Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 150

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152→Archive 155

Wehrmachtbericht cleanup

Per recent consensus, I've removed most of the mentions that are either unsourced or sourced only to the ''Wehrmachtbericht itself. A search brings up a number of secondary-sourced mentions. I could use some help from editors with access to the hard-copy sources to determine whether or not they meet the new sourcing requirements. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would post on each article talk page, pinging whomever added the citation, so contributors can provide a quote from the secondary source so it can be verified it meets the standard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
A centralised discussion here would be more streamlined, rather than splintering it to multiple Talk pages. In the case of Stockert, Ringlstetter, Weal, et al, I think that the mentions can be removed, as these are not reliable secondary sources under Proposal 2. I can look at the non-biographical articles individually, which are not that many: [1]. They typically discuss WB in general, rather than as an individual/unit honour, so this RfC would not be applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are a few sources to check:
  • Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg. ASIN B003DKFQUS  (12 September 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • This one I can do, as I have a copy. This is about the first mention of Mickl's division in the WB. The passage in question is on p. 131 and reads, "Bei einem großen Unternehmen im Mai 1944, bei dem die Division mit der östwarts des Plješjevica-Gebirges zwischen Bihač und südlich Knin eingesetzte 373. kroatischen Infanteriedivision zusammen kämpfte, hatte Mickl so große Erfolge, daß die Division erstmals im Wehrmachtbericht erwähnt wurde." Through the magic of Google Translate combined with my schoolboy German and knowledge of the geography, this appears to me to read "In a large operation in May 1944, in which the division fought together with the 373rd Croatian Infantry Division, deployed east of the Plješjevica Mountains between Bihač and south of Knin, Mickl had such great success that the division was mentioned for the first time in the Wehrmachtbericht." Given the way this is worded, it seems clear to me that this mention in the WB is clearly framed as an honour for the success of the division in the operation in May 1944, and therefore meets the conditions of the consensus proposal regarding mentions in the WB. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove: the source does not meet WP:IRS / WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. For starters, it's published by Selbstverlag der Stadtgemeinde Bad Radkersburg, which stands for "Self-published by the municipality Bad Radkersburg". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • retain. sources is widely respected as a go-to resource for information on that dividion. the "self published by a municipality" is a normal method of publishing local material. simply because a city or town publishes something does not make it junk history. all history is local. auntieruth (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain: the source is an excellent book, detailed and consistent with other reliable sources on various aspects of Mickl's military service, and is used as a source for the Deutsche Biographie entry on Mickl. It is clear from the introduction and bibliography that the authors used material from the Austrian and German archives, as well as Mickl's personal papers and interviews with family and other people who knew him. Being published by a local government authority isn't the same as being self-published by the authors themselves (ie vanity publishing). Mickl is a significant figure in the history of Bad Radkersburg, which explains why they have published it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hinchliffe, Peter (1998). Luftkrieg bei Nacht 1939–1945 [Air War at Night 1939–1945] (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 978-3-613-01861-7.
  • Röll, Hans-Joachim (2011). Generalleutnant der Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: Vom Kavallerieoffizier zum Führer gepanzerter Verbände [Lieutenant General of the Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: From a Cavalry Officer to a Leader of Armoured Units] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig. ISBN 978-3-8035-0015-1.

Pinging MisterBee1966 who added most of these. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters you'll need to explain why the authors you mention are not reliable. I don't recall Weal going to RSN at any stage, so I'd appreciate if you would link to these discussions before deleting them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that UNITEC-Medienvertrieb publishes "booklets of dubious provenance" as you claim, K.e.coffman? They appear to be a specialist military/technical publisher, akin to Osprey, producing books on subjects ranging from profiles of ships, vehicles and aircraft from WWII to modern, including books on aspects of the US Army in Germany, major Cold War exercises, the French Air Force etc. Worldcat lists some 175 or so titles, many held by German university libraries. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Even accepting the premise that UNITEC publishes "booklets of dubious provenance", the idea that everything a publisher publishes is unusable because some of the books it publishes are questionable is a fundamental syllogistic fallacy. One wonders where the alleged Nazi sympathies might be found in Japanische Flugzeutrager or Kettenfahrzeug der US Army might be found, for example. I'd echo Peacemaker's assessment that they appear to be similar to the Osprey series. Are they produced by academic historians? I would assume no. But that does not mean they're unusable.
I would ask that if K.e. wants to discredit a specific source, it would be helpful if he (or someone else) has actually seen the book (or at least a review of it). Or we'll end up with a situation like this one, where a seemingly well-intentioned editor is admittedly going around deleting external links he hasn't even looked at, on the basis that they violate WP:ELNO. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
A UNITEC source was discussed here; although one editor questioned the wisdom of discrediting the publisher's entire body of work, there was agreement that theKnight's Cross Profiles series is not a reliable academic source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That discussion, despite being about WWII sources, wasn't even advertised here, where the vast majority of WWII military editors discuss things. Very few regular Milhist editors were pinged. And very few editors were even involved in the discussion, and not all agreed. So it is hardly conclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That it was or wasn't advertised here isn't all that relevant - the point is, K.e. sought to discredit an entire publisher based on a single book he hasn't even read, just relying on his assumptions from the title of the book. Which is, frankly, a joke of an idea. He then conflated them with Kurowski (for which he provided exactly zero evidence apart from, I kid you not, a description of the book on e-Bay. You know, where you get all of your book reviews). At what point do we start ignoring this garbage?
Oh, and in that discussion, no one agreed with his point specifically relating to UNITEC - Woogie agreed that we should not be using "Landser-Hefte" type sources, but he did not, as far as I understand the English language, agree that UNITEC is an example of such. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there wasn't consensus in that discussion to discount UNITEC entirely, but we are talking about the Knight's Cross Profiles specifically and there was strong agreement that they are an example of non-academic fringe literature. –dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same thread? As far as I can tell, only K.e. commented on the Ritterkreuz profiles. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
What else may Woogie have been referring to, and why would they mention it in that thread if it was not Ritterkreuz profiles? –dlthewave ☎ 23:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Aircorn, K.e.coffman, Sturmvogel 66 and Woogie10w who participated in that discussion. Perhaps they can clarify their positions regarding Ritterkreuz. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Ritterkreuzträger Profiles are fringe sources, I would not use them. BTW I am an American,English is my mother tongue. --Woogie 10w (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Responding to ping. I don't really have an opinion regarding that validity of the source. My involvement was more focused on the WP:GA status of the articles. I was going through old GAs with tags and trying to resolve the issues or delist them. I am easy whatever way this discussion decides. If it is decided that they are reliable then can the tags be removed from Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot) and Rudolf Frank. If they are not can someone delist them or ping me so I can do the delisting. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on RfC and reliable sources

  • General comment on the RfC and reliable sources. Anticipating the situation that we now find ourselves in, I requested sample reliable sources during the RfC. I commented that, based on my reading and editing Wiki pages of highly-decorated WWII German personnel, Wehrmachtbericht mentions were to be found in apologist, revisionist, National Socialist, phaleristics, militaria, and / or Landser-pulp literature, with some of it issued by right-wing and extremist publishers. I suggested that it was reasonable to request to see these reliable sources, to make sure they exist. I even wrote that Peacemaker67 was apparently not aware of such sources either.
There was no response to this, indicating a tacit agreement (?), so I did not pursue the matter further: [2]. However, it turns out that Peacemaker67 is in possession of a source that he now claims to be suitable for the Wehrmachtbericht mention, despite a request for such while the RfC was still open. Similar sources have been extensively discussed, see for example: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1, in multiple parts. More specifically, UNITEC-Medienvertrieb has also been discussed: RSN:Sources in World War II GA articles. The continued advocacy, based on one editor's say-so, is concerning.
The current demands ([3], [4], Talk:Friedrich Geisshardt#Wehrmachtbericht, & above) strike me as being out-of-process because supporters of proposal #2 might have voted differently when presented with questionable literature such as this. One voter, for example, mentioned WP:HISTRS needing to be satisfied, before considering inclusion. I thus suggest that all Wehrmachtbericht mentions, in re: being an honour for specific personnel, be removed and their proponents be invited to make a case for individual sources at WP:RSN, to make sure we can establish WP:WEIGHT for such mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This is just a transparent attempt to subvert the RfC which didn't go the way K.e.coffman wanted. The community had a chance to form a consensus view, and did. Just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: If you're that concerned about this new information, then you could ping all of the people who voted for option #2 to see if this really does change their view. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It was indeed predictable, that some editors would try to use proposal #2 as a kind of backdoor to push Nazi propaganda, i.e. the Wehrmachtbericht. I may offer some remarks concerning the sources which are advertised as “excellent” and “reliable” here. The book by Richter/Kobe is strongly biased. As the back cover reads: “The synthesis of soldier and human has it that in this man the eternally the same values of upright soldiering are embodied, which are honesty, bravery and courage, respect for the opponent and caring for the soldier. Besides, Johann Mickl stood out for his high level of humanity, which characterized him apart from his love of his homeland and his personal modesty.” (If it reads confusing in English, I might note that it is also poorly written in German.) The article Johann Mickl strongly relies on Richter/Kobe and consequently reads hagiographic. The pp. 93-139, i.e. Mickl’s bio from 1938 to 1945, have been written by Gerd Kobe, who was Mickl’s chief of operations on the Balkans. I would not call a veteran an unbiased, reliable source. The Report on the crimes of Austria and the Austrians against Yugoslavia and her peoples (1947) charges Mickl’s 392nd division with war crimes, but as we learn, based upon Richter/Kobe, it became clear to the members of the division that a fratricidal war had been raging between Croats and Serbs, and the division would only find burned houses and dead and wounded Serb civilian, in other words, some Croats did it, so Mickl not only shouted at them, but “protected” the Serbs from them. That article is a true showcase of apologia and heroication with many stunning quotes mainly sourced to Richter/Kobe. The context of the first “mention in the Wehrmachtbericht” is telling, hosever, because it is indeed clearly framed as an honour for the success of the division in the operation in May 1944 which left, according to German sources, 438 partisans killed. Recent historiography has shown that the Germans counted civilian victims as partisans. Schraml’s work is considered outdated and publisher Kurt Vowinckel is well known for his extreme rightwing political outlook.
UNITEC is Manfred Franzke’s imprint and as obscure as it can get. It is that kind of literature that you’ll find in a certain corner of a railway station bookshop. No journal with some reputation will commission a review of such a publication. That’s embarrassing. Manfred Franzke, apparently a former fighter pilot, ran for the German Bundestag in 2009 for the obscure Willi-Weise-Projekt. Now he is with the AfD.----Assayer (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a more substantive line of argument on the UNITEC books - the one question I'd ask (being non-German and knowing very little about German politics) is, just how fringe is Franzke? While there are certainly extremist elements in AfD, do we know that he's one of them? I'd also be curious about the politics of the people writing the books - do they tend to have a reputation as apologists and such? I will grant you that the covers look pretty cringey, but that may not be reflective of their contents.
I'd agree that the Richter/Kobe book looks to be unusable. Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Franzke's political affiliations provide the context for these publications. More important, however, is the apparent lack of editorial oversight. These publications are addressed to people who are interested in (military) aviation and model building. They are heavily illustrated with photographs of personalities, aircraft, and award documents and closer to a magazine than to a book, let alone a study. Many “profiles” have been written by Ralf Schumann, about whom virtually nothing is known (profession, training), except that he publishes quite a lot about Knight’s Cross recipients, for example with VDM Heinz Nickel. It seems as if some of the profiles have been translated and published by Schiffer publishing as ‘’Knight’s Cross Profiles’’ (2 vols so far). So basically, the question is again: Are those sources considered to be RS? Larger articles about Knight’s Cross recipients are almost always based upon these kinds of sources. In fact, it would be impossible to write lengthy articles if there wasn’t a sizable amount of that literature, which I consider to be fringe, while others maintain that it is valuable, trustworthy and invaluable for certain information. Proposal #2 is thus used to merely carry on by declaring questionable publications to be RS. I raised that question during the previous discussion [5], but it was evaded.
Richter/Kobe is different. A study on forced laborers from Yugoslavia in Austria (Anna Maria Grünfelder, Arbeitseinsatz für die Neuordnung Europas, 2010) noted, that so far there is no military history of Operation Morgenstern and Operation Schach of May 1944 (p. 133). Thus it is virtually impossible to provide a critical assessment. If I were to write about it, I would nevertheless mention the Wehrmachtbericht, but try to provide context concerning the German fight against Yugoslav partisans. The way Richter/Kobe frame it, and the way in which their book is uncritically used to inform the Wikipedia article, are highly questionable, though.--Assayer (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Source reviews wanted

Greetings all. I have two nominations for A class - Siege of Aiguillon and Gascon campaign of 1345 - which each have three supports and an image review, and therefore are each in need of a source review. If anyone fancied going for one of them it would be much appreciated. There is a strong overlap of sources, so if someone were feeling particularly generous they could go for a two-fer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

G'day Gog, other coordinators may differ, but I have counted AR's examination of sources in both cases as a source review, and have listed both for closure. An independent coord will look at both and decide if they meet the A-Class requirement. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, what a pleasant surprise. Thankee kindly. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review needed

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fall of Kampala has three supports and an image review, and just needs a source review before being ready for promotion to A-Class. If someone could take a look, that would be great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for an upcoming TFA

Operation Pamphlet, an article I took the lead with developing to FA standard, will appear on the main page as Today's Featured Article on 24 January. However, I'll be on the other side of the world with almost no ability to monitor the article (and hopefully more fun things to do!). As this is a relatively obscure topic, I suspect it isn't widely watchlisted. I'd be grateful if other editors could watchlist the article for the day and for the days after while it is still linked from the main page, and respond to the inevitable vandalism and unhelpful editing. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Still on my list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Added to my list. I hope you have a safe and enjoyable trip. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Its now on my list too. Enjoy your trip! TomStar81 (Talk) 16:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Its now part of my list. Have a great trip and be safe! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC Malta Convoys Talk:Malta convoys#Vandalism

Would interested editors take a look at the talk page and comment on the form and content of the article after recent developments? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of practice on Wikipedia, and not very active at moment, and busy - so unlikely I'll get a chance to opine. PS As there's no formal RFC the title of this section confused me for a moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
What's a formal RFC? Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Well we could explain that, but next after that we could discuss whether one is required. @Keith-264: in future it would be useful to provide a link to somewhere near what is under discussion, for example Talk:Malta convoys#Vandalism works right now, but Talk:Malta convoys is useful if the section title on that talk page changes in the near future. Please provide either one or the other or both in future. MPS1992 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(It seems to be explained at WP:RFC.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Apols, I'm off sick at the moment and am not at my best. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Review request

Could somebody please have a look at Polygonal fort on which I recently did a complete re-write with some technical help from my friends here. I flatter myself that it's no longer Start Class :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Had a dash, see what you think. Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Blimey that was quick! Thank you Keith-264 and everyone else who chipped-in. Alansplodge (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: it amused me, and it may amuse you, that the first of your dramatis personae in that article found his way into Retreat (survivalism)#Retreat architecture and security. (Sadly his significance seems inadequately acknowledged within that subculture.) That article is woefully lacking in sources and is not associated with any wikiprojects. I am unsure if a viable argument could be made for its inclusion in this wikiproject. MPS1992 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We are most amused. Our Survivalism article is linked to the "philosophy" and "disaster management" wikiprojects. Do we have a "barking mad" project? Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
B Class! Thank you User:Buidhe. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved

David Stahel: "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’?"

