books regarding the ding dong over capitalisation I am merely following what the official sources say the Ministry of Defence UK in the government produced document that I sourced that lists the DTO or PNTO in Capitals and not Dto or Pnto in their official documents either you report it correctly per what the source says or not all.--Navops47 (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I would continue to strongly request you omit "Command" in *any* Royal Navy capitalised formation title except, (1) if we're talking about Naval Home Command, or (2) multiple reliable sources list it, including either period Naval List or since 2017 Naval Directory. Buckshot06(talk)12:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The article, Battle of the Crater, has undergone a significant number of edits since it was assessed as B-Class (in 2006), including the addition of sources (at least one of which has been reported by reviewers outside of Wikipedia to contain factual errors) and the addition of a war crimes subsection, the wording of which has undergone multiple changes. At a minimum, I believe the article needs to be reassessed, but it might also benefit from having one or more of Milhist's most experienced editors perform a thorough review (and revision if incorrect information is found in the article). 47thPennVols (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd strongly recommend MilHist A-Class Review before considering FAC. Not only are the standards at A-Class much closer to FA than GA, but it will give you experience of the sort of community assessment you can expect at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That's because C class requires either b1 or b2, plus b3 to be "yes". I'm having a hard time, though, understanding how you can T23 to be reasonably complete considering it lacks anything more than construction data in its service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
To further clarify, you can't set C. It is set automatically from the completion of the B class check list. So, as Sturmvogel and GELongstreet say, you need B1 or B2, plus B3, B4 and B5 all checked as yes.Monstrelet (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
fixed) - theWOLFchild 14:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Done with re-org. Still looking for more additions to dab pages, and looking at inlinks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
United Kingdom is appropriate. I was just going by the infobox and have no objection to that edit being undone. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Resolved