Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153

• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 148
• 149
• 150
• 151
• 152
• Archive 153
• 154
• 155
• 156
• 157
• 158
• 160
• 170

WASP notability

I notice that the women in red project is creating articles on WASP aviators but I am not sure that most of them are not particularly noteworthy. An example Gwendolyne Cowart created this week, she did some good stuff ferrying aircraft around not unlike the other 1000 wasps but I dont see anything outstanding. A lot of these article shows she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal but it was a collective award and not actually awarded to individuals. I didnt want to prod some of these articles without some other opinions because we dont want to discourage the WIR project which is doing some good stuff but do they really meet mil his notability guidelines ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, they have to meet GNG, which is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Whether they meet SOLDIER is neither here nor there, and to be fair, SOLDIER is naturally skewed to favour men over women due to men's dominance of senior and combat roles at the time. Cowart as the "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" is a pretty major achievement on its own, especially for that era. I think the main source is an online version of a newspaper in a city of 300,000, so it should be ok on face value. Perhaps it is a little light-on, but I wouldn't be prodding it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, as an aside I have never really been keen on achievements like "youngest woman to get a commercial pilot's licence in the South" although I cant see the reference, it begs the question to us non-American readers what the "South" is and why it is important, and who was the youngest in the North! MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, I agree with Peacemaker that Cowart looks to have received enough coverage in the media to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Like all bio (military history) articles, they have to be looked at, one at a time. I would rate this one a "Weak Keep". Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

USS Harrisburg

I created USS Harrisburg (LPD-30) given that ship was named today. As admittedly military and ship articles are not my prime area of expertise, leaving a note here for anybody who wants to take a look and tidy it up. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

1959 San Diego F3H crash

The article 1959 San Diego F3H crash has been created on an accident which may have hit things and killed sombody, but like thousands of such accidents it didnt, one question is that the pilot was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal would this be enough to pass the notability threshold for the accident. thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Milhist banner query

G'day all, it has been years since I looked at this, and cannot see what is going on here. If you look at Talk:Battle of Calais you will see in our banner a redlink for "passed" an A-Class review. The article history is fine, and the reason is probably something to do with the fact that the article has been moved since its ACR, but what is the fix? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There's currently no work around in the Template code; it shouldn't be too complicated to implement something by adding a field like |oldtitle=, and setting it up in the code. Alternatively, we could move the A-class review page itself. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, most of this was written by Kirill Lokshin, he might have an answer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais (1349), so it now appears as a blue link in the banner. Harrias ^talk 08:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, that rings a bell. There are a few others, I'll do the same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks guys. If, and it may be a big if, Battle of Calais passes its FAC in the next few days, is that going to cause any new problems? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so. Harrias ^talk 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, we've normally just moved the review subpage or created a redirect from the new name, as Harrias has done; it's not something that occurs very often, so I think that's easier (and less error-prone) than recoding the banner to allow people to override the title, especially if an article goes through multiple names over its lifetime. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to have a hatnote directing readers to the Siege of Calais disambiguation page? My first thought when I saw "Battle of Calais" was the 1940 one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I posted on the talk page of Gregory_A._Feest, but no response. The article seems to be copied entirely from a military website. Is this standard practice? Daundelin❁ 20:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Daundelin: US federal government websites (including most military sites) are in the public domain, so it's not unusual to see Wikipedia articles that are based on a copy of such a source. However, an appropriate attribution template should be added to credit original site. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: there's like 200 templates there, which one do I use? Daundelin❁ 20:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Most likely {{US Air Force}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

RAF Bomber Command effectiveness

The article for Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet includes what appears to be a brief discussion of the effectiveness of area bombing as practiced by the Bomber Command under Harris as compared to the effectiveness of targeted attacks as practiced by the Americans. That paragraph ends with the sentence:

The American history also includes information from Albert Speer, in which he points out Bomber Command's night attacks were the most effective.

This seems to conflict with a quote from Defence of the Reich:

After the war, Minister of Armaments Albert Speer was asked by both British and American interrogators on separate occasions which air force had a superior bombing strategy. The exact wording of the question was "Which, at various periods of the war, caused more concern; British or American heavy bomber attacks, day or night attacks, and why?". In both cases, Speer replied: "The American attacks which followed a definite system assault on industrial targets, were by far the most dangerous. It was in fact those attacks which caused the breakdown of the German armaments industry."

Can someone with more knowledge about this issue resolve this apparent conflict? .froth. (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Both air forces bombed cities deliberately and both got more accurate in 1944; Speer was an unreliable witness and the comments of panjandrums of the German war economy during the war were judged more reliable by Adam Tooze in his economic history of the 3rd Reich. Keith-264 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A brief look at the Harris article suggests that it is a travesty.Keith-264 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian warship Magee

What is the true identity of the Imperial Brazilian Navy's war steamship Magee, lost off the mouth of the River Plate in June 1858 with the loss of about 400 lives. Was she an iroclad, a corvett, or something else. The only other info I have is that she was built by Laird's of Birkenhead. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a list of ships built by Laird's before 1860 here. Couldn't see anything resembling Magee but there's a few ships built for the Brazilian Navy. Possibly she was renamed? - Dumelow (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a possibility, purchased secondhand and renamed. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Russia–United States proxy conflict and Draft:China–United States proxy conflict

Hello, I want to tell you that there are two proxy conflicts that has not been covered by Wikipedia yet. These are the Draft:Russia–United States proxy conflict and Draft:China–United States proxy conflict. If anyone who is interested in helping editing these draft articles then you are welcome. If you are wanted to edit the whole drafts then you can leave a message in my talk page to let me know that you are editing the articles because these two proxy wars are important when it comes to military history. I did add them to the News & open tasks section. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Bouncing mine" or "bounding mine"?

This RM discussion could benefit from a few more opinions: Talk:Bouncing mine#Requested move 13 October 2019. PC78 (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Airship question

So in rewriting SMS Amazone, I've come across a reference to a "Luftschiff M IV", but I can't find any airship designated M IV on the List of Zeppelins, List of Schütte-Lanz airships, or List of Parseval airships. The closest I can find is Zeppelin LZ 27, which was an M-class Zeppelin with the tactical designation of L4 - does anybody know if that's right, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume it is Gross-Basenach#M IV? Harrias ^talk 13:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that seems most likely. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:William Schism

Dear military experts: Here's a draft that may be of interest. Please take a look!—Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Academia.edu question

I'm trying to fill in

* {{cite journal |ref= |last=Mattesini |first=Francesco |year=2019 |title=Il periodo piu tragico per la Marina Italiana sulle rotte tra l' Italia e la Libia: dalla distruzione del convoglio "Duisburg" alla prima battaglia navae della Sirte, Novembre – Dicembre 1941 |trans-title=The Most Tragic Period for the Italian Navy on the Routes between Italy and Libya: From the Destruction of the Convoy 'Duisburg' to the First Battle of Sirte, November – December 1941 |url=https://www.academia.edu/35144205 |journal=Academia |language=it |volume=}}

but I can't find it on Worldcat. I'm also a bit doubtful that it is a RS. Any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't find more details either. Academia.edu does host some reliable sources but this looks like it might fall into the category of self-published essay. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the PDF. It looks RS enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The author has a page on Italian Wikipedia (it:Francesco Mattesini) which states he works for the historical office of the Italian Navy and lists a number of publications. I don't speak Italian and its not my era so I can't offer much of an opinion on reliability - Dumelow (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Scholar results] for the author - he does seem to be a published academic who seems to have been involved in the Italian Offical History (how involved I'm not sure).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

As the named author of a number of volumes of the Italian official history of WW2, as can be seen from the Italian Wikipedia, Mattesini seems to reliable.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's some very useful context. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, usable then but sparingly and with caution. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gettysburg photos to upload

I have about 111 photos from the Gettysburg battlefield to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Most of them are of memorials, like in List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, but a lot of them are better than the photos there. There are some photos of the battlefield and some of cannons, etc.

I'm ready to upload them but I don't have the time or knowledge to add descriptions or put them in categories. Can someone help with that? I will upload them as a batch, but I need to have a title, category, and initial description for the set - what should I use? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As a Civil War buff (and member of the Friends of Gettysburg), I'm willing to help. The "highest" starting category would be Gettysburg Battlefield on Commons, and photos could be placed in subcategories from there, such as the large Battle of Gettysburg memorials. Title and initial description should be something like "Photos of the Gettysburg battlefield", preferably with a date or date range or other identifier for your set. I've never done a batch upload, so maybe somebody else could give you tips there. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. They were taken on two days in April. With a batch upload, you designate a file name, say XYZ, and then they are uploaded with names XYZ (2), etc. They will have the same initial description (including an NRHP number if there is one - is there one?) And a category. Since the bulk of them are memorials, I think it would be easiest to dump them into the memorials category, then I can go through and move the ones that aren't memorials up to the general category. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I can also help with moving the photos to other categories or adding categories such as gun types. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot of work is needed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. They have names Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US.jpg, Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (2).jpg, etc.

To do it the easy way, I put all of them in the Gettysburg Battlefield category and the memorials are also in the Battle of Gettysburg memorials category. A bot will come through and remove the general category for the ones that have the more specific category. Over half of them had to be rotated. Many of the landscapes are underexposed (because of the bright sky). I can fix that.

I would appreciate it if someone could put some details in the description and move ones to subcategories, if they exist. Also, ones that are worthy could go in articles like List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I see that someone has started working on the Commons photos. Thanks, it is a bigger chore than I could do. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Armor-Piercing Shell

OK, well besides lack of references, this article has errors where it talks about the capped armor-piercing shell. That APC was introduced in WW2, when I know it was used in the Battle of Jutland. That the capped cushion the shock when it dispersed it radially (in soft capped types), and on. I am not a subject matter expert on the matter but if errors were made on this then I have little faith that there is not a lot of other errors as well. Is there anyone around that does have a background on this? Tirronan (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Our resident naval coves, Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy might be able to help there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, both the Brits and the Germans had APC shells during WWI. I've replaced the erroneous text there with something of a start – hopefully it's an improvement – but I don't have sources that discuss the development of the projectiles in any detail, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The article really fails to distinguish between naval developments which didn't advance beyond APCBC and anti-tank work which continued onwards through APFSDS. Fixing that would require a major rewrite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking a wild guess that the reason those naval developments of APCBC stopped because no armored ships exist anymore. You are right, we need to be aware that any search for ap shell shows that article. We are not looking good at all with that thing representing us.Tirronan (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I think that it was actually a matter of direct vs indirect fire. Naval technology aimed at increasing the range of engagement, which meant indirect fire at anything over 10K or so. Tanks are still limited to direct fire with engagement ranges under 4K (excluding gun-launched missiles, etc.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Naw, I was joking. Both the US 127mm and the Russian 130mm both come in at 13 miles mark for range. 10k for all intents is point-blank range for either of them. I watched too many GUNEX's on the USS Coontz to not know that. Armor as such became useless when the armor you designed into a warship became a mathematical exercise in missile design to sink it. About the only use for APC shell is for bunker-busting these days. They don't stock those in US warships either, or at least not when I was serving 40 years ago.Tirronan (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok I found this but I need a ruling on if this is OR? http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/AP_Metallurgical_Examination.pdf

It's a report of a US Government laboratory with two authors, reviewed and approved at two additional levels, and approved for public release. I don't see how it could be considered OR, but it might be a primary source. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure 1994–present

This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because I carefully added the relevant articles to it. It appears to have been probably been emptied without due process [1], and I can easily readd the articles that should be in it. It appears that Ssolbergj is systematically removing this category (which meets WP:CATDEF, all articles within it are military formations) and inserting a category which does not meet WP:CATDEF (all articles are not Allied Command Operations, which is one singular article). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge military history portals

There are currently three military history portals in portal space:

1. Portal:Military history of Australia
2. Portal:European military history
3. Portal:Military history of Germany

You may know that there is also currently a substantial winnowing of portals going on, particularly targeting portals with low viewership. None of these portals is likely to make the cut in that process. At the same time, Portal:Military history has always been a redirect to Portal:War, although the subjects are not necessarily identical. I propose merging the three portals noted above into a single Portal:Military history, under the operation of this WikiProject. bd2412 T 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your post. I have tried to help keep the military history of Australia portal up to date and fix some other issues that have arisen with other portals to at least ensure it has some usefulness. It appears, though, that this is most likely a lost cause. If people feel that it is too narrow to remain viable, and wish to merge it, I won't stand in the way. However, I am not in a position to help maintain a larger military history portal. I also think it is important to acknowledge that any merge would need to be done in a balanced manner. The three topics above are just small aspects of the overall topic of military history; a merge would need to take that into consideration. As such, I would hazard that a broader military history portal would require a lot of work to ensure it is balanced. This would likely require quite a few committed editors. With the current narrative relating to portals, I am not sure that will be possible to find enough volunteers to achieve this. (Apologies for the negative waves, to paraphrase Oddball). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From my perspective, I have never been really au fait with portals, and agree that they seem a lost cause in general. Even though AR has done a sterling job keeping the Military history of Australia one up to date, I think the problem is that few people look at it, with only 17 views per day. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Portals with wider coverage draw more attention. I think a single merged and expanded portal in this area (perhaps retaining specific sections for the military histories of specified regions) would do better. bd2412 T 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Given Portal:War (a pretty wide coverage) doesn't get more than 400 hits per day, and we would be hard-pressed to find enough motivated volunteers to maintain a standalone Portal:Military history, I'm sad to say that this idea (like the rest of the portals) seems to me to be doomed. Also apologising for the "negative waves". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support this proposed merge. Would be an improvement over the fragmented portals. Suggest you WP:BEBOLD and just do it (though as a pagemover I am happy to help if you need). UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is a great idea, we should have just one portal.Catfurball (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've been maintaining Portal:Nuclear technology. It gets 116 page views per diem. The whole portal is fully automated, but it showcases high-quality featured articles and pictures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Gaston, Marquis de Galliffet

Does this article seem weird to anyone? Lines like "[he] distinguished himself by the firmness with which he dealt with cases of unrest in the army in the midst of the Dreyfus Affair." Feel... excessively positive to someone who's clearly, historically proven to be in the wrong. I'm not an expert on this; just... between that and the dismissal of any controversy over his repression of the Paris Commune, it feels a really positive-leaning portrayal of a man who's at best controversial. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 03:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a copy paste of the PD source s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Galliffet, Gaston Alexandre Auguste, Marquis de. Nthep (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not really my subject either, but it seems that despite his earlier reputation, Galliffet was not a bad guy in the affair, being the only witness to speak in the defence of whistle-blower Georges Picquart at a military inquiry in February 1898. [2] He was instrumental in the compromises required for Dreyfus's pardon and he smoothed things over with the army in the aftermath. [3] His dramatic resignation was connected with the affair [4] but I'm not sure how - someone with better sources required! Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

His firmness in putting down unrest during the affair seems a weird thing to be praising, then. And, of course, the glossing over of his destruction of the Paris Commune is kind of problematic as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 17:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I read that as unrest in the army against the left-wing Dreyfusards, but I'm really out of my depth here. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about it but it would be plausible for Galliffet to support Dreyfus but oppose pro-Dreyfus (or any other) unrest in the army. The article could use some attention by an expert I think (and proper referencing) - Dumelow (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Belated, but given the position of the Waldeck-Rousseau government that Galliffet was part of I'd read that line as meaning he squashed any whispers of mutiny among the anti-Dreyfus majority of the officer corps. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How many articles for minor battle?

