Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 169

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171→Archive 174

Spanish Army Regiment Commander

Also, does anyone know who the commander of this regiment is? Light Armored Cavalry Group "Lanceros de Borbón" I/11 Faithful15 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you would probably have to run searches in Spanish. Search the name of the unit in Spanish, Spanish spelling of the word "commander," and "2022" or "2023." Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Problem is, I don't speak or read Spanish. So if you know anyone who does... Faithful15 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't either. But this is the 21st century, we have Google Translate. (1/x) Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Which I don't have access to. I am a minor in Alabama, and due to trust issues, my parents set up this computer to be where I can only access certain sites. Google Translate is NOT one of them. Faithful15 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
So think you can help me, pls? Faithful15 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Getting some information is not hard. (a) WP page for Spanish Army ; (b) WP Spanish page for Spanish Army ; locate the regiment in the Spanish WP pages thus its name. Search that name with " " on each end of the title. Now, that led me to the regimental page (11th Regiment, not I/11). That's at https://ejercito.defensa.gob.es/unidades/Zaragoza/rclac11/index.html. You can see the *regimental* commander's name, El Coronel Jefe del Regimiento de Caballería España [roughly, Colonel Commanding, Cavalry Regiment of Spain], Ilmo. Sr. D. Francisco Javier Calero Perea. There's also an e-mail address for the regiment on that same page.
So, you send a message to that address: "Querida Regimiento de Caballería España, ¿Sería tan amable de decirme el nombre del comandante de la Grupo de Caballería Ligero Acorazado I/11 “Lanceros de Borbón”, GCLAC-I/11 [write kind regards, signed, etc]. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. Well, thanks for all your help. The site is not one I have access to, so thanks for the info. Faithful15 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border

User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR notice

Zachary Taylor 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hawke, launched 1807

What is the identity of the 74-gun ship Hawke, built by Brent and launched on 14 July 1807. Brent was a shipbuilder at Rotherhithe, but the location isn't given by the source (Lancaster Gazetter, 18 July 1807). Was she built for the Royal Navy or someone else, such as the British East India Company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Could it have been the wrong name? We have HMS York (1807), a 74 gun ship launched by Brent a week before. See Three Decks entry on Samuel Brent and a self published overview of the Brent Family of Ship Builders for some background information. They appear to have had the capacity to launch "nine ships of war and others... within the space of one year." They built "merchantmen (East India and Hudson Bay Companies) of 800-1200 tons" and "warships of 74 guns and smaller destined for the Royal Navy." There is no record of an HMS Hawke launched in 1807 and you don't generally outfit merchantmen with 74 guns. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The only Hawke in this period was a Black Prince-class ship of the line, part of a class copied from the lines of the Danish 80-gun Christian VII. Hawke was built at Chatham by Henry Canham, ordered in 1812 and launched in 1820. Hawke was the only Royal Navy vessel of that name ordered in the period. York, a Hero-class ship of the line built by Samuel & Daniel Brent at Rotherhithe, was ordered in 1805 and launched on 7 July 1807. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
A misprint does seem likely. I'll remove the entry from the list of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2022 are open!

Military historian of the year 2022
  • First place
    First place
  • Second place
    Second place
  • Third place
    Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (UCT) on 1 December 2022 and last until 23:59 (UCT) on 15 December 2022. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 16 December 2022 during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2022, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar. Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2022. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting

Voting has now closed. Results will be tallied shortly and published in the latest edition of The Bugle. Thank you to all who participated. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2022.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Catlemur

CPA-5

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Djmaschek

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Lineagegeek
  3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

  1. Lineagegeek
  2. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm

  1. Lineagegeek
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

  1. Lineagegeek
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

  1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Robinvp11

Zawed

  1. Lineagegeek
  2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2022 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2022
  • First place
    First place
  • Runners up
    Runners up

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

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (UTC) on 1 December 2022 and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 15 December 2022. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 16 December 2022 during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2022, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2022. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting

Voting has now closed. Results will be tallied shortly and published in the latest edition of The Bugle. Thank you to all who participated. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2022.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hog Farm Talk 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Dabberoni15

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Catlemur (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia

  1. Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Catlemur (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Bannerman

  1. Got to support my nomination...Zawed (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CinC Nore

I've been rejigging the pretty bad list of commanders-in-chief at Commander-in-Chief, Medway and at the Nore, but can't seem to find who held the position between 1749 (George Townshend) and 1757 (Francis Geary). Am I missing some names or was the position empty? Any suggestions welcome..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Naval Chronology, Or an Historical Summary of Naval and Maritime Events from the Time of the Romans, to the Treaty of Peace 1802: With an Appendix, Volume 5 (1802) p. 237 Google books says Francis Geary was commodore in the Medway from 1748. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Geary was in command of HMS Culloden between 7 September 1747 and 25 November 1748 and was subsequently unemployed for 6 years, so I don't think that's correct? I've got him as CinC Thames, Medway, and Nore, from 7 September 1757 to 2 June 1758. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Our article on Francis Geary says he held command there briefly in 1748 (though neither the 1802 source or our article confirms if that 1748 command was the highest position on station or just a sub-command of the Nore station). Commander-in-Chief, The Nore does mention another commander there in 1752. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The reference in the article is rather useless, so I'm not sure where that information comes from! I've checked Townsend's ODNB page and his entry in Charnock's Biographia Navalis and neither mention the command. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Page 208 of Burrows, Montagu (1883). Life of Edward Lord Hawke ... with Some Account of the Origin of the English Wars in the Reign of George the Second and the State of the Royal Navy at that Period. Allen. has Edward Hawke, 1st Baron Hawke briefly holding the position (commander-in-Chief at the "Thames and Medway") in 1750 - Dumelow (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Page 207 of Hampshire, Arthur Cecil (1975). The Royal Navy Since 1945: Its Transition to the Nuclear Age. Kimber. ISBN 978-0-7183-0034-0. has: "The earliest record of the appointment of a Commander - in - Chief The Nore was in 1752 when Isaac Townsend , Admiral of the Blue , was appointed ' Commander - in - Chief of HM Ships and Naval Vessels in the Rivers Thames and Medway and at the Buoy of the Nore" - Dumelow (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Argh! So very promising, but a more modern biography provides the answer to this here. I don't think the following counts as being CinC Nore, although I'm happy to receive counter arguments: "In the Autumn [of 1750] the Admiralty instructed [Hawke] to come up to town and assume command of the ships in the Thames and Medway, so that, as a sufficiently senior officer, he might preside at the court martial of Vice-Admiral Griffin". The Hampshire, however, looks pretty conclusive so I'll add that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge of coastal minehunter to minehunter page

I put a suggestion on the coastal minehunter page of a merge into the minehunter page as I do not think there is enough for its own article. Any comments would be welcome. Llammakey (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger

USS Tempest (1862) has been proposed for merging into List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy. Discussion is located at Talk:List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy#Merge proposal - 1.10.2022. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for more eyes before I take Vincent Speranza to AfD

Vincent Speranza

I came across this article on the Discord when the creator asked for help nominating it for GA. I took a look, but quickly realized that not only is it not ready for GA, my read of the sourcing suggests that the subject does not meet the GNG. I hate to take an article by someone brand new to AfD, so I was hoping people here could have a double check of my source review below to make sure I'm not being unduly dismissive of sources. If MilHist people think he hits GNG I'm happy to leave it alone.

Long source review here

So: the sourcing. Starting with the articles actually cited:

  1. Praesidus is a watch company and they named a watch for him; this is PR.
  2. WP:ANCESTRY
  3. We Are The Mighty is a digital media company that does marketing and branding. They are not a reliable source.
  4. An unbylined short piece. I could maybe squint my way to calling this reliable, but I wouldn't call it significant coverage.
  5. The Lincoln Library PDF is an oral history interview, so it's a primary source not independent for the purpose of notability.
  6. A book listing on Amazon obviously is not SIGCOV
  7. An obituary for his wife is reliable, but not SIGCOV of him
  8. Coffee or Die is a coffee company, not a reliable source of historical information
  9. The watch thing again, x2
  10. Unclear what kind of project Purple Foxes United is - looks like a convention? but maybe there's comic books also? - but it isn't an RS

As to the raw links:

  1. Obit of his wife x2
  2. Unclear if reliable but not sigcov anyway
  3. Ancestry again
  4. 3x YouTube videos
  5. NAU Review is basically local news coverage by Northern Arizona University, this is decently long but I'm not sure I would count it as reliable for the purpose of notability
  6. DVIDS appears to be a press agency of sorts for military members so I'm not sure it's independent. See their About
  7. Sabaton is a Swedish metal band. Their website is not a reliable source of historical information
  8. AAD is reliable but not independent sigcov

Finally, in my own searches, I found

  1. this Stars and Stripes article is probably the strongest source about him.
  2. this, which is a short local fluff piece that I would argue doesn't contribute much to notability

As an alternative, maybe he could be merged to Siege of Bastogne since he's largely known for a single amusing incident that occurred during that, but I'm not sure if it would be considered WP:UNDUE importance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources don't look promising for retention at Wikipedia. However, he has authority entries at VIAF, Library of Congress and Worldcat Identities. Those are not sufficient to establish notability here but he does meet the notability threshold for Wikidata. If material can't be retained here, we can always create equivalent Wikidata statements at Vincent Speranza (Q115948441), which could form the basis of future articles if Wikipedia notability is established later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I just don't see any notability here. The article reads a lot like a personal homage. The awards and decorations, other than bronze stars and purple hearts (both unreferenced) are mostly mass awards. His photo shows him with an 82nd Airborne patch as his combat unit; I can't tell what's on his left shoulder. Ping me when you take this to AfD.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Those are redirect templates for "Template:Collapse top" and "Template:Hidden archive bottom". The latter should be "Template:Collapse bottom" for matching templates. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for commenting or reading, I have taken the article to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_Speranza. I invite anyone who disagrees with my read of the sourcing to comment there, and I reiterate my offer to reconsider if people believe the sourcing supports notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Iraqi Ground Forces

I have just tried to improve some references in this article, for a complicated reference that involves both authors and editors. I cannot seem to get the reference and thus the linking right. Can anyone help? Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Only the first four authors are required by the template. Listing more is not supported." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with a bit of German military history research?

So. I created Max Wenner after seeing a mention of him in a newspaper article while doing something else. Said to have "connections to the Nazis at the highest levels." Before WWI his sister Violet B. Wenner married (and later divorced) a German army officer and baron of the Kingdom of Wurttemberg. Anyway, I think this may be the ex-husband:

https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/PHE5Q3SHDBVU25F2B2YGXQ2ZWG34IH3Q

On a scale of 1-10, how Nazi Wehrmacht is this uniform? (photo possibly circa 1938?)

https://iiif.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/image/2/8a5538d3-d39d-473a-9964-c099d2d04125/full/!800,600/0/default.jpg

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer! jengod (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how that works, if Sternenfels was born in 1869, the guy in the photo isn't him if it's 1938. The guy in the photo looks to me like a pre-Nazi era officer, ie Reichswehr 1921-1935. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly strange! He was filing out paperwork in 1938 for some military archive. I think. And one article said he was "Adjutant General to the King of Battenberg" so maybe he was just doing a lot of administrative stuff even very late in life? OK, more research to be done! Thank you for commenting!! jengod (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Battle of Schellenberg

I have nominated Battle of Schellenberg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Vietnam Ground Forces

There is next to nothing on the Vietnam Ground Forces, and I don't have access to sufficient sites to correct this. Help pls? Faithful15 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides Army of the Republic of Vietnam and People's Army of Vietnam?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like the Ground Forces in Communist Vietnam today. Faithful15 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023

Ah, I'm guessing that Vietnam isn't publishing much. This looks promising, if only as a starting point. I'm not sure about how it's reliability has been judged. You could start by creating a new section on on the PAVN page and adding {{Empty section}}; that could attract the attention of editors who don't follow here. Good luck.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Please do not go anywhere near globalfirepower. Totally unreliable. IISS Military Balance yearly entries much better, maybe via The Wikipedia Library. Under Vietnam People's Ground Forces, I added information from Conboy, Bowra, and McCouaig, 'The NVA and Vietcong', Osprey Publishing, 1991, which had the only textual data about the Vietnamese army of today (actually likely 1980s) I have ever seen, some years ago. The only other data is divisional listings copied over from Vietnamese wikipedia. Suggest G-Translate of vtwiki, for those that have that ability. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, well, I'll ask if anyone can translate the text into English via G-Translate or other means. But thank you for your help, @Buckshot06. Faithful15 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Buckshot06:, thanks for the info on globalfirepower. I don't think I had never tried to use the site.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Only other thing I have ever seen in English, long ago, is "Nonaligned, Third World, and Other Ground Armies: A Combat Assessment"

Richard A. Gabriel, Greenwood Press, 1983, which included Vietnam [1]. Of course, the Library of Congress Country Studies and the preceding Area Handbooks and Army Area Handbooks will have brief details. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet, if you ever wish to source something from something like Global Firepower, please ask me or the Coordinators for a relevant extract from the Military Balance from the IISS. Much more reliable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Faithful15 if you wanted to be helpful, given the paucity of 21st century sources, you could add more abstractions from this research report of the mid-1980s: Military Force Development in Vietnam: A Report. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah. https://www.scribd.com/document/17313967/Thayer-Vietnam-People-s-Army-Modernization-and-Development Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I'll ask my Dad to unlock this tonight, which, for reference, I live in Alabama, therefore, I'm on Alabama time. That article is in English, right? Faithful15 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MilHist books to give away

I am slowly de-cluttering ... this is just a start ... I have all manner of planes, trains, boats, and WWII ... if you want these, please email me a shipping address. These three hardcovers are like new: they go first as they are duplicates:

  1. Tom Blackburn, The Jolly Rogers, 1989 version, ISBN 0-517-57075-0
  2. Martin Irons, Corsair Down, 2021, ISBN 978-0-7643-6224-8
  3. Eric M. Hammel, Air War Pacific, 1998, ISBN 0-935553-26-6

I can ship book rate USPS, but would not want to incur cost of shipping outside of the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You may wish to consider a physical donation to the Internet Archive. Schierbecker (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I considered that, but with hundreds of books to give away, shipping all of them will be costly, and I wanted to first determine if there is a Wikipedian who might put any of them to good use. So this is a trial run. I offered my train, art and bird books, but got no takers. Next is a big spring book sale fundraiser for a local charity ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope this is just regular spring cleaning for you and not that you are being forcibly separated from these books. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Indy beetle sorry, no books of Southern US history or other topics I know might interest you. Not forcibly, but nececessity ... "your kids don't want your stuff" as you age and think about downsizing ... that means artwork, books, china, crystal, silver, collectibles, rugs ... NOTHING ... it's sad ... you can't even give stuff away, and the goal now is simply to avoid landfill. There is at least a large book sale every spring near me that benefits a local hospital if I am unable to place books. I will continue listing books bit by bit at User:SandyGeorgia/Books, so anyone who might be interested can watchlist that page. If you are worried about sending me personally identifying information, there is an alternate approach at User talk:SandyGeorgia/Books#Trains, where you can make a donation to a charity to cover shipping and they will mail the books to you on my behalf. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can do something with those books. Email sent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates Grenades

I've asked this on the equipment page, but does anyone know if the Emiratis use grenades? If so, what are they? Faithful15 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really what Wikipedia talk pages are for. They are for discussion on improving articles and resolving conflict. If you can't use Google, you'll need to find another means of research, like a public library, for example. - wolf 23:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with Proposed Text Revision of en.Wikipedia's "No. 25 Squadron RAAF" Website $ Uploading of 2 Photos

I have been advised to mention on this discussion page and invite comment on, a PROPOSED REVISION OF en.Wiki's No. 25 Squadron RAAF article page that I have put, with supporting references and a brief explanatory summary, onto the article's "Talk" page.

