Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 162

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165

"Hubs"

Does anyone know anything about "hubs"? They seem to be a new way of navigating between articles because, apparently, navboxes don't show up in mobile view. I've seen them added recently to the bottom of some milhist articles, for example at War of the Fifth Coalition. Personally I find them poorly formatted, overlong and inferior to navboxes, which can be defaulted to collapse. Is there a policy page or anything relating to these hubs? Surely the way forwards is for WMF to implement a technical solution for navboxes to appear on mobile, rather than partially duplicate them in this manner? - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Hub page is something different altogether. I have no idea where these came from, but it's questionable on mobile view and looks horrible and duplicative on desktop. The related-topic ones (like the 6th coalition on the 5th coalition page) can't even be expanded and require going to a different page. They're like worse navboxes that take up more space. The actually decent way to address that issue would be to make navboxes show up on mobile, or make how to get use desktop view on mobile device better advertised. Hog Farm Talk 13:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the source, it is hard-coded in the article with the generic {{infobox}} template, not with any formal "hub" template. This is probably the work of one editor. I agree it looks horrible and would support removal unless/until there is a consensus to add these. MB 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, another example is the replacement of Template:Campaignbox Waterloo with Template:Campaign Waterloo 1815. @Ruedi33a:, you've added many of these "hubs". Can you provide any more information? Why are some hardcoded into articles and others are templates? It will be a nightmare to add a link to the former surely? - Dumelow (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I had found that the articles in the French invasion of Russia were in a poor state concerning use of sfn, references and so on. I started to correct them and added sources that can be read online. Then I checked the corrected article on my standard mobile and no campaignbox was visible, no warning, nothing. I asked the wiki helpdesk and got the answer that I have to turn on the desktop mode. I did this and there was no campaignbox, no warning, nothing. I started my first template: French invasion of russia mobile. I put it into every article about the French invasion of Russia and they worked perfectly well without any comments of other users during the next days. Then I created the new OSM street maps for the French invasion of Russia, each one is unique as the place of the battle is shown with a diamond. I got one negative comment, improved the maps and everything was fine. Then I went into the Peninsular war: bad structure and content of the campaignbox, double entries, misleading headers with wrong years and so on. And they were not visible on tablets and mobiles again without warning the user. So I developed a solution with the following constraints: as simple as possible(ugly), not on the first page(on the last), visible on every device(done as I know so far), invent a section name as short and precise as possible(hub). One unique hub for every major campaign was needed. Then I saw that I need the other hubs accessible from the section hub. This was developed last and you are right: templates are better here and I will create them. But I am really happy to talk first to colleagues who are interested in how to go on. Can you fix the campaignbox invisibilty problem?Ruedi33a (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This needs to be brought up at WP:VPP or proposed at WP:VPR, since this changes the way Wikipedia is being built. It probably needs addressing in the wP:Manual of style, as it does not conform with MOS:LAYOUT -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This should definitely not use {{infobox}}. Is there a programmatic way to detect mobile, that will still display on mobile? If so, use that and use a slice from an Outline page. (do slices work on mobile?; do slices still work?) --- or just replace this hub thing with a hyperlink to an Outline page. -- this seems to be a solution looking for a problem, since it is designed for mobile, so should not appear on computers. I think dumbing down everything to the lowest common device is just making computer access to the internet an exercise in frustration as interfaces for websites keep getting dumbed down so that it works badly on computers, while trying to make computers screens look like a mobile phone. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
And anyway, having a separate one for mobile in addition to the one for desktop creates the issue of having two appear on desktop, it's better to simply find a way to make the better-formatted desktop one appear on mobile. Hog Farm Talk 03:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't like this at all. Hub pages have been obsolete since 2007. Suggest reverting to Template:Campaignbox Waterloo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I support the reversion suggested by Hawkeye7 Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, you changed a "Hub" section in the "War of the Fifth Coalition" and here is the dicsussion about it. We are still searching a solution for the campaignbox invisibility problem: No campaignbox seems to be visible at least on an Android mobile or tablet. A mobile user cannot directly jump from the 5th coalition to the 6th coalition after your change that deleted a first circumvention of the problem Ruedi33a (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I see the wiki as a production environment and I am against a deletion of the "Hub"s as long as we have no other circumvention or solution for the campaignbox invisibility problem on Android. Ruedi33a (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ruedi33a, I think there is consensus here to revert to campaign boxes for now and to seek a solution at VP to make them visible on mobile view. Perhaps this is something you'd like to drive forward there? - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What is VP? I am not a technical specialist, but I can create a problem report or a trouble ticket...Ruedi33a (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the WP:VILLAGEPUMP, where project-wide discussion takes place. I suspect the best place to post this would be at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I think we're all in agreement that the best solution is for campaign boxes to be made visible in mobile view - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Done in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template:Campaignbox is not visible on mobiles and tablets even if desktop mode is turned on Ruedi33a (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) @Ruedi33a: I reverted an edit (not yours) to add a hub at the top of the article because it was already placed at the bottom. I also removed what I believe were excess hubs because it was cluttering up the bottom of the article, which can be viewed here: [1] I have no opinion on using hubs in am article, as long as it is used thoughtfully. Based on the above conversation, I don't think there is a consensus yet to include hubs in articles, or how they should be included. I agree with Dumelow above that this might be something you want to drive forward. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated England expects that every man will do his duty for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing Bullfinch

What is the identity of the HMS Bullfinch that ran aground at Port Royal, Jamaica in 1874/75 please ("Shipping Disasters". Liverpool Mercury. No. 8479. Liverpool. 23 March 1875.)? A check of the shipindex page only showed the 1898 and 1940 vessels, to which I was able to add the 1856 ship. It can't be that one as she was broken up in 1864. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Leckie's The King's Ships Vol 1 (1913, p. 314) has the second Bullfinch as a 774 ton, 3-gun gunboat, launched at Sheerness in 1868 and sold in 1885.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
A Plover-class gunvessel according to Conway's.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Added to the shipindex page. Not added to shipwreck list yet as details too vague. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
From British Newspaper Archive:
8 Sep 1871 HMS Bullfinch described as a gun vessel, in the Persian Gulf in company with HMS Magpie.
Locations reported in Lloyd's List and Shipping and Mercantile Gazette: In Port Royal, Jamaica, with Urgent, Plover, Contest, Sparrowhawk 4 Apr 1878
Port Au Prince arrived from Jamaica 2 Mar 1876
arrived Montego Bay from "Falmouth J" (?Jamaica) 2 Mar 1875
Anchored Deal, from Sheerness to the Pacific 28 Jul 1874
From the Naval and Military Gazette of 30 Sep 1874 "Stations of Ships in Commission" this could be a useful article for some editors - lots of other ships mentioned. Entry reads: "Bullfinch 3 SS gun-vessel, Com. R. M. Lloyd, N. American and West Indies, 13 July 1874" The date is the "date of being put into commission",
"The Bullfinch, double-screwed gun vessel, Com. Lloyd arrived out from England at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 5th inst., all well" Hampshire Advertiser 26 Sep 1874
Incident may be: "court martial assembled [in Port Royal Jamaica]..trial of Commander Rodney Lloyd and Navigating Sub-Lieutenant Henderson of HMS Bullfinch for allowing the vessel to take the ground off Port Royal" 27 Mar 1875
Lloyd acquitted and Henderson reprimanded, Illustrated London News 3 Apr 1875 (so, this seems a relatively minor incident?).
Not sure that I am answering the question asked, but there is lots more in the way of newspaper mention of this vessel. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was British Forces Near East?

Dear all, I'm trying to sort out what British forces were on the island of Cyprus from the first few years of the 1960s, and part of this is what British Forces Near East and British Forces (in) Cyprus consisted of. I would ask the assistance of our Gazette experts Dormskirk and PBS-AWB to sort out whether they can find the London Gazette entry circa 1 March 1961 by which Air Marshal Sir William MacDonald was seemingly appointed Commander, British Forces Near East. Or were his titles, that also included command of Near East Air Force (Royal Air Force), actually slightly different? Would assist in working out what exactly BFNE was. Cheers and thanks to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: I have found the entry when he left the post in 1962. At that time the post's title was, "Administrator of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the Island of Cyprus."[2] From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Looking at William MacDonald (RAF officer), it appears he was appointed to the post in 1958 and left the post in 1962. There is unlikely to be a Gazette entry for 1961 as changes in the name of a job title rarely required a new notice in the Gazette. It would be different if there were major changes in the responsibilities of the post to go along with the name change, as that could have been treated as the end of one post and the start of a new post. The reappointment to the same posts in 1960 may also not have a Gazette entry; there are normally entries for start date and end date but not renewal dates. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
In an article in the Times in March 1961 he was described as "Administrator of the British Sovereign Base Areas, Cyprus and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Near East Air Force". The Near East Air Force was formed in Cyprus on 1 March 1961 when it was renamed from Middle East Air Force as he was the boss of the MEAF since 30 Dec 1958 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41586/supplement/7952 it may not have been announced. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This link Near East Command might help. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by other editors; he became the commander of the MEAF in 30 December 1958 and it looks as though everything in the next few years relates to changes in that job rather than any new job. Dormskirk (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Cinderella157, From Hill to Shore re the 1961 non-entry in the Gazette, and others. 'Near East Command' actually is British Forces Near East. Now, maybe I need to explain the precedence of appointments here. The principal reason for the presence of British forces on the island was actually, it appears, the defence of Iran by airstrikes - the Canberra and later Vulcan wing - through CENTO. There's a lengthy explanation which people may be interested in which I've quoted from an academic journal now at British Forces Cyprus. So Air Marshal MacDonald's primary role was to make sure that Canberra force was functioning and ready, it seems, as the nucleus of greater allied air forces. That was his "war role" as C-in-C MEAF / "Near East" after the Suez base area disappeared. As Commander BFNE he had also as a second hat had command over the British Army - Near East Land Forces - base guard units in Akrotiri and Dhekelia to guard the RAF units. These are commanding-of-forces roles. The Administrator of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia was his third hat, very much subordinate, but vital, as the landlord of the remnant British territory on the island. But it now appears from Near East Command that Air Marshal MacDonald lost the CBFNE title in 1962, and from that point on, continuing AOC-in-Cs NEAF were also only Commander British Forces Cyprus (and Administrator of the SBAs).
Probably, Near East Command needs to be merged and redirected into British Forces Cyprus. Would make things clearer. Further comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. Updating again. In 1961-62, General (four-star) Dudley Ward, former C-in-C BAOR, was C-in-C Middle East and then Near East Command. Air Marshal William MacDonald (RAF officer) was his air forces commander, C-in-C MEAF and then NEAF. Later on, after July 1970, there was a string of RAF commanders of what is now clear was a separate command, British Forces Near East, which was *not* Near East Command. First clearly with these responsibilities was Air Marshal Sir Derek Hodgkinson. The senior officer in command of British Forces Near East was a three-star, the air marshal whose duties I have described above, but the description is generally applicable only for the later period when the command was BFNE, *not* Middle East Command. The tangle arose because the generally very reliable rabweb.org has what appears to be a mistake: Air Marshal MacDonald as not C-in-C MEAF/NEAF but as the later applicable title, Commander British Forces Near East.

"The Last Great Fighter Squadron" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Last Great Fighter Squadron to the article 561st Weapons Squadron. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#The Last Great Fighter Squadron until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC of interest

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of ACW interest

The requested move at Talk:Benjamin Franklin Gordon may be of interest to those of this project interested in the American Civil War. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Adwa

There are a string of recent IP edits that could be classified as vandalism. Could somebody please have a look at this with a view to it being semi-protected. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: - I've applied semi for a period of three days due to the heavy disruptive anon editing. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

date or year in long footnotes

I've been under the impression for ages that if citing a publication, when the year is available it is year= and if the date and/or month is also given it is date=. This [3] suggests that year= is deprecated, is this right? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've used |year= for years, and the dates that a book is published are rarely provided (they are not even printed in most books). Is this a recent change? It seems obtuse. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that the date field still works when you just put the year in that field (but I don't think it works when you are trying to do 2000a, 2000b type disambiguation between sources). "It seems obtuse"... well obtuse and arcane requirements are common for much of the cite templates.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Me too but when I looked at WP stuff it didn't specify what I expected (see link). Using year I have managed to get 2000 and 2000a in; I didn't know that there had been problems. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
You can use either of |year= or |date=. |year= is not deprecated but |date= is preferred – 2021 is a date just as 22 June 2021 is a date but 22 June 2021 is not a year. Disambiguation works with all supported date formats except YYYY-MM-DD. cs1|2 no longer supports |day= and |month=. |year= is retained so that |date=YYYY-MM-DD can be disambiguated with |year=YYYYa.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Anastasios Balkos needs sources

This biography is unsourced. If anyone can help, preferably someone who can read Greek, I'd appreciate it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Military Unit disambiguation

I am sure this has come up before, but can't find in the archives: I assume that WP:CONCISE governs the article titles of military units, and so the country is only included as a parenthetical in an article title if necessary to distinguish from an a identically named unit from a different country for which there is also a Wikipedia article: this is why the articles are at, for example, 101st Airborne Division and Eighth Air Force, and 101st Airborne Division (United States) and Eighth Air Force (United States) are redirects tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Should this be the general practice for all such military unit articles? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says that "In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version)." Buckshot06 (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Rank modifiers of the British armed forces (war subs.)

In researching entries in the London Gazette, I often find modifiers to the rank of British Armed Forces personnel. The common modifiers I see are "temporary," "acting," and "war subs." An individual can hold a rank with one of these modifiers while also holding a permanent rank at a lower grade. In some situations, I have seen individuals with separate ranks with two of these modifiers in addition to their permanent rank. I believe that I have a general understanding of "temporary" and "acting" (though possibly not the full nuance) but I am just making guesses as to the meaning of "war subs." (possibly "war substantive). Does anyone here know what it means?
I am trying to update the Wikidata entry for William MacDonald but the Gazette has him appointed as wing commander (war subs.) in 1943[4] and then has him promoted to wing commander in 1944.[5] In order to map this at Wikidata, I need to create a new item to explain the concept of war subs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See Brevet (military), and [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it war substantive rank was introduced in the Second World War and was granted automatically at one grade below the highest temporary rank held. I don't think it granted any additional pay or benefits but it counted for seniority in rank, post war. Its primary purpose was to prevent embarrassment to officers who, ceasing to be employed in the role associated with their temporary rank, reverted to their substantive rank which was often much lower. I've read of a case from the First World War where a temporary brigadier-general reverted to his substantive rank of corporal when his brigade disbanded. In the second war he would have been granted, and be entitled to be addressed by, a war substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel (brigadier was not a substantive rank until 1948 so temporary colonels and brigadiers were both given war substantive ranks of lieutenant-colonel) - Dumelow (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
War substantive rank was "full" rank, with all pay and benefits (hence the "substantive" bit), but was held for the duration of the war only. I presume that the authorities reserved the right to decide what would happen to this rank at the end of the war. In practice, at the end of the war, officers holding it (including those national service officers who had been commissioned during the war who stayed on and were commissioned into the regular forces) generally lost one level of war substantive rank. For instance, my father, who was not a regular and was commissioned into the RAF in 1939 on a wartime commission, ended the war as a war substantive squadron leader, acting wing commander and local (yet another modifier!) group captain. Had he remained in the RAF after the war, he would have been given a regular commission as a flight lieutenant, one rank below his war substantive rank, although he may well have remained acting at a higher rank (in fact, I believe he was offered the acting rank of squadron leader if he stayed, although he'd had enough of service life and chose not to). Incidentally, the WWI story is almost certainly apocryphal. The appointment of brigadier-general would only be held by a commissioned officer, so he certainly would not have reverted to a substantive rank of corporal. Second lieutenant, maybe (there was certainly at least one brigadier-general who was a substantive second lieutenant), although in practice I think the chances of such a high-ranking officer reverting to such a low rank are minimal. There were, however, plenty of substantive privates and corporals holding the acting highest non-commissioned rank of warrant officer class I during WWI. After WWI, many officers who had served as brigadier-generals were given the right to continue to call themselves brigadier-general on their retirement, even though it was not formally a rank. The same was true of other temporary and honorary ranks. Often an officer who had reverted to a lower substantive rank after the war climbed a few ranks after his retirement in this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and corrections Necrothesp, it must have been something I read when I was writing temporary gentlemen but I can't find the source now so I am probably misremembering (maybe he was commissioned from corporal to the substantive rank of 2nd lt, received a series of temporary rank promotions and then reverted to 2nd lt). The biggest gap I can find at the moment is Roland Bradford who was a temporary brigadier-general when he died but only a substantive lieutenant in the Durham Light Infantry. In checking my sources I note that Hodgkinson (2013) states that in WWI acting rank brought pay (p95), but not pension entitlement (p322); while temporary rank provided both. In the post war period those that held acting rank for more than 3 months had it converted to temporary rank automatically (p95) - Dumelow (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think I was probably thinking of Bradford. I was sure he was a substantive second lieutenant, but obviously not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the information. I was able to find an official definition in the Australian Defence Act 1949. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The rank of brigadier general was not abolished in the Australian Army in the sense that serving officers who held that rank continued to do so. Some serving officers still held it in the Second World War. Eventually they all retired or died or were promoted and the rank became extinct. (One odd case: John Gellibrand joined the AIF as a civilian, having held the rank of major in the British Army before he retired and moved to Tasmania to grow apples. He was commissioned in the AIF as a captain and rose to major general. Thus, he held no substantive rank at all.) Honorary rank differed from temporary, local and substantive in that while an officer holding honorary rank wore the rank badges of that rank and was addressed as such, they were only paid at their substantive rank. All officers who held rank in the First AIF were entitled to retain it as an honorary rank. This saved the government a lot of money. Having substantive rank one below temporary rank was a common practice but not a policy; I remember reading through a series of exchanges between Blamey and Curtin about promoting Major General James Cannan to that substantive rank. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
British officers were automatically entitled to retain their (non-war) substantive rank after they retired (it was often considered to be bad form to use it if one held a rank lower than major, lieutenant-commander or squadron leader, but many still did). If they had held a higher war substantive, temporary, acting or honorary rank then they had to be granted permission to retain it after retirement, which was usually recorded in the London Gazette. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Qing gunboat