Battle of Mikołów was brief but probably should have an article. What about the mopping up operation of the nearby city? Defense of Katowice, Katowice massacre, and Parachute Tower Katowice? All three describe the same event: kids taking potshots at Germans entering the city the day after Mikołów, and their capture and execution. Highly partisan and low quality sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.171.213 (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the massacre really is part of the same battle, the defense of the training tower is a minor skirmish.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A-class reassessment of Cold War, but something screwed up

Hey. I clicked the "currently undergoing" link that appeared when I changed its staus to A-class=current... but somehow it created "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/importance". Sorry for the mess...[I think the Importance article should be deleted anyway, WP:NOTDICT... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Our MilHistBot didn't like it at all. It complained about a non-existent talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I Don't know how it happened; I believe I clicked the correct link... What should I do? Is it enough to just move that page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War/archive2? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This happens if there has previously been a A-Class review of an article, which in this case should have been at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War. Usually you can just move the old one to archive1 to make way for a new one. In this case, the old review page is already at archive1, but there is a redirect from the title it should be at. You just need to delete the redirect and fix the link in the article history if necessary. But it is currently Start (which seems about right based on a quick look)? Why an A-Class re-assessment? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's another strange thing... [The talk page discussions bear me out; Gog the Mild responded once to another editor's query...] I've been working on it for at least a week (in my userspace), and the assessment has shown up as "A" for that entire time.... I don't remember if I actually looked at he underlying wikitext, but I remember the display on the top of the article (as per a gadget)_ and the display on the talk page itself bot said "A" class. But when I tried to open a reassessment, suddenly it was Start. And now it's C. Maybe it was Start or C on the talk page wikitext, but the fact that there was an assessment page and ("action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cold War", "action1result=approved") made it display as "A"...? I dunno. I am confused by the whole thing. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) Ah, one editor unilaterally changed the rating. Can do, or needs to go through Reassessment? i thought it was the latter... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to look at this more closely. This article has a very convoluted history, first it passed a (very sketchy, early days... 2008) Milhist A-Class, then PR, then two failed runs at FAC in 2008, then GAN in 2009 (passed) and another PR. I hate to go on about process, but it seems to have really degraded, and really this should have been re-assessed by Milhist when it became clear it didn't meet our A-Class criteria. That may have been years ago. Only one process, GAR or A-Class re-assessment, should be ongoing at one time. Normally it makes sense to do the A-Class one first, because if it passes that, there is no threat to the GA status, but if it fails, a GAR may be necessary. None of this seems to have occurred, and DuncanHill has just downgraded it to C for all projects without any process here and hasn't followed the process for delisting a GA, so it is still listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare. I acknowledge the ongoing discussion about its quality, however. I'm all for IAR, but if it was supposed to be an individual GAR it should have been delisted properly, and if it was a community GAR, the attempted GAR doesn't seem to have been properly formatted/listed either, so it wouldn't be a surprise if there was no interest. I certainly don't recall seeing it listed by Milhistbot on our announcements template, which I watch closely. As far as a way ahead is concerned, given its condition, the GA assessments have been re-instated (with A-Class for Milhist) and it really should be GAR'd properly. I note that Lingzhi2 has done this at Talk:Cold War/GA2, but I assume they will be doing an individual GAR and it will be delisted shortly IAW the instructions at WP:GAR. Frankly, when it is delisted I think C-Class is being a bit kind given the state of the article at present. Milhist will do a proforma A-Class re-assessment after the GAR is completed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! We'll do that then. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Our MilHistBot does not currently list GARs at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements; Should I add them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be useful. Can you do both individual and community? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Milhistbot should list GARs. I may be thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done The MilHistBot is now listing GARs, both individual and community. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've also updated Template:WPMILHIST Review alerts, as I have this on my talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Iona College Pipe Band

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG or WP:BAND, but maybe there's another guideline it satisfies. Currently, the own source(s) cited is Facebook which is a WP:SPS at best and not really helpful for establishing the band's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't meet GNG at present, but isn't connected to military history, so I've removed our banner. I am not familiar with WP:BAND. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Peacemaker67. I just added the MILHIST banner because I thought it might fall under this project's scope as a Pipe band, but have no problem with it being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RS or not, for FAN

Hi,

I was looking to get some advice if the below source would be acceptable for a FAN, if only used for OOB information. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Watson, Graham; Rinaldi, Richard A. (2005). The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947–2004. Takoma Park, MD: Tiger Lily Publications for Orbat.com. ISBN 978-0-972-02969-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As far as I can work out, orbat.com was a wargamers orbat site (now defunct), and Tiger Lily Productions looks to be the linked self-publishing outfit (also defunct) that only published eight books? I'm not sure it would be reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That was my thought earlier today after relooking over this source. It is sadly the only published document with detailed OOBs for the 70s and 80s that I can so far find.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Medal of Honor ?

There is an article in the german Wikipedia about one Harry Adams, who was an officer on Richard E. Byrds ship during his artic expedition in the late 1920s. Although the sources who report on Adams seems to be scarce, the Wikipedian who did the research on Adams lists some astonishing facts - apparently based partially on this article in the "Meridan Record" from 1932. The Meridan-article states, that Adams won the MoH for wartime service twice - which I wasnt able to confirm. If thats just made up, the source may not be credible. Can someone help to confirm or deny this guys MoH ? Alexpl (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A search of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's list shows no naval officers named Adams ever received a Medal of Honor. The only Adams recipient with a "close" birth date is Marine Sergeant John Mapes Adams, born 1871, awarded the MoH for the Boxer Rebellion. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That, and the list of double recipients is a very short one. Seems pretty dubious to me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems like a reasonable assessment. Alexpl (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is caused by confusion between the CMH and the other Congo medals (aided of course, by DW’s usual spotty standards). Everybody on at least one of Byrd’s expeditions potted at least a bronze or silver. Qwirkle (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hugo von Kirchbach

This article has a LONG section at the bottom about how Graf is part of the surname as of the end of WWI, which would be great... IF he hadn't died decades before that... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 03:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not really that long for a section but it is supposed to be a footnote type thing. Here's the templates text from {{German title|Graf}}:

• Regarding personal names: Graf was a title before 1919, but now is regarded as part of the surname. It is translated as Count. Before the August 1919 abolition of nobility as a legal class, titles preceded the full name when given (Graf Helmuth James von Moltke). Since 1919, these titles, along with any nobiliary prefix (von, zu, etc.), can be used, but are regarded as a dependent part of the surname, and thus come after any given names (Helmuth James Graf von Moltke). Titles and all dependent parts of surnames are ignored in alphabetical sorting. The feminine form is Gräfin.
• -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• But does that mean that we should be giving him a name format that was never used in his life, to fit changes to German law nearly half a century after his death? It's a weird historical revisionism. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 06:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit bizarre to me, as far as I can see it is unique to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

refbegin refend question

@Parsecboy: Is there policy about small printing references? Parsec's taking them out and I think it needs consensus. regards. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Is there a diff? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no policy covering them. But in my opinion, they make the text smaller and more difficult to read, so I question their value if that's all they're being used to do (which is the case with the articles in question, for example, here; it's another issue if the other parameters are being used, such as adding columns or indentations). Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog, he's talking about this. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Parsec. I assume that you have been reverted and that this is the discussion to try and reach WP:EDITCONSENSUS? With the default position being how things were before you changed them? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Keith reverted my edit. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Keith, here's my question for you: what value do you think the templates provide as you're using them? Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't for me to justify the status quo; if you want to alter a long standing practice, I suggest that the onus is on you.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Keith, that's a dodge and you know it. Answer the question. I already explained why the template causes problems; you have yet to identify what good it does. If all you have is WP:ILIKEIT, then you don't have much of a logical basis for your position. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't have to. The opening line of MOS:SMALLTEXT in MOS:ACCESS says: "Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly" They're guidelines, but still...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Refbeing and end template put the text in the same font size that the common {{Reflist}} template produces. That's one reason they are used but not necessarily a compelling one. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I used to use them to reduce the size of the Reference section, but now I take them out (when I remember) as they make them less accessible for those with poor eyesight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that people use them because they replicate the familiar format found in printed academic material. But we're not bound by the limitations of paper, so I see no actual value in using them here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{Refbegin}} also allows you to put the references into columns, which saves space and improves the layout because it matches the one the {{Reflist}} template produces. MOS:NOTES says that Editors may use any citation method they choose. I note that MOS:ACCESS itself uses reflist. {{Reflist}} and {{Refbegin}} use a common CSS entry in MediaWiki:Common.css sets the font size to 90%. If you want to change it, Any major changes to this page should first be proposed on its talk page or the Village pump. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye, CITEVAR is completely irrelevant to the question; we're discussing a display issue, not a reference style issue. Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC):

I've seen columns used in very few bibliographies in articles; certainly far fewer than than the base usage of shrinking the size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a widely used template (not certain how to find the number of transclusions though). Deprecating the template generally (ie widely) for reason of size (and/or columns) would need a broader discussion and consensus than from here. See also comment by Hawkeye. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Clarified Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No one is seeking to deprecate the template, that's a strawman. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What then, have you done by deleting it? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, I removed it from one or two articles. Hardly earth-shattering. It was Keith who came here, seeking an "all or nothing" debate. Parsecboy (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Claiming not to be bound by the limitations of paper is a two edged sword, just about any browser allows you to change text size to your own preference. Also a 10% change in text size seems like an odd thing to argue about with much passion. (Hohum ^@) 00:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it really only 10%? Seems bigger than that to my eyes. But the real (unanswered) question is what value does it add to Wikipedia?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Come off it you want change not me, I think it needs a discussion, you're getting a bit too defensive. If you have point to make, make itopenly. I'm not opposing your view but I want a debate, not you unilaterally deleting them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Come off it, indeed; you can't demand a debate and then refuse to participate in one. I made my argument for getting rid of them and then asked you to justify keeping them; you've so far refused. If all you're interested in doing is disingenuous stonewalling, I see no further point in discussing this with you. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the Village pump (proposals).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Like most templates, the template documentation sucks. But this works: {{refbegin|normalfont=yes}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, although I think that it would only be useful to retain existing columns, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be grateful Sturm if you'd keep it civil and stop laying blame. You have unilaterally removed refbegin with a rather selfish assumption about legibility, then tried to put the onus on me. I said I wanted a debate - with the milhists not you, you've already got too defensive. The milhists are responding in good faith, I suggest you do the same. Keith-264 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean me, do you not? Where exactly have I said anything uncivil? Or defensive? Or blaming you for anything? As far as I can tell, the only person not participating here in good faith is you; it would be nice if you could stop misrepresenting what I've said and could answer a simple question. You don't get to make a request, and then move the goalposts when you don't feel like participating. I'll ask again: what benefit to readers do the templates provide? Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are you addressing here, Keith? Where have I been uncivil? I've removed many refbegin templates from pages based on the guidelines in WP:Accessibility and you've protested based, as far as I can tell, on IDONTLIKEIT. I'm trying to bring reference sections into compliance with the guidelines, which doesn't disadvantage anyone and actually would improve things for visually impaired readers, so exactly what is my "selfish assumption about legibility" as you put it? Please correct me if my characterisation of your responses have been wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

your conduct has ben high-handed, defensive and apt to infer my motives. I've told you why I want this debated and all I get from you is gamesmanship. Stop it. Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit; are you seriously trying to justify asking for a debate and then refusing to [: participate] repeatedly? I haven't inferred your motives once, I've merely called out your bad behavior; but I can: I think you don't like to be challenged, and you hope to kill this discussion through stone-walling. How close am I? And as for gamesmanship, my friend, you need to stop projecting. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Do me a lemon and stop being so precious, it's embarrassing. Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

OK guys, this isn't the forum for this discussion. Sturm has started a discussion elsewhere about the use of the templates and nothing will be achieved by continuing this here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

civilwar.org now redirects to battlefields.org

Links at http://www.civilwar.org (Civil War Trust) now redirect to https://www.battlefields.org/ (American Battlefield Trust).Special:LinkSearch/www.civilwar.org currently shows 433 links in all namespaces. The links I tested are currently redirecting to the right page, e.g. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/chantilly.html to https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/chantilly. American Battlefield Trust is an umbrella organization for the Civil War Trust so I guess the pages were just copied to the new domain. Redirect sites often go dead or change to only linking the new domain so I recommend you check and update the mainspace links while there are working redirects. See also WP:ELDEAD and Wikipedia:Link rot. I'm not in your project but answered a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#An external page redirects to a different website - should it be updated? (permanent link). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Military person infobox

I wrote an article on Jedediah Sanger, who served in the American Revolution from the first engagement at Lexington/Concord for the duration, as private, 2nd Lt., 1st Lt. I put everything I could find about his service into the article, which isn't much. He is notable for his later life. Just wondering if he should have a military infobox added to the main one? If so, and anyone wants to do it, please do so. MB 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day MB, given he is best known for his political roles, I would suggest avoiding the milpers one as well. The infobox is already quite big. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was ambivalent on this one, so just looking for another opinion. Thanks. MB 00:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Robert J. O'Neill

As the originator of Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL) doesnt appear to be active just to notify interested parties that I have proposed this article for deletion as "Clearly only noteworthy for one event of which mostly self-proclaimed, coverage presently in Death of Osama bin Laden is sufficient", thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The non-existent "Punjab War" of 1810-1820

The article Punjab War is a stub describing a conflict between the British East India Company and the Sikh Empire between 1810-1820, in which the Sikhs were victorious. I found it via List of wars involving the United Kingdom. However, best as I can tell, it never happened, at least in the way it is described. I also haven't found any sources calling it the "Punjab War", which seems to be a title invented just for the Wiki page.

According to reliable tertiary sources, there were a series of wars in the Punjab between 1809 and 1820, but they involved the Sikhs consolidating their rule and fighting with the Afghans over Kashmir. The British were uninvolved, it appears to me. Does anyone have any information about this war? Is it possible the British were involved (maybe fighting alongside the Afghans)?