As an 'anonymous' Wiki user and an ex-25 Squadron member it is hoped the proposed addition of more historical information about the Squadron is and will be informative and useful for others.

The proposed revision is not intended to be controversial but it does include a note for information about the AWM Research Centre's I Dec 22 advice to me that they have deleted a mis-statement of fact about the Squadron's 1945 Base from their AWM's 25 Squadron webpage - sometime in the past this AWM mis-statement of fact had been repeated and referenced on en.Wiki's No. 25 Squadron article page.

If ok I hope to be able transfer (ie "publish") the proposed additions shown on the "Talk" page onto the No. 25 Squadron RAAF article page over the next week or so on a sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph basis.

Thank you.Shellac41 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Historiography of war X articles structure and scope

Hi everyone. At Talk:Historiography of the Eighty Years' War#Structure and scope, a question from a fellow Wikipedian prompted me to look at conventions for the structure and scope of 'Historiography of war X' articles in the Category:Historiography by war or conflict. As he had no fixed opinion on it, I thought I'd share it here instead, as some of you may have valuable feedback. The first thing to notice here is that it seems virtually impossible to compare articles 1-on-1, because it's either not a 'war', or just part of a war. But here I go:

  • Historiographic issues about the American Civil War, which served as my main source of inspiration for the article Historiography of the Eighty Years' War, is entirely thematically organised, and not chronologically or geographically or by point-of-view schools. However, the sections "Clarification of causes" and "Related issues" are de facto random-facts sections.
  • Historiography of the Crusades is organised chronologically, except for the Terminology, Chronological and geographical frameworks, and Studies of primary sources sections. (I've just made some slight adjustments to that article to conform with well-established conventions).
  • Historiography of the French Revolution has a mix of chronological and point-of-view schools organisation, similar to, but different from, Historiography of the Cold War.
  • Historiography of the War of 1812 is organised by points-of-view schools sections. I like how "Popular views" and "Historians' views" are separated, but the function of the "American views" and "Canadian views" is not immediately apparent: some views mentioned in these sections are popular views (e.g. Canadian opinion polls), or political views (e.g. U.S. presidents and members of Congress). Moreover, the Historians' views section is subdivided into thematic subsections rather than into historians' schools, which deviates from the organisation of the sections.
  • Historiography of the Paraguayan War is entirely chronologically organised.
  • Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era is just a bibliography in prose format, thematically organised.
  • Historiography of the causes of World War I is entirely chronologically organised, except for "the Fischer thesis" points-of-view schools section, which stretches from 1961 to at least 2014, overlapping with the "Later works" section (1960-2000) and "Post 2000" section.
  • Historiography of the Battle of France is organised chronologically, with two exceptions for "national" interpretations (French and German, respectively)
  • Historiography of World War II is throroughly disorganised. "Historiographical viewpoints" is a bit randomly thematic. The Taylor section more or less a review or a single 1961 book. Then random excerpt section leads to Historiography of the Battle of France above. A geographical "Eastern Front" section is subdivided in a half-sourced random facts lede section, a thematic "War crimes of the Wehrmacht" subsection, another random 2006 book review posing as a subsection, and a randomly unsourced thematic "Holocaust denial" subsection. Penultimately, a geographic section titled "German-occupied Europe" (in scope overlapping with all previous sections) starts with a random-facts lede section, a thematic "Common themes: heroic liberation from Nazis" subsection, and then some random-facts by countries subsections with dubious links. Finally, a random thematic section "Women" with a main-article link to "Women in World War II" instead of text concerning historiography of women in World War II. This article really needs to be reorganised and rewritten. (Update: I've done some rewriting to fix the most egregious issues).
  • Historiography of the Cold War has a point-of-view schools organisation that is more or less organised chronologically by the order in which each school emerged, similar to, but different from, Historiography of the French Revolution.

My tentative conclusion is that there is no established or commonly or broadly agreed structure that articles on the Historiography of war X, but (except for a mention in the Carlism bibliography) no other article in this meta-analysis has a section or subsection dedicated to the role of the main players of the conflict in question. (That makes my Historiography of the Eighty Years' War article an anomaly).

More importantly, the meta-analysis reveals that there are many options available for structuring information in a Historiography of war X article, and some are clearly better than others. The eternal dispute between pro-chronology and pro-thematic historians manifests itself all over these pages, especially in the World War II article where it constantly jumps back and forth. The advantage of doing everything chronologically is that it allows readers to follow the general debates between historians throughout the centuries, but the disadvantage is that it has to be vague on specifics. For my Historiography of the Eighty Years' War article, I found myself having to do both a chronological general overview, as well as thematic sections on more specific issues that I felt I couldn't do justice in the chronological general overview. This did lead to some repetitions which should be avoided.

I'm curious to hear how you think a Historiography of war X article can or should be organised generally. I'm open to many suggestions and options, as there appears to be nothing like well-established conventions for these types of articles on English Wikipedia yet. Can and should we establish some conventions about what kind of information is relevant and not, and how to organise it, or should we allow Historiography of war X articles to remain a sort of free-for-all in terms of structure and scope? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no definitive answer to the question of chronology or themes. I think that chronology with themes fits best but that the balance is a moveable feast. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you're correct that the chronological vs thematic question will never be solved, and that dealing with it here on Wikipedia involves mostly pragmatism. I also think that it sometimes depends, that especially large wars/conflicts like World War II may benefit from a geographic organisation (by country or by theatre) as it is otherwise virtually impossible to say something meaningful chronologically. On the other hand, the Cold War and French Revolution examples show that a point-of-view schools organisation may also have merit; in those cases, it is more the groups of historians who are the subject than the events themselves. Although it may sometimes be difficult and arguable which historian 'belongs' to which school, these articles put the way a war is thought about, discussed and written about front and centre, and I think that is the goal of military historiography.
As a sidenote, we may also need to distinguish historiography and bibliography. As I said, Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era is just a bibliography in prose format, thematically organised. To a certain extent, Historiography of the Crusades is also a bibliography (because it lists groups of writings, and thus overlaps partly with List of sources for the Crusades and related articles), but chronologically and point-of-view schools (Western vs. Arabic and Muslim views) organised, and with a lot of context. But perhaps this question is too broad for this WikiProject to decide on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; for the Second World War, I'd see geography as a meta-theme. In articles I tend to put themes into the Background and Aftermath (analysis) sections. Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

John Skey Eustace

Could someone add John Skey Eustace to this list. I have no idea how this works.Taksen (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Which list do you mean? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This article has Military History project banner on its talk page. I think this should cover things. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Junior brigade commanders

I'm writing up lists of commanders for British First World War brigades right now, and have come across Captain Cyril Deverell who commanded 85th Brigade for five days after Brigadier-General Cecil Pereira was wounded. What other examples of very junior officers commanding large military formations are there? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you have not yet seen Chapter 12, Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers, about the court-martial of Sitgreave Cox as a third lieutenant when he was in command of USS Chesapeake - and he wasn't aware, because this all happened in about two minutes in the middle of a battle.
There's a good writeup of what actually happened at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/museums/hrnm/Daybook/DaybookReloadsV1-2021/The%20Daybook-Volume%2016-Issue%204.pdf from page 4, and an analysis and correction of Heinlein's text at page 12. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Not limited to Britain in WWI? There were lots of instances in the American Civil War where brigades were commanded by captains, at least temporarily. Italy in WWII has a famous example with Amedeo Guillet ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It you haven't seen it already, perhaps the article Temporary gentlemen might have some info of use...? - wolf 21:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of examples of subalterns or junior field ranks having temporary commands of brigades during the First World War. Sometimes with brevet or temporary rank, other times with no authority other than being the surviving senior rank. Nthep (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the most famous example of the type Nthep mentions was Roland Bradford VC, who I think was the youngest non-royal brigadier-general in British Army history (you may recall him from List of generals of the British Empire who died during the First World War). He held the substantive rank of just lieutenant (in the Durham Light Infantry) but when he was killed in action as a brigade commander at Cambrai had the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel and the acting rank of brigadier-general - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

proposal: Military be renamed and moved to Armed forces.

The proposal at Talk:Military/Archive 1#Requested move 21 January 2023 may be of interest to this project. (Hohum @) 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox request

Culver PQ-14 Cadet I've tried to remedy the layout error of the infoboxes and failed. Would an infobox expert take a look please? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's you, it's a wider problem with the infobox template. Every aircraft article looks like that now. I'm assuming it is the result of this and this edit. The templates are protected, however. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks like all aircraft infoboxes are suddenly broken.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Requests for a fix have been put in at multiple locations, so assume the problem will be dealt with soon(ish). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed because I tried to use an unbroken one as a template guide and couldn't find one. Thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Battlefields Hub

I assume that Wikipedia has a policy on the reliability or otherwise of the site? Eg of this. Could someone point me towards it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. I couldn't find any link to a scholarly or gov't institution. I only recognized one name from the Board of Trustees, but Anne Curry is a noted 100YW's war specialist. It's probably RS for the state of the existing battlefields, IMO, though I'd be leery of anything more like troops strengths, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Battlefields Trust is quite a respected heritage charity in the UK. I've used this site as a gateway for other purposes but not for wiki. The battle summaries are largely taken from the various national heritage agency battlefield reports linked within them, which would count as RS, having been compiled by academic archaeologists. It would be better, I think, to proceed to these rather than their summary forms as they appear in the Battlefield Hub. As far as I know, the mapping and aerial photography on the hub is sound. Hope that helps. Monstrelet (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on belligerents in an infobox

Hello,

There is a dispute that is a slow-running edit conflict over whether an incident in the Italo-Turkish War is relevant enough to highlight in the "combatant" parameter of the infobox. See the page history and Talk:Italo-Turkish War#Belligerents_Infobox:_Asir for more - a neutral party would help.

There may be a larger issue at play here on if perhaps there should be a sentence added to the documentation of Template:Infobox military conflict on the 'combatant' parameters. Documentation creep is not great, but if this issue comes up a lot (MILHIST regulars would know if this is true or not more than me), it may need a reminder that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of every group hostile to the other side, if their relevance is low in the grand scheme of the conflict and it's not clear that there was significant military coordination beyond empty promises. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates

Every time an article on a battle appears on the Front Page, I check the coordinates. about 80% of the time the coordinates are wrong, sometimes really wrong. Many times I have found the coordinates for a naval battle on dry land. Finding the correct coordinates isn't hard, there is often a memorial or museum, a prominent landmark, or easy to find sourcing. Sometimes there is a map of the battle already in the Wikipedia article, and sometimes one of the other Wikipedias or Wikidata has the correct (or at least better) coordinates. One would think that of all the Wikiprojects, this one would be most concerned with getting the coords correct. Abductive (reasoning) 11:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Are these Featured Articles or something of a lower quality standard, such as DYK? Without examples it is hard to see the root cause(s) of the problem. For example many battles take place over great distances. If we take the co-ordinates of the centre point of a naval battle, that may place us on an island. However, for my own editing, I will be happy to check the co-ordinates periodically. I am not sure what the solution is on a systemic level though. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Go through my contribs and look for "dry land" or "to memorial" in the edit summaries. No, the coordinates are the result of pure laziness, usually just using the name of the battle and grabbing the coordinates from the Wikipedia article on that place, which are also mostly wrong, without even checking where they point on Google Maps, Bing maps, or Wikimapia. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abductive: After going on a wild goose chase through a few thousand of your edits (a surprising number having no edit summary by the way, especially as you accuse others of laziness) the first matching "dry land" I could find was Battle of Chesma, a c-class article (an edit from early November 2022). As with everything here, articles are a work in progress. As the quality of the article approaches FA, I would expect every aspect of the article to be reviewed and corrected. No editor or Wikiproject can guarantee perfection in every article they deal with; that is why we have quality assessments to begin with.
If you have examples of FA articles (or other cases) with this problem, please show us. I'm not going to hunt down any more of your examples when you have no interest in doing so yourself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between laziness that introduces bad information into Wikipedia and laziness in edit summaries. I would be glad to pull up some examples, but the real question is, will it help? I suppose what I am trying to say is that nearly every battle since the Renaissance has a memorial, and using Google maps and Wikimapia allows their coordinates to be easily found. Abductive (reasoning) 01:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Except that's going to be inexact and sometimes wrong - for instance, the St. Charles Battle Monument is not on the actual battlefield itself. Or the site of the Battle of Island Number Ten is now unrecognizable because of erosion and river changes, so guesswork based on modern map features would likely end poorly. Just consulting monuments or museums or guessing off of modern features isn't a great idea for stuff like this. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, but I added different coordinates to the Battle of St. Charles article itself. I do more than guess to get the coordinates. Abductive (reasoning)
My recollection is that someone once went though adding coordinates to articles. I never added one to an article myself, nor did I ever check one for correctness. So Admiralty Islands campaign's coord's are centred on Laurengau. (And it is an FA.) Is that correct? I dunno. If you have an algorithmic way of checking them, I can have the MilHistBot do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I doubt even a powerful AI could figure out coordinates for events. Every case requires research. Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I never bother with coordinates. There's hardly ever any independent sourcing of them anyway, I honestly feel it's just WP:OR (as opposed to things like famous shipwrecks, where sometimes their exact coordinates are actually reported in reliable sources). Eastern Uganda campaign of 1979 is a funny example where someone added coords for a month-long ground campaign which land in the southeast corner of Uganda's legal jurisdiction, which is smack in the middle of Lake Victoria and miles away from any of the actual fighting. I have no idea how it helps the reader to misinform them or, at best, point them to a small speck of land to represent an event which occurred over dozens of square kilometers (if these coords were placed somewhere in actual eastern Uganda). -Indy beetle (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    And what do you know for the Battle of Bombo the coords for a land-based battle for town on dry ground once again end up in the water! -Indy beetle (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    I share in your frustrations. There are many ways to resolve these issues, but they require users to not be slap-dash if they choose to add coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Abductive did alter the coordinates of the FAC battle of Sluys with this edit, to immediately change them again as it was realised that the whole of the area of the naval battle has silted up and that its location actually is now dry land. The coords are now in or near the bit of salt water closest to where the battle was fought, but I am not sure that they are any more accurate or more helpful for a reader. I note that at no time was this discussed on the talk page or with the FAC nominator. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
That was a tricky one. I remain confident that pointing to a spot slightly to the west of a line between Cadzand and Sluys was the right decision, as depicted in this map by John Fawkes. Note also that I introduce heavily rounded coordinates to indicate both scale and uncertainty. Abductive (reasoning) 12:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Your pin bears little resemblance to where the battle took place even according to the source you cite. I would urge you to use talk pages to consult editors who are actually experts on the events you are casually editing. And using rounding to indicate uncertainty is a nuance likely to only ever be appreciated by one reader - you - and which has no basis in policy. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that I am casually editing. What nonsense. I urge you to withdraw that statement. As for collaborating more, I see no evidence that anybody even notices my edits or takes issue with them. Why? Because they are major improvements to the utterly misleading coordinates that disgraced the articles before I got there. Abductive (reasoning) 13:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If no one notices them, I fail to see how they can be considered major improvements. Like Indy beetle, this feels more like OR to me, especially when you're dealing with a campaign that extends over a period of time and might cover a wider geographic region (or, as in Comanche campaign is essentially something created out of thin air). I can see the utility for shipwrecks or military installations (but even then you have to be careful...I know of at least one old post in the United States that shifted locations or is incorrectly located on some maps). Intothatdarkness 14:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Some people don't like mushrooms, and they can't understand people who do, and vice versa. The reason nobody raises any concerns—and I've corrected the coordinates in thousands of articles—is because either they don't notice the bad coordinates and they don't notice the improvements, or they notice, recognize that article is improved, and sometimes do the little thanking thing. I use historical markers on OSM, Google maps, Streetview, etc., and secondary sources. What I am trying to do here is get other editors to improve the coordinates too. It can be done, if your eyes work. Abductive (reasoning) 14:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Me: "Your pin bears little resemblance to where the battle took place even according to the source you cite." You, in immediate response: "I see no evidence that anybody even notices my edits or takes issue with them." Possibly you can spot where other editors may be concerned? Your utter dismissal of collaborating more, even on FAs, is also going to raise eyebrows - I am trying to phrase this as gently as possible. Given your disinclination to debate your clear error in battle of Sluys with the editor who did the research that took it through FAC, or to even mention your sources in your edit summaries, much less in a citation or on the talk page, I am going to disengage from this conversation. Best of luck with your future uncited OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The sources are usually already is the article. Are the little maps editors make and put in the articles OR? No. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
And what if the historical marker is wrong or based on an abstraction? Your methodology doesn't really inspire confidence, which is aggravated by your lack of collaboration and disregard of edit summaries. Good luck with it, I suppose. Intothatdarkness 17:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't lack edit summaries when I correct coordinates. That is a strawman argument, and you should be ashamed to have used it. Articles on a topic you care about—military history—are wrong, sometime by many tens of kilometers. Do not assume that the coordinates currently in articles are good. Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
You should reconsider your pedantic and frankly strident tone when discussing articles. It's not conductive to bringing people around to your point of view. Not everyone shares your obsession with coordinates, and has been pointed out they are not always of value (and can be misleading). But good luck with your crusade. I'm going to follow Gog and disengage from this conversation. Intothatdarkness 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this but I would urge editors to separate the question of whether co-ordinates should be corrected from how they are being corrected. I would expect all such edits to receive a summary (even if it just said "Corrected co-ordinates") and if there was any lack of consensus among sources, for this to be discussed and the preferred source flagged on the talk page. OR questions may be debateable but good editing practice should be clear. Monstrelet (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My edit summaries on coordinates usually say something like ... coordinates fixed or coordinates pointed to wrong ..., pointing to ... instead. It looks like I do about 1,250 such edits per year, for at least the last three years. Again, I urge editors here to check coordinates against the sources and make corrections, because currently there are still many, many articles with truly bad coordinates. For example, the ones in the Battle of Sinop that pointed to the wrong side of a peninsula. The information on the locations of these battles is usually in the articles already. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I work fewer battles than buildings, where locations are less ambiguous, more important, and more precise. Obsessed with coordinates and desiring that they show properly on automated maps such as WikiShootMe, I make the many required adjustments and additions in Wikidata and ensure that they trickle into ENWP infoboxes. No use adjusting precision by making tens of mins or three decimal degrees, as they will inevitably be converted automatically to other formats with greater indicated precision. Doesn't that happen to battlefields? Obviously you can get great precision for a monument or historical marker and maybe that will do for an early version of the battle article. When those rough locations are found, those of us who love Wiki mapping should correct them and give clear edit summaries. Alas, we are not OpenStreetMap and our database displays cannot show geographic items as having extent or shape or vagueness. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I just purged a handful of inaccurate coords from Uganda-Tanzania War articles. I feel like coords are at best supplemental to an article (like images), it is often impossible to "correct" them based off of sources, since sources typically won't give precise coordinates for battle locations, so it becomes a game of throwing darts. Quite frankly, coords do not belong in most of these articles when the best and much more sensible info we have is that a battle took place "in the vicinity of Fooville" or wherever. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition of dates to posts

Doing a little cleanup at Talk:Battle of Agincourt I noticed archiving had left a clump of random old posts. These had obviously missed any automated date stamping sometime in the past. Is there a standard process to give them a date so they are picked up on the next archive sweep? Monstrelet (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure but you can manually archive old sections if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:JUSTDOIT applies. Move the comments into the newest archive and see if anyone complains.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks folks. Manual archive done. Monstrelet (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please be sure that commentary is copied to the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also added to the WP:URFA/2020A page with either Notes or Noticed, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Otherwise, commentary may be swept into archives and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash
    In very bad shape. Many unreferenced paragraphs, and much of what does have references is lacking page numbers. In agreement with Z1720 (talk), who posted comments on the talk page in November 2022. My experience with unreferenced articles is that adding references is a major task. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: This has been on my list for FAR for a while, but I haven't been able to nominate it yet. Are you interested in fixing up the article or nominating it for WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    No. I have none of the sources needed for the article, and am overcommitted on the ones I am currently working on. Hanford Site is still open. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    My fault :( Will sumbuddy else please read through with an eye towards whether trimming is needed? I tried, but I don't feel comfortable working on some bits there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope
    Honours section is unsourced. Article is referenced but styles vary throughout. Some primary sources are used such as census records for his family, which don't seem to cite all the information they claim to either. Likely non-RS sources include historyofwar.org, a word document listing naval appointments with no references, historynet.com, and unithistories.com. Other sources such as very old archived parts of the Royal Navy website could do with an update. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Woody, the FAC nominator, is a former MILHIST coordinator, now semi-active. If anyone is in touch with Woody, they might email him ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Attack on Sydney Harbour
  4. Australian Defence Force
    (Nominator comment) I updated this a few years ago, but it's due for another update. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Battle for Henderson Field
    This is part of a featured topic on the Guadalcanal campaign by Cla68 (talk), who has been blocked since 2016. The articles are still in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Battle of Albuera
  7. Battle of Arras (1917)
  8. Battle of Barrosa
  9. Battle of Cape Esperance
    Another Guadalcanal campaign article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
    Overall, seems OK. Referencing could be more consistent (if you directly refer to an author's opinion, you should pinpoint where it occurs in their writing, which isn't always done here). I'd like to see some reference to the work of Georgios Theotokis, whose has written academic works on the Norman campaigns in the Balkans in recent years Monstrelet (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. Battle of Greece
    Bar the occasional dodgy source, eg, looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. Battle of Ramillies
  13. Battle of Red Cliffs
    Some serious sourcing issues, see talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    I've listed at WP:FARGIVEN. Issues were raised on this one as far back at March 2022, so it's probably OK to FAR if anyone feels like opening one. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. Battle of Savo Island
    Another Guadalcanal campaign article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    This one hasn't aged as well as most of the other Guadalcanal articles. (see article talk page) Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. Battle of Schellenberg (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Schellenberg/archive1)
  16. Battle of the Gebora
  17. Battleship
    Haven't done a thorough reading, but I'm not impressed by its sources and lacks cites for more than a few paragraphs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. Caspian expeditions of the Rus'
  19. Francis Harvey
  20. Issy Smith
  21. Ivan Bagramyan
  22. Omaha Beach
    I'm fairly concerned about this one - despite all of the vast academic literature on the D-Day landings, large swathes of this article are sourced only to a 1945 report put together by the US Army. I'm not convinced this one meets WP:FACR #1c as a result. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. It is difficult to see how this gets anywhere near 1c. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  23. Phạm Ngọc Thảo
  24. Pre-dreadnought battleship
    At the very least, this one lacks sources for multiple paragraphs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  25. Ronald Stuart
  26. Second Ostend Raid
    Another user and I did some small but necessary source/citation and style cleanup on this last year. Looks mostly fine to me but could use a review from someone familiar with good sources for British naval history. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Simongraham:? Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Not my period I'm afraid, wouldn't know the best source to use if it hit me on the head. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    I believe that the sources are OK (although I find the format of the references and the inconsistent shortage of location in the bibliography makes it harder to check), and the work done by Indybeetle and Sca does seem to have left the page no worse than when it was made an FA in 2007. Are we looking to make the page to the higher standard which would now be expected? I do not have much experience of FA, so I can make no judgement there, but I think that it would likely not succeed at GA. For example, there are unsourced statements and something strange in the referencing of The New York Times and The London Gazette. Two of these existed in the version of 23 October 2007 which was accepted as FA. simongraham (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    Simongraham: Sourcing standards have changed considerably since 2007 (sourcing reviews were initiated in 2008); the URFA effort is mostly looking to a) encourage improvements; b) notice the deficiencies on article talk and hope someone addresses them, and c) list the article at WP:FAR if they don't. If this is a topic area you understand, you could shephard this one along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well I'm not an expert, but I didn't think the sources themselves were that bad for the most part (how they are used might be a different question), even if the citation style itself could use a facelift. I don't see this article's issues as something that couldn't be fixed in a week of semi-focused attention. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yep ... "shepharding it along" could be, eg, checking back in six months to see if anyone engaged. Also, adding notes doesn't necessarily mean a FAR is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  27. Thomas Crisp
    Victoria Cross winner and armed mariner from World War I. I've tagged some problems, problems seems confined to the use of several dubious sources and a few unsourced statements. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  28. USS New Jersey (BB-62)
    Much like the Missouri article before the salvage job, I think that all of the other Iowa-class articles have grossly inadequate description sections and very poor sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    For posterity purposes, I'm going to post formal pre-FAR notices at Wisconsin and New Jersey, although I'm hoping these Iowa-class articles don't have to go to FAR. Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  29. USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
    This one is almost entirely sourced to DANFS and a veterans' organization, which raises for me some of the sourcing-related concerns found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. @Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy, and TomStar81: any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ironically, I just visited the ship yesterday. It's just as bad as the Missouri article, IMO. Fortunately a fair amount of description can be lifted from that article and tweaked to fit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  30. Winfield Scott Hancock
  31. Victoria Cross
  32. Victoria Cross (Canada)
  33. Victoria Cross for New Zealand
    Significant source-text integrity issues. Should go to FAR if work doesn't happen so. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    This is also Woody (see my note above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'm looking at this one; I have a couple of NZ print sources that will be useful. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    • A few more:
  34. Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem
  35. Edward Low
  36. Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision
  37. Song dynasty
  38. Stede Bonnet
  39. Tang dynasty
  40. Thomas C. Hindman
    I gave this one a top-down rewrite last year. Could use another pair of eyes to look over it, though. A bit heavily reliant on one source, because there's only one usable full-length bio of Hindman. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  41. Treaty of Devol
  42. Ælle of Sussex
  43. Augustus
  44. Cædwalla of Wessex
  45. Ceawlin of Wessex
    This is in excellent shape. Hog Farm Talk 18:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  46. Charles II of England
  47. Constantine II of Scotland
  48. David I of Scotland
  49. Domenico Selvo
  50. Ecgberht, King of Wessex
  51. Edward III of England
  52. Ine of Wessex
  53. James II of England
  54. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
  55. Simeon I of Bulgaria
  56. Władysław II Jagiełło
  57. Wulfhere of Mercia
  58. BAE Systems
  59. Freedom Monument
  60. Vasa (ship)

Feedback on lists

Thanks for the speedy commentary here! I posted the first list to MilHist as I knew you all would jump on it, and I have held off on posting to other WPs with large lists, wanting to see how things go here first. Any suggestions as to whether posting these lists is helpful or anything I might add to the posts to make the idea of posting individual lists more effective? Worried that comments entered here are not being transferred to talk pages, so may go missing once this section archives, and don't want to see that happen with the huge number of old Biology FAs ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Japanese government-issued Philippine peso#Requested move 29 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Japanese government-issued Philippine peso#Requested move 29 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Strengths in infobox

Input is requested at the subject discussion. The long-standing version of how strengths have been reported is represented here. It has been amended per this version. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

German Infantry Radios

I was just on List of modern equipment of the German Army, and I noticed that it doesn't say anything about what type of radios the infantry soldiers use, unlike List of equipment of the Philippine Army. So can someone here clarify that please? Faith15 20:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Faith15, see Communication systems of the Bundeswehr which has some details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you so much, @Alansplodge. Hoo-ah! Faith15 15:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for First Battle of Tikrit

First Battle of Tikrit has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the RAF/RNoAF squadrons 330-334 have separate or unified articles?

The squadrons were established by the RAF during WW2 and was operated partly with Norwegian pilots. After the war they were officially transferred to the RNoAF, which still operates them.

No. 330 Squadron has separate articles. (RNoAF SAR service.)

No. 331 & 332 Squadrons RNoAF redirects to No. 331 & No. 332 Squadron RAF, even though these are Norway's current fighter squadrons.

No. 333 Squadron RAF redirects to No. 333 Squadron RNoAF (P-3 Orion/P-8 Poseidon).

No. 334 Squadron RAF exists while the No. 334 Squadron RNoAF-article doesn't. (It's currently the RNoAF helicopter squadron serving the Navy Fleet, although due to the NH90-dispute they lack helicopters.)