David Stahel in his article The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’?: "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." In the article, he also mentioned this project. Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was discussed back in August. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Before I posted, I made a search on the archive (using the provided search-box) and it didn't came up. Thanks for pointing it out. Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Klemen Kocjancic: Yes, it came up at the recent Arbcom case, which I imagine Milhist may rather forget...but certainly should not  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Although it's certainly ironic that he has not released the article under a compatible licence, which if he was that keen on changing WP's operatin philosophy you would think he might. ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Old news and frankly biased opinion based with little real effort to research. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash

Does this article come under MILHIST? The aircraft involved was owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, but was operated by Saha Airlines. The accident occured at a military airfield - Fath Air Base, which is currently a redlink. Will let members of this WP decide the answer to the question, and hope that the redlink can be turned blue. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have been a tanker aircraft per Flight Global. That would be a military flight, if accurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Saha Airlines is owned by the IRIAF. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for including medals in infobox?

I don't have much experience with military biographies, but some infoboxes look rather poorly composed, with notable medals crammed in unsightly: see for instance: Richard E. Byrd, Floyd Bennett, and (less glaringly awkward), Christian F. Schilt. Having a picture of a medal, even the highest military honor, shove the image of the person to one side seems poor aesthetics. I think the infobox portrait field should be restricted to a photo of the subject alone. Just floating it out there, don't want to step on any toes. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I hadn't seen that down before, and it certainly isn't standard use of the image field. Generally the award would be listed in the awards field, and there might be a medal image in the body at the relevant point. I have seen MoH articles where there wasn't a portrait available where the MoH has been substituted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I removed the MOH from the infobox on Kenneth Walker in October 2016. [6] I thought it was cluttering it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And I've removed the other three noted above. Award images do not belong in infoboxes and should be removed when and wherever they're found. - wolf 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Some use them as portrait placeholders if no picture of the person is available, which happens quite often. However if a portrait has been added the medal picture should be deleted. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

List of paratrooper forces

I'm assuming that this would fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST; so, I'm wondering if someone from the project might take a look at it. There's been lots of content recently added to it, and much of it is unsourced. While most of the units mentioned probably do (did?) exist, it seems the trying to mention every possible unit is going to run into problems per WP:LSC. I'm also not sure about the use of images (even if they are public domain images) as de-facto flag icons for such entries since they are so small that they really don't improve the reader's understanding and in some cases can be seen more clearly on the stand-alone articles for the units in question. Using them in this manner seems to be one of the things that MOS:LOGO advises against even for freely licensed logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article really hasn't been on my radar; I've been periodically just giving up trying to similarly police List of military special forces units. Absolutely the more eyes on these two, the better. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: Yes, that's another article which seems to be having issues per WP:LSC. FWIW, I tried to do a little clean up of the section headings (there's really no need to the country names to be wikilinked per MOS:HEAD and WP:OVERLINK), but was subsequently reverted per WP:IAR (even though IAR isn't really intended to be applied in such a way in my opinion). Most of the subsections in the special forces list article have wikilinks to other relevant articles of the particular country's special forces; so, there's really nothing gained encyclopedically from linking to both the country's general article and the country's special forces article(s). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Like any big city, this encyclopedia has areas that are less well ruled and more well ruled. It took a consistent prolonged period from several editors to drive back the fanboys at List of military special forces units; it would take the same or similar efforts at List of paratrooper forces. My guess is that every-country-wikilinks would be intended to be aesthetically pleasing.
So, volunteers? Like to add List of paratrooper forces to your watchlist, visit often, and cull often? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Arturolorioli, references are mandatory; add them, all over the place, please, at List of paratrooper forces, or face some repeated rollbacks of your edits. "PROVISIONAL ENTRY" is simply not acceptable. Either it is supported by RSs or it isn't (in which case it ought to be contextualized and covered at national military entry pages, not pages like this.) Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Not quite, AFAIK. References are not mandatory: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space" (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). If you have intention to "challenge" all my entries , let me know, and I will add them. It will be quite easy, as almost each and every "Provisional Entries" are drawn from the same source, i.e. IISS Military Balance, 2017 edition: that sources provides trace of the existence of the units, but does not provide (with a few exceptions) a correct identification neither anything but a generic hint of their capabilities. As such, I've added a note as a warning to other contributors, so they could integrate and upgrade the quality of the entry. About rollbacks, they are not a matter of principle of or ego: if anybody has better and more accurate information about a specific entry, he's welcome to change what he likes, that's what Wikipedia exists for: it is not a blanket tool to be applied without previous consultation. About the other entries, they comes from the related Armed Forces articles of each nations published in wikipedia, either the english edition or the relative national one: your blanket rollback of many of them is (in the most friendly tones) unnecessary: if you thing that references are needed, you should have just contacted me for clarifications and we would have easily solved the problem together in a nice wikipedian collaborative way. Still in the most friendly way, please return the entries you have deleted to the article, it will make easier to add the necessary improvements. All the best, we have had not a nice start but I trust we will get over that and work together on this article in a relaxed and friendly way. --Arturolorioli (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to debate the matter. For the purposes of adhering to your quite correct quoting of the exact rules, yes, I'm happy to challenge each separate entry, because they are not referenced, and any re-adding of material should be referenced (cf. WP:BURDEN). I'm somewhat surprised that (a) you believe that baldly stating 'Provisional Entry' without an apparent source is acceptable, and if the Military Balance 2017 is where that data comes from, that needs to be in-line-text cited, with the page number.
(B) Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference itself. Should you wish to readd material after I remove it for lack of in-line-references, you will need to reference it with a reliable source. For example, the Egyptian 414th Airborne Brigade data originally was entered into WP first, then a copy sprang up elsewhere, and we still have little to no corroboration of the designation or further details. Thus it is simply unacceptable, reference wise, to say at a noticeboard that 'the information comes from other Wikipedia articles'.
I'm less interested in remaining 'relaxed and friendly' than I am in making sure that all entries have a proper in-line-text reference. You may be interested to look at the edit history of List of military special forces units where a similar debate went on. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Could you please be so kind to specify the level of reference you are requiring? Because for the Algerian AB Division and its major component sub-units entry I added as a test the full reference (page included) ... and you rolled back the entry as "unreferenced" all the same: a bit puzzling. All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And by they way, could you be so kind to check if the entry about the Italian parachute units I added a few minutes ago is correctly referenced according to the required standards? TIA and all the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It was not clear what you were claiming was referenced by the Military Balance; the division's existence, or the division plus the regiments. I left the divisional entry in place, while removing the rest. Kindly also remove all the very small scale icons scattered up and down the page; they have little use. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at List of wars by death toll

An editor has made a request at List of wars by death toll asking that the Franco-Prussian War be added to the list. As far as I can tell the request has merit, but it's so far out of my area of expertise that I'd prefer if someone else took a look. Would someone from this project be able to pop by and help out for a minute? Thanks much in advance! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Burma Independence Army lead

I beefed up the lead (see here) but was largely reverted. I put a note on the talk page of the other user, but not response. I think the longer lead is better. Opinions? Srnec (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure your lead is better, a lead should be a short summery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The commented I posted on the user's talk page was: "I think the long lead is better. It was redundant, but it is supposed to be. The lead should summarize the article. Since this is and should be a long article, a long summary is perfectly normal. Look at the size of the lead at Azad Hind or Burma Campaign." Given that the article has been recently confirmed by mergers to be about all the Burmese national forces during WWII, I think it needs a long lead. Srnec (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
MOS:LEADLENGTH states "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic." The article, excluding the lead, is currently less than 24,000 bytes. The same MoS guideline suggests that articles of 15,000–30,000 characters should have leads of two or three paragraphs. If and when the article goes over 30,000 bytes, this could be expanded to three or four paragraphs. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Spam with wider implications for many articles

“What is book spam?” is the section heading. The excessively narrow use of “Further reading” does not look to be in the reader’s interest, and appears, frankly, to be just one more stop on a long line of attemps to find something...anything wrong with a small group of edits. Knowledgeable eyeballs on it both about the subject and wider implications would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Spam#What_is_book_spam?
See WP:CANVAS. --Ronz (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment (Helmut Wick)

Helmut Wick, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • G'day Indy beetle. That's not necessary, because GA and ACR operate independently of one another, as do their processes. GARs can be conducted individually, as well as by the community, whereas ACR is a strictly community process. If the GAR results in a delist, we will put it up for a ACR review as a matter of course, because if it is not GA, then the likelihood it is still A-Class is not good. The same happens when a FAR results in a delist, because A-Class is close to FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) In theory that makes sense but practically speaking it may not make much difference. Although we consider A-Class as the 'higher' ranking, it is after all a MilHist-specific assessment, whereas GA is WP-wide. If we're looking to remove both assessments, two reviews will be necessary whatever order they're undertaken. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Peacemaker67: @Ian Rose: Very well. As a matter of course, I imagine that we would never proceed with an A-class review if another review was ongoing, but doesn't the independence of ACR technically mean we could run one at the same time as FA, GA, or peer review? Putting on my Wikijurist hat, I'd prefer to interpret otherwise. I raise this question because it seems a relevant point on the ambiguity of our process. Perhaps a small clarification in the nomination instructions is warranted? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on HMS Warspite

A small group of editors have decided to remove information from an article disambiguating vessels of the Royal Navy named 'HMS Warspite'. In March 2018 someone decided to insert markers to indicate at which point - in terms of the ships themselves - battle honours were awarded. With twenty five battle honours awarded to the name across four centuries this illustrates that there were different ships fighting in very different wars. I felt this edit was actually helpful and let it be. The new editors have decided the concept of linking the an honour to the ship which earned it is wrong and infers there is no continuity (subsequently reinforced by moving the explanatory text away from the list even while discussion was ongoing).

It's actually a small change to this article, but if we are consistent it might affect a number of other warship disambiguation articles. It would be useful to get a neutral opinion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

A little editorial advice appreciated

Over at Swordstaff, User:WikiHannibal and I have reached an impasse. Rather than keep reverting one another, could an experienced editor advise the best way forward? Ironically, we have no disagreement over what we want to happen (we want to change to a different spelling of a persons name to that used in a cited source, because the spelling is used in reputable non-English works, on German wiki and even wikimedia) but I have some qualms about using a source I can't check. Happy to be wrong but don't want to breach policy. Monstrelet (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a reasonable position. I've put my tuppence worth in. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to walk away and leave others to argue it through, who may hold different views to myself about sourcing. It is a really trivial issue in a Start class article, so it should be sortable. Best of luck. Monstrelet (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

H.L. Hunley Award AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. L. Hunley JROTC Award I figure some of you may be interested in weighing in. Look forward to the discussion.Garuda28 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Question on contest topicality

Clearly articles on militarized police (e.g. National Gendarmerie) are within the realm of this WikiProject and articles on entirely civilian police (e.g. New York Police Department) are not. My question, however, is where civilian police units using maneuver tactics or military customs fall? Specifically, I just wrote Mobile Field Force and was thinking about doing something on the RCMP's Musical Ride, an equestrian drill ... would these be eligible for the contest or are they too far out-of-bounds? (The Law Enforcement WikiProject is more or less moribund.) Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Mobile Field Force or anything to do with the RCMP would fall within the scope of the project. In many countries, civilian police originated from military or paramilitary organisations, and they still have many things in common with military orgs, but civilian police have always had to use various quasi-military tactics for higher-risk activities, especially with public order issues. Generally, civilian police have individual powers used at their own discretion (with obvious caveats for public order-type situations where they need to follow orders), whereas paramilitary and military police have a much greater emphasis on chain of command and following orders. There are exceptions on both sides, of course, and there is some overlap. These things should be assessed on a article-by-article basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense to me - thanks, Peacemaker67! Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Spam with wider implications for many articles

Non-neutral notice, see below for a neutral version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

“What is book spam?” is the section heading. The excessively narrow use of “Further reading” does not look to be in the reader’s interest, and appears, frankly, to be just one more stop on a long line of attemps to find something...anything wrong with a small group of edits. Knowledgeable eyeballs on it both about the subject and wider implications would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Spam#What_is_book_spam?
See WP:CANVAS. --Ronz (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
...which explicitly states:
Appropriate notification
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
According to the policy you cited, this is exactly where it belongs, and the very first suggestion given. Qwirkle (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room! Jokes aside, the notice was inappropriate because it was biased to one side of the discussion, so it could be considered canvassing per WP:APPNOTE. A neutrally-worded notice would have been fine, as Qwirkle could have no idea what members of the project might think about this issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, but that was the unbiased version. You shoulda seen the first draft! If you want, @Peacemaker67:, beat it into a more neutral form and hat or strike the original, if that is appropriate. Qwirkle (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the content of Further reading sections at Wikipedia talk:Spam#What is book spam? which members of this project may be interested in. Feel free to comment there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Delisting procedure

G'day all. Just for information on proper procedure when an article is delisted from A-Class, it reverts to the next highest class held prior to its A-Class delisting. If that is GA, it reverts to GA. Our WikiProject A-Class delisting process does not substitute for the entirely separate WP-wide GAR process. A GAR process is required to delist it from GA to B-Class or lower, if appropriate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Good reminder. If the article does not have a GA, then it would probably revert to B class (A to B), I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, when an A-Class article is delisted and it wasn't previously a GA, the delisting coord should re-assess it according to our assessment scale. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles in case anyone is interested in having their say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size

The RfC at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size may interest this community. Input welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

DANFS

There is a host of broken URLS to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships out there (see this, in an FA no less) I have been clicking on random transclusions, but was wondering if there isn't a way to get all pages that use the template {{Cite DANFS}} listed on one page that I can check off and fix; or have a bot fix the URLs. Thanks. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A few years ago the official DANFS site reorganized and completely changed their URLs. Editors have been gradually fixing this as they come to the articles. Not all of the articles that cite DANFS use that template, making things harder. There is also {{DANFS}}, which explains that the source is public domain, allows addition of URL(s), and is usually found in the "References" section. Some of the templates also link to HazeGray.org, which in some cases has a different edition of DANFS with more or different information. RobDuch (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
In a related issue, when trying to fix USS Leary (DD-879), I found several dead links to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq90-5c.htm being used as a reference to detailed actions carried out by the ship during the crisis - the information doesn't seem to be on the ship's DANFS page [7] or on history.navy.mil's general page on the Cuban Missile crisis [8]. Can anyone fix this?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The material on Leary is now here in a detailed Cuban Missile Crisis chronology. It's in the 9 November/Labinsk section. It took a bit of digging to find this, as the site has several much shorter pages on this event. Leary is also listed as receiving the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. I'll update the Leary article, there are a few corrections to be made to the armament. RobDuch (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Whole armed services neither units nor formations - category

For the last few years I've been puzzling at the back of my mind what to use as the category for whole armed services and their formation dates. They are neither units nor formations, went my logic. They sit above all the formations that actually go out and do the fighting. So what could the [[Category:X formed in 1820]] added to, for example, British Army look like?