Some sources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ranjit-Singh-Sikh-maharaja

https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Amritsar

https://books.google.com/books?id=h5_tSnygvbIC

Thanks for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it refers to the Sikh conquest of the Punjab, but it was not against then British.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I second this. An earlier edition of The Collins Encyclopedia of Military History (cited in the article) says that between 1810-1820 Punjab was conquered by Sikhs led by Ranjit Singh. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Between 1810 and 1820, Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies does not list anything on the Indian subcontinent other than the Anglo-Nepalese War 1814-16, the Second Kandyan War 1815-18 and the Third Anglo-Maratha War 1817-19. This suggests that East India Company troops (either British or Indian) didn't participate in any significant way in fighting in the Punjab. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There was some previous discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Punjab War article - notable?. Is it part of the Afghan–Sikh Wars? - Dumelow (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dumelow, It does seem that there's an awful lot of overlap between the potential content of the two pages - unless the newly renamed "Sikh conquest of the Punjab" article is significantly expanded, it might make sense to merge the articles. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion needing more input

See Talk:Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia#Requested move 28 October 2019. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

HMS Vulture (1843)

The HMS Vulture (1843) article states with unreferenced text that she was recommissioned in December 1859. Could this be in error for 1858? The Hampshire Advertiser and Salisbury Guardian of 12 March 1859 states that Vulture arrived at Malta on 21 February in a leaky condition, having been ashore on the Barbary Coast. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A quick look at the British Newspaper Archive shows this ship in normal service in 1856, 1857 and 1858 - which does not really fit with the idea of being out of commission for any length of time. Reports of the grounding appear in articles published in early September 1855. A report of 21 Dec 1855 says that Vulture has arrived in Plymouth from Kiel - though it is not clear if this is in a repaired condition - I would guess so as the account of damage suggest not seaworthy for a voyage of any distance - but supposition not good enough for our purposes. I think we can conclude that the unreferenced text is not correct - or at the least is very suspicious. Perhaps more later.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are mentions in some papers from 1855. As noted above, this ship is active through 1856 to 1858.

“HMS Vulture, in towing a vessel from Nargen to Farosound, ran aground on Hango Head on Monday morning. Her keel is entirely destroyed, and her engines injured. She is expected to return to England for repairs.” Monmouthshire Beacon - Saturday 08 September 1855 (widely syndicated)

Arrived Danzig on 9 Nov from Nargen Lloyd's List - Monday 12 November 1855

Vulture in list of vessels passing Elsinore, homeward bound. John Bull - Monday 17 December 1855

“The paddlewheel steam-frigate Vulture, 6, Captain Frederick H. H. Glasse, which left Kiel on the 12th ins. Arrived in Plymouth Sound on Monday evening.” Evening Mail - Friday 21 December 1855

Not sure what this adds to answering the question, beyond demonstrating that with access to the BNA one can quite quickly find ample evidence of where this ship was and, often, what it was doing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I work from the Gale News Vault, which is probably much the same as the BNA, but with a different set of newspapers to work from. Not that it matters much as it was standard practice to "borrow" stories from other papers and reprint them.

Have added what I can about the 1859 grounding to the article, and made an entry at the relevant list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is now ready for promotion, thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review for Liberté-class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Liberté-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is now ready for promotion, thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas

I would greatly appreciate more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1. It has two supports, and completed source and image reviews, but is foundering for lack of attention. It passed an A-class review here not long ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I second that request, having already reviewed. A very interesting piece of Central American history, involving skull-duggery by the CIA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Re-Review For Battle of Muster Green

Hi all! I'm new to WikiProject MilHist and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms Task Force and have recently written an article about the Battle of Muster Green however it was reviewed when the only thing in the article was the sentence long lede and the half filled out info box. I have extended the article since then and even though I'm not yet finished, I'd like it if anyone could re-review it and give a list of things wrong with the article/missing from the article that I can then follow to improve the article with. Thanks in advance, TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheBestEditorInEngland: G'day, welcome and thanks for your efforts so far. I did a little tweaking (mainly only cosmetic) to help it comply with the Manual of Style. I have updated the assessment to C-class, although it would be close to B-class. (For B-class, I feel it would need a more detailed description of the fighting in the Battle section). If you do decide to expand the article further, please feel free to request an updated assessment at the Assessment Department. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the help and re-reviewing the article. I do intend on expanding the article further, the problem is that there really aren't many sources that I can find about the battle and I don't think this battle was particularly well documented (I can't even find an exact date for the battle). Unfortunately, I've already added everything I can find about the actual fighting itself which is quite annoying, but I'll continue to look around. I do intend on adding a 'significance' section in the aftermath talking about why the battle was significant and also intend on adding more to the background/prelude about Herbert Morley (and his army), the Parliamentarian leader at the battle. I should also be passing through the area soon and so I'll try and take some better photographs of the battle site and the information lectern there, and also pop up to West Hoathly to get a photograph of the church door containing musket ball impact marks and upload these all to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article. Thanks again, TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More GAN reviewers needed

G'day all, there are about a dozen unreviewed GANs at WP:GAN#WAR if anyone has a bit of spare time to look in on one. If you are not familiar with the GA criteria, it can be found at WP:GA?. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

HMS Jaseur

The HMS Jaseur (1857) article gives a wrecking date of 26 February. However, contemporary press reports give a date of 4 March. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

26 February according to Volume 7 of Clowes' The Royal Navy: A History (p. 582).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Another source (perhaps less impeccable) for 26 Feb is Send a Gunboat!: The Victorian Navy and Supremacy at Sea, 1854-1904 By Antony Preston, John Major (p. 155).

'Extracts from the Times newspaper, We 20 April 1859: "A court-martial was held yesterday on board Her Majesty's ship Victory, in Portsmouth harbour, for the trial of Lieutenant-Commander John Binney Scott, Mr. Moss, second master, and Stephen Gruett, ordinary seaman (lookout-man on the night in question), for the loss of Her Majesty’s screw steam gunboat Jaseur, on the Baxo Nuevo shoal, during the passage of that vessel from Port Royal to Greytown, at 10 30 p.m. on the 26th of February last".' [5] Alansplodge (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd take the Court Martial as an impeccable source. Thanks all. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Vicksburg

I had good success getting help with my Gettysburg photos, so I've uploaded my Vicksburg photos. There are only 53 this time. They are all in Wikimedia Commons, category Vicksburg National Military Park, with the title Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (nn).jpg, (e.g. File:Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi, US (53).jpg) where nn is 2 to 54. #1 doesn't have the sequence number and #39 is up for deletion.

We didn't get to the Confederate ones, I think the road was washed out. (I hope no one wants to remove them.) There are a lot of Ohio ones because my brother-in-law is a buff in Ohio.

So I would appreciate help in photo descriptions and some categorization. These are not as well documented as the Gettysburg memorials. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved four photos of the Illinois Monument to its category. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I could still use help with the Vicksburg photos - it is beyond what I can do. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Automated MILHIST assessment

I've been watching these roll past on my list. I don't think I've seen one yet i violently disagree with (I'd have changed it if i had) but some certainly I think contestable by a stricter judge. Forgive me if i missed it but I don't remember this project being discussed or explained previously, so I don't know how it is set up and what sort of quality assurance process is in place on this project? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Monstrelet: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Full B-Class checklist. Harrias ^talk 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks - that explains it all . There maybe one or two "lower order" questions on assessment - the differences between a stub and a start for example. Some human reviewers would reject anything which is just straight text with no internal structure for start, for example. But otherwise, as a bot put together so quickly this is a great effort. I would agree with the human review of B-class and at least a sampling of C-class (as discussed) though. Well done again to those who put this together.Monstrelet (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

RSN query of interest to this project

Hi all. I've queried the reliability of two sources recently added to the featured article Royal Gloucestershire Hussars over at WP:RSN#Opinions_sought_on_two_websites, if anyone here is interested in weighing in. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

A discussion about shipwreck lists is taking place at WT:SHIPS#Lists of Shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Buq Buq (Egypt) question

What's the modern name? Baqiqi? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be called Buqbuq on Google Maps - Dumelow (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes it's here List of towns and villages in Egypt redlink unfortunately. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Operation Claw (2019)

Would some others mind talking a look at this? It's probably something that can have an article written about it, but currently is has more a news feel to it than anything else. It's also starting to turn into one big long list of single entries, which would probably would be better written as prose. Most of the content was added within the past few days, but it might be a good idea to try and establish a consensus on the direction the article should take before any more gets added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the talk page, but it has serious problems with neutrality as it seems to be entirely based on the Turkish version of events. It also uses the weasel word "neutralise" as a euphemism for killing and wounding. I think the main editor has English as a second language which doesn't help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done numerous things to try and improve the grammatical and neutrality problems, but I do agree that the entire article needs to be converted to prose. As it stands the article reads like a very long news report, which is not what Wikipedia is about KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

specialforcesroh.com

This website is being used in rather a lot of articles so I am hesitant to go on a mass-removal spree without at least discussing it first. I can find no evidence the website's administrator (John Robertson, Ayr, Scotland) is an established expert in the subject area, despite his claimed 40 years of research. Do other editors have any comments on the reliability of this website? FDW777 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth querying this at WP:RSN. I can find nothing on that site about academic credentials of the author(s) or to indicate any editorial oversight. As such, it seems pretty much to be a Self-published source, and should be avoided accordingly. Factotem (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a RS, I cannot find any books about special forces written by John Robertson, nor anything to indicate that there is an editorial board with the necessary expertise, so a SPS without the exemption for published experts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. @Factotem: I did consider asking there, but thought it better to ask here where I was more likely to receive replies from people potentially familiar with the site and/or people who have been adding it as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it matters all that much. My thinking when I posted a similar query recently was that the RSN is WP-wide, and responses there would carry more authority if anyone decided to make a dispute of the issue. There's no rule that says you can't advertise the RSN query here, so long as that's neutrally worded. Factotem (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The website appears to be primarily a group of forums, with bio entries on numerous deceased special operations personnel, and a brief organizational history for some units. Even the bio entries were difficult to find. Clicking on about 10 of the links at "rather a lot of articles" above yielded either 404 errors or brought up the site's home page. It appears a restructuring of the site has rendered most older links invalid, or linking to a roll of honour entry from outside the site is precluded somehow. Although unsourced, the information on the site is probably difficult to find elsewhere. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template discussion

There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeking feedback re: World War II Memorial (Boston)

Hello! I'm seeking feedback on the World War II Memorial along The Fens in Boston, at Talk:World War II Memorial (Boston). The original memorial, which is likely independently notable, was later expanded with neighborhood, much smaller Korean War and Vietnam War memorials. I'm curious how these should be covered; some sources describes them collectively, others separately. Any feedback welcome, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

French schooner Turquoise

What is the identity of the French schooner Turquoise, which rescued the crew of Shah Jahan in the Indian Ocean in August 1859. Reported by the Daily News of 15 September 1858 as "H.I.F.M. schooner Turquoise". I'm taking H.I.F.M. to mean "His Imperial French Majesty". There was an Iris-class schooner of that name, but she was struck in 1831. I've added entries for the two at French ship Turquoise, but the second needs identifying and linking. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

According to French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786 - 1861 it was a 4-gun schooner built at Lorient in 1840. Hulked in 1864 - Dumelow (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dumelow. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Michelin Guide

I am surprised to see that this project has an interest in the Michelin Guide. ([6]). Is this correct? The Banner talk 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is discussion of this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests - Dumelow (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What is

{{hsp}}? I've tried to find it but no luck. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a redirect for {{Hair space}}. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I saw some in Second Battle of Ypres and couldn't work out what they were for. Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Canary Girls to Munitionette

Hello. I’ve suggested that the article Canary Girls be merged to Munitionette. If you have thoughts on this proposed merge, please comment on the Merger discussion. This is my first proper merge request so any help or advice is welcome. Thank you! Zeromonk (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 13 peer review

The Apollo 13 article is open for peer review in anticipation of the 50th anniversary, any additional eyes on it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not actually fall under this Wiki project. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Apollo 11 and some others do due to their cold war implications so I assumed this did as well, my mistake. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

A proposal to move Yom Kippur War to 1973 Arab–Israeli War is being discussed here. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topics

Interested editors may want to see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland (second request, so scroll down, through the first one is of some relevance as well). To be clear, this ArbCom name is somewhat misleading, and it remedies are applicable to the entire topic area of Poland in WWII and The Holocaist. As a content creator active in this topic area who was not the party to the related ArbCom case, nor was named in any findings, I am nonetheless scared now to edit articles in said topic area. In effect, adding a single problematic source could get one banned or topic banned for an extended period of time, with no need for a prior dedicated warning (as has happened to one editor just recently). I think this is something that editors of this project should be aware of. I explicitly quote there User:Nigel Ish ‎ who recently told me "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article [related to that topic area] impossible.". I first thought he was exaggerating, but now I concur he might have been scarily correct. Even if you don't edit Polish WWII topics, it is worth nothing that if this is accepted as a norm, it can be adapted to future topic areas such as other controversial wars and so on. Is this the direction we want to go? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day Piotr, I am also very concerned about the straying of ArbCom into areas regarding content and sourcing, and this is just the latest case that has done so. Guides on content and sourcing should be developed through consensus between content creators familiar with the subject area, not by a committee that does not have a very impressive collective record of content creation and no familiarity with the subject. We need more ArbCom members with real content creation chops who will reverse this trend into content and sourcing areas. ArbCom is supposed to be about conduct, not content. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The circumstances here are somewhat unique though. As long as I've been active on Wikipedia, our coverage of Poland has been frequently characterised by poor quality editing and misconduct by editors (WP:ARBEE and WP:EEML, for instance). I don't think it's unreasonable to insist on high quality sources as a means of helping to combat this. I'd be concerned if this was to be applied to areas without a 15+ year history of problems, but this seems to amount to requiring a strict interpretation of WP:RS in a topic area which needs it. Piotrus, I note that you were sanctioned in the EEML case and have been blocked for violating topics bans related to the arbitration cases in this space about 10 years ago and haven't been blocked since, so I presume that you are familiar with navigating this kind of arbitration remedy. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I fail to see why people dredge ancient history outside of poisoning the well (you could have mentioned instead that I have written dozens of Polish WWII era FAs, GAs, and 100+ DYKs instead of bringing up my 10 year old mistake...), but no, I am not familiar with this kind of remedy. It is the first of its type and per the problems I outlined at the ArbCom page, the navigation of those problems is simple: don't edit this topic area, unless you are a sock (which doesn't care if its blocked) or an admin (who can feel safe that his admin buddies will be lenient). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't care if you were blocked 10 years ago: my point in noting it is that a) to illustrate that this has long been a troubled editing space so the history here is significant in understanding why this restriction was introduced and b) as you have since been navigating a topic area covered by strictly applied ArbCom sanctions successfully for something like a decade, the odds of you being able to comply with this restriction seem pretty high. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The rule applies if taken literally to a very large proportion of the Second World War - and imposes absurd sourcing restrictions on them - basically making Arbcom the sole arbitors on content. This project might as well be disbanded and all the articles deleted, as it is clear that the content and the contributions of ordinary editors is not wanted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I am editing Wikipedia since 2008, and I am always using only "high quality sources, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions". That does not prevent me from editing Wikipedia, and does not prevent me from being a productive editor in MilHist area. I would say quite opposite: these sourcing restrictions give an advantage to the users who want to create a high quality content, whereas loose sourcing requirement are beneficial mostly for various POV pushers.