Given that they seem to officially be the same squadrons and that they're all currently in service with the RNoAF, I think it makes sense to follow the example of the No. 333 squadron article. (To redirect RAF to RNoAF, preferably to the history sections.) And then update the article text with relevant RNoAF history. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Endorse BucketOfSquirrels; they are the same unit, see example of No. 75 Squadron RNZAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I have upmerged 330 Squadron RAF into 330 Skv RNorAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree these articles should be under their RNorAF names with redirects from RAF. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Source request – ARA Moreno's displacement and length

Hey folks, does anyone have a source that could support an IP's persistent changes to the specifications of ARA Moreno?

I don't have anything that would support a difference in displacement/length from its sister ship Rivadavia, and I've tried discussing things with them to no avail. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Senussi campaign

Sock puppet? Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits for Senussi campaign, User:Ahamed34 i was blocked on 2 February. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

New stub: Military discipline

Help needed to expand it. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Military dictatorship

I'm working on the article for military dictatorship, and I was wondering if the members of this project had any insight on where to find good sources. Most of the sources I'm finding are either about dictatorship in general or about specific instances of military rule. Are there any good sources about the concept of military regimes or about the history of military dictatorship in a given region or time period? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

See what's accessible at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22military+dictatorship%22&btnG=
Google Scholar meets our highest reliability of source standards. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Serious cleanup of some Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991) articles

Hi,

I noticed there are 3 news articles added to here since they link to one of my articles.

These articles are just direct translation of the articles from Chinese Wikipedia. They are in serious need of a cleanup here.

- Imcdc Contact 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Kanalkampf question

I've been doing some tidying up of the sections on Luftwaffe attacks on south coast convoys but can't find many of them in the Arnold Hague convoy database [2] Are there any aficionados who can suggest other sources please? Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Try Brian Cull's First of the Few: 5 June - 9 July 1940 and Simon Parry's ongoing series on the Battle of Britain day by day. Jurgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea should have some entries for June-July 1940 on attacks on convoys.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I have Cull on order and the 2005 Rohwer, I'll have a look for Parry. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

New navbox template

here is a new navbox template which I have created. hope you enjoy this.

Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

what do I get for this? is there a service medal, perhaps? Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Research help needed at Mathew Brady

I've identified a claim at Talk:Mathew Brady#Photos at 1st Bull Run? that I believe to be problematic, but I don't feel comfortable removing it entirely, as I'm only really able to utilize a single modern book on this, although it is one that I believe is well-respected. The claim was added in 2005 by Hlj, who is essentially the godfather of all of our American Civil War coverage, which makes me more hesitant to remove this. Anybody else have access to sources relevant to this? @Donner60 and BusterD:? Hog Farm Talk 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I just posted this on the talk page of the Mathew Brady article:

“Then came Brady. “I can only describe the destiny that overruled me by saying that, like Euphorion, I felt I had to go.” So he said, and so he did. Perhaps he was urged to by the example of Edwards and the others - for he and the North knew of their work - but more likely he and they had had the same idea at the same time. In July 1861, excited by the prospect of capturing scenes of the then three-month-old war, he claimed to have accompanied McDowell's army on the road to Bull Run.
“ “I went to the first Battle of Bull Run with two wagons,” he said. His innovative portable darkroom, a wagon hooded in black, was dubbed the 'what-is-it' wagon. Clad in linen duster and straw hat, Brady says he “got as far as Blackburne's Ford.” “We made pictures and expected to be in Richmond next day, but it was not so, and our apparatus was a good deal damaged on the way back to Washington.” So Brady claimed thirty years later. In fact, no verifiable images from the first expedition have survived. Some that Brady later said were taken then, actually date months later, calling into question his entire account of his first trip to the front. Brady was first and foremost a businessman, a promoter, and his stories of many of his war exploits are highly colored by exaggeration.
“Brady's eyesight was failing and he relegated the actual camera work to his assistants. He appears frequently in front of the camera in a number of his war views, but it is probable that he did not expose any images in the field himself. Throughout the war years, he only occasionally ventured to the armies, and instead spent his time in New York and Washington, supervising his flourishing portrait business and amassing the collection of views taken [p. 411] by his assistants and others that he would produce as “Brady's Album Gallery.” “
From “The Contributors”: Frederic E. Ray, a lifelong student of Civil War art and artists, is art director of Civil War Times Illustrated and American History Illustrated, as well as serving as a photographic consultant for The Image of War. His book Alfred R. Waud, Civil War Artist is probably the foremost biography et of one of the legion of battlefield artists who followed the armies.
If Brady and assistants “got as far as Blackburne's Ford”, they did not get close enough to the main Bull Run battlefield to photograph anything there on July 21, 1861. Not only do maps show that Blackburn's Ford is not close to the main Bull Run Battlefield (Henry Hill, etc.), but a visit to the area would show it is two or three miles away. There was some fighting at Blackburn's Ford, not just on July 18, 1861 but some minor action on July 21. Nonetheless, there is no verification that Brady or an assistant photographed anything in an area of combat at the First Battle of Bull Run.
Also as noted by User:Hog Farm quoting photographic historian William A. Frassanito, and backed up by Pickersgill-Cunliffe research, it was almost impossible to take photos during a battle because of the bulkiness of the equipment and length of time needed for exposures and it is unlikely that anyone could have photographed the battle, or even a side action at Blackburn's Ford, while it was occurring.
The bottom line is that there is no verification for Brady's statement, or implication, that he made pictures on the battlefield at the time of the First Battle of Bull Run or even at Blackburn's Ford on July 21, or earlier on July 18, the date of the main skirmish there. Ray and Frassanito support this conclusion. Any extant photos of the battlefield were taken later, long after the battle was over. A picture from 1862 is shown at the article Blackburn's Ford. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This might be off-topic as far as the intent of the question, but Brady's own statement reproduced verbatim in a later book without analysis, isn't independent of the subject, and so wouldn't meet WP:RS for the statement that Brady was at First Bull Run or that he took photographs there. I think it should be removed from the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
May I note that Mathew Brady's name used to be Matthew Brady? Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Assessment approach proposal

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The question for out project is whether or not we should join the common approach or opt out. The proposed criteria differ slightly from those that the MilHist Project is currently using. The main differences are criterion 5, where we require an infobox or images but the criterion makes them optional, and 6, which we rejected years ago. Note that most of our classification these days is handled by our MilHistBot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Our definition of C class may also differ; I know that WP:Ships doesn't require either of criteria 1 or 2 to be satisfactory, in addition to 3-5 like we do, but I'm not sure about any other projects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR

The article 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash is currently under featured article review. You can leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash/archive1. Desertarun (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose kept an eye on this article for a long time after Cla68's departure, and the damage occurred sometime after 2018. I think this star is saveable, and have suggested a revert on the FAR. Could others have a look? I tracked through 2018, but didn't find exactly when the damage occurred, but a bit of elbow grease might see this one restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Spaceflight task force?

Surprisingly there is no Milhist task force for spaceflight. I think we need one if we want to get Wikipedia editor boots on the moon by 2024. There is an aviation task force. Would it make sense to rename the aviation one to "Aerospace task force" as a catch-all? Schierbecker (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

More modern sources seem to use "air and space" vs. "aerospace," but a renaming the task force would probably be the easiest option. Garuda28 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Schierbecker (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing the task force name would be inappropriate; aviation articles are congruent to WP:WikiProject Aviation but spaceflight article are congruent to WP:WikiProject Spaceflight. I think a new task force would be more appropriate, but it's been a long time since we created one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that all the task forces have long been zombies (their talk pages redirect to here, so they serve no purpose), what would this achieve? Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking that too. I had given some thought to putting up a proposal abolishing the task forces. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
They are pretty useful to me. I like being able to see the most-viewed articles in each task force. Schierbecker (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Plus WP:Article Alerts specific to each task force are pretty helpful. Schierbecker (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Omaha Beach

I have nominated Omaha Beach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting close at Talk:Vietnam War#Soviet Union as belligerent

Would an uninvolved editor please close the subject discussion. It is not a formal RfC. The request is made here rather than at WP:CR because we are likely to get a quicker response. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Thewolfchild for closing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
No problem. There was a consensus and it was supported by sourcing, so it was pretty straight-forward. Cheers - wolf 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

WWI zeppelin raid on Bennerley Viaduct

Hi folks, does anyone have any books on zeppelin raids on the UK during WWI? I'm looking for a reliable source that corroborates a claim that a bomb landed near Bennerley Viaduct between Nottingham and Derby in 1916. The claim appears in the viaduct article and Zeppelin LZ 59. I don't doubt the veracity, but both articles cite self-published sources and I'm looking for something more concrete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"January 31st 1916. - Bennerley Junction (Ilkeston, Derbyshire). Bomb fell, smashing two crossings, set of points, several rails, timbers, etc. Considerable damage done to signal box. Telegraph and signal wires down. Permanent way repairs completed in six hours and a half. Other damage sufficiently repaired, and communications restored, to allow of ordinary working being resumed eighteen hours after the dropping of the bomb."
Pratt, Edwin A. (1921). British Railways and The Great War. Vol. 1. London: Selwyn and Blount. p. 456.
"The L20 Zeppelin, mistaking Ilkeston for Merseyside, bombed the Stanton Ironworks and also the Great Northern Railway's Bennerley Viaduct at around 8:30 pm. The adjacent Midland Railway line was damaged, but was repaired and operational again within a few hours."
Huson, Steve (2009). Derbyshire in the Age of Steam. Newbury, Berkshire: Countryside Books. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-84674-159-3.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Not books, but these links look interesting Zeppelin raids, Voices of the First World War: Zeppelins Over Britain. Artem.G (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we get Leonard W. Murray to Featured Article before 8 May 2023?

8 May 2023 is the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic, and Admiral Leonard Murray was one of its main architects. I believe the existing GA article Leonard W. Murray is ready for FA nomination - it has been built up since its GA classification in 2011 and I am willing to put more work into it over the next 2 months as needed (there is more detail available on Adm Murray's strategic contribution to naval warfare). However, I am not at all clear on how to nominate the article or how to work with colleagues to bring it up to standard. I read the guidance and I failed to find the correct way to trigger a review. Would anyone here be willing to advise or coach on this? Many thanks. Friendofleonard (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A Canadian military historian. Always wanted one of those. Could have used one on Harry Crerar. My initial reaction is that you have Buckley's hope. An article normally takes about three months to get through FAC, so it would need to be nominated asap. And it still needs some work. It's in good shape - it is a GA - but there are some source and referencing issues that I can see at a glance. Nomination procedure can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Nominating. Normally I would recommend taking it to A class first where the issues can be workshopped, but that would consume a month or two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have provisionally reserved a TFA slot for 8 May for this. That should give you an extra month or so. But it absolutely needs to be out of FAC by 24 April, or I'll swap it. So, if it is into FAC by, say, 10 March in a decent and FAC-worthy state it has a good chance. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the original year of this anniversary? BilCat (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
So the 8 May (which is celebrated in several countries as Battle of the Atlantic Day) is actually VE Day - the day WW2 ended in Europe. So it is not a unique day to the Battle. The "Battle" took 6 years and a number of starting points could be chosen I suppose. Traditionally I think that the sinking of the SS Athena on 3 Sept 1939 is given as the start date. So, 2023 will be the uninspiringly numbered 78th anniversary. Friendofleonard (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'd read through his bio after seeing this, but wasn't sure exactly what the date was an anniversary of. BilCat (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for reserving a slot. I do not want to push this if the community thinks it should wait a year (8 May 2024 would be an equally significant date but I expect that 8 May 2025 will and/or should be taken by VE Day itself), but I also think it can get to FA in four weeks, as long as the process is clear. I will take a stab at putting it into the process in the next few days. Friendofleonard (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I have made further edits and submitted it for peer review. I am afraid I somehow messed up the nomination status and it shows as having been previously nominated and then failed, even though it has only been nominated once. I am not sure if that glitch will affect the review process - is it possible to correct the references to an earlier shadow/failed review to avoid misunderstanding? Friendofleonard (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Hawkeye7. I agree it could be improved and I am willing to put some time into that, but I expect it would benefit greatly from someone coaching along the way - if you know someone who could help with that. Friendofleonard (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Gettysburg

Battle of Gettysburg has been nominated for a 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

PQ 8

Convoy PQ 8 Can anyone see where I've gone wrong with U-454? I've tinkered with the year but no joy. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

as U-454 has no year disambiguator in its article title, leaving the year parameter out of {{GS}} works i.e. {{GS|U-454||2}} gives U-454. Nthep (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

John Manners at FAC

Hi all, hope you don't mind me posting this here! The above article is at FAC, he was the longest lived cricketer, but also had a very interesting and distinguished naval career in WWII, which is of interest to this project. Any comments or suggestions at his FAC here would be much appreciated, as it's about to be archived! StickyWicket (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Second Battle of Kharkov

Second Battle of Kharkov has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Milhist pages with inconsistent redirects

I've been doing some work on GA pages, and found a few where the GA is a subpage of an article that has a redirect from both the parent article and parent talk page, but those two redirects go to different places. Two are MilHist pages. Could someone knowledgeable about these fix them? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

GA page Talk page redirects to Article redirects to
Talk:320 mm mortar/GA1 Talk:320 mm Type 98 mortar Type 98 320 mm mortar                                                                    
Talk:HMS Thordön/GA1 Talk:HSwMS Thordön (1865) HSwMS Tordön                                                                                

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia and the American Civil War

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Australia and the American Civil War/1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

7th Armoured Division/Hanover District/Euan Miller

Hit a bit of a dead end on this. A lot of info is available online that pretty much spells out that the 7th Armoured Division merged or became Hanover District in late 1947 and then was officially disbanded in early 1948. Euan Miller was GOC of Hanover District during this period and I ahve verified that he was GOC in 1949. Around March 1949, it would seem, either Hanover District became 7th Arm Div or a new 7th Arm Div was formed from Hanover District forces. I have seen a few secondary sources allude to the division being disbanded and reformed during this period, but they don't spell it out or provide dates. The Times and the Gazette are not helpful either. The only published source that seems to, is Watson and Rinalidi, The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947-2004. However, to the best of my knowledge, that is a self-published source so does not meet WP:RS. Does anyone have a source or know a place to plug this gap? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The National Army Museum has a limited enquiry service. It's focused on its collections, which currently include a large exhibition on the British Army in Germany during the Cold War, so might be worth a try. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Can't hurt! I'll shoot them an email, thanks for the resource. If they do respond though, how would that be sourced here on the wiki? I know when I have contacted museums in the past, for personal and non-wiki reasons, they have been able to provide some really detailed answers but nothing that wiki would state is a RS. Would the email need to be uploaded to the wiki somehow or would a ref tag stating per NAM suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess per WP:V it would be strongly desirable for the response to be available to readers and other editors. I'm not sure if this would be within Wikisource's scope? ORTS might also have some options. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, ORTS?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:VRT. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
EnigmaMcmxc you should of course be already aware Army Historical Branch will likely be the last word on the subject. Suggest if you don't get any success at NAM asking assistance from Chief Curator or whatever his title is for them to send a polite note to AHB. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents in the Syrian civil war#Opposing forces

An IP has for some time been adding unsourced or improperly source details to the Opposing forces table in this article. It could use someone with subject knowledge to make sure it's all correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

The dispute at Talk:Sino-Indian War#Result/territory is simple:-

1. The war resulted in a Chinese victory.
2. The war ended without any change in territory, i.e. status quo ante bellum.

But the current version of the infobox is very ambiguous and includes multiple explanations while missing the whole point about territorial situation.

