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 Turabay dynasty • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Bradley Winslow Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 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 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • 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 • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne • Tim Hughes (soldier) • John S. McCain Sr. Good article reassessments Galatian War • Franklin's lost expedition • Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,527) • only work on referencing and citation (43,145) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,654) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,668) • work on structure (31,791) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,173) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,767) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (116) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (3) • task forces added (275) • attention to task force coverage (658)

Army Combat Training Centre (South Africa)

I noticed that the Articles to be Created section includes the above mentioned Army Combat Training Centre (South Africa). However both the SA Army Training Formation and Lohatla itself have existing Wikipedia pages. Lohatla has been pulled into the military history project, but the training centre has not. I think that that pulling the training centre article into the project would meet that page creation requirement. Alaric Silvertongue (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Overlapping designations of unrelated US Army units

I am seeking advice here on the correct disambiguators to distinguish unrelated US Army units. The specific issue is with the usage of the designation '26th Cavalry', which was used twice by two unrelated units.

The first '26th Cavalry' was the 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts), which was destroyed in the 1942 Philippines Campaign and officially disbanded in 1951 (meaning that the designation was permanently retired from the US Army). However, the designation '26th Cavalry' was used again for a National Guard parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System from 1963 to 1988, with entirely different heritage (the number '26' was likely used because it was part of the 26th Infantry Division (United States).

Complicating the problem, the 26th Cavalry was renumbered as the 110th Cavalry in 1988, likely to preserve the number of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry Regiment. However, the 110th Cavalry of 1988 did not inherit the lineage of the 1920s and 1930s 110th Cavalry and so they are historically unrelated.

Would it make sense to disambiguate by date in this case, having separate articles for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States, 1921–1940) and 110th Cavalry (United States, 1988–1996) with redirect from [[26th Cavalry (United States, 1963–1988)? Presumably, the use of (Phillippine Scouts) for the 26th Cavalry that fought in the ill-fated Philippines Campaign of 1942 (the most famous as it made what may be the last American cavalry charge in combat) is an adequate disambiguator. Kges1901 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that the 110th didn't inherit the lineage of the earlier unit as both were National Guard units and they tend to stretch things a bit more than Regular Army units to preserve their heritage. That said, your plan seems fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I've carried out the moves accordingly. Interestingly, the lineage was not inherited because the 110th Cavalry of the interwar period's lineage moved to the 180th Field Artillery when it was converted into the latter in 1940. The 180th FA became two different Field Artillery Battalions during WWII and postwar was reactivated in the Massachusetts ARNG, but was consolidated under CARS in 1959 to become part of the lineage of the 101st Field Artillery Regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, that seems more reasonable. The NG cares less about what branch the unit belonged to than maintaining continuity. I know of one unit in Illinois that's switched from artillery to infantry, back to artillery and recently to combat engineers in the last quarter-century or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You could add "U.S." directly to the title (e.g. 110th U.S. Cavalry Regiment), thus saving the clunky brackets with several entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Regrettably, 'U.S.' has never been part of official designations in the US Army since 1917. Unfortunately, this simple distinguisher between state and Regular units used during the Civil War would be anachronistic in this context. Kges1901 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, context. Forgot about that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kges1901 I disagree and I think the answer is simple. One article for the 110th Cavalry Regiment (United States), and one for the 26th Cavalry, with our standard Soviet-style 'First Formation,' 'Second Formation' etc. The regt was reformed, number was reused, and links can adequately link the lineages. Why should we associated non-lineage-linked Sov divisions with the same numerical designation, and not do so for the U.S. Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about the splitting up of formations in some cases over time. I now believe that it would work better if units with enough coverage on each formation to maintain separate articles could be split. This can be done on a case-by-case basis, as some Soviet units just won't have enough coverage (like units with brief existences destroyed in encirclements) to maintain separate existences, while with the famous Guards units it seems pointless to have an arbitrary break when Guards conversion occurred even though the personnel remained the same.

In regards to this situation with the two cavalry units, I reason that the 26th Cavalry (PS) is the most famous 26th Cavalry by and large because of its mentions in secondary sources and being the only US unit in WWII to see mounted combat. Because there is enough material on the 26th Cav (PS) alone to stand as a separate article, it should be split from the 26th Cav of the National Guard. Kges1901 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich

Article: Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich

Recently, this has been assessed as "B class" for WP:Biography and WP:England, unfortunately, I don't think it would be that for WP:MILHIST. Possibly "C class" at most. Adamdaley (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day Adam, thanks for that. I've assessed it as C-Class, a few missing citations there, but the coverage seems ok for B2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS

Given the rise and fall of several "Campaign vs campaign" discussions here, and suggestions that this is a MOS issue, not for MilHist to determine alone, I have introduced a detailed argument regarding the use of "campaign" as a proper noun at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Campaign vs. campaign in military history articles for anyone who wants to weigh-in and consider the matter in the right place. Ultimately, I hope to see WP:MILMOS updated to provide more certainty with regards to formatting such articles and the name of military campaigns, given the lack of consensus, and now we have an editor – Dicklyon – taking upon himself to move a ton of articles with, it might be argued, a controversial lack of reliable sources to do so, it might be prudent to reach a consensus and establish whether to favour such events as proper nouns. — Marcus^(talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair point but I'm not sure the debate with Dicklyon over his moves is part of the question of whether c/Campaign is a proper noun. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well since that's where this concern originated, I thought it best to give some background, otherwise editors have no reason to consider an individual term for the MOS to specifically cover. — Marcus^(talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Campaign is pretty clearly not a proper noun; that's not where the debate lies. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Too late to move the goal posts or stall the debate again. What sources do you have to support that Campaign is not a proper noun? N-grams don't count, since they don't provide clear examples of how sampled sentences are structured. WP:BURDEN — Marcus^(talk) 01:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion is better kept centralised? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We could, but for reasons unknown these discussions keep fizzling out and nothing is ever decided. Hours of time wasted, yet plenty of concerns raised in each. Any clue why these discussions just die while Dicklyon's move log keeps growing regardless of concerns about such moves?

• May: WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Campaign_article_titles
• June: WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_151#Capitalization_of_"Campaign"_in_articles.
• July: WT:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign

What I mean to say is, if this wasn't a big concern, it wouldn't have cropped up three months in a row. Now we have a debate at ANI and an attempt to conclude the matter once and for all at MOS. Given the number of editors who made their opinion known in one or more of the "Campaign titles" discussions here, listed above, I'm kind of surprised that none appear keen to see the matter resolved by weighing-in at the WT:MOS, which was determined to be the best place to establish a consensus. I've debated the matter with Dicklyon ad infinitum, but am not quite feeling "backed" by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution. Would be really nice to get some comments, reflecting Milhist editor's views, either way, at the MOS discussion, and then perhaps we won't see the same bloody issue cropping up again next month, and the month after... I can think of nothing more tiresome than that. — Marcus^(talk) 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, there have only been a small handful of MilHist members with concerns. The reason these discussions keep fizzling out is that when people look into the moves, they are not able to point out a single one where I got it wrong (or if somebody has, please remind me). You tried at Talk:Gettysburg Campaign, but you got that badly wrong. So, if I've done wrong, why will nobody point it out? And why do you keep after me with theoretical issues but without any good example of a campaign that should be capped? Even at the currently open discussion at Talk:Waterloo Campaign, your best argument is just that it doesn't need fixing; sure, lots of people don't care about conforming to WP:NCCAPS, but not caring is not a good argument for leaving it wrong. It was my impression in all these discussions that there is no significant controversy or pushback to conforming to WP:NCCAPS; practically nobody from the project participated in the move discussions (all of which were automatically notified to the project on it's page alerts page which members should be watching), and the few who did participate did not present reasons to capitalize. All you have presented are some vague reasons to not take n-grams stats at face value (which is fine but not very useful), and the use of those stats to look at caps in context has been extensively discussed and you still got it wrong at Talk:Gettysburg Campaign. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And you pretty quickly converted that centralized discussion from a discussion about the issue to a discussion about me. This is not a way to move toward a resolution. Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything in that first paragraph sums up your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance from the start and disdain for consensus. The comment I left at your talk page shows what was said at these May–July discussions, and the fact that you still proceed based on conjecture highlights your refusal to stop moving articles in mass numbers. Even the discussion at ANI turned tables on you and you have to defend yourself more than I do. FACT: More editors have expressed concerns for your moves than not. FACT: When your edits are bing questioned you don't keep going. You just said "only a small handful". That number, however "small" you subject it to, is still >1, which represents you alones. If your moves are totally appropriate, why is no one helping you? You ask slanted questions because you're either missing the bigger picture or aiming to misdirect everyone as you continue obsessively to move those articles without fulfilling the core requirements of core policy, WP:V is more important than WP:NCCAPS – how can N-grams data be verified again? And your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction. — Marcus^(talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:V invoked in a styling question before (except by Marcus in this one a few times already). Very creative. Does anyone understand this argument? Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? Let me break it down for you in small steps, then you can do what you do best and try to poke holes in the logic, since you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you:

1. You're renaming articles based on the singular argument that "Campaign" is not a proper noun and should be lowercase.
2. Any argument that is disputable is traditionally considered a "point of view".
3. All POVs should be supported by evidence, especially those that may be challenged.
4. Evidence is needed to support all POVs during discussions RE:controversial edits, even if thy do not become in-line refs.
5. Your evidence is, and always had been, N-grams charts produced by Google. This is "for office use" evidence to garner consensus.
6. N-grams are graphs made by Google using data they gathered.
7. Their sources are books which they scan and put every word into a database for their algorithms to search.
8. Those books, their individual titles, authors and page numbers, where the results came from, are not detailed to support N-grams charts.
9. We are given vague references to date ranges and usage in those years.
10. Because there is no breakdown of sources, editors here are unable to verify the data that N-grams shows.
11. In some cases, not all, we get a link to Google books, but many of the titles have copyrights with no/limited access, voiding their viability due to inaccessibility.
12. Without verification we can't assess the accuracy, context or reliabliity of given N-grams data.
13. It's like being told 1,000 people in a million have cancer but not being allowed to know the type, the demographics, the background of sufferers, etc.
14. Blind data which cannot be verified by anyone is useless. Like a book with no bibliography is generally unsuitable for precise research.
15. WP:V is policy; "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source".
16. WP:MOS are guidelines; "Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting".
17. Policy is generally considered a higher level recommendation than a guideline; WP:POLICIES.
18. Providing verifiable evidence generally takes precedence over most policy, except perhaps neutrality; WP:5P2.

Creative? No. Sound and logical argument. Check. You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written. And, it would seem, you often get mass-reverted by other projects. Glad to see some editors have the integrity to uphold standards instead of cowering away from their responsibilities and not letting editors push them about with rhetorical nonsense.

Here's a further policy that potentially applies directly to you: WP:TITLECHANGES — Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. How many moves have you performed without discussion that were stable? Before you ressurect the "I don't consider them controversial moves" circular argument... we're long past that moot point; if there was no controversy there would not have been discussions here lasting 3 months. I hope that is clearer for you to understand and comprehend. As ever, anticipating your response and attempts to refute it in favour of your own self-righteous opinion.\ — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I've never seen WP:V as being related to style questions. Has anyone, that can point me at such a case? Do please try to understand and excuse my extreme ignorance of such things, and help me out. I do understand that WP:NPOV can some into title selection, as sometimes different names for things come from different points of view on them, and a more neutral name can often be found. Applying that to title capitalization seems impossible, though, even if one claims that those who cap and those who don't represent different points of view on the subject (which I think is rarely the case). It says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We're not going to embed the proportion of caps somehow in the title; we have to decide. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Either capitalisation of "campaign" is *important*, because it is content, and therefore WP:V applies. So:

• Follow what reliable sources say, per article, if there isn't a clear winner, keep it how it is, and stay consistent in the article.

Or it isn't important, WP:V doesn't apply. So:

• Keep it how it is, per article, and stay consistent in the article.