I finally realised that whole armed services are actually organisations, as in bodies established of people. I prompted added [[Category:Organizations established in 1707]] to British Army and got reverted. Mediatech492 disagrees. I only have made the argument that they are not units and formations, not the argument that they are organisations, but have made that above - bodies established of people. Would some interested third parties please come along and provide their voices, to avoid prolonged discussions between two people on an obscure talkpage? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Now let's see the RS to support your assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Where are the sources that call the British Army a formation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone find any way of trying to argue the British Army is not a human organisation? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
G'day, I would say it is an overarching organisation. Military organisations such as the Australian Army, British Army, etc, consist of smaller elements such as commands (i.e. Forces Command), formations and units. In the British/Commonwealth, a formation would typically be a brigade or higher (up to a field army, I suppose). A unit would be a battalion/regimental-level entity consisting of sub-units (companies/squadrons/batteries etc). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Googling "The army as an organisation" produces hits including the British Army's own website describing them as such. Lyndaship (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica says "British Army. In the United Kingdom, the military force charged with national defense and the fulfillment of international mutual defense commitments." Nothing about being a formation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
My WP:ORish view is that service-level military organizations (e.g. the British Army, or the US Navy) are not formations. Field armies are. A formation - in my mind - is a set of units that are present (or are able to be present) at a certain theater at a certain time. Regular (+possibly reserve) units within a service may constitute a formation (though not always - e.g. IIRC different bits of United States Marine Corps are assigned to different naval groups and different (at times) theaters - so it is hard to view the whole as one formation). Services, in my view, are a "wrapping" around formations and contain functions that allow the service to grow (or downsize) additional units into new or expanded formations. Regardless of whether a service is a formation, they definitely are organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
With a very limited number of exceptions, mostly driven by new political movements, most national armies don’t have a single begining point. The US army likes to date itself from Washington taking command at Cambridge, roughly, but some of its constituent pieces had seen fighting against Metacomet. The Red Army absorbed formerly Tsarist elements, and so forth. The Army is dead, long live the Army.
Obviously, the Act of Union created a change in the military arrangements on the British Isles, But thats only one point of many that could be selected. I think it might be worth mentioning any decent source’s opinion on this in the body of an article, but adding such a date to many articles is a fool’s errand. Qwirkle (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good point Qwirkle and leads naturally to the policy I adopt. Because this is about a category, and it shows up in categories, I'm careful about making sure the date inserted matches the title of the article. So, to take another example, the New Zealand Army has roots well back into the 19th Century. But during the Second World War it was actually designated the New Zealand Military Forces. Only the Army Act of 1947 or 1948 created the 'New Zealand Army'. So I would add 1910 or 1924 or whatever the exact correct date is to NZMF, and the date of the Army Act to New Zealand Army - because it influences the categories.

But, correctly as you say, it may not be as easy for many long-established armies (and for the Royal Navy would you date it from the English, or the absorption of the Royal Scots Navy?) so in that case, where it's not clear, it's best not to add such a category. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree, an Army is not a formation except in the very broadest sense, so shouldn't be categorized as such. As for date of creation, that is (often, if not always) a bit of a fiction; the issue is, what does the Army in question say? (And what do the RS say, if the Army itself is silent?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Awards and Decorations sections and and Shaheed as an Honorific Title

I've noticed that with some pages, particularly recipients of the Nishan-e-Haider, have a section for "awards and decorations" but only images (usually also quite bulky) of the medal and ribbon for a singular award. An example is the article on Muhammad Akram. Is it necessary for this section to exist if there is only one award listed given that it is already included in the infobox? Also I was wondering if the use of Shaheed, which roughly translates out to "martyr", as an honorific title is appropriate or if it violates WP:NPOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The general consensus is not to include medal images and ribbons in this section. In that particular article I would convert it to prose and say He was awarded the xxx on yyy for zzzz and cite it. Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I certainly do not support a separate section with medal images or a "ribbon farm", and agree that awards should be mentioned, linked and cited in the narrative at the appropriate point. I sometimes list awards in a separate section when there are a lot, but only with links, not with icons or images. See Artur Phleps for an example. However, it can be useful for readers to show what the NH (or VC or MoH) looks like as an image used next to the section that contains the citation for the award. I've only ever done that with the highest award available to a member of a given armed forces, like a VC. See Lawrence Weathers for an example of what I mean. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force

Is this task force supposed to have a separate talk page? From 2010 until 2017, it redirect to this talk page, like the other task force talkpages. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

for example, these redirect here:
-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Half-track or half-track?

As title says, what is the right way (and is it different when in title)? I see some one way some the other. I personally like the first option. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If it is a name captialise, if it is not lower case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe "half-track" is a common name for the type of vehicle and not a proper name. (Largely agreeing with User:Slatersteven here.) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
As stated, if not part of the vehicle name, then common noun, lower-case. Kierzek (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Kierzek, Fnlayson, Slatersteven so to summarize, in text it should be half-track, but in titles like M9_half-track it should be changed to uppercase. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I think so, it is its common (if not official) name.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Alright, So I'll go ahead and move the inconsistent pages? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Not that simple, for example, what is specific title/official name; for the M2 it was that and it was a half-track (or half-track car); no need for upper case. But with that said, it can depend on the school of grammar being used. So thread lightly. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Kierzek, Alright, now I'm not sure what to do, think I'll just leave this for now. I did find this great sourceWelpThatWorked (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Welp, read through the WP:MOS, that will help you. Kierzek (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, names of a "vehicle model" are not "proper names" as such. Things such as "Mustang cars" are capitalised, not because they are proper names but because they are trade names. For the M9 half-track (for example), the model is "M9". What follows is a description of its use and features - usually in army-double-back-speak. Proper names are not descriptive. The designation of a slouch hat is a hat KFF, where KFF is an initialism of khaki, fur-felt. Capitalising the initialism does not mean that the abbreviated form is capitalised. So, from a perspective of onomastics (what is a proper noun) and orthography (what is capitalised), there is no need to cap half-track. The MOS advice is to "avoid unnecessary capitalization". It then throws a spanner in the works, advising to capitalise "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". How the US Army captitalises the "descriptive" part of the designation is therefore irrelevant, since it is not independent (and also has a propensity to over-cap). This is now as clear as mud, but that is the guidance we have to work with. In the first instance, I would tend not to cap, on the basis that it is unnecessary. In the title, it serves the function of a disambiguator. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

uboat.net as a source

Is uboat.net a reliable source? The website has been classified as unreliable or irrelevant in context of a number German U-boat related biography articles here on Wikipedia. In most instances the references were removed (see [9], [10], [11] to list a few) and some cases the articles have been deleted/redirected (see [12], [13], [14] to list a few) as the website did not help support notability of the individual. The website has been reviewed before at WP:RSN (I found two instances Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#U-boat.net and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Uboat.net). Both reviews appear to be inconclusive regarding reliability of this source. Momentarily there are two U-boat articles up for GA review, they are Talk:German submarine U-335/GA1 and Talk:German submarine U-301/GA1. In both instances, uboat.net was used as a source in article creation. Is it not reasonable to assume that uboat.net is either reliable for both biography and U-boat articles, or unreliable in both cases? Alternatively, can uboat.net be considered reliable in some cases only? If yes, in what instances is it safe to rely on uboat.net? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading about it on its about us page I would have said no, just another blog (in effect), but reading the RSN threads it seems that people far better qualified then me think it is, I assume they have also checked its facts. ON balance it seems a number of notable historians think it is relabel, who am I to disagree?Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Generally yes but its not always so especially on ships other than German submarines. A recent example I came across was HMS Aubrietia (K96) where they used the incorrect spelling of the ships name Lyndaship (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Have seen this source used quite a bit but will defer to you all Re: if it can be included/removed. —Ed!(talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that it's reliable enough for GAs, but not "highly reliable" as would be required for A or FA class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source and should be used as a secondary source to supplement reliable sources, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that. So, sources can only be "reliable" for B-class and GA-class articles but must be "highly reliable" for A-class and FA-class? In this specific context, uboat.net is "reliable" but not "highly reliable". Does this degree of reliability apply to both biographies and vessels, or only for vessels? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

FA criteria explicitly requires highly reliable sources, IIRC, and the A-class criteria says nearly the same as FA, so I'd extend the FA requirement down to A class, but that's just me. I'd say that it's "reliable" for both biographies and ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Difficult one, though I tend to agree with the distinction between FA/A-class criteria and other levels of review. It's not clear from the site's 'about' information that there is the level of editorial oversight that FA demands from its sources, meaning that it will likely get challenged at FAC. Five of the links provided in the last RSN to other sources that recommend the site are dead, and I'm not all that convinced those that can be accessed represent ringing endorsements by solidly academic authorities or sources that are focused on the subject (e.g. a Malaysian "Author, publisher, social historian, heritage advocate and cultural entrepreneur", PBS, what appears to be an exercise book for teaching critical thinking to grades 7-12 (I assume that's the US school system), a guide to doing internet research, and a weblinks page (albeit from the Naval Museum of Manitoba)). Factotem (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks L293D. There are several books in that list which I know and wouldn't blink at if I came across them at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that if (at least) two books published by Naval Institute Press are using it as a source, then it may be reliable. Personally I use it as an resource to tell me where to look for sources on a given boat rather than a direct source itself, but I think it is probably acceptable for articles up to B-Class, and maybe GA, as long as the article does not rely on it too heavily. Most reliably published books contain minor errors such as a misspelt ship name etc, and I don't think such occasional minor errors are enough to make it unreliable. Whether is is of sufficient quality for A-Class and FA is debatable, I would think not, although they claim to use multiple reliable sources, pages aren't provided, it isn't footnoted and the contributors do not appear to be published elsewhere in the field of specialisation. It would be far better to directly rely on the sources they say they use, like Busch and Röll, Rohwer, Gröner, Kemp, Niestlé etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with your conclusions at all but I would point out that in the Aubrietia example I gave it is not a simple mispelling in the text but its the title of their page and RS such as Colledge, Rohwer, Lenton and Miramar all use the correct spelling. Another example of slopiness is HMS Bahamas where you will see they have exactly the same incident listed twice. Lyndaship (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So, is there a decision on this one? I was planning to pass the two above GA articles but was holding pending the outcome here. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

G'day Ed!, I have to say that neither article uses the available book sources fully, especially U-335, and I'm a bit dubious that almost all the of operational information relies on uboat.net. I think that's thin for GA. If uboat.net have obtained this information from reliable books as they claim, it should be available from them. Not sure that helps, but there you go... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting in a bit late here, but uboat.net is fairly often referenced in professionally published works. A search on Google Books produces examples: [15]. Peacemaker67's observation that works published by Naval Institute Press (which is probably the gold standard for naval history publishing at the moment) also carries a lot of weight IMO. That said, from personal experience it's not uncommon for the various key sources on German submarines and the Battle of the Atlantic to differ on the details of events, so uboat.net shouldn't be used in isolation - nor should the other sources though! Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This has now been delisted as a GA, and I have nominated it for an A-Class re-assessment as a result. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

HM Schooner Bernaita?

Can anyone shed any light of this vessel?

"HM Schooner Bernaita, Lieutenant Waite, on shore. She arrived at Rio for repairs 10th October - Glasgow Herald, 14 November 1851. A locally hired vessel perhaps? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Think I've cracked it. The Liverpool Mercury of 14 November 1851 names her as "Bonella". I think it is HMS Bonetta (1836) which is known to have been in Brazilian waters in 1851. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Shot trap

Could I get a third opinion on the edit disagreement on Shot trap please? (Hohum @) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Hohun and Loved150 have not expresed any concerns, or explaining their motive when making their reverts. 2. Hohum making baseless accusation of wrong doing by taging his templates everywhere. 3. Hunnicutt is a highly reliable author and he is a foremost authority on american tanks. 4. BRD is not valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

Looking at itTirronan (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Had a look. The place to discuss an edit conflict is actually on the talk page, not in edit messages. That way, cases can be made in sufficient detail. Monstrelet (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd revert to long-term stable of June 2018 (which is Hohum's version). Mostly because it has the turret images. There are some minor wording changes, which I don't see as hugely significant. I would want the Panther to be included, but the KV-1 isn't as significant. It's unsourced, I'm not aware of any significant shot trap issues with it and WP has a perennial problem of adding "my favourite tank/pokemon". Similarly for the M-26, but at least that's sourced (I don't have Hunicutt to see if it had a significant shot trapping issue). I'm not against the addition of Hunicutt as a source, but there's no reason why that has to be done at the cost of the bulk changes elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The wording is significant. The shot-trap was not entirely resolved nor eliminated with the new flat "chin" on the mantlet of the Panther as claimed before, but rather its potential was minimized as Hunnicutt notes; this is certainly true for both tanks. Second, if you are not aware of things, please do not comment on stuff you don't have any certainty of it. Source for KV tank is Russian military historian Maksim Kolomiets.
Telling another contributor to basically "shut up you don't know what you are talking about" is not a great start. Secondly, TAKE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE TALK PAGE! Here we work towards consensus. Neither of you was working together just reverting one another. This accomplishes exactly nothing. Tirronan (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Basically, any convex mantlet is going to have the issue. Any turret that has an angled lower slope is going to have the issue. Eliminating shot traps has been a vexing issue in tank development throughout WW2 and should be treated more holistically. Most of all no one is discussing the issue instead of reverting one another. One look at the M26 mantlet tells me it had the issue. Physics plays no favorites. You are going to have to deeper dive into the research of the problem I'd suggest checking BuOrd reports, not research documents OR, on the M26. Look at how the turret changes from the M26, M47, M48, and M60, and you can see what was done to address it. I'd like to see the reverts stop and the talking start. Tirronan (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Nigerian divisions

While stub-sorting I found 2nd Division (Nigeria) which starts off "The 2 Division ...". Looking at its website it seems to be called "2" rather than "2nd" - but looking in Category:Military units and formations of Nigeria we have 1st Division (Nigeria) and 3rd. Not my speciality, but someone here might like to see whether the articles are rightly named. Obviously need redirects from the other versions of the names. Over to you. PamD 10:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah no, it wasn't stub-sorting: this new article turned up on my watchlist because I CSD'd an earlier version in 2015. Anyway, I've added this one to the dab page at 2nd Division, and also made a redirect pointing there from 2 Division which was previously red (though 2. Division was already a redirect pointing there - weird!). Pinging @Buckshot06: for info as creator of the new article. PamD 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This was in my mind when I created the article, and, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, have moved it to 2 Division (Nigeria). Any further expansion help welcome!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question

From Talk:Special Forces; can the Bible be used as a source? - wolf 19:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

For military matters????? No. Tirronan (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WWII redirects

Hello, I've been wikilinking some ball player's WWII service, usually using the search box for a reasonable redirect. However, i have come up empty on Hank Thompson's 1695th Combat Engineers. What would be a suitable redirect for this? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bison X: G'day, I think the unit's full name was the 1695th Engineer Combat Battalion. This might be a viable stand alone article, as there appears to be some coverage: [16][17], although it would need a bit more research (beyond just my brief Google search) to confirm if this coverage is significant. If you don't feel it is notable for a stand alone article, potentially you could just pipe the link in the article to Engineer Combat Battalion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c)Thanks for the input. I was going for a redirect rather than a pipe because most all online sources for Thompson specifically state "1695th Combat Engineers", and I don't know about others, but I usually just highlight the specific text and search WP. I'll rdr. to ECB for now but I was hoping for something more specific, and anyone is free to re-target it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Stanton (my only detailed reference on WWII units) says the 1695th Engineer Combat Battalion was an African-American unit (designated "Colored" at the time), organized 15 March 1944 at Camp Pickett, VA, departed the New York Port of Embarkation 22 October 1944, arrived in England 2 November 1944, moved to the European Theater of Operations on unknown date, and was deactivated on 19 June 1945 in Germany. RobDuch (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on Negro league ball players, so all are "Colored" units. Unfortunately, there is very little online regarding these underappreciated soldiers. Thank you much. --Bison X (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, how do I find service info for some players? For instance, all Buck O'Neil's page says is A World War II tour in the U.S. Navy from 1943–1945 briefly interrupted his playing career. That hardly gives it the respect it deserves and I believe he was a Seabee. Is there an free online database that would tell me more? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of the service records for World War I through Vietnam were destroyed in a fire at the National Archives in the 1970s, including Regular Army records going back much further. So there's very little info on individual service members. The Park Service prepared a Civil War database, but even that has a lot of gaps. I forgot to check at first, but the 1695th has campaign participation credit for the Rhineland and Central Europe. RobDuch (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Nuts! --Bison X (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
In the remote event you should find a Negro Leagues player who may have served in the Civil War (enlistees were accepted as young as age 14), Howard University did a large-scale project to identify and enter as many African-American soldiers and sailors from that conflict as possible in the Park Service database. See here. There's also a large database at Civil War data for $25 per year; I haven't determined its coverage of African-American units. RobDuch (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Riachuelo S-40

Hello everyone, The Brazilian Navy released 2100 pictures through a GLAM partnership with Wiki Education Brazil. You can take a look here for useful contents. We will have access to more content soon, including old photos, maps and documents. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool! Let us know when the next batch is released, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@The ed17: - looks like you have some articles to write. Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the use of infobox criminal for military personnel

There is a discussion regarding the use of infobox criminal for military personnel here in case anyone is interested. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Indigo SAM

Re: Project Indigo, this brief article states Project Indigo was started by India in 1962. An agreement was signed between India and Switzerland to develop an intermediate-range surface-to-air missile (SAM). Indigo was discontinued in later years without achieving full success. However, Contraves, a Swiss firm, and later Sistel successfully developed a SAM called Indigo starting in 1962 that was fielded with the Italian Army. More to the story? Perhaps someone with missile knowledge can contribute more.