Consider posting your views on discussion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Inactive task force

The Baltic states military history task force seems to be inactive, perhaps even defunct. Its talk page has been receiving only edits by bots since 16 January 2020 (three years already since then)‎. The task force has only three members (it used to have more, but they all fell away). Of these three, one stopped editing in 2014, another in 2015, leaving only one active editor - Vecrumba. The task force's founder (in 2007), Kirill Lokshin, is now retired. Should anything be done about this task force? Perhaps deleted, merged? What do you think? --Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleting task forces is quite a hassle (IIRC it involves the deletion of a bunch of pages and modifications to {{WikiProject Military history}}, so it might be just easier to leave it be unless it's somehow actively harmful. I'm also not sure either the number of names on the task force page or the frequency of edits to it are useful metrics: The relevant article alerts shows at least some stuff happening, even if it's not overtly busy there either. Ljleppan (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not harmful to anyone at all, so I guess the easiest and least time-consuming option would be to just leave it be. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
We might consider renaming them all to "resource hubs" or something like that, but I agree, better to leave them all be in the state they are. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Help from some of our ship experts

Freeman's history of Eighth Air Force in the UK says that the ground echelon of the 92nd Bombardment Group sailed aboard the USS West Point from the New York POE on 6 August 1942, arriving at Liverpool on 18 August. He also says it sailed aboard the USS West Point. Apparently USS West Point at the time (AP-23) was the impressed SS America. However, the Wiki article on the America indicates it spent 1942 in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Unfortunately, the sections of that article regarding 1942 are totally unreferenced. I took a look to see if there was a USAT or SS West Point at the time, but no luck. Can anyone identify the convoy from the ports and dates that the unit would have sailed on. Hopefuly, there's a ship name that would leap out as a typo -- or alternatively, the West Point spent a little time in the Atlantic in 1942. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

According to DANFS, West Point II was in New Zealand in May 1942, New York in July 1942, made two trips to the UK and then was in India in November 1942. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Page 92 of this memoir by the commander of the 816th Engineer Aviation Battalion, which went out to build airbases, states: "On August 6, 1942 the battalion moved to the Port of Embarkation, and boarded the U.S.S. West Point to join a convoy of vessels moving to Great Britain. This ship had formerly been known as the America, the queen of the United States Merchant Marine. This was to be its last voyage in a convoy as it could outrun submarines, and cover the passage in a much shorter time." so looks to be the right ship - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
A fairly concise account of West Point's wartime service is at Charles, Roland Wilbur (1947). Troopships of World War II. Washington DC: Army Transportation Association. p. 146.. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the help and the sources. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Roger Newberry

I was writing a bio of this subject as a Connecticut judge, but it turns out he is substantially more notable as a Revolutionary War general, if anyone wants to pick up that angle. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Help with screening potential fabricated claims

While I was random article patrolling, I came across Lyuksemburg, a village in Dagestan. There is an unsourced claim, which has always been in the article, that it was originally a German colony. This struck me as not credible, but before I delete the statement and screen the rest of this editor's contributions, I wanted to get input from you experts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing strikes me as being improbable. The village exists, and the story of the Caucasus Germans is well known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not known to me! This is why I ask. Thanks! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Простите! My apologies. Goes to show that high school Russian classes were not a waste of time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
No worries, no offense taken. What is obvious to an expert often isn't to the uninitiated, nothing wrong with that. It's why we all need each other here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Ezhiki can you assist here? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly page 3261 of the Columbia Gazetteer of the World has "Rozivka (RO-zeev-kah), Russian Rozovka, town, E ZAPORIZHZHYA oblast, UKRAINE, on railroad, and highway. 46 mi/74 km NNE of BERDYANSK: 47 23'N 37 04 E. Elevation 708 ft/215 m. Raion center. Food processing, footwear, brickyard. Nearby is the site of the Battle of Kalka River (1223), the first major defeat of Kievan forces by the Tatar-Mongols. Established by German colonists in 1788, called Rozenberg (German Rosenberg); later (around 1935-1941), renamed Lyuksemburg (German. Luxemburg)". Either a very similar situation and the same name chosen or some sort of confusion of the two - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the number of places named after George Washington, I find it believable that this is coincidence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Quite a few places in Russia were named after Rosa Luxemburg during the Soviet era. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There was a Mennonite colony named Rosenberg in Galicia, today Shchyrets, Lviv oblast.[3]
Plenty of German-speaking Russian Mennonites lived in two colonies near today’s Khortytsia, Zaporizhzhia oblast and Molochna, Kherson oblast, and some more on the Volga. The communists renamed most of the towns in the 1930s. There were probably some in many other places, although the name Liuksemburg sounds more likely to be after Rosa than of Mennonite origin.  —Michael Z. 01:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian military task force

Following this part of WT:MHC, it is advisable to create task forces only after discussing them here.

I already noticed the inactivity of the Baltic states military history task force and it was decided to just leave it be, because clearing it up would take up too much effort.

I have already asked around if people would join a LTMILHIST task force and there were several strong yes answers (User talk:Pofka#Lithuanian military history task force, User talk:JorkaSSS#Lithuanian military history task force; tagging both for courtesy Pofka, User:JorkaSSS). Of course, anybody else can also join as all help is greatly appreciated.

The task force's full name would be: "Lithuanian military history task force". The shorthands - "Lithuanian" and "LTMH". I am aware that this task force's scope overlaps with the already existing Baltic states task force, but that task force is basically dead, so it can be ignored or at least put to the side. I looked at its founding discussion from 2007 and most of the involved (except one) are no longer active editors. The LTMH task force would also benefit from being a "child of two projects" (in the words on WP:TASKFORCE), i.e. WP:MILHIST and WP:LT, unlike the Baltic states milhist task force.

The scope of the LTMH would be:
1. the military history of these states of Lithuania - Grand Duchy (1200s–1795), Kingdom (1251–1263), interwar (1918–1940) and post-1990.
2. Just like the WP:AUSMIL: "While titled "military history", the task force encompasses present-day military topics for all areas within its scope."
3. all battles that happened over current Lithuanian territory (no matter who was involved) + the territory of what was then seen as part of Lithuania (which includes provinces named after Lithuania and Lithuanian towns).
4. Lithuanians in foreign armies, including military units that included many Lithuanians, units that were stationed in modern Lithuanian territory for a significant time, etc.
I have already created a considerable number of articles in these topics and plan on creating more in the (near) future. I have found several willing editors. The task force would definitely be of use and would be active, unlike the Baltic one. I hope others agree to this and allow this to go forward. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While I understand why some people are really passionate about their homeland's military history, I think its counterproductive to create a new taskforce when there is one that already covers it. Especially in the case of relatively small countries like Lithuania (the whole African continent has but a single taskforce for example). Producing quality articles is the most important thing at the end of the day, regardless of whether it is done under the banner of one taskforce or another.--Catlemur (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Given all the taskforces are inactive, what would the point be? Is there a group of editors who would use this to track articles or who would use a separate talk page to support their editing? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is a group of editors who would use this. Me and other editors would benefit significantly from the existence of this task force. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Catlemur, this seems superfluous. The better thing to do would be to work under the Baltic banner, and reenrgise that task force, which has the potential to grow interest in the wider scope of that task force. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • It would be better to get the Baltic states military history task force back active instead, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Catlemur @Harrias @Fnlayson The Baltic states military history task force itself is superfluous because there already is a European military history task force. Overlapping scope is not a convincing argument against the existence of more specialized task forces. In fact, there are quite some milhist task forces that overlap.
    Plus, the LTMH's scope reaches beyond the Baltic states task force, whose official scope does not even include people from the Baltic states in foreign militaries, among other things. The Baltic task force was just an afterthought following the creation of the Russian and Nordic task forces.
    The Baltic task force is a mess. It has the problem of many people misunderstanding what it is about, which is proven by the presence of the task force's shorthand in, for example:
    I am unwilling to look through all of the articles of the Baltic states milhist task force and remove the ones that shouldn't be there. Considering that such confusions will inevitably repeat themselves for a lesser-known region like the Baltics, which many confuse with the Balkans or the Baltic Sea, it is better to create a new specialized national task force that has a very clearly defined scope and for which I have already gathered a sufficient number of willing editors, instead of me trying in a futile manner to single-handedly revive a task force which is inactive and about which people don't even care about. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Is there a middle way here? Could we reactivate the Baltic States' task force talk page for 3 months say? - then that would allow Cukrakalnis and his team to have a place to coordinate things. They could simply ignore everything on the task force cover page and just focus on the articles they wanted to work on. Then if there is substantial interest, a separate task force could be created. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
      @Buckshot06 I think a middle way would be to create the LT task force in the incubator - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator - and then see how that goes. I think it would a good solution. If my idea of a LTMH was good, then it gets promoted from incubator to a full-fledged task force in the space of maybe three months or however long it takes, and if it fails, then it just goes into the archives. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Why not just use the European military history task force? It already has several Lithuanian-related articles listed... - wolf 20:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the suggestion to create a separate Lithuanian military history task force because it covers a very broad topic (see the former territory size of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which existed for over 500 years and at times was the largest state in Europe). Latvian and Estonian users have quite little knowledge about military history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and I doubt about their interest in it because Latvia and Estonia historically mostly were part of Livonia, not Lithuania (term Baltic states appeared in the 20th century, however Lithuania was first mentioned in 1009). Moreover, I strongly doubt that listed quality content at Baltic states military history task force#Article statistics is a credit to Baltic states military history task force because these important articles (often vital-class) are part of other WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Lithuania, WikiProject Latvia, etc.). Another equally important former member of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has a dedicated task force (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force), so these who are interested in Lithuanian military history should collaborate and communicate in a dedicated Lithuanian military history task force as well. I would join and contribute to such Lithuanian military history task force and I am sure that it would grow in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:China-US Cold War has been nominated for discussion

Category:China-US Cold War has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Battle positions diagram at Battle of Khresili

Could someone have a quick look at the Infobox diagram at Battle of Khresili? It purports to show the positions and movements for this battle. I'm not used to looking at such diagrams, and at first glance looks kind of infantile to me like a child's art project, or maybe it's just based on an old, contemporary diagram and this is a recreation of it? (Also, just for my own curiosity: is there a generic name for this type of diagram? I've been calling it 'battle positions diagram' but I'd like to know the correct term, if there is one.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, looking for a bit of advice on First World War photographs. Would anyone know if the following are likely to be PD:

By a French official photographer

Held by the Australian War Memorial:

Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Refer to this AWM page, Members of the media can gain access to images and footage which are in the public domain through the Memorial’s online collection or Flickr page. These images are low-resolution and available to download and use free of charge So, images taken from AWM website are public domain.
And refer to this IWM page, ... may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium under the terms of the IWM Non-Commercial Licence unless otherwise indicated. and The IWM Non-Commercial Licence is equivalent to the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Licence.. So IWM images is not public domain, but it is non-commercial use. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Ckfasdf, good to know the AWM one is free. I know British official photographer photos form this time are usually PD as Crown Copyright has expired but no idea with ones of French origin - Dumelow (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
There are 000s of IWM images on Commons as it is believed that the IWM claim of copyright is incorrect (copyfraud). Images produced by British (my emphasis) official photographers are covered by Crown Copyright which, in the case of images from the First World War, expired long ago and that the images are covered by {{PD-UKGov}}. Images by French official photographers are possibly PD assuming the author is definitely anonymous and the image was published over 70 years ago. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Somewhat agree with Nthep, and images from First World War most likely have been published over 70 years ago. In case of French photographer France copyright rules should applies. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

List of World War II aces from China

Does anyone have sources that can confirm, add to, or prune List of World War II aces from China? It's ... pretty bad, as were the three articles on individual flying aces that I ended up redirecting to this list. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:List of Alamo defenders, two sections: Gonzales Mounted Ranger Company and The Dubious Samuel G. Bastian. DavoLWS is discussing, and sourcing, information on the background sourcing as to whether or not Samuel G. Bastian was actually at the Alamo. I'm neutral, but I believe it's helpful to let you folks know about the discussion. Please feel free to join in. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 166th Aviation Brigade (United States)

166th Aviation Brigade (United States) has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a discussion of a requested move at Talk:Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine#Requested move 23 February 2023 if anyone wants to weigh in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand Wars

Hi,
I am sorry I could not work out how to contact you apart from this - I am not a Wikipedia editor person, and there is a bad error in your page on the New Zealand Wars. The sentence in question is:
The subsequent ritual killing of missionary Carl Volkner by Pai Mārire (or Hauhau) followers at Opotiki on 2 March 1865 sparked settler fears of an outbreak of violence and later that year the New Zealand government launched a lengthy expedition to hunt for Volkner's killers and neutralise the movement's influence.
What is wrong is that the killing of Carl Volkner was not in any way ritualistic. He was hung as a spy! If you look into him further you will find he was writing letters to Gov. George Grey, deliberately informing him of Maori troop movements. He had been adopted into the tribe and they considered he was now a traitor who had betrayed them. The letters survive and in his own hand his guilt is proven. He was warned both by fellow missionaries and iwi members not to return to Opotiki from Auckland, but did not heed their warnings.
Anglican Church records will confirm this.
https://www.anglican.org.nz/Resources/Worship-Resources-Karakia-ANZPB-HKMOA/For-All-the-Saints-A-Resource-for-the-Commemorations-of-the-Calendar/For-All-the-Saints
Filed under V - Volkner, Carl Sylvius and Mokomoko 29.39 kB March 2
So does the NZ government History website : https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1v5/volkner-carl-sylvius. 2406:E003:AC5:9201:9CC8:8DBA:F1B2:976F (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You can just edit the article to fix that. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Our Völkner incident suggests that there were ritualistic aspects to the killing. Obviously a touchy subject. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ruth M. Gardiner DCGAR

