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 July 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 Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully Good article reassessments Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,754) • only work on referencing and citation (43,188) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,942) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,748) • work on structure (31,823) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,819) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (2) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (285) • attention to task force coverage (656)

rfc

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.

---

Should WP:SOLDIER, an essay, be used as a basis for nominating many dozens of soldier articles for deletion? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong question. The real thing is WP:GNG, and the other concerns of the usual deletion criteria. If WP:SOLDIER is wrong, or does not properly reflect the situation, then either a) we change it or b) we stop using it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• A better question to ask would be should it formally be an SNG. But the question currently doesn’t really make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that my question was ridiculous and that it didn't make sense. This is why I ask. The essay currently says that for a soldier to be notable ---> "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times;" It is the multiple times that I question. This is why I ask also, WP:SOLDIER is being used as the basis for nominating dozens of articles for deletion, in fact hundreds but the request for hundreds was procedurally closed. The nominator was told to nominate each article individually for deletion. Please advise as to best course of action for questioning specifically why multiple times is the requisite for finding a soldier notable. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and calling your question "ridiculous" was perhaps an inarticulate, if not inappropriate, way to criticize the OP. That said, your comment "The nominator was told to nominate each article individually for deletion." caught my attention because multiple BLPs (of the "single Navy Cross and ship namesake are not sufficient for notability" type) are being lumped into a single AfD as we speak. That said, this isn't the first time this issue has been raised. It was recently discussed just up above at "having a military ship named after you proves notability" and continues to be a contentious issue for some people. fyi - wolf 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER technically has no official bearing, especially in regards to our officially notability guidelines. I prefer to see it as a checklist whereby if someone doesn't satisfy the SOLDIER criteria then they probably would not satisfy GNG. In regards to the "multiple times" awards, I think that should be interpreted as meaning that if a soldier has one such medals for valour multiple times it is more likely that they will have significant coverage in independent reliable sources than those who have only received it once. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER contains guidelines for when something may be notable. It is never exclusionary criteria. Even if it were an SNG, it's not exclusionary criteria. If something meets the GNG, it already satisfies notability guidelines. If it doesn't meet the GNG, it could meet an SNG, but if it also doesn't meet an SNG then it probably isn't notable. Not meeting WP:SOLDIER is never a reason for deletion, but meeting it might be considered a reason to keep an article (even though it isn't currently an SNG). The AfDs linked don't seem to be inconsistent with this principle; they're arguing that GNG and SOLDIER aren't met, i.e. that no applicable notability criteria are met, which is a fine argument to make on its face. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That having been said, WP:MILNG seems to be well drafted in my opinion and should be approved as an SNG. I don't like this weird status of "well-drafted notability guideline and widely accepted at AfD, but not technically an SNG". If it's accepted as a guideline at AfD, it's de facto an SNG and should have the proper project-wide recognition of being such. An RfC to test whether the community agrees it's fit-for-purpose seems like a good idea to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, any attempt to make WP:SOLDIER an SNG is probably going to fail and generate more heat than light. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 for a fairly recent discussion that invoked the nature of WP:SOLDIER. In addition, there are several very vague spots in SOLDIER that would require clarification: For instance, does becoming a brevet general in the American Civil War count as meeting SOLDIER #2? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gardiner where that would have been relevant. Or SOLDIER #4. What classifies as a major military event or an important role? For a potential example, Edward Lynde played a very significant role in the First Battle of Newtonia, but is a redlink. Is First Newtonia a major enough battle of SOLDIER 4? Or what about William F. Wade, who was one of the primary Confederate commanders at the Battle of Grand Gulf? There are several spots that are not explicit enough. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've only skimmed, but it seems like in that discussion people discussed whether it is an SNG (it isn't), not whether it should be? And User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for flag, general and air officers seems to track how close #2, at least, follows AfD practice. No SNG is bulletproof, of course, and ambiguities on interpretation are usually debated on a per-AfD basis even on official SNGs. For example, an AfD might debate whether WP:CREATIVE #2 is met (if something is 'significant'). Many popular YouTubers technically meet WP:ENT #2 yet are still deleted (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf). Interpretation for cases is always done at AfD anyway, so niche cases aren't necessarily a problem imo if it's otherwise generally close to AfD outcomes. Granted that there's some unpopularity towards the concept of SNGs these days, but so long as they exist I'm not sure it makes sense to never promote more which closely meet AfD outcomes. As for the other examples, I'm not sure about Edward Lynde but it appears to have never been created yet (+ I'm not sure who that is. Would they meet GNG? I'm presuming they're covered in literature/books if they played a very significant role?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

