Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Recent edits to Content and Notability guides[edit]
Both pages have been recently modified to remove “Template:Essay”: [1]; [2]. I believe that these templates should be restored as these pages are each an advice page, not a guideline, which has a specific meaning in WP’s context. Courtesy ping @Hawkeye7:. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- A more appropriate template would be Template:Wikipedia how-to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't believe the Template:Wikipedia how-to to be a suitable option here. Original template included: "This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page..." "WikiProject advice page" linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages, which states:
- Compare with: Wikipedia:Project namespace#Wikipedia how-to and information pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the original text was very misleading. What happened was that the creation of guidelines ground to a halt. As a result, many of community's most important guidelines formally lack that status. The term "essay" then became meaningless, as it applied to all sorts of pages with wildly varying statuses. In this case, projects were encouraged to create local guidelines that reflected the consensus in their area of expertise. Our guides went through that WP:PROPOSAL process years ago. As Wolf says, they are not user essays, because they do have formal standing. The template was originally added to facilitate the shortcut links, which are now available with the how-to template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that bit of history, Hawkeye. I had wondered what their status was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in seeing the past discussions where the two pages went through PROPOSAL and achieved formal standing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that bit of history, Hawkeye. I had wondered what their status was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The difference between the two is explained in WP:HOWTOPAGES:
Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way.
- Yes, the original text was very misleading. What happened was that the creation of guidelines ground to a halt. As a result, many of community's most important guidelines formally lack that status. The term "essay" then became meaningless, as it applied to all sorts of pages with wildly varying statuses. In this case, projects were encouraged to create local guidelines that reflected the consensus in their area of expertise. Our guides went through that WP:PROPOSAL process years ago. As Wolf says, they are not user essays, because they do have formal standing. The template was originally added to facilitate the shortcut links, which are now available with the how-to template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look through the archives, and Kirill Lokshin will no doubt correct me if my summation is incorrect. The style guide was split off from the main Milhist page on 19 September 2007, here. It was then advertised at the Village Pump (policy) and Village Pump (proposals) pages as an addition to the MOS. The relevant Milhist discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 67#Project style guide and MoS. Some non-Milhist editors commented on it as a result. There being no objections to its addition to the MOS, it was accepted and marked as part of the MOS. The notability and content parts of the style guide were split off from the style guide on 31 July 2010 to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which can be seen from this. At the time of their creation, they were marked as an "essay on notability" and "content guideline" respectively, per this and this. Obviously they have developed over time, with tweaks here and there to reflect consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up[edit]
Thank you for the links. I see that the MOS discussion concluded on 10 November 2007: [3]. The content portion was not discussed, while the notability portion was tagged as "essay" in 2008, see here: [4].
This is also not my reading of WP:HOWTOPAGES, as "community" in this case means "Wikipedia community" not "project members":
- Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms.
