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 • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Brighton hotel bombing • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad 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) • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • 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 • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B Good article reassessments Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City • Tsugaru clan • Basil W. Duke Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,887) • only work on referencing and citation (43,203) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,088) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,784) • work on structure (31,832) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,172) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,827) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (3) • project tags fixed (14) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (146) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2022 are open!

Military historian of the year 2022

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (UCT) on 1 December 2022 and last until 23:59 (UCT) on 15 December 2022. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 16 December 2022 during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2022, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar. Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2022. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hog Farm _Talk 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• CPA-5 - for consistently writing a number of high-quality and actionable reviews, as can be demonstrated by going through our log of promoted A-Class nominations. Hog Farm _Talk 14:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Djmaschek - for writing a large number of quality articles to fill gaps in our coverage of the American Civil War. See Sanders' Knoxville Raid and 13th and 20th Consolidated Louisiana Infantry Regiment. Hog Farm _Talk 14:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild - for providing high-quality coverage of major topics such as Second War of Scottish Independence and Second Punic War. Hog Farm _Talk 14:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7 - for both solid content writing and running the valuable MILHISTBot. Hog Farm _Talk 19:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe - For improving and expanding our coverage of 18th and 19th century naval topics. See Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) and Narcissus-class frigate. Hog Farm _Talk 19:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Zawed - for writing and improving a number of articles related to our coverage of New Zealand military personnel. See Keith Taylor-Cannon and Stanley Browne. Hog Farm _Talk 14:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Hog Farm - for work in the American Civil War field, e.g. Battle of Lake Providence, and also for contributions in article reviewing and quality assessment. Zawed (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Robinvp11 - for work on topics pertaining to the English Civil War, e.g. Thomas Rainsborough, and later periods in English history. Zawed (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Catlemur - for work on topics, ranging from conflicts in Africa, e.g. Basuto Gun War, to engagements in the Greek Civil War, e.g. Battle of Agios Vasileios. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 - for their leadership of the project and for their steady flow of high quality A Class and Featured Article nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2022.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hog Farm _Talk 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

CPA-5

1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Djmaschek

1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Lineagegeek
3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

1. Lineagegeek
2. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm

1. Lineagegeek
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

1. Lineagegeek
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Zawed

1. Lineagegeek
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
3. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2022 are open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2022

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (UTC) on 1 December 2022 and last until 23:59 (UTC) on 15 December 2022. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of will commence on 00:01 16 December 2022 during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period on 23:59 30 December 2022, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2022. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Dabberoni15 (talk · contribs · logs) - for improving a variety of military history articles to GA class. See Battle of Caloocan and Battle of Málaga (1704). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Ficaia (talk · contribs · logs) - for creating a myriad of different military biographies. See John Burgh (officer) and Warren Richard Colvin Wynne. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Stanley Bannerman (talk · contribs · logs) - for doing good work in the New Zealand military history field. Zawed (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 30 December 2022.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Hog Farm _Talk 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Dabberoni15

1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Catlemur (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia

1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Catlemur (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Bannerman

1. Got to support my nomination...Zawed (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

'Notable participants' section in battle articles

Hi all, someone recently added a 'notable participants' section to Battle of Monte Cassino, which is something I don't think I've seen before, and was wondering whether it's something that should be avoided or not. Cheers. Loafiewa (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't like it. Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have seen a few of these in other articles, unsure about it myself. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that create extremely cluttered articles for important and large scale battles like the Battle of Berlin?--Catlemur (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this is not good. There's no reason to mention these people on battle articles unless they come up in the natural narrative of events. Their participation in said battles will already be reflected on their own bios surely. Cramming potentially dozens of names into the bottom of the article including people who's contribution amount to changing tires and boiling soup will not help the reader better understand said battle. Over a million men participated in the Battle of the Bulge. Who wants to guess on top of how many generals there were all the privates, corporals, NCOs, and first lieutenants who served there and went on to become successful businessmen or regional politicians? Do we need to know at Battle of Okinawa that L. Richardson Preyer, heir to the Vicks VapoRub fortune, manned an AA gun on a destroyer? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who played a notable role in battles or where the battle had very important consequences for a later-notable person should be mentioned (and linked where WP:BIO is likely to be met) in the article. A section comprising a list of people notable for other reasons who fought in the battle is WP:TRIVIA. This is especially the case for articles covering the age of mass warfare and conscription where vast numbers of people were involved in many battles. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, mention it in the text or a note but not in a section, it's elitist piffle. Keith-264 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to be slightly contrary and say this feels like the kind of thing that could reasonably be a list article linked from the main article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

If WP:RS cover it in-depth then so should we... Its not up to us to decide which participation is important and which isn't, we leave that to WP:RS per WP:NPOV. If its just a passing mention as in "X was also at the Battle of Y" I don't really see a case where it would be due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to establish an Internet Archive library for the project

As many members of the project will be aware, the Internet Archive has published the full text of a vast number of books as part of its Open Libraries program. These books can be borrowed for an hour at a time if you register an account. This is an excellent resource, but can be difficult to navigate and find (and re-find) works due to the search function being somewhat clunky. To encourage greater use, I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Internet Archive books as a collaborative library of works members of the project have located and found useful. Would other editors consider this useful? If so, I'd encourage you to add works to the list. Thoughts and comments on the usefulness of this would also be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Anything to get us away from Global Security-tier sourcing. I've been steadily adding all available Janes year books to my sandbox. Feel free to crib from that. It may also be good to also note offline books that active members have access to, (be it at their local public library or on their own bookshelf). There is a pending Hatchette lawsuit against the Internet Archive regarding their book-scanning operation, so we should be prepared for the possibility that this service gets Napstered. Was also wondering if there was interest in exploring some sort of partnership between Internet Archive and WP:MilHist that would locate copies of books that are identified to be of high value to the project? Does anyone have a connection to either Internet Archive or a collection that would be willing to donate material? Schierbecker (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Useful, very much so. Potentially borderline w/r/t WP:LINKVIO, unfortunately yes. Ljleppan (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. The Internet Archive seems to be fairly ferociously defending the legal case and is a sensible outfit, so presumably wouldn't have launched this project unless it thought it was on solid legal ground. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Thanks - wolf 11:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume the purpose of this is to provide links to useful works and not just to books in the Internet Archive Library, so I have added a number of works with direct links, where they can be read or downloaded, not just "borrowed." Also, I would add a caution that the attitude of Wikimedia and the Internet Archive tends to be quite different in the area of what is referred to as "fair use." Lineagegeek (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