I am not going to call names, but recently I decided to famliliarise myself with the old email archive of EEML members (I believe I had a right to do so, because that archive is publicly available, and I was informed that they privately discussed some actions against me). And one of emails openly says that it is hard to do anything against Paul Siebert, because he is using only high quality sources. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason to worry about these sourcing restrictions, I would say it would be better if we expanded them at a broader area.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This gives the right for anyone with an axe to grind to get others blocked or banned - and it is clear from behaviour in the World War II in Poland area and other areas covered by Arbcom restrictions that that is exactly what will happen. These restriction will be used as weapons to win content disputes without any consideration of the effects on anybody else. It is clear from the discussions on Arbcom that editors are not welcome to edit in these fields.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully disagree. You must agree that in this area of conflict, the main dispute is between "Polonicentric" and "Jewdocentric" editors (I use these conditional names just for clarity), and the main problem is that they are pushing some views that are not shared by majority of scholarly community. Obviously, the party that is using poorer sources is more likely to be engaged in POV-pushing, and it would be reasonable to deprive it from the major weapon - their sources. In reality, many good Polish author write quite mainstream books and articles, and these authors publish their works in reputable publisher houses and/or international peer-reviewed journals. That means good quality Polish sources are not suppressed by these sanctions. Only bad sources become banned (in the last case, that was some obscure web site). To win a content dispute with a POV-pusher is hardly a bad goal. In all other cases, all parties are in an equal position.

And, again, noone who has "an axe to grind" can get me blocked or banned when I am using good sources. Moreover, a first violation will most likely result just in a warning, so I see absolutely no problem here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A first violation has already resulted in an editor being blocked. The scope of this restriction does not just cover the dispute on the killing of Jews in Poland however (as you crudely refer to) - it can be applied to articles as tangentially related as SMS M85 - (the ship was sunk by a Polish mine at the end of the German invasion of Poland) - and can be used to prevent the use of standard sources such as Conway's and Jane's (or even non-English language sources) - because they aren't academic journals or published by University presses. This sort of threat means that editors will just stay away - I certainly won't touch M85 again. But perhaps that is what the chief antagonists in these disputes, and those who produced the sanctions wanted.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I already responded at the AE page, but let me point out that this concrete editor was quite aware of restrictions (I am not commenting at AE, because I don't want to make additional harm). The topic we are talking about is totally different from majority of topics that are within the scope of MilHist. Noone is going to report an editor for writing about some ship (no matter which sources they are going to use). I agree that for low importance articles it may be quite ok to use less reliable sources (if good ones are not available), but for history topics it is hardly acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I find this extremely concerning, much for the same reasons Nigel Ish has already gone into. In the decade I've edited articles, including some which are or shall become historical in nature, being able to invoke newspapers as a primary source has been invaluable for sourcing facts and moods at that time. Their perspective can be unique and perhaps capture the mood of the time better than that of commentary that has been produced long afterwards by a professional. To lose the ability to look at non-academic sources that meet WP:RS (e.g. newspapers) would be an extreme shame. I understand that this specific article's political sensitivities make it a special case, but what's stopping the ruling being applied wider? Kyteto (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kyteto: see my responce to Piotrus below. I got a better idea about possible modification of the "Sourcing expectations" clause. Indeed, many sources that do not fit current criteria can and should be used if they provide some non-controversial information and contain no extraordinary claim. To determine if they meet this criterion is quite simple: if nobody objects to their usage, and our WP:V allows their usage, they can be used. However, if someone contests the usage of such a source, it should be removed and never restored, unless a broad consensus will be achieved about their restoration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I hope you forgive me for looking at your recent edits but I just wanted to use a particular example if I could find one in your edit history, and here you go: in this edit few months back you restore some sources that may violate the discussed remedy. This and [7] are newspaper articles, and please note that according to the editor who made the AE report that led to the ARCA thread, newspapers are not acceptable (although the reviewing admin disagreed for that source). I've asked an arbitrator to clarify their stance on newspapers. Other than that, yes, you don't have much to worry, through this is, with all due respect, because you don't actually add much new content (a paragraph or so every few months; most of your edits from last year seem fall under minor changes/copyediting). It is easy for you to say that don't use bad sources, but an active content creator who creates a new article every week or so, and adds dozens of sources every week is much more likely to slip sooner or later, by adding a book that was self-published, or another borderline source. And then he can be reported by a sock of indef banned editor with a grudge to AE and get a week+ block. Yes, you are unlikely to be affected by this, soon the area will have no-one willing to create new articles, just socks edit warring with semi-active, good intentioned editors like yourself. PS. Also, please consider the second source that was brought to AE (and that one was declared to violate the spirit of the rules; I agree that the third source brought, "pw25", is unacceptable, but let's talk about the second because I think it should be allowed, or at least it should not be sufficient for an insta-block): lecture notes by historian Anna M. Cienciala available at [8]. The author is a respected academic. The notes are effectively self-published, but are cited by many other scholars ([9]) and even positively reviewed "I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm)." While I would say that such a source should not be used for WP:REDFLAGS, I think it is entirely acceptable in regular circumstances, and at the very least, an editor using them should not be blocked for that. Yet the recent AE ruling suggests that yes, if you use a source of similar quality, you can get a block for 'up to a month on first offense, no warning needed'. Still, nothing to worry about here, overdue cleanup of a problematic content area? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: You should not apologise for putting forward rational arguments.

Regarding that your example, I did not participate in the Holocaust in Poland case as extensively as Molobo did, and there is no reason to conclude that I read a final decision, including the "sourcing expectations" claim. Actually, I have learned about sourcing expectation just recently. Moreover, I believed WP:V was applicable to that case, and currently it says that "mainstream newspapers" are good RS. However, as a recent discussion at the WP:V page demonstrated, the clause that "mainstream newspapers" are RS is vague, and it contradicts to what NEWSORG say (according to guidelines, editorials and op-ed materials are primary sources), and the word "mainstream" refers to a very narrow category of newspapers. Therefore, retrospectively, these my edits were probably incorrect, but I would prefer to wait with the final decision until the new version of WP:V will be approved. In addition, whereas the sources re-added by me could be, probably, questionable, they still are better that majority of other sources, so if we universally apply this approach, the only source that should stay is Himka, and the article should be deleted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding those sources, I don't have a strong opinion, but my concern here is that someone who has a grudge against you (including an indef banned editor operating via socks) could report you to AE, and then you are faced with the usual admin lottery: who will review your case? Do they think you are a trouble maker who needs to be taught a lesson? Are they having a bad day? That admin is empowered to ignore all other policies and make a call whether a source is sufficiently reliable or not and chose to block you if they feel like it. No prior discussion of a particular source reliability is needed. Even if you think that most of the time your judgement in what makes a reliable source is good, think about the added element of stress this can introduce to good faithed editors here. It's like saying 'this is now a minefield. Sorry, but it is necessary to make the bad guys go away. Try not to step on any mines. Enjoy'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a lottery is something I should be afraid of. Molobo is a very specific case, because he was deeply involved in the Arb case. With regard to all other users (except, maybe, you and VM) admins would agree that a warning would be sufficient. Indeed, I myself learned about these sourcing expectations just by accident, so it would be ridiculous to expect other editors to be more familiar with that than I am.

Moreover, I am confident that if some admin attempted to block me for sources I am using, I will be capable to prove that admin is wrong and incompetent, and will request to limit their activity at AE per WP:CIR. However, that is possible because, as you perfectly know, I am using only good quality RS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Piotrus, I got a much better idea about modification of the "sourcing expectations" clause. Its current version is not optimal, and it does not take into account real situation. Majority of edit wars occur when you guys are trying to add some Polish source other editors disagree with, but many Polish sources cause no objections. I propose two criteria for source selection, and they are partially based on the article that you cite in one or your own article written for WMF (the author writes about Wikipedia conflicts over Vietnam war, 2013). In this article, the author analyzes the dispute between me, TTAAC, and several other users, and he notes that my procedure of reliable source identification was good. Accordingly, I propose two criteria for source selection:

1. If the source can be found using a non-contradictory search procedure using google Scholar, jstor, or similar search engine, AND it was cited by other scholarly/scientific works, the source is good.
2. Other sources that meet WP:V criteria are also acceptable, unless they have not been contested, or their inclusion is supported by consensus.

If this version of "sourcing expectations" were adopted, Molobo could not have been sanctioned. What FR was supposed to to is just to remove the questionable source, and the attempt of Molobo to re-add it would cause sanctions. However, until the addition of some source has not been contested, nobody can be sanctioned. With regard to the criterion #1, just check the sources you yourself use: if you can find them using scholar, and they are cited by other works, that means these restrictions will not affect you at all. I can say for myself that lion's share of sources I use are obtained using that procedure.

I am seriously thinking to request ArbCom to add such a clause to ARBEE as whole (and to remove "sourcing expectations" clause from the Holocaust in Poland case, and I sincerely believe that will lead to a serious decreas of probability of edit wars.

What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that Molobo did restore one obvious bad source (but I think such an infraction merits a warning not a block), yes, I agree. Nobody should be sanctioned for adding a source that has not been previously discussed. Hence my proposal to create a blacklist of sources that editors in this area should monitor after a warning. Anyone adding a bad source gets a warning, and if the restore it again, then we can talk about bans or such. But nukes should fly after a clear warning, not before. I hope you'll propose the above at ARBCA. We need more constructive proposals how to deal with this quagmire. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a blacklist is a good idea, but you have identified the essence of a conflict very well: it is actually about usage of a very narrow set of sources, whereas other sources cause no conflicts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, which should be used properly, including taking sources to RSN and starting a RfC if a consensus isn't achieved either on the talk page or at RSN. If an editor wants to use a source but cannot get a positive consensus regarding its reliability, it cannot be used. That is how our policy works. This ArbCom remedy is massive overreach. ArbCom has no business sticking its nose into content or sourcing areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Interested editors may want to note that an arbitrator replied to my small clarification request at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#Minor_clarification and noted that he thinks newspapers are not acceptable (which is at odds with the admin who ruled at AE that they are). Joy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You are right. The problem is that the admins who are active at AE have a tendency to think violations of WP:V or WP:NPOV are beyond the scope of DS. Normally, their answer is "that is a content dispute". In reality, if violations of content policies in the areas covered by DS were sanctionable per DS (and they are supposed to, to the best of my knowledge), no additional source restrictions would be necessary.

@Piotrus: Newspapers are mostly primary sources, per NEWSORG, and many of them are not reliable, so Worm is right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Do me a favor and look at Michler Palace or Defense of Katowice: are any newspapers there used in a way that violates PRIMARY, REDFLAG or are plain unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this subject within the project's scope?

I am unsure whether John D. Whitney should be tagged with the military wikiproject templates. He served in the U.S. Navy and had an interesting (DYK-worthy) experience that shaped the rest of his life. However, his service in the Navy was otherwise unremarkable. Ergo Sum 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Infantry Brigade

Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 12#The Gordon Infantry Brigade would be appreciated. It looks like there are at least two units this could've referred to, though there's only one isolated use of the phrase in the encyclopedia right now. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"Fall of Tobruk" article title

I've written an article about the 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk, (see User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Second_Battle_of_Tobruk) but would like some guidance on the title before moving it into the mainspace. "Second Battle of Tobruk" seems to be the official British name but also has very little usage. "Fall of Tobruk" is much more common, the subject is already covered by a brief subsection under that name at Battle of Gazala#Fall of Tobruk, but is it maybe a bit POV? Also Tobruk had previously fallen to the Australians in January 1941, so do I need a year to disambiguate it? Comments on the draft article also welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What about a descriptive title, 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The OH has "Chapter XI The Battle of Gazala (Contd.): The Loss of Tobruk". DRZW (VI) has "The Taking of Tobruk" and a map heading "The Capture of Tobruk, 20–21 June 1942" Haven't got an Italian equivalent. I wouldn't put 1942 in a title because the Axis only re-captured Tobruk the once. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So Axis capture of Tobruk then? Seems reasonable. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Me too. Keith-264 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks Peacemaker67 and Keith-264. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2019 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2019

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who 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 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. 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 14 days will commence 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, 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 2019. 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! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Gjw9999: account created in July 2018, but largely active since November 2018, Greg has worked quietly to add references and information to mainly Australian topics. He has greatly improved the visual quality of the Unit Colour Patch images that are present on many articles on Australian military units. Examples of his work can be found on Commons here: [10]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

CFB Shilo

CFB Shilo was a heliport but they have both closed down. I take it the base is still in operation. It needs the infobox updated/replaced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

fyi: she for ships

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request of The Gettysburg Address film

A deletion discussion has been underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gettysburg Address (film). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Fontenoy

Anyone know who MacDonogh 1999 is? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

[11]? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct, as e.g. this version of the article shows. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"C" device and "R" device

I miss articles about "C" device and "R" device!--Falkmart (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lineage of Finnish Army corps and divisions during World War II

I've just noticed that the articles on the Finnish Army corps and divisions of World War II split them into two series - the first for the Winter War (e.g., Finnish 3rd Division (Winter War)) and the second for the Continuation War (e.g. Finnish 3rd Division (Continuation War). There are then two different listings of divisions - List of Finnish divisions in the Winter War List of Finnish divisions in the Continuation War and {{Finnish formations WW2}} also uses this split. I don't know a great deal about the lineage of the Finish Army during the World War II era, but this doesn't look right. Does anyone know whether it's correct to treat these formations as being entirely separate, or should they be merged into articles such as 3rd Division (Finland)? Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the histories on the Finnish Wikipedia, this would be correct as the Winter War divisions were entirely demobilized before the new Continuation War divisions were mobilized. Kges1901 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

WWII Italian OH translation

Courtesy of Noclador [12] [13] The Italian language versions are all on. Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Template for "under construction" request