I thus don't believe that the content and notability guides have formal standing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree. They clearly were part of the MOS before they were split off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- "
This is also not my reading of WP:HOWTOPAGES, as "community" in this case means "Wikipedia community" not "project members"
" - so, you're saying that Wiki:Project members are not part of the "Wikipedia community"...? - wolf 19:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Although the initial versions [5] [6] of the standalone Content and Notability guides were part of the community-consensus MOS before they were split off, both have undergone significant changes [7] [8] which were never discussed at the community level. This is partly due to the fact that the notability guide was labeled as an essay from the beginning and the content guide lost its guideline tag in 2013 before significant changes were made. A major addition to Notability was developed at the now-defunct Strategy Think Tank (
"a central location for various planning and internal improvement activities within the project"
) and approved at the MILHIST talk page without community-wide input. Changes to the MOS would require community consensus (input from a broad spectrum of editors), not project-level WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (@Thewolfchild:, members of a Wikiproject are a subset of the Wikipedia community. Their decisions do not constitute Wikipedia community-wide consensus.) –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Dlthewave:: "
members of a Wikiproject are a subset of the Wikipedia community. Their decisions do not constitute Wikipedia community-wide consensus
" - an opinion conveniently supported by having the C&N guides split off from the MOS. - wolf 21:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I fail to see what the big issue is here. What is the problem you are trying to solve? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67:Was this question for Wolf or for me? –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The concern was about the recent changes to both pages: [9]; [10]. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages. The applicable templates would be:
To display as:
This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would say 'no', based on Hawkeye7's and Peacemaker67's comments. I believe they have sufficiently explained this. But I'm just one person, we should see what others have to say. - wolf 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- "These pages are not essays" is factually wrong. They definitely are essays, of a very particular kind covered by a clear guideline: WP:PROJPAGE. The proper tag for them is
{{WikiProject advice}}(there are three variant templates, when applicable, with more specific wording:{{WikiProject style advice}},{{WikiProject notability advice}},{{WikiProject content advice}}). They are not{{How to}}s, which are technical and site-wide (non-topical) instructions on how to accomplish something like construct an advanced search or format a wikitable. And, yes, how-tos do indicate a community, not wikiproject, take on how to best do this. I have to be clear that the more strident people from any wikiproject become that their wikiproject advice isn't wikiproject advice, the more power-grabby and policy-clueless (see especially WP:CONLEVEL) it looks, and the clearer it becomes to everyone that these are definitely PROJPAGE essays.If someone thinks they should be considered guidelines by the community, that's going to require a WP:VPPRO proposal for each of them. If they were accepted as such, they'd be moved out from under the wikiproject and any wording like "WikiProject Military History says to ..." would be removed, since wikiprojects do not WP:OWN site-wide guidelines. Other copyediting would likely be needed, and some provisions might get axed as not representing site-wide consensus. This process is difficult today (what guidelines do we need that we don't already have?), but not impossible. The process is how we got most of our topically specific notability, naming-convention, and MoS guidelines, and we elevated a topical style PROJPAGE to an MoS guideline only last year (but also deprecated one with
{{Historical}}as two-author PoV pushing that everyone ignores). Leave ranty "our way or the highway" stuff at the door, or the proposal will collapse very quickly. It requires compromise and a willingness to accept others' viewpoints.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)- It seems to me that we haven't kept up with the process for these things since these two pages were hived off the MOS back in 2007. I've changed the templates as advised. I have to make the observation that essays cover a huge range from someone's personal brainfart to pages that condense the considered views of hundreds of editors with specialist knowledge of a subject area over a decade. Having watched the notability talk page for some years, and seen the sorts of utter nonsense that goes on over things like the notability of porn actors, I very much doubt there is any appetite whatsoever to go through a bureaucratic and probably highly agenda-laden process to try to have them formalised as formal community-wide guidelines as such guidelines exist now. Pinging @WP:MILHIST coordinators: that I've done this and made some consequent wording changes on the two pages as well as the front page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do not understand why a WP:VPPRO proposal is required for an information page when
information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
According to SMcCandlish, pages need to be thoroughly vetted by the community before they can claim that they are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
English cemetery photographs[edit]
In anticipation of the imminent death of Flickr, I've just conducted a bulk transfer of a big chunk of my archive of photos of cemeteries in south east England to Commons; a mixture of CWGC and allied burial sites, interesting funerary monuments and chapel architecture, representative civilian and non-CWGC-design gravestones and wide atmosphere shots of cemeteries. As I have neither the time nor the inclination to catalogue 7000+ images in detail, especially against the 8 Jan deadline for the shutdown of Flickr as a free image hosting service, I've of necessity just uploaded them into broad categories based on which cemetery the burials in question are in, which in turn has resulted in the flooding of those categories on Commons with files with uninformative descriptions and uninformative names. If anyone feels the urge, they could virtually all do with having more specific descriptions, and in many cases more specific categories, added. (Paging Carcharoth, HJ Mitchell, Kafka Liz.)
