Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

Notability of military units[edit]

If an article about a military unit is sourced only from the official website or publications by the unit itself or its parent unit/corps/branch, is it actually notable? Imho it's the same as sourcing a business article from only the company's own website or that of it's corporate parent, thus it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. At the help page discussion of an AFC submission about a Czech Army unit - WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:39:28.2C 22 July 2015 review of submission by Catriona - there's a (possibly justified) suggestion that American units are not subjected to the same standard of independent sourcing as military units of other countries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:GNG regarding the overarching requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I would say that the Czech Army website would be no more independent of the subject than the US Army one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the existence of a battalion- or larger-sized unit makes it notable, no matter where it comes from (this is common sense as far as I'm concerned - these are units that are hundreds strong). The official website is fine to prove its existence, so yes, no problem. Just as we default to keeping secondary schools (as long as we can verify their existence) and footballers who've played a single high-level professional match (as long as we can verify the fact), we should keep major units (as the British Army calls them). If we don't apply common sense to keeping clearly notable organisations like these then Wikipedia begins to look very much like it's primarily an encyclopaedia of pop culture for fans of sports, music and minor celebrities (which and who tend to get exhaustively written about on the internet), which is not what we want (or at least, not what I would have thought we wanted and certainly not why I joined the project all those years ago). We really have to get away from dogma and start applying more common sense to issues like this. It's become sorely lacking in recent years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't buy the "inherent notability" argument - for anything at all. There are many thousands of run-of-the-mill battalions all over the world that have done nothing notable - particularly modern era ones that have never seen combat nor controversy. All that can be said about such units is: it exists, it's base is here, it's role is this - which makes for a miserable little permastub. I think User:AustralianRupert's comment at the AFC Help page is spot-on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If all that can be sourced is its existence and base location, and that comes from the Army website, then it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Battalions that haven't seen action aren't necessarily going to be notable. All the WWI and WWII Australian ones are, as are those that served in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. But logistic support battalions that haven't seen active service as a battalion, pretty unlikely. Is every German or Soviet infantry battalion in WWII notable? I doubt it. German regiments might meet GNG, but not necessarily. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
"Is every German or Soviet infantry battalion in WWII notable?" Absolutely they are. These are large units. Obviously we're going to continue to have a difference of opinion here, but I'm afraid I really cannot understand the "logic" that says someone is notable for kicking a ball round a field for an hour but a military unit of several hundred people is not notable. Whether editors "buy" inherent notability or not is irrelevant, since the former are, whether we like it or not, considered to be inherently notable if they've done it in a fully professional league or an international, as long as that fact can be verified. The results of endless AfDs tell us that. And if we compared the number of them to the number of major military units I don't think there would be much of a discrepancy. Given the sheer amount of utterly non-notable drivel that has been kept at AfD, why are we who are interested in military history quibbling about the notability of major military units? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The idea of inherent notability is not supported by policy and is (I suspect) a misreading of project specific essays / notability guidance. AfDs that close as keep while relying on these essays over policy are simply incorrect (although you are quite right that it does seem to happen often and increasingly so). In the end it comes down to the General Notability Guideline. At any rate why have an article on something that we can't write in any detail because there are no sources? This isn't to say there is no room on Wikipedia for information about these topics, just that a specific article should not be created for them. What information that is available in WP:RS can usually be included in another relevant article (for instance for a higher formation etc) and a redirect created for the unit. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't really that there are no sources at all, it's rather that there are articles that are sourced only from official websites of the unit and/or it's parent structures - i.o.w. WP:SPS. Such articles do not comply with WP:GNG. (The original AFC help desk topic that led to this discussion basically complained that there is one notability rule for the US military and a stricter one for everyone else.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, "no sources" was an overstatement on my part and should really have red few sources. Incidentally I agree with AR's cmts at the AFC help desk as well. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPS is another of those rules not understood by non-contributors. Off course it does not apply to official websites. Similarly, WP:CORP is about establishing a company's notability; its annual reports can still be used as sources once notability is established. I get pretty annoyed at people who want articles on basketball sourced from books on cricket. The rules do vary from country to country. Having recently returned from China, the idea that sources have to be independent of the Chinese government lacks common sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ about your idea that official sources do establish notability. I do not see any reason why the Republic of Slobovia's Hundred-and-umpteenth Infantry Battalion can pass notability based purely on the Slobovian Army website, but ACME International Inc. gets shot down in flames if it is based only on Your "articles on basketball sourced from books on cricket" comparison is a straw man - nobody demands that, all they want is that the book at least not be the team's own yearbook. Official websites are the very epitome of an SPS, and thus must be excluded from establishing notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but I did not say that, and the original question did not say that. What I did say is that there is a difference between establishing notability and referencing. The notability of a unit depends on independent reliable sources; but that does not mean that we must use them solely, or even at all, in creating the article. (And, for the record, someone once really did argue that I should source an article on basketball from something other than books on basketball.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The concept of inherent notability is not a misreading of anything. It's a result of consensus, which is how Wikipedia functions. It would be nice to have a consensus that major military units are notable among those who write articles about them just as there is a consensus that all secondary schools are notable and that all sportspeople at a certain level are notable among those who write articles about them. After all, we already have a de facto consensus that all general, flag and air officers are inherently notable, even if it is based on an essay. I've yet to see one be deleted at AfD. Yet we strangely do not seem to have a consensus here that all major units are notable, despite it being based on the same essay (although to be honest I've rarely or never seen one of them deleted at AfD either, so maybe we effectively do have a consensus and it's just not being expressed here). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem (if it is one) is that reviewers are declining military unit drafts that do not comply with WP:ORG by having the minimum independent sources - where "independent" is read as "not the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines own website" but actual independent books, news media or magazine articles, etc. If we end up with a consensus that official websites are sufficient to establish the notability of major military units (BTW is "major" actually defined?) then we should try to formulate a specific "MILUNIT" SNG that explains it properly, so that reviewers have an actual standard for accepting drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