Working on Ruth M. Gardiner, a WP:DCGAR. Is

a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the togetherweserved stuff. It's user-submitted, so verification is always going to be problematic. If you look at her togetherweserved page's sources they come right back to Wikipedia, as well as find a grave, ancestry.com and the like. Luckily that page is only an external link and doesn't seem to be used for article sourcing, so you could just delete it. Intothatdarkness 23:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

UK and US in World War II

And which front / campaign was the most bloody for Great Britain and the USA in World War II? Preferably with loss figures. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I was going to point you to the reference desk but I see they directed you here. While I was checking that though, I noticed that you have had 36 edits so far, most of which are asking very similar questions about casualty numbers on multiple pages. Would you mind explaining what you need these casualty numbers for? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Because I'm interested in the losses in World War II.And if the losses of the USSR, Japan, Germany are more or less clear, then the British losses raise questions. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hahaha! The losses of the USSR, Japan, Germany are not clear at all. But the British are highly detailed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, if you think the British losses are very detailed, then you can help me. What is the most bloody front for Britain? In theory, this is the Western Front, but on the other hand, the wiki reports only 41k killed (11k in 1939-1940 and 30k in 1944-1945) Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Those numbers are cited in the Western Front (World War II) article. Is there a reason you think they "raise questions"?
Bear in mind that while the war in NW Europe involved more UK ground forces than Italy or North Africa, those campaigns lasted much *longer* - the African campaign lasted almost three years and the Italian campaign lasted almost two, but there were only two months of active fighting in NW Europe in 1940, and a little under a year in 1944-45. In the east, the Burma-India campaign lasted almost four years.
Compared to other nations, a disproportionate amount of UK combat deaths will have been in the navy and RAF, as part of the Atlantic and strategic bombing campaigns. These will not be attributed to a specific front. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Raises questions because the UK lost 384k fighters killed in just the Second World War. According to Wikipedia, 35k died in Africa, 18k in Italy, about 50k in the Atlantic, 82k in the Pacific, there were also Balkan campaigns and raids, but there were losses of a couple of thousand people. The question is where did another 200 thousand people go? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little doubtful about "384k fighters killed"; this number is in World War II casualties and cited to the Comonwealth War Graves Commission, but the report linked is no longer online so it's not entirely clear what was stated there. I'll leave a note on the talkpage there.
The official postwar statistics were released in 1946 in a parliamentary report, Strength and casualties of the armed forces and auxiliary services of the United Kingdom 1939 to 1945 (Cmd. 6832) - a scanned copy is here. Similar high-level data was reported in Statistical digest of the War (table 14) but it only shows military deaths.
This has 264,443 members of the armed forces killed 1939-1945 (including missing presumed dead as of 1946), and another 31,271 deaths from natural causes whilst serving in the military. There were another 1,830 auxiliary deaths (women's services + Home Guard), 30,248 merchant navy and 60,595 civilian deaths; this brings our total up to 388,387. There are a few complicating factors involved that means the totals don't line up exactly, but the official statistics are close enough to the cited CWGC figure that we can be fairly confident they are representing the same thing - military deaths of all types plus civilian deaths attributable to military action.
"Military deaths" in the sense you are probably expecting to see were thus only about 264k. The report does not give a breakdown over time, but it was compiled from a series of monthly reports, and so a year-by-year count was worked out here (tucked away in footnote 39).
234k military deaths were in the "war against Germany", which seems to include all fighting other than the "war against Japan" in the Far East. There is no breakdown by front below that, but of that 234k, we have 121,484 deaths in the Army, 66,080 RAF and 46,911 Navy. The RAF deaths are dominated by the ~55,500 from RAF Bomber Command, which would not be attributable to a specific land campaign. It's also worth noting that the total deaths figure include around 20,000 men who died as POWs (mostly soldiers and mostly in the Far East); these presumably would not be counted in the deaths for any individual campaign.
Deaths in the NW Europe campaigns will have been primarily Army; there was little naval involvement overall, and the remaining RAF numbers are quite small. So at this point, we can estimate that the 1940 and 1944-45 campaigns together represented something on the order of one-third of all Army combat deaths in Europe/Africa. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I've updated some of the CWGC numbers at World War II casualties based on their 2021-2022 annual report (numbers fluctuate over time as graves are identified and the database is reviewed). Their numbers are based solely on recorded graves and memorials and some mass graves are counted as one entry (for example, 5 bodies buried in one place = 1 grave site) so they are likely under reporting the total military deaths. There are also a few other caveats with the data. The referencing on that page is a bit of a mess; there are a few different places that cite CWGC reports and each has its own (broken) site link. It would be easier if we could place a single CWGC annual report link in the references section and have the cite notes call on specific pages, as appropriate. I leave the thought there if anyone wants to do anything with it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. I don't know if you saw but I just left a very detailed note on the talkpage there! The 384k figure is a close match for the CWGC's database's count of RAF/Army/Navy plus Merchant Marine, so I suspect that is ultimately where it came from, and not from including the civilian count as I had initially thought.
Confusingly, however, the CWGC figures are substantially higher than the 1946 report indicated - it comes out as:
  • 1946 report for Army/Navy/RAF deaths, including natural causes - 295,714
  • CWGC records for Army/Navy/RAF deaths - 355,036
  • CWGC records for Army/Navy/RAF deaths, only "wartime deaths" as of 15/8/1945 - 332,909
The discrepancy is smaller for the RAF and Navy (about 20%) but higher for the Army (about 45%). I have not yet figured out why. It doesn't seem to be from including people who were still missing and were later declared dead - only about 6000 were still missing in 1946. Will need to think about this one a bit - I feel like I might be missing something obvious. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The two counties have different definitions for what was a campaign. For the US Army, we have a list of United States Army campaigns during World War II. You can find our list of battles with most United States military fatalities, which will tell you that the most expensive campaign of World War II was the Normandy campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Flag display issue

{{navy|United States}} is currently producing the Naval Jack, not the Stars and Stripes. This means thousands of articles are wrong. It needs fixing. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You can propose a change at {{Country data United States}}. Ljleppan (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Have already flagged it there but no response. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
See discussion at template talk:Country data United States. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Hanford Site

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Publicizing RM on Somali Civil War

Please see Talk:Somali_Civil_War#Requested_move_5_March_2023 - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Publicizing RM on Iraq War

Please see Talk:Iraq_War#Requested_move_5_March_2023 - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Publicizing RfD

Hey, could we get some input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 26#Landing platform vessel? There seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty about what this phrase means (or is closest to meaning), maybe you experts can clear things up. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 09:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Publicising RM on Iraqi conflict (2003–present) → Iraqi conflict (2003–2017)

Please see here: Talk:Iraqi_conflict_(2003–present)#Requested_move_6_March_2023 FOARP (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History

Hi all, is MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History considered a generally high quality reliable source? I can't really tell. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with it, but based on some quick Google searches I'd treat is as any other general-audiences magazine. Not great but, but not necessarily catastrophically bad either. Certainly not sufficient for any exceptional claims, tho. Ljleppan (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I have a few issues, and as you say, OK, but not great. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. They just recently published an article on Fabian Ware, but from these responses I doubt it is the sort of high quality- RS we would want in a featured article. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Julian v Gregorian

Does this project have any guidelines or preferences on how to deal with events prior to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? Britain moved over in 1752 so obviously sources published before use Julian dates but sources after appear mixed, with some converting dates and others leaving as is. As an example, p. 261 of this [[4]] (published in 1797) has HMS Roebuck arriving at Lisbon on 6 May which is the same date given in the London Gazette (published in 1744) here [[5]]. --Ykraps (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As to how we present it in the article, there is guidance at MOS:JG, basically use the calendar in use at the location at that time, though conversions can also be given (particularly where it might not be clear which calendar is being used). Not sure on practice used around this time but think I remember seeing somewhere that generally dates in the past were referred to without conversion - Dumelow (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
For articles about ships that travelled between areas wth different calendars, it will be difficult to stick to "the calendar in use at that location." Where the date relates to a ship visiting a port with a different calendar, I'd suggest using both dates with Template:OldStyleDate or its variants. Also, if you are using UK sources from this time period, take a look at Old Style and New Style dates. In 1752 there were two changes in calendar for much of the UK (excluding Scotland) with moving New Year from 25 March to 1 January and then converting from Julian to "Gregorian" in September. Note that the Gregorian calendar was named for Pope Gregory XIII, so protestant countries sometimes avoided using that name even though the change was identical to the catholic calendar. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both. Plenty to read there. From a brief look, it doesn't appear that there is a preference so long as there's an explanatory footnote. --Ykraps (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Siege of Lal Masjid

Siege of Lal Masjid has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking for input from the commumity...

...regarding the renaming of USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) to USS Robert Smalls. Just follow this-> link to WT:SHIPs. Thanks - wolf 05:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies

An RM that may be of interest to editors here, given how many Commonwealth military figures have them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Errol Manners

RN rear-admiral, currently a stub. Would be nice to see a major expansion on this individual, given his dual naval and theological careers. Leaving him here, as not really my area, but hopefully might spark someone's interest! StickyWicket (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Foreign designations for military aircraft

The system of reporting names for Soviet now Russian and now Chinese military aircraft dreamed up by a group of non-Soviet and non-Chinese countries has been at NATO reporting name for some time. However, the system was formulated by the Air Standardization Coordinating Committee, now the Air Forces Interoperability Council. Anyone who is interested in giving their views on which the article title should be, as opposed to redirects, can comment at Talk:NATO reporting name.

To be as clear as possible, the issue is between *accuracy of designation* and WP:COMMONNAME, if such common usage *can be proved.* Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Problematic WWII Chinese air warfare articles created/expanded by User:Got Milked

Has anyone else found problems with our biographical content related to Chinese air warfare in World War II?

I'm looking at articles created/expanded by Got Milked and am running into major issues with unreliable sources, non-neutral point of view, reliable sources that don't actually mention the article topic, and very unclear notability. For examples:

  • Zheng Shaoyu's content was effectively irretrievable, and I can't see why they're notable
  • Gao Zhihang is as of writing now redirected, and I can't show the similarly problematic content because of the massive copyright violations
  • John Wong Pan-yang is now redirected, but previously was sourced almost entirely to unreliable sources and had little to no claim to notability (as far as I could tell)
  • Same for John Huang Xinrui (see pre-redirect content)

There's a lot more out there, e.g. I suspect Xu Huansheng has very similar problems to those above. Help? Is it worth nuking and/or redirecting these? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to say, at least for me, without being able to read the relevant sources, which may be why people are hesitating from weighing in. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I could not see at a glance any problems with the two article I reviewed. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Mersivan

Hello everyone, please take a look at Battle of Mersivan. It seems to me it requires some objective input. GusChago (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Lacking time and the sources to do a thorough job, I've replaced the article entirely with the text describing the battle from the Crusade of 1101 article. As the editors who wrote it appear to be new to Wikipedia, I expect that I'll be doing a whole lot of reverts and rollbacks as I try to explain concepts like WP:NPOV, etc. to them, just to let any admins who might notice me violating the 3RR rule.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947

The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 states that "the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to exercise the authorities contained in" the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. Despite being a relatively important piece of legislation, the article on the ASPA is two sentences long and there is no link to the actual act. I am having difficulty finding a pdf or other link to that act, so I thought I would bring it up here to see if anyone else might have better luck locating it. Thanks! -Location (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Location: Is this what you're looking for? The associated pdf is here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@The ed17: Thanks for looking into this. That pdf appears to show only part of Section 2 of the Act, but it does show that it is also referred to as Public Law 413 of the 80th Congress. Unfortunately, the Congressional records here only go back to the 82nd Congress. Cheers! -Location (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Location: How about this then? It looks like the act is on page 21, although it still starts with section 2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@The ed17: That it! I don't understand why they leave out Section 1, but it does appear to have all the other sections referenced by the CIA Act of 1949. Thanks so much for tracking it down! -Location (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

The proposal is to deprecate usage of "supported by". Please comment at the subject link. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)#Arbitrary break

Please see subject discussion regarding the addition of this text (current iteration) where the primary issue would be accurate attribution of an indirect quote. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)#Requested move 14 March 2023

Please see subject move discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Umayyad conquest of Hispania listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Umayyad conquest of Hispania to be moved to Muslim conquest of Spain. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

489th Civil Affairs Battalion

Would someone from MILHIST mind taking a look at 489th Civil Affairs Battalion? It's a newly created article that I came across after being asked about it at User talk:Marchjuly#Question from 489wiki on User:489wiki/sandbox (18:09, 12 March 2023). It was moved to the mainspace by its creator without being assessed in anyway. It's already been tagged with several maintenance templates (by another user), but perhaps some from MILHIST could take a look at it too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have started working on this, thrown out half the standard "this is Civil Affairs" type commentary, started changing to standard terms etc. It appears to have been attached to VII Corps (United States) during Desert Storm. I will continue keeping an eye on this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need a page about a battalion?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is not filling me with confidence w/r/t WP:GNG, I'd personally cover that part before expanding large amount of time on the article. Ljleppan (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Precedent suggests that there will be lots of references substantiating GNG, but they may not be immediately available. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

UK official histories of WWII

I've just updated History of the Second World War with a big tranche of digitised copies of the British official second world war histories; it looks like there are now online copies of all of the "military series" volumes except the final part of the Mediterranean history (Vol 6 pt 3); almost all of the "civil series" (missing the oil and weapons development volumes); plus all of the foreign policy and medical series. The intelligence volumes (mostly published in the 1980s) are not yet online.

A couple of these have been online via hyperwar for years, but having the full set available may be very useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow! That is awesome! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrew Gray, for sharing! --Technopat (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How to classify minor actions (sack, rout, etc.)