Can anyone help with the identity of the Qing gunboat Feiloong, which foundered in the 1874 Hong Kong typhoon with the loss of all 43 crew ("Death of Mr George Bruce, Late of the Chinese Imperial Navy". Aberdeen Journal. No. 6647. Aberdeen. 2 June 1875.). She was British built. Knowing the nature of mid-C19th reporting, her name could also have been Feilong, Fei Loong or Fei Long.

The China Directory for 1874 lists HICM Feiloong (though it also transliterates it as Fei-loong) as a 5-gun gunboat operating out of Canton. There's no George Bruce on her crew but a G. Bruce is listed as second engineer on the HICM An-Lan operating out of the same port, so it's possible he'd switched ships or was aboard as a passenger upon his leaving Chinese service - Dumelow (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Steamboat Days by F. E. Dayton (1925) p395 lists a Felung as a side wheel steam gunboat (double ended) built by Charles S. Collyer and A. G. Lambert at a yard opposite Shanghai, but gives no date - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
If she was built by British businessmen in China, that would explain why a search of all British shipbuilding databases failed to find her. Absent a year of construction, I'll leave her unlinked in the relevant list of shipwrecks for now. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Wright's The Chinese Steam Navy gives the name as Fei-lung, but states "there is little information about...Fei-lung"; he suggests it was British or French built, saying "...the next move in the updating of China's naval forces was the purchase...from Britain and France in 1867 for anti-piracy patrols. It is difficult to pinpoint the identity of all these vessels with absolute certainty. One was certainly named Fei-lung, which was lost in a typhoon in 1874." Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Do we need a List of ships of the Qing Navy, covering those vessels in service before 1875, when the Imperial Chinese Navy was formed? Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently not, there's already the List of ships of the Chinese Navy (1644–1945). Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, that list includes a Fei Lung, described as a transport, purchased around 1867. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Royal Navy to determine if Her Majesty's Naval Service should be merged in

There is currently an RfC at Royal Navy to determine if Her Majesty's Naval Service should be merged in to the article. Garuda28 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Link: Talk:Royal Navy#RfC should Her Majesty's Naval Service be merged into the Royal Navy.
From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Second Cold War#Add lead image?

An RfC that could use some more input. It is a bit WP:TLDNR, so starting at the bottom up is a thought. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject milestones

We currently track five milestones on the front page of the project, these being:

  • Number of featured articles
  • Number of featured pictures
  • Number of other featured content items (sounds, portals, topics, lists)
  • Number of good articles
  • Proportion of articles rated B-class or better

I like to check in every now and then as it's nice to see the numbers gradually ticking upwards. I've noticed that the featured pictures and "other featured content" don't seem to progress. They seem to be coded to autocount from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase, apart from featured lists which autocounts from Category:FL-Class military history articles.

I note Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FP has not had any added for more than a year, does it need updating or do we get hardly any new featured pictures? We currently list 423. I also note that as featured sounds and featured portals are both deprecated the third milestone is only really tracking new featured lists (of which we have 138, though the showcase only lists 104) and topics (32, of which 18 added in one batch in February 2020 no other updates since 2014).

These seem really fiddly to keep track of, with all bar FL needing to be manually updated. As it stands, it is a little pointless having tracker bars that barely move. Is some way of autotracking these, as manually updating must be a nightmare and, as can be seen, hasn't worked well. I also think it is best that featured pictures be combined with the "other featured content" tracker bar, due to the low rates of each produced. Any thoughts? - Dumelow (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FA is automatically updated by the FACBot when an article is promoted, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FL is not. I will adjust have the Bot update it. The problem with featured picture though is that there is nothing to inform a bot that they are MilHist, so they have to be updated by hand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FL. (I've got 139 articles, so you might want to double-check.) And the FACBot has been instructed to add featured lists when one is promoted. (Not very often.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hawkeye7, that's great. I had made the mistake of adding this talk page to the FL category, instead of linking it above so this was added to the showcase. Now fixed and back to 138 to match category contents - Dumelow (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
For featured pictures I wonder if the milhist talkpage banner can be reconfigured with a "featured picture" category, much in the same way as it counts featured articles? Milhist files can (should?) have the milhist banner on the Wikipedia talkpage, despite being hosted at Commons. See, for example, File talk:720th Special Tactics Group airmen jump 20071003.jpg. Though there are items that aren't tagged with the banner but are in the showcase, for example File talk:1924 Map of US Naval Academy.png. If there's a way to make the autocount work I don't mind going through the FP category to make sure everything milhist-related is tagged - Dumelow (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye7, I've just realised that the Bugle contains a round up of new featured pictures that are in scope. I wonder if one of your bots could be configured to take the pictures from there and add them to the showcase? - Dumelow (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it can do that. I will prepare the required job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! The Bugle articles are probably the only current comprehensive listing of in-scope FPs (in-scope being defined broadly at times). Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
That's really good news, thanks Hawkeye7. Can it do a check of the list against previous editions of the Bugle to pick up any that have been missed, or is is that a step too far? - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course. I'll have it sweep through every edition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

List of infantry weapons of World War I

I'm a little confused about the above article. There are many weapons listed that were not introduced for decades after the end of World War I. What exactly is the scope of the article? Should those listings be removed, or is there something I'm missing? --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Found em, vandalism, I shall remove the obviousones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Pls see List of infantry weapons of World War I#Unverified and questionable entries. This is an appalling article that needs to pretty much be Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. It is largely WP:OR and nowhere near the standard expected by this project. It needs to be knocked back to what is at least (reasonably) potentially verifiable and rebuilt with some clearer criteria (IMO). Your contribution in bringing this up to a reasonable standard would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Lets improve the article

Hi, I have started this discussion: List of infantry weapons of World War I#Criteria for inclusion because the article really needs to be knocked into some respectable order. Any help and or comments would be appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Wreck Smurfy and User:Kges1901 - continuing contributions to accessible understanding of Soviet military history

Dear all, I've just had the pleasure of reviewing Mikhail Seryugin, primarily written up by Kges1901. I would like to again mark the efforts and achievements of Kges1901 and also Wreck Smurfy, who is near-tirelessly working through creating detailed divisional histories of large numbers of Red Army Second World War rifle divisions, greatly contributing to making this material accessible beyond those who can afford to buy expensive library subscriptions or books such as those by David Glantz. I think they deserve our sincere congratulations. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

3rd Battle of Ypres biblio question

Foerster, Der Weltkrieg has a warning now, Check |archive-url= value (help) I followed the link but it's no help. Would someone mind having a look to see what's wrong? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The values assigned to |url= and to |archive-url= in Foerster are the same: https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/image/AC03617667/1/LOG_0003/. No point in having two url parameters that hold the same value.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume it's because the url is identical to what's in the |url= field (so I've removed it). Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, it's all a bit over my head. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ru:402-й_истребительный_авиационный_полк

Dear Kges1901, B.Velikov, Wreck Smurfy, the 968th Research-Instructor Mixed Aviation Regiment is now reaching its 80th anniversary, and has an article on the Ru-wiki, linked above, at its GPW name. I will start a translation, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, at the confirmed current unit name, at least a stub; appreciate all inputs, checks of my work. Urrrraaaahhhhhhh!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The post-WWII history of the aviation regiment could be taken from a huuuge article about the unit in the January 2010 issue of Авиация и космонавтика.B.Velikov (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Grand!! Can you provide a link or a scan or something? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
http://nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_2010_01/p1.php B.Velikov (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Part of the linked article, dealing with the uncertainty of transfer from Alternburg airfield in the GDR back east c1992, says in rough translation "The most painful was the uncertainty with the future. Initially, Zaporozhye was designated as the new base of the regiment. A reconnaissance group was sent there, which, upon returning, reported that the airfield was in a deplorable state. The “parade of sovereignties” that burst out after “Belovezhskaya Pushcha” did not add optimism to the personnel. The ..instructions for combat training for the new 1992 academic year gave some clarity: the regiment was ordered to prepare for redeployment to the Seshcha (airfield) (ru:Сеща (аэродром)) in Bryansk Oblast, which, according to the experience of military units that had previously left Germany, most likely meant disbandment." Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/968iap.htm. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the Battle off Samar is in a pretty lackluster shape. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased that only 25 (and now fewer) of the top 500 listed at that page are of stub or start class. One comment, should United States military casualties of war be list class rather than article (it is currently rated start class)? - Dumelow (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, your WIkiproject is probably the best I've come across in terms of ensuring your most-viewed articles are in a fair-to-great condition.--Coin945 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

IP adding parent categories to articles

Special:Contributions/174.242.73.45 is adding parent categories to rifle and hangun articles. I had reverted about half of them, but now they are reverting back. I don't generally mess with categories, so I'm certainly not going to edit war over this. Just dropping a note here so others know this is going on, and in case this in a known LTA. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped yesterday, but if they resume, ping me and I'll block as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War (1922) question

Does anyone have a source giving the authors? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

All sources I can see name the author as The War Office, which was part of the UK Government. In common with many government publications, individual contributors would have been employees and are unlikely to have been named. [7] From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed; the original title page is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Clearly the authors weren't writing in secret, even if not mentioned in the volume; I rather hoped that they were mentioned elsewhere. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Most UK government publications do not list the authors. The authorship and copyright are vested in the Crown, so there is often no need to name individual contributors. It is possible that no record of the contributors was kept as there is rarely an intention to make the names public. You may find the names on an old piece of paper in a musty file in the depths of the National Archives, but I'd think it unlikely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Air Force activates 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing

Linked story at https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-acc-activates-first-spectrum-warfare-wing/. Lineagegeek Existing information on the designation "350" for the U.S. Air Force can be found at List of inactive AFCON wings of the United States Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything official or in an unofficial RS out on the lineage yet (so editing the article would be premature IMO), but the number, mission and elements of its new emblem certainly point to reactivation of the 350th Electronic Systems Wing. This reorganization will also impact the 53rd Electronic Warfare Group article, since it will likely either be redesignated or replaced by a 350th Spectrum Warfare Group. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I added the news story to the external links at 350th Electronic Systems Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI there is a new ANI discussion about the implementation of the recently added, changed or replaced navboxes/hubs/campaign templates and their mobile issues on numerous MILHIST pages; which had been discussed here on the talk page as well. The aforementioned ANI discussion is right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War template box discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Campaignbox_Syrian_civil_war#Hello

Perhaps this is not the best place to ask this question, but can somebody please give any thoughts on the discussion at this talk page (it consists entirely of me asking questions in the last three posts)? It seems the conflict has entered a new phase (stalemate). 2601:85:C101:C9D0:819D:E692:ED27:878F (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing B class assessments

I know we have a system for reviewing B class assessments done by bot but do manual classifications get checked? I was discussing Pagondas today and, out of curiosity, checked its tagging. I was horrified to see it rated B with a full check list, whereas just at a glance, it's a poor start. I've re-assessed it but it was such a blatantly false original assessment I wonder if we have any checks? Any bot run over this would have spotted the lack of inline citations and supporting materials, for example, even without needing to consider the more subjective classifications. Monstrelet (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur, took the other Bs out. Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The B-class assessment was from 2008 it looks like so probably there were lower standards then. Hog Farm Talk 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Acknowledged but this article carried a filled in B class check list. Someone or something must have put it in. If it was a someone, it was obviously false. Be that as it may, perhaps there is a rationale to run a bot of older B classes to check for other cases. We do have an auto-assesment bot flagging potential B class for human confirmation. Something similar, perhaps? Monstrelet (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The checks were done on March 11, 2008 by user Avenged Eightfold who hasn't edited since 2010. — Itsfullofstars (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The bot only runs through unassessed articles (and lately, some stubs). Only those given B-class assessments by the bot go through human review; the bot does not check ones already assessed as B-class. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics, there are over 17,000 MILHIST B-class articles, so checking them all would prove to be a very lengthy task. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, fair points. I don't want to burden anyone with more work, as just checking the new stuff is onerous.But if we have "old" assessments as misleading as this it does undermine our modern quality assurance work. Readers aren't going to check when it was assessed (it doesn't flag date for B does it, only for GA and above?). So, I'll leave it there for admins to think on whether we need a way of checking really old assessments (10 years plus, like this one) from a time when it is suggested standards were lower. Thanks for everyone's time on this. Monstrelet (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with B-Class AutoCheck report for May

G'day all, the Milhistbot Autocheck report for May hasn't been completed yet, and June just dropped. Many hands make light work etc. Thanks in anticipation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC) for the coord team.

