Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 158

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

→

Archive 165

This Project lost one article, and now another?

Issue: Before the Military History Project loses another article with a “provincially titled war” to the “global American Revolution” (Global-ARW), perhaps this Notice Board can arrive at a Project-wide standard for ARTICLE SCOPE in American Revolution sister articles.

Proposal: This Project should use the mainstream scholarly reference Encyclopædia Britannica to define the scope of sister-articles related to the American Revolution, as composed by Willard M. Wallace, published online 2015 [1998]: "American Revolution, (1775-83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America."

background, scholarly reference, prominent adherents

Background: Several like-mined wp:editors have successfully wp:MERGED Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) NOW-REDIRECTS-TO Spain in the American Revolution. They currently attempt to merge Anglo-French War (1778-1783) into France in the American Revolution. --- They opine that all British conflict of the late 1770s is ‘in reality’ the “American Revolutionary War”, substantiated by “vast majorities” found in their browser search hits, and misrepresenting scholars who merely reiterate the overlapping timeline from Spain making war on Britain June 1779, and Yorktown ending Anglo-American campaigning October 1781. - In article Talk pages, four (4+) months at American Revolutionary War, "Global-ARW wp:editors" argued to recount battles in the article American Revolutionary War that took place elsewhere than America, WITHOUT military consequence to American independence, Congressional knowledge, consent, or any participation by its commissioned officers. "Global-ARW wp:editors" fought for Infobox changes to encompass the global battle casualties in concurrent wars: Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Dutch, and Anglo-Mysore. This can be fairly attributed to a misunderstanding of the oft-quoted Michael Clodfelter 2017, pp. 124-135, who deprecates the “popular” meaning of "Revolutionary War", one limited to the British-subject colonial rebellion or civil war in America, “a tag more popular and also more provincial” (p.124). --- Instead Clodfelter titles his article, "War of the American Revolution: 1775-83" (p.124) to embrace all wars waged upon Britain during that period. In the Clodfelter view, these comprise all formal British belligerents of that time span, American Congress, French and Spanish Bourbons, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, India. See the casualty statistics for “that Clodfelter war" and the wp:editor "Global American Revolutionary war" on pages 134-135. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Besides Britannica, one of the ”commonly accepted reference texts”, PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America include thirteen (13) distinguished scholars upheld by the History Pulitzer Prize commission, only one (1) of whom is contested: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, who is sometimes misinterpreted by wp:editors. :: *-scholar finalists. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

shorter simpler

Housekeeping @TheVirginiaHistorian: - may I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, especially the part about "Avoid excessive use of color and other font gimmicks". Frankly, I find your posts almost unreadable at times with all the underlining/colors/bolding/etc that you employ. You might get more responses if they were less marked up and less lengthy. Just some advice. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC) I'll second this. I get put off reading these because of the mess of formatting. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC) @Ealdgyth and Harrias: Thanks for the heads up. see rewrite below.  Done. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

My copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History has an entry titled "American independence war" which covers the period 1775–1783 and encompasses the loss of the British colonies. However, it includes the expansion of the war into a global one including France and its Spanish ally, and the Dutch, as well as the League of Armed Neutrality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: How does the War for American Independence spread? Nothing points to Congress as the agent spreading war on Britain worldwide. To the contrary, the “Bourbon War of 1778” (Mahon 1890), war was prosecuted against Britain by declared war from France and Spain under the Bourbon Family Pact and their Aranjuez Convention, Articles 5 & 7 for imperial expansion at British expense. Explicit war aims included a Spanish Gibraltar, with additional French possessions in the Caribbean, "as convenient"; their joint plans to invade Jamaica followed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

two other points

(1) The ARW "embraces" Euro great power wars? That sounds upside-down-and-backwards. I thought Euro historiography posited a Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, and the ARW fitted inside it, as did the French and Indian War fit inside the Seven Years' War though it also started in North America. - (2) Stipulated: Wars against Britain expand by belligerents other than the US Congress, and overlapping British civil war in America for 30 months from June 1779 to August 1781; these are Congressional 'co-belligerents' against Britain. But they make war without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation by its commissioned officers. Those Euro great power engagements against Britain during Anglo-American peace negotiations April-November 1782 are against the US national interest (Morris 1983). Any engagements after 30 November 1782 are at odds with the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance, Art. 8 providing for ending war on Britain after "tacit" British agreement to American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

N.Am. wars v. Euro wars: conflict scope can differ in Wikipedia articles

example: Article scope for overlapping military conflicts North-American conflict Euro-great-power conflict French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies. Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation. War of the American Revolution Bourbon War of 1778 1778–1783 "In 1778, the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution [against Britain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch]", "the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies". Citations Bibliography Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2585-0. Mackesy, Piers (1993) [1964]. The War for America 1775-1783. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803281927. Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Boston : Little, Brown and Company. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

quotes from four 'Oxford Companion' RS

Unlike the misstatement and misapplication of RS text above, editors can refer to linked direct quotes of RS authors and their RS sources for themselves. (1) In the Oxford Companion to Military History, at “American independence war (1775-83)”, Richard Holmes says page 42, “France now resolved to enter the war on the side of the colonists [against Britain]. The war had changed from civil insurrection [between British subjects] to a world war [against Britain, not against Congress] which would engulf the West Indies, Europe, and India," without the Americans referred to in the Holmes article title. Holmes references three scholars. (2) In Fighting for America: The Struggle for Mastery in North America, 1519-1871, Jeremy Black says on page 114, "American alliance with France and French alliance with Spain “brought the [war=wars against Britain] to a new stage as there was no clear guide to the allocation of British resources between the war with the Bourbons and that with the Americans." (Spain did not join France in war for American independence, it refused to sign their Treaty of Alliance.) (3) In his most recent book British Isles and the War of American Independence Oxford University Press 2003 [2000], Stephen Conway says on page 1, "On 19 April 1775 the constitutional dispute between Britain and its North American colonies finally erupted into open war. For the next 30 months or so, Lord North’s government was able to devote much of the military resources at its disposal to crushing the rebellion." The French "entered the conflict on the side of the new United states, and be came belligerents [to Britain] in early summer of 1778." In 1779, Conway continues, "the Spanish joined the French," as belligerents against Britain, by the Aranjuez Compact, not for American independence, not on US claimed territory. At the end of 1780, "the Dutch also became enemies of the British. A colonial rebellion [against Britain] had turned into a world war [against Britain]," not against Congress. In his conclusion on page 354, he says, War against the Americans polarized opinion but then war against the Bourbon powers, "once the Americans departed from the empire", the continuing war against the Bourbons had the effect "of bringing the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish together in a great British struggle against their European enemies. Important in this respect were the war from 1778." That is, Mahan’s “Bourbon War of 1778” in his Influence of Sea Power on History, 1890. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

These authors, both American historians and 'international perspective' Euros, distinguish between two (2) wars against Britain 1778-1783. One (1) is an insurrection by British subjects in North America, one (1) is imperial rivalry by nation-states globally. There is no Congressional revolt made into an ethereal "war spread worldwide" without evidence of human agency. That would "connect dots where there are no connections" as a willful act of ungrounded historiography. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Aha! Not a problem here I see, no need for a response. The trolls just went away, "No merge". --- But what about the previous wp:troll accomplishment? As of now, for this Project, the 'Anglo-Spanish War' of significant military scale and importance including overseas and the Final Assault on Gibraltar, is now on a par without an image, and alongside the topically lesser military history of the younger-son-adventurer Governor Gálvez.

That is, Gibraltar is now set by the Project in the context of Spain in the American Revolution, and the stand-alone siege piece is reduced to wiki-links to John Bethune's memoir and a history of 'The Rock'. There, Siege of Gilbraltar 1789-1783 is just like capture of Mobile 2-14 March 1780, only without an image alongside.

The Project judgement in this matter is confirmed somehow by an editor on this Talk page, Spanish-Anglo assault March 1780 is equivalent or of greater importance than that of November 1782. That is referenced here according to the perspective and editors judgement in the Oxford Companion to Military History? For project-editors, it seems that European military history would have no separate Anglo-Spanish War 1779-1783, Spanish assistance to Congress is the only useful frame of reference for Spanish military activity during the time period? Without discussion, "Silence is consent." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

HMS Chanticleer

Was the ship Chanticleer reported wrecked on Pemba Island, Zanzibar on 8 December 1868 a merchant vessel or HMS Chanticleer (1861)? Two sources just state she was a barque, whilst a third says it was HMS Chanticleer, which is known to have been barque-rigged. The only Chanticleer in Lloyd's Register for 1868 was a steamship. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2020‎ (UTC)

The Illustrated London News of 27 February 1869 states HMS Chanticleer was reported as lost off Zanzibar by telegram from Bombay but the loss was not confirmed by the Admiralty. Allen's Indian mail and register of intelligence of 17 March 1869 names it as a merchant ship Chanticleer under Captain Dodds, which had sailed from Bombay and was to load at Zanzibar for a journey to London. She was almost brand new and of 394 tons. Totally wrecked on the shore of Pemba but all crew rescued. From the look of things HMS Chanticleer spent most of 1868 off South America so my leaning is towards it being the Chanticleer of Bombay. I don't know much about commercial vessels, but could she have been too small to appear in Lloyd's register or registered elsewhere, maybe in India if she was build there? - Dumelow (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I found the following through the British Newspaper Archive - it was printed on 6 March 1869 in the Broad Arrow but appears to originate in the Hampshire Telegraph: ("a paper for the services"):THE REPORTED LOSS OF H.M.S. CHANTICLEER, THERE can be now no doubt that the rumoured loss of this vessel originated through a mistake. A " Friend of the Commander of H.M.S. Chanticleer," dating from Ryde, writes as follows to a London contemporary :—" In your issue of yesterday the following appeared in your ' Summary' column : A telegram from Bombay announces the wreck of her Majesty's ship Chanticleer off the coast of Zanzibar,' &c. Now, the last news we have of this ship is that she left Panama on the 23rd of November for Vancouver's Island, where she was expected to arrive on the Bth or loth of January. She is on the North American and Pacific station, and it is, therefore, very unlikely she could have reached Zanzibar, on the east coast of Africa, a distance, I think, of about 13,000 miles. Nov please look to your issue of the 18th inst. Under shipping news you will find : ' Mahe (Seychelles), Jan. 23. The Chanticleer, barque, of Shields, from Bombay to Zanzibar, struck on a reef off the north-east end of Pemba Island, December 8, and became a total wreck,' &c. To those who have friends on board her Majesty's ship Chanticleer, and who have not remarked the last paragraph, what suspense and misery this telegram must have caused, especially to those who are at a distance from any nautical friend who might be able to reassure them."—Hampshire Telegraph.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thaks, that's that one cleared up then. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good find ThoughtIdRetired - Dumelow (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, Conway's 1860–1905 lists HMS Chanticleer (1861) as "sold 1878". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

A-Class review for Battle of Westerplatte needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Westerplatte; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!. An interesting article about one of the very first battles of WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! An article about the USAF bomber force in the UK between 1949 and 1992. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject and task force for Cold War exists

An example of this problem in Talk:Yuri Gagarin

It is strange that both WikiProject and task force with similar scope exists. They are WikiProject Cold War and Cold War task force (MILHIST). Members of MILHIST must look into this problem. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Soumya-8974: Thanks for flagging this up. As the WikiProject Cold War is clearly inactive - four edits in the past three years - I am not sure that there is anything to look into, nor that it is a "problem". I have tagged the Cold Wat Project as inactive. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion about Song-Xia War

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Song-Xia War (1040–1044) that would benefit from input from the Wikiproject. Thank you for your input.   // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review

I have nominated British Empire 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. Quality posts here (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC for Talk:Battle of Arras (1940)

@A D Monroe III: An interesting question of minutiae has arisen. It occurred to me that since numbers are not connected to languages, it is a mistake to hyphenate them when attached to non-English terms. An example is Fliegerkorps VIII and Fliegerkorps VIII; A. D. Monroe demurs and I wonder if there is any WP on such a matter? Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there is any specific guidance making such an odd distinction, but even if there was, it would need to be changed. Having the numeral un-italicized makes it look like it's not part of the italicized unit name. Numbers are connected to languages; each language pronounces them differently; VIII is ocht in German, not "eight" as it would be if it were English. Just because a foreign language word looks the same as a possible English translation is zero reason not to ensure readers understand it as part of a foreign phrase. There's simply no reason to treat the number in a military unit's name as somehow separate. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, VIII looks the same when written in any language, italicising it is pointless. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is the reader. Italicizing it keeps it semantically with the name, thus is helpful to the reader, so not italicizing it is not only pointless, but harmful. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Roman numerals are a particular problem, since, being letters in other contexts, this can create garden-path sentences. Qwirkle (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I see some merit on both sides, but when I think of 8th Staffel/Jagdgeschwader 26, it just seems odd to me. And is the slash before the wing number italicized or not? On balance, I think I favor DM III's idea of italiciing the whole works. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What Lineagegeek said.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Individual preference then, apart from ADMs insistence on knowing the minds of hypothetical readers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How does "individual preference" follow from the comments here? No one is seeing any benefit in disassociating the number from the italicized name -- not even from the editor doing this. And what does "individual preferences" even mean? Should I therefore go ahead and pursue my individual preference for these? Or does "individual" mean someone with special editor privileges, perhaps based on OWN? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review of 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) needs attention

The A-Class review of the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) needs the attention of a few more editors; any input there would be much appreciated. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989

Last month User:Fram nominated a series of articles for mass deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. Now he has started to nominate the articles of his earlier mass deletion request for deletion again; starting with: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. noclador (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I started the second batch with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), which ended in delete. Considering that the deletion is listed in the milhist article alerts and multiple members of this project already commented, what was the purpose of this extra notice? Fram (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You started with the Swiss Armed Forces and at that discussion not a single of the more than 1500 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members commented as you did not list it here to inform us. It ended in delete as none of us was aware that this discussion was ongoing. The original creator of that article is banned by now and you used the deletion discussion there to try to establish a precedent of deleting all military organization articles. This post here is to inform other editors about the ongoing discussion, and it is you who should have posted this. Posted it already for the Swiss Armed Forces. noclador (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Noclador there is no obligation on the nom to post notice of a Military AFD here. The Swiss Army order of battle AFD was included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions as is this AFD. Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It was listed in the article alerts for this project, here and here. And here as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts lists 9 current AfDs, are you going to post them all here and berate the nominators for not having it posted here? Fram (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted a proper discussion you would have listed it here. noclador (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment given we are talking about a list of potential deletions of Milhist lists under a similar rationale, it is useful for the project members to have it drawn to our attention here, thanks noclador. I'm sure anyone who wants to have their say will comment and/or !vote on the individual AfDs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, Fram did exactly what he was required to do in terms of informing people about the noms. At the same time, it is helpful for us to be notified about noms that deal with such a breadth of articles that fall under our project's regular content arena, as long as there are not attempts to WP:CANVAS. I think for the most part both users have acted correctly, so there is no issue here. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Does this nihilism include champions of pensions for ex-service personnel? Nerrida5 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am preparing a bio of a champion of Ex-service organisations in Australia..Can you please advise if it is best under Military History or historical biography?

I Nerrida5 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by that, but there's no need to strictly classify things that way. Please make sure that you read WP:BIO, Wikipedia's rules on notability criteria for biography articles, and WP:BLP the rules ona articles concerning living people. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you mean WikiProjects then "both" is the correct answer, though there should actually be three; Military History (this project), Biography, and Australia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Ypres

Would anyone like to improve Battle of Ypres, a WP:SIA which looks as if it was once a WP:DAB page, into an article?