First Battle of Newtonia was my first FAC, and the question was raised in the FAC if Lynde met SOLDIER or not, which is why that was the example I came up with. Lynde's actions during the battle get significant coverage, but I've come across rather little about him outside of the context of First Newtonia. I'd say he is probably non-notable, as the coverage is only really focused on one thing, but it's the sort of argument that could come up if SOLDIER is an SNG. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Indy beetle stated that "In regards to the "multiple times" awards, I think that should be interpreted as meaning that if a soldier has one such medals for valour multiple times it is more likely that they will have significant coverage in independent reliable sources than those who have only received it once. " Then perhaps this should be clarified. Perhaps it should be clarified that it is not literally more than once that the soldier had to receive the Navy Cross. It needs to be clarified because that is exactly how the nominator and others are arguing their point. They are taking the more than once literally saying and I paraphrase 'you see, soldier only got the Navy Cross once....Example: "All fail WP:SOLDIER (single award of Navy Cross..." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear; my interpretation of WP:SOLDIER as a guideline was not meant to subvert it in such a way. Do note, passing or failing the SOLDIER guideline doesn't necessarily mean the subject passes or fails WP:GNG. If a sailor had won only won navy cross but had a full-biography published about them by Cambridge University Press, they would almost certainly be notable, whereas a sailor who won two crosses but there's no information about them other than that would almost certainly not be notable. A strict reading of SOLDIER here is doing more harm than good. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original mass deletion request using WP:SOLDIER with "Fails WP:SOLDIER as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross." which was procedurally closed and led to a flood of individual Afd requests using same essay / argument.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant the mass deletion was closed as procedural keep without prejudice for renomination. I agree with Indy beetle. It is amusing to see that until recently at Military AFDs SOLDIER was frequently cited as the relevant criteria and many Users took the very narrow view that if someone satisfied one of the 68 presumptions then they were notable, ignoring all the words before and after those 68 presumptions and the discussion that led to SOLDIER which make it very clear that SIGCOV in multiple RS is required. For me the most outrageous recent examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination) both Brigadier Generals who have almost no coverage, but various Users clearly just felt that as their rank satisfied #2 of SOLDIER therefore they were notable, which is completely wrong. It should also be noted that there are a number of informal criteria not reflected in SOLDIER, such as that we treat Flying aces as notable. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point above; if WP:SOLDIER isn't sufficient enough for the community to be an SNG, then it should not be used at AfD... at all. These types of deletion proposals should stand or fall on GNG alone (or any other actual policy or guideline that may apply). jmho - wolf 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't cite SOLDIER at a Military AFD then some Users will raise it and claim it as community consensus, if you do cite it then other Users will say it isn't an SNG and should be ignored... That's why I always say fails SOLDIER and GNG and discuss sources as necessary. As is being shown at the individual AFDs, most of the WWII single Navy Cross recipients just do not have SIGCOV in multiple RS and so should be deleted or, if a ship was named for them, redirected to the ship. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well again, if an article fails GNG then it fails, period. So no need for Wp:Soldier. If someone does cite Wp:Soldier as a reason to keep, well, you already stated you like to follow up with every person who disagrees with your delpros with a discussion, which is where you can point out the issues with said essay for the benefit for the closer. - wolf 03:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As you will see from the two cases I mentioned above, I argued strongly for GNG and lost in both cases to the SOLDIER arguments. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case (if it is indeed the case) you should appeal the decisions to DRV because clearly GNG >> any SNG/pesudo-SNG; and also because AfD is not a simple headcount. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You can read the two AFDs to see that was indeed the case. I didn't go to DRV because the closer would say they based their decision on the consensus on the page, instead I opened the RFC noted above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm entirely in favour of getting rid of WP:SOLDIER. I've been whinging about criterion 2 (generals) for years, given it fails to recognise that the vast majority of modern generals labour in total obscurity outside the military so WP:BIO can't be assumed to be met. Criterion 4 ("significant contribution) is too subjective to be of any use (and likely violates WP:ONEEVENT in many cases), criterion 6 (military science) is rather obscure, I doubt that anyone ever has met criterion 7 ("the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war"!) and criterion 8 ("authoritative source on military matters/writing") basically declares the vast majority of defence journalists and academics to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, those are actually some terrible guidelines. Would anyone else be in favor of calling an RFC to at least change WP:Soldier? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:SOLDIER is that bad. The flaw: the concept of presumed notability should be removed, and reworded to something of the lines "may be notable if one of the following criteria apply..." Additionally, it must be made clearer that the proof of the pudding lies in WP:GNG, this could greatly improve the idea behind WP:SOLDIER, an indicator for something of interest on Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Break