Info on the Indigo at https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/indigo.htm

83.20.103.34 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-on comments. Indigo, though it completed development and testing, was never adopted by the Italian Army so far as I can tell. I think the issue, if there be one, is that this article comments only on Swiss-Indian cooperation in the early years. Not sure if there should be a separate article about the Indigo missile itself (as developed to completion by Sistel in Italy). Indigo appears to have been another one of the many systems developed but never successfully marketed during the Cold War. These two pages from Flight Global also mention the Indigo system.

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%202923.PDF https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%202924.PDF

83.20.103.34 (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Osprey Publishing sale

I don't mean to promote the company, but the very prolific and wide ranging (and sometimes not very good) firm Osprey Publishing are currently having a major sale on their website, with most books/ebooks being at least 50% off. Details are here. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have found their books on Japanese tanks and tank tactics to be good. With that said, you are correct, their books can be a mixed bag, overall. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Et in Arcadia ego? (At least Arcadia has had the sense to separate the scholarly or at least authoritative stuff from the schlock over time with different imprints.) Qwirkle (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Good spot but Osprey facilitate a print to order operation with a lot of sellers on Amazon who will usually offer a new copy at even lower prices than these official sale prices Lyndaship (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity. (Now, there’s a nice uncontroversial topic, right?)

I ran across a MoH winner whose religious or ethnic background had been mis-identified as Jewish, probably based on the old New England habit of stuffing as many unaltered names from the Bible down their progenies’ throats as possible. Looking through connected pages, I noticed a couple others like this, which are straightforward to change, even if there are some bad gee-whiz “look who’s a fellow (fill-in-the-ethnic/religious/national/favoritebreedofdog group)!!!” sources that support them.

Then you got one that requires some thought. John Levitow. Married and buried RC; probably, but can’t tell for sure yet, baptized and brought up such. Father from a Jewish family, mother from a Catholic one, both’s ancestry from Poland. No sign of disavowal, plate-breaking, secrecy, or angst -in fact, the parents families appear to have vacationed and retired to the same patch of Florida; so this isn’t like Mary Gordon or John Kerry. Add both ethnic groups? Leave both out? Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We do not do OR, if he is not called a small green thing from alpha centuri by RS we cannot say it, even if we uncover evidence he may have been.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
While you can't use OR in an article, you can use it to tag the statement e.g. disputed (if cited) or citation needed (if uncited). Make clear why you are doing it in the edit summary though (lack of evidence/existence of contrary evidence) to avoid allegations of racism or sectarianism Monstrelet (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I have never likes the ("Brigadier Gerard was a small elephant called tom (CN)") tactic. If you do not have a source for a claim then it is just your speculation and that is OR, and should not be added in the hope someone else can find a source for it. Disputes might be different, but you then need to say who disputes it and why on the talk page and if it "me and my mate Dave from down the pub" expect the tag to be removed. Now if we are talking about Cn tagging a claim already in the article no issue. But the impression I got form the OP was they are talking about something not yet in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Being English I'm immune to superstitious mumbo-jumbo and resent attempts to appropriate individuals to this or that obscurantist rabble. Unless someone is a well-known devotee of a belief-system, I'd rather not be bothered by reference to it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to add were talking about potential BLP issues here, so definitely only add content supported by sources. Anything not properly sourced, shouldn't be tagged as "cn" or anything elss, it should be immediately removed. (my 0.02¢) - wolf 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
True, but they maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The original post speaks of mis-identification in articles, so the doubtful information is already there. It could be removed if unreferenced, though that may lead to edit conflicts if done abruptly without going through a cn process. I agree with Slatersteven on disputing - you do need sources contrary to what is already there in hand, and you should always be looking to take the dispute to talk, so there is an opportunity to reach a consensus on which source is preferred. Monstrelet (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I´m curious: Are there guidelines, on how to source someones religious believes sufficiently? Alexpl (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, see; WP:reliable sources. Religious beliefs are no different than any other content. If it's relevant and belongs in the article, it needs to be properly sourced. - wolf 17:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
So the statement about a persons religion has to be definit - Wiki authors cant deduce (OR) from a religious sounding lastname, a burial on a faith-based cemetery, or a church where a wedding was held, what religion a person had. Alexpl (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is why, in fact, so many articles use phrasing like “born to a Snurgrovian Beetle-worshiping family”, or “of Snurgrovian Beetle-worshipper ancestry”, since the larger group is easier to make a conclusion about, even if has no particular application to any particular member. Use of circumstantial clues would, for instance, tell us that Sherman was a Catholic; during much of his life he would have directly contradicted that. Qwirkle (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

So, swept free of the glittering Wikigeneralities and the obligatory brummagem Ingersolalia, in this particular case where you have no particularly solid cites either way - some poor scholarship, some bordering on WP:OR, just keep it left out. Qwirkle (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Case by case, "poor scholarship" (and all scholarship is OR, that is what scholars do, their own researcher (I would hope), the issue is did it get published?) can mean a whole lot of things.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
All scholarship is not first publication or first non-trivial synthesis, which are the core of WP:OR, and all good sources are not scholarly. More importantly, though, “poor scholarship” describes one set of cites, while the use of others opposing them “[borders] on WP:OR” here. I think in such a case, it’s often better to just leave the material out unless it is crucial to the article or the subject. Qwirkle (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
OR does not refer to off wiki scholarship. It refers to how we use (or do not) use sources. What sources are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, religion and ethnicity need to be properly sourced just like anything else, and infoboxes and categories are no exception. We can present relevant family details the same way that sources do, for example "Roman Catholic mother and Jewish father", but we can't use that to infer their own faith. Wikipedia isn't based on the best guesses or research of editors; if it's not supported by reliable sources, we simply don't include it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
"Ethnicity"? The continuation of racism by other means? Life's too short. Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ummm, no. While common (i.e. ignorant) usage in British English often conflates ethnicity with ancestry, technical usage (and much common North American English) can use them in opposition. Dreyfus was, or at least wanted to be, ethnically French, just as Carrot Ironfoundersson is ethnically Dwarfish. Qwirkle (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ummm, yes, US English, that fount of wisdom; do me a lemon. Dreyfus was French because he was born there, not because of what he wanted. Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly plenty of other examples where North American English (which is not the same thing as US English, of course) uses precise terms loosely and the average UKoGBer does not, but this ain’t one of them.
Dreyfus was not unequivocally French by birth, he was Alsatian, and historically many there had seen themselves as as much German as French. His family and he obviously did not, his father made a conscious decision to move back within France’s borders, and Dreyfus chose a career defending what was left of France. Many Alsatians adapted to German takeover quite easily, and some even welcomed it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, which country controlled Alsace when he was born? Keith-264 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Article names of italian WW2 tanks/AFVs

Many articles use the italian designation (Semovente da 75/18, Carro Armato P 40, P26/40 seems to be correct designation though) while others use a mix of partial designation and englisch words (M15/42 tank) while other use a wrong manufacturer Fiat M11/39,Fiat M13/40,Fiat M14/41 and Fiat L6/40 (Ansaldo was designer and manufacturer although company was either owned or controlled by Fiat). I'd like to see these article names using a similar naming scheme, at least the wrong Fiat designation needs to go away. Ideas/Opinions? --Denniss (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandgate Cemetery (Newcastle, Australia) Military Section

I've found out that only two of the military war graves have a DFC awarded to them. Adamdaley (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Austrian ship Marianna

Was Marianna (lost 4 March 1852) a ship of the Austrian Navy? From The Times, 1 April 1852, p6 - Government is so very anxious that the loss of the Marianna should be considered a purely adventitious circumstance, rather than the result of inexcusable rashness, that it still, and in my opinion most unwisely, keeps the matter before the public. The last report of the naval authorities is that the ship probably sank off the mouth of the river Po. As it is further supposed that she was blown up, "it may be considered certain that the Marianna was a seaworthy ship, and that her putting to sea on the 4th cannot by any means be viewed in the light of a hazardous undertaking". Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks to have been an Austrian Navy paddle steamer. Also: Marianna Austrian ship, from Venice to Trieste escorting the Volta, the latter having the emperor of Austria on board. A violent bora separated the vessels; the Volta succeeded with great difficulty in reaching Rovigno; but the Marianna was wrecked, and every soul perished March 4, 1852 - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks to have been SMS Marianna (the emperor should have sailed with her but switched to the brig Volta at the last minute as it was judged to be in better condition), built 1841-43? - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ottoman frigate

What is the identity of the Ottoman frigate "Feizi Barri" (The Times, 2 January 1852). I think that the correct name is probably "Fatih-i Bahri", but there was more than one vessel of that name in the Ottoman Navy. This vessel was probably launched between 1827 and 1851. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The last ship called "Fatih-i Bahri" that I could find was Turkish Third Rate ship of the line 'Fatih i Bahri' (1819), but the same website notes that it was "burnt" at the Battle of Navarino, 20th October 1827. We've had trouble tracking down Ottoman ships before, even from Turkish language sites. Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I suspect it is the Feyza i Bahri mentioned in this book as an 1848 frigate. Can't read much more from the Google snippet - Dumelow (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Our article List of major surface ships of the Ottoman steam navy provides a red link for the above ship to Ottoman frigate Feyzâ-i Bahrî - Dumelow (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a blue link now ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added a bit. The book ref needs a page number adding to the {{sfn}} template. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Page numbers taken care of, and I've added a line to the service history. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Excellent work all. Good to see a decent new article come out of this - Dumelow (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Intro wired piece on LIDAR archaeology of WWI trenches

Here. Worth skimming if not familiar, as are a couple links from it. Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggest merge of Template:Samurai with Template:infobox military person

G'day all, see this for a discussion of this proposed template merge. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Would all featured pictures here be in the scope of the project? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say so. Specifically the Weaponry and Military science, technology, and theory task forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to tag its talk page with WPMILHIST? (Hohum @) 19:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Operation PBFortune

Hi all. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation PBFortune seems to have stalled a bit: no unaddressed comments remain, but there's only one support. I'd very much appreciate more eyes on this. Then again, if this timeline is normal for Milhist A-Class reviews, and I'm fretting about nothing, feel free to tell me so. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's progressing in a pretty standard sort of way given it has been open less than a month, so no need to be concerned. It is unfamiliar territory for a lot of regular reviewers so it might take a little while longer to get done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Convoy UGS-40 Most successful merchant convoy battle of the Allies?

Hello, can anyone here confirm, what the most successful merchant vs bombers fight was in WW2? According to Roy W Brown who took part and asked for this article, this was the most successful merchant defence against bombers during WW2. I couldn't find anything online, except if I was to go through the whole list of battles of myself, but maybe someone on this project has an idea about it or a book... ~ R.T.G 13:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: - Convoyweb has a page on the convoy. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots but records seem choppy about it. The source you give says this convoy had no escort at all, but they went all the way to Naples from the USA and for instance, an info site about a particular US destroyer, Wilhoite, does say it was part of USG-40 and tells of its roles in the fight, such as radar. There's a lot of mention of it in War books and records, but it's like comparing the old Britannica to Wikipedia, just a paragraph or two or a mention in the table that they fought and the numbers, but nothing like this most successful defence, just that it would be an obvious item of interest for the article, ~ R.T.G 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Samuel Elliot Morrison, who usually notes the USN's finest achievements of the war, doesn't say that this was the most successful convoy defence against bombers. He does describe it in detail on the grounds that it was a "superb performance" though (p. 269 of The Atlantic Battle Won). Some of the Arctic Convoys accounted for large numbers of German aircraft, but I'm not sure if they topped UGS-40's achievement - I suspect not. None of the Atlantic convoys would have. The battles fought to get ships into Malta in 1940-1942 are a possibility, but they involved much of the British Mediterranean Fleet and Force H so aren't really merchant convoy battles. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Surprising when you look for it that it's not noted. Remember though if you come across it I suppose! ~ R.T.G 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I found a source naming the ships in the escort group and have added that with some images. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe you can describe any military engagement as the "most successful". At best you can say "it has been described as the most successful"<ref>Reliable Source</ref> In a less subjective area some years ago, several editors struggled for an acceptable way to describe a veteran described as "the most decorated soldier from [State]". --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Another point is that it's not clear that the convoy itself was responsible for all the Axis aircraft losses. Morison says: "Escorts, Naval Armed Guards in merchant ships, and intercepting land-based fighters all played their parts". [18] Two RAF Beaufighters were lost, but how many bombers did they shoot down? The fighters were land based, an advantage which many other convoys did not share. The perils of attempting to turn warfare into a competition. Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There can be little joy in war except each event which marks the end of it I am sure. It's surprising that a record isn't available about who scored the most points, but only because so much seems to be known about WW2 battles. In reality, we don't know nothing about what it is like. Suggested viewing for what it was probably like:Saving Private Ryan. Yeah it' looking nice now Alan. Hopefully Roy W will see it, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 12:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A few days ago an editor and I had a dispute over her removal of a bunch of links from the Russian battleship Potemkin article. I reverted her once, we discussed it on the talk page without coming any resolution, and she continued to remove links. Here's a diff to the changes that she made: [19] and I invite your comments on Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of New Orleans