One of a colleague's interests is fixing bad or ambiguous links to WP:PTOPICs and SIAs. He recently remarked to me, "A few [pages] such as Battle of Ypres are old sparring partners and I've already done what I can; the remainder refer to the battles as a group or need an expert".

The SIA gives no background or context as to why two armies spent four years fighting over that particular piece of mud. An overview of that battlefield and its timeline could be a useful addition.

Battles of the Isonzo does a respectable job on Italy's WWI placename of horror. Narky Blert (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Powers during World War I

If anyone has time, please contribute to this draft article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ioan Culcer

I overhauled this guy's article, it was a months-long project as I had to create the articles for the battles he fought in. I think his article can still be polished to be a bit better, as in general stuff, i.e. spell checks and the like. Thing is, I'm really tired, I think I'll largely put off Wiki work for the remainder of the year. If anyone is interested to take a look and maybe do some polishing, that would be greatly appreciated. Also needs a new rating, it certainly isn't a Start-class anymore. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Transylvania1916, you could ask GoCE Requests to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Proper disambiguation of battle pages

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri, at least to me, looks a little nonstandard in disambiguation. I'm wondering if Battle of Glasgow (1864) would be better; but I'm just not sure. The other two entries at Battle of Glasgow are disambiguated with the year, although they were in similar places. Are battles generally disambiguated by date or location, and if by location, should it be the current title or Battle of Glasgow (Missouri)? Hog Farm _Bacon 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

HS Kallisto

Members of this project may not be aware, but the mine countermeasures vessel HS Kallisto was cut in two in a collision with a container ship this morning. The article is not in good shape, being just above stub class. Can we do better? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Article has been nominated at WP:ITNC. Ideally, it needs a "Description" section above the "History" section. Currently, all dimensions, equipment etc in the infobox is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: lede of French Revolution

An Rfc concerning the lede of French Revolution is under discussion at Talk:French Revolution#rfc_CF45697. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

Red Tail Squadron, 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Note this is currently A-Class under MILHIST as it passed an A-Class review in 2010. If it loses it's GA status, it would by definition need a reassessment of it's A-Class. I've had a look at the article history and there were some very large scale changes made in 2017 that massively changed the nature of the article. I've started rolling back those changes. Woody (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Royal Air Force

Just created the page Structure of the Royal Air Force, please feel free to add/remove/change any information you think is necessary. SmartyPants22 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at French Air Force

There is currently a move discussion at Talk:French Air Force#Requested move 25 October 2020 that could use more participants. Garuda28 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Webley Revolver FAR

I have nominated Webley Revolver 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. GamerPro64 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Report of the Battles Nomenclature Committee

Don't suppose anyone has a copy of The Official Names of the Battles and other Engagements fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914–1919, and the Third Afghan War 1919, which was a report by the British "Battles Nomenclature Committee"? I'm looking for the official name of the campaign against the Marri and Khetran tribes on the North-West Frontier in 1918. I think it was the "Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes". The battle honour awarded was "Baluchistan 1918", the operations are also known by "Marri Field Force", "Marri Punitive Expedition" etc. I'm drafting an article at User:Dumelow/Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes - Dumelow (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Have tracked it down - turns out it was published as a command paper (Cmd. 1138) so it's available through the database of parliamentary papers. The operation is indeed the "Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes", dates 18th February to 8th April 1918. Three specific actions are named - "Defence of Gumbaz Post" 19th-20th February; "Affair of Fort Munro" 15th March; and "Capture of the Hadb Position", 6th April. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Gray, that's excellent. Thanks so much! Is there a page number I can use to cite this? - Dumelow (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: No problem! It's on page 45. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Colin Campbell Garbett: MiD

According to the jacket of a book he published in 1956, Colin Campbell Garbett was "twice mentioned in dispatches". I can find no other source for this, nor any record of his military service; likely in the Indian Army in WWI. (I have found a WWI medical card for someone of that name, but nothing to tie him to my subject.) Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge University (1947) reckon he was "thrice mentioned in despatches" during his time as the Chief Political Officer for the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force. You can see the oak leaf on his Victory Medal in File:Colin Campbell Garbett - anon - circa 1956.png. Woody (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I can only find one MiD so far: Lieutenant- General W. R. Marshall's despatch of 15 April 1918 - Dumelow (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"decisive" victories in infoboxes

Template:Infobox military conflict specifically says not to do this for the "result" field, stating this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" . . . Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

I've been busy cleaning up lots of Turkish/Ottoman articles that used decisive much to the ire of a Turkish IP editor). Anyone that wants to help out with other countries it's quite simple to search for "result [insert country name] decisive victory" (such as the British ones for example). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if there is someway of partly automating this. I don't think mass edits by a bot would go down well in this area but maybe a bot could pull together a list of articles with such phrasing or populate a category? We could then manually work through and bring the infoboxes inline with the guidance - Dumelow (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a low-tech list of affected articles here. I anticipate there may be a few false positives on the list, but looking at the preview text for each article you get a good idea of whether it's relating to the infobox or not. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff, so we know there's almost 1,500 "decisive"s to fix. I'm still intrigued as to whether a bot could list or categorise these and other non-standard uses (tactical, strategic, marginal, major, minor etc.). Hawkeye7, I know the project has been asking a lot of MilHistBot recently but is this something that is easy to do? - Dumelow (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC source review needed

G'day all, if someone has a few minutes, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb/archive1 needs a source review, and is otherwise good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've kicked this off - it's an excuse to consult the copy of Destroyers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia I bought for a remarkably low price second hand recently. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

Project members may be interested to hear that the Project coordinators have awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves to Buidhe. This is the first time they have been awarded in over four years. The citation reads

It is with genuine pleasure that I award you the Military History Project's WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for having met the requirement to have "made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history." The Project, corporately, notes that you have produced four FAs and an FL of impeccable quality, focusing on the difficult topic of the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews. And 42 GAs with a broader range but the same central theme. In addition you have somehow found time to be the Project's premier source and image reviewer. The Project members' throughput of A class and Featured articles would be much the worse without your work. We salute you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Capped side discussion about award image

Standard WikiChevrons

You will perhaps forgive me for wondering but, where are the oak leaves?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Leave from oak trees? But (bad) jokes aside its a common addition to some decorations to create a higher rank or award.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

its a common addition to some decorations to create a higher rank or award. Yes, I know that. But, the citation above proclaims WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. If you look at the image at top bottom right (taken from the bling on Editor Buidhe's user page) no oak leaves. Shouldn't the award bling match the citation? If the project cares enough to distinguish between award ranks, surely the project cares enough to ensure that the actual award reflects the award named in the citation. The new image (top right) looks more like Wiki chevrons with wreath than with oak leaves, which from my limited experience usually look like oak leaves. Further, why is the citation above, not included in the citation at the editor's user page?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh I see, well they are there now, I think it was a mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm lost. Where are they? In the bottom top image I see something that appears to be a wreath. When I think of oak leaves as award rank embellishments, I think of things like these:

• Oak leaf cluster – American
• Pour le Mérite#Military class – German
• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross#Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves – Nazi German

The image at lower right is similar to these:

• "V" device#Device changes – American
• Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand#Medals for acts of bravery – Thai
• Parachutist badge#Poland – Polish

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken Trappist the monk, but can we have that as a separate conversation elsewhere, and maybe allow this thread to concentrate on Buidhe's achievements? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Anywhere you'd like.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations Buidhe, very well deserved. As a side note, the last award was actually to AustralianRupert just over two years ago. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal of British Army Structure In 2010 into Army 2020 section 'background'

Hello. I know I'm not a member here. However, would anyone else like to discuss my merger proposal from British Army Structure In 2010 into Army 2020 as discussed in Talk:Army_2020#Merger_proposal ? At best into Army_2020#Background . Thank you all. BlueD954 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at Future of the British Army

Hello again. There is currently a move discussion at Talk:Future_of_the_British_Army#Requested_move_31_October_2020 that I started and could use more participants. BlueD954 (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

PROD added for article

Happy Sunday. I made a WP:PROD for List of British Army Regiments (2008). Please see the rationale for the PROD in the article. I feel other corresponding articles like List of British Regular Army regiments (1962) and List of British Regular Army regiments (1994) need to be either 1) Improved with sources or references added 2) Merged into Units of the British Army or face 3) PROD or face WP:AFD. Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Jalal Harutyunyan

So is he dead or not? His article says that he is but I can't find any reliable confirmation that he was killed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this book RS?

Found a book called Sabotage in Greece, its on sale at Amazon, Barnes and Noble as well as being available at Google Books. However the publisher is Lulu.com, so it seems to be self published. Is it considered RS or not?--Catlemur (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You might be better to ask at wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Vinod Kumar Sharma

Could I please get some opinions on this draft? It doesn't quite seem like he meets WP:SOLDIER, and the references are almost entirely lists, but as a non-Indian I have no idea how "significant" these awards are supposed to be. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Unreferenced & relative casualty terms

An editor is repeatedly adding the terms "Slightly light" and "heavy" as casualties in the infobox at Mongol invasions of Vietnam which are not only unreferenced, but also relative terms that are meaningless without context. Other editors' attention would be appreciated.

See the talk page section for more details. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the editor has provided some references that say that there were many casualties in one of the events, but one issue is whether adding a vague term like "heavy" based on them is appropriate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion that will have a knock on effect for the current campaign boxes in MILHIST articles

Note there is a conversation ongoing regarding the use of navboxes in the lead of article which could have a knock on effect for campaign boxes: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Sidebars (navboxes) should NOT be used in the lead. I have not had the time to read it fully, and I note a couple of familiar names from this project, but given the significance, I thought I would flag it up here without prejudice. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger Discussion and proposedmove

I would like to alert members to this merger discussion Talk:Army_2020#Merger_proposal and this proposed move Talk:Future_of_the_British_Army#Requested_move_31_October_2020. Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

HMS Surly

We have the HMS Surly article. Weren't there at least two vessels of that name. The Standard, 22 October 1869 reports on the sale of four RN vessels, amongst them Surly, a gunvessel built in 1856 at Newcastle. Should the HMS Surly article be moved and the title converted to a shipindex page? Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Manning and Walker's British Warship Names states that the name originates from 1806 and that the destroyer was the 4th Surly, although it does not give details of the previous three. It also gives one Battle Honour, "Baltic 1855".Nigel Ish (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, Threedecks has a cutter built in 1806 and sold in 1837. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly the Finnish Wikipedia article lists the four Surlys as a 10-gun Cheerful-class cutter of 1806, an 1855 mortar vessel and an 1856 Albacore-class gunboat (1855) (she is listed as such in our class article) and the 1894 destroyer - Dumelow (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817-1863 has the service record of the 1806 Surly (sold out of service 1837) on page 267; the 1855 Surly on page 288 (renamed MV9 in October 1855 and broken up November 1855) and the 1856 Surly (sold out of service 1869) - Dumelow (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the ship article to HMS Surly (1894) and converted HMS Surly to a shipindex page and linked it with the fi-Wiki page. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, I've written a quick article for the 1806 ship - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've created the other two also (HMS Surly (1855) and HMS Surly (1856)) but couldn't find much to say about them. I would welcome any additions - Dumelow (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Attacks on the Butte de Warlencourt question

Can anyone see why I'm getting the Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors message? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean in "Further reading"? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so but I'm open to offers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Found them, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Piccadilly line wartime production

Hello there! In Piccadilly line, I am mentioning about the manufacturing of torpedo sights during World War II at one of the stations. However, I heard that sights is a rather vague or incorrect term. Can someone suggest a better term? I heard that periscopes are incorrect too. Thank you so much (the current version of the article states torpedo periscopes for easier searching via CTRL+F) Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 04:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Submarines aren't really my thing but I think I've seen them called "attack periscopes" and "targeting periscopes". Assuming we are talking about the same thing (the smaller periscope used during attacks to reduce the risk of the main periscope being spotted?) - Dumelow (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Surface vessels also needed sights for aiming torpedoes. May be a reference to those items. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Motor torpedo boats had torpedo sights. I don't know exactly how they worked but the following quote suggests you input various factors and then aimed on what the sight worked out. Quote: "I remember setting 10 knots enemy speed on the torpedo sight and then laughing and kicking myself because it was anchored." (Scott, Peter. The Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea 1939-1945 . Seaforth Publishing). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Periscopes required a high level of manufacturing skill - lots of complicated optics, high precision machining, water-proof components (to a good depth), etc. I think if your source says "torpedo sight" they do not mean periscope. I am guessing an MTB torpedo sight was not much more complicated than a Slide rule, though possible quite a bit more robust.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Try [1] for something on torpedo sighting. Has a diagram of a torpedo sight (got to scroll down a lot to find it).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Destroyers, cruisers and even some British battleships had torpedo tubes too at this time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried looking around and found TDC being the most helpful. Thank you all for the kind hands <3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

military conflict infoboxes

I have mentioned some problems with the rules for military conflict infoboxes at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#rules for Result parameter.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think this is resolved. The problem was in using the Infobox military conflict where Template:Infobox military operation should have been used. The result is then viewed as success (or otherwise) wrt the operational aims and not in terms of "X victory". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Salter, Folly Publications.

Ran across what looked like some blatant COI editing on an article, relating to a one-man publishing operation. Nuked it.

On the other hand, I looked at some other pages that cite this author/publisher, and read a couple works, and some of it was not at all bad, although a couple bits reminded me a little too much of Toy.

Any insight on it? Qwirkle (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, but links?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This gives an accessible example; here is the fellow’s website. (The blogacious aspects of it I pass over as a given.) Qwirkle (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Without knowing what articles were edited, if they were about castles or related to them Mike Salter's books are generally reliable. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle Constitution

May be well meaning; definitely not helpful. Qwirkle (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It is odd though that the article doesn't mention the ship being America's official "Ship of State", which appears in multiple reliable sources? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

But as a bye-name in the first line of the lede? Qwirkle (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Death toll from V-1s in London

Could one of you folks well-versed in WWII take a look at this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hi. Can I add Norways Chief of Defence, Eirik Kristoffersen to this project? I recently created the page, and are open for improvements and input. The main issue is the ribbon section not looking good, as I tried to copy the template in the Norwegian version. I will probably try to fix this tomorrow.--Znuddel (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild has already tagged it as part of the project. They're a good egg. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nearly 11 hours after it was created. Shocking. Standards are slipping. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

FYI; there is an RM at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command that could use a few extra sets of eyes. Cheers - wolf 12:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kagame

I have nominated Paul Kagame for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

List of revolutions and rebellions

Hey everyone, an IP user on the Talk:List of revolutions and rebellions page thinks it's better to separete both revolutions and rebellions which are (let's say) both significant different from each other. It also has 193,641 bytes which is a lot but since this is an important list it's better to ask futher comments here before spliting it. You're all invited into the chat. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MilHistBot automatic rating

I think the new auto-rating function is a great labor saving device but I can't figure out why MilHistBot rated my article (old version) as C-class due to insufficient referencing and citations? (All info is cited inline, except the lead.) (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - My guess would be the lines before the block quotes such as "Mapam politician Yisrael Bar-Yehuda strongly rejected a suggestion to permit excusing conduct under duress or in self-defense:". I know MILHISTBOT looks for paragraphs without citations at the end, and it might be flagging that as a paragraph, even though it's just part of the block quote formatting, and the citation is found at the end of the block quote. It looks like a B-class to me, so I'll be manually upgrading it to B. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for re-rating! (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the bot to handle quotations. I can also run it in a debugging mode where it explains its reasoning. Hog Farm is correct about the fact that out MilHistBot looks for paragraphs that end without a citation, but it does handle block quotations. The problem is more obscure. It comes down to this sentence: "The Jewish Ghetto Police was perceived as "the most hated Jewish organ during the Holocaust", according to Rivka Brot." What's wrong with it? There is a newline between "Jewish" and "organ". It doesn't appear in the displayed text, but the bot took it for the end of the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for checking. In fact, in Wikipedia formatting two newlines are necessary to start a new paragraph. But maybe programming that into your bot would lead to bad results, I don't know. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Channel Dash

May I ask interested editors to join the discussion at Talk:Channel Dash/Archive 1#Retrograde edit? This originated as a subsidiary point under Talk:Channel Dash/Archive 1#Infobox military operation. The edit in question is [2]
Thanks,ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No. 238 Squadron RAF

Can anyone assist with the sourcing issue noted at Talk:No. 238 Squadron RAF#Missing sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned project category

Hi, there is an orphaned project Category:Military science articles by quality which contains 1 log page, that is probably left over from a renaming of a task force. Just wanted to bring it to your attention, thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, thanks for the note! I've redirected the old log page to the new one and cleaned up the category. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory needs more FAC reviewers

G'day everyone, Hawkeye7's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1 needs some additional reviewers. I acknowledge that astronautical articles aren't always considered mainstream Milhist fodder, but reviewing it is no different from reviewing an article in an area you aren't familiar with. If you can spare some time, I'm sure it will be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Capture of Wytschaete

Can a kind soul sort out the Commons category template as I can't work out how to make it work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, which Commons category did you want to link to? - Dumelow (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, 3rd Battle of Ypres? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've linked it, but I am not sure it is the most elegant solution (as not all the images in the category relate to the Capture of Wytschaete). Can the relevant images be readily identified and added to a Commons subcategory that can then be linked directly? - Dumelow (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional reviewers needed for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

G'day all, a couple more reviewers are needed for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division/archive2, which covers the interwar and WWII version of this formation. It also needs a source review. If you can spare a bit of time to take a look, it would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support with Maps

Long, long ago - there was a forum or a portal where one could request assistance in creating maps, diagrams etc. Does that still exist? If yes - how do I reach those guys (I need a military map created for an article)? Any advice would be appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GL/MAP and WP:GL/ILL (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for! Thx Hohum. Farawayman (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ribbon issue

Ref. Eirik Kristoffersen#Awards and decorations: Can somebody try to fix the Brigadeveteranforbundet Badge of Honour ribbon?