Or argue for a few thousand more words. Also, it's definitely seven. Seven angels can dance on the head of a pin. Four more than the number of roads a man needs to walk down. (Hohum ^@) 18:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does something have to of happened on Wiki before in order for you to accept it? Think you'll be able to claim that if there are no similar cases you can disregard the argument completely? There's a first time for everything, sometimes cases set a precedent – some policy expresses itself without the need for examples, unless you're claiming all policy is reactive rather than preemptive. Besides WP:V isn't being used here to question the style itself. WP:V is being used to ask whether the evidence you supply is good enough. WP:V is required to prove that your evidence supports your case that Campaign isnt a proper noun. Pass the WP:V test first, apply MOS second. It's the same as any content: Verify a claim you want to make, then add it. Two different stages. It's not rocket science, and you understand that. — Marcus^(talk) 20:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you were "shocked at my ignorance" for never before having "seen WP:V invoked in a styling question", and you are saying now that you are equally shockingly ignorant of any such prior use of this concept you made up? Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, makes no sense. You can't make up policy when it's there in black and white. Though it seems that you're in the habit of changing things while discussions are on-going, to subtly stregthen your argument. This edit is a COI because you're changing guidelines relating to articles you are editing that are being disputed; expect this concern to appear at the ANI thread, since you're so unwilling to heed my advice. And FYI, no I haven't looked through Wiki's entire history to see if WP:V has been used in this way before? Why the fook would I trawl through 18 years of wiki talk pages to satisfy you? Do it yourself if you're that curious, but since WP:V was written based on community consensus it doesn't require any other consensus to apply it. The only case that's relevant is this one, here and now. Your demand for former cases is paramount to WP:LAWYERING. Just because I can't prove it hasn't happened in Wikipedia's 18 years of activity doesn't mean it hasn't, and whether it has or not changes nothing. Policy isn't law, it doesn't have to be applied in equal measures. Your attempts to be dismissive changes nothing. You appear to be denying the need for WP:Verifiability which implies that you don't feel the need to be accountable for your moves. — Marcus^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability of article contents is crucial. Verifiability of my comments on talk pages is a different thing altogether. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. You know fine well I mean verifiability of N-gram charts that you present as evidence and nothing to do with comments. Go back to the steps I listed, see 10 thru 12. — Marcus^(talk) 03:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I get that you're not comfortable with n-gram stats from millions of books chosen by some unknown criterion unrelated to our purpose here. So show us some other reason to think we should capitalize "Campaign" instead of just criticizing my work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show why we should lowercase "Campaign" since your sources are, as you just said, "unknown criterion". You'll find that the WP:Burden is a section within the WP:V policy and states, very clearly, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.... Tell me, is an article title part of the title? Are you not only changing titles, but in-line usage of "Campaign" to match the the moved title? That being the case, you are affecting the content. The burden is on you to provide verifiable evidence to support your edits. Looking at an N-gram I see no means to verify the data. Sure, you can say "from millions of books" like it means anything. But it means nothing, since I don't know the titles, authors or page numbers of just 40 books (the minimum for inclusion) to pick up, and turn to the pages where Google scanned the term "whatever campaign", and then read the full sentences or paragraph surrounding those entries. That is how editors verify content for ALL of Wikipedia. You and your N-grams are NOT the exception. Your data is inadmissable as evidence, because WE CAN'T SEE THE BOOKS!!! Which means you should never have moved anything in the first place. You should have done what you're demanding everyone else do, and go find evidence that "campaign" is not a proper noun, or that upper-case usage is not common. We need to know the actual books you determined that with. Blind faith N-grams don't prove anything. No titles means no context to verify. N-grams data undermines WP:V in the fashion you use them. I am not just critisicing your work and never have. Since the 27 June, since crarifying my position in my second comment on this entire matter, I have remained consistent in my stance regarding the use of N-grams. It is you who has engaged in circular arguments, moving the goalposts and not willing to comprehend the importance of WP:V before moving every campaign article on Wikipedia, which appears to be your goal. I doubt you've ever even clicked WP:V and read the requirements, because you haven't once mentioned or disputed it, you've simply acted like it doesn't exist or isn't important. Either way, I suggest you read it and tell us why you think it doesn't apply to you, or N-grams, or article titles, or whatever your issue is with it needs to be known. — Marcus^(talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have taken on the burden of researching the caps usage in sources for these things, and presented the best evidence I could find. In RM discussions, it was found to be convincing, especially since nobody provided any counter evidence (except at Talk:Waterloo Campaign where one guy found one source that treats it as a proper name). I am not adding or changing any fact-like article contents. WP:V has no applicability here. I've done what I can, things have been decided, and now you want to somehow disrupt that. For what? What makes you think any of these decisions were wrong, if you've found no evidence? What makes you think you can suddenly invoke WP:V and say that style decisions need to be verifiable to some high standard? Just because I've never heard of such a thing doesn't make it wrong, but it sure makes it seem odd to me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"What makes you think you can suddenly invoke WP:V and say that style decisions need to be verifiable to some high standard?" – Because it's not a styling decision, you're challenging the naming convention of dozens of articles written by a multitude of editors over the last 18 years. That makes your claim accountable, therefore your evidence automatically falls under WP:V the minute you present it. I'm not invoking it – it's always there for such cases; you have evidence, I want to verify it – why can't I? You didn't like WP:V so you ignored it. One fact also remains, that you're skirting the truth on: the majority of your campaign moves were never posted to RM, you moved most of them yourself without requests. As for the few that did pass RM, we have no prrof that all the supporters even looked at your N-grams or understood it, and evidence was also not given on every RM case, just a few. Disrupt? Strong word. "Challenge" is the term we use here, unless you feel threatened. If I was being disruptive I'd be reverting all your moves. To date, I BRD'd only one, of dozens or moves, remember that numbe: 1. Can't claim disruption when all we've done is talk. I'm not stupid enough to war edit with you on so many articles. I've followed the proper process of discussing everything. You've persisted moving articles. Even ANI are not pleased. And because I'm not only disputing your evidence, but your conduct in applying that evidence so liberally, in light of your standard offer and past conficts with other projects, this could ascent to Arbcom quite easily. And while editors at Milhist and ANI may have grown weary of our dispute, they would scrutinse your edits down the the DNA, if necessary, at ArbCom, given the overwhelming amount of evidence I could pull from your history. A few "personal attacks" from me doesn't outweight the vast number of contrived comments and moves you've made. That latest comment "WP:V has no applicability here" – you might want to rethink that. We're building an encyclopedia. You're not making something bold or fancy with CSS, you're changing its case based on a position you hold, not regarding its style, but its function as a noun. I can challenge that claim. But I'm doing it as we have discussed over and over, by questioning your evidence. I don't need my own evidence, I need to be convinced that yours is good enought to meet Wiki-policy standards. So far, you've not proved it is. I haven't seen a single source that Google used to make one of those charts. Since you don't agree with WP:V have you been WP:POINTEDLY opposing it? — Marcus^(talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points just to be clear where I stand on all these complaints from Marcus:

• I support WP:V. If I were to add "Most authors don't capitalize campaign" or something like that to an article, that would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR unless I could provide a WP:RS that had come to that conclusion. But we make capitalization styling decisions all the time based on our own research; how could it be otherwise?
• Most of my unilateral moves were made after discussions that led me to believe that there was no significant opposition to following WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and using lowercase when evidence showed that capitalization in sources is unambiguously far from consistent.
• A few of my technical move requests were contested, and went to discussion, where the consensus to move several groups of them re-affirmed the idea of following guidelines and evidence. It is not usual to ask the move nominator to "prove" that all the supporters applied due diligence to their examination of the issues and evidence. I made no attempt to prove anything about that.
• Only one of my "undiscussed" campaign moves was reverted (by anybody) iirc, and that was based on n-grams evidence from an incompetent attempt to prove me wrong.
• Nobody has alleged that any one of my moves was incorrect per policy, guidelines, or sources, with the exception of the one mentioned above (if I've forgotten one or more, please remind me). Some have alleged that they were "controversial", or that some unspecified ones might be wrong, but the basis for that has never been clarified. When policy, guidelines, and sources all point unambiguously the same way, such case fixes are routine, not controversial.
• N-gram stats often give insights into caps styling over the years, for terms that are popular enough. These stats graphs should not be taken at "face value" or "bottom line", but also as a suggestion of what other searches to do to make sure that what's being counted is what you're looking for. These books N-gram stats are well known to over-count capped uses, compared to what we care about in WP, due to counting titles, headings, citations, etc., rather than just in sentences which would be what we want. And they often get metadata such as dates wrong, especially in older books and magazines. In older items, sometimes misrecognition can be a significant issue, but styling decisions are typically made on the basis of "modern" (last half century or so) usage, so this is typically unimportant. For proper names there will generally be a strong signal that most sources cap the term consistently (e.g. see stats for Battle of the Bulge). When we don't see that signal, it's because capitalization is treated as optional.
• Questioning my evidence without evidence comes across as just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• I have fixed many capitalization errors in the "dozens of articles written by a multitude of editors over the last 18 years" in MilHist other than the title caps we are talking about. These articles are not unique in needing some style gnoming – I've done it in many areas of Wikipedia, most often without pushback or fanfare.

Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the point-form breakdown of your position, very helpful. I would like to respond to each point, as briefly as possible:

• Use of N-Grams does amount to WP:SYNTH, per Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You are using N-grams, which combines multiple sources to form a graph, from which you conclude "'Campaign' is not a proper name". Further, N-grams do amount to WP:OR, per To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. [...] The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. You are using N-grams, which use "millions of books", but neither you nor I nor anyone else can see if the sources counted in your evidence directly relate to the topic. We already know that Google scans material that has zero context. Such material being regurgitated in N-grams charts only serves to create false-positive results. That is why we require WP:Verifiable data. To confirm the results are relevant. You can't really call N-grams "source based" since you can't identify a single source used by Google to compound its results, "speculation based" seems more apt.
• Arguing in favour of MOS:CAPS brings us back to the point: You've never presented evidence that military campaigns are not proper names. The fact that some sources capitalise and some don't only strengthens the argument that this is a debated matter amongst historians, and that automatically makes it controversial to take it upon yourself to revise the entire catalogue of Wikipedia military campaigns and lowercase them. You are making a determination that is unsupported by a consensus of directly related sources. As for opposition to MOS:CAPS and MOS:NCCAPS, one editor in particular raised concerns at several RMs: User:PBS. Instead of engaging in civil discussion with him, you and another editor conspired to attack him with petulant claims of asking "vexatious questions" until the RMs expired. A very simple conclusion can be drawn: usage in sources in the manner given by N-grams is not proof that "campaign" is not a proper name. Essentially, you are using quantitative data to make qualitative determinations. Multiple editors raised this point in past discussions. This brings us back to why WP:V is applicable: if the data can't be verified, context has to be assumed, that is conjecture because you base your conclusion on incomplete information, which equals WP:OR.
• "It is not usual to ask the move nominator to "prove" that all the supporters applied due diligence to their examination of the issues and evidence." See: proof by intimidation, ...giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding. Plus the fact that some editors just take MOS for granted and support cases without due diligence. Wikipedia doesn't consider the competence of those who respond to tasks, so we can only speculate as to their understanding of various factors: use of English language, MOS application, quality of your evidence. The outcome of all your RMs is not guaranteed, regardless. Consensus can change. BRD is always an option. Evidence of greater value that N-grams can be presented for each case.
• "Incompetent attempt" terminology. Pretentious. No further comment.
• "Nobody has alleged that any one of my moves was incorrect per policy, guidelines, or sources..." Really? And just what on earth do you think we've been discussing all this time? I contend they're all incorrect per policy, or rather your lack of respect for it, because you have no identifiable sources. Just inaccessible data, synthesised by Google, per the first point.
• You seem confident of what N-grams pros and cons are, but you don't indicate where you got these. e.g. "These books N-gram stats are well known to over-count capped uses" – says who? Well known by whom? Fact or speculation? If fact, prove it. We don't work for Google, we don't have insider knowledge or contact with developers of N-grams. You might. These impressions may be your own or from them. Hearsay has no value here.
• WP:IDONTLIKETHAT would be a valid argument if I had a personal POV rather than policy-based concerns; since you failed to cite any of my personal issues with N-grams I'll assume you can't support that claim further and will redact it. If you paid attention for the last few weeks you'd have read genuine reasons why I oppose changes to titles. I posted links regarding third-party critique of N-grams weeks ago. I have never commented on my personal tastes, so that debunks this nonsense. However, given the number of comments made regarding your moves, disregard for other editor opinions, your data, your violation of a standard offer, lack of evidence conforming with WP:V, your vast history or moves that were reverted, continued efforts to move massive numbers of articles with only N-grams, I can only say that your entire effort, or "work" as you call it, has been nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the very start. You've cherry-picked every bit of policy that works for you and disputed the rest, in a highly subjective manner. And by calling me "nutty" and calling WP:V irrelevant to your moves, you applied WP:IDONTLIKETHAT to the value of verifiable evidence. Even your churlish terminology here, "questioning my evidence without evidence", suggests your contempt for how Wikipedia works and higlights your habit of POV-pushing and trying to derail detractors with informal fallacies or made-up policy. More than anything, I think you're an amazing WP:Fillibuster and that you WP:PLAYPOLICY and WP:CIVPUSH like a pro. It's hard to WP:AGF in such cases, especially when you try to fuel arguments with misnomers.
• "I have fixed..." WP:OTHER stuff.