We seem to be having an issue on the article The Battle of New Orleans. I could use a fresh set of eyes on this. Tirronan (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion on articles for deletion. These are all foreign words for Estonian military terms. The content should perhaps be consolidated into an article on the Estonian military, but as these are foreign words (and not loan words used in English) they don't belong as article titles in the English Wikipedia. Coastside (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

The article on Marcus Aurelius is currently going through an A-class review. One reviewer has noted a problem: the sourcing in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague. I have little knowledge about the plague, and I would appreciate any information that could be added. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Link to the comments in question. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Military officers vs civilians

Colonel Ashfaq Hussain (soldier and author) was moved by User:PeerBaba to Ashfaq Hussain (Pakistan Army officer) since there also exists a poet Ashfaq Hussain. Would like to know how such dabs are handled generally. I have mostly seen FOO (soldier) but in this case I feel Colonel FOO makes more sense since Media refers him as Colonel Ashfaq Hussain. Thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Following the precedent Akbar Khan (Pakistani general), this could become Ashfaq Hussain (Pakistani colonel). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Should it not be what they are most famous for?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"Pakistani colonel" sidesteps the issue. Generally, officers are referred to by their rank at the time of retirement for the rest of their lives (at least in South Asia). It almost becomes part of their name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should be applying our guideline about honorifics in page titles as much as possible, though. Even high-ranking military personnel are referred to as soldiers: I don't see a problem with "Ashfaq Hussain (soldier)". Also, "Pakistani colonel" is unnecessary, because we do not have two colonels named Ashfaq Hussain. Article titles need to contain only as much information as is necessary to identify the subject; more is unnecessary (we have a guideline about that, too, somewhere). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Colonel or General should not be part of the article title, per WP:TITLESINTITLES. Disambiguation in parentheses using (soldier) is the way to go in the first instance, per WP:NCPDAB. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguating by rank is a terrible idea. All generals were once colonels too, so it's really no disambiguation at all. We do use "(general)" as a disambiguator as it denotes a class of officer, but we do not generally disambiguate within that class, and we don't use lower ranks at all for the reason I've already stated. Personally, I prefer the way we disambiguate British Army officers (i.e. Foo (British Army officer)) to just using "(soldier)" or "(general)", but I accept that's the way it's often done for other countries (although Pakistan doesn't seem to have an established style, so I don't think there's a problem with leaving this article where it is). For further disambiguation if there are two individuals by that name, we would usually use "(soldier [or whatever], born [year])". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As to the issue of using the rank in the article title, I should point out that until relatively recently retired British officers also used to be commonly known by their ranks for the rest of their lives (e.g. before he became Prime Minister, Clement Attlee was almost universally referred to as Major Attlee). But we still don't use them in article titles. South Asia is therefore not a special case (I should imagine it took this style from Britain in the first place). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
”This style” needs a little nuancing. Field grades generally took the title with them. Company grades were generally only known by their previous rank if they or it were particularly known by it or for it. A VC, advancement from the ranks, etc might make for a civilian known as Lieutenant So-&-so, Captain Whazzitz and so forth. WWI caused a disruption in this, but the custom was already swinging back to field grade only by WWII. US usage was similar, and both countries saw men who were known by lower ranks through their civilian lives, because that rank was associated with whatever they were best noted for. Sergeant York made major, if memory serves.
Part of this reflects the commonness of militia company grade rank in rural England. Anyone of the squirearchy or the yeomanry might have worn pips, for the landed gentry and the offshoots of the aristocracy it was almost mandatory. (Literalist, be warned: exageration is afoot in theses parts.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"Field marshals, whether promoted while serving or in retirement, continue to use this rank. Other regular officers who attained the substantive rank of captain and above may use, and be addressed by, their rank on retirement from the Army. It is not accepted practice for retired officers of the Reserve to use or be addressed by their rank on retirement unless employed in a civilian capacity in a Ministry of Defence establishment". Debrett's - Etiquette - Forms of address - The Armed Forces (BTW, I agree that we should leave military titles out of article titles). Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, although certainly after WWI there were plenty of people who were being referred to as "Lieutenant" or "Captain". It wasn't considered especially good form to do it oneself (Basil Liddell Hart was criticised for calling himself "Captain Liddell Hart", for instance), but it was still common practice in the press. And when I was young in the 1970s and 1980s there were still plenty of phone book entries and gatepost plaques for Major Foo, Commander Foo and Group Captain Foo, all long-retired. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanding Japanese escort destroyers(World War II), I am making an page of the Momo, a Matsu class destroyer, need feedback

I am a very new member of Wikipedia, although a long reader of it, and I have not joined this WikiProject yet, which I want to, but I'm having difficulty in knowing how, as well as getting confused with the code in making pages of adding names, pictures, etc. I would much appreciate some pointers. Anyways, I'm writing my first page on a Matsu class destroyer, Momo. I already have a decent amount of info done in notes(paragraphs, titles, images, etc) and i'm finishing up operational history. I have sources for everything, but i'm having trouble on how to cite it for each paragraph I have info on. I'm also having trouble coding the page, as I'm a beginner, such as adding titles, images, vehicle info chart. I'd be happy to show you my progress so far, I'm enjoying it, just not the coding.

Edit-joined the WikiProject

Thanks, JackTheBestBoss (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Tutorial? That should cover the basics for you, including how to cite stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am in the process of learning how. Thanks for the helping hand. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're drafting the article, but if you were to initially post it in your user space (for instance, by creating a page called something like User:JackTheBestBoss\Japanese destroyer Momo (1944)) I'm sure that other editors would be happy to offer feedback and assistance before you move the article to Japanese destroyer Momo (1944). Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I am finishing up my draft and putting what I have on a user space soon. Like I said, I'm just finishing up Operational History, so I'll be done with a draft soon. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I finished my draft, I put it on my talk page, not sure if thats where I should put it, id rather prefer a link on my user page to the Draft, so tell me if thats somewhere I should or shouldn't put it. Anyways, here it is so far. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JackTheBestBoss JackTheBestBoss (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@JackTheBestBoss: G'day, Jack, welcome. As Nick suggests above, the best place for it currently is probably here: User:JackTheBestBoss/Japanese destroyer Momo (1944). To create this page, left click on the red link in this paragrasph, add the text to editable window, then click the "publish page" button. Once you've created that page, I'd be happy to help with some of the formatting etc. I'd also suggest having User:JackTheBestBoss/sandbox/User:JackTheBestBoss\Japanese destroyer Momo (1944) deleted as it is a misnamed/malformed sandbox page. (I can help you with this if you like). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Thank you, I appreciate your help. I deleted the sandbox page. I have put all my info into the link, so now my draft Is complete. I would appreciate your help in formatting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JackTheBestBoss/Japanese_destroyer_Momo_(1944)

JackTheBestBoss (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

G'day, I have done a little work to hopefully improve the formatting, including splitting the article up into some sections and paragraphs. I have also added an image that was on Commons. If anyone can assist with referencing and adding the infobox, that would be greatly appreciated. If there are any other suggestions for Jack, please add them to the draft' talk page here: User talk:JackTheBestBoss/Japanese destroyer Momo (1944). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

National Archives Australia: Abbreviations

While searching the military archives of Sandgate Cemetery, the first archives I come across is Arthur Victor MoyMow (N273737). On the 16/06/1941 he was "taken on strength ex HQEC?" It would be Headquarters then EC? Adamdaley (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably Headquarters Eastern Command, based in Sydney. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be my thought, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
He signed up in Sydney. Spent some time in Sydney, then transfered to Newcastle, where he died at 55 in 1944. Adamdaley (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment at Joachim Müncheberg

Joachim Müncheberg, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is my judgment based upon very similar article editing patterns, and side comments such as "Most people do not have an understanding of the division and its capacities", referring to the 101st Airborne Division [20]. How do I file a SOCK report? This is a long-standing issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: G'day, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, click the drop down box titled "How to open an investigation", and follow the steps listed there. Evidence is very important, so you will need a few diffs that demonstrate similarities in terms of editing patterns, articles edited, peculiar wording etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

FAR Notice: Heinrich Bär

I have nominated Heinrich Bär 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. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MilHistBot issue

I'm not sure if this is a known issue or not, but I've come across several older A-Class articles where MilHistBot changed the class for multiple project banners, not just Milhist (example). My understanding is that since A-Class reviews are assigned at the project level, other project banners should not be labelled as such. –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a long-standing agreement, which I helped set up, between the Aviation and MilHist projects by which the former would accept the latter's A-Class assessments -- military aircraft being a subset of aircraft in general, if a MilHist ACR for an aircraft passed then there was no need to duplicate such a review under the Aviation banner. The same applies, and has done for even longer, to the MilHist and Ships projects. I'm thinking there's a similar arrangement between the Bio project and MilHist but I wasn't involved in that one so can't really speak to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The NZ and AU projects accept A-Class assessments from other projects, and the Milhist criteria is specifically referred to as examples here and here in discussing article quality. I haven't looked into it further but would expect that most other country projects have similar arrangements. Zawed (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you both for the insight, it makes more sense now. I would suggest documenting any reciprocal agreements on the A-Class Review page. It can be confusing when an A-Class article is delisted since it takes a bit of research to decipher which projects have actually performed an assessment. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the Aviation (and other projects) and MilHist agreement fully reciprocal, i.e. does MilHist accept other projects' ACRs? I ask because MilHist has only recently mandated source reviews in its ACRs, and if Aviation et al does not... Factotem (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair question and good point. I think Aviation and MilHist did go both ways in theory, but in practice MilHist's ACR process was much more active and I doubt we ever had to accept an Aviation assessment (in fact last I looked the Aviation project as a whole wasn't very active). I have to admit I feel more comfortable with the idea of Milhist's assessments being accepted by other projects than the other way round, for precisely the reason you bring up. Given that A-Class is a project-specific assessment, we can't necessarily rely on the criteria being in sync. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Ian, do you know about when the arrangement with Aviation was set up? I'd like to formally record this in our assessment documentation if we can find the discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Johann Mickl, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on size of infobox at Syrian Civil War article

RFC can be found here. Shearonink (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No article about the Battle of Orange Walk

I recently learned about the Battle of Orange Walk which is commemorated each year on September 1 in Belize. I wanted to learn more about it, but surprisingly there is no Wikipedia article about it. It is mentioned in various other articles: 1872, British Honduras, History of Belize, and Caste War of Yucatán, but there is no detailed information. There are plenty of history blogs about it, usually skewing heavily towards either the Maya perspective (e.g. [21]) or the British perspective (e.g. [22]), and some books that discuss it. The most detailed account I found is in the book El bosque sitiado by Martha Herminia Villalobos González (which has lots of helpful footnotes). However, it is written in Spanish, so that may limit its usefulness. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We go back to notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The battle is certainly notable. It was a pivotal point in the Caste War and the early history of British Honduras. Here are some more sources:
Bollard wrote the history section for the Belize Country Study, which gives this a page. The section speaks well for him. Qwirkle (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Belize: Tracking the Path of Its History, Johanna Mayr.
  • Maya Wars, Terry Rugeley.
  • Anthropology and History in Yucatan, Grant D. Jones.
  • Confederate Settlements in British Honduras, Donald C. Simmonds. Jr.
  • The Caste War of Yucatan, Nelson Reed.
  • Yucatan’s Maya peasantry and the origins of the Caste War, Terry Rugeley.
  • A History of Orange Walk Town, Belize, Charles Emond.
Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The question is not how many sources mention it, it is depth of coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The 1st book I mentioned, El bosque sitiado has a 10-page section about it. The 2nd book, The History of the First West India Regiment has an entire chapter about it. Shall I continue? Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As you have identified and have access to the sources perhaps you should write it? Lyndaship (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it is notable, but there is a question of finding suitably reliable sources. I've started a draft at User:Dumelow/Battle of Orange Walk if people want to pitch in. Sourcing at present is a bit archaic and primary for my liking but hopefully more useful sources will come to light - Dumelow (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It’s unfortunate, but Wiki is driven far more than it should be by easy online access to sources. Adding them, as above, improves the chance of an article surviving...although personally, I don’t see this as independently notable. Qwirkle (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the draft to mainspace (Battle of Orange Walk) - Dumelow (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Blair

Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems trivial for USS Arizona, obviously not for Ms Blair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? this seems to silly for words.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
All officers of the ship (that would be nearly 100 officers?!?) received official reprimands from an Admiral over the incident, and a number of enlisted men received sentences of up to 10 years imprisonment. Quite a substantial "flap", as the British would say, at the very least. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Its even more "trivial" to have a stand alone article on her, per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is so bad that it it is difficult to see, based on it, whether the topic deserves more than a (literal) footnote or not, but it certainly doesnt rise to “See Also”. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Suggest one line mention in Arizona; no opinion on deletion discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Anything affecting so many ship's officers merits a mention on her page; agree the biopage is a bit overkill, since Blair isn't known for much else... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mentioned in a bio of Arleigh Burke [23] and Nofi's book about Fleet Problems. Seems significant enough for a one line mention in the Arizona article, but Blair is not independently notable. Kges1901 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"For the Fallen"

Hello all! I recently got the book Laurence Binyon: Poet, Scholar of East and West via an inter library loan, with the express intent to improve "For the Fallen" to a better quality. Unfortunately, as an American and not experienced with poetry matters, I don't think I can do it justice. If anyone wants me to scan the chapter and send it to them online to expand the article please let me know and I should be able to get it to them within a week. I'd like to get the article to FA, but do not know how to write a good poem article from scratch. Tks! Eddie891 Talk Work 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing everyone who ever got a DSC

Please chime in at Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States). Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

The article on Marcus Aurelius is currently going through an A-class review. One reviewer has noted a problem: the sourcing in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague. I have little knowledge about the plague, and I would appreciate any information that could be added. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this the same problem as a couple week ago? Seems your post got archived. There are ways you can prevent that, or at least put it off for awhile. I'm sure someone here can help with that. (do we just remove the time and date from fron "Vecochel"'s post? or use the {{subst:Do not archive until}} template?) - wolf 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thewolfchild, my post did get archived. Do you know of anyone who could help with the plague section in the article? Векочел (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also appreciate thoughts on my draft article Sons of Antiochus VIII. Векочел (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ship disambiguation

A discussion about ship disambiguation is taking place at WT:SHIPS. The discussion may affect some articles that fall under MILHIST. Input is invited from members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Some timeline templates proposed for deletion

It may interest some editors of this WikiProject to learn about some unused "Timeline"-themed templates that have been proposed for delete here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Unused_timeline_templates, eg {{Timeline of Islamic military history}}, {{Timeline of Xinhai Revolution}} and many more. I have a perspective about these templates, but thought some editors here might wish to know in case there's something worth saving.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the Northrop Grumman Article

Hello, I'm Jan, an employee of Northrop Grumman, and I am interested in helping the Wikipedia community make relevant updates and improvements to the Northrop Grumman article. I will only post to discussion pages, refraining from making direct edits. Is there an editor with an interest in military history that would be willing to take a look at my requested updates on the Northrop Grumman Talk page and put them into effect? If you have any questions, feedback, or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you! JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Really bad article could use some eyeballs.

The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong. Sort of thing where strategic and tactical are used as synonyms and the M16 is a rifle(carbine). Undoubtedly some of New Journalism’s worst tendencies crept into it from the subject. I’ve cleared some of the crap out of it, but there’s a bit to go. Qwirkle (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead isn't even clear on what it is. A longform news article? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Something like that, although before “longform” was used...or needed. Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments: 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash

I have started a request for comments on the choice of images used in the article 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation help!