Reevaluation of WP:Soldier

I understand that in January there was a discussion about WP:Soldier and it was dropped as a standard. There is now a large void in its place and unclear standards has resulted in numerous pages being deleted and nominated for deletion citing that WP:Soldier is no longer a standard and therefore not notable. Alexander K. Tyree is one example of a Naval Captain and WWII submarine commander that was twice awarded the Navy Cross is being nominated for deletion. There needs to be a standard of some sort. Is three Navy Crosses enough? Alan B. Banister was also nominated for deletion in the past, he is a two star Admiral, also awarded the Navy Cross twice. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesallain85: The standard is WP:GNG, not winning an arbitrary number x of awards. If you can't find sources which discuss the subject, he's probably not notable, and vice-versa. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I would agree, it is why we have so many one-line stubs, SNG's that say winning X makes you notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with above comments. If the subject is truly notable, they will have significant coverage out there and will meet GNG. SNGs should not be used as a backdoor to avoid meeting GNG, and AFDs should focus on if there is significant coverage, not debating the relative merits of different awards. Hog Farm Talk 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
How many sources to be considered notable then? I nominated a page for nomination, a low profile ace, John B. Selby. The article had three sources two were simply a book containing all aces for the UK and the third source was an autobiography that mentioned the person a couple times in 600 pages. Since being nominated a few more have been added, but I feel there should be a more objective standard, as it sits now it seems very subjective. I had the page Albert H. Clark deleted quoting at the time he didn't meet WP:Soldier, but if I recall I had several sources. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Albert_H._Clark The article was still deleted. I am getting tired of working on content only to turn around and have it deleted because there is no clear standard.Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Its not numbers, its depth, 1000 sources saying "Barry Wom was a bloke" carries less weight than 2 whole books about him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jamesallain85: You're certainly not alone. However, the growing number of deletionists on Wikipedia delight only in getting rid of as much content as possible and have no respect for the good work of other editors (since they're obviously here only to destroy, not to create). Sadly, there appears to be nothing that can be done about it. Trying to do so is like banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall. What to me is common sense (e.g. all general, flag and air officers are notable; all people with two or more second-level gallantry awards are notable) clearly is anathema to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with that standard, but what is your opinion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby because the only reason they are saying the guy is notable is because he is an Ace. He had five kills, and none of the sources provide any depth about who he was. My page on Albert H. Clark was more in depth and it was trashed. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus at AfD has always been that aces are notable. I think following long-established consensus is a good thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I am here to create not to delete, the whole issue stemmed from several of my pages being deleted despite meeting your standard of common sense. The person that nominated three of my pages created the John B. Selby page. I was trying to hold him to the standard he has been putting on me. If I could have my way Selby would stay and so would my articles, I am sick of working only to have it thrown in the trash after hours of research and writing. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I just think if there is a long precedence of something such as Aces are automatically notable, then it should be a set standard like WP:Soldier was. I think if someone was unhappy with the standard it set, then they should have altered it not totally get rid of it. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Something else to ask, I was working on notable US Submarine commanders from WWII. Even with documentation I am constantly having to defend them from deletion, but Aces are automatically notable, even if they have no real supporting documentation with any depth? I will probably just have to give up on contributing, as I do not want to waste hours of my time to have it just deleted.
I’m not aware of such a consensus, can you link discussions in which people agreed that WP:GNG was not met but it was fine because the person was an ace? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I am also not aware of any consensus, that was Necrothesp's claim. As far as not having much in depth in sources and being approved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby. The sources are two books about all Aces in the UK in general and an autobiography that mentions him in a few sentences out of 600 pages. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I was replying to Necrothesp hence my comment being as indented as yours. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I second RandomCanadian in that GNG is the standard and well and truly always has been a standard. I do not know where the assumption that flying aces were notable has project wide consensus came from, and I sincerely doubt that it does. GNG applies there as well. Re Necrothesp, part of the reason SOLDIER was deprecated was the specific problem of assuming notability for people who held the rank of a flag officer, since some countries have so many who have barely any coverage in reliable sources and do little more than push papers. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Jamesallain85 the fact that you were absent from WP for a year and missed the WP:SOLDIER deprecation discussion and a few PRODs of your pages is not a concern for other Users. GNG is the accepted standard and if the pages that you, or anyone else, creates does not satisfy WP:BASIC they are likely to be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It does become my concern when editors start to delete my work and those same individuals sight lack of notability and cannot hold themselves to the same standard. I have no respect for rude people whose main contribution is deleting the work of others. What is unfortunate is that WP:Soldier was a guide of notability and because it is now gone a lot of work which was considered with good reason to be notable is now having to be defended because of editors like you. There may be a precedent for example for keeping Aces, but it should be a documented standard if it exists. Selby for example didn't meet the general guidelines for notability as others have also noted. Also, it shouldn't matter how long I was gone from the scene. However, when I come back, one editor (you), had nominated at least three pages for deletion, I think anyone could understand how that seems like I am being targeted. I think anyone that nominates page after page after page for deletion and they are for the most part all upheld should have their ability to do so restricted. Removing WP:Soldier has clouded the standard, people like you enjoy being rude, which has also been noted by other admins, and will just push people away from wanting to contribute in the future. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
If you stay off WP for a year stuff happens, you don't own the pages that you created and no-one is obliged to preserve them until you decide to return. Regarding your comment about "people whose main contribution is deleting the work of others" and the earlier comments about deletionists who are supposedly "here only to destroy, not to create" I have created 738 pages. Before I create any page I try ensure that notability is unquestionably satisfied and that a decent number of RS are available to support the page. In contrast your pages that I PRODed or AFDed were generally short/stubs with only a few sources (often blogs) of questionable reliability. I can't locate the deletion !votecount tool, but last time I looked my stats were about 80% in agreement with the close which compares favorably with most other Users on military AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding flying aces, have a look at MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces, resulting in no consensus MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As RandomCanadian said the underlying standard is WP:GNG. If a subject (whether it be person, aeroplane, or event) doesn't meet GNG then it doesn't get a separate article.
I'll just add that in discussions over notability, the sources need to support the reason that notability is being claimed. If a pilot has an article because they were an air ace, then sources that tell you he was born in such-and-such-place but don't mention the flying are not useful; to my mind if I see an article that has more on a pilot's early education and parents than the wartime service, then that's an indication that they might not be notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well despite there not being a standard for Aces, many people believe there is. The article on Selby didn't in my opinion meet WP:GNG at all when I nominated it, it may now as some sources have since been added, but they are not cited for content. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby The entire issue was that Mztourist nominated several of my pages for deletion, including a few double Navy Cross recipients and held substantial rank and were notable, but was still successful in deleting one page [[8]]. When I applied his standard to his pages, such as that of Selby who was a 5 kill Ace with very shallow sources, then there is magically a standard that Aces are automatically notable and WP:GNG didn't matter. Though a double Navy Cross winner somehow isn't. That is again why I brought up the topic of WP:Soldier, because it sets a clear standard. WP:GNG is not clear to what extent the information needs to be to meet the standard and it becomes subjective. WP:Soldier was an objective standard that cut clear lines, and with its absence some editors have began to clean house. The reason I have been absent on WP was the fact I am writing publishable material which I originally wished to create pages for here on WP concerning successful US submarine commanders of WWII. However much of the information is limited, so here considered not notable. With that I feel my best option would be to leave this Mickey Mouse show of double standards and get back to doing some real historical work. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Bye! WP:WPDNNY WP:YANI Mztourist (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:ASSHOLE Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP has got rid of many of the more humorous essays that I would have put here, so I just hold up a metaphorical mirror to you. Mztourist (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
An article doesn't meet or fail to meet GNG - the subject does. I notice that you state that sources have been added to the Selby article but are not cited - that is factually incorrect - all the sources added are cited.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't, things change, look at the state of the page when it was nominated. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
You said that the additional sources that were added were not cited - they were when you made the comment, therefore you were incorrect.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The last I look, which is different now, is that additional sources were added to the article, however the sources were not link to any text as a citation. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
So you are accusing me of lying. It is clear that you do not welcome improvements in the article and that you are not here in good faith.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of lying, I do not understand what is going on here. All I meant is when I first nominated the article it was weak. I checked back, and at that time, there had been some sources added in the reference section that had not been connected with any text in the article. That has since been updated to include the new sources. I never said anyone was lying, I just said at the point I check back the article was at that status. I would actually support closing the deletion nomination while it now, not before, clearly meets the standard. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this discussion has run its course? The "ace exemption" (if I may use such a term) appears to be accepted practice at AfD. I don't happen to agree with it, but it is a consensus built there by practice. I don't see anything to be gained here at this point. Intothatdarkness 18:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not so sure, nobody has really discussed it. I have seen arguments there is a past precedent that Aces be automatically notable, but [[9]] was not discussed. Which says it isn't so. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
No, it's been mentioned that a user consensus at AfD has determined the automatic notability of aces. I don't happen to agree with it, just like I find the insistence that obituaries are automatically RS bothersome, but in the case of the aces it's a consensus developed there. Had you listed Selby in aviation-related deletions in addition to military history you might have been able to get more input relating to that. Intothatdarkness 18:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • the standard that applies to all articles on WP is GNG. Both of the articles mentioned by the OP have now plenty of keep's, so I think this is resolved. I sense no interest in reviving SOLDIER, articles need to stand or fall on the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle maps

Ruedi33a has added a lot of maps recently. One I picked randomly, in Battle of Mohrungen, has a very cryptic caption. I had to look at the source to figure out that each of the blue dots is a battle of this conflict, the black dot is this battle, and the numbers represent the chronological order. None of this is obvious from the caption. It's not clear what the caption does mean; are those battle Napoleon won? Do others find this map to be useful? If kept, they certainly need to be explained better. MB 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@MB: - I think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ruedi33a_and_campaign_boxes explains the background, and includes the statement But the list of battles invisible for mobile users in {{Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia}} is now in the OSM location map as a caption., which I assume is the same thing as the caption to the map you are referring to? Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I was somewhat aware of that discussion. I thought that was about trying to cram a version of the campaignbox into the caption of an existing map in the infobox. These are new OSM maps outside the infobox. Maybe it's not that different. MB 03:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I have accepted the navbox discussion and I am no longer interested in the list of battles of a campaign as this is done by definition by a navbox. I want to show the places of the battles of a campaign on a map in a good way instead. {{OSM location map}} is a very good tool as it adjusts in fullscreen mode perfectly to a desktop, a tablet and a mobile and gives the normal touch and feel of a mobile application. Now I want to select and emphasize the most important battles of a campaign. These are with a high probability the ones with Napoleon in command. Yes, the caption is not good yet. I have created a new version of Battle of Mohrungen as a suggestion. Ruedi33a (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously they were titles, now they are captions, I'm planning on removing them (the vague captions) all when I have the time later. You can see the crypticness here at the top of the secondary infobox. "Napoleon 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-5-4-8-2-9 Prussians 10->12 / Austrians 13->15" has more potential to confuse the reader than aid them. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the caption is not good yet. I have created a new version of Battle of Ekau as a suggestion. Please check and comment. Ruedi33a (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ruedi33a: If you don't think your own edits are correct yet, you should not be applying them in the main article space. You can create a sandbox in your user space to develop these ideas and then share them here (for the general concept) and on individual article talk pages, so that agreement is reached before they are added to the articles. Continuing to develop your ideas in the articles will only confuse readers and frustrate other editirs, making it less likely that your contributions will remain intact. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I do 99% of my development work for {{OSM location map}} in the sandbox, especially the testing with tablets and mobiles. But the last 1% is about problems like does the client understand what I want to express with the caption? I know Napoleon's path through Russia by heart and the "cryptic" caption should visualize the mistake Napoleon made as he marched from Maloyaroslavets over Borodino to Smolensk. But the caption was too cryptic. I have learnt a lot from this dicussion. Ruedi33a (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

French destroyer Le Fortuné

anyone know how to cure the red warning "Warning: Display title "French destroyer <i>Le Fortuné</i>" overrides earlier display title "French destroyer<i> Le Fortuné</i>" (help)."? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed.[10] From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, it was far beyond my ken. Keith-264 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Italian occupation of Corsica

Just noticed apparent Copyvio in the top half of the article from two web sources (or vice versa) Keith-264 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Afghan situation map RFC

An RFC has been opened on the subject of whether or not a live military situation map of the war in Afghanistan that is partly sourced to the Taliban should be included on EN Wiki. The RFC can be seen here.FOARP (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible factual errors at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard

Hi all, I wasn't sure who to bring this to, so I thought this group might take a stab at sorting out some errors. In expanding Deaths in 1995 I came across an obituary on Jimmy Pack, Royal Navy captain, curator and first director at the National Museum of the Royal Navy (b. 1914). See: Colin White (9 July 1995). "OBITUARY:Capt Jimmy Pack". The Independent. In the obit in says the Royal Navy Museum was created in 1972. The Portsmouth Historic Dockyard claims in was created in 1911, but it looks like from the obit on Pack that it was potentially an earlier museum called the Victory Museum which became a part of the later Royal Navy Museum. I'm not sure what the true story is. Regardless, this project might be interested in creating an article on Pack, and using the obit to expand the articles on the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and the National Museum of the Royal Navy. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources: "From Vanguard to Trident"; A. Cecil Hampshire, "The Royal Navy Since 1945," 1975. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Convoy PQ 18

Can anyone see a citation missing tag? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No. However the C-rating seems to be done by the bot so I´d assume he has a problem with either the way the sections containing quotes are referenced or with those references that are followed by a note. ...GELongstreet (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I've upgraded it to B class. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign

Hi, after looking at the Anglo-allied Army order of battle section of this article for a while I'm still struggling to make sense of it. It provides statistics such as '7 of 0' men of Wellington's HQ killed in battle which I really can't make any sense of. At the Cavalry Corps section 'of' changes to 'off' as well. If this is some kind of error and I haven't just massively confused the issue then I would appreciate someone taking a look at this. (not sure if this would be seen at the talk page so here I am...!)

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Off, or Of, apparently stands in for Officers. Means it is used where the respective strengths and losses are given in detail differentiating between officers and enlisted men. ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Well that certainly makes more sense now! Don't expect that I'm the only one who's been confused by it though.. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
An excellent example of needless concision! (per WP:NOTPAPER) I'd suggest tweaking the text here from 'of' to 'officers'. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I was too, it is not really all that clear (if it had been Off it might have been a bit more clear). But yes change it to officers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree and was so free to change that. However this way it looks even more clustered up, maybe additional columns for officers and men (like the French already have) would be better. ... GELongstreet (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to require further clean up. In a brief perusal of the list I found two incorrect links, with an artillery captain linked to a 17th C clergyman and an infantry major linked to a 19th C economist. If anyone has the time to do a closer inspection they will likely find more such issues. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare

Discussion may be of interest to this project and is located at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Splitting_part_of_the_list_at_Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of interest (Germany 1936, Four Year Plan)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this Project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I have adjusted the section title to help editors know what the discussion is about. It will help editors to decide if there is potential for them to help and also make it easier to find this section in the archive, if needed later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Friedland Page

Hi, everyone. I am only a casual Wikipedia user, but I have long been bothered by a major error in the article for the Battle of Friendland. The infobox shows the troop numbers as being 80,000 for the Russians and 60,000 for the French and the Russian casualties as being a staggering 30-40,000, despite how this contradicts every mention of the figures in the articles and the sources as directly quoted. Looking at the article's edit history, I have found that this discrepancy appears to be the fault of one user, Nuevousuario1011, who has repeatedly reverted the numbers back to his own version every time a Wikipedia user corrects them.

He claims that his numbers are the accurate ones because they come from the sources, which is demonstrably false, and because they match the numbers given in the versions of the article on the French, Spanish, and Italian Wikipedia pages, which is only partly true, as only the Spanish Wikipedia article has the same figures for both strengths and casualties, while the French page does not have the same figures for casualties and the Italian page does not have the same for either (although all 3 do have a greater figure for Russian forces than French forces). In any case, both the English article and the Spanish article reference David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, which I own a copy of and can verify that it does not support Nuevousuario1011's figures, as Chandler has the French forces at "almost 80,000" (page 576) and Russian casualties as only "between 18,000 and 20,000" (page 582).

