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 December 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 Teddy Wynyard • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Steele's Greenville expedition • Battle of Morlaix • GL Mk. I radar • Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) • George Washington • CSS General Earl Van Dorn Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • Battle of Köse Dağ • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) Peer reviews Sher Shah Suri • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers Good article nominees Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • Aromal Chekavar • Tumu Crisis • Mseilha Fort • HMS Savage (1910) • Edward Caledon Bruce • Alt Llobregat insurrection • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Yang Youlin • Tiepolo conspiracy • Statue of John Barry • Richard Haking • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Zhao Chongguo • Michael Mantenuto • Top Gun: Maverick • Canonicus-class monitor • Hard Rock (exercise) • HMS Michael (1915) • SMS Bremse (1884) • SMS Wolf (1878) • SMS Adler • Hiroshima Maidens • Fritz Strassmann • HMS Midge (1913) • Havana syndrome Good article reassessments Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Battle of Badr • Wings (1927 film) • 102nd Intelligence Wing • Arthur Phillip Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,805) • only work on referencing and citation (43,223) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,105) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,931) • work on structure (32,155) • only work on structure (341) • work on grammar (8,205) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,886) • only work on supporting materials (579) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (9) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (3) • task forces added (4) • attention to task force coverage (651)

Review of edits

Hi,

I have been adding new content to the pitched battle article and was hoping for a review of the edits. I will continue to be adding amendments over the next few days.

Cheers.

High resolution, public domain WWII maps

Just found this resource with hundreds of high-resolution OSS maps. Most are not on Commons yet. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice find, Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

One of those is mislabeled by a year, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Infobox Statistics for Red River Campaign Battles

(I have boldly moved this detailed material to Talk:Red River campaign#Edits to Infobox Statistics for Red River Campaign Battles) BusterD (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Cinderella157, Hog Farm, and 47thPennVols:. I strongly urge we take all this discussion over to the appropriate talk page. Normally this project page is best used for "meta" discussion. If anyone disagrees I'm happy to undo my edits. BusterD (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