A comment on the idea that a battalion is automatically notable. If this were true, then a wing, the equivalent of a brigade, surely must be super-notable. However, I call attention to List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force most of which have no article on Wikipedia. I would submit this is appropriate, not because of the absence of reliable sources (which is true for most), but because of the fact that a wing level unit that combined the support organizations at a single station for a year or two just isn't notable. Size does not equal notability IMHO. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"Major" is defined in WP:MILUNIT as: Higher level land forces command formations, such as regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, and armies, or their historical equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
During the First World War, many British regiments raised tens of battalions each. Is each battalion individually notable? Almost certainly not. Opera hat (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are, as long as they had an operational existence! There seems to be a rather selective reading of WP:MILUNIT here. It actually says that "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units..." and "Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands" [italics mine] are likely to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely, not inherently. Still need to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I was answering the apparent claims above that most battalions and wings are not notable. Secondly, the same GNG requirements also theoretically apply to general officers, although it is quite clear from the results of many AfDs that they do have a de facto presumed inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Necrothesp - "Presumed notability" and "inherent notability" are quite different concepts, you seem to be treating them as synonyms. Presumed notability means that the subject is so prominent that reliable sources can safely be presumed to exist, this is the basis for the existence of subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs). Inherent notability is the idea that something is notable simply because it exists, this idea is not supported by policy or guidelines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I can assure you I'm not treating them as synonyms. I've been here a long time; I understand the difference. I was addressing the de facto inherent notability enjoyed by several groups of topics. While some editors like to claim there is no inherent notability, consensus quite clearly shows that there is. As with many things on Wikipedia, "set in stone" guideline are trumped by consensus. Which is as it should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming of military units[edit]