Hi, I wonder if anyone could help with the abbreviation in bold below from the Gazette, I've no idea what it means and a Google search wasn't that helpful:

"Lt.-Col. A. S. Cantrell to be Dir. Naval Rectg.,vice Hickson. 1st Oct. 1930"

Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Rec could be record or recording, but i've no idea what the tg would be for. OberRanks (talk · contribs) may have had some idea, but I see he's been banned from Wikipedia. Sorry, guess you'll just have to hope someone else has a better feel for jargon. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Reads like Director Naval Recruiting to me Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yup. That's definitely what it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! I'd never have thought it was recruiting in a million years! StickyWicket (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Help cropping a photo

Would someone with the proper skills and tool set be willing to straighten and crop this photo on Commons? My Adobe Photoshop is corrupted, so I can't do it myself. It's of Patrice Lumumba, a Congolese Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I'd be happy to do this, but could you please specify the crop you're looking for? (e.g., just two two Congolese people in the middle, everything inside the frame, or something else?). 03:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: A crop of everything in the frame would be nice. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Done - the cropped and straightened version is at File:Aankomst Lumoemba in New York, Bestanddeelnr 913-2033 - cropped.jpg Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treseburg massacre

Does anyone have any English WP:RS sourced information on this event? The short article is up for deletion. If confirmed, I was thinking it could be merged into another relevant article. If interested, I invite members to have a look and state their opinion. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gads, this is thin. While I am inclined to believe that such things happened, without a hell of a lot more in the way of supporting articles and investigation reports, I'd support a speedy delete. The retaliation for the Malmedy Massacre, the refusal of SS troops trying to surrender, all lends credence to this happening. But this article verges on hearsay. I've done a quick search but I'm not finding anything that makes me say Ah hah!Tirronan (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I have a memory of reading something like this in Beevor's Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Last Gamble. But it went back to the library a couple of months ago and Google Books doesn't throw up anything. Beevor reported a number of such accounts, so I am probably confusing it with a different report. As Tirronan says, entirely plausible, but better sourcing is needed to save it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of redirecting the article to Treseburg#History as suggested on the AfD page. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation PBFortune needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation PBFortune; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Masaka needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Masaka; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

USS Ranger (1777)

Hey MilHisters, how are you all? I just reverted an edit on USS Ranger (1777), but find that the content wasn't just pulled from this here, but actually lifted from it. Now, that's US Government property, so it's all our property, but it's not good editing practice, and it's not clear, at any rate, that precisely that content came from that site. So good luck with it: as you know, after visiting a MilHist page, I have to now go turn a sword into a ploughshare/plowshare. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's normal. There is an accompanying note down the bottom: This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates proposed for deletion: Some unused campaign boxes

Hi all, hope you all are having a lovely weekend. Some campaign boxes have been proposed for deletion, including eg

I notify this project as there may be some informed opinions about whether to keep or use these templates. The templates proposed for deletion begin here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Template:Campaignbox_Unrest_in_SR_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS for rank

Does this project have an official determination for the capitalization of ranks when not used as a title? DHeyward (talk · contribs) moved airman basic to Airman Basic (and changed the in-article capitalization) on 11 November 2017. Other ranks though, such as petty officer third class, reside at the lower-case. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In-article capitalisation of ranks is specifically covered in MOS:MILTERMS: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people. Titles of articles about ranks is covered by the general rules in WP:NCCAPS. All article titles start with a capital letter. Subsequent words are captalised as if they were text in the article. Hence Field marshal (Australia). In the case above, the article should be "Airman basic", and "airman basic" should be used throughout the article except when it starts a sentence, or is used as the title of a specific person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent; thank you much for your help! I'm going to move and edit that article duly. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep... basicslly, no capital letters letters allowed, as expressly stated in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, a guide created by lengthy community discussion and project-wide consensus! /end sarcasm - wolf 01:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That would've been my assumption, too, but it was safer to ask for confirmation before potentially ruffling feathers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR Notice: Hans Philipp

Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

300px in the infobox question

Where does it come from? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:IMGSIZE and "300px for lead images". -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, does anyone know why 300px in the Infobox is still expanding it wider than the campaignboxes? Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Speer

I have nominated Albert Speer 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR notice

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot) now open

The A-Class review for Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! This is a re-assessment nomination due to heavy use of a source written by an alleged right-wing extremist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing authors of a volume of essays question

Is there a quick way (using sfns) to cite each essay author or will I have to repeat the volume reference for each one in the bibliography? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Example of what you mean?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Will I have to do this
  • {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Foley|2016}} |editor-last1=Delaney |editor-first1=Douglas E. |editor-last2=Durflinger |editor-first2=Serge Marc |title=Capturing Hill 70: Canada's Forgotten Battle of the First World War |chapter=Chapter 7: The Other Side of the Hill |last=Foley |first=R. T. |pages=187–204 |year=2016 |publisher=UBC Press |isbn=978-0-7748-3359-2}}
for each contributor I refer to? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Does {{harvc}} do what you want?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It hasn't made anything worse but I had a punt on sfnm for citation 39 of Battle of Hill 70 and it's got red on it, will I have to dismantle it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, when I put Foley into the same harvc biblio reference as Delaney and Durflinger and took out the specific one, all of the citations went red so I put it back; either {{harvc}} isn't what I need or I'm bungling it. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You're bungling it. You have a book: Capturing Hill 70: Canada's Forgotten Battle of the First World War. To cite the book, put this in the bibliography:
*{{cite book |editor-last1=Delaney |editor-first1=Douglas E. |editor-last2=Durflinger |editor-first2=Serge Marc |title=Capturing Hill 70: Canada's Forgotten Battle of the First World War |date=2016 |publisher=UBC Press |isbn=978-0-7748-3359-2 |ref=harv}}
To cite an individual chapter written by Foley using {{harvc}} put this under the book cite in the bibliography:
**{{harvc|last=Foley|c=The Other Side of the Hill|year=2016|in1=Delaney|in2=Durflinger}}
To cite an individual chapter written by the editors using {{harvc}} put this under the book cite in the bibliography (this one peculiar because authors == editors which will confuse {{sfn}} and {{harvc}}):
**{{harvc |last=Delaney |last2=Durflinger |id=Delaney_Durflinger_2016_conclusion |c=Conclusion |year=2016 |in1=Delaney |in2=Durflinger}}
Now, in the article text use {{sfn|Delaney|Durflinger|2016}}[1] to link to the book as a whole. Use {{sfn|Foley|2016|pp=252–256}}[2] to link to "The Other Side of the Hill" sub-citation. Use <ref>[[#Delaney_Durflinger_2016_conclusion|Delaney & Durflinger 2016]]</ref>[3] to link to the editor's chapter.

References

  1. ^ Delaney & Durflinger 2016.
  2. ^ Foley 2016, pp. 252–256.
  3. ^ Delaney & Durflinger 2016
Bibliography
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Won't the mixing of sfn and ref formats fall foul of the requirement to be consistent in citation format used? Factotem (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Why would you think that it would? I suppose that one might assert that this 'prohibition' in WP:CITEVAR:
  • switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's;
might be construed, at a stretch, to say that editors shall not mix {{sfn}} with citations wrapped in <ref>...</ref> tags. Of course this does not recognize that {{sfn}} merely hides the <ref>...</ref> tags in the edit window view; they are present as part of the template's rendering:
{{sfn|Delaney|Durflinger|2016}} → <ref name="FOOTNOTEDelaneyDurflinger2016">[[#CITEREFDelaneyDurflinger2016|Delaney & Durflinger 2016]].</ref>
Inline citations must be enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags (or the equivalent {{#tag:ref}} magic word) if they are to appear in the list created by {{reflist}} or <references />.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that the extras went under the generic reference, thanks. 'Tis done Keith-264 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving a template due to spelling

Template:Awards given to Confederate States of America combattants I am planning to move this template to the proper spelling of "combatants", and change the spelling therein. Will there be any unusual issues since it is a template? I suppose there won't be a functional redirect. Will I have to correct it on every page in which it appears? It seems to be on only seven pages. RobDuch (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just perform a normal move. Redirects will function for navboxes, as normal. Once you've updated the articles that link to it, you can request a deletion. But you will have to update the "name" parameter in the navbox edit screen. If you're not sure about doing any of the above yourself, an admin or pagemover can do it for you. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

USCG dispute

Please see Talk:United States Coast Guard#Founding dispute. (self-explanatory). FYI - wolf 21:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Writing up on the patka helmet in the Indian military

The Dastar article links Patka there by word redirect. Should someone just do a small writeup on the patka helmets used by the military? I know that they're used in Kashmir IIRC since the early 2000s there. Ominae (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Battleships up for deletion

Portal:Battleships has been nominated for deletion as part of a bundled nomination under the title: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ababeel (missile)

There is endless back-and-forth warring on Ababeel (missile) and we should try to find some agreed resolution for this.

Ababeel is a MIRV missile. Or will be. As yet though, it has been test-launched (Jan 2017) with an enlarged aeroshroud, but has not (from public records of known tests) demonstrated any MIRV capability. Thus we should be cautious in decribing it as such.

This is complicated by a misleading US military report March 6, 2018, "In January 2017, Pakistan conducted the first test launch of its nuclear-capable Ababeel ballistic missile, demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload". However that US report is either misleading or even as much as untrue. The Jan 2017 launch (widely reported) did not demonstrate any payload, MIRV or otherwise. This may be careless wording by the US military, or simple exagerration of a threat - for which they do have a long history.

Given the India / Pakistan tensions, there is persistent international rivalry on this article. But we should not let that allow false claims to creep in.

So, how do we proceed? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins

The effort to get all the Apollo 11 articles ready for the 50th anniversary in July comes down to the last article - Michael Collins (astronaut). Mike orbited the Moon while Neil and Buzz walked on it. A previous effort to get it through FAC failed for lack of reviews. If you could drop in to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Collins (astronaut)/archive2 and contribute a few comments, this would be much appreciated. You don't have to review the whole article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

13 JG 52

I spotted this article, about a Slovak fighter unit attached to the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front, in Category:All_articles_lacking_sources and have tried to expand it, adding a source, but it could probably use some more attention from people with access to more sources on the air war over the Eastern Front. Any comments or help would be welcome. Incidentally, there seems to be a lot of Military History articles in the unsourced article caterory, so there is lots of things to improve if anyone is feeling bored.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Alicia, lost 1807 off Jutland

What is the identity of the ship of the line Alicia which foundered off Jutland in October 1807 with the loss of over 500 lives? The only naval vessel I can find was a hired armed vessel expended as a fireship in 1809. This Alicia was reported in The Standard of 14 August 1852 as carrying 1,200 reinforcements for Lord Cathcart's army. Was she a Royal Navy vessel? Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The battle was over by October, so those must have been returning troops. Maybe a danish ship taken as a prize? Alexpl (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks to have originally been a British vessel that was lost to the Danes and recaptured by the Minerva and Amazon in February 1807. See these gazette refs: [24] [25] Apparently an alternative spelling of the name was Elisha, but I haven't been able to find any more information - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Would that make her a privateer then? Described as a ship of the line and it was reported that there were guns (cannon?) visible in the wreck. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation Help: Faked sabotage of de Havilland factory

Hello all,

I'm trying to write an article on the faked sabotage of the de Havilland factory "carried out" by the WWII spy Eddie Chapman. It is mentioned in the Eddie Chapman article, but I felt as if a lot was left out and the backstory of the sabotage itself warranted an article of its own. This is my first article, and I could use some help on the structure. Would structuring the article in a background, execution, aftermath format be appropriate for this, and does anyone have any general tips/guidance to offer for this article creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedahl03 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First thing - do you have a copy of Agent Zig Zag ? This isn't a well-known story, that's the only source I've seen for it. It would also be important to get access to a UK newspaper library, to see how this was reported. Although such things were secretive, this one (obviously) wouldn't have been. Just what did the papers say about it? Did they simply describe the incident, or did misinformation continue to leak for some time afterwards, to imply that production was affected?
It's always best to start with a narrative plan for a new article. This is where so many WP articles fall flat. Yours is reasonable, but I'd also want to expand the context for dH. Why was that factory chosen? Did Chapman choose it? Station XX? The German command? Was it chosen because of its value as a target, or because of its vulnerability? How does the importance of the Mosquito tie in with it?
It would also be interesting to tie this in with reconnaissance techniques of the time. How was the "damage" observed and reported back to Germany? How did the need to provide a convincing reconnaissance target influence the form chosen for the attack? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a reasonable preview on Google Books of Ben Macintyre's Espionage Files: Agent Zigzag, Operation Mincemeat & Double Cross.
Also Agent Zigzag: The True Wartime Story of Eddie Chapman.
Also an article about the 2011 BBC documentary on Chapman.
Alansplodge (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You'll probably also want Masterman's classic "The Double Cross System", which covers the de Havilland story and would provide some of the answers to Andy's questions (which I agree should be part of any article). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruption & vandalism at Invasion of Normandy

Please see my latest protection request. Tired of seeing this page targeted by vandals, socks and disruptive SPAs. Just wanted others here, who may have an interest in this page, but don't watch it, to be aware. FYI - wolf 07:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Green tickY Dealt with. - wolf 23:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Military terms

Can I bring this here for a sanitary check [26]. I would always explain a military acronym as Naval Gunfire Support Forward Observer (NGSFO) for example. I have a fairly angry editor denouncing my challenge to their bold edit claiming WP:MOS is on their side. See Talk:Port Howard#Undoing a revert: see WP:EXPABBR (NGSFO). Did I miss a meeting? WCMemail 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That term should be capitalized because it is a specific title or name, not simply for being used in a acronym. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Umm...huh? What part of that makes it a proper noun? Both titles and names are still lower case when they are themselves commons nouns. GMGtalk 16:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, it shouldn't be capitalised, any more than we would write "Commanding Officer (CO)" or "Officer Commanding (OC)". It's a role, not a proper name. It would be the "Chief of the General Staff (CGS)" (specific, unique, named post; only one at a time), but a "naval gunfire support forward observer (NGFSO)" (generic role title; not unique). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::It's a job name, which isn't capitalized. I was a forward observer, back in my day, as well an armored reconnaissance specialist, and those shouldn't be capitalized either. It would be different if it were something like NGSFO Alexander Hamilton where it's used as a abbreviated title or rank for a specific person. Militaries can be odd about capitalizing phrases like this one, in my experience, but we're not bound by their idiosyncrasies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun, it's not the title of a specific individual, so it shouldn't be capitalised. As it says in the MoS at rather more length. In the specific case in which it is used in the article I wondered why it is necessary to give the acronym, as the term is not used again. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Gog has it exactly. No need for the acronym, as the term is only used once. Simply 'Howard was suspected of being a forward observer for naval gunfire support' or some such. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm the "fairly angry editor." I'm curious, WCM, about how I came across as angry. Thanks! Holy (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • nope. don't matter what any military organization does, we here at the chicago wikipedia of style don't capitalize nuthin'. - wolf 00:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Johann Mickl

Johann Mickl is currently listed as an A class. A recent community GAR closed as a delist and so this project may wish to re-evaluate to see if it still meets its A class critiera. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yemens Military Industry

I've just stumbled into this article - it is effectively uncited (there are two external links, but neither appear to mention the subject of the article) and much of what is there seems dubious - i.e. the company (formed in 1990) produces amongst other things, local variants of the MP 18, MP 40, Gewehr 43 and Vickers machine gun. While the organisation may exist (or have existed), and may even deserve an article, the current article appears to be rubbish and possibly a hoax (much of the little content appears fake at least).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

...with a concomitant dearth of coverage (read: no mention whatsoever) in English-language news outlets or literature. Having said that, even a state in such a chaotic condition as Yemen (but not South Yemen?) presumably has some kind of state weapons industry—although how good a job it's doing is, of course, another matter... ——SerialNumber54129 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a truly ludicrous article. They are making MP18's? A century-old first generation submachinegun? I can't find anything online for such a company, and neither of the external links are reliable. I think it is probably a hoax. I've AfD'd it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer review request for New Albion

I have initiated a peer review request for New Albion and I read that this project will provide assistance. Please, if you are able, read the article and offer suggestions. I do believe the article is within this project scope because it is directly related to Francis Drake. Thank you and kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

49th Coast Artillery (United States)

I'm planning to do the subject article, which is on the requested list. It will be a stub due to an uncharacteristic lack of information. I'm wondering why this regiment is the only coast artillery unit on the list, as it's mostly remarkable for having a minimal career. The WWI coast artillery site on Rootsweb has a retrospective on an officer of the unit who died of influenza on the way to France; it states he was the uncle of the famous author Ray Bradbury. However, the uncle died before the nephew was born. My two sources for the unit in World War II can't even agree on whether it went overseas or not, and the one source (Stanton, very unusually) saying it did has no locations or dates other than a "Northern Solomons" campaign streamer. In World War I the 49th was shipped to France, but the war ended before it began training, and it never received guns. In WWII only the searchlight battery was activated, from May 42-Apr 44. Although it served in Los Angeles, it was activated too late to be part of the phantom "battle" there. When I finish, should I strike out the article title in the requested list? RobDuch (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, strikeout added on requested list. RobDuch (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone need a hand with images?