moved discussion

Troop strength statistics were just significantly revised today in the infobox for a Red River Campaign (American Civil War) engagement: the Battle of Mansfield, which sharply reduced the number of Union Army participants while raising the number of Confederate participants. The edits were made by an unidentified user, and were not suitably referenced or explained elsewhere in the article. (On one of the edit summaries, the editor stated, "According to Shelby Foote," without providing any further details.) This same editor, who has only made three edits to date (all to Red River battle pages, including an edit to infobox data for another Red Red River engagement - the Battle of Pleasant Hill - that may also be inappropriate). Could someone more senior from the American Civil War team on Milhist please take a look and revert these changes if they're determined to be inaccurate and/or vandalism? 47thPennVols (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC) @47thPennVols: - The Battle of Mansfield edits are supported by Foote; I've added the citations into the article. The Pleasant Hill edit is simply to insert that the Union withdrew from the field into the result part of the infobox, which did happen and is mentioned in the article. I think these IP edits appear to be fine, especially since I've been able to add the Foote source. Hog Farm Talk 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC) @Hog Farm: I genuinely appreciate your willingness to take a look and provide input. I am concerned, though, that you're choosing to rely only on one source and that this source is Shelby Foote because multiple respected historians have repeatedly questioned Foote's accuracy and perspective. Even Wikipedia's own page on Foote notes that "While Foote has been praised as an engaging commentator on the Civil War, his sympathy toward Lost Cause viewpoints and his rejection of traditional scholarly standards of academic history have seen his work reappraised and criticized, as well as defended, in recent years," that "Foote had never been trained in the traditional scholarly standards of academic historical research, which emphasized archives and footnotes," and that "Foote has been described as writing 'from a white Southern perspective, perhaps even with a certain bias.'" (Admittedly, I am only presenting short excerpts from Foote's Wikipedia page, but I think these three quotes illustrate that, perhaps, Foote should not be used as a source, but that, if he is, then other sources should be consulted and included to either back up or provide balance to Foote's perspective.) Additionally, I'm genuinely puzzled by your statement that "the Union withdrew from the field" during the Battle of Pleasant Hill because multiple historians have stated that the reverse was true. For example, American History professor Matthew Pinsker has written: "Continuing the heavy fighting and Confederate success at Mansfield the day before, General Richard Taylor attacked Union units attempting to consolidate after their retreat of the day before. Taylor attacked immediately but the newly reinforced Union troops held their ground and the Confederates were forced to withdraw" while U.S. National Park service historians have stated that: "Early on the 9th ... Taylor planned to send a force to assail the Union front while he rolled up the left flank and moved his cavalry around the right flank to cut the escape route. The attack on the Union left flank, under the command of Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Churchill, succeeded in sending those enemy troops fleeing for safety. Churchill ordered his men ahead, intending to attack the Union center from the rear. Union troops, however, discerned the danger and hit Churchill's right flank, forcing a retreat...." And historians and members of the planning committee for the 157th Anniversary, Battle of Pleasant Hill Reenactment and Festival, which was just held in Pleasant Hill, Louisiana in April 2021, recently noted that "Officially, the battle was a Union victory; as the Confederates were successfully driven from the field. However, because Banks and his army had retreated so soon afterwards, many argued over who had really won." So, respectfully, my questions at this point are: Do you have any other source(s) (other than Shelby Foote) for the data you're providing about Mansfield, and what source(s) are you using for your statement about the outcome at Pleasant Hill that "the Union withdrew from the field"? 47thPennVols (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC) @47thPennVols: - I've clarified that the withdrawal at Pleasant Hill occurred after the battle, and have replaced the disputed in the infobox to note that historians generally attribute the Union with a tactical victory, and I have cited it to The Civil War Battlefield Guide edited by Frances Kennedy and published by Houghton Mifflin, and Red River Campaign by Ludwell H. Johnson and published by Kent State University Press, both of which seem to be reliable and neutral sources. While Foote isn't the strongest source, I've found Foote to generally be reasonable for troops strengths (although shouldn't be cited for Nathan Bedford Forrest, among other things), but I've added support from Kennedy and Johnson to the Mansfield troops strengths. Foote gives 9,000 for the CSA, and Kennedy and Johnson both give 8,800, which is in the same ballpark. Johnson supports the 12,000 Union soldiers engaged. While neither of them seem to mention the 20,000 overall for the Union, given that other sources are agreeing closely with Foote there, I don't see a big reason to doubt Foote for a pretty routine statement without a source contradicting it. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @Hog Farm: I genuinely appreciate your hard work to strengthen the sourcing and your willingness to have a constructive dialogue about these Red River Campaign articles. Kennedy and Johnson are sound choices. Best wishes for continued success with your research and writing. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC) For my part I had the great pleasure of visiting the Mansfield battlefield (it is remote, lovely and well-preserved, partially thanks to recent investments by the American Battlefield Trust). Beware of Curt Anders's Disaster in Damp Sand, which I own. Anders is an interesting narrative writer, but I'm not impressed with his sourcing or his conclusions (nor were the park rangers, who intentionally didn't have a copy in their visitor-facing library or bookshop). Your conversation reminded me that I took some pretty decent photos which I've never reviewed or considered uploading. One of the issues some sources I've read don't adequately cover (as pointed out by the local battlefield guide) was the nature of contemporary road conditions. The "road" Banks's army used to march into Confederate defense was a soggy two-rutter with high banks on each side, making turning wagons around extremely difficult, and passing almost impossible for long segments. It's been a while since I absorbed those sources but my recollection is that Foote captures the Union's strung-out column correctly. Without unencumbered Union cavalry communication with Smith's river forces was difficult, and Lee was fully engaged. My impression of sources is that Banks was deeply surprised at the reverse at Mansfield and didn't arrive on the field himself for some time after contact was made (his chief of staff C.P. Stone arrived in front with Landrum's advance units). On the other hand, Confederates had their full complement of troops arranged in an inverted "L" position and advancing federals found themselves in enfilade fire from both sides as they approached. I've seen maps which clarify this. Despite the disadvantages, Union troops made effective attacks and retired well. That's my synthesis but it's based some some pretty extensive reading. I own Johnson's book and Porter's naval history (which is unkind to Banks), but they're packed away at this moment. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I have looked into the Battle of Mansfield (BM) and the Battle of Pleasant Hill (PH) which are part of the Red River campaign (RRC). I was particularly looking at the result of the Battle of Pleasant Hill. In RRC article, at BM the Union lost wagons. It then says that after PH: Short of water and feed for the horses, not knowing where his supply boats were, and receiving divided opinions from his senior officers, Banks ordered a rapid retreat downriver to Natchitoches and Grand Ecore. Both sides at the Battle of Pleasant Hill suffered roughly equal casualties of 1,600. It was a tactical victory for the Federals, but a strategic Confederate one because the Union army retreated following the battle.[27] However, the retreat had commenced before PH (see below). At BM article lead After a brief resistance, the Union army was routed by the Confederates ... Statement is POV not supported by sources in "aftermath". Aftermath does not discuss the result, as viewed by historians. The article states that part of the Union Army fled the field but Cameron was "pushed back" and Emory repulsed the Confederates. @BusterD, 47thPennVols, and Cinderella157: - Does anyone happen to have a copy of Brooksher to see what exactly that source (supported Cameron "pushed back" and Emory repulsing) says exactly? I'll need to dig Johnson out of storage this weekend, but I have Kennedy 1998 p. 269 available at the moment, which states Soon Walker's men [...] helped Mouton's depleted ranks rout the Federals [Ransom, first Union line] and then has This force [Cameron] held the Confederates back for about half an hour, but, outflanked on both sides, they were soon routed and then lastly has Taylor's Confederates struck this position at about 6:00 P.M. and pushed the Federals [Emory] back slightly from the two streams. So we seem to have Brooksher stating that Cameron was pushed back and Emory repulsed the Confederates, and Kennedy stating that Cameron was routed and Emory pushed back slightly. So it looks like we have disagreeing sources here (or mis-citing of Brooksher). Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) I own Brooksher, but I haven't seen the book in a while. In the next month or two I'm doing an inventory and I'll locate it. Here are a list of books I DON'T own but would like to read: Richard Taylor and the Red River Campaign by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.; The Red River Campaign: Union and Confederate Leadership and the War in Louisiana edited by Theodore Savas, David A. Woodbury, and Gary D. Joiner; The Red River Campaign of 1864 and the Loss by the Confederacy of the Civil War by Michael J. Forsyth. I took photos of the books while at their museum. I looked at those photos today and the most interesting ones are of the massive graphic interpretative displays inside the museum which actually give out some statistics on casualties (but with no footnotes). I don't suppose we could use those images because of copyright, could we? BusterD (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC) From PH article, Banks (through Franklin?) had already ordered withdrawal to Grande Ecore before battle: On the morning of the April 9, Franklin ordered the baggage train to proceed to Grand Ecore. Again, other sources like Johnson will need to be consulted later, but Kennedy p. 269 seems to suggest this was only a partial retreat by stating that Banks sent the wagons, two cavalry brigades, and XIII Corps to retreat back towards Natchitoches, while keeping one division of XIX corps, two divisions of XVI, and some cavalry with him for the stand at Pleasant Hill. Kennedy 1998 p. 271 also says the Confederate attack at Pleasant Hill caused the Yankees to continue their retreat. So there's at least one source supporting that Pleasant Hill helped influence the Union retreat, so I think it's fair to mention that here, even though some of the retreat may have started earlier. At PH article lead: That led the demoralised Union army to retreat the next day. The result of the battle was technically a Union victory but has been disputed by historians. Views on the result of the battle are not discussed so the dispute is not substantiated. The battle section recounts: However, the Union side succeeded in halting the advance and regained the left and center ground, before driving the Confederates from the field. The claim of "disputed" seems to be largely spurious, I've removed this and replaced with Union tactical victory, with a few calling it a draw per the sources. I've tried to improve this, by adding brief sourced stuff to the body. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX gives guidance on reporting the result. It restricts the options for reporting the result. The article does not follow the guidance. Per the guidance there, I have trimmed it down to just state "Union tactical victory". I believe the addition of tactical is appropriate here, as I noticed last night when I looked at Johnson and Kennedy that both specifically state this to be a tactical Union victory. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) My reading of the PH article is that it was a rear-guard action and a Union victory. Ref 25 specifically supports this. It is the only statement in the body of the article describing the result. The battle was covering a withdrawal and was not the cause of the withdrawal. It "may" be "inconclusive" but only if this is the consensus view of the sources. If there is dispute among the sources as to the result, this should be discussed in the body of the article (aftermath section) and the "see Aftermath" option should be used for the result in the infobox. Ref 25 is pretty weak - it's a primary source Union army report. Although I do agree that the fact that part of the Union force had pulled back before PH should be mentioned, which it isn't for some reason. Just noting that Ref 25 in the version in place when the above comment was made isn't a strong source for the goals of the action. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) There are issues with verifiability supporting statements in the lead/infobox that need to be addressed and that the lead/infobox are supported by the body of the article. There also needs to be better consistency between the articles - where the events at the conclusion of BM (aftermath) are the prelude to the PH article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I've tried to address much of this to some extent, but as I'm fairly busy, I couldn't make particularly extensive progress here. Both articles need some pretty extensive cleanup. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) While we're at this, if anyone can get ahold of Winters 1963, they may want to check these additions, as there's some edit history from one of the most prolific copyright violators in enwiki history in the Pleasant Hill article. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Wouldn't this detailed material be better served if it were all moved over to Talk:Red River campaign? BusterD (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC) @Cinderella157, Hog Farm, and BusterD: First, I just want to thank each of you for your insights and collegiality. I believe these articles will ultimately end up being so much better because of the questions that are being raised and answered as you continue to bounce ideas off one another. Second, I'm providing a link here to Banks' Red River Campaign reports. (I realize this is a primary source and that these reports were Banks presenting "Banks' view," but I'm hoping that Banks' detailing of events as he saw them unfold (or was told of how they unfolded by Emory, et. al.) might be helpful in determining which sources might present the most accurate and balanced presentation by providing more of a chronological view. (The first group of reports, which were written by Banks from approx. mid-March 1864 to mid-May 1864, may be found on pp. 0177 through 0193 of The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Civil War (Serial 061 Introduction): Chapter XLVI. "The Red River Campaign". The second is Banks' longer recap, which was written on April 6, 1865 for a report to Edwin Stanton and the War Deprtment. That one begins on p. 0194.) Again, many thanks for your hard work. This past week was an incredibly busy one for me, but I hope to have some time this weekend to review and thoughtfully respond to those queries of yours which asked for my input. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Cardim de Alencar Osorio