[14] Text for the Capture of Tobruk section of Operation Compass has been removed as a new article is being written.Can someone direct me to the templates so I can put one up? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you try {{Under construction}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't know what page templates are on. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template namespace#Searching for templates Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) The {{In use}} template is another common that may be helpful. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

After doing the Battle of Bardia I intended to do the capture of Tobruk, but never got a round tuit. Onya for taking on the task. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice work with the British capture of Tobruk article; can I suggest, though, that a short paragraph about that event be retained in the Siege of Tobruk article, because now it basically has an empty section about the capture of Tobruk. This would only need to be short, and could be written in summary style. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to keep an eye on the articles Hussar and Light cavalry. A user with specific methods of working with sources began to edit on them--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Eli Cohen

You are invited to join the discussion about the inclusion of comments about Eli Cohen (brought on by the recent Netflix series about him) here: Talk:Eli_Cohen#RfC 22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Army Regimental System

Would some MILHIST members mind taking a look at this article? I came across it while doing some image-use cleanup and noticed a few things that might need attention. The first thing has to do with the abbreviation of the words "second" and "third". I think that "2nd" and "3rd" are commonly used when abbreviating the words, but perhaps the military does things differently. Anyway, both "2d" and "2nd", and "3d" and "3rd" are being used throughout the article which seems inconsistent. The next thing has to do with the images being used for some bullet point entries. They seem a bit gratuitous in this article since the same images can basically be seen in the same articles about each individual unit. Generally, this type of use isn't really recommended for corporate logos (even freely-licensed or public domain ones) per MOS:LOGO but things might be different for military related articles. Images are not supposed to be used in section headings per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM, but things aren't as clear for bullet list items. The page may actually be easier to load and read without the images in the bullet points, or maybe converting the lists to tables would be better if the images are to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

imo - the excessive list should have all the graphics removed, and be pushed to its own list article. (Hohum ^@) 18:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We went over the "2d" and "3d" back in 2018. Consensus (enshrined in MOS:ORDINAL) was to not use American English for ordinals. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 158#MOS:ORDINAL for the discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no preference either way; I just noticed there was some inconsistency in use. FWIW, I'm not sure which style is American English though since it seems that "2nd" and "3rd" are commonly used by many Americans outside of a military context; for example, in the context sports or other competitions, most Americans (I believe) would write "2nd place" and no "2d place". Perhaps the US military has its own lingo, but again either is fine for me. I just think things like "2d Battalion, 3rd BCT, 36th Infantry Division, Fort Polk, Louisiana" and "1st Squadron (Light), 173rd BCT (ABN), Grafenwoehr, Germany" and "2d Battalion, 3d BCT, 2d Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Washington" should be consist not only inline, but also throughout the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Per the 2018 discussion, "2d" and "3d" are an official US government style convention. However, they are rarely found outside of official US govt publications, and several exhaustive reference works on the US Army (citations on request) published in the United States by American authors use "2nd" and "3rd" consistently. So the consensus was to use "2nd" and "3rd". RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm assuming then that such cleanup then is pretty uncontentious and things like MOS:TIES, etc. don’t come into play. In other words, just change "2d" and "3d" to "2nd" and "3rd", right? — Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's what I would do. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the that RobDuch. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine–Ottoman wars

Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do I ask for opinion on disruptive editing?

@Wdford: appears to be on a crusade of his own on Battle of Gazala and Operation Crusader (see talk pages over the last few days). It's getting beyond a joke. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about my edits. The lead section is supposed to accurately summarize the information in the article. Keith-264 has a tendency to twist the wording in lead sections of military history articles to puff up the British contribution, and to obscure the contributions made by other nations. I am trying to correct that, and he doesn't like it. If there were other "Dominion" or "Commonwealth" troops present, then add them in the body of the article, and let's list them by name in the lead as well. Keith-264's description of my edits in the edit summaries as "vandalism" speaks volumes about his integrity. Wdford (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope to avoid the blunt instrument of WP:ANI (having refreshed my memory of what it entails) but I will sleep on it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Lets lay of commenting on users integrity shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Collaboration?

Anyone interested in collaborating to bring a WWII-related article to GA status? If so, please leave a message on my talk page or ping me here. Thanks all! Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 06:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any topics in mind? (or areas of the war you focus on?). World War II is obviously a vast topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: I'll do just about anything Africa-related, sources permitting, and I've already sunk a decent amount of time into the German invasion of Luxembourg. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I mainly focus on the European Theatre, soecifically the Western Front. @Indy beetle: I enjoy the African Theatre to, I really like learning about the Patton/Rommel fight. We could definitely do the Luxembourg Invasion of you want. Thanks both of you! Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

General solicitation for feedback on Thomas M. Montgomery

Thomas M. Montgomery has recently attracted edits by some who might be former associates of his; as is often the case with well-meaning, new editors who personally know the subject of a BLP, this spiraled out of control and the article was semi-protected. This lightly edited article, overall, is not in very good shape and I'd like to start getting it there but, as a first-step, am hoping to resolve the outstanding question of how much detail should be included about the "Bloody Monday" incident during Montgomery's command of UNOSOM II. If anyone has an opinion either way, I've opened a discussion here. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

John McHugh Sr. up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• John McHugh Sr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion WW II veteran. Notability is questioned, so additional sources could help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources for German losses in WWII due to partisans?

Can anyone help to find any estimate for this? Ideally, with breakdown to losses per occupied territory (as in, German losses to partisans in France, xx, in Poland, yy, in USSR, zz...). I tried and couldn't get anything outside German_casualties_in_World_War_II which has a table stating that "Home front" casualties amounted to 64,055 (but methodology and reliability of the linked German source is unclear), and even the very term is a bit ambiguous (Home front during World War II...) and I am not sure it is correct to interpret this number as 'losses inflicted by partisans'; it could include accidents or wounded who perished in home hospitals, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought that the Home front in this case would mainly refer to Germany & Austria (which would not have significant partisan/resistance activity - deaths in this case would be mainly due to accidents, in hospitals or due to allied bombing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• For Soviets 15-20k: "M. Cooper, The Nazi War against Soviet Partisans, 1941-44, pp. xii-xiii notes the scathing view of Sir Basil Liddell Hart andothers, including 'recent' estimates of only 15-20000 German casualties inflicted by the Soviet partisans; J.A. Armstrong (ed.), Soviet Partisans in WWII, pp. 38-9 was 'inclined to conclude that from the narrow standpoint of winning the war the whole partisan effort was dubious'; E.M. Howell, The Soviet Partisan Movement, pp. 209-11 described Soviet partisan success as 'limited'. All three commentators, however, concede that the Soviet partisans undermined German morale and succeeded in turning the local population against the Germans in many areas under occupation." from Collaboration in the Holocaust, Martin Dean, footnote 170, page 270. For Polish 4-11k from [15][16]. I dream of Maple (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Max Hastings, in his The Secret War (2015) talks about the German Army Group Centre taking 1094 fatalities from the German invasion of Russia to 10 May 1943 (page 323), although it is unclear whether these deaths are all deaths from Partisan actions or just those during anti-partisan operations. He also mentions that the Soviet official history claimed that partisans were responsible for the deaths of 137000 Germans (p. 326), a figure that he calls "absurdly exaggerated".Nigel Ish (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of the Brig of Dee

I believe this article is notable, but could someone improve this article, particularly the referencing? PatGallacher (talk) PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Spanish cruiser Isabel II

Has the Spanish cruiser Isabel II article got two vessels mixed up? The infobox history section seems to relate to an 1847 ship and the article itself to an 1889 ship. Came across this whilst trying to discover the identity of the "steam frigate Isabella II" lost at Algeciras on 8 January 1860. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

With a little digging, I found the first Isabel II lost at Algeciras; the ship began life as SS Royal William. Based on Conway's 1860–1905, the source of the infobox dates in the cruiser article cannot be identified, but the ship characteristics are for the 1886 cruiser. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RobDuch, I've added the relevant info to the Royal William article and tweaked the shipwreck list. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RfD notification: Fielding Hurst

Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Fielding Hurst would be appreciated. This is an American Civil War figure, FYI, since the task force doesn't have its own talk page. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Two American Revolutionary War articles

I was wondering whether there is any chance of the Sir Charles Asgill page getting a better rating than "C class - of little importance"? Few people get the opportunity to change history – to do so one must prove that history is wrong. This I have done for Charles Asgill by bringing his hitherto hidden letter of 1786 to the world’s attention in the “Lancaster Historical Society’s Journal” of December 2019. This shows that George Washington's version of “The Asgill Affair” was not entirely true, and establishes the importance of Timothy Day and his tavern (in Chatham, NJ) in terms of his imprisonment (hitherto unknown information until my research trip to the US in May 2019). I feel confident that once the word gets out, not only in America but in the UK too, this will become a much bigger story. I have some very good contacts who will, I feel sure, do quite a lot on both sides of the pond.

So far as James Gordon is concerned I don't know if this 1. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met tag was decided before or after the efforts I went to to try to find out more about the man? Certainly I know that no image of him can be found. At least Katherine Mayo (in her book, “General Washington’s Dilemma”) gives a very good verbal description. Having recently tracked down the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, Gordon’s relative and the grandson of the man Katherine Mayor consulted, plus also having had direct communication with Bruce Jamieson, the author of recent books written about the family, I know that I am not going to be able to find out more. I have really done the best I possibly can. Gordon means a great deal to me, so I am sure you understand that I have pulled out all the stops to get as much information as possible. I would simply request that the “coverage and accuracy” tag be removed please.

I visited Trinity Church (Manhattan) in May this year, where Gordon was buried in an unmarked grave in 1783, and the Vicar was so impressed by what a wonderful man Gordon was that they are planning to erect a grave marker for him once renovations to the church have been completed. I am hoping that the Lord Lieutenant of Fife, and other members of Gordon’s family, will come to NYC with me for the occasion.

I would be grateful if these matters could be considered. Arbil44 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to the James Gordon (British Army officer, died 1783) article, I would say that the only thing holding that back is the length of the lead, which at one single sentence does not adequately summarise the content of the article.

At a quick glance, Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet looks B-class to me, but I'll let someone with a bit more time look over it properly.

Note that this WikiProject does not use importance ratings, so such things are beyond our purview. Harrias ^talk 12:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and advice. Would this be better? "Lieutenant Colonel James Gordon (c.1735–1783) was a British Army officer who fought in the American Revolutionary War. He was well regarded by all who knew him, friend and foe alike [17], and became the hero of The Asgill Affair." Arbil44 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Middle East Theatre of World War II article

So I just re-stumbled across this article. After some poking around, I found that it was all the way back in 2008 when an initial consensus was reached to merge and redirect several overlapping/duplicating articles into the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II‎. What is the best course of action on proceeding with this? I still believe that they are unnecessary duplicates of one another.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tadeusz Arentowicz up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Tadeusz Arentowicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Modern Sub Machine Carbine that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Usage of metric vs imperial units in a non-British WWII article

Would appreciate a third opinion on this at Talk:Battle of Hel/GA1, where we have a slight disagreement (maybe just a misunderstanding) about the usage of units. Polish and German armies used metric units but I think the reviewer is requesting the use of English one and that is leaving me confused. Could anyone comment if there is a problem with the units in the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you need to convert the units (i.e., {{cvt|152|mm|0}} to produce 152 mm (6 in)). Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't. Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles." There is no requirement for compliance with MOS:CONVERSIONS at the GA level. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What medal is this?

Hi all. I wonder if someone would be able to identify the medal that RN Lt. Comm. John Manners was recently decorated with by Norway? This describes it as the Norwegian Medal of Honour but I can't seem to find any such medal. Any help much appreciated! StickyWicket (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A translated formal name and picture (one side) of the medal are e.g. in the last video over here. I´d think it is the Government's Commemorative Medal for Service in World War II (Regjeringens minnemedalje for innsats under andre verdenskrig). ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Does this give more information? [18] Arbil44 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This forum post has good photos of the medal and describes the criteria. The Norwegian Government describes it in English as the "Government of Norway’s Commemorative Medal" - Dumelow (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated. I'll add it to his article. StickyWicket (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Richard Haine - Navigation Boxes

I removed some nav boxes from Richard Haine which doesnt mention him, including Template:World War II and Template:RAF squadrons. User:Lightburst argues that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a guideline but I cant see why Haine is an exception. Other views welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: A soldier pilot in the RAF and you are saying if that soldier pilot does not have a mention on the Template:RAF, that nav bar cannot be used per the bidirectional guideline. It is a talk page discussion and consensus IMO. I like to create articles about musicians who play the Blues. The musicians are not mentioned on the Template:Blues but their articles are improved with the use of that nav bar. The nave bars are useful for the reader in both of these cases IMO. I think as the bidirectional guideline states this is a matter for talk page consensus. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

from Bidirectional The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Lightburst (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not a soldier. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes a pilot - thanks I should be specific. Lightburst (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Mitigating errors at on this day (OTD)

More often then I would like, there are errors at WP:OTD displayed on the main page. I believe these errors stem from date pages without citations (such as December 16). In October 2017, consensus was determined to include citations in these articles. Because of how long they went without citations, the amount of work required to cite all the material is substantial. I often find numbers do not match the sources (like number of people killed in an event), for example.

Many articles in the list are related to military history. I try to cite the spaceflight articles each day I remember, and was seeing if I could find any support in this group. The milhist project does substantial good work, has access to excellent sources, and always strives to put the overall project in the best light it can. If you can try to cite even one or two articles in the current day of the year (or any day!), it will help solve the problem that propagates into WP:OTD. Bonus points if you find citations for the births/deaths lists on the same page :). If anyone has questions on what needs done I would be happy to clarify. Happy editing! Kees08 (Talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Agordat (1941)

Anyone know how to sort out the external link? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you trying to link it to? Right now, the article is trying to link to itself, which is why it isn't working. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It's from this recent edit [19] which looked wrong. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd just cut the link - the earlier version was also just a link to the same article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Daniel O'Neill (Royalist)

This was deleted a few days ago as a copyvio, but I've started a new one at User:Ww2censor/Daniel O'Neill and maybe some editors who know this topic better can assist. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As a rough and ready solution you could copy & paste content (with attribution) from the public domain 1911 Britannica article, the 1894 ONDB article or this 1908 journal article? Though I don't if it reflects current historian's views on the subject. There are also modern versions of the Britannica and ODNB articles - Dumelow (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fascinated to know why this was seen as a copyright violation. It doesn't seem to be one to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is going back almost 10 years now but relates to an ongoing copyvio investigation surrounding the page creations of Craigy144. Nthep (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, I found out about the copyvio issue after it was deleted. I do have jstor access and see 4 or 5 articles but it is really not my subject which is why I posted here to see if any editor would care to assist. The main reason for deletion was because the author was blocked for repeatedly copying from the paywalled Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which seem to be same as one of Dumelow's suggestions. ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The versions I linked to of Britannica (1911), the ODNB (1894) and the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland article (1908) are out of copyright because of their age and the text can be freely copied. For more details see public domain, under US law (which applies to Wikipedia) printed matter loses copyright protection 95 years afrer publication. It is good practice to provide attribution of the source for any copied text eg. through Template:EB1911. Of course the ideal solution is for a proper article to be written based on modern sources but if we struggle to write one this is one solution - Dumelow (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Loads of modern scholarship.