Unless I am missing something very important, are the infobox numbers wrong? If so, should someone edit them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8180:B0:6D74:D27A:79EF:CC31 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nuevousuario1011: Can you please add a comment here on your view of the situation? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Well no problem the articles are normally based on estimations when coming to numbers, and sources trend to diffear, however, "casual user", i must thank you for correcting my mistake on Chandler, right now i should correct the number of cassualties to 20,000, however, a very important point to take in mind are what other sources say. Right now i am in no moment to gather all the sources, and materials. An important thing however is if in the order of battle given by Chandler, It includes the army of Benningsen or also the detached units incorporated to his army? Another important question is how many troops from both sides actually engaged. But looking at other sources, the number acording to Prof. K Hickman is of 76,000 Russian troops, 71,000 French troops. with 10,000 casualties 0n the French side. And at least 30,000 casualties on the Russian side. Acording to MP. H Bellocq, of the Russian troops who attacked at Friedland almost two thirds were loosed. Operey's Historian(s) T. Fisher, and Fremont-Barnes give 40,000 russian looses. Napoleon, for his part wrote more than 30,000 acounted in his report. T. Fisher and Fremont-Barnes, also give on the number of French Troops, the "paper numbers", even quoted in Wikipedia, last time, speak about the 10,700 cavalry who charged, as a number just in paper, as those were not at full strength. thus the French numbers are reduced a lot as you have less French troops. A. Pigeard states 56,000 french troops, and 84,000 russians, with 10,000 French arriving late. (thus 66,000), vs 84,000. There are also a source from Nafzigger who broke down the order of battle at 76,200 Russian troops. And 60,206 French troops.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thus said it seems who Chandler so far is the one who give the lowest estimation of cassualties and the highest French numbers. Nevertheless they should be included in the range. So "casual user", thankyou for your helping on editing.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for asking me to answer user "From Hill To Shore".Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Cordially regards
Nuevousuario1011 needs to be blocked for their persistent and deliberate vandalism on Napoleonic articles. At Battle of Friedland there are multiple quotes provided in the references, all of which makes it clear the French had 80,000 men versus 46-60,000 for the Russians. Yet as the IP points out, this has been changed on not one, nor two, nor three, but four separate occasions. FDW777 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
At this stage, FDW777, have become nothing more than a stalker, by the ways i already changed it. And put some sources, saying who i eventually could change it. FDW777 has so far never explained himself, and the northern irish friend still ranting about everything i did since i challenge his new rules. Yet if i provide the sources, those probably will be reverted "casual user". By the ways i am talking to some "casual user", about it, unless you want to came by front.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated to this conversation, but I can attest to FDW777 abusive and stalk-ish behavior with those he disagrees with (I have talked to him before). He really should be reported. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:819D:E692:ED27:878F (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 have prove with his last edits, (4 days later), his insistence with disrupting the work from people who he disagree. Put in doubt any source, when is not what he intended and based himself on even less explicit sources.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC) (Eventually i will probably change it back, as i am not intrested in direct talk with an user as FDW777, who only use talk, as a bashing method against anybody who question him.

If someone have something serious, and wants to help, please you are welcome, but FDW777, have proved who he is at this stage a god in wikipedia, with no intention to help, but rather to discourage and or undermine new users.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Prince's Palace of Monaco 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Fifth-generation warfare

Could someone from experienced editors check the Fifth-generation warfare article and Generations of warfare recent additions of content about the Fifth-generation warfare? Seems a lot as an original research and promotional for some guy (I think of name Abbot) who push that term since 2010 but without some apparent success. Seems as use of Wikipedia as the tool for promotion for an idea or concept. Lack of sources for that term mean lack of acceptance and some content totally not connected with that it's more about cyber warfare or informational warfare especially under "Cases and examples" section where seems to noone of sources use the "fifth-generation warfare" term. 178.222.116.225 (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, it seems as though Fifth-generation warfare is complete WP:SYNTH, none of the refs actually talk about the author and his theory of 5GW, only things it entails, (e.g. using articles about electronic warfare to discuss its impact on 5GW, despite the source making no mention of the latter) and the phrase "emerging theory" raises a lot of red flags for me. Writing about the theory in the context of the book might be fine, but unless I can actually find evidence of people other than the author discussing 5GW specifically, might be worth taking to AFD. Loafiewa (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid there is a lot of strange things under that article (especially under "Cases and examples" section, for example no source mention that term) and also much of that article is copy pasted to Generations of warfare.178.222.116.225 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

George Cross

Given todays news on the NHS, was reading the GC article and checked the MILHIST rating. I've downgraded to C because of citation issues. However, it is very close, so if anyone is interested in medal matters, it would be an easy target to return to B. Monstrelet (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:J-Man11, again

Dear Peacemaker67 I have just removed the sentence "..new force was an administrative formation rather then an operational formation" from 1st Reconnaissance Brigade (United Kingdom). This just demonstrates *again* that J-Man11 does not have the Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit military articles, at the very least after 1900, where this user continues to try and utilize widely available WP:PRIMARYSOURCES.

This ad-hoc, not administrative formation, during the 1980s, would have been, after Transition to war, under a brigadier controlling the armoured reconnaissance regiments of I (BR) Corps providing the corps covering force, the very first force to face multiple motor rifle & tank division first echelons of 3 Red Banner Army ('3rd Shock Army') and possible East German MD III. Not *administrative,* rather right on the very sharp end!!

This user does not fully understand the terms or organisations they are using. In addition, I have had to correct several references to the 1999 SOHB and remove unsourced material. Would you kindly indicate to me please whether I should restart the WP:AN I raised several weeks ago? This user continues to edit post-1900 articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What a strange question to be asking here. It almost looks like you're fishing for your favorite admin to swoop down with the ds hammer and save you the trouble of presenting your case in a venue where things like your extremely rude edit summaries will be examined. Even on the article's talk page you leave a message for a specific admin without even attempting to communicate with User:J-Man11. That's the first thing they'll tell you at WP:AN and it's what anybody here ought to tell you, too. Primergrey (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Take it to wp:ani, it has no place here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine. Yes. About the second time in fifteen years I have lost my temper in such a fashion on this site. Yes, of course I should not have used such language.
What I was more concerned about is the WP:AN thread closed without any action, and I have believed this user to have had learned his lesson and stuck to time periods (before 1900) in which he could properly utilize secondary and tertiary sources, rather than constant confusion and misuse of primary sources.
Yes, I was appealing to the head coordinator of the Milhist project, who has already said, before I proposed the before versus after 1900 compromise to allow J-Man11 to keep editing, that he would block such user should PM67 be satisfied that J-Man11 was not fit to edit. Check the archives - PM67 said pretty much that.
What is needed now is a *decision* on this user's future editing rights, either though AN or another admin. While my intemperate language reflects badly on me, it does not change the core issue -- that a large number of editors have repeatedly expressed their concern over the quality of J-Man11's edits. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
As utterly useless as ANI can be sometimes (I'm still having problems with a user I reported a month or two ago at Egyptian–Libyan War that got little attention and no action), milhist talk is not the proper venue for this issue. And appealing to the top coordinator for disciplinary action because they hold admin permissions makes us seem like a walled garden. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it really isn't at all appropriate, although I can see why an appeal to the project (where editors better understand the problem) might be tempting. I suggest laying out an ANI report with diffs to a half a dozen egregious examples and asking for a TBAN or block due to lack of competence. You could post a neutrally worded link to the discussion on this page so that interested Milhist editors were aware of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate your thoughts. I was in error. You have it exactly, pretty much: people here understand the issues a bit better. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Restarted_proposal_for_topic_ban_:_User:J-Man11. Many thanks and regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, in all fairness to Buckshot06, there is significant history here that some commenters above, such as Primegrey et al., may not be aware of. This issue was brought up here, on this board, just six weeks ago and Peacemaker67 seemed just about ready to indef J-Man11 because of the past issues with edits and "CIR" in general. Buckshot has been working hard to keep up with and clean up many of problematic edits made by Jman, so the venting of some frustration is completely understandable, if not justified. Jman even knows this and will often be the first to acknowledge the issues and even apologize for them. Jman is a well-intentioned and hard-working editor who really does want to contribute, and should only be blocked as a last resort.

    I believe a mentor is needed (perhaps desperately so) and have said so several times now. Others have suggested other restrictions, like T-bans, mandatory use of AfC, etc., etc. Peacemaker67 has already commented on a previous report here, and stated a possible admin response may be forthcoming. There was no mention of AN/ANI. The problems have apparently continued, so Peacemaker67 should follow-up on his previous comments, here, as opposed to forcing Buckshot to take this matter to a useless cesspool like ANI, where often very little meaningful progress is accomplished on actual issues. IMHO - wolf 07:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's all very well, Thewolfchild, but I have had time to reflect, and I have actually interacted significantly with JMan-11, and given the involvement of ArbCom, I am concerned that other admins might (rightly or wrongly) consider me involved, so it would be better to ask the community. Bad as it is, ANI is the place to get this addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Well, that's one of the unfortunate sides of WP in general, and ANI specifically. I've always found you to be one of our most capable admins, and I respect the work you do, especially at milhist, and this is milhist issue. If another admin were to accuse you of being involved, I think that would reflect more poorly on them than you. But, that said, I this now at ANI anyway, and I'm sure everything will turn out just... peachy. Cheers - wolf 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
May I recommend, as I've noticed they've been watching my edits, that you ask User:Dormskirk and User:Rosguill. I know Dormskirk is up to date here, but both have been reviewing my articles and helped me make adjustments, especially at 2nd UK Signal Brigade and my recent Napoleonic-era articles. Of which I might add, Rosguill I had asked to be a mentor, but I don't believe Buckshot saw the tag for specifically what he was looking for then, so it didn't go anywhere. But personally would have liked him as my mentor.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11:, you should probably re-post this at the ANI thread where this to be discussed now. Good luck mate - wolf 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Help!

An entirely self-interested plea for project members to step in and review one of our oldest FAC noms, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Momčilo Đujić/archive1, about a WWII Chetnik leader and priest who collaborated extensively with the Italians then Germans. At the end of the war he escaped the clutches of the Partisans and emigrated to the US where he became a leader in the Serb diaspora, and played a small long-distance part in the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s. Your assistance will be gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Scope and primary topic of the article?

The status quo of the article is the last-stand battle of 21 Sikhs against an Afghan force at Fort Saragarhi on 12 September 1897. The question is to maintain the existing primary topic or expand the scope and primary topic to include other engagements in the region at around the same time - with a need for a total rewrite of the existing article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

Interested readers may want to read Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz#Recent edits. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian submarine Belgorod

Anyone with an interest in the modern Russian navy looking for an article to work on? The above vessel is, apparently, finally nearing completion and has been in the news recently but our article is shockingly bad. Poor grammar and sourcing and parts of it might as well have been written by the Russian government's propaganda department - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I can radically rewrite the article, but I am not looking forward to ending up in a writer conflict. What I can do is edit it and whoever is interested can take it from there.B.Velikov (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The approach taken by u:Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur reminds me in some ways of the departed User:OJOM. This user needs to be reminded that terms like 'vector' for strategic missile submarines are inappropriate for the English Wikipedia, rather than the French Wikipedia, and I trust that administrators will be ready to continue counseling him/her. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
More information, latest estimates, on Belgorod at http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This is exactly what I meant, when I said I am unwilling to go into writer conflict. He will keep on reverting to his own content, on, and on, and on, without even realising what the problem is. This kind of self-serving editors get a kick not from conveying objective information, but from having the content EXACTLY the way they want it.B.Velikov (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tito–Stalin split needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Tito–Stalin split; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! I just reviewed myself and so it actually just needs one more positive review to get it over the line. It is an interesting episode in early Cold War history and the article is well-written. Help out a fellow Milhist member and take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Military physician ranks of the British Army

Over on Wikidata, I am trying to map out and reference the ranks of military physicians in the British Army, so that we can flesh out our records of medical officers. Wikipedia's article on Royal Army Medical Corps has a useful table on changes in the rank structure over the 19th century (though the structures prior to 1891 are unsourced). I have come across an unusual rank that we don't appear to cover called the "staff assistant surgeon." I had thought this was just an assistant surgeon in a staff role but a London Gazette entry from 1867 shows several staff assistant surgeons becoming assistant surgeons, in the same way that it displays promotions.[11] Can anyone point me to some source material that may explain what is going on here? This could be indicating transition of officers from staff roles to field roles at the same rank, or it could be indicating that staff assistant surgeon was an inferior rank and they had all been promoted. Or it could be representing something else entirely.
On a related subject, Royal Army Medical Corps shows no changes in the rank structure after 1898 but I have seen references to British Army officers born after 1898 being referred to as "surgeon colonel." Does anyone know if the old ranks were revived later or could the "surgeon" just be a description and not part of the rank title? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The pattern seems to be that assistant surgeons are always noted as belonging to a particular regiment while staff assistant surgeons never are. For example see the second page here [12] and the different titles of the men reporting medical cases here [13]. This suggests that being a 'staff' something did indeed mean that they were attached to the staff and not a particular regiment. This [14] report lists assistant surgeons being made staff assistant surgeons and other staff assistant surgeons in turn being made assistant surgeons, which seemingly demonstrates that the ranks were equivalent and easily switchable. I realise that these aren't the secondary sources you were likely looking for but I thought I'd attempt to stick my oar in anyway! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the ODNB entry of James Borland [15] states that '...the duke of York's disastrous campaign in Flanders in 1793–5, during which general hospitals were established in addition to regimental hospitals. Borland emphasized the adverse effect of this development on regimental medical officers, who resented the appointment of civilian physicians and staff surgeons over their heads to run the general hospitals.'Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Edward Spiers retired from Leeds University is the expert in this vague time period. His address is on the Web. Someone could just send him an e-mail. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen the word "surgeon" prefixing RAMC ranks after the turn of the century (apart from surgeon-general, of course, and even that only survived until 1918). Probably just a mistake. The Royal Navy still uses the prefix, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the replies, you have provided some useful insight.
@Necrothesp: This entry from the London Gazette from 1954 lists Edwin William Hayward in the middle of the left column being raised through several ranks with a surgeon prefix following a change in his commission. It isn't an isolated error though as he is promoted to Surgeon Colonel in 1965.[16] One interesting point is that he was serving in the Royal Horse Guards, so it may have been an odd quirk of that regiment (I believe the Horse Guards have had some peculiarities in their rank structure over the years compared to the regular army). From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
They still are in the Household Cavalry. "The Household Cavalry was the first unit in the Army to employ a commissioned doctor in their regiment 350 years ago. Much later with the creation of the RAMC, other units in the Army took their doctors from there but the Cavalry kept their own. Jedge, however, is the last of his line. As a final rationalisation, his replacement will come from the Royal Army Medical Corps and will have experience of working in a range of different units and cap badges." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Good spot. From further research in the London Gazette it would appear that, despite the above, these officers are always actually commissioned into the RAMC (Lewin), transfer to the Blues & Royals when appointed RMO (Lewin), and then transfer back to the RAMC if posted elsewhere (Matthews at top of RAMC list). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Image discussion

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • What does this have to do with MILHIST? (t · c) buidhe 10:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Presumably because the page is marked as being "within the scope of the Military history WikiProject", though I really can't see why unless it is because of the temporary victory arches that were once there. The tag should probably be removed. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Boldly removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon

Hi. Can I interest anyone here in taking a look at the lead section of Napoleon and my comments about it at Talk:Napoleon#Lead: length and recent addition? Thanks in advance! Lennart97 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

ISBN converters

FAR for Hispanic Americans in World War II

I have nominated Hispanic Americans in World War II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Azeri formations in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS

Hello, I noticed that there are two articles - Azerbaijani SS volunteer formations and Azerbaijani Legion - which have many problems. The issue is that these two articles are practically the same and improper in many respects. Moreover, I think it would be better to split the contents of the articles into the actual units, still ensuring that they have the category of "Azeri formations in the German Army and Waffen-SS", or something along these lines. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They were different formations, two articles are valid. What are the other issues?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
OK I can see now what one of the issues was, too much material about the SS in the non-SS article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

Hello all, I recently finished my page: Régiment Royal Louis, but I'm having issues with the 'Notable Commanders' tab. You'll notice there are two commanders shown, however I can't actually get the second to show up unless I use the [link word] tag, instead of the [[fr:Officer name|Full Title]]. Any help here is welcome! J-Man11 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The correct syntax was already in the body of the article. The infobox now uses the same. MB 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

FAC that needs attention

Hi all, there's a FAC pending at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberté-class battleship/archive1 that could use some reviewers to avoid being archived. If you have a minute to spare, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've have commented there. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
As have I. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
And me! - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Helmet articles that need worked on?