— Marcus^(talk) 01:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out you position clearly aligned against mine. Can we stop now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for this very interesting discussion between you. Do you feel that there is anything that you have missed, in your comments so far? MPS1992 (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, we missed talking about something more productive, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Can we stop now?" — That all depends on you. I can make no promises at this juncture. If your editing patterns with regards to moving campaigns using only N-grams as evidence is going to continue, then I have no intention to withdrawing my challenge and insistence that WP:V policy be adhered to, and may need to seek steps to remedy the problem. While you're thinking about that, consider: Your moves raised concerns and have been criticised by several editors. In contrast, not a single editor, beyond yourself, has contradicted my "nutty" claims regarding WP:V in support of you. I take that as a good sign, or you can take it as a warning that ArbCom might also uphold WP:V as described, if that route becomes necessary. It all depends on your conduct, not mine. My position will be reactionary to your edits. I believe the conversation has been exhausted of everything I need to say otherwise. It's up to you now to review the policy more closely and consider where you stand. For me, nothing has changed until you do. — Marcus^(talk) 10:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To all project members: OK, I will proceed very carefully, not moving anything where usage in sources is ambiguous. Please check my most recent downcasing moves (did 6 this morning) and see if any are problematic; I've also listed 2 at WP:RMTR; please check or view, and revert any that you think I got wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

German Air Force (disambiguation)

The hatnote atop German Air Force links to all three earlier German air forces (those of WWI, WWII and East Germany) and has for a long time. I therefore removed the link to this unnecessary dab page. A PROD has been rejected. Should the hatnote at the main article be reduced to {{other uses}}? Or should this dab page be nominated for deletion? Srnec (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Commodores and brigadiers

Do commodores and brigadiers meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER because they aren't considered to be flag or general officers in their own countries, although they are completely equal in rank and responsibility to one-star flag and general officers in other countries? We have always held that they do. Now some are arguing that they do not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not by a fair reading of WP:SOLDIER as it stands, frankly. It probably needs a tweak to make it clear that criteria 2 starts from commodore, brigadier, air commodore, because while there are differences between countries about whether these bottom rung ranks are flag, general or air officers, our collective experience has shown that one-stars generally meet the GNG, regardless of the country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER #2: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents..." That seems to cover it, although maybe the wording needs to be tweaked simply to "their equivalents". But notwithstanding, a number of AfDs have established that we do consider Commonwealth one-star ranks to meet the criteria. That would seem to be common sense. There even seems to be a suggestion that no one-star officer is considered to be a flag or general officer, which is clearly nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus at AfD, per my recollection, is that they generally do meet SOLDIER. More importantly, they should meet SOLDIER. We should have a uniform cutoff (e.g. 1-star in this case). I will also note that SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability - 1-star generals/admirals (OF-6) can definitely pass SOLDIER and fail GNG (and conversely - colonels and naval captains - may fail SOLDIER but pass GNG. But there is little point in setting a different threshold for commonwealth vs. other countries. Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If that has been the consensus at AfD, then we should change the SOLDIER reference to flag, general and air officers, and just state one-star and above, or their historical equivalents, for criteria 2. This will clarify matters for future AfDs and save going over the same ground over and again. Of course, SOLDIER doesn't trump GNG. I too see no value in making a distinction between different nations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably still need to leave in "flag officer" for historical ranks - the concept of "1 star" IIRC is a modern one - e.g. I don't think it applies to earlier naval ranks. But for modern cases - specifying 1-star (or OF-6) - covers at least all the 20th century ones. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How about changing criteria 2 to "Held the rank of commodore, brigadier general/brigadier or air commodore or a higher rank, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest (given that commodore in modern parlance is very British, and in colloquial usage (widely used) can also mean "commanding" the squadron of a yacht club, and in the historical sense - commanding a squadron of small military vessels (even when actual rank was commander) + the current use (as opposed to past use) in the US - Commodore (United States) is honorary (given essentially to senior captains) and not 1-star): "Held a rank considered to be a One-star rank or higher, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents". Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why criteria 2 should be changed. I get that different nations consider 1-star flag/general officers differently, but if commonwealth nations have the same type of promotion to flag/general officers as they do here in the States, then that should be sufficient to meet GNG, and thus why criteria 2 is a criteria at all.
Now as for Commodore, if the individual held that position, and was involved in combat and is noted for their action, it is not the title that gave the individual notability, but meeting criteria 4. Heck a lowly recruit could play an important role in a significant military event, but still not get an article even though they might meet GNG and criteria 4, cause someone will point to BIO1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The point is that in the Commonwealth, commodores and brigadiers are not considered to be flag/general officers, although they hold entirely equal rank to rear admirals (lower half) and brigadier generals in the United States and to Commonwealth air commodores, who are considered to be air (i.e. flag/general) officers. It's purely a difference in terminology. If someone is using criterion #2 (as they are) to claim that commodores and brigadiers do not meet the criteria just on the technicality that they are not flag/general officers then it probably does need to be changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Per Icewhiz, I propose a change to criteria 2 of WP:SOLDIER, to make it read: "Held a rank considered to be a one-star rank or higher, including all flag, general or air officers, or their historical equivalents" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

• Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Schazjmd (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Kges1901 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

• Per my comment below - 1 star ranked officers are generally little-known outside their military. While a significant proportion would meet WP:BIO, most would not and we should not encourage people to write articles about them on spec. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Per Nick-D comments here and below, this seems excessive. Some alternative clarification may be in order; emphasize WP:GNG please. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D; we should just emphasize GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• The fact that we're having this discussion means it's uncertain and so we should resort to WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Per Nick-D. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the regularity that this comes up is an indication that criteria 2 isn't clear enough, and should be clarified to ensure that one-stars are included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Defence Force, which is a fairly small military, had 139 one star officers as of 30 June 2018. I'd be surprised if more than a dozen of them meet WP:BIO. While this is a senior rank, the holders of these positions generally do not have a profile outside the military. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Specific military ranks mean little to me; however, I would caution against simply trying to internationalize a standard that makes sense in a few countries, without looking at what that would mean for the number of articles we're recommending including. That mistake has led us to the incredibly low bar that NFOOTY (for instance) sets. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to put stress into WP:Soldier that it's guidance about whether it's worth starting an article in the expectation that the sources will be there to meet GNG, and that, of itself, it does not stand in place of GNG and is not a defence against challenge on the basis of lacking sufficient sourcing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

SOLDIER is indeed a guidance - nothing more, nothing less. Passing or failing SOLDIER is just a predictor of GNG - you still need to "pony up" sources if GNG is challenged. The line of "1 star", or "2 star" - is fairly arbitrary. I'm not opposed to it being 2-star - however we also need to stress that failing SOLDIER doesn't mean an officer isn't notable. Even under the current regime - some colonels will pass GNG - usually when they command highly visible units - e.g. officers in United States Special Operations Command (if they've published their exploits, etc.) tend to have more coverage than officers of the same rank in United States Army Materiel Command.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Endorse Icewhiz; GNG trumps everything. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_148#Notability:_first_Commonwealth_air_force_woman_group_captain,_had_squadron_command, where it was generally agreed that Group Captain Leanne Woon MVO RNZAF [1] is notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Those who are opposing seem to have misunderstood the proposal. They are voting to keep the current wording, which still suggests that one-star officers from countries which classify them as flag or general officers have a presumption of notability, whereas those from countries that do not so classify them do not, which makes no sense whatsoever. They are not voting to disqualify one-star officers from criterion #2, as they seem to believe. Also note that in some countries (e.g. pre-1945 Germany, Russia), major-generals and rear-admirals are equivalent in rank to one-star officers elsewhere, not two-star officers as their rank titles would suggest. It's all just a matter of terminology. Better to clarify completely that all such officers meet criterion #2, otherwise we'll continue to have debates about it just like we did about recipients of the Légion d'honneur and Knight's Cross all meeting criterion #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions (military ranks)

I have a problem with WP policy as regards Naming conventions (military ranks). It is awkward and confusing.Whereas to Capitalize military ranks, wherever the useage makes it clear that the word has a specific application (i.e. Military Rank). Most military ranks are also adjectives and nouns with more than one useage. I could be a talking about an able seaman who manned a gun or an Able Seaman who manned a gun. In the article George Pickett it starts: This article is about the American Confederate general. I ask general what?. How about major screwup John Doe. Or Major Major (I knew a Major Major),also a Sergeant Major (Sergeant David Major). Why would Confederate be capitalized but not General as in Confederate general.

Most military ranks serve as adjectives and nouns. The only way to clarify the term is by Capitalization.

How about phd. David Jones is a phd. what about ceo vs CEO? It continues on for titles President vs president. John Doe became president of Alpha Kappa PSI or John Doe became President of the United States of America? Secretary General or secretary general or Secretary general?