The Commons categories in question are:
- Commons:Category:Abney Park Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Acton Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Ashford Burial Ground
- Commons:Category:Beckenham Crematorium and Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Botley Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Brompton Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Brookwood Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Charlton Cemetery, London
- Commons:Category:Chesham Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Cheshunt Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Croydon Cemetery, London
- Commons:Category:Greenwich Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Hampstead Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Harrow Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Harrow Weald Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Kingston Cemetery, Kingston upon Thames
- Commons:Category:Mill Hill Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Monuments and memorials in the City of London Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Nunhead cemetery
- Commons:Category:Osney Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Queen's Road Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Paddington Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Romford Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Slough Cemetery
- Commons:Category:South Ealing Cemetery
- Commons:Category:St Albans Cemetery
- Commons:Category:St Sepulchre's Cemetery, Oxford
- Commons:Category:Staines Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Teddington Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Vicarage Road Cemetery, Watford
- Commons:Category:Wealdstone Cemetery
- Commons:Category:West Norwood Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Willesden New Cemetery
- Commons:Category:Windsor cemetery and cemetery chapel
- Commons:Category:Woodvale Cemetery, Brighton
- Commons:Category:Woolwich Cemetery
This change hasn't been widely publicised—I imagine SmugMug, who have just absorbed Flickr, are hoping that most users won't realise the change is coming until the deadline strikes and will then feel the need to pay out the $50 fee to prevent their work being deleted—but anyone else who's using Flickr as an easier-to-upload-but-still-Creative-Commons-licenced alternative to Commons, get your own stuff out now before they start charging you a ransom to release it as well! If you activate Flickr2Commons, the transfer process is virtually automatic and all you need to do is specify the Commons categories you want them to land in. ‑ Iridescent 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've just received an email from Flickr, telling me about the impending changes to my (free) account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Is there an efficient way to transfer freely licensed photos that are from someone else's account? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: As long as they're appropriately licensed, just open Flickr2Commons (you may need to authorise OAuth first, just click the link at the top of the page), and enter either the account ID or the photoset ID (the long string of numbers in the URL) in the appropriate part of the form. It will prompt you as to whether you want to append a description or category to all the images or to mark them up individually; after that, just rename the files as appropriate (as most Flickr filenames are just the upload date), click the big green "transfer to Commons" button at the top of the list of files, and it will chug along in the background automatically transferring everything you've selected; it doesn't matter who uploaded the file to Flickr originally provided it was under a Commons-compatible license. The script will filter out anything that's not correctly licensed, and will add the appropriate copyright tags and attribution to the original uploader automatically. Unfortunately, there isn't (as far as I know) a way to upload every file containing a particular keyword; you need to do so on a by-user or by-album basis. ‑ Iridescent 00:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t have much from England, but I have a fair bit from the US and Ireland and can expand on them in due course. I’m happy to contribute; just let me know. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- and I suppose I should get my small contributions there back pronto. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Kafka Liz, they've said that they'll allow free accounts to remain provided they have fewer than 1000 uploads, or delete photos to bring themselves below the 1000 limit; they've also just issued a recent "clarification" that they won't delete anything CC by-SA licensed (although if you're over the 1000 limit they won't allow you to upload anything else unless you pay up), so the threat of imminent photopocalypse is lessened. I'd still recommend getting anything you can out of there, as I suspect they won't survive the mass exodus (if they lose the free users, there are no longer any regulars to view the photos of the paid users, so why would the professional studios continue to pay them hosting fees?) and it will probably go the way of MySpace within a few months at most. ‑ Iridescent 23:42, 13 November
2018 (UTC)
Clairmarais aerodrome[edit]