Is there a list of military *equipment* or helmets that need worked on by chance? Id love to start improving those. So far helmets on the list of articles needing work aren't grouped by object instead rather by name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RexEstChristus33AD (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi RexEstChristus33AD, thanks for offering to improve these articles. Coincidentally I have been working on 19th-century Britsh Army headgear recently. I am not aware of a specific list of helmets that need working on but you can use WP:Petscan to create lists of articles in need of work. For example this query will produce a list of all combat helmet articles shorter than 5,000 bytes and therefore almost certainly in need of expansion (you can tweak the number of bytes on page properties, for example when set to 1,200 bytes you get a list of 10 combat helmet articles that are little more than two sentences long). You can also search for articles tagged with problems, for example this query will give you a list of five combat helmet articles tagged for problems with their sourcing. I hope that was of some help - Dumelow (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Dumelow I appreciate the help. :)--RexEstChristus33AD (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1582)

Battle of Dewair (1582) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been recreated in a very poor state. The previous version of the article was moved to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) due to being a giant, badly referenced mess subject to constant revisions by IP editors and other new editors, to the extent it was impossible to know what version of the article was any good. Per WP:DRAFTIFY I guess the recreation could be seen as an objection to the original version being moved to draft space, so the next step is supposed to be AFD if the subject it's deemed to be notable. However there aren't any instructions on what to do if the problem isn't notability. Other than keeping the article stubbed unless the content is properly referenced, does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do? FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The main space article was deleted in the last hour. Thanks to User:Yamaguchi先生 for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yellow admiral rank

Hi, I've already questioned Admiral (Royal Navy)'s coverage of the rank of yellow admiral on its talk page and would appreciate input there, but have a more general query about it for here. If one were going to improve coverage on the rank or create an article for it, what should it be called? I've seen the rank, given to some post-captains deemed not suitable for promotion to rear-admiral of the blue, described as "Yellow Admiral", "Superannuated Rear-Admiral", and "Rear Admiral without distinction of colours" and am truly not sure which of these is the 'correct' title, if any. Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am most familiar with the term through some good quality historical fiction, where I have seen it a number of times with an explanation - such as Patrick O'Brian, The Yellow Admiral. It is not a rank. The ranks are: rear-admiral, vice admiral and admiral. The colours are their appointments, with succession by seniority through the coloured squadrons. A yellow admiral has no flag. Taking the yellow is to step outside the chain of succession. However, it did not preclude shore based appointments which had no flag. See also.[20] Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to argue that yellow admiral (or whatever you wish to call it) was itself a different rank to other flag ranks because it clearly was not. Sources such as [21], [22], and [23] (search for 'superannuated') do demonstrate how they were differentiated from the other admirals in a similar way to those who did raise their flag. I really just want to figure out what I should be calling the position! As a side note, now I'm looking I do see quotes stating that men with this designation could hold shore appointments but I haven't found an example of such and would be very interested if anyone could provide one. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it isn't really a position but supernumerary - like the cricket position, left right out. Sorry I can't help with the last part except that they were appointments without a flag/squadron. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with Cinderella157 here. The colours were promotions as can be seen in the London Gazette.[24] However, the situation is complicated as the terminology of the rank structure changed over the centuries. I have never encountered the term "yellow admiral" before, either in official records or colloquially. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The risk of becoming a 'yellow admiral' is a significant theme in the later books in the excellent Aubrey–Maturin series of novels. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Its use in fiction has already been noted. We will need something more reliable to confirm it wasn't just an expression coined by a novelist to make the non-active status more accessible to his readers. As a side note, I have read historical naval fiction from other authors and never encountered the term. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It certainly pre-dates O'Brien and has been used in fiction and non-fiction before him, it seems to crop up more in fiction than not but here's a few non-fiction examples from pre-1969: This 1901 work discusses Charles Bullen and describes him as a "yellow admiral" for many years before his recall to the fleet. This 1933 work defines it as "the Yellow stands for the eighteenth century epithet applied to an Admiral placed on the Retired List without ever...". It was mentioned in parliament in 1861 as being a means of getting rid of captains before they were entitled to the highest pay increment in their rank. Defined in an 1867 nautical dictionary as: "A retired post - captain , who , not having served his time in that rank , is not entitled to his promotion to the active flag". Google ngrams will be useless in this instance because of confusion with the butterfly - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: There's a useful definition of the term here. As for examples, here's one; in 1846, Francis Beaufort (inventor of the Beaufort scale) reached flag rank and was promptly retired or as the London Gazette nicely puts it "Captain Francis Beaufort has been added to the list of Captains of the Royal Navy who have accepted the rank of Retired Rear Admiral of Her Majesty's Fleet."[25]. In 1848 he was appointed hydrographer to the Navy [26]. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a good explanation in Rodger, N.A.M. (2004). The Command of the Ocean. London: Penguin. ISBN 0713994118. pp. 325-326 on how it was introduced in July 1747 as "rear-admiral without distinction of colour" to allow "the Admiralty to reach as far down the captains' list as it required" to promote captains considered competent and not infirm to admiral's rank while "providing the rest [those bypassed] with an honourable retreat from service as Yellow Admirals." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The clearest definition of the system and its changes that I've found is probably the explanation used in sources such as [27] (p. 1085-6). It was undisputedly started in 1747 but its end date is more obscure. Were yellow admirals both the men promoted as superannuated rear-admirals before 1827 and those promoted as retired rear-admirals after 1827? I might still be describing the term as 'yellow admiral' but it seems more and more likely that this was as much a nickname used for the rank that has become more popular as time has passed than anything else, with possibly 'superannuated rear admiral' being the term officially used by the admiralty? Happy to be proven wrong! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The term yellow admiral is a colloquialism. It was an unofficial term for not being promoted (purely by seniority) into a couloured squadron - ie there was no yellow squadron. So it was a made up phantom. The system of coloured squadrons was abandoned in 1864. There is a reference at Rear-Admiral of the Blue but the link is broken. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Steinman's Status as USCG Member

Please consider offering an opinion at Talk:Alan_M._Steinman#Steinman's_Status_as_USCG_Member. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Tangent to military history

[I learnt at Wikiproject History that you are more active and wish to have opinion of experienced editors.
André Wink has written military history of medieval Indian rulers but that is not his specialization.]

(1) Can editors check if the tag on André Wink is justified?

(2) Can the reviews of a book be covered in such extensive detail, quoting multiple lines from each?

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of potential interest to project

An editor has requested for Engagement near Carthage to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Engagement near Carthage, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Hog Farm Talk 02:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions for forts

I've long wondered what the proper title for Fort Hovey (Fort Curtis) should be. I'm almost certain that the current disambiguation is not how this should be done, but not sure what it should be. Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri, {{Cite Collins 2016}}, and The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 all use Fort Curtis, although the latter two only mention the place in maps it looks like. However, the primary topic for "Fort Curtis" is probably a different ACW fortification in Helena, Arkansas. I won't be putting in a formal requested move until I can run to the library and consult Suderow's Thunder in Arcadia Valley and Busch's Fort Davidson and the Battle of Pilot Knob, but I would like to know what I need to be looking for for a potential replacement name. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, Fort Curtis is a redirect to Fort Hovey (Fort Curtis), so the only mention on WP to the other Fort Curtis is the last bit at Fort Hovey (Fort Curtis). Per this n-gram, we only significantly see "Fort Curtis" in sources. They are most prominent in 1865 and twenty years later - strongly suggesting we are specifically dealing with the ACW. I also did google searches on Ft Hovey and Ft Curtis. I did a scan that excluded wiki mirrors, many more hits are related to the subject under the name Ft Curtis than the alternative. I have also done a google books searches with "fort X" and Ironton,[28][29] with 60 odd hits for Hovey and 80 odd for Curtis. There are duplicates which would need to be eliminated. Similar Google Scholar searches[30] [31] give 15 hits for Curtis and 13 for Hovey without duplicates (I can see). The same google search (but for all)[32] [33] has 490 results for Hovey and 2480 for Curtis. The broad results suggest that Curtis is the common name but the distinction is not as clear for book sources and google scholar but it still appears to lean to Curtis. The title should probably be one or the other (not this ambiguous title) the lead (with bolding) can clarify the matter and there can be redirects for the other. Hope this is some help. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Mount Tumbledown

Can I get a sanity check of an edit I've just completed. I noticed a little while ago that there seemed to be some wikifiddling on Battle of Mount Tumbledown, with what appeared on face value to be exaggerating the British casualties see this revision. Included in the example is the Argentine claim to have shot down a Harrier, when it was already noted in the article that none were lost. It also appeared that casualties from the attack on Sapper Hill were being lumped into a different battle and the CVRT damaged by a land mine on Sapper Hill also being included. I corrected it with a source I had to hand [34] intending to add definitive figures from the Official History of the Falklands Campaign. I was surprised to see my edit reversed this evening to restore the previous edit. So I've completed my edit with reference to the Official History. Would someone mind running an eye over it and commenting on its accuracy.

As an aside, I've noticed the quality of a lot of the articles on Falklands battles deteriorating over the last couple of years, with a lot of what I would describe as unencyclopedic content being added. I would welcome a fresh set of eyes to give me feedback on whether they consider my comments to be appropriate. WCMemail 23:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the Battle of Mount Tumbledown (as written) is inclusive of the battle at Sapper's Hill. However, the lead does not make this clear. I don't see a separate article for the engagement at Sapper's Hill. I think that the article would benefit by being restructure to the more conventional format of: background, prelude, battle and aftermath. The two engagements would then both fall as sections under the main "battle" heading. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Yes last revision was done by me, about that maybe we should discuss the integrity of those articles, still, the edition of 15 who someone maded was reverted to 10, then to 9 and then to 8.
Mount Tumbledown, encompas the actions at Williams and Sapper Hill, if not we should redraw the article itself, by the ways, Argentinian losses were 30 killed at Williams, Sapper Hill, and Tumbledown. Not just at Tumbledown, so what we should do about it?

Furthermore the article states 7 killed on the attack on the left flank and 2 killed on the right flank, thus 9 not 8. While a casualties breakdown as follows, 8 Scotts Guards, 1 Welsh Guard and 1 royal enginer, who means 10, and the claim of 15 casualties were from the 3 Para and the Reme soldiers killed during the artillery exchange at the "softening up"Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think this is a good-faith misunderstanding of the scope of the article. While Wee Curry Monster is identifying the casualties just at Tumbledown, the scope of the article is the attack on the heights, collectively. Consequently, the status quo figures would be appropriate. I have edited the lead to better reflect the scope of the article as represented by the body of the article. I hope that this resolves the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It's improved in that its no longer including exaggerated claims such as the Harrier and helicopter losses. But I think you'll agree it's still a confusing mess with a lot of extraneous information. Do we really need to include all those quotes and there appears to have been an effort to name as many conscripts as possible. Would you agree this is ripe for a rewrite? WCMemail 06:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
PS just noticed the same at Battle of Two Sisters, the casualties included 3 helicopters damaged in an air raid on Mount Kent and a Harrier lost on 30 May supporting the SAS on Mount Kent. WCMemail 06:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Those loses should be removed from the current page, but must be at the assault on Mount Kent article, 29 of may to 11 of June. In any case the British lost 10 killed on the assault, while the Argentinian loses are unknown, unless we took into acount the entire area of operations, in this case 30 Argentinians were killed and 15 British. Besides this there still some missing articles about the Falklands war, for example, we have a link to Belgrano and Sheffield, but not of the action of those days, and there are no articles about Fanning Head, Kidney Island, Murrell Bridge, and Camber Peninsula combats.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No they shouldn't be in the Assault on Mount Kent, the helicopter losses occurred long after Mount Kent had been secured and was not part of that action. The Harrier loss was already accounted for. Not sure the minor unit actions warrant articles. If I remember correctly Fanning Head was a small observation post, Kidney Island was a minor naval action that damaged a Coast Guard patrol ship, Murrell Bridge was recce patrol that bumped into Argentine forces, by the Camber Peninsular combat I presume you're referring to the diversionary attack in rigid raiders in which the Argentine hospital ship used her search lights to illuminate British forces? Rather bizarrely the Murrell Bridge action has been turned into an Argentine film as a major victory which may confer some notability. I was hoping to get some help to do a major refurbishment of the battle articles. I think I may need to start a fresh thread. WCMemail 16:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster:Ok, over Kent, your point is logic, and about the four actions who i mentioned although were small, nevertheless they still of some importance, more infromation is, if acurate, never problematic, still, i don't know about Murrell Bridge being considered a major victory by the argentinians, even less about a film, it was one action in wich the Argentinians won, like Many Branch Point, or to contrast it with the British victory at Top Malo House. Still the actions regarding the Sheefield, Belgrano, Atlantic Conveyor should be considered.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
About the pages in current existance, So far i can tell you who Mount Longdon seems the best article, like Wireless Ridge, Two sisters is also fine right now, Harriet on the other hand is problematic with the numbers, as far as i remembered the British lost one or two soldiers, not seven, but the issue on Tumbledown, is who we don't know the total argentine killed at the assault on Tumbledown, we have the statistic of the "BIM 5" and "RIM 4" loses on those days, on their perimeter, but not an specific one for each action, We do know how many British were killed on the assault, but if we follow the same criteria to determine the argentinian killed, the number "15 killed" is apropiate, with the argentinians killing many during the preliminar bombardment counter firingNuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Madeleine Sharp

Madeleine Sharp served in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. Can anyone source dates, or her rank, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Joined Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service Reserve and commissioned as sister 6 November 1944. No promotions and relinquished her commission 26 January 1954 - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of edits

Hi,

I have been adding new content to the pitched battle article and was hoping for a review of the edits. I will continue to be adding amendments over the next few days.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbutterell (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal/Call: Battle near the Irghiz River

It is the first ever Khwarezm - Mongol battle. I am working on it, assistance from anyone with the knowledge on the topic will be appreciated. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_near_the_Irghiz_River --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

research about the Wikiproject

Hi, just to let you know that according to our research, this Wikiproject is the second most successful Wikiproject in history. Pundit|utter 11:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Project on Scimitar

Over the next week, there is going to be a work project on Scimitar by the Wikipedia Discord server as part of an attempt to get Scimitar to B-class and we would appreciate your help. They are trying to get all vital articles to B-class. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon GAR

Napoleon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Triganocerta GAR

Can someone uninvolved help close the Battle of Triganocerta GAR?--Catlemur (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification of upcoming Wiki Education course

Hi all, I'm User:Ian (Wiki Ed) (and also User:Guettarda). I work for the m:Wiki Education Foundation, and as part of my work I often teach 6-week courses to subject matter experts on how to contribute to Wikipedia in their field of expertise. I'm posting here to give everyone a heads-up that beginning next week, I'm working with a group of peace and security studies experts to improve articles related to War in Afghanistan (2001–present), the War on terror, and the ongoing impacts of war, with the goal of updating them prior to the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Most of the participants who will be editing are professors/researchers in various peace and security studies departments of U.S. universities, and I will be walking them through important policies to ensure they use reliable sources to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the impacts of war.

Once the course gets started, you'll be able to see user names and articles they worked on here, and all of the editors contributing as part of our course will have a banner on their user page indicating that. I will monitor their contributions closely, especially when they're still working in sandboxes, but I welcome any feedback you may have on their contributions. Feel free to ping me here or post to my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate article?

Is Fort Ontario and Fort Oswego the same place? Broichmore (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that I am aware, they may be in a similar place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
They may have been on opposite sides of the mouth of the Oswego River. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I think they are almost in the same place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
This[35] suggests that they are two separate places about 100 metres apart - presumably one replaced the other.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
On consideration, I don't think Google is a better source than the contemporary map that appears in the article and is quite clear on the locations of the two forts.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Raid on the Medway

I've added a number of ships lost during the Raid on the Medway to the List of shipwrecks in the 17th century. Assistance in adding in other vessels mentioned in the raid article to the list, properly cited, would be appreciated. 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard (1631) was sunk as a blockship too - Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Also Norway Merchant and Helverson (aka Hilversum), also sunk (plus a horse transport boat Prosperous). All according to pp182-183 of Rogers, P. G. (28 February 2017). The Dutch in the Medway. Casemate Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4738-9570-6. who reports a letter from navy clerk James Norman listing the losses. From the context they would have to be English Navy vessels, I think - Dumelow (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The Helverson was raised but sank again on 22 July after colliding with the wreck of Norway Merchant per Historic England - Dumelow (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Fox, Frank L. (16 July 2009). The Four Days' Battle of 1666: The Greatest Sea Fight of the Age of Sail. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78346-963-5. page 275 has the Victory, St George and Royal Katherine scuttled at Dockyard Reach on the 13th. Also Sancta Maria, intended as a blockship but was mishandled by her crew and ran aground en route at Cockham Wood Reach and was burnt by the Dutch on the 12th. The third-rate Golden Phoenix, third-rate House of Sweeds, fourth-rate Welcome and fifth-rate Leicester were scuttled at Woolwich and Blackwall on the orders of Prince Rupert - Dumelow (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the indents! Winfield, Rif (10 March 2010). British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1603–1714: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-78346-924-6. lists the above from Fox plus the "flyboats" Fortune and Horseman and "several merchantmen - Dumelow (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I've added in the second Helverson sinking and Vanguard. With the others, I cannot identify dates from the links given. Needs editors who have the books in question to add the entries. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Knuckey Lagoon

Knuckeys Lagoon was used as a "Z" Special Unit Transmitter Site dates during 1947-1948. World War 2 was clearly over in 1945. I cannot figure out how it was a Z Special Unit Transmitting building and where would it be located in Australia especially after the war? Adamdaley (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • No idea what the history of this site might be, but it often took a long time for surplus sites to be sold off after the war. The Disposals Commission had its busiest years in 1946 and 1947 and wasn't disbanded until 1949, and the modern ADF still has some sites of marginal value that were originally acquired during the war. There are some references that cover this process in general at Demobilisation of the Australian military after World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • If I interpreting the sale of this site 130 pounds (Pounds is this correct for the time period?), that would be a cheap buy of the transmitter room and powerhouse. Adamdaley (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The Australian pound lasted until 14 February 1966. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for military radios?