This article could use some assistance if anyone is willing.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § armyrecognition.com. Worldbruce (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Citation template query

I thought that author was deprecated and that last= and first= should be used instead but can only find this [1] have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At present, there are no deprecated cs1|2 name-list parameters.

|authors= (plural) is discouraged because it is a free-form parameter; free-form lists of human names are very very difficult for a machine to decode without lots of computing power so cs1|2 doesn't make the attempt; metadata produced from cs1|2 templates that use this parameter omit the author data

|authorn= is an alias of |lastn= and intended for use when author has a single name (Bono for example) or is a corporate name; use for whole names is permitted

|vauthors= requires names to be written according to the Vancouver system; most often used in medical and scientific articles

|lastn= and |firstn= are the preferred author-name parameters. Use of these parameters ensures that name lists are uniformly formatted in both the rendering of the citation (that which readers see) and in the citation's metadata (that which is consumed by users of reference management software). Humans tend to introduce variations in name style when compiling lists; let the machine do the formatting.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Did a bit of refsorting but can't find anything that corresponds to Holt 2011 or Selassie 1999; any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Think the first one is this - Dumelow (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Holt, Andrew. "'No more Hoares to Paris’: British foreign policymaking and the Abyssinian Crisis, 1935," Review of International Studies (2011) 37#3 pp. 1383–1401

Looking through the article history the second one is this. Though, as it's Selassie's autobiography its usage should be checked - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Haile Selassie I: My Life and Ethiopia's Progress: The Autobiography of Emperor Haile Selassie I, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Vol. II. Edited by Harold Marcus with others and Translated by Ezekiel Gebions with others. Chicago: Research Associates School Times Publications. 1999. ISBN 978-0-948390-40-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating between articles

I'm looking to create an article on the nephew of Admiral Peter Rainier, who was also named Peter and was a Royal Navy officer. How should I go about differentiating between these two articles when the second is created? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You could treat them in a similar way to Hugh Pigot. Note: The links on the disambiguation page are redirects and the articles are named using the date of birth. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow that example. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to find sources for naval equipment?