Essentially, I think that SOLDIER has probably outlived whatever usefulness it once had, and like Nick-D, would not mind if it was decommissioned. It was only ever an indication that a person might be notable, but while it exists, some will always treat it as if it is canon law, while others will always dismiss it as an essay that has no standing. It has been weaponised by both inclusionists and deletionists, and also given far too much weight by some. I'd be happy to draft an RfC proposing decommissioning it as Milhist guidance. Before I do though, I'd be interested in the views of other members of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can you chime in here please, along with a wider cross-section of the project membership? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• No Soldier should not be used as the rationale in the deletion nomination. 1) Because GNG trumps all, and 2) those discussing it are not necessarily all going to be WP:MILHIST and used to our understanding of it, you need to avoid giving the impression that it is Special Pleading (for or against). It might be mentioned as general consensus that lower medal awards are not often written about sufficiently to meet requirements for GNG, and therefore it might be difficult to find adequate sources. but that is not its purpose. WP:Soldier, or elements of it, should be retained as part of guidance on choosing to write about an individual as warning about GNG requirements. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm inclined towards decommissioning. For me, the main issue is that its standing, relative to GNG, has been a source of confusion for sometime now. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• WP:SOLDIER should neither be used as rationale for deletion or retention, WP:GNG should (and currently does) trump all; per Peacemaker I think it has become weaponised by both inclusionists and deletionists as as such it should probably be decommissioned. As a comment, having reviewed dozens of these nominations I have found only one so far that (in my opinion) passes GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
• If SOLDIER isn't to be revised and turned into a guideline then we should get rid of it. As several Users have noted, it is used improperly at AFDs to argue for and against deletion and for Users deciding whether or not to create a page about a military person its often either ignored completely and a page is created from a ragtag of sources or one of the 8 presumptions is met and the page is created with complete disregard for GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Decommission. It could, and perhaps should, be useful per GraemeLeggett. In practice it is a loose cannon rolling around the deck per others above. And it is probably irredeemable, per Nick-D. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• My views are generally in line with Peacemaker's and Nick's, and I'd be happy seeing it go. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree; ultimately SOLDIER is a failed attempt at an SNG since it doesn't seem to actually reflect the reality of what would pass GNG and what wouldn't. Due to this, we're better avoiding the use of this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which isn't even a local consensus anymore) and just falling right back to GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I like having subject-specific guidelines, but agree it should not be misused. To start, I would reword the first two sentences to: "An individual is likely to meet the general notablity requirements if they:" This puts more emphasis on GNG, and removes the word "presumed" which I think makes people think they don't actually have to prove notability with sources. MB 14:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• The only part of NSOLDIER that is, imo, approaching beint useful or accurate is about a top-level award, which is already listed in WP:ANYBIO. In my experience the other criteria are too subjective (such as major role in a significant battle) or broad (such as 'general') to be useful. The nice part about GNG is it isn't open to very much misinterpretation (though it still happens). This is not the case with NSOLDIER. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree, but without it some Users will argue that one Navy Cross or two Silver Stars is "a well-known and significant award or honor" as is happening already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Rodríguez (soldier) Mztourist (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For once I agree with you here. WP:ANYBIO is often misused in this way. I've even seen it claimed that a Purple Heart meets the criteria! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the "top award" criteria is dubious and needs significant parsing when it comes to top awards with multiple levels. The never-ending disputation about what level of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross meet the criteria is an example of this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The Légion d'honneur is another case in point, with the lower levels being well beneath the criteria of meeting WP:ANYBIO #1. But it's not really a top award unless it genuinely is a top award. Common sense has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree it should go away if it's not going to be cleaned up. Intothatdarkness 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the WP:Soldier, the only point I really see as being particularly useful is #3 Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); everything else is either so broad that it is flat-out wrong (#2 & #8) or simply of no use (#6 & #7). #4 and #5 can encourage violations of WP:ONEVENT. Really, the fact that WP:GNG so easily trumps most of these points indicates how outmoded they are. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and formalise as an SNG. WP:SOLDIER is widely acknowledged and a very good guide to who is and is not notable. Decommissioning it will merely open the floodgates to those who would like to delete as much as possible. But conversely, also to those who would like to keep service personnel of all ranks and with decorations of all levels just because they've served their country. The current criteria are fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • And once again, I will point out that, despite comments above, consensus at AfD is generally that WP:SOLDIER is correct about all general, flag and air officers being notable. Consensus about this has been formed at AfD by many editors over many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that list is very useful here. The older AfDs are of course an entirely different beast to what AfD is now. Your list also includes plenty of AfDs which were closed as no consensus or later re-nominated and deleted... Some of them, ex. this one, should probably have been deleted the first time around per current standards... Some of them were kept because WP:SOLDIER was cited as if it were rule of law, which is of course the entire point of this discussion: that it shouldn't... "Decommissioning it will merely open the floodgates" - no, we'll now just default back to WP:GNG, which is what SOLDIER was supposed to be an indicator of -- again, simply because something meets some arbitrary criteria, the ultimate criterion is always GNG - if you have a high-level officer but there's little coverage of him, either A) he's not notable (and WP isn't supposed to be a database listing of non-notable persons, no matter what rank or honours they might have held) or B) A hoax... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And once again Necrothesp your list arises from Users thinking that SOLDIER was a guideline and that just satisfying flag rank meant notability, completely ignoring GNG, something that almost all Users in this discussion reject. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbuthnot is a pretty poor one to cite, given that as a CB he clearly meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway, whether we use WP:SOLDIER or not. Your list also includes plenty of AfDs which were closed as no consensus or later re-nominated and deleted And if it was closed as no consensus I have indicated this! I count only two (including Arbuthnot) on that list that were renominated and deleted second time around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a perfect example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination). Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean there were two editors who accepted that WP:SOLDIER was valid and one that didn't? And nobody else who cared. What point are you making? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Providing an example of exactly what User:RandomCanadian was referring to above and below here, that you assert SOLDIER at AFDs as if its a guideline when it isn't, completely ignoring GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- one thing that seems to be generally acknowledged here is that SOLDIER is, correctly or incorrectly, often cited by many users. There may be value in that (or not). Straight up deleting it may just create new problems, so maybe that should be a last resort? It's obviously flawed in it's current condition, so if there is an appetite to keep, but re-write, add clear need for GNG above all, and perhaps make it an SNG, that may prove to be beneficial going forward. (JMHO) - wolf 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that as soon as something is made into an SNG, some people start referencing it as though meeting any criteria implies automatic notability, even in marginal cases (in which case we get treated to fine arguing as to whether this award or this rank is really meeting the criteria). The list above by Necrothesp, upon close look, only confirms that suspicion: many articles were kept because the prevailing argument was "meets WP:SOLDIER"... So if we want a rewrite and not outright deletion, we need solid and specific criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely if people have cited WP:SOLDIER as a reason to keep that indicates that they are happy with WP:SOLDIER as a reason to keep? It doesn't in any way undermine the validity of the list as indicating a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMHO the chances of SOLDIER being approved by the wider community as an SNG are extremely low. It has not got a great reputation outside the project, and many non-Milhist editors consider it a "special pleading" by a wikiproject, local consensus, creating a "walled garden" etc. I think there is sufficient support for an RfC to deprecate it here, and frankly, if there is this level of support here, there will be far more in the wider community. I will start drafting something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On this point, my very unscientific impression has been that WP:SOLDIER is more frequently cited by non-members of the project than members in AfDs, which suggests that general editors might think that it has more support by specialist editors than it actually has. I agree that it's gotten a mixed reception in recent AfDs though, which strongly indicates that there isn't a consensus that it's suitable. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