William Harper Featured article review

I have nominated William Harper (Rhodesian politician) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Question on the copyright status of this image.

I found a image on [1] and I was curious if it was in public domain. Are the cards published in that era created by the Federal Government or contractors? Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the public domain. Feel free to upload it to Commons. This one was created by the Army Corps of Engineers, which is part of the Federal government. This is the case with most of the ids created by the Manhattan Project. The Metallurgical Laboratory was run by the University of Chicago under contract, but the ids were issued by the Army. The id card is signed by the area intelligence officer, Lieutenant Thomas O. Jones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Carpimaps (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

British Second World War deaths

Can anybody help with a query at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#British casualties in World War II? The OP is looking for a breakdown of British deaths by theatre. A similar query last month at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2022_December_14#British losses on the Western Front of WWII (perhaps by the same OP) failed to find an answer but highlighted some problems with the casualty figures quoted at Western Front (World War II). Any assistance would be much appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The book you want is William Franklin, Casualties and medical statistics (1972), a volume in the History of the Second World War United Kingdom medical series. Unfortunately, I do not have access to my copy at the present time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be available for free at the Internet Archive - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's going to take some digesting! Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are presumably aware that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission site allows you to export search results (example search, with no names input[2]) to a spreadsheet, in which you can then do all sorts of processing. One interesting outcome of this is that you can plot graphs of deaths by day, which illustrate variously (depending on the search criteria entered), the level of fighting in any particular campaign (for instance, showing the build up to the crossing of the Rhine, as well as the actual assault), sinking of individual warships, etc. Obviously the searches on which these exports rely do not have any names in them. You need care when putting in unit names, as the CWG are not consistent with these - better to export everything and find the unit in a spreadsheet search.
There are some clear simplifications to this – for instance people dying of wounds after evacuation would not be detected. So the data is more illustrative than an exact count. However, the graphs of deaths by day present the information in a way that simple totals do not.

Of course, the criticism of WP:OR would always hang over this. For the less complex processing, I would argue that you are simply looking something up in a list, then WP:CALC applies for simply counting entries and putting them in a graph. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cold War page split

It seems that a few months ago, User:Micga split Cold War (1947–1953) into two articles: Cold War (1947–1948) and Cold War (1948–1953). I'm not necessarily for or against the split, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the WikiProject as it's splitting off a relatively small period of time and it seems there was no attempt to involve other users in this decision. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Eli Lilly Featured article review

I have nominated Eli Lilly for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A New Sub Task Force

I’m recruiting for a new task force. Our goal would be to create pages for Members of The Resistance. We would focus on WW2 resistances and each group would do a different country. If you have any interest please contact.

I am already starting on the Austrian Theatre

I would appreciate someone with experience GeekyDave (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC about World War 2 first two sentences

There is an RFC discussing the lead sentence of the World War 2 article in its talk page. Your input is welcome! --Thinker78 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

77th and 67th Armored Regiments Structure

Hi, I am in need of assistance. I don't have access to external links that could help me. There is nothing in these two articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/67th_Armored_Regiment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77th_Armor_Regiment#Commanders_of_the_753rd,_Co_A_77th_Tank_Bn,_77th_Armor_Regiment, about the structure. Like, what are its battalions and companies? So, a little help please? Faithful15 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Battalion organization is fairly simple. Depending on the time frame you're going to have a headquarters company and up to four line companies (plus service and support stuff). The number of battalions is a much trickier question, because the US Army likes to mess things up by using regiments as essentially "historical parent units" for smaller elements. So you could have one battalion active at any given time, or three battalions (not always numbered consecutively). You might try a web search for the Center of Military History and have a look at their lineage stuff. Intothatdarkness 21:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will when I get a chance to. Faithful15 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Ernest Emerson

I have nominated Ernest Emerson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

B-class criteria

Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Criteria include date formatting in citations? I was surprised to see an editor recommending it at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Promoting National Military Appreciation Month from a C to a B, because even the Wikipedia:Good article criteria does not expect consistent citation formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Not directly since there is nothing specific about such formatting for Good Articles (see WP:GACR) which is a notch higher than B class articles. This seems to be more of an implied thing that goes with overall article quality. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Years ago, we had to "un-imply" that for the GA process, because some editors would overlook things that matter (like missing content, which is easy to overlook) but reject nominated articles because they didn't like the way the refs were formatted. Maybe we need to add something specific to B-class. Ref formatting contributes to the Halo effect, but it's really not important in the way that content and source selection is. (FAC coordinators have told me in the past that if an article's only unresolved problem is ref formatting, they'll do it themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that that's been a thing since FAC started requiring specific source reviews, which include consistent formatting of refs and the like. I'll require it in ACRs as well, but not at GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The MOS explicitly says that when an article calls for a date format, for example {{Use dmy dates|date=}}, the date format does not apply to citations. However, our bot overmasters have decreed that if the date format template is applied to an article, it shall be applied to citations. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that consistency is a good thing and should be encouraged. Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but encouraged, not required for assessments GA and below.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)