Hi! There's a question that has been bugging me regarding the naming and scope of military unit articles, which has come pretty clearly to light at Talk:15th Infantry Brigade (Greece). The unit in question began life as the 4th Brigade, became expanded into the 15th Division in 1940-41, was reformed after WW2, downgraded to brigade in the late 1990s, and recently reduced to a regiment. Properly, this article should be moved to 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), but there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment. My question to the MILHIST community is this: what takes precedence, the name (in which case we'll have a "15th Regiment" article incorporating two entirely different lineages) or the lineage of a unit (in which case we'd need two different "15th Regiment" articles)? In addition to this, would it make sense to create separate articles for the unit during its life, e.g. a different article for the 15th Division and for the 15th Brigade? Thanks in advance! Constantine 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My two cents is that lineage would be more important. Just like if / when a person changes their name it is still the same entity just with a different name, as opposed to two different units (or people) that just happen to have the same name (hopefully my analogy is clear). Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, others will no doubt have opinions, but there are several ways to approach it, IMHO. Not knowing the active service of these formations, it is a bit hard to say, but we generally prefer the last name or the most commonly referred-to one. If this was a fighting formation during WWII, there may well be a justification for that division to have its own article, with preceding and subsequent formations drawing their lineage to/from that division included. As far as the post 90's dealio goes, I couldn't see the existing article for 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece), could you point to that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anotherclown: Noted, thanks. That is pretty much the way I've done it so far with other similar articles. @Peacemaker67: There isn't one. That is why I am asking around here first, to clarify what the scope of this article should be, i.e. both regiments, the historical and the current, or just the current and the historical one (if and when we find enough info on it) under a different title. Constantine 13:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I must have misunderstood your reference to "there already existed an unrelated 15th Regiment". I'd just keep all the ones with a common lineage in one article (perhaps titled 15th Division (Greece)) with redirects from all the other formation titles in the lineage. If there IS an unrelated 15th Regiment, then it could still be at that title. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I disagree with the approach advocated immediately above. Anyone has to be able to search for a unit at any point in its lineage history. So the 15th Regt in 1911 may be of different lineage to the 15th Regt in 1967 (imaginary example). The 15th Regt (Greece) page has to refer to both of them. There's an easy way of doing this, adopted from the Soviet first formation/second formation/third formation procedure. Intro says the 'regiment was formed in 19xx orginally, disbanded by being redesignated XX Division, reformed by the redesignation of YY Brigade as 15th Regiment in 19yy. Disbanded (by being redesignated WW Brigade), reformed from ZZ Brigade in 19zz.' Then each period of service has a separate section, each clearly noting how it was formed (often by redesignation) and how disbanded.
For example, there was probably a 15th Infantry Division (Turkey) in the 1940s. Now for decades within First Army (Turkey) there has been a 15th Corps (Turkey) (note that Turkey uses Arabic not Roman for corps designations). That corps disbanded after the end of the Cold War by being redesignated 15th Division (Turkey) though there's not much further data on it. The page for the 15th Division (Turkey) would list two separate periods of service, 1918-40s, and 1990s. Clear as mud? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In essence, if I understand you correctly, you propose that each title, e.g. Nth Regiment, Nth Brigade, Nth Division, etc. have its own article, with cross-referencing between them, yes? Constantine 07:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Lots of cross-references, and well referenced throughout. I'll try and hunt out an example. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum. Look at the way that United States Eighth Fleet finishes, though the sequence in the middle of the article is a little unclear (needs more looking at the excellent online sources). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can't say I agree with combining two completely unrelated units into the same article just because they shared a common name at some point. Take a look at 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) to see how many (nine) US Air Force units have had the name 1st Reconnaissance Squadron. In our hypothetical Turkish Division, and presuming there is no difference in notability between the two divisions, I believe the appropriate way most of the time is to make 15th Division (Turkey) a disambiguation page and title of two separate articles 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940) and 15th Division (Turkey 1990-). If, as in many cases, the one that's been around a long time is more notable then the pages would be 15th Division (Turkey) (disambiguation), 15th Division (Turkey) and 15th Division (Turkey 1918-1940). That leads readers to the unit the unit they'e looking for, informs them that there's another similar unit and lets them choose which to read about. There's a lot of flexibility in disambiguation pages. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Search page meddling[edit]

Recently the Wiki search page has been spoilt, by adding a migraine headache in the search box and a promiscuous drop down menu. I've tried to stop it by altering the settings in Preferences to no avail, can anyone help please.Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this something for WP:VPT? Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not that I'm bitter mind....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a way to get rid [1] here now.Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No ISBN OCLC etc[edit]

If a source has no ISBN etc is there a convention for noting that in a reference? I've tried adding "no OCLC/ISBN" under others= but it doesn't show at the end. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See if there is another cite template that has fields that better match the source, such as {{Cite report}}, or {{Cite journal}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The convention is to simply leave out any elements that are not present or not known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
OKKeith-264 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Winter"[edit]

An RFC has been opened on the title of the article Russian Winter, for the discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User Box for Members Participating[edit]

Code Result
 {{User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Userboxes/MilHis}}
WPMILHIST brown caps.png This user is a member of Wikipedia Project_Military_History