Is there a suitable infobox for military (or other I guess) radio or general communications? We have a fairly useful one for radar, but I couldn't find anything suitable for radio (radio stations yes) or electronics. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that I can see, Maury. Browsing through some articles on major communications systems, there seems to be a need for one too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian corvette lost in 1876

Can anyone assist with the identity of a Russian corvette that foundered off Piraeus on 15 April 1876? Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, Nothing in Polish I can see. Did you ask at WT:RUSSIA? You probably need someone who can search in Cyrillic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I haven't asked at WT:RUSSIA. As the loss was at Piraeus, I would hope that it would have been covered in contemporay Greek newspapers too. Will point both WPs to this question. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Explosive rat

Few years ago I wrote this up, but now I stumbled upon this and I am not sure if it is notable. Thoughts? Would someone care to AfD this? Or find more sources and remove the notability tag I just added? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a look and found plenty of mentions in reliable sources so it passes for me. I've removed the tag and added a bit of new information - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mystery photograph

If anyone knows the specifics of this event, maybe you could suggest a renaming at Commons.

Fort Sam Houston. Courtmartial who tried Major Charles U. Peuroses

This was uploaded by a now Vanished User in 2015. It is incorrectly categorized as the person Sam Houston, who died in 1863. He served in the U.S. Army: 1813–1818, but the American flag only had 15 stars at that time. Fort Sam Houston was built in 1876. I never heard of the alleged defendant Major Charles U. Peuroses. It looks like the image might have come from "An Inventory of the William Deming Hornaday Photograph Collection at the Texas State Archives, about 1890-about 1940, undated". Didn't know what else to do with the mystery, so thought I'd drop it here. Cheers. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That is an odd surname. If it was handwritten or in faded type, it may be a misreading of "Penrose." Also, I'd take the middle initial with a grain of salt. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66: I think I solved it. Court Martial of Major General Charles W Penrose, Texas, 1907.[36] From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
He was only a major, not a major-general. The incident is question is the Brownsville affair - Dumelow (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking into that. The source I linked above showed him in the electronic text as a major general but in the report itself as a major. He appears to have comanded three companies, so major would be the right rank. This web source has a more detailed account than our article.[37] From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, Dumelow - could either of you elaborate on the reasons for and the outcome of this court martial at Brownsville affair , or at least reference it? Right now it is just mentioned in a photo, plus I added an unreferenced sentence saying it occurred... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about it really but I've found a reference and added a little detail - Dumelow (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on article name - RP-3 ("60lb rocket")

At Talk:RP-3 there is discussion about the correct article name for this Second World War air to ground weapon. In lieu of a formal Requested Move perhaps more opinions could expand the discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Winterberg tunnel

Hello, WikiProject Military history,

I came across a series of paid editors who were focused on three articles which include this one, the purported site of a World War I tragedy. All three articles are overloaded with references and I think that editors here would have the best idea whether or not this is a hoax or promotion to boost the reputation of Pierre Malinowski who is their main focus on Wikipedia. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

These articles have had heated discussion on the French Wikipedia where all of the associated editors have been blocked as they are on the English Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Fakes trees as camouflage

Recently an article was written on pl wiki about the topic of Fake tree as camouflage (a British tactic in WWI?). See English ref used and another one here. Commons has a category commons:Category:Camouflage tree . I thought about adding an entry for this to English Wikipedia but I cannot find much in sources, and I have doubts if it is a notable topic (I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in academic sources). Still, maybe someone else can dig up more sources and start something. The topic is, at the very least, "cool" (check the photos). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

They were used by artillery observers during World War I. There's a good example of a fake tree used by German artillery observers in World War I on display at the Australian War Memorial ([38]). The Smithonian Magazine also has an article on them [39], as does the IWM [40]. While not involving faked trees per-se, Dutch navy personnel disguised HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen (1936) as an island covered in foliage during the ship's escape from the Netherlands East Indies during World War II. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The Journey of the Camouflage Tree (D'oh! Already linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
This is already mentioned in Military camouflage. "Another early trend was building observation trees, made of steel with bark camouflage. Such trees became popular with the British and French armies in 1916." From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, Alansplodge, Nick-D, thanks. So probably notable enough for a stand-alone article? Yay or nay? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there seem to be plenty of high quality sources. The topic is also quite interesting. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle off Noordhinder Bank question

Battle off Noordhinder Bank is it really a battle, it seems more like a minor skirmish. I've checked what sources I have but they don't name it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, sorry I can't help on your main question (though your move of the page to "Action off..." seems reasonable). Just wanted to note that the link for the commander is incorrect, James Domville would have been 72 at the time! It is presumably the fifth baronet listed at Domville baronets. There's a bit of confusion in the article text too. In the background it is noted that Lieutenant Domville is on Barbados, in the section on the action it says Domville took over as "captain" of Barbados when the man in question was wounded, so was there a more senior officer in command for the first part of the action? - Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
He commanded the four trawlers, Barbados had its own captain. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah understood, thanks for clarifying Keith-264. Out of curiosity, did RN officers always outrank those from the RNR (as a Lieutenant-Commander Hawthorne was also present)? - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I've altered the wording and rv the erroneous WL; I don't know about precedence but it seems so. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Keith, looks good - Dumelow (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Eythenkew! Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues with wikilinking the Imperial German Navy and its translation. I'm not clever enough to fix them, I'm afraid, but if someone would take a look? Monstrelet (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ACW editors needed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1

It looks like this FAR is winding down, but there's still some work needed. I'm going to try to help as I can, but I don't own a full bio of Sherman, so I won't be able to address all of it. Any help would be appreciated; hopefully this FA on a significant ACW figure can be restored. Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

List of strategic bombing over Germany in World War II

This article is degenerating into mutual accusations about the aims of Allied bombing - in the text of the article!! - and needs additions from proper scholarly sources. Do I understand correctly the aim of area bombing was to break the will of the general population? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is a mess - if it is, as claimed by the title, a list, then it is a colossally incomplete one - with the navbox at the bottom of the article arguably making the article redundant anyway (or at least doing a better job of presenting a list of strategic bombing against Germany. The introductionary paragraphs seem to be POV forked out of Strategic bombing during World War II.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed the editorialising, which was basically far right propaganda (arguing that the Allies committed "cultural genocide"!). There's a very good article to be written on this topic, but this content isn't in any way useful. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review needed at ACR

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, a joint nom of Sturm and I is just about good to go, but is short a source review. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

May Autocheck report needs the last few checked by a human

G'day all, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for May has a handful of articles outstanding. Given we are now looking at the July one, it would be good to archive this one soon. Many hands and all that... Thanks in anticipation! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC) for the coords

Good deal, thanks! 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sydney Rigby Wason

I have just put together a quick article on Lt-Gen Sydney Rigby Wason following a query on the Ref Desk. There wasn't much about him online and I was relying on generals.dk for some career dates, but Wikipedia tells me this is a deprecated source. Can anyone help with sources for his appointment to Western Command in 1936, the School of Artillery Larkhill in 1938 and I Anti-Aircraft Corps in 1940 please? Or any other details? Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Try searching in the London Gazette. Always good for military news, promotions, medals etc. (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots, I found his commission in 1907, award of MC in 1917 and award of CB in 1941 (didn't know about that one), but the appointments above remain obscure. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: Try the Army Lists - they are available on the National Library of Scotland website. Nthep (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Alansplodge. Just a note that the Gazette only uses full name for first commission and medal awards. If you search with his initials "S. R. Wason" you should get his promotions and appointments. Eg. the appointment to Western Command staff in 1936 and as commandant of the school of artillery in 1938 that you were looking for. I suspect this appointment to a special employment in 1940 is the AA command, it was followed soon after by appointment to the acting rank of lt-gen (which would be the right rank for a corps command). The Army List for 1941 doesn't give appointments for the generals (possibly a wartime measure?) - Dumelow (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Dumelow, you've done the hard work for me! Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: all you have to do now is to assimilate that info into the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, if only the need to work for a living didn't interrupt my editing time... Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Now done - many thanks one and all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Resolved

Battle of Dewair (1582)

I have nominated this article for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes (military biographies)

Hi - The issue of flags in infoboxes has cropped up again. I have been trying to establish consistency in this area. Please could someone take a look at Talk:Jan Smuts#Flags in infoboxes. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Royal George

Can anyone identify the coastguard hulk Royal George that sank at Portsmouth on 15 August 1876? Was she formerly HMS Royal George (1827)? None of the other ships listed at HMS Royal George, Royal George (ship) of Royal George (East Indiaman) seem to fit. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Likely the yacht Royal George. In the March 1876 Navy List she is listed as a "yacht" and "receiving ship", and a newspaper report on her sinking states plans were being made to raise her. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
My source also states that attempts were being made to raise her, but no reports of success in the next month. Will leave unlinked for now, but do a specific search when I finish going through British newspapers for 1876 for shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Anyone who is interested in the area of the Napoleonic Wars and wouldn't mind checking my new article: 1st Swiss Regiment (France). I'm using it as my sort-of "template" for my future units units which you can see my plans on my new template here: Template:Foreign regiments of the French Imperial Army during the Napoleonic Wars. For some reason I don't get tagged on messages, so if anyone does review it or check it, have suggestions, etc. please tag my name or put it on my talk page. Cheers! J-Man11 (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@J-Man11: I am going to join you in your undertaking because I am also very interested in some of the foreign units in the template. I might even create some of the articles myself because I have a wealth of information on them. Best --Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a worthy undertaking. Just to note that the link on the template to Black Pioneers is incorrect, going to a British unit rather than that known in French as the "Bataillon des Pionniers Noirs". I have it on a list of articles I was planning to start; I'll try to get around to it soonish - Dumelow (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, some units shares names which I need to fix.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@J-Man11:, I made a couple of minor tweaks. There's a completely irrelevant discussion in the talk page that belongs somewhere else.Chuntuk (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry @Chuntuk: that's because the page was initially the sandbox, so I have to remove that.. It's no longer needed. J-Man11 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Navypedia a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks awfully like a blog that someone has been commercialised to make a bit of money out of. The objective seems to be to point the user at some self-published books. (See how the books are listed on Amazon.) Might have reliable stuff in it, but no way to know how much of it is simply recycled out of Wikipedia. The real test would be to see if the books had references in them - but I am not going to buy one to find out. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I doubt it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I spot checked the list of military vehicles on the site. Did not list Daimler Dingo. Since this was a very well thought of armoured car, produced right through WW2, this omission is not a good indicator of content quality. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
There are a few isolated instances of it being used as a reference on en-Wiki. I only used it to provide a wikilink at List of shipwrecks in October 1876#4 October for the French aviso Phoque (1860), which is outside Shipscribe's dates of coverage by a year. The site itself has not been used as a reference by me. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Large-Scale Exercise 2021

Hello, I just created an article for Large-Scale Exercise 2021, the largest US Navy exercise in 40 years. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't "large" good enough any more? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Because bigger is better...;-). In any case, I added a couple of sources and some information. I doubt we'll see much until the exercise concludes. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

William IV

I've queried the William IV article's coverage of his service as an admiral here and would appreciate it if someone with more access to sources than me could provide some context to prove me right or wrong. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Help needed

There's still some automatic b-class assessments that need manually checked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#AutoCheck_report_for_June. There's a large batch for July, so if we could get some attention on knocking out the June ones, that would be very helpful. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Revenge

HMS Revenge lists HMS Revenge (1755), which Threedecks has an entry for. However, Wadia, R. A. (1986) [1957]. The Bombay Dockyard and the Wadia Master Builders. Bombay. p. 331.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), has her as a 1754 East Indiaman. Note that both sources give the same fate for the vessel. Question is, which is correct, 1754 East Indiaman or 1755 Sixth rate? Pinging our resident HEIC expert Acad Ronin for his input. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I've amended the HMS Revenge article to reflect that she was neither HMS, nor an East Indiaman. She was launched on 22 September 1755 for the Bombay Marine, the EIC's naval arm, so a naval vessel, and not a merchantman, but not part of the Royal Navy. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I've moved her to the correct list of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hello friends! WP:Medievalwiki is holding an open session tomorrow - Wikimania's Unconference on Monday 16 August at 12pm (UTC). We'd love to chat to more medieval wikipedians! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation of Ukraine

.Lembit Staan (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Naming Pages

I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox. I'm currently going by the title for this unit as the Légion de Conflans. However, it went under many names, notably also Chasseurs de Fischer, Régiment de Saxe Hussards, and Régiment de Conflans Hussars. So I'm in a predicament because I'm not sure what to call the article when it comes out. It is my understanding the name should be that of which the unit had for the longest period, though in this units' case that would be the Saxe Hussards, but it was only known as this for just under 5 years. J-Man11 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Overly dramatic tone?

Rather than get into an edit war over the matter, I thought it would be best to discuss it here.

Over on Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, I edited the line "At around 17:30, after the raider had failed to reply for 15 minutes, Sydney signalled by light "Show your secret sign"; Detmers knew that Kormoran was in trouble" to "At around 17:30, after the raider had failed to reply for 15 minutes, Sydney signalled by light "Show your secret sign"; Detmers knew that Kormoran's ruse had failed". I stated that the previous tone was overly dramatic.

This was reverted claiming I was changing cited content, which I reverted stating that I had not changed the cited content only its tone, which was reverted again telling me I can't "fiddle" with things properly cited.

I don't have a specific section in the MOS I can point to, but I do believe that overly dramatic language is discouraged. Such language would be appropriate for fiction and if you are writing a non-fiction book you might wish to write things that way to draw readers in, but it does not seem appropriate to me for encyclopedic content.

There are other sections I don't like the tone off, but this I think is the worst offender.

Interestingly, the other user's talk page is filled with disputes and their edit history is almost entirely reverts, so I'm tempted to just say they like shit-stirring. But, I figured that getting some other points of view would be better before jumping on that. Kylesenior (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Well without being able to view the source (thus context), Trouble and "ruse had failed" do not necessarily mean the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The very next section explains they then dropped their disguise. Kylesenior (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
We would still need to see what the sources say and why. It may (for example) be a quote from one of the captains.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There are two references: Gill and Olsen. While I don't have access to Olsen, Gill states: It told Detmers that he would have to fight. Both versions tend toward WP:EDITORIALIZE. More factual and less editorial, we might say, "Detmers could not reply." But, it is also unnecessary. Consequently (and as follows), he immediately dropped the false flag and raised his own. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, does anybody have a good link for "secret signal" as would apply to naval authentication signals. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with recognition signal. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The US Navy's Naval History and Heritage Command has some good photos of the German battleships that took part in Operation Berlin (Atlantic) during this raid that I'd like to use in the article - for instance, [41] and [42]. The records for these images states that the Naval History and Heritage Command is the copyright owner. However, as they were taken by German sailors they're not US Government photos. Presumably they were seized after the war, and became the property of the US Government. Does anyone know whether these images can be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, and if so what the licencing should be? File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg seems to be from the same collection, and is marked as being "public domain in the United States because its copyright was owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian". Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I find that these sorts of questions are best asked at WP:MCQ, where copyright experts hang out. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Alien Property tag suffices as the Navy didn't seize photos from individual sailors, only the collection of the Kriegsmarine itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Problematic map

Hi! I'm wondering what to do about map used in the Treaty of London (1915) article to depict territorial gains promised to Serbia. The file itself has no source indicated. I have managed to find graphically very similar map here at page 140.