 Just because the "Military may capitalize everything" (a blanket and ridiculous claim". Does not mean that we should disregard and deviate from the organizations that created the term.

John Doe is a private. Private what? John Doe is a Private in the army. John Does is a private in the army. John Does is a Private in the U.S. Army. John Doe is a Private in the British Army.Oldperson (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There you have it, Oldperson: Catch-22. "That's a helluva catch". "It's the best there is". ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Good ol' Major Major Major Major. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a WP policy, it's standard practice everywhere but the US military (and probably some others) - military ranks aren't proper nouns (nor are any other titles - the difference between a rank and a PhD. or CEO is that those are abbreviations or initialisms, and thus should be capitalized [and by extension, if you said someone had a doctorate in philosophy or was the chief executive officer, they should not be capitalized]). Similarly, President of the United States of America is a proper noun, president of a fraternity is not. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A rank can be used either as a title or a descriptor, John Doe is a captain (descriptor) - Captain John Doe is a soldier in the US Army (here it's a title). The same applies to other personal titles, Professor/Pastor/Doctor/Congressman Doe - Doe is a professor/pastor/doctor/congressman. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)::

Not a policy, but a guideline MOS:MILTERMS: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.

Contrary to popular opinion that the US Army capitalises everything, this follows the US Army style guide, which says: Capitalize military titles preceding a personal name. Lowercase military titles when standing alone or when following a name. (p. I-16) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: certain capitalization seen in operational military writing reflected technology, not usage. In the day of typewriters and mimeographs, ALL CAPS was used as a replacement for italics - which normal typewriters didn’t do, or for underscore, which could cut a mimeo stencil. Just as with banning blue ink (which did not reproduce well on thermofaxes (the origin of “burn me a copy”) and some photostat clones), the effect so long outlived the cause that it became seen as a requirement in itself.

Regarding the ongoing “proper name” flap, a couple points. We want to avoid the 18th century’s styling, In Which Our Hero Capitalizes Every Word on His Journey Toward His Meritted Succefs. We also avoid -wrongly in some cases, if you ask me, the capitalization of platonic ideals, which is what encyclopedia articles are about. We do not write about dog, which could be any old mutt. We write about the essence of doglitude -Dog. Stereotypes were similarly capitalized, for similar reasons, and that may be part of the reason for the usage’s downplay.

Nevertheless, at some point we are often using particular phrases as the contextually unique name for something, and at that point it becomes a proper noun, and capitalized. The fact that it could be used in other ways does not change this. Qwirkle (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are Tobias Smollett and I claim my £50. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it. And what is this theory that a "contextually unique name for something" becomes a proper name? By this logic, Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house should be at Sewer Cover in Front of Greg L’s House, no? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In both cases that is still a descriptor - not a title. If your protagonist has a unique reputation for the production of sewer covers, he may be called "Sewer Cover G.".Alexpl (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

MILTERMS

I know this was discussed before, within the past year or two at WT:MOS however I would like to add some context as to why some of us still see room for movement on the style. At least here in the United States, most style guides for the different services capitalize the terms Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coast Guardsman. Thus there is a MOS:TIES argument to create an exemption/caveat. Just wanted to mention it, as looking in the archives I am not sure it has been mentioned in the past.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking my latest arrival, The Washington Post Desk-Book on Style, I see they support that capping for Marine. No mention of soldier that I can find. They list seaman as a Navy rank (not capped). They list Coast Guard ranks (lowercase), but no Coast Guardsman. Air Force ranks include airman first class, airman, airman basic (no caps). It might be fun to look at some others and see what they suggest. Not too surprising that each service's guide likes to cap the own stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

They would only have initial caps when used in front of the name of the person, ie "Coast Guardsman Billy Bloggs", but not when used to describe the person, ie "Billy Bloggs, a coast guardsman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)

I would tend to agree, especially on WP where we have the guideline MOS:JOBTITLES. But some guides do differ, especially for Marine. The stats on that one do show more caps in recent decades, unlike the others; not enough to compel us to cap it, but enough to be worth discussing perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing decorations to official photos

What is the sense of the project on the question of sourcing decorations to official photos? If a military BLP appears in an official photograph wearing "XYZ" medal is that photograph WP:RS for purposes of crediting said medal to the person? Or, is visual analysis of photography always WP:OR? (I ask this as I just wrote Jason Fettig and credited him with the Meritorious Service Medal based on his official USMC photo.) Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally I would consider it OR because it relies on an editor's interpretation of the image (and on the wearer wearing the right ribbons). It is also only a snapshot of the ribbons worn at that point in time. We would generally rely on bio blurbs and primary service records for details of decorations awarded where they are details worthy of inclusion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The image does seem to show the MSM, but I note it is also mostly covered up. So it is a bit ORy. It may be a valid conclusion in this case, but what about others where the image is not so clear? It would be best to reply on text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 and Slatersteven, thank you both for your feedback. That makes perfect sense and, on reflection, I agree. Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)