My first MILHIST image in a few years had an... odd response at FPC. Everyone I showed it to loved it... up to the point I nominated it, at which point it turned entirely to weird rules questions and complaints about gamma.

I've been away for a while, but I'm back now, and if anyone has any requests I'm open to them. Currently kind of eyeing the Crimean and Franco-Prussian Wars, but I'm more open than that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 09:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Adam! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Frequent assesment problem with multiple articles

Hello MilHist members,

I've been going down the "Need task force assigned" list because it's a job that doesn't require much historical knowledge (which, outside of China, I don't have much) but still helps the project. However, I've noticed a recurring problem which is getting very annoying. Dozens of articles are assessed in the exact same incorrect way, even ones I previously assessed like the New South Wales Lancers Memorial Museum have been reverted back. Every single time the code goes like this {WikiProject Military history |class=Start |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no} which obviously doesn't work. Even if it shouldn't be a Start class and instead a C or even a B it will rate it like this. Is this some messed up bot script or a reviewer who doesn't really know what they're doing? Cricketts19 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. I visited New South Wales Lancers Memorial Museum and it was showing B3 and B4 as yes, as you left it. I've re-instated B5 though - it has supporting materials according to assessment criteria. Start isn't (or wasn't) an automatic class setting. C needs 4 yes criteria, including one of B1 and B2. B needs all five yeses. You can't assess as C or B without the appropriate classes filled out. Or am I missing the point? Monstrelet (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The way you describe it is correct: the template is written so that it doesn't display B or C class without the relevant criteria being met. I think this can sometimes be a point of confusion, since afaik, MILHIST is the only project that ties C-class to the B-class assessment criteria. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
To your comment: "... MILHIST is the only project that ties C-class to the B-class assessment criteria." Please see Wikipedia:Content assessment wrt C-class: "The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class." (My emphasis added) The WPs assessment inherently ties C-class assessment to the B-class criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about assessment bot

I'm trying to set-up a bot to do assessment and tagging work for a wikiproject. Which one does this project use? This is all new to me. Mitchumch (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone here that is responsible for maintaining content in this WikiProject that relies on bots? Mitchumch (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I`m not sure about bots doing tagging and assessing. Both are, to my knowledge, to be done manually as a bot would be quite error-prone and every edit would essentially had to be double-checked (ideally before the edit goes online). Of course I know nothing about bots either. However kind of preparatory to tagging there is e.g. the InceptionBot that scans new articles for keywords and gives them a probability rating to belong to a certain project, listing them like here for WPMILHIST. ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Tagging and assessing is all done manually on this wikiproject. I too would be concerned about a bot doing it, as it requires experience and judgement in nearly all cases. The only B-Class criteria that could be assessed by a bot would be b3 (structure) and b5 (infobox and/or images). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm the one here who maintains the project bot, MilHistBot. Automated scoring is rather complicated, so we don't do it at the present time. I think what you are looking for is the Objective Revision Evaluation Service (ORES), a web service that provides machine learning as a service for Wikimedia Projects. [27] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The WikiProject I work on currently has InceptionBot running. I was looking for a bot that would survey old articles or old content and bring it to the project's attention, then allow a determination to apply templates and categories. I never had an expectation the bot would assess and tag without oversight. I'm not familiar with the bots listed at Category:WikiProject tagging bots or Category:Autoassessment bots and decided to seek out some insight from a more experienced project. Mitchumch (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War infobox

A discussion of the content of the Pacific War article's infobox is currently underway. Editors who wish to comment are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Khalistan Commando Force

An agenda pusher called DBigXray with obvious competence problems has been edit warring on this article to refer the group as "terrorist" against WP:TERRORIST. More eyes are welcome on this page and some input at Talk:Khalistan_Commando_Force#Infobox_Designated_as_a_terrorist_group_by_India. 39.42.107.139 (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of pro-Hungarian nationalist at Talk:SMS Balaton

I'm having a problem with an editor coming from the Hungarian wiki changing the shipyard for the Tátra-class destroyer SMS Balaton and changing the shipyard location from Porto Ré in the internally self-governing Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, which, to be sure, is part of the Kingdom of Hungary to the much-better-known shipyard in Fiume, which belonged to Hungary outright. Despite multiple requests for sources stating that the ship(s) was built in Fiume, all I get is a blast of hot air accusing me of perpetuating some sort of big lie. I've reverted him twice and wish for an admin to review the ship's talk page before I revert him again and risk breaking 3RR. Fortunately he's focused on this one ship at the moment, but all the ships in the class were built in the same shipyard and I don't wish to have to deal with him over the rest of them as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverted and warned the editor against making personal attacks, let me know if he doesn't stop. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and I'll be sure to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Joint Ground Based Air Defence Headquarters

The Joint Ground Based Air Defence Headquarters (JtGBAD HQ), a joint RAF and British Army formation which would appear to cease to exist on 1 April 2019 when the army's air defence assets transfer from the joint formation to an army only 7 Air Defence Group. See page 7 and 30 of the Force Troops Command Handbook. I guess there's two options for what is done with the JtGBAD HQ page. The first is to rename the existing page '7 Air Defence Group'. The second is to retain the JtGBAD HQ page and create a new 7 Air Defence Group page. I would tend to favour the second for the following reasons: (i) JtGBAD HQ has been in existence from around 20 years which I would suggest makes in fairly notable in its own right; and (ii) JtGBAD HQ is a joint RAF/army unit whereas 7 Air Defence Group is an army formation, so there isn't really any direct lineage between the two, indeed the new formation would seem to be more related to 7 (Air Defence) Brigade which was the predecessor to JtGBAD HQ (no page exists for 7 (Air Defence) Brigade but any new page could cover its history too.

Thoughts welcomed. Thx811 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think Joint Ground Based Air Defence Headquarters should be left as a historical article and new one created for the new 7AD formation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I've created the new page for 7 Air Defence Group and updated the original JtGBAD HQ page. Thx811 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlos Kouroupis Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Priest/chaplain article deletion discussion

A-Class review for Project Excalibur needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Project Excalibur; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

milestone question

What happens when one of the milestones is reached? Is there a unit citation or commemorative barnstar or jubilee medal or something? Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of mutual backslapping, a mention in The Bugle and a decision about where to set the next milestone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Tantalus, Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is a bit of that... Onwards and upwards! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients during peacetime

...needs a couple of spare eyeballs. A probably-good-faith wikiteur who doesn’t seem to notice that wars are sometime declared, but wartime need not be. Qwirkle (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

M9 half-track GAR

Currently undergoing GAR, the M9 half-track article only has a couple of issues. If anyone has Zaloga, Steven J. (1994). M3 Infantry Half-Track 1940–1973. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-467-9, they can check for the Philippines in it. I do not really think the GAR is necessary (the first cn tag can be removed; it is cited in the body), but I figured one of you may be able to fix the one issue that might actually exist. Kees08 (Talk) 07:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

AFD: UN Offensive, 1950

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UN Offensive, 1950 regards Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I know we have many on here interested in historic ships...

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10526061n.r=sinop?rk=321890;0 looks to be a source of all sorts of great illustrations for Russian ships, many military. I'd be happy to work with someone to get through any that are useful to the project. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 09:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy regarding including aircraft manufacturers in articles

A while ago their was a discussion regarding adding the manufacturer to aircraft names in articles such as adding Bristol to a link which says "F.2 Fighter" and adding Douglas to "C-54 Skymaster" in the first instance.

I've checked the archive I can't find it, any ideas? Gavbadger (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This area falls under WP:Aircraft. Manufacturer names are not longer prohibited now. These were added to most all aircraft article names several years ago. See WP:AIR/NC for current guidelines/policy on this [for article titles]. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Gavbadger has been adding manufacturer and model names to articles that mention the relevant aircraft such as here: [28] which I regard as unnecessary as they are wikilinked. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Conversion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft now. Gavbadger (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was a policy; I've only been here 13 years. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Rose:, The Bugle is listed here. Thanks for the note Headbomb. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List of battles in unit infoboxes?

Wondering how people feel about the usefulness of (or maybe lack thereof) listing battles in unit infoboxes. A user has recently been going through American Civil War units and adding battle lists. Meaning well, certainly. But the lists are often incomplete or arbitrary. Examples, 2nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. I feel as though such lists can rarely be fully complete. And if the article is up to snuff that info should be in the body of the article anyway. Thoughts? Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an eternal struggle between people who want to have expansive infoboxes covering every detail about a unit/ship/weapon and people who want the infobox who serve as a summary introduction to the subject of the article with only the most important information presented therein, figuring that everything else would be covered in the main body. I know I've had a few complaints that WP:Ships infoboxes are overlong and I've been trying to limit the information in them to no more than a single line per item. I don't believe that adding a lengthy list of battles to an infobox really adds much value, 'cause the most significant ones would probably be mentioned in the lede anyway. And I've had arguments with a few editors who insist on covering almost every change in ship's AA suite during WW2 in the infobox, lengthening them considerably, but have failed to convert them to my way of thinking. So don't be surprised if no consensus can be reached, although I think that it's worth trying if you keep it narrowly focused on lists of battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I like consistency, and I can see this just overburdening infoxoxes for older formations. I would avoid it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a limited list of notable battles can be useful in the infobox and is what the engagements parameter is designed for. Why have that parameter is battle lists are redundant? Similarly, if battle lists are redundant, why even have notable commanders included as those should be covered in the body as well? Kges1901 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Kges1901, and I don't understand why a list of only 6 battles and one war was removed from the 2nd Mass article. In terms of what I'm doing, I'm editing lineage articles that cover over 100 years of a unit's existence and have lists of dozens of battles in the body, such as 1st Air Defense Artillery Regiment. I felt an informative but prudent alternative was to put the 7 or 8 wars the unit was in in the infobox, and leave the massive battle list to the body. RobDuch (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Its a question (for me) of (as I said) consistency. It seems to be dodgy to list the 6 battles the third foot about mouth fought in between half past four in the afternoon and 6 the following day whilst leaving the 1560 battles fought by the Royal Mallows in its 100 year history (especially if many of the battles were major ones rather then 16 blokes and a dog in a field). It seems to be like those "celebrity" articles that prove how notable and important the subject is by listing every TV show they have ever appeared on, it looks too needy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
While it is often appropriate to use a field, this must be balanced. There are wars, theatres, campaigns and battles. IMO, don't peel the onion too deeply if you are just going to get a mess. For units with a long history in many wars, limit the infobox to that level of detail. Also, don't be selective in what you include or omit unless you make it clear somehow that the infobox is a "selection" and not complete (eg "significant battles"). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I would stick to wars and campaigns, and not get down to battles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree with that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Everything in the infobox must be in the article. Whether it duplicates information in the lead as well is immaterial, because in some contexts the infobox is displayed without the lead and vice-versa. As Cinderella157 says, some units have centuries of history and listing every action would defeat the purpose of the infobox as a concise summary. Discretion is advised. Consensus can be achieved (we hope) as to which are significant enough to warrant inclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little late in circling back, but I appreciate the feedback. I agree with Peacemaker67 and Sturmvogel 66 on keeping it to wars/campaigns. It just gets too complicated getting down to battle level. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on historyofcuba.com on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of historyofcuba.com on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § historyofcuba.com. — Newslinger talk 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

SOLRAD 1

Hello good folks of WP MilHist.

I am at the final stages of a FAC for my article SOLRAD 1, the centerpiece of a series on the world's first surveillance satellite (and also our first x-ray/UV astronomy satellite, too!) The article falls well within the province of military history, and it has been rated a Good Article by User:Gog the Mild.

It's gotten four supports and a neutral thus far. However, per Laser Brain:

"I'm concerned about the lack of support for promotion by those who have dug into the comprehensiveness and content, acknowledging that we do have support from a prose quality standpoint. I have this on the Urgents list because I'm hoping for some more feedback. If you can sift through relevant wikiprojects for any other SMEs who might be interested in posting a review here, that would be a more proactive way to move this forward if so desired. --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)"

If any of you who are knowledgeable in the field of space history could take a gander and lodge your support, neutrality, opposition, or comments, I'd be very grateful. And, of course, I am always willing to return the favor.