The frist problem with the map is the caption (in the book) purporting that the map shows territorial gains promised to Serbia through the 1915 Treaty of London which is copied in the Commons file as a part of the map key. Specifically, Serbia was not a party to the Treaty of London. Even the book does not claim otherwise (nor does any other source). The map would be usable (I found no other like that) because it depicts territorial gains offered to Serbia in return for cession of Vardar Macedonia (or a part thereof) to Bulgaria to entice the latter to enter the WW1 on the side of Entente. The same applies to territory marked as "to be divided between Serbia and Montenegro" - on the basis of the Treaty of London. Montenegro is also not a party to the treaty and no source claims otherwise.

The second problem with the map is graphical. The territory purported to be earmarked for division between Serbia and Montenegro is incorrectly shown as if extending south from the Neretva River when it should be extending south from a point 10 km southeast of Dubrovnik. This is a difference of about 80km in straight line. Although one may argue this is a minor point, it conveys a significantly different picture about Serbian and Montenegrin influence in any negotiations than the reality.

I feel that the map of the claims would be useful for understanding of the topic, yet I suspect these errors might cause confusion. I have no other map as a source for creation of another map to replace this... Any ideas what to do - remove the map, use it as is, or something else?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You could try WP:MAPLAB. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I have another request currently posted there, so I'll wait for that to be resolved before adding more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What are your fave sites for finding good sources on military topics?

Hi. I'm looking to put together a list of links to searchable sites that have high quality search results for military topics. These will be used to populate a "find military sources" template similar to {{find medical sources}} or {{find biographical sources}} (or their Talk page equivalents: {{medical sources box}} and {{biographical sources box}} ).

A good set of links might include some general sources, like Google Books, Library of Congress, maybe Internet archive or JSTOR; as well as some sites targeted more specifically to military topics. I've found a few, like Strategic Studies Institute (US Army War College), Military History Encyclopedia on the Web, or H-WAR. But most of the ones I've found that are specifically oriented towards military topics are browsable but not searchable, like Military History Online; or are link directories like History of War Resources.

Looking at the directories like Jensen's list or Pilsch's list, I can see there are a huge number of resources out there, but a template like this could have maybe 8 to 12 links, and not being a member of the Project, I'm having a hard time picking out the best small, rich set of links that could be used as a starting point for editors looking to source their articles. A comprehensive list isn't necessary or desirable; this should be something relatively small and targeted to help editors find good military sources to support their articles.

What are your favorite databases or other searchable sites for finding good sources on military topics? Secondarily, if you think some of the browse-only sites are worth including, which ones do you prefer? (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strategic Studies Institute is probably your best bet. The ground covered by MilHist is so large...in what instances are you trying to deploy this infobox? The topic area is incredibly broad and diverse (from ancient conflicts to recent battles around the globe, bios of military commanders, weapons systems, defence policies, etc.), and I think it may be hard to craft one that's well-rounded to be of great use outside a specific area. I write in a more specialised topic area (Africa milhist usually) and at best one third of my sources are works that focus on military history. Most are more general works of history, political science, or simply journalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Indy beetle:, thanks for your response. It's not an infobox, it's more about the "Find sources" links that you see if you go to almost any Talk page. For example, at Talk:Guadalcanal campaign, if you look just above the "Search archives" button, you'll see "Find sources:" and a bunch of links. Those links are the same ones shown on every article with a Talk page header, whether it's a military article, a biography, a medical article, or something else. The goal is to make a better set of links for certain articles, such as those in WP:MIL. I just finished a first draft of this one a few minutes ago. Here's what it would look like, in the Talk header at Rwandan Civil War (the links are live and you can click them): That's just a first draft, so it's buggy and there are too many links there now, so it will have to be pared down; plus I have no idea which links would be most useful.
Regarding your point about more specialized areas like Africa milhist, if there are online resources that are more fine-tuned to Africa milhist, we could either create a whole new template for it, or maybe parametrize this one to handle different MIL subdomains. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
The first question is whether it would be useful to have a set of links like these in the Talk header of MIL project articles, instead of the very general (mostly Google) links that you see there now, and on every other article TP regardless of topic. And if so, which ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
JSTOR and Google books will probably do well to remain there as they offer sufficient variety. As for the other stuff I'm not really sure. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that MILHIST might benefit from having a page similar to WP:SHIPS/R where useful research sources can be linked from. Such a page could be split by the various Task Forces to enable focussed research. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: That's a good idea, we could probably incubate something for each task force. I created a list of potential sources and useful links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo#Library for Congo-related material way back, which I'd use as a template unless others have suggestions? I'd be happy to take a crack at coming up with something for the Africa task force. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Usage question

Gorges, E. Howard (2004) [1920]. The Great War in West Africa (pbk. facs. repr.Naval & Military Press, Uckfield ed.). London: Hutchinson. ISBN 978-1-84574-115-0. (caution advised, racist content).

I don't know but it doesn't take OR to see it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is no need to put modern woke caution notices on reliable sources to protect the snowflakes. Such practice has no place on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"Woke" = straw man, an aversion to racism has nothing to do with modish crypto-fascism. I take it that you agree that racism is repellent? Whether it's a RS is open to question since the author was a participant. At least some of it is a primary source. Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No notice needed, the readers can decide that for themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I assume that all military sources will require "Caution, may contain descriptions of organised violence" templates? Organised violence being at least as repellent as racism. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd question whether a hundred-year-old book written by one of the participants counts as a RS at all, even discounting the racist attitudes of the time. But considering that the vast majority of the soldiers involved (on both sides) were Africans, the fact that the author describes them as "intellectually nothing to write home about" also causes concern. Surely there are better sources. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
So what is this racist content?Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I would object to the notice, for the same reason there are WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Loafiewa (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions about better sources. Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Whats it being used for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite used to seeing racist or Eurocentric sources. Hinde's The Fall of the Congo Arabs, written in 1897, is not exactly enlightened but still provides one of most detailed accounts of the Congo–Arab War. Even the illustrious New York Times and other global newspapers coverage of the situation in the Congo and Rwanda in the 1960s, for their talk of "tribal savagery" betrays an implicit racism (or at least a measure ignorance of the happenings in those countries). It is possible to use POV sources to create NPOV text for Wikipedia. Any claims you find doubtful, if they merit any inclusion, can always be given in-text attribution. At any rate, attempting to label or provide disclaimers for sources is a terrible idea and opens a whole can of worms, mostly due to the fact this would be our own interpretation (how racist is it, who shall decide if it is racist). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It's for the Togoland campaign articles. I don't agree, implicit racism might cause difficulty but not the flagrant sort. Anyway, I've removed the source from further reading while I ponder. I wonder what would have happened if I had asked the same question about an (alleged) antisemitic source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Anti-semitism is racism.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No, antisemitism is bigotry against people who are Jews, who are no more a race than any group within the human race. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
<pedantry>My dictionary says racism is aimed at members of “a particular racial or ethnic group,” and in my experience the word is commonly used this way. You may use it in a more restricted sense of you like, but you may as well accept that many will not use or interpret it thus. (And the concept of race can be rejected as fallacious, while racism is very real.)</pedantry> —Michael Z. 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I was posting that my answer would have been no different as I see it as the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It isn't but I'm glad that was your reason. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Keith-264: What counts as a "reliable source" is always a contextual question. Breitbart will always be a reliable source for the opinions of its writers, to give an extreme example. American politics as a whole? Not so much. What claims was Gorges' work being used to support? In my experience a book like that is usually fine to use for dates and such. For the behavior of "Africans" and alleged atrocities? Usually not. Of course if you have found a more modern academic source that can provide the same information without the European condescension that is always preferable. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I know, I asked because it's a matter that other editors are more informed about. I'm still open to suggestions about sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused, do you mean you want suggestions for better sources for the topic area of the Togoland campaign in WWI? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If there are any, yes. (It isn't just Euro condescension, when I read Liaison 1914 by Edward Spears, it dawned on me that he took phrenology seriously (!) in Prelude to Victory he made Gorges seem civilised.) Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we not run this into a debate about what racism is, and if it applies to Jews?Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep up. Keith-264 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we put notices on sources to warn people they might find a source offensive? No.
Is a particular source reliable? RSN is just over here.
Does antisemitism = racism? I think so, but ymmv.
- Just my .02¢ Cheers - wolf 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Opposed to disclaimers of the sort mentioned. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Re Slatersteven's concerns, I think we are past that now. The question we should be resolving is what good sources are there for the Togoland campaign of WWI? And in that regard, @Keith-264:, I've looked through my university library database and found Chapter 21: Narratives of a "Model Colony": German Togoland from German Colonialism and National Identity which has a little exploration of how the German surrender was received by the Togolanders. The same idea is explored by the same author, Dennis Laumann, in his journal article "A Historiography of German Togoland, or the Rise and Fall of a 'Model Colony'," History in Africa. The book World War I and Propaganda (edited by Troy R. E. Paddock) also mentions that the German government accused the French of mistreating its POWs in Togoland. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The biblios in the articles aren't bad but many are tangential. Keith-264 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that particularly racist books about African topics from 1920 would be a reliable source, and there should be much better works available: quite a few excellent works on World War I in Africa have appeared over the last decade or so. If editors think that a disclaimer needs to be added to a work, it's likely not a reliable source in the first place. The fact that the Google Books version of this work [43] uses an Imperialism-era and fairly racist image as its cover is certainly a bad sign about the work's reliability. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That it contains racism is indisputable, whether it is reliable is another question. (I had hoped that I could glean better identifications of some of the participants and a little more detail than in the OH). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My apologies for my lack of familiarity in this specific area and time period of African military history. Sources are indeed sparse in this area (at least online or in my university database); there's much more readily available on British West African territories during WWI (namely the Gold Coast). I am also not familiar with the particular work by Gorges. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm completely opposed to all disclaimers like this. It's up to the reader to make up their own mind without being condescended to by Wikipedia editors who may have different attitudes from them. As to whether it's a reliable source, that's a completely different issue (just because the author may have views that differ from modern mainstream views does not make it an unreliable source). It may well be for some things and not for others. That's a judgement call that needs to be made for each citation from it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Roman–Persian Wars 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Warning of Pearl Harbor attack

The page Kermit Tyler has existed since November 2009, while the page Joseph P. McDonald was created yesterday, they both relate to receipt of the radar warning of unidentified aircraft approaching Pearl Harbor. This seems like a clear case of WP:1E, but would welcome views on this and what if anything should be done with these pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And today another new page was created for the radar operator Joseph Lockard, all a bit excessive. Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of non-procedural delete

I have reverted the conversion of an existing article to a redirect by J-Man11 at Guards of Honour (France). I have instead proposed a merge of his new article into the existing one. Interested users may wish to comment at Talk:Guards of Honour of the Imperial Guard#Merge proposal - Dumelow (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

1917 French Army mutinies

Homogenised the citations which were a bit all over the place but short of page numbers for Buffetaut (2000), Pedroncini (1983) and Poitevin (1938). Can anyone help as I don't have these sources. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of COP Badel

Notice

The article COP Badel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable tiny outpost with no chance of expansion, content can be easily merged into List of NATO installations in Afghanistan

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gavbadger (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Observation Post Fritsche

Notice

The article Observation Post Fritsche has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable tiny outpost with no chance of expansion, content can be easily merged into List of NATO installations in Afghanistan

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gavbadger (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ghost soldiers assessment is weird

Can someone take a look ? The page is associated with 30+ taskforces... is it normal ? Yug (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the B class checklist, which was wrongly completed, but I don't find the assessment weird. The mass of task forces is inexplicable and it includes a usage graph, which isn't normal. I've left a message on content improvement, as the issue is treated only as a very recent phenomenon, yet is a very old one spread across a wider range of militaries. Monstrelet (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
ok, thank for that 👍🏻 Yug (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The MilHistBot looked at the article and found that it was in Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). If you look at that category, you will see that it is part of all a long list of "Wars involving X" categories. The MilHistBot classified the article accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'disposed'?

I'm suspecting a mysterious military muttering when seeing uses of the word 'disposed' in the article Siege of Corfu (1716). The word is used twice when I would be expecting something like 'has' vs.

"... the Venetian commander disposed of about 1,000 German mercenaries, 400 Italian and Dalmatian soldiers, ..."

It is possible this is not an obscure usage, but the editor just got the wrong word? Shenme (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s a perfectly good way of describing how a military unit was, er, disposed. See the second usage on Wiktionary: ie arranged or put in place. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
To put in place or to arrange seem to fit this. See Dispose Merriam-Webster, Dispose Dictionary.com -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Operation Pitting with Operation Allies Refuge

Should be one article. Pigsonthewing Signed by Andy and WP:BOLDLY copied here by User:Buckshot06.

Possible, but couldn't be at either title.. 2021 Western evacuation from Afghanistan? Could include all NATO and other evac efforts; see https://www.facebook.com/keksifarm.hayday/posts/2953165958287297. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Article title

A newly created article has the title: Bermudian Militia, Volunteer and Territorial Units of the British Army, 1894-1965.
- looking for opinions as to whether this is consistent with WP:TITLE, or if it should be renamed, and if so... to what? Thanks - wolf 19:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I had a shufti at the article since I'd mentioned the Bermudans in one of the Somme 1916 articles. I prefer titles to be as short as possible but this one German attack on Vimy Ridge took quite some trimming. Wouldn't "Bermudan units of the British Army" work? Militia etc could be done as headers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that would work. I also agree with keeping titles as short and concise as possible. I think any trimming here would be an improvement. - wolf 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Decisive British Victory"

Just checking my facts, we don't as a rule use terms like "Decisive British Victory"? I wanted to check my facts as I've removed that twice now at Great Siege of Gibraltar but an editor keeps putting it back - see User talk:86.152.160.2. In addition, they seem to be messing around with the format of the Infobox. Welcome a second pair of eyes. WCMemail 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

To quote Template:Infobox military conflict, "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Loafiewa (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I thought I was right but couldn't find the relevant guidance. WCMemail 21:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Further contributions by this editor

[44] He has been quite prolific, if someone has a spare 5 mins to check whether there are further examples. I see a number already reverted. Time for bed. WCMemail 00:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Examples requested for List of active duty United States three-star officers

I am currently updating the active duty United States three-star officers list to have an appropriate description section to match up to the quality of the four-star list. While I have certain examples like the four-star list published already from personal searching, most of them are easily traceable ones from the late 2000s through 2010s which I feel disquiet at, as the four-star list also included some from the early 2000s, 1990s and 1980s. Firstly, I'd like to ask if anyone here has referenced examples of:

  • Senate nominations for appointments or reappointments to three-star rank that were withdrawn, with reasons stated.
  • Senate nominations for appointments or reappointments to three-star rank that were allowed to expire and returned to the President, with reasons stated.

Secondly, I am writing the retirement section of the three-star list at present, and have trouble finding examples as well. ​I'd also like to ask if anyone here has referenced examples of:

  • Three-star officers about to reach the standard 38 years of service limit but were reappointed to the same grade to serve longer.
  • Three-star officers about to reach statutory 64th birthday limits but had their retirements deferred by the secretary of defense or the president of the United States.

These examples, as they include birthdays to justify, should involve officers with known full birthdates.

Thirdly, in the same section, I'd like to ask for examples of:

  • Three-star officers who did not meet the necessary time in grade for retirement at three-star grade, but were allowed to retire at that grade either with or without Senatorial confirmation.
  • Three-star officers rejected by the Senate for retirement at that grade, and thus retired at a lower rank.

Where possible, Senate vote numbers should be there if the example's Senate confirmation was done with vote tally rather than voice vote.

Also, where possible, I'd like to ask for less recent (1970s - early 2000s) examples of three-star officer's misconduct that affected their rank, either by demotion or scrutiny that risked demotion.