Hello! I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and since I’m working on improving some pages related to certain navies, I was wondering of a way to find reliable sources relating to naval equipment. Thank you! TheAnonymous1065 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Military Balance is very useful and highly reliable, and you can access it via a Taylor and Francis account through the Wikipedia Library. Most websites purporting to list the equipment of various military forces are not reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Endorsed!! Especially avoid globalfirepower.com, which is about as reliable as the Daily Mail. Do ask also if you need clarification with any individual navies - we have a lot of experts around here. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that Jane's Fighting Ships is the gold-standard reference on equipment operated by navies. It can be hard to find copies though due to Jane's weird access policies, but some universities have access via online databases. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request may be able to help with access issues. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by naval equipment per se, but when it comes to warships, the New Vanguard series by Osprey Publishing can be a good starting point. Loafiewa (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

For historical ships 1860-1995, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships (4 vols.) can be found used on various websites. For naval weapons circa 1890-present, navweaps.com is a good source. Jane's is the best for current naval info (or for any specific year since 1898) if you can access it at a reasonable cost. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Hubs"

Does anyone know anything about "hubs"? They seem to be a new way of navigating between articles because, apparently, navboxes don't show up in mobile view. I've seen them added recently to the bottom of some milhist articles, for example at War of the Fifth Coalition. Personally I find them poorly formatted, overlong and inferior to navboxes, which can be defaulted to collapse. Is there a policy page or anything relating to these hubs? Surely the way forwards is for WMF to implement a technical solution for navboxes to appear on mobile, rather than partially duplicate them in this manner? - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Hub page is something different altogether. I have no idea where these came from, but it's questionable on mobile view and looks horrible and duplicative on desktop. The related-topic ones (like the 6th coalition on the 5th coalition page) can't even be expanded and require going to a different page. They're like worse navboxes that take up more space. The actually decent way to address that issue would be to make navboxes show up on mobile, or make how to get use desktop view on mobile device better advertised. Hog Farm _Talk 13:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the source, it is hard-coded in the article with the generic {{infobox}} template, not with any formal "hub" template. This is probably the work of one editor. I agree it looks horrible and would support removal unless/until there is a consensus to add these. MB 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, another example is the replacement of Template:Campaignbox Waterloo with Template:Campaign Waterloo 1815. @Ruedi33a:, you've added many of these "hubs". Can you provide any more information? Why are some hardcoded into articles and others are templates? It will be a nightmare to add a link to the former surely? - Dumelow (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I had found that the articles in the French invasion of Russia were in a poor state concerning use of sfn, references and so on. I started to correct them and added sources that can be read online. Then I checked the corrected article on my standard mobile and no campaignbox was visible, no warning, nothing. I asked the wiki helpdesk and got the answer that I have to turn on the desktop mode. I did this and there was no campaignbox, no warning, nothing. I started my first template: French invasion of russia mobile. I put it into every article about the French invasion of Russia and they worked perfectly well without any comments of other users during the next days. Then I created the new OSM street maps for the French invasion of Russia, each one is unique as the place of the battle is shown with a diamond. I got one negative comment, improved the maps and everything was fine. Then I went into the Peninsular war: bad structure and content of the campaignbox, double entries, misleading headers with wrong years and so on. And they were not visible on tablets and mobiles again without warning the user. So I developed a solution with the following constraints: as simple as possible(ugly), not on the first page(on the last), visible on every device(done as I know so far), invent a section name as short and precise as possible(hub). One unique hub for every major campaign was needed. Then I saw that I need the other hubs accessible from the section hub. This was developed last and you are right: templates are better here and I will create them. But I am really happy to talk first to colleagues who are interested in how to go on. Can you fix the campaignbox invisibilty problem?Ruedi33a (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be brought up at WP:VPP or proposed at WP:VPR, since this changes the way Wikipedia is being built. It probably needs addressing in the wP:Manual of style, as it does not conform with MOS:LAYOUT -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This should definitely not use {{infobox}}. Is there a programmatic way to detect mobile, that will still display on mobile? If so, use that and use a slice from an Outline page. (do slices work on mobile?; do slices still work?) --- or just replace this hub thing with a hyperlink to an Outline page. -- this seems to be a solution looking for a problem, since it is designed for mobile, so should not appear on computers. I think dumbing down everything to the lowest common device is just making computer access to the internet an exercise in frustration as interfaces for websites keep getting dumbed down so that it works badly on computers, while trying to make computers screens look like a mobile phone. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