s:Heroic Airmen Are Key To Victory (H.G. Wells, August 1918), has an image whose caption refers to "Clamarais aerodrome", about which we appear to have no article. Should we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps that should read Clairmarais aerodrome?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well if we have just one source with just a photo caption, no it is not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was not the question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK I shall rephrase it, No we should not have an article on it as the sourcing for it is not good enough based upon the evidence presented here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Still not the question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK I shall rephrase it, No we should not have an article on it as the sourcing for it is not good enough based upon the evidence presented here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was not the question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Article now at Clairmarais aerodrome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Anciens Aerodromes - Clairmarais has some details of WWII use by the Luftwaffe. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is some more on its WWII use at this web PDF (pages 334-335). The author, Henry L. deZeng IV, has published several books so a case could be made for his reliability, I think - Dumelow (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a brief paragraph to the article using Dumelow's "deZeng" ref above. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work Alansplodge. I took the liberty of nominating the article for DYK as I had a QPQ credit going spare - Dumelow (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Too kind Dumelow, I was standing on the shoulders of your research. On the 1918 image that started all this, I have an idea that No 1 Squadron continues the tradition of "tail-to-tail" squadron photographs to the present day, but whether the Clairmarais photo was the first one needs to be verified. It's somewhere in a disordered stack of books at home, which I will dig through when I get the chance. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work Alansplodge. I took the liberty of nominating the article for DYK as I had a QPQ credit going spare - Dumelow (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a brief paragraph to the article using Dumelow's "deZeng" ref above. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is some more on its WWII use at this web PDF (pages 334-335). The author, Henry L. deZeng IV, has published several books so a case could be made for his reliability, I think - Dumelow (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Reduction of shadows on images from US Military personnel[edit]
I've reduced the shadows of this image by 35% which is the default of Photoshop. Has this been enhanced or original file should be left "as is"? Adamdaley (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)- I would be opposed to using this version. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is his uniform supposed to be green or blue? I believe it is supposed to be dark blue so this is not an improvement at all. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why are shadows an issue?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it (altered version is here). Original images should remain as they are. Any changes (eg: cropping, etc.) should be saved as new image files with the change added to the file name (eg: ADM John Doe (cropped).jpg - wolf 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is much better, it shows the correct colours, he looks less like an extra out of the man in the high castle now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- That dark blue? It looks to me as if it's a variation of black. Adamdaley (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, its clearly a shade of blue until; you muck about with the contrast when it becomes black.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- That dark blue? It looks to me as if it's a variation of black. Adamdaley (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is much better, it shows the correct colours, he looks less like an extra out of the man in the high castle now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it (altered version is here). Original images should remain as they are. Any changes (eg: cropping, etc.) should be saved as new image files with the change added to the file name (eg: ADM John Doe (cropped).jpg - wolf 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Is no one bothered by the fact that someone is claiming authorship and ownership over a public domain work of the US government?[11] Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC) According to Army Service Uniform, the recent ASU coat is "army blue 450", which is RGB #444549 - almost grey, only slightly blue - its apparent colour would be affected by lighting. (Hohum @) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921[edit]