It works fine in the Norwegian article, and was showing on the English article before I tried to edit the code. --Znuddel (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I think it's because that ribbon image is a PNG rather than an SVG, but you can get around it by using "name=" rather than "ribbon=" to call up the file - Dumelow (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. --Znuddel (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

John Fitzgerald (United States Coast Guard)

Notable or not? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Bearian. A colonel equivalent who has only commanded a coast guard cutter with a crew of 70-odd? And mostly written by CaptFitz1987 which may indicate a COI of some sort. Certainly not presumptively notable under WP:SOLDIER, so he would have to rely on meeting the WP:GNG, and a quick Google search doesn't indicate the requisite significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Worth a PROD and AfD if that is rejected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Not notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: Any discussion of officer in the United States Coast Guard needs to keep in mind that the coast guard has far fewer admirals than other branches (two, to be exact, according to United_States_Coast_Guard#Commissioned_officers) and that the coast guard is a "bisexual" organization as it were because it operates under the jurisprudence of the United States Department of Homeland Security unless expressly mobilized for war, in which case it operates under the United States Department of Defense. Some consideration then needs to be given to the WP:GNG and to the Biography aspects as opposed to looking at a Coast Guard article exclusively thorough MILHIST prisms. I had in fact made a similar argument some years prior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Lloyd, but I suspect that most of what I wrote there could be said to apply here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Best method(s) to determine if a Bronze Star Medal was awarded with combat V device or not

While reviewing and editing our article about LTC Daniel Gade (USA Ret.), I have wanted to confirm my working assumption that the Bronze Star Medal Gade received was for reasons other than valor or heroism in combat. But I cannot ascertain a reliable method to determine if a Bronze Star was awarded for valor in combat or not. What method(s) do you all recommend? Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure but it sounds like the information may be available through a freedom of information request - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What about trying to contact the family? - wolf 02:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The article says he was decorated "for valor". However, the footnote in the article does not support this (as I'm sure you have noticed), it only supports the Purple Heart award. For the present, this phrase should be removed. If you can access the Bronze Star citation, of course it will say if the award was for valor, but even the award certificate will expressly state if it was awarded for valor or for meritorious service. The description of the circumstances under which he received one of his Purple Hearts make me more sanguine than you that the award was for valor. Bronze Stars without the V tend to be awarded to desk jockeys who did a really good job in a combat zone, and that doesn't seem to match his experience. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Excellent suggestions! @Lineagegeek: I want to be sanguine about "with valor" too (I've met Mr. Gade and he seems to be a man of great integrity), but thought I should err on the side of caution. I'll do some more digging. ;o) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Task forces (periods and conflicts) - missing crucial period

Hello fellow MilHist Wikipedians. I notice that there is an omission of a 'Task forces (periods and conflicts)' what must be a critical period of time, namely between World War I and World War II. Is there any reason for this omission? Bearing in mind that significant development of many critical technologies took place between the two world wars (from 1918 to 1939), I humbly suggest that a new task force be created. (Ironically, as I type this, the Interwar period article has no task forces!). May I suggest a name for this new task force? Namely: Inter-war. Apologies if this has been discussed before, I was not able to easily find any archived discussion. Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a random observation while I am browsing; if this task force is created, you will definitely want to name it something more specific than "inter-war." Almost every period in history can be described as "inter-war" for one country or another, so the scope of an inprecise task force will be huge. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments duly noted and agreed, thanks. So would Inter-World-Wars be a better naming suggestion? Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The other name for the period is "interbellum", or "Between the wars", the period could also be referred to as "1919-1938". But the usage will be in the background of Wikipedia by milhist editors and fellow travellers who know what the term means. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 for "interbellum". - wolf 16:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Once you have settled on a name, this will need to go through the task force incubator process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator; the instructions are detailed on that page, but it is essentially designed to make sure there is enough interest and scope for a group or task force before its creation. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Interbellum, one word, one meaning, no hyphens, no nonsense; synonyms allowed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer "interwar" because this is English wikipedia not latin. Our relevant article on the topic is Interwar period, no disambiguation needed. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "English" has thousands of words imported from other languages; interbellum is not recondite. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • in my experience, 'Interbellum' is sometimes used to describe the period and it is certainly well enough ingrained in the English language that I'd imagine most people know what it means, or could figure it out-- for instance, we commonly refer to the Antebellum South. With that being said, I do think that the time in-between World Wars is more often called the interwar period, see for instance this ngram, which I think I've put together correctly. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Just an observation, but the task forces really aren't foci of effort anymore, if they ever were. They are almost a way of internally categorising material within scope of the project. I also agree that what is considered the Interbellum period really is quite subject to different points of view, and would need to be tightly defined by date. If you were going ahead with an incubator concept I would suggest 28 June 1919 (the signing of the Treaty of Versailles) to 31 August 1939 (the day Hitler gave the final order for the invasion of Poland). However, we don't need to have a seamless chronology of period task forces, so I am not at all convinced this is needed or even desirable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree with PM above about the usefulness of taskforces. When I saw this post I had virtually the same reaction and in all honesty the creation of such a task force might be more of a hassle than actually resulting in an increase of content. The fact that every task force's talk page (as far as I'm aware) goes to the main MilHist page is telling in itself. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing article? Sentry (military)

I recently came across a bad link to sentries in Ivory Coast expedition. The DAB page didn't help a lot, but after some digging around I settled on picket (military) as the next best thing. During my travels, I came across sentry box; which linked uselessly to sentry (disambiguation).

We have an article on vedette (sentry), which in the sense I'm thinking of is a sentry with a horse. We do not seem to have an article on the PBI meaning; which ranges from the ceremonial ("They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace") through the routinely practical (guards at gatehouses, or over gunpowder, the rum store, or a gibbet (The Widow of Ephesus)) to the short-straw job from Antiquity onward ("You stay awake while the rest of us sleep, and raise the alarm if we're attacked - and do try not to get killed").

An anthem song in English, and another in German (parallel text) (The German Lied feels accurate - my father once told me that two of his sentries were knifed in Normandy in 1944.)

As it's this time of year, Santa Clausewitz. Narky Blert (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Iran has designated the US Armed forces as a "Terrorist Organization". A pair of users added this item, with refs, to the lead of the US Armed Forces page, as well as the leads of all the branch articles. The additions have been removed by multiple editors. A discussion on the issue has been started on the US Armed Forces talk page. I'm posting this here in case anyone would like to contribute. Cheers - wolf 15:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Tank-related RM could use more input

Talk:List_of_tanks_of_the_Soviet_Union#Requested_move_5_November_2020 thanks! (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lend a hand?

G'day all, if you have a few spare minutes, given it is mid-month it would be good to knock over the human checks of Milhistbot's October assessment work here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Still a few outstanding there. Any help with getting this knocked over before the November lot drops would be awesome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I’d be willing to help any way I can, PM. OyMosby (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Bot Suggestion

Can someone write a bot that will tag the talkpages of all the articles that have already been tagged as belonging to WP Espionage, WP Blades and WP Firearms with the WP MILHIST tag and vice versa?--Catlemur (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone could, I am not sure that it is a good idea. Plenty of firearm articles, for example, should not - IMO - be MilHist tagged. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Even limiting it to Espionage is going to save us a lot of work.--Catlemur (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not sort, say, firearm articles which are not MilHist tagged, put them on a page and ask members to “hand sort” them into those which are MilHist and those which are not. With checking the bot-assessed B class articles, editors have proven very willing to help out. How many articles are we talking about in each of those three categories? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, if you can link to the list of said articles.--Catlemur (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fort Vaux

I've changed the box to Template:Infobox military installation but can't find a way to get a map in. Can anyone offer advice on how to do it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the "pushpin_map" field. I've stuck one in for "France" but you could use "France Grand Est" instead, if that's more useful (that'll call up File: Grand Est region location map.svg) - Dumelow (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm trying the Grand Est but the caption won't work; oh, managed it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Tippecanoe

See Talk:Battle_of_Tippecanoe#WP:URFA/2020. I conducted checks of one of the sources, and found serious issues with information not supported to the citations. If anyone happens to have access to Funk, Cave, or Owens, could you do some spot checks? I have serious concerns about the text-source integrity of this article. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Dreadnought class battleship

The {{Dreadnought class battleship}} template has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It was kept, establishing precedent for keeping all single ship in a class templates. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking to offer help, be it research, photos or finding sources

Hi all! I’m new to the MilHist project and looking to offer help, be it research, photos or finding sources on any articles particularly (NON-BALKAN) and perhaps focused on military hardware and tech by Americans, Canadians British, Australians or general Western European. Please let me know of any articles I can help out as all these lists are a bit overwhelming and have now idea where start. OyMosby (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi OyMosby, welcome aboard! Thanks for offering to help out. You can find plenty of suggested articles to work on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks; the redlinks are all suggestions for new articles that users have requested. If it's finding sources you're looking to specialise in then Category:Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation by task force might be a good place to start. It is broken down into broad topic areas by nationality or period so you can choose one that suits your interests. Any queries or issues please feel free to post them here - Dumelow (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so mich for the warm welcome and pointers, Dumelow! I will check them out. OyMosby (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RAF Castle Archdale

Our article on RAF Castle Archdale has a 1945 date of closure; it was in use into the 1950s. Does anyone have the correct date please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andy Mabbett, the Airfields of Britain Conservation Trust state that "the RAF conducted a flag lowering ceremony in late 1957, although various sources such as the station Operations Record Book and the Liverpool Echo state that the airfield finally closed on 31 January 1958." - Dumelow (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Making a search in the British Newspaper Archive gives:
"[RAF] Castle Archdale is to close down before the end of next month" Belfast Telegraph, 30 Dec 1957, pg 5. The article then goes on to give a potted history of the station.
"...dismantling of a large hangar at the former RAF Station at Castle Archdale...." Belfast Telegraph 29 Oct 1958, pg 6. Article is about the results of sale of surplus items like Nissen huts (and, obviously, the hangar that became a factory for Convoy Woolen Mills Ltd. in Donegal).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for French battleship Charles Martel needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for French battleship Charles Martel; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: is this something I can help with or preferably for more experienced editors?OyMosby (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not dip your toe in? It has already had two supports from experienced reviewers, but familiarise yourself with the A-Class criteria here and have a crack. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Will do!OyMosby (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the more the merrier! (said the nominator)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Blenheim

I have nominated Battle of Blenheim for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think that is over-enthusiastic given the restrictions on numbers of FAR noms, and given the comments were only made on 9 November and aren't actually all that major. Much of the material tagged for citation needed could just be deleted as uncited and unneeded additions since its promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There are so many really deficient articles noticed that I wish we could leave MILHIST time to sort through theirs, and focus on others, in particular, those that seem to have no one watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fine by me, and I'm already skipping those articles on WP:URFA/2020, but when I noticed Blenheim (also Structural history of the Roman military, just to give the heads-up) on its talk page some weeks ago there was no indication that WP:MILHIST would engage in the effort as they're doing now, in a systematic manner (since 4 or so days ago? - we also did not have the list to facilitate matters). We kinda went about it at two speeds here, and Blenheim was caught in the middle. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A high portion of the MILHIST ones seem to be fine. Historical, so they don't get outdated most of the time, and monitored enough or obscure enough that uncited additions don't pile up. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep ... but could you all have a look at 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the image issues, and there are the usual bibliographic oddities, but haven't done a detailed read through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oral Swigart - rear admiral

He is described as a wrestler (he studied in Navy Academy), later Read Admiral. Needed biography.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Rear Admiral Oral Raymond Swigart was born in Columbia City in 1897, attended Columbia City High School, and the Naval Academy, 1921. He commanded a troop trans port and distinguished himself in the invasion of Sicily. He participated also in the Guadalcanal campaign, and later commanded LST Flotilla 8 in Leyte Gulf, Lingayen Gulf, and at Mindanao. He retired in 1951" from: Heffernan, John B. (1955). "Hoosier Senior Naval Officers in World War II". Indiana Magazine of History. 51 (2): 109. ISSN 0019-6673.. The Navy Department Library will have a biographical file on him but haven't gotten around to uploading it yet; they may be able to provide you information - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that say both he was a wrestler and a read admiral?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Found this [[3]]. But its not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Naval Academy Athletic Association lists him in their hall of fame as a wrestler - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

He's also mentioned on page 321 of the 1921 Annual of the Regiment of Midshipmen in their write up of athletes sent to the 1920 Olympics - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And also Lt. Swigart, USN on the Olympic roster from that year. Given his wrestling appearance is not even in his obituary, this illustrates the ridiculousness of compiling stubs out of Olympic databases. How many other stubs are about people not primarily notable for their Olympic achievements and fail to adequately describe the subject's life? Kges1901 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

God knows, but this is not a matter for here. I noticed the orbitaury thing, its why I asked about sourcing for it. It did not seem to be regarded as all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the article with this information and changed its focus towards his military career - Dumelow (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Beside Olympians there are quite a number of Cricketer articles; though of course only some of those would be considered notable (on wiki) for their military service. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Caps question

So I came across these two:

• Western Front (World War I)
• Italian front (World War I)