Thank you for your consideration. SuperWIKI (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not quite 3-star misconduct but 2-star misconduct, see Michael Carey (United States Air Force officer). Lineagegeek can you help out SuperWIKI here? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Vice Admiral Tim Giardina may be closest here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/28/us-nuclear-commander-suspended-gambling. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Not much but rumor, innuendo and hearsay on my part. If you want to go back a little, I believe there was a commander of Air Service Command, who set up some dummy corporations in Dayton just before WW II and made sure they got lots of government contracts during the war (which were immediately subcontracted to companies that could do the work). My recollection is that he retired after the war, a congressional committee uncovered the misdeeds and he was recalled to active duty so he could be re-retired in a lower grade. Only general officer misconduct I'm aware of that resulted in adverse action was to a couple of brigadiers I worked for (one sexual relationship with his aide de camp, the other for crashing through the base entry barrier while driving under the influence).Lineagegeek (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Already have Giardina on my list, as misconduct examples are very easy to research for the most part. The second one with regard to age requirements is the one I particularly can't find any examples of? Is there anywhere else I can ask? Most military forums don't seem interested in these more bureaucratic aspects of military life. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
James J. Grazioplene was a major general who was busted all the way down to second lieutenant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

      * Brent Scowcroft was promoted to lieutenant general in 1974 on becoming National Security Advisor. He was allowed to retire at that rank the following year with Senate confirmation.

      * John Poindexter was promoted to vice admiral by President Reagan in 1985. He was confirmed by the Senate in 1986, but reverted to rear admiral the following year and retired at that rank. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Also have sources that stated Lieutenant General Philip R. Kensinger Jr. faced demotion for his involvement in the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident. Did the Army actually go through with the demotion, and are there any reliable sources that cover this? I ask because this would be an example of a three-star officer who was demoted in retirement. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That's an odd one. I know that a board was convened to examine his reduction in rank [45] but I couldn't find its findings. Apparently he did lose a star in retirement. [46] NB: Arthur Lichte was a four-star who was demoted in retirement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't see the specific area where his demotion is stated. Could you leave an excerpt (if you can see it) of the part where Kensinger's demotion is stated, so I can cite it? SuperWIKI (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Update: @Hawkeye7: Found a source that says they didn't go through with it. Thanks for the help! SuperWIKI (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Date format for the US military

So MOS:DATETIES outlines that "biographical articles related to the modern US military" should use DMY "in accordance with US military usage". According to date and time notation in the United States, the first US standard for the military using DMY seems to date back to 1968. The article on Douglas MacArthur – whose service ended well before 1968 and who died even four years prior to that – has a featured article using DMY dates. However, I'm finding that this is actually an outlier in terms of the 'United States Army generals of World War II' category. I became interested in this question after seeing a mixed date format on Mabel Virginia Rawlinson, but it seems like it might be prudent to establish some sort of definitive cut-off for when we start using DMY dates. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably just easier to make all US military articles DMY. (imho) - wolf 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The first volume published of the US Army's official history of WWII, Cross-Channel Attack, published in 1951, uses DMY. Also this WWII report from January 1945. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to have a point in time when we change it (we should just stick with DMY), but I think on the above basis, if we were going to have one, we should probably make it change before WWII so it doesn't change during the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Marshals of the First French Empire/archive1 could use more eyes

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Marshals of the First French Empire/archive1 could use some more eyes. I've just done a source review, but it seems to have stalled for sometime now, so if anyone has time to do a quick review it would be greatly beneficial I'm sure. Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Colonel John Gregory

I am currently researching the officer, Colonel John Gregory of the Edenton District Brigade mentioned here, https://www.carolana.com/NC/Revolution/nc_camden_county_regiment.html (middle column third down). In particular, I would be interested to know if John Gregory was involved in a battle in North Carolina/border of Virginia, on 26 June 1781 (known by the British as the Battle of Black Swamp), and, if so, whether his age at the time might be known? I know all I need to know about Brigadier General Isaac Gregory. Does anyone know if there are details of this battle, recorded by the Americans? I can only find the Dohla (Hessian) account. But the following has also been recorded in A True History of the 76th Regiment of Foot, the McDonald's Highlanders, 1777-1784, by James Williamson Taylor and Alexander Good, 12 March 2007 p.98. where it is stated:

He [an unnamed officer of the 76th] states that the rebel force was "under General Gregoree" [sic]. It appears from his diary that the British advance guard, consisting of "200 grenadiers of the guard ..." pursued the fleeing rebels, capturing "about thirty men, and a "Coll. & Capt."

It is believed that the captured "Coll." may be Colonel John Gregory, but proof is needed.

Particularly helpful would be if anyone has correspondence between General Isaac Gregory and any combination of Richard Caswell, Josiah Parker, Thomas Blount and Thomas Burke between 27 June and 5 July 1781. Help much appreciated.Anne (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have found a John Gregory who resigned from the Continental Army in May 1779, so it's unlikely that he's your subject, as yours was commissioned in the North Carolina militia in late 1778. The one I found was a Continental Army captain from Virginia who served from 19 November 1776 to May 1779 in the 15th Virginia (later designated the 11th). This is on p. 262 of Heitman's "Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army...". Unfortunately, Heitman only recorded Continental and (in other books) Regular Army officers, not volunteer or state militia officers. There was also a 2LT of that name in the 6th Virginia, killed at Trenton 2 January 1777. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply RobDuch. Yes, I know about your man and have his resignation letter here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-20-02-0019. I have contacted the National Archives, and if they have nothing on Colonel John Gregory, I shall have to sadly conclude he is unfindable.Anne (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
North Carolina state archives are here. Try them also. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you RobDuch. I have now contacted them as well. Anne (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting the proper italics for warship articles

I recently created CSRC Pickens, but the Pickens should be italicized per ship naming conventions. However, I cannot figure out how to get that part of the title to italicize (looking at similar articles, I'm not seeing a template). Can anyone figure out what I'm doing wrong here? Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Normally your inclusion of the Template:Infobox ship begin template will do the trick, but the problem here is that your prefix is weird, and not recognised. If you plan on creating a lot of them you can add it. Otherwise you can invoke Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Display title fixed it (after adding |display title=none to the article's infobox coding). There shouldn't be many with this prefix, as the Confederate States Revenue Service was not large. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
To get the ship to diplay correctly in articles, use {{ship|CSRC|Pickens}}, which gives CSRC Pickens. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Do sources identify this as an official prefix? If not, I think it should be at Confederate revenue cutter Pickens per WP:SHIPPREFIX#Invented prefixes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@The ed17: - The principal source for its Confederate service (Chatelain) indexes it as CSRC Pickens. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: As far as I can tell, Chatelain is the only author indexed in Google Books to ever use that ship prefix. :-) I did a Google search for "CSS Pickens" with the quotes, and it looks like many other authors use that. (So my proposal above seems to have been in error.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@The ed17: - And it looks like "Confederate revenue cutter Pickens" is used only in Chatelain, as well as "CSRC Pickens". So I guess moving back to CSS Pickens (where I accidentally put it initially) is probably the best (although I'll hazard to say that referring to it as a CSRC or as a revenue cutter is probably technically more correct). Also, would you be able to take a quick look at it from a b-class perspective? I'm hoping to get to CSS Tuscarora eventually using Chatelain and a few sources I can access online, but I'm not quite familiar with writing about ships. Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Checkpoint Alpha(?)

After looking at an article about Alfa/Alpha, I noticed that the article is "Checkpoint Alpha", but I've found references it was "Checkpoint Alfa". Before I move it, I'd like to have someone here check me on this?Naraht (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No idea, but try to follow WP:COMMONNAME as best as possible. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest you don't move it. The checkpoints were named after the NATO standard phonetic alphabet, and A is Alpha. I presume you're talking about the Helmstedt–Marienborn border crossing ? WCMemail 16:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, NATO actually spells it "Alfa" (see this from nato.int), perhaps because "ph" makes a different sound in some European languages. But I'm sure that's not the "common name". Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 evacuation of Afghanistan

After repeated discussion at Talk:Operation Allies Refuge about merging the U.S. and UK evacuation efforts (seemingly not favoured) and other countries launching operations, I have WP:BOLDLY created this new page to cover the entire current Kabul Airport evac efforts, including anything that can be reported of land evacuations. Any assistance is appreciated.

@Buckshot06: Given that the Qatar Air Force is flying people out of Kabul and Japan is deploying aircraft [47], and maybe other countries, I'm not sure that 'Western' is accurate here. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Very well aware!! I went round and round and round trying to come up with an appropriate title. Some suggested 'NATO evacuation from Afghanistan;' was well aware that it should really have been at 2021 Primarily-Western evacuation of Afghanistan or some such. Grammar and style fail!! Nothing I could come up with seemed to fit properly; I'm not sold on the title, what I wanted to do was start a page that covered more than US and UK.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey!! How about 2021 Western and allied evacuation of Afghanistan? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I tend to take a cautious approach to the use of 'Allied'. Why not just 2021 evacuation of Afghanistan, or 2021 Afghanistan airlift (the later would exclude what seems tragically likely to be a large number of Afghan refugees fleeing by land routes). Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It was initiated by a Western change of policy, and really that should be reflected *somehow,* but that really doesn't seem practical without making the article title severely complicated. I'm moving it to your first alternative. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It was a US change of policy so how about Washington Scuttle? Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USS Nevada (BB-36)

Template:USS Nevada (BB-36) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — sbb (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman monitor lost at Sulina

What is the identity of the Ottoman monitor lost at Sulina on 9 June 1877 please? - "Russian Torpedoes and Turkish Monitors". The Times. No. 28989. London. 9 July 1877. col F, p. 4. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help). Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the Ottoman monitor which ran aground and was abandoned at Sulina in July 1877 - "The War in Bulgaria". The Times. No. 28990. London. 10 July 1877. col A, p. 5. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help), "The War in Bulgaria". The Times. No. 28991. London. 11 July 1877. col A, p. 5. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help). Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The Ottoman monitor Seyfi was torpedoed by a Russian torpedo launch, but Langensiepen & Güleryüz gives the date as 26 May 1877 and the location as Măcin. The monitors Podgoriçe and İşkodra were captured by Russian forces on 17 June and 16 July, respectively, but there's no mention of either having gone aground. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Seyfi is listed on 26 May 1877. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Then the newspapers must be confused. The Ottomans only had a handful of monitors and the records in L&G of the rest of them rule them out. I didn’t see any unarmored gunboats that seem to be plausible candidates either. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, they're definitely wrong; a Russian spar torpedo boat attempted to sink the armored corvette Iclaliye on 10 June but detonated its torpedo on some sort of obstruction but caused no damage. So the report was off by a day and wrong on the fate of the ship in question. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I've removed those two entries from the lists. I'm blaming the fog of war. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy check

Hello. I would like someone with more knowledge than me about Eustace Maude, 7th Viscount Hawarden to make sure this edit [48] is accurate. Thanks in advance. As an aside, I really like the work your project produces. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinking in military conflict infobox date?

I recently noticed that the infobox on Second Sino-Japanese War uses wikilinks for its dates (reading "7 July 1937 – 2 September 1945"). There's nothing in the infobox documentation that specifically says this should be avoided, but I also had trouble finding any other wars that did the same, so I was wondering if this should be removed or not. Cheers. Loafiewa (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That sort of linking is an Easter egg, because you can't anticipate by looking at it where it will end up going. They could either be presented in full rather than piped, or as unlinked dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest the incident and surrender should be mentioned and linked in the lead, and the bare unlinked dates are used in the infobox. Easter-egging isn't helpful, and the infobox just doesn't need the level of detail beyond the plain dates. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Source verification - Napoleonic Wars

Hi. I have been asked to help resolve a dispute over at Talk:Battle of Friedland. Part of the dispute is that one editor has misrepresented a source in a previous edit (I am assuming it was unintentional) but there is now a lack of trust from the other side about the other sources presented by the first editor. Two of the issues in the dispute relate to unverified sources. Has anyone here got access to either of the following sources and can confirm if the presented claims are in the source material?

  1. Alain Pigeard, Dictionnaire de la Grande Armée, Tallandier, Bibliothèque Napoléonienne (I believe this is a French language source. I am not sure if an English translation exists)
  2. Major Rovert Everson, Marshal Jean Lannes In The Battles Of Saalfeld, Pultusk, And Friedland, 1806 To 1807: The Application Of Combined Arms In The Opening Battle (the work has had 3 editions between 1994 and 2014)

Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Everson's book, in the thesis version, is available free and online here on archive.org ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split of Template:US military utility vehicles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see discussion at Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal. Cavalryman (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

Gen. Pershing

There was a paragraph added to the bio on General John Pershing (the Spanish– and Philippine–American wars section), regarding a Trump tweet, that was as follows;

Similarly, the claim made by Donald Trump during his presidential campaign in February 2016 that Pershing executed 49 "Muslim terrorists" with bullets dipped in pig's blood, then let the 50th go free to spread the word about the religious atrocity, which Trump alluded to again while serving as president in August 2017, has been repeatedly debunked by historians, who find no evidence that such an incident occurred.[1][2][3][Notes 1]

References

  1. ^ Horton, Alex (August 18, 2017) "Trump said to study General Pershing. Here's what the president got wrong" Archived August 19, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The Washington Post
  2. ^ Qiu, Linda (August 18, 2017) "Study Pershing, Trump Said. But the Story Doesn't Add Up" Archived August 19, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The New York Times
  3. ^ Mikkelson, David (August 17, 2017) "Fact Check: General Pershing on How to Stop Islamic Terrorists" Snopes.com

The addition has been challenged several times in the past and in recent days by multiple editors. There has been prior discussion on the article talk page (archive #1 & #4), but no clear consensus. Bringing the issue here to a hopefully wider audience for a hopefully fuller debate and consensus. Should this be included or not? Or included but re-worded? Thanks - wolf 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Added note; as was previously mentioned by another editor, perhaps this content would be better suited to a different article (eg: Social media use by Donald Trump, as a suggestion). Also, this is somewhat of an informal RfC, I wouldn't object if someone would prefer to write this up as a proper RfC. - wolf 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot come up with a rationale for this to be included in Pershing's article. I see no point in including a debunked bizarre hoax that isn't of particular significance there. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. I've never heard of this hoax. Articles should be focused about true things about a person, not things that are not true and why they aren't true, unless the falsehoods contributed to their notability or were part of some great notable thing on their own (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). This is also a rush to WP:Recentism. If Jimmy Carter had gotten something wrong about Patton while on the campaign trail in the 1970s and it ended up in a few newspapers I doubt we'd throw in a paragraph on Pattons article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thirded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I feel old reading the above. Variants of hoax were in high circulation worldwide following the 9/11 attacks, with all sorts of bigots calling for the US military to adopt this supposed tactic in Afghanistan and Iraq. Snopes debunked it in 2001: [49]. I'd suggest retaining this material in the article, but dropping the reference to Trump. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Heh, that makes me feel even older. I recall that urban myth in college in the 90s, when I was familiar with some Pershing Rifles Society members. It was spoken of sort of reverently, if I recall.  — sbb (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Iconic photo of Ivy Mike

IvyMike2

See my discussion here on the image's talk page: [[50]]

In short, there's a higher quality copy of the image but it needs some work. If you have any comments on my proposal, please provide them and centralise the discussion there. Kylesenior (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is a discussion at Talk:United States Armed Forces#Russian Space Forces pre-date the U.S. Space Force. It might be helpful to have some additional editors contribute, especially those who can translate Russian sources and/or have an interest in military/space articles. - wolf 12:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

French fluyt Salomon (1762)

Should the French fluyt Salomon (1762) article be moved to French flûte Salomon (1762)? The reason I ask is that the French spelling for the type of ship the Dutch call a fluyt is flûte. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd think not - I can't recall ever seeing the French spelling used in English. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Threedecks uses the French spelling. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We have articles like German battleship Scharnhorst, which includes the English name of the ship type instead of Schlachtschiff. As our article for this type is at fluyt, I think we should keep the current spelling. Using the French spelling, with French accents, is not very accessible for our English reader-base. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Move request filed at talk:French fluyt Salomon (1762)#Requested move 2 September 2021. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=Notes> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Notes}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_162&oldid=1232550968"