Hi! I'm currently expanding the Timeline of the Peninsular War with some of the minor events that took place, including those that do not, at first glance, warrant their own articles. One of the terms I've been using, so far, in the "outcome" column is "manoeuvre (French/Spanish, etc.)". My doubt is whether that term is valid for the sack of towns, etc. I don't consider the term "victory" valid in these cases as that would suggest an organised battle between regular troops. The logical term would be "sack", especially if the corresponding reference reflects that, but that term is already used in the "Event" column, and I reckon it's better to keep the number of different terms to a minimum. Any suggestions? Thnks, --Technopat (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (or however that idiom goes). "Manoeuvre" doesn't really sound like an "outcome" to me. If it's just some troop movement, then surely there is no "outcome" for it. If someone is attacking/sacking a town, then surely it's not a "manouvre"? Also, I'm not really following the logic at I don't consider the term "victory" valid in these cases as that would suggest an organised battle between regular troops.
Beyond that, just say what the reliable sources say. If they say nothing conclusive, then leave it empty. Ljleppan (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Ljleppan, if there really isn't an outcome because of the nature that doesn't lead to there being an outcome, then say nothing and rely on the lead to explain the nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. The point of the "manoeuvre" tag is that there was no battle planned, as in, the troops were simply marching elsewhere (manoeuvre), had no intention of besieging the place but were interrupted along the way... no battle was planned between two organised forces. Saying nothing and leaving it blank is, of course, an option, but was wondering if there was any other "better" alternative. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure that "manoeuvre" is a good choice. Until you just explained it above, I didn't know what it was meant to convey. After all, a retreat is a military manoeuvre; attacking somewhere, failing to capture it and marching off is also a manoeuvre. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Ljleppan and Gog the Mild. If you are talking about troop movements that resulted in unplanned skirmishes, then rather than saying that the maneuver resulted in a skirmish it would be more useful to say what the outcome (the result) of the skirmish was. Maybe it's a translation issue. I'd also caution against "Sack", since that has a specific meaning in English in military terms: "to plunder, pillage, and damage. To carry off spoils of war or loot", unless a sacking is what actually happened (ie a large example would be the Fall (sack) of Rome in 410 CE or a smaller example would be the Pirate Sack of Baltimore, Ireland in 1631) Gecko G (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. The three recent additions (Beja, Villa Viciosa and Guarda) are specifically referenced by Oman (1902) as having been sacked by the French forces involved. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Technically "the troops were simply marching elsewhere (manoeuvre), had no intention of besieging the place but were interrupted along the way... no battle was planned between two organised forces" = a meeting engagement, an *unplanned* battle. Battles don't have to be planned to be battles, and they don't have to be "organised," either. Mons did not start off in a "planned" fashion. If one or another side were clearly defeated, then that can be said, because the RSs should say that. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Typically, towns that surrendered were not sacked, while those taken "by storm" in an assault were. The threat of a sack was a great encouragement to defenders to surrender on agreed terms, especially where the local council or whatever was in charge, rather than a national army commander. Equally, the promise of rape and pillage was a great motivator to attackers to push an assault through; the Ottoman army was allowed three days virtually out of control after a victorious assault. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for comments! Oman is highly critical of the French troops typically "losing it" when taking a place, but even Wellington, notoriously a strict disciplinarian, called his own troops "scum of the earth" after their behaviour at Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz. --Technopat (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Forgot to mention the Siege of San Sebastián...--Technopat (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Time for the Lady Smith anecdote? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Would make for a great storyline... if it hadn't already been done. --Technopat (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Awards and decorations of military personnel

I noted that Elfath1421 had updated the awards and decorations of military personnel to a table form (following how it will be placed on the uniform of said person). Is this part of the MOS now? Examples are Perry Lim and Kelvin Khong. Thanks! (please ping me when replying!) Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

At the very least it's not common. Which is good, because it looks absolutely atrocious on mobile. MOS-wise, MOS:XMASTREE and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES seem relevant. Ljleppan (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't look much better on a PC and the MOS links would be relevant. I am sure we have had discussions that would deprecate similar representations and limit reporting to only awards of significance and not every bit of tinsel. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. And yes, some information are lost also, aka when the person received it (not very important) and sources that the person did receive it. Will revert and talk to the editor. Thanks! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Tanks

Portal:Tanks, a page under the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanks (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Tanks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 11:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ratio of casualties in the Pacific War

Maybe I'm already annoying, but still I want to know what was the ratio of those killed between the Americans and the Japanese? In the article about the Pacific War, only US BATTLE losses of 92 thousand dead are indicated, which sounds understated, at the same time it says that it was in the war with the United States that 1,1 Japanese soldiers died, which also sounds a little strange, because the losses killed in the Pacific front 1,5 million and logically 80% should be killed by an American bullet. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the numbers but I would presume that far more Japanese soldiers died fighting in China than against the Americans. Gecko G (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
And then you also have their conflicts with the Soviets. These ratios are usually guesses at best, since it's very difficult in some cases to even determine how many troops were committed to some campaigns, let alone a full tabulation of losses. Intothatdarkness 20:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The article specifies 2,121,000 military deaths "mostly against either the Americans (1.1+ million) ... or against various Chinese factions (500,000+)". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
twice as many? Interesting. Does that number include pre-1941 fighting or only post 1941? Gecko G (talk) Gecko G (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You can look at the linked source, its worth pointing out that the content we have right now is more or less OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A quick glance at the source didn't show a date range (just compilation and disposition dates) and just says "during the war", and I don't see any obvious links that might lead to an explanation, I don't want to try to scour the entire website for what is just a passing curiosity. Gecko G (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That does not follow logically at all. A considerable percentage, perhaps a majority, of Japanese casualties were from disease and starvation. An estimate is here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
That is, in the war with the United States, the Japanese lost a little less than 1.2 million, if we consider that the United States itself lost 161 thousand killed, then we get a ratio of 1:7. This is what the Americans smashed the Japanese bullies. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Your bias is showing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And how does this manifest itself? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"Americans smashed the Japanese bullies" Sammy D III (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
There's also a totally misplaced focus. Kill ratio or whatever doesn't necessarily indicate anything in terms of a final outcome. Thinking that it does is more indicative of incomplete understanding in my view. Intothatdarkness 18:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I don’t argue that they defeated, I just doubt very much that only 92 thousand Americans died. I'm sure that the US lost a little less than half of all the losses in the Second World War. Yes, the US had relatively low casualties, but I highly doubt they were strong enough to lose 92,000 of their troops in exchange for 1.2 million Japanese. Earlier in the article about the Pacific War there was information about 161 thousand killed and dead Americans, which seems very reliable.But that article was "alert", they prefer to mention only American combat losses, and the Japanese had ALL dead. Which seems to me disrespectful to American veterans, because due to such manipulation of numbers, readers may get the impression that "The Pacific War was just a military walk, where the Marines defeated the Japanese hooligans with one hand" Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The facts don't care whether you believe in them or not. And if a reader gains that impression then they can't have been paying attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact is very doubtful, but the Americans have a powerful army and navy, but not enough to lose 1:12 killed. Plus, this data is contrary to logic. In total, the United States lost 407,000 troops: 147,000 dead and missing on the Western Front, 29,000 killed on the Italian front, 9,000 killed and missing in Africa, and here, of course, I could be wrong, 8,000 merchant sailors in the Atlantic. And then I have a rhetorical question, and where did the rest of the 212,000 dead go? Maybe all the same, the Pacific War was not a "military walk" for the states, as the article is trying to inspire us Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Operation Babylift

The Article "Operatation Babylift" was mofified from:

Operation Babylift was the name given to the mass evacuation of children from South Vietnam to the United States and other western countries (including Australia, France, West Germany, and Canada) at the end of the Vietnam War

to:

Operation Babylift was the name given to the mass kidnapping of children from South Vietnam to the United States and other western countries (including Australia, France, West Germany, and Canada) at the end of the Vietnam War

on 19 MAR 2023 to reflect (in my opinion) the indictment of President V.V. Putin by the ICC. I believe this edit is wrong and malicious.

Andrew Hardisty andrew.hardisty@mail.ru 94.158.62.122 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks a lot like vandalism to me. The edit to Operation Babylift has been reverted earlier. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Henry Miller, should it be reversed?

A friend has pointed out to me that the photo at Henry Miller (British Army officer) should have his medals on the left-hand side but they appear on the right-hand side in the photo. I uploaded the photo from the State Library of Queensland; here is the SLQ image and catalogue entry. The library says it came from this 1923 newspaper article in which the medals appear as in the image on Wikimedia Commons and in the article. Since Miller died in 1866, it is unclear what was the origin of the 1923 photo and whether the published 1923 photo is true to the original or not. I have noted the concern on the Talk page of the article and on Commons, but I am reluctant to reverse the image (original research?). But I am not a military historian and I know nothing of the wearing of medals in the pre-1866 era. Maybe this issue has arisen before and there is consensus on how to deal with it? Kerry (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the answer might simply be that it might not have been very formalised (or very robustly adhered to) at this point, especially in civilian dress - the article on the Military General Service Medal (the Peninsular one) shows it worn by a veteran in civilian dress on the right side as well, pinned to a lapel and not to the chest. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
One more example - commons:File:Private John Jack of the 52nd Regiment of Foot at the age of about 90.jpg is quite similar (retired soldier photographed in old age, c. 1870) and shows his three medals, two of which were I think the same as Miller's, worn around the collar.
I don't think we can say for sure Miller's photograph is not reversed (or that of our anonymous Peninsular veteran, for that matter), but I'd be cautious about concluding it either way purely on the basis of the medal position. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This photo of a Waterloo veteran, c. 1850 also shows his medal being worn on the right. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! It's clear it's not "obviously" an error and I will leave it well alone. Kerry (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Diocletian

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Attention needed for potential inaccuracy at Cecil Stephen Northcote

I noticed while checking another issue that in 2018 an IP editor had inserted into a citation in the Cecil Stephen Northcote article a note to the effect that "I believe the histories of two different british officers with the same name have been mashed together ro create one person". I've moved the note to the article's talk page, and would appreciate it if somebody with time and a better understanding than mine had a look at the issue raised. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 17:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@XAM2175 It was a little tricky to prove, but I think I tracked it down. The older one was actually "Cecil Stafford", but the original author presumably was only working from sources using "C S". I'll tweak the article accordingly. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
That's splendid, thanks very much! XAM2175 (T) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the Iran-Iraq War

Hello, WikiProject,

I was surprised to see this empty category the other day. Are there no articles about battles in this 8 year-long war on the project? I know it probably wasn't covered in-depth by Western newspapers at the time but it seems like there would be some coverage of this lengthy war. If you can think of an appropriate article(s), please categorize it before this category is deleted next week. Thank you for your expertise. Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I see there is a Category:Military operations of the Iran–Iraq War so maybe the articles concerning this war have just not been categorized correctly. Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems the category itself is only 2 days old. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon

A merger proposal for military robot to lethal autonomous weapon has been started at Talk:Lethal autonomous weapon#Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon, input is appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Baren Township conflict has an RFC

Baren Township conflict has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A-class that's not GA class

I've just noticed that Home Army has been delisted as GA in 2020, but it is still listed as A-class for Milhist. But our A-class review was in 2008, so the odds are it wouldn't pass A-class today without some improvements anyway. The article probably needs to be downgraded back to B-class or so, and start climbing up again. I am not sure if there's a specific procedure to be followed here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a specific procedure. Articles can be put up for an A class reappraisal by the coordinators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I've always found the FA/GA/A -classes' interactions in terms of reassessment a bit confusing, with e.g. an FA-demotions not doing anything automatically w/r/t A-class (per this). Ljleppan (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Just as acquiring an A class rating does not automatically qualify an article for GA, so a demotion at GAR does not cause it to lose it. This is reasonable, as GA and FA demotions often have nothing to do with article quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that's fine in theory, but graphics such as the flowchart'y thing at WP:MHA#SCALE (with an explicit flow of B -> GA -> A -> FA) don't really help anyone new understand that. To be even more confusing, the way WP:ASSESS phrases it (Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.) which reads, at least to me, as you don't have to nominate for GA if you are confident it's good enough for A class nomination. Ljleppan (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct, and I often do so. I have also sent A-class articles to GA where a GA rating was required for a Good Topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk: Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery#Requested move 20 March 2023

Please see and join the discussion. Cheers. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RV Petrel

The RV Petrel was involved in an accident at Leith yesterday. At the time I added an entry to the list of shipwrecks in 2023, the article stated that she was under the Manx flag. The article has since been expanded, and now states that she is now owned by the United States Navy. So, has she been reflagged, and if so, has she been commissioned? Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:War

Portal:War, a page under the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:War. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Page move RFC for some British tanks

Here: Talk:Chieftain_(tank)#Requested_move_25_March_2023 (Hohum @) 04:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman

I have nominated Harriet Tubman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Barbados Defence Force#Flag vs Emblem

Kindly please see and join the discussion. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Need Help on U.S. Army BCT Training Timeline

See here for article talk page. Faith15 20:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 28 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 28 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Super Ψ Dro 07:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Second request for input on merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon

Sorry to bother you all again. We need a little more input before moving ahead. A merger proposal for military robot to lethal autonomous weapon has been started at Talk:Lethal autonomous weapon#Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of losses in the Pacific War

Now I am "waging war" for an article about the Pacific War. Since the article is manipulating numbers, the Japanese have all the losses, the Americans have only BATTLE. In total, the United States lost 405,000 people, logically, 40-50% should be in the war with Japan. Maybe I'm wrong, but the figure of 92,000 indicated in the article about the Pacific Theater seems to be greatly underestimated. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

LoneRanger1999, several people tried a number of times to remind you of WP:RELIABLESOURCES. You do not need to "wage war" or make guesses about what is "logical." Just go and find the highest quality sources available for what you want to find out about, and just use them. Do not try to make estimates beyond those sources, would be my strong advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in that case he already was. When a couple of months ago it was stated that 160,000 Americans had died. And even now there is not an authoritative source there, since only BATTLE losses are indicated, that is, underestimated losses. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
So, if you want better, more authoritative sources, (a) go to the National Museums of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, and talk to the curators; go to the National Archives Building and/or National Archives at College Park and look at the records there. *Note*: you won't be able to put anything you find there up on WP because it will be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. But those are the most authoritative sources, apart from a Google Scholar search for appropriate search terms or academic library databases. Anything you find from G Scholar you can cite, using Template:Cite Book etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Assuming no typos or misprints, in Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-1945, New York: Vintage Books, 2009, originally published London: Harper Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-307-27536-3, p. 541, Max Hastings wrote that: The U.S. Army, meanwhile lost some 55,145 killed in the Pacific conflict, including 3,650 in South-East Asia.... The U.S. Navy lost 29,263 dead in the east, the Marines 19,163." This is a total of 103,571, somewhat higher than the 92,904 figure cited in the article but nowhere near the 160,000 number. Since the Air Force was part of the Army in World War II, and much of the air combat in the Pacific was by naval air forces in any event, one would not expect Hastings to give a separate breakdown for Air Force casualties. Citing Official Histories, John Costello, in The Pacific War, New York: Quill, 1982, originally published New York, Rawson, Wade, 1981, ISBN 978-0-688-01620-3, gives the percentage of U.S. "Armed Forces" casualties in the Pacific as 27.6% of 1,073,000 U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) world wide. The total is 296,148. The total of dead and wounded Americans in the Pacific in the article is 301,237, a little higher but not even 2%. I suppose it is not surprising that even in a conflict as recent as World War II, there might be inconsistent numbers among sources, but the discrepancies in those just cited including the numbers in the article are not as great as between any of them and the higher numbers that are argued for here. I might call particular attention to the fact that the only source that I found in a quick review that gives the percentage of U.S. losses in the war in the Pacific, Costello's, gives a percentage that is not in the "logically" cited range of 40-50%, but only 27.6%. Costello gives Japanese casualties as 1,415,000; Hastings gives a total of 1,740,955. The article states a total of Japanese Army and Navy casualties as 2,121,000 men. This is a considerably larger discrepancy but I saw nothing in a quick review that could explain the wider differing numbers for this category. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
But according to Hastings, 103 thousand Americans killed are most likely combat losses, and the Japanese indicate all combat and non-combat losses. Yes, the United States has a powerful army and aviation, but not enough to fight with a loss-to-kill ratio of 1:17. But I still have a request for you to edit the article about the Pacific article and indicate Hastings, because my edits there are deleted immediately. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
There are going to be a number of factors that could account for the differing loss levels, most of which aren't going to show up in the stats. Perhaps the biggest is the difference in combat styles between the American and Japanese forces, and even between the Army and Marines if you get right down to it. Also, naval engagements have higher losses because of their nature. Personally I think chasing "kill ratios" and loss comparisons of this nature is a rabbit hole that often leads to incorrect analysis and flawed conclusions. Intothatdarkness 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, yes, you are right here, the most remarkable thing is that American losses raise questions only on the Pacific front, but everything is clear and understandable with the Western Front Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Distinguished Flying Cross