I'd like to know which is more correct or preferred. Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Capital FKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet it belongs to Category: Italian Front (World War I) (with a capital "F") and in virtually every source listed in the refs, the "F" is also capitalized. FYI - wolf 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Annnd now the Category is proposed for a move a lower-case as well. Wonder where all this will end...? - wolf 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the move will go thru (though there appears to be more disdain for milhist and the editors here than there was consensus for support). - wolf 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's wrong; most of the sources I checked use lowercase in "Italian front" (e.g. Keegan, Clodfelter, Cassar). Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Page was moved 2019-06-24 fyi - wolf 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Overzealous decapper. There was a (mostly) justified project to decap campaign in article titles last year, but this just smacks of mission creep to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, should be Front, afaik. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree, but... if only it were that easy. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Campaign article titles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign. - wolf 01:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the consensus above I've WP:Boldy moved it to a capitalized F along with Mines on the Italian Front (World War I) and update the articles appropriately. Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that, I think I will move it back. The question is whether sources consistently cap this, and I noted before that they do not. Not even close. Compare Western Front. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I love that the opinion of one editor outweighs that of five, but whatever. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I just showed the data. The "opinions" embodied in the guidelines represent the cumulative experience and opinions of all editors over many years, and are not to be overridden by a project discussion's WP:local consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for consistency even though, according to Dicklyon's evidence, it is not the common name. Maybe a RM is in order. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC is needed. I would suggest here, but apparently subject-specific WikiProjects are irrelevant, so perhaps at MOS:CAPS to address the whole milterm guideline. (jmho) - wolf 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not the case. Determinations made at MOS are strictly local consensus, and we can and do override them here, where more people are engaged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As much as I respect your work, Hawkeye, I must take issue with your characterisation of MOS as "local", and a wikiproject as global. It is the reverse. Tony (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not charaterise the wikiproject as "global". Each wikiproject establishes its own style rules. All the expertise on the subject is here, and there is no need to fill the MOS with subject-specific guidelines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. Zero wikiprojects establish their own style rules. Wikiprojects often create PROJPAGE essays ({{WikiProject style advice}}, but these are not guidelines, policies, or any other form of "rule". If a wikiproject is very certain that something in MoS does not meet a topical need, then they propose a change at WT:MOS (or the talk page of the relevant MoS sub-page, e.g. WT:MOSCAPS). And, no, MoS and other site-wide guidelines are not "local", but exactly the opposite. The very reason we have WP:CONLEVEL policy is because ArbCom got tired of again and again telling wikiprojects that they could not make up their own "rules" in defiance of site-wide guidelines and policies. I'm going to assume this is just one random editor who has policy completely backwards, but if anything like this confusion is rampant in this project, that's ... kind of a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What cause would you have to think that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You can "assume" whatever you want, I'm sure there is a plethora of editors (like myself) throughout WP that agree with Hawkeye's point. If there was a stylistic dispute between a collection of users with subject matter expertise, and those hounding the "rules" of MOS, I would always side with the subject matter experts. Look at the MOS if you're so keen to cite it, "best treated with common sense" – in what world would common sense not fall in favor of those writing about a topic, vs those trying to instate MOS "rules"? If those trying to appeal to MOS "rules" are in favor of site-wide consistency, that's a laughable endeavour given that we don't even use a consistent citation format... Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Common sense says that if sources mostly don't treat it as a proper name, there's no good reason for WP to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources use "Western Front" like the MOS, and not "Western front" [4]. I get the same result from "Eastern Front" vs "Eastern front" [5]; capitalisation is favoured. These two are far more common than "Italian front". Are you advocating overriding the MOS advice on the basis that common says consistency is not required? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are in agreement on Western Front and Eastern Front (that is, the frequency of caps in sources is high enough that I couldn't challenge it). And no, we should not over-generalize from there for the sake of consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Svolder

Battle of Svolder is a 2007 FA promotion in need of significant work. I've given it a notice for possible future FAR as part of WP:URFA/2020. My concerns are at Talk:Battle of Svolder#FA concerns. This is not an area of military history I know basically anything about, but it would be nice if some project members could get this up to par, so a FAR can be avoided. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard Smith (soldier)

Can I ask for some opinions on Richard Smith (soldier), which I have just come across? On the face of it a colour sergeant who was recommended for (but did not receive) a commission doesn't meet the notability requirement - Dumelow (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not notable, AFD. Mztourist (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping to article creator Narky Blert - Dumelow (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Two modern independent in-depth sources. Doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER, but IMO passes WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Which two, I see a website dedicated to 1812 veterans, an article about two veterans and a book about about the regiment.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Not sure I see stand-alone notability, but I'd recommend a selective merge to his regiment, perhaps Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WWI drawings by Sacre Bleu!

Some of you may be interested in a set of six drawings I have just uploaded, into c:Category:Sacre Bleu! (British Army officer).

The unnamed artist is described as:

An Officer (aka ‘Sacre Bleu’) in A Company, 2nd Essex Regiment on the Somme, 1916.

Three of the images are of buildings; the other three of named army officers: Scout Officer A G Allen, Captain F.W. Stevens, and "General Sir E Allenby K.C.B / 3rd Army", aka Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby.

Any additional info on artist or subjects will of course be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a list of 2nd bn, Essex officers at the Somme here that includes Allen and Stevens (and presumably the mystery artist). The unit's war diary is free to download if you register an account with the National Archives. On the first day of the Somme the unit attacked the German trenches at Bertrancourt (between Serre and Beaumont Hamel). Heavy machine gun fire rendered 22 officers and 400 other ranks casualties and they were largely pinned down in craters in no man's land. A salient in the German lines, the Quadrilateral (Heidenkopf) was taken in conjunction with survivors of other regiments, some detail is at First day on the Somme#Serre. I think Allen is Geoffrey Austin Allen who was killed in this attack - Dumelow (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like it is Lieutenant L H Sacre, aka Lester Howard SacréAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well spotted! - Dumelow (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The downside is that, as he died in 1974, they're in copyright for another 24 years. I've tagged them for deletion on Commons, to be restored on 1 January 2045(!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Orders of battle

As some of you know, there have been some rather heated AfDs lately that lay out the orders of battle of a national army in a particular year, usually a year thought to capture some significant stage of that army's organization. One of the sticking points seems to be that the choice of a particular year is usually somewhat arbitrary. During a discussion at AN/I, I suggested that a more durable way to structure this information might be to relate it to watershed events that brought about major changes in the structure. E.g., for the British Army, one might have articles on the regimental structure during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, after the Childers reforms, the Haldane reforms, etc., with each article detailing the minor changes that took place up until the next major article. Obviously, this would result in a different set of articles for each national army.

I don't have the sources or knowledge to do this very effectively myself, but I hope there are some project members who would be interested in this. Would it be possible to spin up a project page somewhere to try to outline what series of articles would work for each country? I'd be happy to WP:REFUND sourced material from the deleted articles if others can figure out a structure that is likely to survive AfD. Choess (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestion both at the AfD and here Choess. The challenge is that this series of AfDs was initiated by editors who argued that no unit listing was notable unless it was specifically discussed as a separate subject. I am not confident that any article, listing units, along the lines you propose, would not immediately attract a deletion nomination, on the basis that the unit listing of that exact date was not specifically named as a subject in multiple independent sources. These editors are completely unwilling to accept national official military sources for any reason whatsoever, which is where, often, the most detailed lists are.

So I thank you for your suggestion, but I am not at all confident that such new articles would not attract further AfDs, further souring the enthusiastic editors who have put these together, but are now very disillusioned, and talking seriously of ceasing any further activity on this site. It appears they won't be here to try this out, because they fear that everything will be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: My proposal was formulated in part with the hope of dealing with such objections. e.g., "Structure of the British Army after the Haldane reforms", or some such, could contain introductory material discussing the effect of the reforms, in general terms, on cavalry, infantry, artillery, divisional structure, and so forth, sourced to a variety of books on Army history, and then move on to a detailed regiment-by-regiment enumeration, which might be largely sourced to official documents alone. Of course people could still quibble about whether the introductory material constituted "significant coverage" of the subject, but I tend to feel that at AfD, if your article "looks like an article" (rather than a long single-sourced pile of facts), you're likely to get more deference to claims of notability.

That said, I can understand why people are not necessarily eager to take another crack at it. It would probably be best to trial it for one country (maybe the Brits, since there are more likely to be accessible English-language sources), and see if anyone feels moved to AfD any of the new articles,a and if so, what the outcome is. I might take give it a try myself, sometime, in which case I'll let people here know (I could certainly benefit from people's libraries!). Choess (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to try "after Options for Change", the 1992-94 reorganisation? There's been a fair bit of heat and light about that era, and because I wrote up Land Command many years ago, there's considerable backing material that already exists.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that orbats are a moving beast, and even where we have Options for Change, Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030 or similar plans, the pre- and post-orbats aren't always stable for long enough to generate a meaningful article. I feel like we would be better off concentrating on the fleshing out the defence paper articles with immediate pre- and post-change orbats, rather than choosing a seemingly meaningful year and trying to provide an orbat frozen in time. I'm not sure what real encyclopaedic objective is being met by that approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Noclador did almost exactly that, writing a pair of detailed articles about the structure of the Italian Army before and after a mid-1970s reorganisation. And they were nominated for merging/deletion, and he was instructed to merge them: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974. Whether justified or not, there is essentially no interest in coming out of the bunker Noclador, B.Velikov, and figuratively-in-a-way myself am in, because the feeling is that Fram will nominate any such articles for deletion, and shout down at a volume any objections, on the minutest deviation from any of the intricate small print of WP:N, and get sometimes years of work deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I am gearing up to have Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989 nominated for deletion. Now I know - because I have seen - year on year Jane's Fighting Ships listed the frigates and destroyers of the RN by class and squadron. It's all well referenced, to the gold standard source for Western navies - year after year after year in the 1980s. But, because it can only be tied to Jane's Fighting Ships 1989–1990, plus a valiant amateur, Dr Graham Watson, who copied down the squadron assignments from Navy News for decades, but had the misfortune only to have his work thought only worth publishing on his own site [6], I expect that article to be wiped away because Jane's + a SPS is technically an inch short of the 'multiple, independent, and reliable' wording of WP:N. Frankly this is unduly harsh. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a pair of articles, I'm talking about a single article about the mid-1970s Italian Army organisation (for example) which includes the orbat info (immediately before and immediately after). Very different from the standalone orbat articles, which lack context and are being deleted. That approach would be bulletproof IMHO. But if there is no appetite for it after recent events, I completely understand. I'm just making a suggestion about a workable solution which would ensure the info would remain on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughts Peacemaker67 & Choess. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My view is that any Orbat needs to be tied to specific battle or significant event so as to give clarity to that battle/event. I have voted Delete on many of the recent AFDs because they are usually largely unsourced and tied to 1989. The usual argument given is that 1989 was the end of the Cold War and significant solely for reason, however I don't agree with that analysis nor are any sources given that 1989 represented the peak strength of any particular army. So many of the Orbat pages are simply wargamer cruft with no notability, like List of British Regular Army regiments (1962) , Forces of central subordination of the Russian Air Force 2008, Structure of the Italian Army in 1984 or List of formations of the Turkish Army 2008. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I reject the idea that a detailed listing of the Russian Air Force's central units; or the Turkish Army, could be considered "wargamer cruft." The only reason why the central formations of the RuAF have not been updated into "Structure of the Russian Air Force" or similar for recent years is that I was very careful to reflect the original source, Kommersant-Vlast, which was not updated since 2008; and no reliable listing for the Turkish Army has appeared since 2008 (or, arguably, since 2004's study by DCAF). Both represented the best picture available for their subject at the time, and have not substantively been updated in any reliable source to be able to present a current listing. As defined by "multiple, independent and reliable" in terms of notability, the general structure of the Russian air force, for example, has been repeatedly covered by Western aviation magazines, as well as Yefim Gordon's voluminous series of books over and over again, so according to our definitions, saying they have "no notability" is simply incorrect, proved so by repeated coverage.

To call such articles "cruft" is the equivalent of calling any of the current structure-and-units articles for any of the U.S. DOD's services "cruft," simply because we work in English; the United States is far happier to release current information; and Russia & Turkey are much more secretive.

Finally, I am not sure why ad hominem arguments (there's no need for derogatory comparisons) have been introduced into this discussion when Choess, and Peacemaker67, were trying to make useful comments and improve the quality of the description & analysis on this site, rather than mudsling. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Buckshot06 you fail to explain why 2008 was in any way notable for the Russian Air Force or the Turkish Army, that is why I called it cruft because it lacks any notability and "is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to more policy-based language. As you acknowledged by your uninvited posts at various talk pages, the way you have worded your statements in the last month or so has caused considerable hurt to several editors, who feel that their hard work over the course of years is being denigrated.

The Russian Air Force's structure? Multiple reliable sources prove its notability: for example, Piotr Butowsky. Force Report:Russian Air Force, Air Forces Monthly, July 2007 (cite 3 of the Forces of central subordination article); the second part of that report in the August 2007 issue of AFM; Pyotr Butowski, Air Power Analysis: Russian Federation, Part 2, International Air Power Review, AIRTime Publishing, No.13, Summer 2004 (also Part 1 in a previous issue); the extensive list of sources at [7]; Yefim Gordon, Dmitriy Komissarov, Russian Air Power, updated 2011 edition; Yefim Gordon, Russian Air Power, 2009 edition; "Russian Air Force Transforms: Latest Structure Revealed," Combat Aircraft, June 2010; and three long features in Kommersant-Vlast, State of Russia's Air Forces 2008 No.33 (786) 25 August 2008 (in Russian); Что такое современная армия России [What is the modern army of Russia]. Vlast (in Russian). 7 (610). Kommersant. 21 February 2005. Archived from the original on 2007-11-11. Retrieved 20 September 2008. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2007-11-14 suggested (help); Aleksandr Stukalin, Mikail Lukin, ‘Vys Rossiyskaya Armiya’, Kommersant-Vlast, Moscow, Russia, (14 May 2002); Андрей Демин, генерал-майор, командующий войсками Командования ПВО-ПРО Войск ВКО. «Небесный щит Центральной России. К 60-летию ордена Ленина Московского округа противовоздушной обороны» Газета «Военно-промышленный курьер» № 30 (548) за 20 августа 2014 года.

More generally, for every year since the mid 1960s, the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Military Balance has estimated and listed the units and formations of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces (and the Turkish Army), to the extent possible for any given year.

Now, you say that such structural details may only be "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." The source for the 2008 article was the feature in Moscow Kommersant-Vlast, following up it's 2002 and 2005 features, and ahead of a later feature on the Russian Navy. In 2008 Kommersant-Vlast magazine had a weekly circulation of 51,000, which is not a "a small population" [8]; KV was in wide, general circulation, roughly comparable to U.S. News & World Report. I am forced to conclude that you have not attempted to familiarise yourself with the extensive literature, frequent, repeated descriptions and discussion, on this subject, which show that it is of continuing interest to a large body of people. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"As you acknowledged by your uninvited posts at various talk pages, the way you have worded your statements in the last month or so has caused considerable hurt to several editors" I have not acknowledged any such thing and my "uninvited posts" were responses to clear personal attacks on me and User:Fram: [9], [10] and [11]. In relation to notability, I know that you can find annual lists of every world's air forces in Flight, Air Forces Monthly, IISS and other magazines and books, but just because information exists that doesn't automatically make it notable otherwise we could have a list of basically every military branch in the world for every year since they were formed which would be the definition of cruft. You still haven't given any explanation of why 2008 was in any way significant for the Russian Air Force or Turkish Army. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you should moderate your language. We can have policy-based discussions without using terms that denigrate people's efforts, sometimes over years.

I was not talking about "annual lists of [aircraft]" of the world's air forces; I hope you will have noticed we have been discussing list of units and formations. If a subject is covered in multiple, independent, and reliable sources it is notable by our policies - whether aircraft or units & formations. That's why we have extensive lists of aircraft-in-service throughout our air force articles.

If every branch of the military in the world for every year was ever covered in WP:Notable sources, yes, we could write them all up. That would cover the sum total of human knowledge more completely -- what would be the problem with that?