• The Oxford Companion to British History, Cannon, J. & Crowcroft, R. (eds)
• Cregan, D. F., 'An Irish cavalier: Daniel O'Neill', Studia Hibernua 3 (1963), 60–100.
• History of Parliament Online, 'O'NEILL (ONEALE), Daniel (c.1612-64), of Belsize House, Hampstead, Mdx'.
• Ohlmeyer, J., Making Ireland English (New Haven, 2012).
• Smith, G., Royalist Agents, Conspirators and Spies: Their Role in the British Civil War (Farnham, 2011}.
• Williams, M., The King's Irishmen: The Irish in the Exiled Court of Charles II, 1649-1660 (Woodbridge, 2014}.
  ——SN54129 19:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Serial Number 54129 and Dumelow, I'm well aware of the public domain of older sources and I have jstor access to several Cregan articles. I've seen the History of Parliament Online webpage but, unfortunately, not being near any English language libraries, I have no access to the 4 modern books referenced. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is not a copyvio. By deleting it for what appear to be dogmatic reasons we have also deleted its substantial edit history, which is not just by the blocked user who created it. This seems unnecessarily heavy-handed and pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Can you restore it? At least then we could guauge the degree, if any, of the violations. ——SN54129 18:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I've got a couple of sources in which he is mentioned, and it's my sort of era: I'll take a look when I get a chance. Harrias ^talk 18:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Restored. As far as I can see it is not a copyvio of the ODNB article and never was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Need article about Moskalyev (1930s Soviet designer/company)

Hey guys. I came across Category:Moskalyev aircraft with two planes (and others not listed, but apparently no article about the company/designer. It's not my area, perhaps someone would like to take it on over the holidays? Le Deluge (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Axis-Soviet partnership

I think that this vast new article would benefit from review by other editors. It seems to sprawl all over, and around, its purported subject and reads like an essay. The huge number of inaccurate referrals to the USSR as being "Russia" raises some red flags for me. The topic likely has merit, but I'm not sure this article currently covers it appropriately (@Maxaxax:). Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading the lead only makes think we should WP:NUKEIT from orbit and start over. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Big mess of an expose of a minority viewpoint. Why is this needed in relation to German–Soviet Axis talks and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ? Vici Vidi (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolute mess of a pointless content fork of a personal essay, which appears to have been written with the deliberate intent of breaking Wikipedia's record for the most bloated article. Blank and redirect to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. (It's also patent nonsense; its primary thesis that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant Nazi Germany was able to focus all its resources on its Western front presumably would come as a surprise to the people of Denmark, Greece, Norway, Iraq, North Africa, Yugoslavia…) I won't do it myself as I have previous history with its long-term-disruptive creator. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I agree with you all, but expect it'll have to go through an AfD before we're done. ——SN54129 11:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

French Space Force Request for Comment

There is an IP who is insisting that France has an independent space force. I have started a discussion at Talk:Space force#French independence?. It would be great if individuals would add their thoughts to this discussion. Garuda28 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be no independent French military space force, as of this moment, or planned. The previous Joint Space Command (France), subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, has just become the Space Command, a formation within the the French Air Force. Eventually the Air Force will become the Air & Space Force, according to Le Figaro amongst others [20]. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Article assessment

There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about User:MilHistBot

@Hawkeye7: or anyone else who can give me some insight, but how exactly does the MilHistBot judge criteria for article rating? It just ran through Herman Lupogo, which I wrote yesterday, and said that the criterion for referencing and citation was not met. I know the bot is not perfect and not meant to replace human assessing, but clearly the article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations, since outside of the lead every standalone paragraph ends with one citation and has several interspersed throughout. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Er... It's because you called the references section "Citations". The Bot then did not recognise it. I will include a change for this in the next release, which will be in the New Year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Rfc notification on Space force

An Rfc has been opened on Talk:Space force#Rfc on title of current Space force article to get feedback on a proposal to change the title and redirect the term space force to United States Space Force. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Luis Fonseca

Would someone from MILHIST mind taking a look at this? There seems to be some weird centering happening mid-way through the article which probably is a syntax error, but I can’t seem to find it. Also, I’m wondering about the personal section since it’s unsourced, but the part about where he wants to retire seems more like it’s written a bit more as if this is a personal profile than a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Any better now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Gog the Mild. You fixed the weird centering and some other editors took care of the unsourced personal life content and some other things; so, things seem to be OK now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review requested

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) (my nom) is good to go less a source review. If someone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been sorted, thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Last chance to vote for the Military Historian of the Year and Military History Newcomer of the Year awards!

G'day all, if you haven't voted, refer to the threads at the top of this page. Voting closes today. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC) for the coords.

NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War

Apart from being a bit of pile in and blame everybody article the NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War doesnt appear to be anything to do with NATO. Should it be moved ? anybody have any suggestions what to do with it ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD'd it is basically as mass of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD is turning into a bit of a mess with the article being renamed in the middle of the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2019 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2019

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who 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 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. 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 14 days will commence 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, 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 2019. 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! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Gjw9999: account created in July 2018, but largely active since November 2018, Greg has worked quietly to add references and information to mainly Australian topics. He has greatly improved the visual quality of the Unit Colour Patch images that are present on many articles on Australian military units. Examples of his work can be found on Commons here: [21]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Dorromikhal: Created lots of stubs about Roman/Byzantine/Gothic battles and biographies while occasionally going beyond that, e.g. Siege of Ravenna (539–540) or Reinhard von Scheffer-Boyadel. Also expansion and/or improvement of many biographies, notably Belisarius, throughout various periods and nations. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Voting

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 (GMT) on 29 December 2019.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gjw9999:

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. CPA-5 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Dorromikhal:

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. GELongstreet (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Catlemur (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2019 (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 historian of the year for 2019 are open!

Military historian of the year 2019

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who 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 (GMT) on 2 December 2019 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2019. 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 14 days will commence 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, 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 2019. 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! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Sturmvogel 66: Relentless, and excellent content creation. By my count, I make it 17 FAs, 27 A-class and a phenomenal 108 GAs this year. But alongside that, is a collegiate member of the project; providing lots of reviews, collaborating on articles and always willing to help out. Probably more that I've missed too. Harrias ^talk 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• EnigmaMcmxc: for their ongoing work to produce high quality articles on British Army infantry divisions, with several articles being brought to ACR and/or FAC in 2019, including the 77th, 45th, 9th, 59th and 23rd. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Harrias: for ongoing efforts to produce quality content focused upon the English Civil War including A-class and good articles such as the Capture of Wakefield, Battle of Babylon Hill, Battle of Sourton Down, Battle of Marshall's Elm and Battle of Bovey Heath. In addition, Harrias has been an active reviewer of content, providing insightful comments and suggestions to help improve articles through various processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• CPA-5: for fantastic work as a content reviewer at FAC, FL, ACR and GAN, per the tallies here. CPA has also worked to improve articles on topics such as the Bakassi conflict, which is currently a GA nominee. CPA has also been active helping the project in a co-ordinator role. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild: for their work as a reviewer and content creator - mainly focusing on the Hundred Years War - throughout the year. Gog's reviewing efforts are tallied here (not including the most recent quarter), and examples of their content work can be seen here, including the Battle of Calais, the Siege of Calais (1346–1347), the Battle of Crécy, the Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, and the Battle of Sluys (among others). Gog also helps the project behind the scenes in a co-ord role. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Applodion: for great work on African and Middle Eastern conflicts and figures and a pleasant, cooperative attitude. Good examples of their work include War of the Peters, Operation Thunderbolt (1997), Manbij Revolutionaries Battalion, Juma Butabika, and Air campaign of the Uganda–Tanzania War. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• G.Moore: Turned North Carolina during the American Revolutionary War pretty blue by creating numerous detailed articles about units and personnel, as well as respective lists and templates, e.g. List of North Carolina militia units in the American Revolution, while also improving existing articles about the same. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Djmaschek: Another state getting some colour with his creation of several articles about Texan units in the American Civil War, e.g. 10th Texas Infantry Regiment. Beside those he also made some about civil war artillery, e.g. 3-inch Ordnance rifle, and artillery units. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Voting

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 (GMT) on 30 December 2019.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sturmvogel 66:

1. Harrias ^talk 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
5. CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• EnigmaMcmxc:

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Zawed (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Harrias:

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Sturmvogel 66 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• CPA-5:

1. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Zawed (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Sturmvogel 66 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild:

1. Harrias ^talk 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Catlemur (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Mztourist (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Indy beetle (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
7. Zawed (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
8. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
9. CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Applodion:

1. Indy beetle (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• G.Moore:

1. GELongstreet (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Djmaschek:

1. GELongstreet (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
2. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2019 (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.

Lieutenant-General Charles Elmhirst

Hi all. I created an article on the above, he had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, in addition to very briefly playing first-class cricket for the forerunner of Lancashire County Cricket Club. I've filled out the bare bones of his military career, but can't find much else published online. So leaving him here incase anyone fancies expanding what looks like a noteworthy military career. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• "General Elmhirst served in the Afghan campaign of 1842, at the forcing of the Khyber, Tezeen, and Hoftkuttal Passes, and the capture of Mamokail; also during the siege of Sebastopol and the assault on the Redan." MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hart's Annual Army List, Militia List, and Imperial Yeomanry List for 1888 (p. 282a) says he was mentioned in dispatches twice, for leading a charge and for overturning a gun and turning in the enemy. It also lists other awards and medals, some Ottoman. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman ship Hüma-i Tevfik, ex Baroness Tecco

What date was this ship transferred to the Ottoman Navy? According to Clydeships, it was in 1856. However, the Morning Chronicle of 16 October 1860 reports that Baroness Tecco was damaged by fire at Constantinople on 11 October. She is listed in Lloyd's Register, 1860 as Baroness Tecco. According to the List of non-combat vessels of the Ottoman steam navy, more info might be found at Bernd Langensiepen, Ahmet Güleryüz, The Ottoman Steam Navy, 1828-1923, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1995, ISBN 1-55750-659-0, p. 172. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This newspaper from 1858 mentions that it is a private vessel of the Pasha of Egypt but the Ottomans have demanded its use for a military operation. The source requires a subscription but you can search a rough extract of the text for free on the page.[22] This second newspaper extract from 1860 mentions again that it is owned by Ibrahim Pasha.[23] Are you sure that it was owned by the Ottoman Navy and not just a private vessel owned by a prominent Ottoman family? Rather than date of transfer to the navy, are you wanting date of transfer to the Ottoman family? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Ottoman Steam Navy says that she was commissioned July 1856 and by 1870 was a stationary hospital ship in Istanbul. Laid up two years later, she was sold for scrap, 1874.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: - I'm trying to work out if Clydeships or the Morning Chronicle is in error, and thus get the correct info into the list of shipwrecks in October 1860. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - Istanbul did not exist before 1923. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Only for Europeans; the Turkish name of the city long predates 1923. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she was still Baroness Tecco at that time, but under the Ottoman flag. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have another source to add some confusion again. Sturmvogel 66 quotes "The Ottoman Steam Navy" as saying she became a hospital ship and was scrapped in 1874. However, the Yorkshire Herald (6 July, 1874) gives a different story;[24] "Further particulars to those we have recently given respecting the loss of the Kars are furnished by the Levant Herald... The sunken vessel was formerly the property of the late Prince Ilhami Pasha of Egypt, when she was well-known under Captain Newbold's command as the Baroness Tecco, so called in compliment to the wife of the then IHedmonteae Minister to the Porte."

So in this, she was the Baroness Tecco owned by Ilhami Pasha burned in 1860 (shortly before his death) and then sold to the Azizieh Company and renamed "Kars". From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Clydeships - BARONESS TECCO says "Other names: HUMA-I-TEVFIK". Not much help I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No source is infallible. Evidence is that Clydeships is in the wrong on this occasion. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested articles

It may be worth reassessing the oldest articles on our lists of requested articles. I was going through the ones on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Military biography and of the first seven, only George T. Rheam seemed to be remotely notable. Thoughts? Should I just remove them? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the Ottoman officers listed have articles on the Turkish WP, such as tr:Bostancıbaşı Hafız İsmail Paşa. IDK if that makes them notable to an Anglophone readership? Is there a policy on this? Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, that particular chap was a Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire in 1805-6 and appears as a redlink in a couple of English WP articles. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation states that the normal notability rules apply when translating articles into English. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If we're pruning the requested articles lists, it would seem Naval Medical Clinic Bermuda and Personnel Support Activity Detachment Bermuda (and probably Marine Security Force Bermuda) would be among those to remove. There are or were similar organizations at virtually every US naval base, and unless something really unusual happened at these facilities or with the MSF, they aren't independently notable. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a mess...

So I've got three sources telling me slightly different things. So there's this Transylvanian town, taken by the Romanian Army in the first days of the Battle of Transylvania, on 29 August 1916. But I've got conflicting sources as to when the Romanians evacuated it...A recent book says 18 September, two old books from that time period both say 20 September, and a post-war Austrian military map says 19 September. So...what do I do? Personally I think I should go with the Austrian military map, to be honest. But...what do you think? Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you can just prefer one source over the others, that would be OR. I suggest going with a date range (18 to 20 September) for evacuation and then explain that sources vary on the actual date. The explanation may need to go into a note so it doesn't detract from the overall narrative. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Zawed - this is how conflicting reliable sources are treated. If the map is a primary source it should be given less weight than the secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto to all of the above. Only if a source considers and specifically discusses the ambiguity might it be preferred and even then, I might make a note to other sources by way of acknowledging the ambiguity. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Always have the range, anything else could be seen as cherry picking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Should biography articles about soldiers list all of their medals?