Can our DFC and Gazette experts help me? Wing Commander J.S. Shawcross Shorthouse of 189 Squadron Bomber Command [6] was awarded the DFC. Can anyone track down the date of his award? He commanded No. 189 Squadron RAF seemingly through 1944 and 1945. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a record of anyone called J. S. Shawcross in the RAF in the Gazette. There is a John Sidney Shorthouse DFC though. Shorthouse gained his DFC on 2 November 1943 for a bombing raid in September 1943. This is in Supplement 36230 of the London Gazette, p. 4814. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. My transcription error. Shorthouse. Many thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification of move discussion at Talk:USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207)

Notification of move discussion at Talk:USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207). An effort by an editor to eliminate unnecessary disambiguators/hull numbers from article titles and those who support keeping them. Llammakey (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-03/Featured content

MILHIST might be amused by the poetry version of the Signpost, including summaries of various MILHIST articles. I hope I got everything accurate. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal on Janissary Corps

There is a proposal that a new article on the Janissary Corps be merged into the pre-existing article Janissary. Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Constantine ✍ 17:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Great Raid of 1840

Great Raid of 1840 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 20:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian Usage of the US Army's Universal Camouflage Pattern

In regards to the [citation needed] notice for Ukraine's usage of this camo, I have found a YouTube video detailing the donation of surplus US Army bolts of UCP fabric to Ukrainian uniform contractors. While this isn't a valid source in and of itself, it does imply that the fabric is in proper use, distinctive of the Ukrainian MM14 camouflage. However, I've been unable to actually find any more reputable sources stating that this camo is in use there. The cited charity doesn't seem to have any articles about it on their website and no news services have picked it up. Can anyone else find anything substantive about it? George Mucus (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

British military terms

I've been using Wikipedia for a sci-fi book I'm working on that's military-based, and I just realized that there is no article on British military terms. And I haven't seen a category for it, either. I unfortunately have limited access to the outside world due to...impulse control problems. So, could someone please help with this? Faith15 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If someone more familiar than me with the subject does not show up to help here, try Wikipedia:Reference desk, or more specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Donner60 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
[[7]] isn't bad. Is that the sort of thing you are after? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Um, @Peacemaker67, one problem. As you can see from my last message above, I have limited access. What I meant is that I can't really access just any site. See, I'm still technically a minor by American law, so my parents still have authority. Don't worry, I'm pushing seventeen this year, but there's a whole process of them checking it to see if it's safe and okay for me, convincing them to open this particular site... it's a whole process. So, if I want to know the answer, it has to be here in Wikipedia. Otherwise... unless I convince them, that site's useless. I should have clarified for you. Sorry. Faith15 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Wiktionary (which I linked) is part of Wikimedia, ie it is a sister project to Wikipedia. Look at the bottom of the main page, there is a link there. The glossary is on Wiktionary because it doesn't meet the criteria for an article or list on Wikipedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I tried Wikitionary. It's the next day where I am btw so sorry if I didn't respond immediately. I will ask my dad to unlock it later, after he gets up. He has a sleep disorder, which makes him not able to get up until at least eleven, if he has coffee. It is 9:02 currently my time, so I'm gonna be waiting a while. Faith15 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
And as for you, @Donner60, I'll see if the place you mentioned has someone that can help. Good luck. Faith15 14:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I doubt if your parents will allow access to this one, given some of the subjects covered. Also, the rules for Wiktionary must be very different to Wikipedia, as the list seems completely OR, with a single general source about slang in the submarine service. I'm struggling to find any official or otherwise authoritive online sources which may gain parental approval. Sorry. Monstrelet (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, they aren't...traditional or typical parents, per se. Their biggest concern is if it shows pictures or videos of... sexual stuff. I can handle the cursing pretty well. And they're not really concerned about pictures of guns or anything like that. So, as long as there isn't pictures or videos of sexual stuff, it might be possible. Faith15 16:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
No pictures but sexualised language, so I think it will struggle to get parental approval. Monstrelet (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, major concern is videos or pictures of sexual stuff. Sexualized language? Still might be fine. They just don't want me to see how it's done, you know what I mean? Faith15 16:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for FN Herstal

An article that been involved with (FN Herstal) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of weapons developed by FN Herstal). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Military style" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Military style has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 8 § Military style until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Project Blue Sword-B

This article is a mess. The user who made it just copied stuff from the ZH wiki and now has been banned. Any noble souls want to help clean this up? Imcdc Contact 11:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Huang Chao

An article that been involved with (Huang Chao) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Huang Chao Rebellion). If you are interested, please visit Talk:Huang_Chao#Should_there_be_a_separate_article_for_Huang_Chao's_rebellion?. Thank you. Imcdc Contact 12:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

List of combat losses of United States military aircraft since the Vietnam War

In March, List of combat losses of United States military aircraft since the Vietnam War was greatly expanded with incidents that may not have been combat losses, especially shoot downs. Is anyone here familiar enough with these recent wars to take a look at the article? Many of the claims seems very dubious. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that aircraft that exclusively operate at high altitudes like a U-2 or E-2 could be shot down by the Taliban. I think that the whole article should be rolled back.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
That was my thought too, but I didn't want to do it unilaterally. BilCat (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I concur. Lots of issues here. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Regulamentul Organic

User:Buidhe has nominated Regulamentul Organic for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion at List of proxy wars

Hi there, I've started a discussion at this article's talk as I'm concerned about the lack of sourcing for the "proxy" label, potentially leading to issues of original research or POV. Please do contribute here: Talk:List_of_proxy_wars#Criteria_for_inclusion_/_removal_of_unsourced_entries — Czello 12:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcel Têtu

i have made a Wiki Page about Marcel Têtu and i need some People to help me for more info etc DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I made minor adjustments. Its a good idea to try and find reliable sources when writing an article so people don't questions its validity later on. Also breaking the article into section even if its short.--Catlemur (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Ill try there werent allot of sources and i Cant understand french but still thank u DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
hey do u Know how u can make like the battles the person fought in and stuff cuz i Cant do it DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
oh and i had sources they got deleted by a moderator DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I Mean exented user idk why DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey folks -- I'm not a member of this wikiproject (and not contributing much in depth these days), but I have been speaking with DutchHistoryNerdWW2 and suggested they post here for a bit of assistance.
They're clearly editing in good faith and seem to be enthusiastic about military history topics; but as a new contributor they could use a hand understanding how and where to find reliable sources and appropriately-licensed images for the topics they're interested in. Preferably before they get discouraged by too many reversions and deletions.
I think with a bit of mentorship or the chance to shadow someone, they could become a productive contributor to articles in this project's area of focus. -- Avocado (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for USS Wisconsin

I have nominated USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Zeebrugge Raid question

See [8] there is an inconsistency in captions and we aren't sure which is the original or if it's accurate. Can an aficionado help? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a few books on this in my digital library. I'll take a quick look through and post on the article talk page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a book

I can't find it on Google or Amazon. It's cited in another book and I'm wondering if anyone here can help (crossposted from WT:IE). I don't have a publisher or author's full name, let alone an ISBN; here are the details given in the book:

  • D. Fitzpatrick, Ireland and the First World War (Dublin, 1986), specifically the chapter "Lest we forget" by J. Leonard, pp. 59-67.

I'm happy to buy a copy but I'd appreciate any help in tracking one down! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/ireland-and-the-first-world-war/author/david-fitzpatrick/ Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

[9] ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, beaten at the post. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Name for the Syrian War (192–189 BC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the talkpage of Syrian War (192–189 BC) on what the name of the article should be. Input from project members would be appreciated. Catlemur (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Breda

i have a Draft called The battle of Breda in Wikipedia and i need more People to work on it with me anyone? I wanna have something like this: Battle of Gabon I wanna have like who won the battle etc DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinks added for convenience. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The main section seems to be a direct Google Translate of the cited source. The original version seems to have large chunks copy and pasted from this page and this page (again both currently cited as sources). @DutchHistoryNerdWW2:, I don't think we can accept this as an article - we can't just copy other people's material. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention the text as currently written doesn't even clearly established that a "battle" has occurred. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have noted the above on the article talk page but I'm willing to accept this is an incomplete draft and the actual battle part is, as yet, unwritten. Otherwise what we have is the evacuation of Breda, which may not be notable in itself, rather than as part of something on the effect of the invasion on the civilian population. The copyvio is more troubling but could be resolved by rewriting. Whether the cited sources meet RS standards would need to be considered - is there a current view? Monstrelet (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Angolan Civil War

Angolan Civil War has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:World War I

Portal:World War I, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:World War I and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:World War I during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I'm assuming we want to keep our quality assessment stuff as-is, given that we have our own system that functions very well for us, and the proposed guidelines are different. Hawkeye, do we need to do anything technical on our end to keep our own assessment standards, or has that already been done? Hog Farm Talk 15:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I assume we do too. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Aye. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
DFlhb (talk) has been working on it. A new version of our project template has been developed that uses {{WikiProject banner shell}} and is available in {{WikiProject Military history/sandbox}}. Everything should work the same as before. All that now remains is to move it into production. Considerable technical work was required, and we should nominate DFlhb for an award. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeedy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ditto on maintaining independent assessment and on recognizing DFLhb for their hard work. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of testing, and caught a few minor bugs. It should be ready now (though a second pair of eyes wouldn't hurt). Users Chlod, WOSlinker, MSGJ, and Redrose64 were extremely helpful. DFlhb (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

North Sea operations 1939-1945

Is there a campaignbox similar to Template:Campaignbox North Sea 1914–1918? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you would find that the closest template campaign box is Template:Campaignbox Atlantic Campaign and the closest category is Category:North Sea operations of World War II. (Link did not take for some reason.) There are five articles in this category, including one that you have been working on. An article of some relevance may be Battle of the Atlantic. There was less action in the North Sea in World War II than there was in World War I. This sentence from the article North Sea indicates that: "The Second World War also saw action in the North Sea, though it was restricted more to aircraft reconnaissance, and action by fighter/bomber aircraft, submarines, and smaller vessels such as minesweepers and torpedo boats." The sea and land actions of the Norwegian campaign occurred in the Norwegian sea, north of the North Sea. Perhaps someone more familiar with World War II articles could add to this. Donner60 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that perhaps the topic is underwritten, certainly early in the war. German destroyers made many minelaying sorties to the English and Scottish coasts. I think that torpedo boat operations might have been more evident at the southern end but we'll see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Category:North Sea operations of World War II this might do. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a proposal to re-name Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC) as "Battle of New Carthage" which may be of interest to you taking place here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Campaignbox problem

Can anyone see why it won't open? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahem! found it. Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Baia

Battle of Baia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Another discussion of interest

This discussion may be of interest too. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Refs

Bookku (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Allies of WWII

Hello all There is a request for comment on the above article. The question is over the date when the Soviet Union joined the Allies. Currently the article states June 1941 Operation Barbarossa. There is discussion over whether this should be changed to July 1941 the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. The discussion is taking place here: Talk:Allies of World War II If you are interest please feel free to comment on that page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, discussion is here: Talk:Allies of World War II#RfC Date Soviet Union joined the Allies Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments on image choice

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield has long been represented on enwiki across several articles by File:Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.jpg. While this image is a product of the National Park Service, it is (IMO) too low-resolution and at 375 x 210 px is rather small. I've uploaded an image I took, File:Artillery at Wilson's Creek Battlefield.jpg, which I think solves the resolution and size issues. As the photographer of the proposed image, I have a bit of a COI here, so I wanted to seek larger input before starting to swap out the photos. Hog Farm Talk 21:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Old vs. new files
  • Old file
    Old file
  • New file
    New file

Hog Farm Talk 21:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Changing to the newer, higher rez image seems fine to me. The view down the line of cannons seems better also. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Obviously the higher rez image offers better quality, but (imho) I think the view angle of the cannons on the old image is better. (can you take another pic? jk) The new image is just as good, so I guess we should probably go with the improved rez. - wolf 23:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Assuming we are being asked to make an aesthetic judgement, I much prefer the old image. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft identification

Does anyone know what kind of aircraft is in this image, taken in Puerto Rico in 1940? I think it might be an early model PBY Catalina, but I'm not sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one to me, VP-51 was in Puerto Rico in 1940 (see VP-33). Also [10] same aircraft, following year? Nthep (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
There seem to be three of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Be really surprised if it was anything but a Cat. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks guys! I looked at the VP-51 article but didn't think to look up VP-51 under VP-33. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Not my area of specialism but is certainly an early model of PBY Catalina. The absence of observation blisters in the fuselage means it is not a PBY5 or later. I'm not sure how you tell the PBY1 to 4 variants apart visually, or even if you can, I'm afraid. Monstrelet (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The link Nthep posted suggests that the aircraft is a PBY-5, but going off this other angle of the photo I agree it's lacking blisters (also, the first PBY-5s weren't delivered until after this photo was taken). As a complete amateur I'd suggest it's a PBY-1 because the aircraft is lacking the long, thin vertical access panel that stretched down from the rear of the cockpit glass in all later models. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_169&oldid=1232601952"