What I demonstrated in the extensive list of sources that covered the structure of the Russian Air Force was that a listing of its units and formations was notable.

You want to know why that article is dated 2008? It's because originally when I translated ru:Части центрального подчинения ВВС there was no source attached to it. You'll see at the Ru-page that there's still no reference at the bottom. When I worked out the source was Kommersant-Vlast's August 2008 issue, I moved the article and added "2008", because it was a 2008 snapshot. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I should moderate my language? That's rich.

The problem being that we are not a military fansite.

You still haven't shown why 2008 was notable for the Russian Air Force, just that you had some information for 2008. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman conquest of Kulucahisar Castle

Could some more knowledgeable editors look at this article? I can't easily find anything to substantiate it, the article on Osman I makes me suspicious that records this specific could exist, and the event doesn't seem to be mentioned in the book Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century. It's translated from tr.wiki, and just hesitant about potentially being involved in a hoax... Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This article and a couple of others appear to be related to a nationalistic Turkish TV series called Kuruluş: Osman. The first mention of Osman in Byzantine history is 1301, not 1285 and Byzantium and the Turks mentions Ottoman sources that say that the Turks took Angelokomis, aka İnegöl, in AH 699 (1299–1300) on p. 284. I've checked most of the sources given in the Osman article and none of them mention anything like this in Byzantine histories, plus there's no mention of any activities by Osman prior to 1301 or even İnegöl in the multi-volume Encyclopedia of Islam, which is actually pretty good about Turkish place names. The loss of Angelokomis/Angelokome about 1299 is confirmed by a Byzantine chronicler, but he does not attribute its conquest to Osman.

I'm only reluctant to delete these articles as fraudulent because of the citations. I'd post a notice that these are probably fraudulent (if such exists) and contact the editor who created them, asking for a scan of the relevant pages for translation. I'd also try and contact somebody on WP:Turkey or the Turkish Wiki and see if they can translate this stuff so we can decide if it's genuine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a {{Hoax}} tag to the article and pasted your comment onto the talk page. I already inquired at WT:TURKEY, though I haven't gotten any feedback yet. Further discussion should probably take place at the article's talk page, or you could nominate for deletion... I don't know what other articles this could apply to, so if you could tag those, that would be great. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your attention. I actually wrote in the article's discussion page (but now, it seems like the article is deleted) and REFUND page. I am writing here as well because I wanted to directly let you know that this conquest was a legitimate one - Osman was in charge during this conquest with the help of Kayi people (in fact, he was the leader of Kayi people). Reputable historians, such as Danismend and Inalcik, mention about this conquest in their writings. I, or anyone who can read in Turkish, can also verify that. Though, we need to change the name of the article to Kayı conquest of Kulaca Hisar Kalesi. Regards.--Dakmor Tojira (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a few of Inalcik's books and articles and there's no significant coverage of Osman's activities before 1301 in any of them, not least because that wasn't a primary interest of his. If you could point me towards those articles or books, by both him and Danismend, I'd appreciate it. There was a tremendous amount of Ottoman mythologizing about Osman's early history and most of it has been disproven when matched against non-Ottoman chronicles and I'm afraid that this might be part of that. Even the link between the Kayi tribe and Osman is more probable than certain and is really only supported by the large number of Anatolian place names related to the tribe, more than any other tribe, according to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Colin Imber's article, "The Legend of Osman Ghazi".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Sturmvogel! As you have mentioned, we have limited knowledge about Osman's life/activities before 1299. However, several historians give us some insight about his early life. I will try my best to show you examples related to the conquest of Kulaca Hisar Kalesi.

• In this article, Halil Inalcik says that "Kendisi de bir alp olan Osman’ın gazâ faaliyetine başladığı tarihten (683/1284 Kulaca fethi) önce Eskişehir ucunda durum şöyle idi: Bizans ile sınır Bilecik’te başlıyordu." A similar article of Inalcik can be read on this link.
• In addition to the above example, in the writings of Asik Pasaoglu, we can find more information about Kulaca Hisar in the following lines; "Osman Gazi bu tabiri işitince himmet kılıcını gönlünün beline sağlamca bağladı. Bir gece sürdü, İnegöl'e vardı. Yanında Kulaca Hisar derler bir hisarcık vardı. Onu yağmaladı, ateşe verdi. Kafirlerini kırdı."
• Here, let me put an example from Ismail Hami Danismend: "Osman Gazi’nin ilk muvaffakiyeti: Kulaca-Hisar’ın fethi. (Ermeni-Beli pususundan intikam almak istiyen Osman Gazi’nin İnegöl’e bir iki fersah mesafede ve Emirdağı eteğinde bulunan bu hisarı 300 kişilik bir kuvvetle bir gece baskını yaparak fethettiği rivâyet edilir. — Osmanlı tarihinde ilk kale fethi sayılması lâzımgelen bu muvaffakiyetin 1284=683, 1286=685 veyâhut 1288=687 tarihinde elde edildiğinden de bahsedilir. — Osman Gazi’nin Ertuğrul Gazi’den vâris olduğu Söğüt-Domanıç mâlikânesi işte bu Kulaca-Hisar fethi üzerine İznik gölü istikametinde şimale doğru genişlemiye başlamıştır). 1286=685 Osmanlılara karşı ilk ittifak ve müttefiklere karşı İkizce zaferi.(Kulaca-Hisar’ın fethi üzerine telâşa düşen İnegöl ve Karacahisar tekfurlarının Osman Gazi’ye karşı ittifak ettikleri ve işte bunun üzerine iki tarafın İkizce, Ekizce, Eğrice veyâhut Ekinci denilen yerde karşılaştıkları rivâyet edilir: Tarihî atlaslarda İkizce mevkii Bilecik’le, İnegöl arasında görülmektedir. Bazı menbâlarda bu muharebeye «Domalıç/Domanıç harbi» de denilmektedir. Bu müsâdemede Osman Gazi’nin kardeşi ve Ermeni-Beli’nde şehîd olan Bay-Hoca’nın babası Savcı-Bey şehîd düşmüş, Müttefiklerin kumandanı Philatos öldürülmüş ve nihayet harbi Osman Gazi kazanmıştır: Bay-Hoca’nın şahâdeti için 1284=683 vukuâtına bakınız. — İkizce muharebesi bazı menbâlarda 1287=686 tarihine de müsâdif gösterildiği gibi, bundan evvelki Ermeni-Beli ve Kulaca-Hisar vak’alariyle beraber bu ilk üç muharebenin 1284=683 senesine tesâdüf ettiğinden bile bahsedilir." This line are from izahlı osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi. It's a highly reputable book.
• This example is from Osmanlı Tarihi (it is written by Namik Kemal). Here are the appropriate lines from this book: "Bu iki söylentiden hangisi doğru olursa olsun, bu büyük başarının oluş tarihi 1285 yılıdır. Osman Gazi'nin kardeşi Sarı Yani Savcı Beyin oğullarından Bay Hoca bu savaşta şehit olmuştu. (...) Fakat hicri 685 yılı ilkbaharında Osman Bey, buraya ait evvelki düşüncelerini hatırlayarak, biraz daha ihtiyatlı hareketle kaleyi üç yüz atlısı ile bastı. Hristiyan ahali, Osman Bey'in her dediğini kabul edeceklerini bildirerek aman diledi. Osman Bey, kale'yi tahrip etmekle beraber halkın canlarını bağışladı ve kendilerini esir etti."
• Here is another example, saying that "Kulaca Kalesi Türklerce ele geçirilip yakıldığında bölgedeki Rumlar iyice çaresiz kalmışlar ve Karacahisar'dan askerî kuvvet talep etmişlerdir"

As you can see, all of these examples were written years before that nationalist Turkish tv series. Besides all of these, with the time being, I do not have any counterexamples in regards to this conquest. We also know that Inegol was captured by Osman before he founded the Ottoman Empire. So with the references we have, it seems to me that such an incident really occurred. But I need to highlight that this is of course my personal inference from the above references. Thanks again.--Dakmor Tojira (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In the following page, Draft:The conquest of Kulaca Hisar Castle, I made several changes. Please feel free to change anything on that page. Regards.--Dakmor Tojira (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and detailed response. I think that you've justified mention of the capture, but not that it is significant enough to justify an article on its own. The Byzantines must have retaken it after 1285 as its capture by Osman around 1301 is specifically mentioned by one of their chroniclers. I don't think that the subject is actually notable enough for an article of its own as it's only passingly mentioned in a couple of the articles that you've helpfully linked and in the sources that I found on my own. I think that the incident is probably best added to the rather basic article on Osman, which badly needs expansion with better citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sturmvogel, thanks for your reply. I am not very active in en:wiki (I mostly contributed for tr:wiki) so I am not really familiar how things work here. What I can say is this; as long as I can verify an incident/event from different resources, I regard that incident as something notable. However, this is absolutely my own belief. If you believe that this conquest is not notable, you can make a deletion request (which I truly respect). Thanks again. Regards.--Dakmor Tojira (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Precursor to Battle of Navarino

Action between the Asia, Dartmouth and the Turkish and Egyptian Fleet, 1-6 Oct 1827

The Asia, and Patrona Bey's ship, Turkish Fleet, in close contact, surrounded by other vessels 1-6 Oct 1827

I have some 7 images of a naval action (battle) during the Greek War of Independence at the Entrance of the Bay of Patras, where an English Squadron (Admiral Codrington) and Egyptian & Turkish (Ottoman) Fleets fought it out from 1-6 Oct 1827. Does this engagement have a name, and if not, what should it be named? Further to that a number of major naval battles took place in the Gulf of Patras: the Battle of Patras in 1772, and the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, one of the largest naval battles ever fought. Lepanto itself lies further east, in the Gulf of Corinth. Should this engagement be mentioned under Gulf of Corinth or Gulf of Patras or Bay of Patras? --Broichmore (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The first event you mention was apparently not so much a fight as a "firm remonstrance" (i.e. the Ottomans were forcefully persuaded to retire), according to Naval Battles, Ancient and Modern (1883) p. 550. This may explain the lack of gunsmoke in the illustrations. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Some more detail which suggests that there was a bit of shooting:

"Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. The flagship Asia (84 guns) was the only vessel engaged. The admiral detained the Turkish fleet at Navarino, and there he determined it should remain until a satisfactory agreement could be made between the Porte and the powers. Although some hostilities had occurred, no actual battles had yet been fought, and the belief of a peaceful solution was entertained". Decisive Battles Since Waterloo (pp. 39-40) Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War has an RFC

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which title best defines the scope for the American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic

modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Comments:

Battle of Delville Wood

I've done a clean up but left a Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors mistake behind. Can anyone see what it is? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Found it. Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking through D-Day articles

I have been looking at the articles for D-Day and after-D-Day articles. The first one is Invasion of Normandy which is assessed as Start. This article redirects to the second-listed article Operation Overlord which is assessed as GA. Should there be two articles with different assessments in the table? How about just having Operation Overlord, the one article? Adamdaley (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Invasion of Normandy" redirects to "Operation Overlord", or am I doing something wrong? Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of Normandy should have been changed to redirect class when it was merged into Operation Overlord in June this year. I've amended the talk page ratings - Dumelow (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow and Diannaa:, I'm hoping one of you can point me in the right direction on this. I see where Invasion of Normandy, a page with 52kB+ content started in 2001, was blanked and redirected to Operation Overlord in June of this year, but I don't see any activity in the history of the latter that would indicate a merge, or really any significant addition of content at all to that page during that month. I also can't seem to find the Merge proposal, RM or RfC with the consensus to merge Inv. of Normandy into Op. Overlord. There is a "merge proposal" section, on the Inv. of Normandy tp, started in 2014, with scattered comments, 1 or 2 a year to 2017, then a couple more comments this year, but no apparent consensus, or a discussion closure with a summary of consensus or lack thereof. There also doesn't seem to be anything regarding a merge on the Op. Overlord tp, nor on this tp (milhist), or the wp:norm tp either. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily challenging the merge, I just don't see any process that led to it. If one of you can point me to it, it would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am the person who redirected the page. I looked through the old discussions (both in 2014 when I did some work on a few of our D-Day articles as well as a couple other times over the years), and eventually decided in June 2020 to redirect the page, because Operation Overlord is the far superior article, covers all the points and content in the Invasion of Normandy article, and everything is sourced and vetted for GA. The two articles had a heck of a lot of overlap and duplication when I examined them back in early 2014 when I was getting things in shape for the 70th anniversary of D-Day, and Operation Overlord was in better shape at that time, so that's the one I chose to improve. It wasn't actually a merge, because I didn't use any of the prose from Invasion of Normandy when prepping Operation Overlord for GA.— Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Images of medals

Some of you may be interested in the 212 images I have just categorised as c:Category:Medals in the Portable Antiquities Scheme (the Portable Antiquities Scheme records architectural finds in England and Wales).

Some of these are military, and some of them are associated with named awardees.

Most of them need additional categorisation! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of works completed and in progress?

Hello! New choom here. Well, not so new. I've actually been writing MilHist articles since 2004 (French Air Force in WW2) and regularly doing spaceflight articles since the end of 2018, most of which have some sort of military character (e.g. SOLRAD 1 and SOLRAD 2).

WP editing can be lonely, unsung work. Is there a place in the MilHist project where folks discuss what they've been working on, what they've completed, and what they plan to do?

Pleasure to be formally on the team (added myself to members).

(P.S. If you've got a review stalled at G.A. or F.A., feel free to ping me. Always happy to lend a hand.)

--Neopeius (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius, I was going to mention John Young, but you have already been there. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Neopeius: I have two stalled articles at A-class, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lisa Nowak and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur, that could use a review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Happy to give those a look. You need image, source, or text review? Text review is my specialty. --Neopeius (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

They already have image reviews. Text reviews would be most welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: On it today. --Neopeius (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius, Spendius (my nom) and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) are both ACRs which each just need one further prose support in order to pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I knew I wouldn't have to work hard to become popular. :) Be warned... I've got a few articles I'll be pushing for G/FA soon. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius, that's fine - I am about to go on an extended holiday to somewhere with no internet! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak review is done. @Hawkeye7:, @Gog the Mild:, and all others, I would ask before I review your articles that you do a search for any commas before dependent clauses and either delete them or make them independent clauses (generally by adding a pronoun) as required. That would make my editing much easier. :) Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius, you know, if I understood any of that, I would be sure to do it for you. Give me an example and I shall make it my learning exercise for the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

For example: "I went to the store, and then I went home." Comma necessary because it combines two independent clauses ("I went to the store." and "I went home." stand alone.)

But "I went to the store, and then went home." would be incorrect because "and then went home" doesn't stand alone (it is a dependent clause).

An exception can be made when the dependent clause is deliberately contrasting. For instance, "I meant to go to the store, but stayed home instead."

Remedying this issue usually is just a matter of deleting the comma. On the other hand, sometimes the sentence before is complex, and eliminating the comma may make the sentence harder to follow. In that case, keep the comma, and add a pronoun.

For example: "During her Navy career she logged over 1,500 hours in over 30 different aircraft, and was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal and the Navy Achievement Medal." The comma before "and was awarded" is incorrect, but setting apart the clause is useful. So instead of deleting the comma, make it ", and she was awarded the..."

Another example and different remedy:

"He walked to the door, and reached for the doorknob." Incorrect (comma before dependent clause)

"He walked to the door and reached for the doorknob." Fine.

"He walked to the door, and he reached for the doorknob." Fine, if stilted.

"He walked to the door, reaching for the doorknob." Fine, and more dynamic.