There is some disagreement I'm having with another editor over whether all the medals someone won should be listed in their article. [25] What is normally done with these sorts of articles? All five of the medals listed have their own Wikipedia articles for them. Richard_Haine#Honours_and_awards Dream Focus 16:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No clearly not the ones that are not really noteworthy, in the example given 1939–1945 Star was issued to thousands of airmen and reflects just being in the right place and not issued on merit. Another medal under question was the Defence Medal (United Kingdom) which was issued to everbody. The Air Crew Europe Star is a campaign medal again turned up and did there bit and got the medal. No need mention these really low level awards. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Having personally been involved in the Suez Medal campaign for a medal to be awarded (1951-1954) - which did not happen until 2003 - I know how important these low level awards are to the people who acquire them. They were proud to have 'been there, done that'. There was many a watery eye when it came their way after over 50 years of waiting. Arbil44 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If we have sources, we might as well list them all. I agree that some are common but that does not always reflect the value placed on them by those who received them. The Pacific Star was quite common, but I have read through many files of people who went to great lengths to secure one, evidently regarding it as more valuable than some of their gallantry awards . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems quite common to add images of medal ribbon bars. That would be the better idea. The dates of his honours need recording, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be from previous discussions and practice that ribbon images although widely used on American articles were seen as being to garish and decoration on British and Commonwealth articles which is why we never agreed a common standard in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet many do have them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In the context of wikipedia, it's the importance of the medal to the reader that matters? If it's importatnt to the reader that the medal was important to the recepient, that would also count. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This has come up in the past in relation to articles of SS and German Army personal. For example, when one was awarded the Knight's Cross. It was decided to include the highest version awarded. Other minor Nazi Party awards are many times deleted out. Frankly, there has not always been agreement as to what should be kept and what should be deleted. Note - Some of the discussions have been as to what should be included in the info box alone. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion very strange. If someone has been awarded a medal, however low grade Wikipedian editors may deem it to be, is it their right to take that medal away from the subject by not including it? Soldiers were awarded no more than the GSM for some very bloody battles. Others were awarded the GSM just for 'being there' - as in the Suez example I gave above. The qualifying period was 30 days, and the chances of close combat in that period of time were probably slim. Arbil44 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

An example, over two million 1914–15 Stars were awarded would you consider that to be noteworthy in an article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally disinclined to have lists of awards (and am even less favorably disposed to ribbon racks) - IMO, awards should be worked into the prose of an article, and significant awards can be included in the box (which I'd limit to the highest grades - we don't need everything down to an ASR cluttering things up. But I might be lonely in that opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No it seems a reasonable stance to me. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert on any aspect of any of this - but I do feel passionately for the men who earned their 'gongs' - who feel passionately themselves about them. The consensus here does not appear to be thinking about the individuals. Just my take on it! Arbil44 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We should also remember the readers, who see an image of someone with rows of medals and wonder what they represent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

When someone is considered notable enough for a detailed article about them, I think listing all their awards somewhere in the article is appropriate. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I generally include them in the prose if they can be reliably sourced (I tend to avoid lists these days, but used to do them), and have never had anyone query them except with Nazi bios. The infobox should be kept for only the highest (generally gallantry or distinguished service) awards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Medals do represent significant stages or events in someone's life or career, and as such, the article should list them if they can be reliably sourced- even long service medals like the Medal for Long Service and Good Conduct (Military) tell the reader something about the recipient (even if it's just that they've served for a significant period of time and not got any major stains on their disciplinary record.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's necessary to include campaign and service medals in the text of an article (I never do when writing military and police bios) and I always oppose lists in biographical articles, but I'm not fundamentally opposed to showing ribbon bars at the bottom of an article (although not accompanied by a separate list, as we sometimes see). They do illustrate an individual's service and, as has been pointed out, clarify what the ribbons mean when someone is seen wearing them. We should, of course, continue to list awards for gallantry and distinguished service (i.e. those that are not awarded automatically) within the text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• All - I agree with all editors who stated that all of medals should be listed if they can be reliable sourced. Reliable sources would not mention them if they do not deserve to be mentioned. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Are there government websites that list what medals everyone got? I see no reason not to list all medals, claiming they are pointless is rather insulting to those who risk their lives serving their nation. Dream Focus 19:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are not any such websites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I searched about and just found one. https://valor.militarytimes.com/ If no government websites exist, there are surely ones others have created for soldiers in their nation. I would assume this project would have a list of them somewhere. Dream Focus 02:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

      That lists some citations for some US medals. For Australians, It's an Honour lists all decorations for which there are gazettals. However, it does not list campaign awards and the like. These can be extracted from the service personnel files, which are available if there were involved in World War I or II. The former have all been digitised; the latter will be digitised on request. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

      • Hawkeye, would you be prepared to search that link for my first boyfriend?! Colonel, or Lt. Col Warwick King-Martin. I tried, without success. The only web info is on a dead link here: "Warwick King-Martin - Old Honitonians Forum www.oldhonitonians.com › ... › General Category › General Board 10 Jun 2007 - Dear OH, Warwick died at home in Brisbane on 5th May 2007, after a courageous battle against cancer. Richard Anderson is organising a ..." I am sure Warwick would have died with a medal, or two, or three. He served in the Australian Army. I'd just be interested, that is all. Thank you. Arbil44 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh, dear, it is nearly 5am here - too tired to think properly. He did not serve in WWW1 or WWW2, so won't be listed there! Sorry for being off-piste. Arbil44 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

          Well, I found his immigration files. NAA: A8245, 1979/1192 in Canberra and NAA: J25, 1979/5712 in Brisbane. Unfortunately, they're NYE. Army personnel file is still held by the Army. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

          For the curious: you can read his obituary here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

          Since he was a Brit, we can track his career through the London Gazette: commissioned, promotion to lieutenant, promotion to captain, major, retired And we can do much the same in Australia: eg appointed as a major in the Australian Army. Thus, we have enough material to write an article on him, except that he isn't notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

          • Wow, thank you Hawkeye - quite some obituary. Clearly I have good taste in men! I knew him in Seremban (his father was my father's boss). He was my first love and the one who got away! I've put a picture of us on my userpage!Arbil44 (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Personally I don't think awards should be listed or mentioned unless they're covered in at least one secondary source. I do not mean to take anything away from the achievement of earning them, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If no secondary sources consider it important enough to mention, it's questionable what the relevance is to the general reader. buidhe 07:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Just throwing in here that "how important these low level awards are to the people who acquire them" is not germane to our decision to include them or not include them on a Wikipedia article. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The late Charles Golder would not agree with you! [26] Arbil44 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• All - I agree with all editors who stated that all of medals should be listed. It is not up to editors to measure the significance of a medal, if the subject would display the medal and the official obituary etc. lists it, it is notableLightburst (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Are we saying that campaign medals given out in six figure sums and sometime during the first world war over a million are really of note ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it "of note" to die for your country? General Service Medal Is it down to you to dis-award a medal earned that did, or might have, caused your death? How and when and by whom will this discussion conclude, with a descision made? Who is the final arbiter? Arbil44 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Having a medal doesnt mean you had to die for it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion either comes to a consensus and somebody suggests some words that go in a guideline or something or we dont agree and do our own thing, the discussion on medal images and which are notable will like always just keep being raised avery couple of months. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If this gets discussed that often then surely it is time for someone in authority to make a decision? Yesterday I counted 9 in favour of keeping all medals recorded and 5 against. Is that a decison? Arbil44 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2019 (UTCB

Back in 2002 I was part of the delegation to attend a meeting at the Cabinet Office to make the final petition for the Suez Medal 1951-1954. It was a well run campaign and it was very interesting to see the effect it had on the Cabinet Secretary of the day. The medal was awarded some months later, in 2003, and most of those awarded it only had a year or two of their lives left to enjoy wearing it. Had you been at that meeting too I think you would be agreeing with me. Arbil44 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbil, you seem to be confused about what we're doing here. We're writing an encyclopedia. No one is taking away any medals. We're trying to decide what the appropriate level of detail is for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. Go pick up the relevant edition of Britannica and see if they mention the Seringapatam medal anywhere in Arthur Wellesley's biography. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say you won't find it. They didn't take it away, they just decided it wasn't important enough for an encyclopedic level of detail on the subject. That's my (our?) point. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: First and foremost, obviously all content needs to be verifiable. Ideally, all medals should be fluidly listed in the prose where appropriate. If a medal doesn't seem significant enough to mention naturally in the prose, then it probably isn't notable enough to be included in the article at all. I'm not keen on the idea of a list at the end of an article, unless it provides sufficient context as to what each medal was awarded for. I am strongly opposed to the sole inclusion of ribbon pictures for each medal, as this is not accessible at all. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course I understand that but nothing will change my point of view any more than others will theirs! If this is a concensus then yesterday the tilt was in favour of listing all medals! The average serviceman cannot be compared with the Duke of Wellington or Lord Nelson by the way!!Arbil44 (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Put another way, the sign on the door says this is a sandwich shop, but you'd rather make tacos if we have enough votes for tacos, then? Don't dodge the point about the Iron Duke, please; it doesn't matter if he was a private or a field marshal (and you know it). Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I've no wish to argue with you, or anyone else Parsecboy. There are differing opinions here, that is all. I only had this page on my watchlist because I asked a question here. It was deleted! I should have taken this off my watchlist when that happened.Arbil44 (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I for one am all for including all awards, and for including them in a list belowe the article. Why? Simple, because they are well suited for them, below the main text is the best place for that and military awards are part of a military biography (if applicable) and information. If the information is known why shouldn´t it be used? We´re not forced to make short biographic entries with a limited format, we can expand. Of course that doesn´t mean infobox, which should only include the top level. The inclusion of ribbons in the lists is, in my opinion, totally optional but I think "ribbons only" is suboptimal. As for the matter being brought up time and time again it usually means another deletionist has a deletionist issue again, or somebody comes with a national POV. In the end, as all editors are free to edit or not, the matter is really simple: You want to include the awards - do so. You write an article and don´t want to - then just don´t. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That a given piece of information exists is not justification that it should be included - we might hypothetically know that Julius Caesar picked his nose - should we include that in his bio? This is the whole reason we're here - our basic job as editors is to determine what material should go into an article and what shouldn't. Otherwise, bots could write articles.

The fundamental question we should ask ourselves in any editorial decision is, "what use is this to readers?" What benefit does including the Mexican Border Service Medal on Omar Bradley's page give readers? That he served on the border? I think the prose tells us that already. There are no doubt specialist sources that track this sort of minutiae, but that's not our job. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I´d agree on the nose picking, and that existence is not enough justification. The nose picking has no relevance to the notability in Caesars case, and it is not an important personality quirck. It also is no aspect of his career. Military decorations for a military biography are so, and apparently we disagree over thinking them to be important enough to be in an article (I, obviously, do). As for the Bradley example, yes, the main text tells us that he served on that border. It does not tell us that he has that service medal; which is relegated to the list. This is, in my opinion, as it should be because it would be somewhat intruding in text form but perfect in said list. Lists are easy to understand and if somebody is not interested in that locally concentrated aspect it can be skipped, far easier than in text form. There also are countless articles where the reader will find no such information in the main text at all and thus get even more from the list (of course many articles could need expansion). So I see that exactly as "our job". Again: You don´t wont to add them, then don´t, nobody is forcing you to do so. There are others who do. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion a bit late, I see some emotive arguments being presented but these don't take way from the fact that this is an encyclopedia, where we have to strike a balance between being informative and the amount of detail provided. I am in general agreement with Buidhe and Harrias. Medals should be mentioned in prose as appropriate to the subject and cited to a reliable secondary source. For gallantry awards this should be easily achieved (it's probably part of their notability) and in some cases campaign medals as well, depending on the context (eg. often a recipient's gallantry awards are on display at a museum alongside their campaign medals so it should be appropriate to mention them - the campaign medals, that is). Where the subject of a biography article 'only' received campaign medals, of which hundreds of thousands were issued, I suspect that while it may be easy to source that the subject served in, for example, Europe in WWII, it may be difficult to source that they actually received the France and Germany Star. We shouldn't be assuming that they received it based on their service in Europe. Zawed (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The example ad absurdum is in biographies of European monarchs. Take Leopold I of Belgium whose article currently includes a phone-book's worth of foreign medals, awards, and orders. Many were awarded by countries he had literally never even visited. Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Titles, styles and honours is even worse. I am afraid this reflects the personal interests of individual editors more than the reasonable expectations of what a reader would want to find in a biography: it's a good example of what wikipedia is not.—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as they are verifiable, I have no problem listing all medals. I agree we should not assume any medals are earned based on service, and I also agree that ribbon images is probably too prominent for inclusion in a recipient's article (they are perfectly acceptable in the medal's own article if it exists). CThomas³ (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the precondition for inclusion is verifiability. In the case of Audie Murphy, the article includes an inline listing of some of his awards and decorations but must rely on a standalone article named Audie Murphy honors and awards which currently is a featured list. That said, this indicates some level of acceptance for full inclusion on Wikipedia. The award section in the article Dwight D. Eisenhower seems rather lengthy to me and takes up space. Maybe an acceptable compromise would be full inclusion but in a collapsible table. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. My reason is very simplistic. A notable soldier is usually well decorated and the list long. If Wikipedia deems them important enough to have their own articles there is no reason as to why they shouldn't all be mentioned in a biography. If not, theyxshould be excluded. Dapi89 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not really the issue though, is it? The individual isn't notable because of their awards (apart from those awarded the MoH/VC/etc), and especially not for every single minor award they received in, say, a 30-year career. In Eisenhower's example above, what good is it to tell readers that Ike got the WWII Victory Medal? That he served in the military during the war? I think readers can piece that together from the introduction.