PM67 makes some good points, while also speaking an unfortunate truth. That said, once SOLDIER is gone, I hope we don't see a ton of mass-deletions of military BLPs ("Subject not noteworthy enough, only has one Medal of Honor and there were alot of these awarded during WWII", etc.) We can pretend that GNG is clear enough, but there is still a lot of grey area and I think we should look at creating some kind of specific guidance. But after this RfC has been dealt with. - wolf 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Decommissioning it would be a deletionist's wet dream! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

With this in train, I'm wondering if The Eloquent Peasant would be happy to withdraw this RfC so we don't have two on the same general issue happening at the same time? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Sure. I withdraw this Rfc. Not sure how to though. Is this comment sufficient? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day The Eloquent Peasant, per WP:RFCCLOSE, you can just remove the rfc template at the top, that'll do it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would this be like the "special pleading" that has already long been accepted on WP:POLITICIAN (any member of a national or sub-national legislature, however short or non-notable a time they served) or WP:NFOOTY (anyone who has played a single professional football match at fully professional league level)? We're really not the only ones here. We're happy to accept that someone who has kicked a ball around for a few minutes is notable, but not someone who has reached the top levels of a nation's armed forces. I'm sorry, but that seems like madness to me. What it clearly does is favour pop culture over genuine contributions. I never thought that's what Wikipedia was here for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Decommission: the page is often misused is if it were an SNG by those advocating for both keep or delete, which takes the focus away from WP:BIO. Given the present consensus within the project, it's unlikely that the page would achieve an SNG status among the wider community either, so it's best to retire the essay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Break #2

• I say keep it as a guideline, but perhaps a better clarification as two when the essay is in play should be considered. Something like "A warrior is generally considered notable if he meets all criteria set forth as GNG and at least one of the following points below..." or something to that effect to make it clear that the person needs to be satisfying the GNG and not this next car back on the train. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• But if someone met the GNG criteria why would Wp:Soldier matter at all? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• In his capacity as commander and chief Donald Trump meets the GNG, but doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in our project since he claims no additions standing under SOLDIER. In this sense then, SOLDIER would tell us that while legally in charge of the military Trump is outside the scope of the project. In his capacity as a Scientist, Albert Einstien developed the theory of Mass–energy equivalence results in the equation E=mc2, upon whose basis the Manhattan Project was initiated and thus the nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry introduced along side nuclear power, but under WP:SOLDIER he would meet no criteria for inclusion in the project. June Wandrey served as a medic in WWII, receiving no awards, badges,or medals for her service, yet she is listed as being part of the project even though she doesn't meet any criteria set forth under WP:SOLDIER. Its little things like this for which I would would suggest holding onto the essay - If they meet the GNG, then they meet meet the criteria for inclusion in the project (IE, tagging for milhist) if they meet one of the criteria listed at WP:SOLDIER. That could help us by providing a barometer for when to consider tagging a biography article for MILHIST, hence the suggestion that we keep it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I could see WP:Soldier being and altered and kept as a guideline for what falls under our domain, but that's not the same as what is used for now. What you're suggesting would change its purpose entirely. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Decommission, consider marking as historical. It's too frequent misused, and there's just a lot of situations where the essay is either too vague or is too far below GNG. Creation of a better-worded replacement, that makes it clearer that this is only an indication that subjects may be notable, not that it is automatically notable, would likely be a good idea. Hog Farm _Talk 00:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Decomission: i think category:soldier is quite contradict. Soldiers who believe that each user is widely known may vary depending on the user's position. It happens regardless of the policy or agreement of the Wiki. I think this kind of problem occurred in the first place because Category: soldier itself is too vague and broad. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate ('decommission', really?) as not fit for purpose; the sole argument for keeping is—not unsurprisingly—wholly unconvincing. ——Serial 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, really. It's milhist, what d'ya expect - wolf 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate I just don't see it as currently useful in deletion discussions. Ultimately, notability of any topic has to be based on availability of independent, reliable sources, or else it is not possible to write a good encyclopedia article about it. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Depreciate If their are not enough reliable sources to tell a persons life story beyond his military contribution then whatever his rank was wouldn't matter. There are probably hundreds of general or flag officers that would qualify under WP:SOLDIER that there are no sources out there for their personal life outside the military. How does one assess an article for completeness under criteria B2 in that case. Under WP:SOLDIER, an admiral who was awarded a Navy Cross gets an article about him but a petty officer who wins the same award doesn't, even though we know more about the petty officers life than the admiral. If we want notability and completeness in Wikipedia military articles we must have more than the fact that the subject won a Navy Cross. GNG covers this and SOLDIER doesn't. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Towards closing