@Gog the Mild: (adding @Balon Greyjoy: to explain why John Young (astronaut) has similar markups). --Neopeius (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Moscow National Pensions School Cadet Corps

AyodeleA2 is doing a great deal of excellent translation work, but my G-Translate of this article's Ru-equivalent comes out as "Cadet school for state pupils of the First Moscow Cadet Corps" - that is, "Pensions" may actually be "Pupils." Can someone with better Russian skills than mine check the translation? AyodeleA2, this is no black mark against you, but we all can make mistakes from time to time.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Кадетская школа государственных воспитанниц Первого Московского кадетского корпуса =

• Кадетская школа = cadet school
• государственных воспитанниц = for female wards of the state alumni (it's simultaneously an orphanage and a cadet school)
• Первого Московского кадетского корпуса = of the First Moscow Cadet Corps (cadet corps equals cadet school. This is from the time of the monarchy. Each cadet corps was both a separate military school and a military corps. Retired major-generals or lieutenant-generals were apointed as commandants of the cadet corpses as an acknowledgement of their educational skills and as an honor bestowed by the government. Similar institutions from the Soviet era were the army Suvorov Military Schools and the Nakhimov Naval Schools. A major difference is that all the cadets of the various Suvorov schools formed one military corps and all the cadets of the various Nakhimov schools formed another military corps, while during the imperial period each single cadet corps formed its own separate military corps. Another difference is that the Soviet era military cadet schools were presumably opened to the public, while the imperial cadet corpses were almost exclusively reserved for the aristocracy and in addition to providing military training, they introduced young nobles to the society. A major part of Nikita Mikhalkov's film "The Barber of Siberia" takes place in such a cadet corps. In it, because the main character was not of noble background, his mother, who was an actress, had to pull all the strings she had with acquaintances in the government, in order to get him a place in such a cadet corps. The cadet school in question in this article, was bestowed with the traditions of the former 1st Moscow Empress Catherine II's Own Cadet Corps (1-й Московский Императрицы Екатерины II кадетский корпус))B.Velikov (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans in World War II

I gave a notice in the talk page of the article Hispanic Americans in World War II as part of WP:URFA/2020. The article is in need of significant work, as detailed in that notice. Since WP:MILHIST is a very active project, I'm posting this note here to alert editors that might potentially be interested in improving the article, in the hopes of avoiding FAR. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: because I speak Spanish, I invested time and hundreds of edits on that one when it was at FAC over a decade ago. Seeing the shape it is in now, I won't offer to clean up again when it comes to FAR. There is only so much we can do, and time has to be budgeted to the worthy, so we don't end up right back there again in a few more years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I find with FAs in poor state it is at least worth looking at the promotion version (or a later time point when it hadn't deteriorated too much) to see if it approached current FA standards at that time, and considering reverting all the rubbish added since then tarting it up. If that isn't the case, then as SG says, it is generally a hopeless case requiring a LOT of work, and we have to concentrate on the low-hanging fruit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about choosing where to spend our time and effort. I posted here mainly so the article gets some "military people" skimming it before it hits FAR. The article looked very poor when I reviewed it, but I know nothing of the subject, so I figured a prior "alert" wouldn't hurt. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC for Portsmouth War Memorial needs one more reviewer

G'day all, Harry Mitchell's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portsmouth War Memorial/archive1 has two supports, source and image reviews, and just needs another review to get over the line. If you have a bit of spare time, I'm sure Harry would appreciate it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• • doing Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd Austin

Does anyone know of any sources that could be used to ref up or expand this article (Biden's DoD secretary nominee)? I'm relying pretty heavily on an archived official biography at the moment ([12]) and I would like something better. Anything that would add some extra detail or context would be appreciated. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor (2012). Austin as CG XVIII Corps in Iraq arriving February 2008, surge brigades leaving, force down to fifteen brigades, 470-71; personally sent to Basra for Operation Charge of the Knights, 477; sent elements of 1st Bde, 82ABD to Basra for Charge of the Knights, 480; became "animated" at hearing of use of GMRLS in Sadr City, 499; alerted of crisis between Kurds and Maliki's IG, 546; met with Maliki as Odieno was out of the country, 579; handover between Odieno to Austin at beginning of Operation New Dawn, 637; involvement in videoconference chaired by VP Biden over future of Maliki/Iraqi Govt, 641-2, 644-5; input on SOFA negotiations 653-7; wish to maintain at least 10,000 troops in Iraq, 659-660; developing a plan for up to 20,000 troops, 662; speech at casing of colors of United States Forces - Iraq and departure of final forces, 671. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

[13] and Biden's piece in The Atlantic; there are concerns that Michele Flournoy is actually better qualified, though has a less close personal relationship with Biden. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi there, hope you are all well. I have been drafting a new article and have spent a good amount of time on it - Draft:RAF Lakenheath near nuclear disasters. I was hoping to be able to get someone to review it for me. I thought the topic area of my article (two Broken Arrow nuclear incidents) might be of interest to people on this page. If anyone could review it for me would be immensely grateful. Snugglewasp (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp: Hello! Yes, happy to oblige later this afternoon. It's a fine start, but the language can definitely be tightened up. Since it's a draft, I will make the suggested changes in Google Docs as it will be much easier. You can accept the ones you like and then just cut and paste the fixed sections. --Neopeius (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That would be perfect. Just to check, what's the full procedure for getting an article published? Does it have to be approved by a certain number of editors before it comes into being? Snugglewasp (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp: Here it is I have no idea how draft articles are published. I've been here for sixteen years so I never went through a probationary stage. By the way, once you make those text changes, I can look at sources. If they check out, that's a B-class article, and perhaps ready for G.A.--Neopeius (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space Are you unable to just create a page? Like, if you search on RAF Lakenheath near nuclear disasters, you aren't given the option to create it outright? --Neopeius (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that too, but when I tried to make an article that way it made me go through the draft process and put the article in a kind of long-term transit.

Thanks a lot for those notes! I'll get to taking a look at those now. Snugglewasp (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually by the way - I've just worked out why I couldn't create an article in the normal way - I needed to be autoconfirmed first. I'm quite a new editor so I only got autoconfirmed a few days ago, so I can do it the normal way now. So after I've made some changes I'll probably look to creating the page for real. Snugglewasp (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in nuclear weapons but I am bit wary of calling these "near nuclear disasters": it's not a term we use in any of the other articles in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving nuclear weapons, many of which were much worse in scale than these incidents. It is intentionally very difficult to accidentally set off a nuclear weapon and I am not certain of the claim in the 1961 section that fire could have "caused the bombs arming components to function". In the 1956 case I don't think the effects can be described as causing a "Chernobyl-like incident" when there were no fissile cores fitted (likewise I can't see how there could have been any "release of nuclear material" without the cores being in the bombs). Depleted Uranium is only weakly radioactive and less toxic than other heavy metals, the scattered dust would have been a health-hazard but not on the scale of Chernobyl where highly radioactive elements were pumped high up into the atmosphere for several days. I think it's doubtful that a US official familiar how the weapons work would have claimed "it is possible that a part of Eastern England would have become a desert", even the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash where nuclear weapons with plutonium cores fitted actually exploded only relatively small areas of land were contaminated. I think it's worth looking to see if there are any more sources out there that discuss these incidents to provide other viewpoints - Dumelow (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

HMS Marlborough

Are we missing a HMS Marlborough, or was this ship a rebuild? Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the first one which was rebuilt (and renamed) at Blackwall in 1706 and rebuilt again at Chatham in 1732, having been dismantled in 1724 - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dumelow. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Knights Cross (WWII) assistance needed

Can anyone who maintains or knows how to maintain the Knights Cross awards list / banner please take a look at Talk:90th Light Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). Your assistance would be appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As I've noted there, reliable sources are needed for these awards. feldgrau.con is not one of them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Humphrey Atherton

Humphrey Atherton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I decided to have a quick look at one of the articles listed above at #Missing/broken ref final sweep and what I found was a bit of a disaster and not worthy of GA status. Both the original GA nominator and reviewer are inactive, and I have made a drastic suggestion at Talk:Humphrey Atherton#Article problems - good article review, wholesale reversion, or capable of being salvaged? which would benefit from more input, as I am hesitant to take the drastic action without a clear consensus. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Yeosu

I’ve left a comment on the talk page here regarding a name change, but it could affect other, similar pages, so I’m looking for other opinions. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've boldly changed the name to 1998 Yeosu submersible incident. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that: What I was looking for, though, was some opinions on what to do with all the pages like this. There are at least four engagements/incidents listed in the template which (IMO) hardly qualify as battles; should we be moving them all, or will that cause complications? And, more broadly, what about all the other clashes, skirmishes, incidents, etc. currently dignified as battles here? Presumably there will be some source somewhere that describes them as such; are we bound to keep the title, or can we go for a descriptive, non-judgemental title instead, without offending title guidelines? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Which specific incidents are you referring to? Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:: Specifically, I was referring to the articles on the First and Second Battle of Yeonpyeong and the Battle of Daecheong: Is that relevant? I was making a general enquiry about about minor incidents described as "Battles" generally, and what to do about them. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As there were exchanges of gunfire and material losses, I think its not unreasonable to call them battles.Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if those are the only criteria, I reckon even the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral would qualify. What does anybody else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we don't call them battles unless sources do. I haven't looked into these. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

They are variously described as battle, clash or skirmish. I don't think there's any clear naming policy and IMO it isn't worth the time debating it. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:: Then, thank you for your opinion… Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:: I can see that if there isn’t any supporting source then using the term "battle" is (or should be) a non-starter; what about if there is a source (are sources) but confined to one language or country, or one side in the altercation: is there a case for using a descriptive, non-judgemental title instead? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if consensus is that such a title is not well supported by sources, or is non-neutral, then a more neutral descriptive title might be the best solution. Personally, I'd say a "clash" or "skirmish", is not really a "battle"; but it may not be easy to decide where to draw the line. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Xyl 54 I don't see why you regard "battle" as "judgmental" nor why you believe its use should be a "non-starter". Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think he said it's a non-starter "if there isn’t any supporting source". Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said yesterday the three are variously described in the sources as battle, clash or skirmish, so there's supporting sources for any of them.Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:, Mztourist: I had thought there might be some general principle to work from, but it looks as if pages like these will have to be done on a case by case basis. Ah well...

As far as the three Korean pages go, saying that they are "variously described in the sources as battle, clash or skirmish, so there's supporting sources for any of them" is a little disingenuous: There is a difference between referring to "a battle near/at Yeongpyeong" and "the Battle of Yeongpyeong"; the first is merely descriptive, the second gives it the status of an event like the Battle of Tsushima. Also, the former can be written by anyone, even an editor on an online encyclopaedia; the latter should be from a proper/peer-reviewed historian, or reflect common usage. And the problem with these three articles is that none of them have sources that attest to those titles, ie. use the term explicitly. I also note that all of these pages have been moved to their current titles from elsewhere (one of them by a contributor who has been asked to leave, twice; make of that what you will...)

So unless there is anything that does support the current titles (I haven’t found anything, but then, I’m not that invested.. ) I'd be inclined to/ take them to RM for a wider discussion. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think the current titles are unsupported, and moving to descriptive titles would therefore be uncontroversial, you could go ahead and do it and save a lot of editor work in RM discussions. If anyone objects, then definitely an RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Technology during World War II

Technology during World War II is one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have ever come across. Hopefully some editors on this project might want to have a go at it - it seems to be a monumental challenge.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this article is a long, long way from being the worst article on Wikipedia, or even the worst MilHist article. But it does have some horrible pieces of disinformation that leap at me. Fixing it up would indeed be a monumental challenge, because it it is a top-level article with extremely broad scope, but one demanding a great deal of detailed specialist knowledge. Meaning that it is likely beyond the ability and resources of an individual editor. As a top-level article, it should be a series of summary sections, each summarising and pointing to the detailed articles on each subject, and best written by the primary editors of those articles. So, for example, I could rewrite nuclear weapons section the nuclear weapons (Manhattan Project and Project Y are good examples of top-level articles), but I would need someone else to write about radar and jet aircraft. Breaking it down into manageable pieces would get around the daunting part. It would also need someone with a broad knowledge of the World War II to take on some editorial oversight of the article, commissioning rewrites and new sections, setting word limits so it didn't grow out of control, and dealing with the overall organisation of the article. (Radar deserves its own section, but the Consumer Goods sections could be dispensed with.) Back in the day, this could have been done a MilHist Project effort. But its been a long time since we ran something like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I tagged all the main sections that are unsourced or poorly sourced to make it clear what state it is in. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should put this on task force articles. We can make it better by co-edition. And it seems horrible to me in this situation. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing insurgency in Greece

• Hey everyone, thus two almost three years ago I made the article "Leftist insurgency in Greece" which was later renamed to "Left-wing insurgency in Greece". In September 2018 the article was nominated for a deletion due it was described as OR. This was partially true, back in the day I thought it was a conflict since those groups were armed and were mostly fighting against the government, NATO and companies. The "Left-wing insurgency in Greece" was mostly based on the rebels' articles and indeed sources don't call them "insurgents" thus it got deleted.

After those years I came back in this topic and I've searched whether or not they indeed were "insurgents". After a while I found this by:

• Reuters called the "Rebel Sect" (aka Sect of Revolutionaries), the "Popular Will" and the Revolutionary Struggle urban/militant/left-wing "guerrillas". If I'm not wrong guerrillas are rebels right? Of course, one source cannot say there's an urban conflict going on in Greece thus I searched deeper into the rabbit hole.

I found these:

• The Guardian who uses "a guerilla organisation"
• DW calls the Popular Fighters Group an "urban guerrilla faction".
• The Greek newspaper ekathimerini calls some members of the Revolutionary Struggle an "urban guerrilla group".
• Reuters again calls the "Revolutionary Self-Defense" aka the Organization for Revolutionary Self-Defense "left-wing guerrilla group".
• ekathimerini again calls Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire and the Group of Popular Fighters "guerrilla groups".
• Reuters once again calls the group Fire Conspiracy Cells "leftist guerrilla group".
• BBC News says "Our correspondent says the militant groups appear to be modelling themselves on European urban guerrilla organisations from the 1970s, such as the German Red Army Faction."
• The Guardian calls the Sect of Revolutionaries "a guerrilla group".