As I said above, our job as editors is not to include every scrap of information about a person (there are specialist sources for that), our job is to produce a useful biography that is easy to read and not bloated with extraneous details. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would limit inclusion to honours and awards but exclude other decorations (eg service medals). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Collappsible content in the body of the article is largely against accessibility guidelines. Its use seems to me to a compromise between 'important enough to be in article' and 'not important enough to be read' which is an obvious contradiction GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lithuanian resistance

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lithuanian resistance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

41 Service Battalion

Since military history isn't my bailiwick, I'm opening a thread here. The article appears to have been created and edited mostly by the battalion's commander, which isn't necessarily a negative. But many, if not most of the footnotes don't appear to refer to WP:RELIABLE sources, which makes me wonder if the content really belongs here, as opposed to the battalion's website. I suspect a lot of it can be cut. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made an initial stab at separating the mountain of references into footnotes and sources. That will then make it easier to see which sections are verifiable. The current article goes into far too much detail but some of the footnotes may be salvageable. In fact, some of the footnotes are written closer to the style we need than the main text it is recorded against. I probably won't have much time to do much more for the next few days as I will be travelling. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, From Hill To Shore. Your message to the editor was an excellent explanation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the editor should be given a chance to provide references before any major deletions are made. It's better to inform rather than punish inexperienced editors. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no intent for punitive measures. My primary concerns, as expressed above, relate more to the quality of sources and content, and what merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I'd venture that nearly three years of editing this article is long enough without acknowledging a conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me this is not a new user, the page was created 3 years ago (but its main editor), 3 years is not a new user. Most (all?) of the sources look more like footnotes, reads like an essay.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon. While not a "new user", I have limited experience with Wikipedia beyond the page in question. If you could advise which references need additional sources, I can provide these - There is a large Battalion archive that most of this information has come from. If there is some sort of "best practices" that I should be using, I would be happy to review these.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboyle094 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

German coastal defences in Belgium during WW1

Hi, I am currently working on a series of articles about British naval activities off the Belgian coast in the First World War. I was intending to link to articles about the German defences they faced but have struggled to find an article about them. Is there a WW1 equivalent to the Atlantic Wall or German coastal battery Tirpitz articles? Judging from the period being missed out of the Coastal artillery article, I suspect we don't have anything yet. However, I wanted to check if anyone was aware of any orphan articles on the subject that I could expand on rather than start from scratch. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a related point, I have found an unclear reference on the Coastal artillery article, pointing to a source named "Chung." I was going to ask the editor who inserted it to identify the source, but it appears to have been a sockpuppet account that has since been blocked.[27] Any suggestions on how to handle this one? I'm tempted to just remove the Chung source and flag the last sentence as unreferenced for the moment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Naval Corps (German Empire) is the unit controlling the German units along the Belgian coast. And you can find some information on the deployments in Belgium in the articles on the various guns, especially the railroad versions. I didn't try to create articles on the individual batteries because I found it hard to figure out when they were emplaced and dates of any change in composition. Some of that data may be available in German sources, if you can read them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I have some sources that provide a basic level of detail of the German guns, so I'll include it there for now. We can always split the article later if there is enough content to justify it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I didnt find any articles either when looking for reference while we were categorizing the US-Photos of the german coastal installations in Belgium on commons. We failed to this day to identify the 15-cm-mystery-gun. So if you stumble across anything about that gun, please make a note on commons. Alexpl (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. It resembles the 25 cm schwerer Minenwerfer, although the barrel is longer and it has more recuperator cylinders under the barrel.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My guess is, that its a refurbished gun, since the cylinder arrangement looks somewhat navy-ish, close to a 15 cm SK L/45. Alexpl (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not my field but mystery weapon images intrigue me, so I had a look. I have struggled with this - the best i can do is that the image was published by Norton and Armstrong in Part III of their survey of German coastal artillery in Belgium (plate 74) but they give no detail of the battery or the weapon, just that it defended the landward side of a battery. I don't know if that offers any leads. Monstrelet (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly helpful in telling me not to spend too long searching through my Royal Navy sources. If it was facing landward, it is unlikely to have fired on the ships of the Dover Patrol and been mentioned in their reports. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good assumption. It could be a captured weapon, most likely a mortar or a siege howitzer by the short barrel. I've looked through the likely French candidates and struck out again. It could be a modernized older piece, since it has a modern recoil system.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a Belgian M1894 mortar in 15cm calibre according to wikipedia. Certainly similarities but not enough to say this was it, unless heavily modernised. Monstrelet (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Since they have been put in several different categories on WP-Commons:([28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]) These should be most of the pictures the Americans took of the guns near Ostende/Seebrügge, maybe there is something you can use for your project. Alexpl (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Action at Fort Jackson, Louisiana, 11 October 1861

There was a naval action at Fort Jackson, Louisiana during which the blockading schooner Preble was sunk. Was she a Union or Confederate ship? - "America". The Times. No. 24076. London. 29 October 1861. col E-F, p. 7. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a false report? Our article on the USS Preble (1839) says: " She was posted at Head of the Passes on the Mississippi River on 12 October 1861 when the blockading squadron there was attacked by a Confederate States Navy force that included the first ironclad warship, CSS Manassas. Being a-sail-powered ship, she did not join the battle but rather made a swift retreat out the Southwest Pass to safety in the Gulf of Mexico. Preble was serving as a guard ship when, on 27 April 1863, while moored in Pensacola Bay off Pensacola, Florida, she caught fire due to the carelessness of a crewman. She was abandoned and exploded", though there are no sources given - Dumelow (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've found some contemporary sources on this but they will need to be treated as WP:Primary due to the lack of fact checking and potential spreading of misinformation for propaganda. Preble sank at Fort Jackson, 11 Oct 1861.[67][68]. Preble, Federal sloop of War, reported burned off Pensacola sometime before 30 May 1863.[69] From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a detailed account of its 1863 loss in the New York Times and the US Navy History and Heritage Command has her sunk on 27 April 1863. It also states "She returned to the United States in September 1860, and ten months later joined the Gulf Blockading Squadron to assist in implementing the Union blockade of the South's coast. Initially at the mouth of the Mississippi she later shifted to Pensacola to act as guard and store ship." which places her in the area she was reported sunk in 1861 - Dumelow (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks all. Probably not so much a case of false information, but confusion in the fog of war. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Good topic nomination

Hello fellow project members. I don't normally like soliciting people to perform reviews of my noms, but I've lodged a good topic nomination for Battle of the Uganda–Tanzania war here: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War/archive1. Good/featured topic noms aren't very visible, so they often don't get timely reviews, so I'd appreciate it if some members—particularly those who have already reviewed portions of it and are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the content—would give a little bit of their time to expedite the process. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Home Army Request for Comments: German casualties

Talk:Home Army/Archive 6#Request for Comments: German casualties: watchers here may comment.--JoeZ451 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Qassem Soleimani death reference in Isoroku Yamamoto article

With the recent death of Soleimani, I wanted to contribute to the Isoroku Yamamoto page after hearing that Soleimani's death is the highest profile U.S. military assassination since Yamamoto's death and I sourced NYT, and this was referenced in WaPo as well. TJRC has approved of it, though an anon user has been highly against it and has reverted my edit, and TJRC's restoration of the edit. Both of us think that this fact provides context into U.S. military engagement targets of high profile.

Attached discussion is here Talk:Isoroku_Yamamoto#Qassem_Soleimani

Many thanks. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

Given the possibility the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by the IRGC, it would be appreciated if some editors with expertise in Iranian/Middle Eastern military matters would at least keep a weather eye on the article. Expert opinion at talk page also welcome. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ba Congress needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ba Congress; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! (NB: my nom) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS O'Flaherty needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for USS O'Flaherty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird syntax issue

G'day all, I was clearing out Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging, and struck a hurdle with Talk:The Red Badge of Courage. There was a red portal link which I deleted, and I tried null edits, so can anyone see what else might be astray with it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If I am reading the template code correctly, you have the portal name but you are missing the portal link parameter. The two portal parameters are a pair, so you need to keep both or delete both (the template doc says the portal is only relevant where the article is used on the portal; it shouldn't be a general note that the portal exists). I can't see banners directly on my mobile, so don't want to try fixing myself, but that is probably the source. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixed it. It previously had a red link to a non-existent number at the portal, so I've just deleted the portal fields completely for now. Problem solvered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Should awards be given by voluntary organisations be seen as military awards?

For instance, the Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans) and all here except the 1964 one:

Doug Weller talk 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, a made up award from the 1970s has nothing to do with the military. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, as it was not awarded by the military or even a government body.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, awards from voluntary organisations should not be seen as military awards unless they are included on an official government order of wearing, such as the St John Ambulance awards in Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

heavy railway gun photo

Hello

From Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe GLAM in WikimediaPoland received this photo (there are many more photos in commons:Category:Images from Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe – needing category). Description Ciężkie działo kolejowe 280 mm używane przez Niemców w czasie walk w Normandii. Widoczny żołnierz ładujący pocisk. equals heavy railway gun 280 mm used by Germans in fights in Normandy. Visible soldier loading shells. As there was not so many 280 mm railway guns maybe someone will be able to recognize what exactly gun it was? PMG (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The most likely suspect is the Krupp K5 of which 25 were built, but whether any were used in the Normandy Campaign eludes me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be the reverse of the original image. Rough translation: "one of the coastal batteries on the canal coast that shot to the end in the heroic fight against England, heavy marine batteries on the canal coast, this fought to the last". Also the image title translates to "German artillery on the English Channel" suggesting that if this is a K5 it is one of those used to attack British shipping in the English Channel from 1940 onwards. Nthep (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, the K5 has a different breech block though: File:280 mm Eisenbahngeschuetz K5 (E), Audinghen 01 09.jpg. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it is a 28 cm SK L/40 naval gun. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the current discussion, but thanks for posting that image of the 28cm gun. I've been hunting for details of the WW1 Tirpitz battery. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion needed

There is a dispute on the template over the bold IP edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Denial_of_mass_killings&type=revision&diff=935209507&oldid=935193882&diffmode=source I would like to hear your opinion. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You are linking to a diff from an editwar. Try discussing the matter on the template talk page. FWIW, I am not aware of anyone denying that Chetniks massacred tens of thousands of Croats and Bosniaks during WWII, so I'm not sure on what basis their actions would be part of this template, given it is about denial of mass killings, not the mass killings themselves. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to make that point, but in vain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.101.190.2#food_for_thought Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is much better to have that discussion on the template talk page so it is preserved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC that needs attention

Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Hi! I've never talked to anyone in this fascinating Project! I have been reviewing new articles and came across a user that has created several articles of the following nature: Texas Cold War Medal, Texas Border Security and Support Service Ribbon. Note I am not judging this user's contributions, quite the opposite as the articles are quite decent and they're a good effort. My question is whether these awards can in fact be considered notable? I mean, the latter doesn't even exist yet, and the article actually states it would be the "tenth highest campaign/service award" (my own emphasis). Not only that, but the sources used are primary ones. It seems to me these are fringe medals of questionable eminence. Your thoughts on this? Thanks! PK650 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

They seem pretty obscure. From an Australian perspective, state-level awards are generally not notable, whereas national-level ones are (although we don't have state-level military units). There are a couple of examples of state-level Australian police awards with articles, but they are rare. Certainly if the only sources are primary ones, then their notability is questionable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

PK650: I nominated both articles for deletion because they fail WP:GNG. As a new page patroller you should nominate for deletion or draftify all wikipedia articles based entirely on primary sources; that is against policy per WP:PRIMARY. buidhe 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the information. As for Buidhe's comment: I understand, but I wanted an expert opinion before I did. If sources are out there and can be easily accessed I usually opt for keeping the article unless of course it's non-notable, as in this case it appears to be. And by the way, WP:PRIMARY doesn't state any of what you posted above :) Best, PK650 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

PK650, WP:PRIMARY states that it is policy not to "base an entire article on primary sources". I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. And yeah, things that are against policy (not guidelines) should not be kept in mainspace. buidhe 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, "nominate for deletion or draftify all wikipedia articles based entirely on primary sources" is not part of WP:BEFORE, nor is it deletion policy if the subject of the article is notable, under normal circumstances. In fact, C.3 states "if an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag", which is what I did. Notability was my main concern, and that was cleared up after consultation in this precise place. So, I appreciate your comments but perhaps don't be hasty when telling people what they should be doing when they actually were doing exactly what they were supposed to :) Best, PK650 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, please note there are other articles, such as Texas Faithful Service Medal (this does have a few more sources, particularly in print, so it must be examined further). I've notified WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, but I'm unsure if that Project is active! Best, PK650 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles Carroll Wood

Can someone have a look at the name and page location of Charles Carroll Wood. The current page content supports the middle name Taylor, but there is a source that supports Carroll.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The London Gazette appears to support Carroll.[70][71][72] I can't see any evidence of the DSO, however. And the CD wasn't introduced until 1949. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Royal Military College Memorial Arch supports current name: "352 Lieut. C. C. Wood" [73]--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• The record of service for Charles Carroll Wood of the 1st Loyal North Lancashire Regiment makes no mention of a DSO. Born 19 March 1876 in Halifax, N.S. Single with next of kin his father in Halifax. At Home 5-9-96 to 4-11-96, Ceylon 5-11-96 to 12-2-99, South Africa 13-2-99 Medals "South African 1899" Cape Colony Clasp. Killed in Action Belmont ? Cape Colony 10-11-99. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• It looks like the name was changed by a single edit account. [74] It could have been a test edit, vandal edit or just a misinformed visitor. A simple revert is in order. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • From Hill To Shore, Well the editor (EmmaTaylor1225) looks like a Taylor family member. I am not so comfortable reverting. Thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There is nothing to indicate any familial relationship. Anyone could create a user account with that name. In the absence of any claim from the editor and plenty of evidence that they are in error, I will boldly revert once I get to my PC. It is too complicated edit for my mobile. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I just did - there are plenty of sources that support Carroll (not the least of which is the memorial, which has him as "C. C. Wood") and exactly zero as Taylor Wood. Why he isn't known as Taylor Wood like the rest of his family, I have no idea, but the fact remains that he isn't. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, since I created Carroll (given name) today, I am now confident that Charles Carroll Wood belongs on the page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes him notable? Being "the first Canadian Officer to fall in battle during the Boer War."? Where's the RS for that? Doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. The page seems to be more about his family than him.Mztourist (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Notability is a different issue. I am just here to ask whether his middle name is Carroll or Taylor. I am just here because I was creating Carroll (given name) today and if his middle name is Taylor, I need to know for that issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • If he's not notable then his middle name is irrelevant.Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• P.S. Kudos for the continued excellence of this project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote

What is the correct way of displaying these vessesl. Is the pennant number italicized or not? German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6 or German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6? Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The pennant number is never italicised, and in this case "6" is not an ID number but part of the name. The problem here is the explanatory part of the article's title, "German trawler" which is not part of the ship's name. So you'd have to include it in the pennant number's section: {{ship|German trawler V 1502|Wiking 6}} → German trawler V 1502 Wiking 6. De728631 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Are they pennant numbers or number names though? Compare the low number Zerstorers. Rohwer italicises the V and treats the civilian name as an ex name Lyndaship (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wiking 6 would have been a number name resulting from the previous assigment as a civilian vessel, so V#### is the military pennant number. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wiking 6 was her name as a merchant ship. Going by what De728631 said, and also other German warships articles where there is a pennant number before the name, I've made the necessary adjustments at the List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Research Interview Request

Dear members of the Military History Wikiproject,

I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles. I have come to this page in order to find volunteers who would be willing to participate in a semi-structured interview on the subject.

This interview would be a part of a research study which analyzes discursive practices in conflict and how it is represented through editing and discussion within controversial Wikipedia articles about on-going wars and international conflicts, where members of this Wikiproject are assumed to have expertise. To explore this, I would formally like to request a semi-structured research interview regarding your perspectives on contributor relationships, motivations for participation and collaboration practices.

Your contribution would be highly valuable to this project. If any of you would like to participate, or have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me through e-mail or my personal talk page.

Best regards and thank you in advance.

Etchubykalo, doctoral researcher at the communication and media research institute (CAMRI), University of Westminster, London. Etchubykalo (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)