As things stand, there seems to be broad consensus to deprecate WP:SOLDIER. Other than marking the page with Template:historical, this should probably be announced somewhere, else we'll be having people unaware of this discussion continuing to cite it for a while. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Once this discussion is archived we can link it or transclude it to the talkpage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently we should hurry up on closing, people are still wrangling over it at Afd. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IAR SNOW closed; @Indy beetle: There's nothing that prevents this being manually archived right now; though ideally I think we should wait a few more days to see if there's any serious objections to the above. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I count eleven outright votes to deprecate, maybe about five or six or so calling for modifications (of varying severity) with some saying keep and others saying keep only if the changes are made, one keep and transform into site-wide notability guideline. Any other takeaways? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest listing at a neutral noticeboard (WP:AN/RFC, despite this not being a formal one); although yes it is clear that in its current form it cannot be kept. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that apparently it seems that some non-MILHIST editors seem to mistakenly think that this went through the community approval process, when in reality, I've seen no indication that the essay was ever formulated outside of MILHIST. I can much wailing and gnashing of teeth happening in a noticeboard about the "deprecation of a SNG" that has never actually been a SNG. Hog Farm _Talk 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, oh good. We like wailing and teeth-gnashing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but couldn't that be resolved by saying "It was never an SNG." ? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The gnashing of teeth is also on my end, since well WP:SOLDIER is just a sub-section of WP:MILNG; and well the rest seems fine. Should I just remove the whole of the section, except maybe the first sentence (the only thing that should be kept in light of this...)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually think it would be of value to run a fresh RfC, as I suggested earlier, widely advertised across en WP, but especially the policy page at Village Pump. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly should we phrase this? It's unlikely that the rest of WP would want to keep WP:SOLDIER if milhist wants to get rid of it. Unless you have a proposal for a revamped version, which would naturally be appropriate for VP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

PM67, what would be the goal of the new RfC? There is basically consensus here already to decommission (ok ok... "deprecate") it, and (I would think) keep it as a historical monument (ok ok... "page"). And it appears that the consensus here also believes that any non-milhist users from other areas would !vote the same way. So it seems the only reason to have a new, WP-wide RfC would be to see if there is an appetite to keep it, in some form. But for that to fly in any way, I would think it would need to be re-vamped. If I have that right, then our options are to either kill it here and now, or see if one or more editors want to take it, re-do it, then bring it back for a community-wide RfC, with an eye to keeping it, perhaps as an SNG. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 10:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that User:Peacemaker67 offered to rework WP:Soldier several comments back under Break. He may be working on it right now. His comment was on February 12. Just saying... Cuprum17 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with wolf on this one. The MilHist project has a free hand to write, alter, and deprecate essay material that MilHist hosts as it pleases. The only instance here where we would need wider community input would be if we were trying to make it an SNG. Seeing as only one !voter has proposed that out of more than a dozen, I find that a highly improbable outcome. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Wolf and Indy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Klomp! ——Serial 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I get the message. There seems to be quite a strong consensus to deprecate WP:SOLDIER. What I propose is that we move SOLDIER out of WP:MILNG (leaving the see also template to WP:BIO), and replace it with the following words:

The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion (with a link to this discussion). It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO.

