Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing Good article nominees Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • John S. McCain Sr. • HMS Trent (1796) • Eleanor of Castile • Battle of Durazzo (1376) • Charles Upham • Giado concentration camp • The Motherland Calls Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,633) • only work on referencing and citation (43,155) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,777) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,693) • work on structure (31,804) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,172) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,794) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (652) • assessment as lists (121) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (287) • attention to task force coverage (656)

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. [1] He was instrumental in the compromises required for Dreyfus's pardon and he smoothed things over with the army in the aftermath. [2] His dramatic resignation was connected with the affair [3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)