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkcontribs)

If anyone is interested, there is a more exhaustive list of available userboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Banners. Kirill [talk] 18:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Recondite question CS1 maint: Extra text (link)[edit]

Bauer, E. (2000) [1979]. Young, Peter, ed. The History of World War II (Orbis: London, revised ed.). New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 1-85605-552-3. CS1 maint: Extra text (link) Does anyone know why CS1 maint: Extra text (link) is showing on this reference in Operation Sonnenblume? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "CS1 maint: Extra text (link)" on my machine; the reference looks fine to me. Perhaps a browser issue? I'm using Chrome. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a css to the skin User:Keith-264/common.css to see hidden labels and it appeared. I've tried various changes but nothing has worked. It shows on Operation Compass for the same reference too.Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see at User:Keith-264/common.css you have the final line:
    .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
Try removing this line? I think this is what is causing the error message. I'm afraid I can't see anything wrong with the reference myself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because you've got a colon in the "edition" field? Try removing that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't like the "revised" part (CS1 pedantry at its finest). The Chicago Manual of Style recommends "rev. ed.". Just using "Orbis: London, rev." as edition information works. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hah! I thought it was deliberate. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
rev did the trick, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Joe. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
YW, added a note about this glitch at Help talk:Citation Style 1. GermanJoe (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Civil war in Tajikistan[edit]

There is an ongoing RM. Comment there for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 5#Category:Bahraini uprising (2011–present)[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion on renaming categories related to Bahraini uprising of 2011. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

John Whitelaw (1921–2010) vs John Whitelaw (general) - possible confusion b/n the two[edit]

Gday. Could any knowledgeable (probably Australian) editors pls have a look at my comment at John Whitelaw (1921–2010)? There may have been some confusion b/n him and the achievements of his father John Whitelaw (general). I have removed half a paragraph that looked incorrect (although I wonder if there is more). Of cse pls do not hesitate to trout me if I'm wrong but it didn't look right to me. Thank you in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been re-written now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ram Pyari Gurjar[edit]

The article on Ram Pyari Gurjar claims that she was a woman commander who fought against Timur. However, the only source cited in the article is The royal Gurjars by Nau Nihal Singh. The book seems less of a reliable scholarly work and more of an attempt at ethnic glorification of Gurjars. I cannot find any other sources -- Google just throws up Wikipedia mirrors or articles based on Wikipedia. I've tried searching with alternative transliterations. Singh claims that she fought alongside Jograj Singh Panwar -- I can find mentions of this guy in some reliable sources, but those sources describe his story as more of a local legend than history.

Being a female commander who fought against Timur is no mean achievement. So, it's surprising that there are not more sources that mention this. I am wondering if this is a real historical figure, a legend or a hoax. Any inputs are appreciated. utcursch | talk 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A-class procedural question[edit]

@Ian Rose:, A-class review Runaway Scrape was closed at my request on Dec 20, 2014, perhaps prematurely. I would like to re-open this review, with old comments on it. I can explain further on the template once it is re-opened. How do I re-open the review? — Maile (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the usual procedure is not to re-open a closed review (regardless of why it was closed) but to open a new nomination, not unlike the process of renominating an archived FAC. The old comments are still there for posterity in the previous nomination. The procedure for re-nominating an article is at the top of the A-Class Review page -- if it looks a bit too involved then I'd be happy to kick it off for you and you'd just have to write the (re)nomination statement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I need your help. I got the old one archived, but can't seem to figure out how to open a new one. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just gimme a sec to check the archive you've created. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything looked okay to me, was just a matter of changing "A-Class=fail" to "A-Class=current" in the article talk page (like for a brand new nom) and then editing the old A-Class assessment page (here, which you can now edit with your re-nom statement above "Prior nomination here"). Then transclude the nom page to the ACR list as you would with a brand new nom, and I think that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Article rescue[edit]