Thanks very much,

--Neopeius (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Passing an A-class review on Mil History should help a lot with the FA review. A-class is a big intermediate step to FA. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. WP:Spflt doesn't do "A"s so this one went straight to FA. It's gone through the ringer, though, a very rigorous review. It should be ready! --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Understood, and thank you. What I'm saying is that the article has already gone through the rigorous FA process. It just needs someone to tip it over into bed, I think. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Troubles listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Troubles to be moved to Northern Ireland conflict. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but what is Wikipedia's policy (if any) on navy crew lists? I realise this is an enormous topic, data-wise (and source-wise), but is there ever a case for a list of crew members of a particular ship or shore establishment? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently discussed on WP:SHIPS, see WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The short answer is, no, there is generally no reason to have a crew list for anything. There are occasions where individual crew members are notable in the history of the ship (whether they are themselves notable or not) and they should be included in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pacific War#RFC on detail in infobox regarding beligerents and commanders

FYI re the subject RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism alert

The brand-new editor User:Khaginkhor added an erroneous link to one of my watchlisted articles. I looked at a few of his other contributions and reverted almost all of them as subtle vandalism. An admin needs to review these and decide upon the appropriate measures.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked but a lot of nonsense edits will need to be tidied up. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted all of those - thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Operation Flintlock (World War II)

Can someone explain the benefit of Operation Flintlock (World War II) to me? It seems (apart from being rather poorly done) to be redundant to the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign article. And in my experience, we don't generally have pairs of articles like this - we have an article on Operation Weserübung, but not one on the German invasion of Norway, and Operation Forager redirects to the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign article. Anybody else think the Flintlock article ought to be redirected? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks like Operation Flintlock should redirect to Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign to me. Also the Op Flintlock article is poorly cited with only 1 reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with making it a redirect. Much as I love battleships, half the article being about two of the fire support ships, with about two sentences on the Marines and Army, is grossly incomplete. RobDuch (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Royal Australian Navy for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Lieutenant generals of the United States Army

Should/can this category be created ? I am happy to populate it, (I just noticed that some are currently in Category:Lieutenant generals)...GrahamHardy (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think these categories by exact rank are utterly pointless and should all be deleted. "Generals" (as a shorthand for the generic category of general officers) is fine, but we don't need every single rank categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Lieutenant generals. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Shall I add them all to that category then? GrahamHardy (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
G'day GrahamHardy While the service categories exist, you should add them to the most specific category that applies, not a parent category. If editors think this category tree should be truncated, they need to CfD them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I shall add them to Category:Lieutenant generals then, ThanksGrahamHardy (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Password question

How do I find out my password? Work has installed a computer and I want to log in from there but can't remember the damn thing. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Found it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

World War II picture of Germany in ruins

  • I'm looking for a picture of Germany/Berlin in ruins after the end of World War II. For example lots of ruined buildings, casualties etc. It is for a featured article so would need to be eye catching, but the resolution doesn't really matter. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
An excellent example to use. Kierzek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

2 articles about same subject

The pages Theban–Spartan War and Boeotian War are about the same conflict. I very much, don't know enough about it, to start messing with the articles, so I thought it best to let this project know. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Boeotian War covers a shorter timescale and is pretty superficial. Theban-Spartan War is much more detailed and assessed as a B class article. Boeotian War could probably be lost without overall diminution of the encyclopedia. I would note that that Theban-Spartan War uses a lot of primary source references, which would be good elsewhere but I fear is not compliant with citation standards here and may mean that the B class assessment is in error.Monstrelet (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you refer to as primary sources. Just because something was written in Greek 2000 years ago doesn't make it a primary source. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It /does/ if it's talking about something that happened /in/ Greece c.2000 ago. ——SerialNumber54129 20:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Level of detail question

Another editor and I disagree on the level of detail that's warranted in USS South Dakota (BB-57), over this material, specifically. Interested editors can comment here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Three Kingdoms for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change

Could any of my MilHist friends provide scholarly sources that might help in this discussion of how to define "regime change"? Many historical examples are given that might benefit from your knowledgable review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in a dispute with an editor who believes that the phrase "Parsons steam turbine sets" violates MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Given that I've used this exact phrase in hundreds of articles without comment, I do not believe that he's correct. He prefers to combine both links to a single one, losing the separate link to steam turbine. Please visit Talk:French battleship Courbet (1911) and offer your opinions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should be avoided. Why not say something like "a steam turbine, made by Parsons," MB 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Because it wasn't made by Parsons, only designed by them. Here's the relevant text from Sea of Blue: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". I believe that readers will interpret Parsons steam turbine just like they would, forex, Westinghouse television, i.e. the manufacturer (designer in this case) and the product, each with their own link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yer all wrong. (“Tact? You mean to hold down the carpet?”)

One construction will dump you into an article which doesn't make clear that “Parsons turbine” describes a design family, not just the output of a single manufacturer, the next into one that buries the fact. The phrase has a meaning that isn’t conveyed well by either link.

Splitting the phrase makes working the links less clumsy, bu also removes the meaning of the phrase as a whole.

If I had the Wiki-fu to do it, I’d make a link to the second paragraph of the history section of steam turbine, and modify that paragraph to reflect that the term has gone generic. Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Parsons steam turbine is now a link ready for use. MB 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I used to be a machinist's mate in the US Navy, and for the entire history of the steam turbine each design family is known by either its type of design or the manufacturer that first developed the design, regardless of actual manufacturer. Parsons turbines are also reaction turbines, Rateau turbines are also impulse turbines, IIRC Brown-Curtis turbines are impulse-reaction, etc. RobDuch (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Concure with the assessment. Parson's should be used when referring to a company, and impulse or impulse reaction should be used to define type. I was also an MM in the US Navy.Tirronan (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Hardham needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for William Hardham; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Roy Inwood needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Roy Inwood; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This now just needs a source review. Thank to Zawed for reviewing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent Luftwaffe accident

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Recent Luftwaffe accident as to the notability or otherwise of the recent accident at Berlin. Opinions requested at WT:AV please. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

RAN posting

This is a question of Br/Au Enlish for a RAN posting to a ship in WW2 era. My experience is army but I would call it a "posting" (posted to HMAS ...) as opposed to US English that might use "billeted" (as has been done at Teddy Sheean. Just checking this isn't historical or a difference between services. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Billeted" would be where he slept. "Posted" would be assigned to particular ship/unit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Sturm as to billeted. I suspect that the RAN would not use posted but would refer to it as drafted Lyndaship (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Certainly (British) Royal Navy terminology is "draft" rather than "post". [29] My understanding of "billet" is being found a bed in a civilian home. [30] Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding default sort

Are battle articles default sorted to the name of say, their location? For example, would Battle of Entebbe be default sorted as "Entebbe, Battle of", or are they left as is? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a Manual of Style entry for this, but from looking at a selection of Battle pages, "Entebbe, Battle of". (Hohum @) 22:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
In a category the default sort is "Battle of Entebbe". This can be changed in the article using the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template, or adding "|Entebbe" after each category's name. RobDuch (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll clarify my question; should battles articles be default sorted to the name of their location? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Might be a bit hard for Battle of the Marne (say).Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
So, in a category list of battles, all should be under B? - that doesn't seem reasonable (Hohum @) 19:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, but I just want to know if there is an established practice. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV descriptions of WWII territories that changed hands

I'm seeing quite a bit of inconsistency over this - e.g. Lwów Ghetto (in present day Ukraine, Russian Empire pre-1914, Poland pre-1939, annexed by USSR in 1939, presented (including map) as if it were Polish) vs. say Ponary massacre (in present day Lithuania, Russian Empire pre-1914, Poland pre-1939, annexed by USSR in 1939, presented as part of "German-occupied Lithuanian SSR"). Is there any established consensus on how to treat these? (My own personal preference is to generally follow annexations and modern country lines, possibly avoiding historic disputed claims, with the exception of territories - e.g. Bialystok - which were annexed back). If there is no established consensus, I'm thinking of RfCing this. Relevant territories:

  1. Carpathian Ruthenia - pre-WWI Austro-Hungarian. Prior to WWII very ethnically mixed (back in the day also including a sizable Rusyns population). After WWI Czechoslovakia. Then in 1938 part awarded to Hungary. Hungary annexes additional territory in 1939. Post-war annexed by Soviets in Ukrainian SSR.
  2. Zaolzie - Czech -> Polish (1938) -> Nazi invasion -> Soviet -> Czech
  3. Klaipėda Region (Memel Territory) - transferred in March 1939 to Nazi Germany, in 1945 incorporated back into Lithuanian SSR.
  4. Kresy (Poland) - pre-WWI Russian Empire. Prior to WWII very ethnically mixed. After 1921 Polish–Soviet War Polish. Annexed by USSR in 1939 (Lithuanian, Belorussian, Ukrainian SSRs). Invaded by Germany in 1941. Re-conquered by USSR in 1944. For the most part remained in the USSR (with the exception of Bialystok which was ceded back to Poland) following the war, and today in the post-Soviet successor states (or in the case of Lithuania per their doctrine of state continuity to pre-WWII state (and USSR occupation) - something a bit different, however the Lithuanian state recognizes these annexations during USSR times).

Thoughts?Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I expect to be a minority, but I tend to use the name current at the time, with a parenthetical for what it is now. The name then, in context of any given page, is what matters. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: - the content disputes here are over "what was current at the time". Take Lviv - it was annexed by USSR into the Ukrainian SSR in 1939. Polish patriots disputed this (some to this day), the re-formed Polish government recognized this in 1945. In terms of USSR law/citizenship - everyone in Lviv was a Soviet subject from 1939. In 1941-44 it was under German occupation. Do we say "German occupied Ukraine/USSR"? "German occupied Poland"? Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm officially over my head. Consider this my last word, 'cause I have nothing better to add. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, working mainly with occupied Yugoslavia, I use the term used by those in power at the time, because the geographical boundaries of occupied or annexed entities are usually well-defined and it doesn't rely on a description based on modern (or even ancient) borders. For example, I would describe Ljubljana as being in the Italian-annexed Province of Ljubljana between April 1941 and September 1943. So, I would describe Lviv as being annexed to the Ukrainian SSR prior to the German capture of that city, or in the German-occupied period, as being in the German-occupied Reichskommissariat Ukraine. As you indicate, these things can be rather complex, and a lot of POV can seep in in my experience. I find that describing them as they were at the time helps to alleviate the issues. Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
That makes some sense (and kicks the POV can to the linked article). Peacemaker67 - are you aware of any consensus (project, wiki) on this? There are a few hundred articles (at the least - ghettos, battles, events) where this is an issue in the lede/infobox. I think we should be consistent - and currently the articles aren't (and on some of them - there is back and forth between various permutations). Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of complex, I should correct the foregoing. Lviv was incorporated into the General Government within Distrikt Galizien under the Germans, not Reichskommissariat Ukraine. I'm not aware of any wide consensus on this, the geographic naming conventions don't really cover this issue. I foresee all sorts of derailing by POV arguments if you tried to get a policy read on this, IMHO you are better off just concentrating on the ones that are at issue now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of articles - which is why I'm trying to form some sort of wider consensus. And yes - this is certainly a hot potato for national POVs of a "it is/was ours" nature. Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sad to say, while I enthusiastically support your intent, I tend to put the effort into battles I think I have a chance to win. This one will likely draw the POV-warriors out in force, and they'll be coming from every corner of the globe with their "eternal <insert country here>" nonsense. Some people just can't accept that their country was ever under the heel of a conqueror and carved up. It's a weird kind of unthinking nationalism that doesn't accept the real history of a country, and sees everything through the prism of the present. We even have that sort of blindness in Australia with our Frontier Wars. I would be selective and pick your targets carefully, but if you do decide to go for a wider policy, you'll have my support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands

A bit of edit warring going on in this article, if anyone would like to take a look. See talkpage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cause god forbid somebody remove poorly translated content unsourced copied from Russian Wikipedia. Oh, wait, that stuff isn't supposed to be in Wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sickle Mace article already exists?

I was looking at the requested articles section and i saw a request for Sickle Mace. I found this article --> Kusarigama and I was wondering if someone could check it to see if it is the same thing. GreyPage - ᚷᚱᛖᚤᛈᚨᚷᛖ (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Charles Fraser

Does anyone have access to sources that will give more info on Alexander Charles Fraser (Q62066730) (1815-1882), who was chaplain of (British) Royal Military Academy, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued "presumptive deletion" of USAF/RAF pages

Further to this discussion: [[31]], pages continue to be "presumptively deleted" for suspected copyright violations e.g. RAF Upper Heyford, RAF Saltby, RAF Shepards Grove, RAF Charmy Down and Naval Training Center Orlando. I have raised this for further discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions#"Presumptive deletion" of User:Bwmoll3 pages and request that interested editors comment there. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military

Campaign history of the Roman military has been nominated for a FA review. Members may wish to contribute to the discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ATTN. EDITORS -RE: Dwight D. Eisenhower - Semi-Protected Edit Request for a link to cultural diplomacy during the cold war.

Hello Fellow Wikipedian Editors: Just a quick note to let you know that a Semi-Protected Edit Request has been posted on the Talk Page on the article Dwight D. Eisenhower to include a reference for his utilization of cultural diplomacy during the cold war in an effort to strengthen diplomatic relations between Europe and the United States. (See here: Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower). Perhaps when an Editor has some extra time the requested edit can be reviewed and possibly incorporated into the article. Many thanks in advance for your kind consideration and best wished for your continued success with the WikiProject Military history. With best regards 104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)PS

HMS Seamew

The Morning Chronicle of 19 August 1953 states that "HMS Seamew" ran down and sunk a vessel on 31 January 1853. The HMS Seamew page states the the Board of Customs ship Seamew wasn't transferred to the Royal Navy until 1857. Was it this vessel, or a different one involved? Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The Morning Post on 5 February 1853 calls her "H.M.Str. Seamew" and a report on Public Estimates in the Morning Chronicle for 1854 has "The Irish revenue police (including 27 officers and crew of the Seamew steamer), 1,228 in number cost about £52,769". As the accident was in Irish waters can we presume she was still with the revenue and later report of "HMS" were an error. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go with HMRC Seamew then. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

US Air Force bases and Infoboxes

I was thinking of trying to tidy up some of the US air force base infoboxes, many of which still use the old military structure infobox template rather than the current military installation template. I noticed that many pages have the emblem of major command which the bases falls under in the 'ensign' field of the infobox, rather than the USAF flag (as the RAF station pages do with the RAF ensign). For example Barksdale Air Force Base or Cannon Air Force Base. Would it be better add the flag in the ensign field and have the emblem of the major command in the 'image2' field as appears to be the intention of the template? Don't want to go changing it if there is already a convention already established or agreed. Thanks Thx811 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Julius Caesar for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Info about Arthur Currie

Any recommendations for books or info about Arthur Currie? Arthurcurrie (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

[32] Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot Keith264 Arthurcurrie (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I recommend Hyatt, "General Sir Arthur Currie : a military biography". I bought my copy in Toronto many years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Barrett Talbot Kelly MC

I'm writing about Richard Barrett Talbot Kelly.

Several significant sources refer to hm as "MC", but I can find no record of him being a warded the Military Cross; can anyone oblige with one, please?

Also, in the London Gazette, his MBE is announced:

Captain Brevet Major (temporary Major) Richard Barrett Talbot Kelly, M.C. (14791), Royal Artillery.

Have I referred to that correctly as "credited with the brevet rank of Temporary Major."? And what is "14791"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I now have a source for his MC, but no the wording of his citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Would 14791 be his service number? Also, brevet is, I believe, a form of reward, but I would write that simply as "appointed brevet Major". Factotem (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
14791 is his service number for the Second World War. For officers the Gazette puts it in brackets after the name. For other ranks it places the number first. It gets confusing but he is both a brevet Major and a temporary Major. The brevet rank was announced on 13 October 1942 [33] and when given would have given him the duties and privileges of being a Major but without the pay. The temporary Majority which is almost certainly a subsequent appointment give him the duties, privileges and pay of a Major for the period while the temporary appointment lasts. Kelly was still a brevet Major when he was discharged from the army in 1947 [34]. Nthep (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
All incorporated; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
His Military Cross gazettal is at "No. 30111". The London Gazette (1st supplement). 1 June 1917. p. 5480. Unfortunately, there is no citation. British officers did not have service numbers in WWI. For Australians, the citation cards (and sometimes the recommendations as well) are in the Australian War Memorial, and are available online, but no such luck with Brits. Searching the Gazette is a bit of an art form, even when you know the issue and the page you want. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_150&oldid=1232550609"