And create a new historic page on which WP:SOLDIER is preserved and which it links to. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Peacemaker, and I knew you would come up with a workable plan. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd also endorse Peacemaker's approach here, which I think is based by a clear consensus from the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thirded. - wolf 16:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that solution is the proper course of action. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fifthed (if that's a word ) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Partly done per so-far unanimous suggestion; I have replaced the text with the material above, and replaced the redirect with the former content. Something needs to be done about the remaining shortcuts (WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:MILPERSON, WP:NSOLDIER. I'll add a formal closure template, and then the discussion can continue below this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (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.

Mexican Revolution

Hello, I would like the WikiProject to comment and assess Mexican Revolution article, because there is a nomination for FA in Thai Wikipedia (which is translated from English Wikipedia). In your view, is there any article problems that prevent the current revision from reaching FA status? Thanks. --Horus (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day, I only took a quick look, but IMO yes there are a few issues to rectify before a FAC. IMO, the lead is too long (four paragraphs is the max IMO per WP:LEAD) and there are quite a few maintenance tags to deal with first. Additionally, at a bare minimum each paragraph would need a citation at the end to satisfy referencing requirements. Additionally, image sandwiching should be rectified and the citations are inconsistently formatted. There may also be deeper issues (prose, content, image licensing for instance) that I have not checked. I would suggest a peer review if you are looking to improve the article further. After that, I would suggest aiming for GA first (before a run at FAC). Good luck and thanks for your interest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Horus. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fairly enough. --Horus (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviewers needed

International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) are both at FAC and each in need of a couple of further reviews. As they were each nominated by editors who have gone way above and beyond in terms of reviewing others' nominations at GAN, ACR and FAC I would like to think that some project members would feel able to spare a little time to cast their eyes over them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nabbed the source review for the conference. Hog Farm _Talk 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. Any further takers? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Claw-Eagle 2

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.

---

There's edit warring in relation to a few issues, including the occupations of the hostages, how they were killed & who by. Also, who won the operation. This has escalated to several personal attacks on its talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no opinion on the issue, but I have fixed the talk page headers, and I'd be warning some of the users involved but they seem to have had their fair share of warnings so now it's time for administrative action, to be reported at the usual place. Scratch that, this seems something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 17 February 2021 (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.

Moving page for 1997 Cambodian coup

You are encouraged to join the discussion on moving the page 1997 armed clashes in Cambodia to 1997 Cambodian coup d'état. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Now closed, having been open 16 days. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

William Mahlon Davis nominated for deletion

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

Another of the WP:Soldier deletions. Canadian soldier in WW I. Article is minimally sourced and in need of a transfusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• User:7&6=thirteen how is that a WP:Soldier AfD nom? Soldier isn't mentioned once, failed GNG is the cited reason for the nom. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination says "Non-notable soldier." You are right, they didn't mention the linked discussion. But the nominator and seconders are the usual crew for he usual reasons. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So your point is what exactly? Mztourist (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Champion Warfare

I want to expand the section on Champion Warfare, I will be doing so as a part of my university course, CMN2160, at the University of Ottawa. The following is a small collection of sources I will be using to begin expanding the section, please let me know if this is acceptable.

• Lendon, J. E. (2005). Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11979-4.
• Udwin, Victor Morris (1999). Between Two Armies: The Place of the Duel in Epic Culture. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11038-0.
• Low, J. (2016). Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-05589-7.
• Riess, Werner; Fagan, Garrett G. (2016). The Topography of Violence in the Greco-Roman World. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11982-0.

Dowd1996 (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dowd1996: They look fine to me (reputable publishers; reviews about them in reputable journals; ...). I've formatted them according to the usual citation style. See also File:How to cite a source.png for a helpful tutorial for that matter. You might want to also leave this notice at the talk page of the relevant article (Talk:Champion warfare), so that people who watch that page in particular might be aware of it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dowd1996: See also Wikipedia:Be bold! It's not a well developed article, so I doubt you are going to tread on anybody's toes. If in doubt, you can drop a note back here when you have finished and somebody will cast an eye over it for you. Bon chance. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Votre français pourrait bénéficier de quelques améliorations. (It's "Bonne chance") :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Je suis vraiment désolé! :-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Thank you so much for doing that, that is super helpful! I will be sure to leave a talk comment on the page, I just noticed it said to direct inquiries here first so I wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on anybody's toes.Dowd1996 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § defseca.com

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § defseca.com. Worldbruce (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Presidential Unit Citation - Allowed to be worn by induviduals?