I just noticed a new article, Eagle Dustoff, created by an inexperienced user DustoffControl (talk · contribs) (who probably has a WP:COI). Most of the article's sections need filling in, but I did my best to fix the categories based on my very limited knowledge of military issues. Just wanted to see if anyone was interested in rescuing the article, which may not have enough content/sourcing to survive otherwise. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly doubt there was ever a unit "Eagle Dustoff". This sounds like a call sign or nickname to me. "Dustoff" has been a call sign for US Army medical evacuation helicopters since the Vietnam War and the 101st is known as the "Screaming Eagles." "Eagle Dustoff" appears to be the 326th Medical Battalion or part of the battalion, so that may be a place to lodge the article. I believe "Dustoff" dates no earlier than Vietnam, so the Korean War section may be inappropriate, although the 326th may be older. Perhaps Vietnam War Fighting Forces: 326th Medical Battalion’s Air Ambulance Platoon is the unit referred to, --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability question[edit]

Does a Brigadier General generally pass notability? See Draft:Henry Williams Hise for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that all general officers as leading commanders are notable. Maybe, we can start a biography sub-task force to make sure that all WWI and WWII US general officers have at least stub biographies. I know from working with researchers, especially genealogists, that these are very useful especially since people not familiar with the military tend to connect to names of people over names of military units or formations. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, general consensus is that all general, flag or air officers (and officers of equivalent rank such as brigadiers and commodores) are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Great to know, thanks! Should I accept so you can clean it up? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please accept. TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, our guideline says that it's the expectation that someone of that rank will have sufficient coverage ("individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage ") to meet the GNG. insufficient coverage still means not notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Which has already been demonstrated for Draft:Henry Williams Hise by the way. Move it to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Musa[edit]

By a roundabout means (well, checking an image's licence) I came to Muhammad Musa (4th C-in-C Pakistan Army) whose image in the infobox doesn't look like it has a valid licence ("own work" - not buying that). Rated as start on our scale, it is also rated Good Article via the Hazara Project - I suspect an overzealous editor - so I will fix that but could anyone advise on the image?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's marked on the user page of the uploader as a possible copyvio (and the user has recently been barred on Commons because of copyvios). As a matter of fact, the talk page of the user seems to consist entirely of copyvio notices, except for the welcome, so (assuming good faith) it appears to me that the image was uploaded by someone who misunderstood Wikimedia rules on copyright. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that was another different image (Gen. <-> Genral). But anyway, the image information is not sufficient and the uploader has already uploaded several copyvios. With that background, those images are unusable and should be nominated for deletion (unless the uploader can provide plausible and detailed source information). GermanJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Nominated for regular deletion on Commons (not speedy, so the uploader has still a chance to clarify). GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
On a more positive note, the article's photo of Musa in 1935 by the same uploader seems like a clear case of Commons:Template:PD-Pakistan (some more info would still be nice). GermanJoe (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language citations used for EN page[edit]

What is the policy regarding the use of foreign language articles in citations to substantiate statements /claims in EN wiki articles? It makes it extremely difficult to validate a citation - and thus the fact cited, if one cannot read the source text. Is this permitted? Farawayman (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I do this fairly routinely, and many of these articles have passed FAC - see for instance SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, which relies fairly heavily on a German book. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the general rule is that sources in foreign languages are acceptable, but that if equivalent English-language sources exist these are preferred. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep - non-English sources are fine, but the editor using them is typically expected to assist others in understanding how they have been translated etc. For some periods/areas of work, non-English sources are indeed absolutely essential (e.g. articles on French castles will typically require French-language sources if the article is to be comprehensive; covering Byzantine military history without at least some German-language material would be hard, etc.). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Same, several of the FAs I've worked on rely heavily on German and Serbo-Croat sources. Google Translate will help you to get a sense of whether the content reflects the cited material. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx Farawayman (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United Kingdom[edit]

The article List of wars involving the United Kingdom could IMO, do with some TLC. While military history is not my forte, this article seems crude (and often factually wrong). I've done some basic fixing in the last few days, but more is needed. Among the 'clangers' was listing Ulster Defence Force and 'B specials' as Nationalist groups in N. Ireland in relation to 'the Troubles'.(fixed), and listing Bosnian War as a UK victory (??? how a peace-keeping force could even achieve a victory, was not explained). Editors with more experience than I in rendering military history will have a better eye. Please 'ping' if my attention is required (or even to tell me I'm wrong).Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of bits and will have another look at it later. In many ways it is pretty good, but I agree that it could do with some period experts checking it over. Thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

HMCS Bonaventure[edit]

FYI, there's a notice about HMCS Bonaventure at WT:SHIPS -- (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)