And anyway, having a separate one for mobile in addition to the one for desktop creates the issue of having two appear on desktop, it's better to simply find a way to make the better-formatted desktop one appear on mobile. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Article assessment

I have run across many articles that have been assessed as B-class that are lacking in one or more areas. I recall there is/was a bot performing multiple project assessments to "equalize" or give some standard to the system. Maybe I have been running across these but it is problematic. Akissi Kouamé is one example (see talk) that I do not see as even approaching B-class as well as many shorter articles that I think could be expanded. If an article can be expanded it is probably not "complete in content and structure" and often not "adequately referenced". Biographies are a concern and particularly BLP's. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Every article assessed as B class by the bot is rechecked by an editor. Any editor is welcome to help with this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Discussion#AutoCheck report for May. Akissi Kouamé has never been bot assessed, but was signed off as B class in 2019. Skimming the article and refreshing myself as to what Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ say, it looks at worst on the margin and I would personally assess it right now as B class. Which part of which criterion do you feel it fails? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look but your possible assessment would mean our assessment interpretations are not in the same universe. That might be why I am hesitant to reassess. I have left comments at Talk:Akissi Kouamé#Article issues. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If this was on another project I would rate the article as borderline Start/C-class. As Military History doesn't use C-class, that makes it a borderline Start/B-class here. Formal assessment begins at GA, so anything below that is at the discretion of individual assessors. The B-class checklist is a helpful guide but is still subject to individual interpretation. If you feel strongly that a key element of the article is missing, downgrade that part of the B-class checklist. The checklist is intended to guide editors on what areas need improvement. However, your comments on the talk page pointing out the gaps in the article serve the same purpose as flagging the issue in the checklist (though your comments go into more detail than a yes/no flag). From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, MILHIST does of course use C-class. It is our second commonest classification after start, with over 49,000 articles. However, it cannot be awarded by an assessor - it is automatically awarded on the basis of the B-class criteria check list and is dependent on the assessment of B1 and B2. Otherwise, sound advice. Monstrelet (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I should have said, "As Military History use a non-standard implementation of C-class." This project was a late adopter of C-class and chose to implement it in a different way to others, which does cause a small amount of confusion from time to time. I am not judging which method is better, just that the difference exists. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. I had run into some "confusion" when I tried to assess an article from start to C-class but couldn't. Mainly I am going through categories as maintenance. I tend to leave details so I can return later without going off-base (my daughter says I have severe ADHD) and can revisit going straight to working on an article. I have downgraded some obvious failures. I am not just trying to mass demote articles but work towards improvements. A benefit is that I am reading many new articles, making more simple corrections when encountered, -- PLUS -- There may be other editors that watch a page and have some time to look into concerns that a tag doesn't address. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

MilHist admin sought

There is a difference of opinion at the FA Battle of the Aegates which seems to be lapsing into edit warring. Could an admin perhaps step in to bang heads together, one of which may well be mine? There is a brief outline of positions on the talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. I hope. Thank you Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

21st Regiment of (Light) Dragonons

An administrator will need to move 21st Regiment of (Light) Dragonons.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a new article. Moving to a new name should be possible by normal users unless there's a conflict with another article. What is the new title supposed to be? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We also have 23rd Regiment of (Light) Dragoons and 24th Regiment of (Light) Dragoons which seems to be an 18th century style, most other British light dragoon articles follow the 19th Light Dragoons format. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Kinda' like the old style. jmho - wolf 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Landing Ship Tank (LST) 1942–2002 book

Does anyone have access to Rottman, Gordon L. (2005). Landing Ship Tank (LST) 1942–2002. New Vanguard No. 115. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-923-3. please? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)