Can somebody please settle a discussion here: Talk:Eirik Kristoffersen#Awards, again--Znuddel (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

George Alexander Smith, RAMC

Can anyone kindly furnish service data for George Alexander Smith (d:Q105533228; died 1932) who (per this obituary) served in the Royal Army Medical Corps in WWI? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 55th (West Lancashire) Division; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This just needs a source review now (thanks for the content and image reviews, Hawkeye!). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

On it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Young's Point

I've nominated an ACW action for deletion, and would appreciate some input from other ACW specialists on this topic as well. Hog Farm _Talk 06:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

Battle of the Atlantic has become unbalanced with a huge amount of material about Bermuda having just been added. If anyone fancies a job trimming this back to something in proportion to the RSs on the subject, you are very welcome to do so.
(I am reluctant to do this myself as I have just completed the research to tackle some other articles.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This particular editor has been adding a lot of Bermuda-centric content to WWII articles of late. There have been issues with sourcing and quality of writing. The editor does not appear willing to engage to discuss these issues, (see talk page) and in fact very rarely uses talk pages. (pinging Dormskirk) - wolf 11:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I have asked this editor to add citations as they go along on a number of occasions but with very limited success. In my opinion, any of the new material which is unsourced should be removed; this would have the additional benefit of making the additions less Bermuda-centric. Dormskirk (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I note that all the Bermuda-centric edits in this article have been reverted by another user. I would hope there are now enough editors with an eye on this to keep it under control. I have tried to add to the helpful advice to the problem editor on their talk page, but I am not optimistic as the user had been on Wikipedia a long time - if they haven't learnt some of the basics by now.... ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mughal-Sikh Wars

This article is a big mess; poorly sourced and lots of original research. The main issue, however, seems to be that it lumps together all conflicts and battles involving Mughals and Sikhs over the span of almost three centuries and calls it 'the Mughal-Sikh Wars'. It appears to me that this is an arbitrarily defined concept which is not used by reliable sources or anywhere else. So I'm wondering, can this article be saved in some way or would it be better to take it to AfD? Any input would be really appreciated. Lennart97 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as hagiographic rather than historical. There's an outline there of conflict but lacks context and the encyclopaedic prose to lay it out. I'll do some structural/format cleanup that doesn't need knowledge of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Music infobox

Hi all, I was wondering. Is there an infobox for military march music? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick skim through Category:British military marches and the only one I found which had any sort of infobox was The Athole Highlanders' Farewell to Loch Katrine, which uses Template:Infobox song. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

U.S. services lead image discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:United States Space Force#Lead image which could use some additional viewpoints/comments. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice: "User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion"

Currently taking place here. It seems most if not all of these deleted [BLPs→ pages] are military bios, so this is likely of interest to this project. FYI - wolf 04:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

They are all deceased U.S. military people (so not BLPs) who received a Navy Cross or lesser awards and had ships named for them during WWII. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's just a notice. - wolf 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Notices should be accurate. Mztourist (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oy... it's a typo, with no bearing on the fact that there is ANI complaining about your behavior wrt articles that fall under milhist and this is simply a notification of said complaint, not an invitation to debate the merits of it. The place for that is said at said ANI. - wolf 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Liberation of France

I want military project participants to look and review Liberation of France. I got a talk with main editor of article, but I think it needs more reviews to make it much better article, because the article might be sided to editor's idea. So, I hope many would review to the article. -- Wendylove (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The International Conference on World War II

For interest, the The International Conference on World War II is being run online over 5-6 March (US time), with registration being free of charge. The conference features a very impressive list of speakers. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a worthwhile event— I will try to make it to some of the speakers. Thanks for bringing this up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fletcher-class destroyer

Is anyone aware of a book that refers to the careers of Fletcher-class destroyers? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lettler, ISBN 9780870211935 (Raven, Alan. Fletcher-Class Destroyers, Worldcat) comes to mind, though I've not read it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And Fletcher Class Destroyers by Lester Abbey (2007), Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley UK, ISBN 9781844156979, has a Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)