These are all the sources who call those groups "guerrilla groups". Reuters and the Guardian are one of the biggest and trustfully sources; thus, this is kind of a big deal. If it's true that "guerrillas" the same are then "insurgents" is it possible to get the article back? If there's a different, but they still are rebels then I'm curious what name the conflict could gain. I'd love to hear your answer(s). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• • It would be much better to look into the terminology historians use rather than journalists. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see that this is in reference to contemporary movements. I'd suggest seeing what language experts in modern security issues use - for instance, academic works on this topic. Terms like 'insurgency' are generally only applied to fairly significant conflicts, which I strongly suspect that this isn't. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah indeed, I've tried to search for post-17N's and pretty recently-published sources, I only found this The New Republic who has Mary Bossis, who is stated by the source as "an associate professor of International Relations at University of Piraeus and an expert on left-wing militancy." and Politico who interviewed the same professor but this two before the first one published. I also found this article made by the European Eye Radicalization. In my view, it doesn't really look reliable but its author is Triantafyllos Karatrantos who has a PhD in European Security and New Threats from the University of the Aegean claimed by the European Eye Radicalization Academia and ELIAMEP. The article also has "Kassimeris G. (2013), ‘Greece: The Persistence of Political Terrorism’, International Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 1." as one of the sources. Kassimeris G. who is a Professor in Security Studies in University of Wolverhampton. It's accessible in JSTOR which I sadly have no access to this I cannot confirm what Kassimeris says in his work. Karatrantos also uses the word "guerrilla" to address the groups. He also uses the word "violence" especially in December 2008 and probably around strongly. Again I personally do not think it's reliable and more interested in Kassimeris's work. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Nick-D A friendly reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a topic I'm competent to comment on I'm afraid (aside from sharing anecdotes of some wonderfully leftie graffiti I saw in Athens in 2013...) Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• • I’m still concerned about using this to declare an “insurgency”. The existence of a group, even one which does stuff, does not necessarily mean a state of war exists. You could create an article on “activity of leftist guerilla groups in Greece” or something else which isn’t as presumptuous. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Me either, I don't really think "insurgency" is the right word however if it's described as a low level "conflict" (which wouldn't surprise me) I don't think the article should be called “activity of leftist guerilla groups in Greece” even though it sounds neutral and acceptable. I think the info would overlap the article "Terrorism in Greece" since it's more a summarise of the groups instead of the conflict. If it's not called a conflict or there's no other way to give it a conflict-related title. I believe it could be used as long new information would come out in the coming years which address the name of this period in Greece's history. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• But what is tying them all together? You’ll have to be careful to avoid synth. Why not a “left-wing terrorism in Greece” article? -Indy beetle (talk)|

• Yeah that's a problem I'm not sure about the "left-wing terrorism in Greece" I agree that they are terroists by a major sources but rebels are also most often described as terrorists in general by the government. I think the first one is better 'cause it's specificer instead of terrorists. What do you think? Do you know any sources who call them rebels by language experts or experts in terrorism or warfare? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As of late 2020 its extremely low scale since the leaders of the main groups have been caught. There are sporadic police raids on their hideouts and maybe a couple of "armed expropriations" per year.--Catlemur (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for November

G'day all, given we are nearly at the half-way mark of the month, it would be good to knock over the human checks of Milhistbot's work at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for November soonish. many hands make light work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Korean War articles

This three articles should be checked, I think.

• UN September 1950 counteroffensive
• UN May–June 1951 counteroffensive
• UN offensive into North Korea

I am not here to blame the editor, but I think there are multiple problems in these articles. First, it is based on only one or certain resource, which was written by appleman (1961). Second, if you see the paragraphs, it seems that they just might copy the references. Third, because it doesn't have any other references, we are not sure about whether titles of these articles fit with policies of Wikipedia. Maybe, we might have to delete this section, so I want some opinion about these articles. Thank you! -- Wendylove (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

They are all certainly highly US-centric and two of the three only have one sixty-year-old source, Appleman. A lot of work will need to be put into them to get them anywhere near B-Class. Are you suggesting there are alternative titles for these articles? If so, what are they? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No, what I want to say is we can develop this article much better than this. I can add some Korean articles if we start it. But I cannot suggest other idea for new title, because in Korea it is just written in one or two sentences which is summarizing course of the war, and I couldn't find any other profit titles in Korean sources (I mean South Korean). And I don't know how to edit this properly, because it is too huge for me to understand and summarize context. -- Wendylove (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the titles are descriptive, which is fine unless there is a common name for them. There are certainly going to be Korean, Australian, British, Canadian and other sources from countries that were part of UNC that cover these offensives. I'm not aware of any reliable North Korean sources, of course. The articles are also too detailed in parts, and need a trim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I wrote all of them and they are basically wikilinked copies of the US military histories. Before I wrote these pages our coverage of the Korean War basically went: North Korean invasion; Pusan Perimeter; Inchon Landings; Chinese offensive and Chosin Reservoir; Chinese Spring Offensive then stalemate. We had nothing about the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter which I covered in Pusan Perimeter Offensive and UN September 1950 counteroffensive, or what happened after the Second Battle of Seoul and before Chinese intervention which I covered in UN offensive into North Korea or the response to the Chinese Spring Offensive which I covered in UN May–June 1951 counteroffensive. I'm not stuck on the names, but believe they're suitably descriptive. If other sources are available then of course they can be added, but what I found when writing these pages was that these were largely overlooked phases of the war. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can find lots of this documents such as maps, articles, and books, and articles about these three articles. If there is some guideline, I will find resources and translate into English. It might be a hard work, and long -time work (and from next Monday I start final exam, so I am busy) but I will do my best to make it better. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Add them in and they will be reviewed. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Bougainville Civil War... or conflict? under RM discussion

I started a move request discussion a week ago (Talk:Bougainville Civil War#Requested move 4 December 2020), debating whether it is either Bougainville Civil War or conflict. I welcome your input there. --George Ho (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

American logistics in the Northern France campaign

my article on American logistics in the Northern France campaign is languishing at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Northern France campaign/archive1 for want of reviewers. The article is technical and complicated like World War II in general, so the subject isn't too popular, but it is important. If anyone could pitch in with a review, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Scope of American Indian Wars

So I posted this in the talk page for that article a few weeks ago, but didn't really get a response so I figured I'd actually try the WP but... Is this is a periodization of Native American conflicts (similar in the sense to the Second Hundred Years' War or Mexican Indian Wars) used in American historiography? Assuming that it is, my question would be, do historical academics in the United States include First Nations conflicts that occurred (exclusively) in Canada in this periodization? Cause as far as I'm aware, Canadian historical academics do not use a term like First Nations Wars in a manner that this article claims and seems to be using it in (and this seems to be reflected through an admittingly cursory search for "First Nations Wars" on Google books, ngrams, scholars, and web search).

I mean, disregard this entire post if they do include exclusively Canadian-First Nations conflicts in that categorization... But if they don't, aren't we sorta erroneously applying terminology used exclusively for the United States to the larger continent (considering that Wikipedia is a reflection of what is written in WP:RS). Cause digging through the article history it sorta seems like the article's scope originally centred around the United States (as I assume that's how the periodization is used in scholarly writing), but an addition to the article made on August 2016 seemed to extend the scope of the article by adding Canada into the infobox, which later spawned subsequent edits of bringing sparing mentions of Canada and First Nations into the lead of the article.

I mean, I'm not opposed to adding a section at the end of the article to discuss similar events that occurred in Canada and elsewhere on the continent (I mean if I am incorrect, the article in itself could probably be expanded to address the current geographical inbalance in the article body), but if my suspicions are correct and this is the case with what I said above, I would think that the lead would need to be reworked to reflect how historians actually use the term "American Indian Wars. (initially posted here 11 Dec. Readded discussion after archivebot archived this... as the convo was dated as 21 Nov. cause I forgot to change my dated sig from when I copy/pasted this from the American Indian Wars talk page) Leventio (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some input

Need input at Talk:2020 India–Pakistan border skirmishes#Sourcing.

To make it simple, the dispute is about:

1. One user says that we should not cite casualties, unless they have been confirmed by the military or their official, either on their Twitter or the identity of the official is clearly mentioned.

2. But I say that when WP:RS already cites the casualties to "Army sources"[14] and there is no dispute from any other WP:RS against those figures, then it should be already added with the attribution "According to..."

Thanks Shankargb (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? This dispute is still on-going. Shankargb (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support (2) - if an RS cites a figure attributed to "army sources" then we assume the RS is a legitimate source and the figures they quote should be accepted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comments: An article considered History as it happens? I guess I am a little surprised, considering the title, that it is covered by this WikiProject. I would have to look at project protocol but some "heads up of project interest" posting should be neutral and pointing to the relevant page such as the above "Need input at Talk:2020 India–Pakistan border skirmishes#Sourcing". Everything after that should be at the relevant talk page so I will "go there". Otr500 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If the casualty figures are from one side, they would be fine for that side without attribution. If they were for the opposition, I would attribute them because of the tendency for sides to propagandise against each other. If from a third party like an NGO, I wouldn't think attribution would be necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusing trio of WW II orgs with similar names

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion about three German propaganda organizations during World War II with very similar names, and what to do about it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for input at Talk:Onna-bugeisha

There is a proposal to change the title (and subsequently the content to reflect the new title) of this article on warrior women in pre-modern Japan. Please see Talk:Onna-bugeisha#Requested move 15 December 2020. This WikiProject's input would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion needing input

G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia#Infobox list Axis 1941 – September 1943 about the order of entities in a segment of the infobox. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

French ship Euryale, wrecked in 1870

Was Euryale, which was wrecked on Starbuck Island on 4 March 1870, a French Navy vessel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It was certainly a French government vessel as Napoleon III was named as the litigant (as the ship's owner) in a US Supreme Court case against the owners of Sapphire with which it had a collision in San Francisco harbour on 22 December 1867. This 2009 legal book describes it as "a French naval transport, Euryale". This 1966 description of the loss in 1870 calls it "H.I.M.'s transport ship L'Euryale" - Dumelow (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the flag on the shipwreck list, but not added a link. The French navy had at least two other ships of the same name. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a link, but it appears to be a personal site. There's also a book. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Comte0: thanks, I've got a better website, which means that there were two ships of that name in the French navy. The other being a brig in service 1814-46. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots & Comte0; I've created French ship Euryale (1863) about this ship, I would be obliged for any improvements/corrections. I could also do with someone familiar with set index articles creating French ship Euryale - Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow:, I've removed a duplicate header, added some cats and a navbox. As the United States Navy had a ship named Euryale, it might be worth creating a list of ships named Euryale and hatting articles to the list, with French ship Euryale redirecting to the list. Other (merchant) ships can also be added as appropriate. The other option is to create the shipindex and add the American ship as a "see also". Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, I think your suggestion for list of ships named Euryale is the right way to go then - Dumelow (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All done. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a {{Génie-class brig}}? Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. Though in the Google preview of Winfield I can't see all the ships in the class, maybe someone has a copy or an alternative source? - Dumelow (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - see the first link in my reply at 20:12 yesterday. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've created the template, but it might need a bit of fettling. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots. Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. Your template looks good to me (though I've never made a ship class template) - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Royal Navy Research Archive - A reliable source?

Is [15] a reliable source? I cannot see anything to indicate authorship of the articles hosted.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked several of the various home pages, including that of the forum, and no joy. Looks like some solid stuff, but without any idea who's behind it, it's pretty useless for us, other than to possibly provide some pointers to things that we can actually source properly. Pity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So tag uses as unreliable?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Without any authorship/editorial information and when it seeks submissions with no sourcing/citation requirements stated, it just looks like a blog, if a professional-looking one. So, yes, I wouldn't just tag it, I would remove the citations to it, and the material cited if it seems in any way controversial or unlikely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of the articles like this have authorship listed below the title. Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that that particular article was originally published as part of a personal "living history community Web site" - that doesn't cry out that it meets the requirements of WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The article Kges1901 is referring to is co-written by a fellow who has published a book on HMS Tiger, but it looks like a print-on-demand SPS book anyway, so unless he had reliably published a book, he wouldn't meet the SPS requirements for reliability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the list of books that they cite for their escort carriers, they are the same books that are already cited. [16] Seems like a pretty reliable source.Pennsy22 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would not support it as a reliable source; there's a lot of confusion of cause-and-effect and command relationships in some of the military-command articles. No opinion about simple facts about ships; in general, would endorse The Dreadnought Project over this later imitation. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists of ships commissioned, decommissioned etc by year

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Lists claiming to include all ships about the usefulness, content and terminology for these lists, which may be of interest. Davidships (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Public Domain in 2021

Here is a list of some authors / documents that will enter public domain on Jan 1, 2021. I guess we are mostly interested in photographs that will become public domain. Im not sure how / where we can obtain such a list? Farawayman (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Capture of Eaucourt l'Abbaye

Another Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors search. I can't find the culprit, I wonder if anyone might try their luck? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I tweaked the article thusly: [17]. Did that fix the issue? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It did indeed, thanks. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the better fix, per MOS:FURTHER, to remove Edmonds and Wyrall from §Further reading because they duplicate entries in §References?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Edmonds in the Fr is OH 1916 I and the Wyrall is volume I. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

GAN backlog

G'day all, the list at WP:GAN#WAR is getting long again, with some nominations going back to September. If anyone with some spare time could pitch in, particularly with some of the older ones, that would be great. Thanks in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've grabbed three, but there's still quite a few available. And at least one warfare-related book in the literature section. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I grabbed the IRA one, which was a bit old and potentially curly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've claimed a couple of the older ones. Zawed (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Old FAs needing checking for whether a FAR is needed

G'day all, starting this thread to draw attention to WP:URFA/2020 where that went through FAC or FAR before 2016 are listed. I have already started advising principal editors of Milhist articles on this list, but there are some where the principal editors are no longer active. I will list these here as I work my way through the list, in case some project members who have knowledge of these subjects can take a look and form a view about the state of the article and whether it still meets the FA criteria, needs a little work, or needs a lot of work. Please note what your assessment is under the article subsections as I list them. It would be good to have multiple eyes on each article to ensure our views on each one are robust. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a note: at WP:URFA/2020, the aim is not perfection :) We just need to know which articles are in bad enough shape that they may need to be submitted to FAR. That is slightly different than "would pass FAC today". We can allow for minor issues as long as you wouldn't have to hang your head in shame if the article ran on the mainpage. If you feel an article has minor issues only, they can be noted on talk. If you feel an article is good enough to avoid FAR, you can say it is Satisfactory (which doesn't mean perfect). If there are serious deficiencies, they should be noted on article talk and diffed at URFA/2020 indicating that a FAR may be needed. From what I have observed, few MILHIST articles have fallen into as much disrepair as have those in other content areas. But quite a few articles have been chunked up with unnecessary images and MOS:SANDWICH, which we can fix and move on. Please have a careful look at the start of instructions I have put at WP:URFA/2020, to get an idea of the focus. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SG, I'm sure project members will keep that in mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

• I did a c/e and checked the image licenses, and this looks satisfactory to me, I'd like a second opinion though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Well, we know I hate collapsed navigational templates :) But ... anything that any two of you deem "Satisfactory", I am likely to add a third "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 so we can move those off the list. This one meets my standard for not needing a FAR, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd have some minor comments overall at a FAC, but I think this is in good enough shape that it shouldn't be sent through FAR. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. This article is good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. This can be left alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Looks in my view okay; I've tweaked a little bit but there are 13 "howevers" which should be reduced. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

• Another component of the 18-article Guadalcanal featured topic. Looks in good shape to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

• Has an annoying unreferenced last sentence. Otherwise in good shape. See little benefit is a FAR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Couple minor issues, but nothing warranting a FAR here. Could be easily fixed through normal editing. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can also be left alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me but there's a MOS:SANDWICH within the "Battle" section which is the only real major issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No sandwich on my monitor, but I went through and cleaned up all the picture locations and trimmed their rather verbose captions, including eliminating their periods/full stops as required. There are a few bibliographic oddities that still need to be cleaned up, but I'll get to them soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like sandwich has been removed on my monitor thanks for the help. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Rennell Island

• Looks alright to me. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Note, [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I've addressed SG's note. This is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Corinthian War

The largest active contributor to this article is unable to help here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List (last reviewed in 2006), WP:URFA/2020

Here is an alphabetical list of all of the "last reviewed in 2006" MILHIST Featured articles (feel free to refactor/reformat this post as needed, I may have missed some). This might help in terms of getting the oldest dealt with first at WP:URFA/2020.

If there are issues that need to be addressed, please do not list them at the URFA/2020 page, rather, list them on article talk and just add the diff to the URFA page. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

PS, you all are leading the pack in bringing old FAs to standard! See Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#2004–2009 Kept or FAR not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Axis naval activity in Australian waters - I'm working on upgrading this to modern FA standards, but don't think this will be a large project as the article (which I developed to FA class) seems in good shape. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Battle of Bicocca Notified Kirill Lokshin, 2020-11-24 This is now satisfactory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Battle of Ceresole
• Battle of Dien Bien Phu
• Battle of Schellenberg
• Battle of the Tenaru (has not yet run TFA)

  Have copyedited, filled in a missing citation, my work should be checked, left concerns on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo (has not yet run TFA)
• Caspian expeditions of the Rus'
• Corinthian War Notified Main contributor 2020-11-22.
• Cretan War (205–200 BC)
• England expects that every man will do his duty
• Finnish Civil War
• German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I
• Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
• Italian War of 1521–1526 Noticed 2020-01-28. Notified Kirill Lokshin, 2020-11-22, on it.
• Military history of Puerto Rico
• Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (Already has two "Satisfactory" notes.)
• Operation Ten-Go
• Sviatoslav I
• Toledo War
• Ulm campaign
• USS Missouri (BB-63) Notes 2020-12-08 - I'm in the process of overhauling the article and bringing it up to modern standards. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• War of the Fifth Coalition
• William Tecumseh Sherman Noticed 2020-11-11

Last reviewed in 2007 to 2009 that have not yet been scheduled TFA

(In case you all want to prioritize articles that might pop up on WP:TFA, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Armament of the Iowa-class battleship
• 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident
• Matanikau Offensive
• Montana-class battleship
• Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse
• USS Princess Matoika
• SS Mauna Loa
• USS Iowa turret explosion
• Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment
• Operation Brevity
• USS Iowa (BB-61)
• SS Minnesotan
• SS Kroonland
• Nassau-class battleship
• Take Ichi convoy
• SMS Seydlitz
• Moltke-class battlecruiser
• Yamato-class battleship
• Battle of Corydon
• Kaiser-class battleship
• SMS Hindenburg
  • I significantly rewrote Nassau-class battleship last year so it should be in pretty good shape. The others of mine on that list could use some updating with newer sources that have been published in the last ten years, but are otherwise in good condition (this applies to SMS Seydlitz, Moltke-class battlecruiser, Kaiser-class battleship, and SMS Hindenburg). All of these are on my radar for the not-too-distant future. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Is a medal citation, on its own, an RS? Or is it too primary and/or POV? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild In my experience medal citations are usable for citing the actual medal (i.e. "Gog the Mild was awarded the Barnstar of Diligence on 32 December 2020 for "astounding and high quality writing, reviewing and editing.") I'd say a better source should be used for other info, as you mention its both primary and not really independent.

I found this interesting, semi-related reading about the role medal citations play in history, mainly "in the absense of diaries, personal accounts, and interviews, perhaps the only practical alternative to gaining a clear understanding of what forward-observer personnel contributed during World War II is to look at the citations for the medals they received". With that being said, if you're trying to cite information on somebody's actions, I'd try to find a secondary source-- even if it cites the citation itself. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Cheers Eddie, that's about what I thought. Ah well. The best account I possess of forward observers is George G. Blackburn's 500 page The Guns of War. Epic, terrifying, awe-inspiring.

Separately, if someone of an Australian persuasion might care to cast an eye over Ian Ross Campbell - see [19] and [20], both non-RSs - it seems a bit of a shame that he doesn't have an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a simple answer to this very good question. My understanding is that the citations for the highest of medals, such as the Victoria Cross in Australia, draw on the detailed paperwork and careful vetting required for the award of these medals. As such, they'd be clearly considered a reliable source. It's likely that the paperwork and vetting becomes less through down the scale though, so a degree of care is needed. It would be fine to use the citation to reference what the medal was awarded for, but care should be taken going beyond this. Citations can also simply be wrong - for instance, the recent Australian Brereton Report recommended that a meritorious unit citation and medals awarded to several senior officers be revoked as some members of the unit involved have been alleged to have committed very serious war crimes which the officers failed to detect or prevent at the time. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The report said that in one case the only thing that was correct in the citation was the name of the recipient. It would be fine to use the citation to reference what the medal was awarded for. In the case of Australian citations, we sometimes have multiple versions of the nomination, including ones that were subsequently not awarded, which can be useful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessment error with Greco-Italian War?

Greco-Italian War is certainly not start class (it's at least C – I've not properly checked if it's B). In trying to change the rating from "start" to "C" the talk page is still displaying "start" – no idea what I'm doing wrong here... Aza24 (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the checkmarks B1-B5. A C-class article must have either B1 or B2 assessed as 'yes'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The check mark system does strike me every once in a while because by its logic, a completely unsourced article that is otherwise perfect would be rated as c-class, and a perfectly formatted and sourced article for, say, George Washington, that only has bare bones levels of detail would be c-class, but an otherwise perfect article that needs a good ce or formatting help is 'start', even if it's objectively 'better'. But then the question becomes how many people notice or care about the distinction between start and c? I'd guess not many. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a lot, Eddie. I get what you are on about though. It can sometimes be quite incongruous to rate an uncited article as C, but really, I have always thought of B as the point where we have a fairly solid foundation. Everything below that is very much in gestation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve also been annoyed in the cast by the hard-codes in ratings. Assessment is much more holistic than that elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Members of this project might be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Tippecanoe featured article review

I have nominated Battle of Tippecanoe 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. Kevin1776 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

219th Engineer Brigade

I made changes to the 219th Engineer Brigade page and removed references of the 219th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade. I did leave the information concerning the change from 219th BfSB to the Engineer Brigade. The 219th BfSB should have a standalone page concerning the unit's history since it ended in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugkill (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with article?

Hi - I am an editor who focuses mainly on basketball articles. I am looking to complete the 1947 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans article, which has one redlink– Kenneth Shugart, who was an All-American for the US Naval Academy. I am hoping someone here with knowledge of United States military history can help me identify if Shugart is notable from a military perspective and perhaps we can collaborate - I can write his athletic section. Does anyone know much about Shugart? Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day Rikster2, welcome and thanks for posting here. We have a few US Navy gurus who might be able to help (not me unfortunately, I'm an Aussie), but am I right in assuming this is Kenneth Laverne Shugart Jr., born 1925, who was a combat aviator in Korea and Vietnam (where he was shot down) and went on to be a rear admiral and died in 1985? If so, he is presumed notable from a military perspective per WP:SOLDIER, as all flag officers are presumed notable. He was also apparently awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross four times, as well as the Legion of Merit twice, which is pretty impressive on its own. I picked that stuff up online from what wouldn't rate as reliable sources, but he must have an newspaper obit or two available, and histories of his carriers/squadrons in Korea and Vietnam might also provide some information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes - that should be the same one. I’d appreciate any help I can get for sure. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

He had obituaries in the Wsshington Post [21] and the Orlando Sentinal [22] but they are brief. You can find his Distinguished Flying Cross citations here. He is buried in Barrancas National Cemetery in Pensacola, Florida. [23][24] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers.com pulls up some coverage, including [25], some passing mentions. There might be enough for an article, not positive. Unfortunately, he somewhat falls in the era of poor digitization. I'll look a bit more, see what comes up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware that a Kenneth Shugart is mentioned on Naval Education and Training Command.Seems to be the same person.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Discussion proposing the merge of both General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy into Six-star ranks in the U.S. armed forces to be found here. Cheers - wolf 16:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Help interpreting an 1837 memorandum

Hi all. I found a memorandum for the composition of the government's forces for Battle of Montgomery's Tavern but I struggle with understanding it and writing a paragraph about it. The document can be found here: [26].

I'm interpreting that the advanced guard is all under the command of MacNab, with three companies led by Nash, Coppinge and Garrett, but why are Draper and Sherwood listed without additional detail? Is this the same reason why Duggan, Gamble, etc. are listed separately under Two Guns? Are "Two Guns" "Artillery" and "Dragoons" referring to different sections of the forces? What is the information under "Dragoons" referring to? Basically, I am really struggling with what this document is supposed to tell me about the composition of the government's forces.

Please ping me in your response so I get the notification. I really appreciate your help. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the first paragraph of ethnic cleansing article

Please see Talk:Ethnic cleansing#RfC. (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Returning soldier effect

Members of this project might be interested in expanding this article. LearnIndology (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken ref final sweep

Following Headbomb's now archived post, I figured I'd repost the remaining GAs that still have broken harv refs. We're actually rather close to getting through these so if some folks could each do one or two more we should be good: Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GAs

Done

1. Alexander Godley
2. Bali Strait Incident
3. Battle of Haman
4. Battle of Huoyi
5. Battle of Masan
6. Battle of Nam River
7. Battle of P'ohang-dong
8. Battle of the Plains of Abraham
9. Black Dahlia
10. Black September
11. Bobbili Fort
12. Boulogne agreement
13. Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628
14. Capitulation of Saldanha Bay
15. Caracalla
16. Christian Streit White
17. Cipher Bureau (Poland)
18. Croatian War of Independence
19. Crusades
20. Emeric, King of Hungary
21. Ernest Lucas Guest
22. Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II
23. First Battle of Naktong Bulge
24. Frank McGee (ice hockey)
25. Frank Worsley
26. Franklin D. Roosevelt
27. Franz Kurowski
28. Franz Kurowski
29. HMS Hermione (1782)
30. Hans-Ulrich Rudel
31. Home Army
32. Homs
33. House of Lancaster
34. Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
35. Huolongjing
36. Indonesian National Revolution
37. Isaac Parsons (American military officer)
38. James Caudy
39. Michael I Komnenos Doukas
40. Mise of Amiens
41. Monarch-class coastal defense ship
42. Mulan (1998 film)
43. Myth of the clean Wehrmacht
44. Operation Storm
45. Operation Summer '95
46. Oswald Boelcke
47. Paddy Finucane
48. Philip III of Navarre
49. Pons, Count of Tripoli
50. Prince Marko
51. Raid on Batavia (1806)
52. Richard Garnons Williams
53. Robert White (Virginia physician)
54. Rommel myth
55. Roza Shanina
56. SS Black Osprey
57. Saab JAS 39 Gripen
58. Sajmište concentration camp
59. Second Battle of Naktong Bulge
60. Siege of Damascus (1148)
61. Siege of Melos
62. Siege of Pondicherry (1793)
63. Skanderbeg's Italian expedition
64. Stanisław Koniecpolski
65. Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
66. Teuruarii IV
67. The Great Naktong Offensive
68. The Holocaust in Albania
69. Third Anglo-Maratha War
70. Treblinka extermination camp
71. USS Cincinnati (CL-6)
72. USS Kentucky (BB-66)
73. USS Lunga Point
74. USS Salamaua
75. USS Texas (BB-35)
76. USS Tucker (DD-374)
77. Uprising of Ivaylo
78. Walls of Constantinople
79. Wings (1927 film)
80. World War II
81. Battle of Osijek

Remaining

1. History of cannon
2. History of the United States Navy
3. Humphrey Atherton
4. Napoleon

Just looking at Monarch-class coastal defense ship and I think I need Sturmvogel 66's help. You added a ref to Sieche p250 in April this year, I see there's several publications it might be. Could you add the right one to the References section? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I've struck it from the list - Dumelow (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, you can use Petscan to run a query to list articles with template:good article and the MILHIST banner on the talk page that are also in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It throws up 103 articles. Some may be false positives that have already been discounted but some will be from the bottom end of the alphabet that User:Headbomb didn't get to before. If you remove the good article requirement you can get a list of 3,800 MILHIST articles in the error category - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - From a quick spot checks in there, it looks like the 103 is a mix of both. The false positives should be easy-ish to sort out manually, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick sweep through and think there are 39 which were not already covered or false positives and added these to the list above - Dumelow (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Help tracking down a book

HI all. In working on Mercy dog, I came across a blog post by the British Red Cross (not the most RS) that says the following: Not many people will have come across Oliver Hyde’s book, The Work of the Red Cross Dog on the Battlefield, written in 1915. But in this long-forgotten book, a paean to the bravery of the daring canines, the author captures perfectly the value of the First World War’s most unlikely group of heroes. “To the forlorn and despairing wounded soldier, the coming of the Red Cross dog is that of a messenger of hope. Here at last is help, here is first aid. [The soldier] knows that medical assistance cannot be far away, and will be summoned by every means in the dog’s power. “As part of the great Red Cross army of mercy, he is beyond price.” Well not only have I not come across it, I've found no sign it ever existed-- Google, Worldcat, archive.org, and Amazon all draw blanks-- and all results for the quote seem to be drawn from the blog, or the blog is drawing it from one of the other sources. Could anyone help me track down this book? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Just looked on bookfinder.com - no results. Maybe more of a pamphlet than a book? Lyndaship (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This site lists an article entitled The Dog in Modern Warfare by Oliver Hyde on pages 371 - 378 of The Windsor Magazine [v41 #3, #242, February 1915] (London: Ward, Lock & Company, 120pp), that may be it - Dumelow (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891: Luckily Archive.org has it. Only had a quick glance but it looks to discuss the Red Cross dogs and may have some useful PD photographs - Dumelow (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Imperial War Museums also have some data on Red Cross dogs, including photographs. Farawayman (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, there looks to be good information there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

absolute legend, huge thanks for tracking this down! 82.12.117.213 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891, if you haven't seen it already, there's also The book of dogs; an intimate study of mankind's best friend (1919). Some of the illustrations are at Wikimedia Commons. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman frigate Ertuğrul

Any help would be appreciated with a query concerning the naming of the Ottoman frigate Ertuğrul over at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Ertuğrul_the_boat. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks User:Parsecboy. Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

French officer notability

Alexandre Fourchault has recently been created-- I'm struggling to see how he meets NSOLDIER or GNG, isn't even mentioned at the Mokrani Revolt article (which he was supposedly a main figure in). Those with more knowledge of french-related things may be able to weigh in. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Mokrani revolt article only mentions the overall French commander in its text and is highly incomplete, so that does not reflect on Fourchault's notability. Given that he commanded a 2,000-man column that stopped the Algerian rebel advance and is mentioned in a large number of publications about the revolt, I'd say that there are enough mentions to pass GNG, and that is only with PD sources. Unfortunately, none of the Algerian books about the revolt listed in the bibliography of the French wikipedia article are available on Google Books, but being mentioned in all the French histories of the revolt makes a strong case for his notability. Kges1901 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincent Barkly Molteno

Does anyone know his rank in December 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264, he was a captain when commended in September 1916 and still a captain when he was made a CB in June 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards (and happy New Year) Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict

I welcome your input at this location: Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict#Move portions to other articles, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is WW2 general Nikolai Vasilyevich Travin notable?

Ruwiki: w:ru:Травин, Николай Васильевич. Plwiki: w:pl:Nikołaj Trawin.

An article was written about him: User:Leaftree1. Cleaning up tags, references and fixing the image license (which is how I found this) etc is no problem for me, but if he's not considered notable (and I don't know much about this subject) I'd be wasting my time. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally (not pun intented, but aknowlged) Generals are assumed to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

He appears notable. Kges1901 is our expert on Soviet generals -- he will organize and clean it up, though I can start. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance

G'day all, I am currently GAN reviewing at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2#Sectarianism, which is, to put it mildly, fairly sensitive. Whilst I am happy with the nominator's responses to almost all of my comments, and the article is tracking well towards promotion, I have a niggling concern that the relevant reliable sources regarding whether the IRA was sectarian may not be fully reflected in the article, and whether examples of sectarian attacks should be added by way of illustration. In particular, whether the specific observations and examples of Timothy Shanahan (philosopher) regarding the IRA's sectarianism should be included. You will see an extensive section on the review page about this, along with a Google Books link to Shanahan's book. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

militaryarchitecture.com

I recently fixed a rotten link to MilitaryArchitecture.com. Links seem to be taken over by domain squatters and to redirect to some advertising or similar and I was thinking of fixing them site-wide. The arx journal doesn't seem to be used as a reference so often to require a bot, but enough times to make seeking other opinions before acting a good idea and because of the subject this seemed to be the best place for it. Much of this material, if not all, can be found at [27], this seems a legit publication, but I am not 100% sure and contains a rotten link itself. Other doubts are about leaving or deleting the old url and if it would better to use an archived link of the same site or some orher sources or simply giving the title/number/year of the journal. Personuser (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)