Could an editor with access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921 tell me if page 212 of it mentions French submarine Armide's namesake? I need that ref for a DYK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- According to Conway's, Armide, launched 1915, had two sisters, Amazone and Antigone. No mention of a namesake, though Armide was apparently building for Japan as No. 14 when "requisitioned". RobDuch (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- A more important issue than whether the article passes DYK is why are you writing articles referencing sources which you havn't got access to? That is very poor practice and brings the rest of the article into question.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because the bibliography has been cut-and-pasted (without attribution) from Armide (1915) on Polish Wikipedia and reflects the sources used there, rather than here. L293D, you're not a new editor—what the hell were you thinking? Did you actually check the sources yourself or just go with what it said on pl-wiki? ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, the Citations and Bibliography have not been copy-pasted from plwiki. They come from another of my articles, Joessel-class submarine which probably came from yet another of my articles, Lagrange-class submarine. As to whether I check sources from plwiki, I generally try to but frequently I can not access them so I AGF. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Would you like to reveal your source for the French submarine Y article which you have just created? There is no translated tag on the article and you source the tonnage figures to both Fontenoy and Conway. However Conway gives completely different figures to those given by Fontenoy and detailed in the article. The Polish wiki notes that the sources disagree so did you copy from plwiki (without attribution) and omit the footnotes as too difficult or did you copy from somewhere else (without attribution) or did you create the article yourself and just put in some sources without checking them? Invariably on these French submarine articles you have created recently there have been problems with different information being quoted in the prose and the infobox sometimes with neither agreeing with that which is quoted in the sources - on Armide for instance you had 1 x 75mm gun in prose and 2 x 75mm gun in infobox sourced to Conway but Conway actually says 1 x 47mm Lyndaship (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not to mention that Drzewiecki drop collars aren't torpedo tubes, but rather frameworks that hold the torpedoes until they swim out. Please start focusing on improving your articles rather than carelessly translating them from foreign wikis because everything needs to be validated. You should be able to get the books that you're citing from Interlibrary loan at little to no cost if you're in the US. If not, you might have to spend a little money.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- If in the US, have your local library request the books via interlibrary loan from Pritzker Military Museum & Library as we will lend most titles published after 1950. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not to mention that Drzewiecki drop collars aren't torpedo tubes, but rather frameworks that hold the torpedoes until they swim out. Please start focusing on improving your articles rather than carelessly translating them from foreign wikis because everything needs to be validated. You should be able to get the books that you're citing from Interlibrary loan at little to no cost if you're in the US. If not, you might have to spend a little money.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Would you like to reveal your source for the French submarine Y article which you have just created? There is no translated tag on the article and you source the tonnage figures to both Fontenoy and Conway. However Conway gives completely different figures to those given by Fontenoy and detailed in the article. The Polish wiki notes that the sources disagree so did you copy from plwiki (without attribution) and omit the footnotes as too difficult or did you copy from somewhere else (without attribution) or did you create the article yourself and just put in some sources without checking them? Invariably on these French submarine articles you have created recently there have been problems with different information being quoted in the prose and the infobox sometimes with neither agreeing with that which is quoted in the sources - on Armide for instance you had 1 x 75mm gun in prose and 2 x 75mm gun in infobox sourced to Conway but Conway actually says 1 x 47mm Lyndaship (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, the Citations and Bibliography have not been copy-pasted from plwiki. They come from another of my articles, Joessel-class submarine which probably came from yet another of my articles, Lagrange-class submarine. As to whether I check sources from plwiki, I generally try to but frequently I can not access them so I AGF. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because the bibliography has been cut-and-pasted (without attribution) from Armide (1915) on Polish Wikipedia and reflects the sources used there, rather than here. L293D, you're not a new editor—what the hell were you thinking? Did you actually check the sources yourself or just go with what it said on pl-wiki? ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@L293D:, I've been trying to follow some of these recently created articles, transferred from other wikis, but there is a deal of inconsistencies, so if you could provide answers to some of the questions asked of you here, and maybe shed some light on the matter, that would be appreciated. - wolf 08:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- The inconsistencies come from the fact that I write articles too hastily. The source for most articles is pl.wiki. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER clarification[edit]
One of the WP:SOLDIER criteria is "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)". The article Group (military aviation unit) states that a group is sometimes the size of a UK wing (which apparently does not qualify under SOLDIER) and sometimes much larger; sometimes a group is larger than a wing, sometimes not. In order to be more clear, I suggest clarifying in one of the following ways:
- Wing or group (whichever is larger in that service's system)
- Any air unit larger than X number of squadrons
Any thoughts? Catrìona (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would specify by approx. number of squadrons - would make it easier to handle vs. other systems , e.g, the Soviet model.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a particular nationality you are looking at, because it varies considerably? I do agree it is a bit Anglo-American-centric at present in this regard, and the added complexity of WWII and post-WWII arrangements doesn't help. What we are talking about here IMO is a modern-day RAF or USN Group, a USAF or USMC Wing, or a formation such as 1 Canadian Air Division or Soviet/Russian Aviation Division. These days, such formations are commonly commanded by an officer in the range of colonel equivalent to one-star general. There are significant exceptions to this in the past though, as WWII Luftwaffe Geschwader (equivalent to an RAF Group or USAAF Wing) could be commanded by a major. In terms of number of squadrons, I would think the minimum would be four (two RAF wings of the minimum two squadrons each), or perhaps six to take it over the likely maximum size of a RAF wing, but of course this would range much higher as well. There is a need to be flexible because of the fact that some RAF Groups/USAAF Wings were small and others were really big. So perhaps an indicative range would be better than a minimum number of squadrons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- What prompted me to ask the question was the recent recreation of Einar Axel Malmstrom, with the edit summary "Notabe per WP:MILPERSON #5 356 FG combat command". After checking GBooks, it seems that Malmstrom might meet GNG because he is profiled in the few places as the namesake of Malmstrom Air Force Base. However, it seemed inconsistent to me that Malmstrom would pass WP:SOLDIER but the commander of an RAF fighter wing wouldn't, when USAAF groups were roughly equivalent to RAF wings during World War II. I don't know if there were any RAF wings with six squadrons, but 244 Wing had five squadrons during the Tunisian and Italian campaigns. Catrìona (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I might add, that war-time appointments don't necessarily conform to the established rank of an appointment and some consideration may need to be given to individual circumstances. It appears to have been resolved however. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- What prompted me to ask the question was the recent recreation of Einar Axel Malmstrom, with the edit summary "Notabe per WP:MILPERSON #5 356 FG combat command". After checking GBooks, it seems that Malmstrom might meet GNG because he is profiled in the few places as the namesake of Malmstrom Air Force Base. However, it seemed inconsistent to me that Malmstrom would pass WP:SOLDIER but the commander of an RAF fighter wing wouldn't, when USAAF groups were roughly equivalent to RAF wings during World War II. I don't know if there were any RAF wings with six squadrons, but 244 Wing had five squadrons during the Tunisian and Italian campaigns. Catrìona (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a particular nationality you are looking at, because it varies considerably? I do agree it is a bit Anglo-American-centric at present in this regard, and the added complexity of WWII and post-WWII arrangements doesn't help. What we are talking about here IMO is a modern-day RAF or USN Group, a USAF or USMC Wing, or a formation such as 1 Canadian Air Division or Soviet/Russian Aviation Division. These days, such formations are commonly commanded by an officer in the range of colonel equivalent to one-star general. There are significant exceptions to this in the past though, as WWII Luftwaffe Geschwader (equivalent to an RAF Group or USAAF Wing) could be commanded by a major. In terms of number of squadrons, I would think the minimum would be four (two RAF wings of the minimum two squadrons each), or perhaps six to take it over the likely maximum size of a RAF wing, but of course this would range much higher as well. There is a need to be flexible because of the fact that some RAF Groups/USAAF Wings were small and others were really big. So perhaps an indicative range would be better than a minimum number of squadrons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- As we have (and lots of other places have them too) a table of comparative ranks would it not just be easier to use that?Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be careful about using number of squadrons; that would seem to disqualify any CAG. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I thought Carrier Air Groups/Wings included at least four squadrons, even during WWII? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- You may be right... I'm working of a sense of size, not a sourced number. It made me leery. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose, Nick-D, and Lineagegeek: Before I put a proposal together, just pinging a few more aviation-focussed people for an opinion on whether SOLDIER really needs a tweak here, maybe to provide some more specific guidance for non-Common1ealth-US countries or even some flexible squadron numbers guidance? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that this terminology has caused a bit of confusion, and the guidance isn't necessary. In UK-style air forces, a 'group' is the most senior type of operational command, and comprises several wings (each with usually 2-4 squadrons). The commanders of groups in combat do generally end up being well known (e.g., all of the World War II-era RAF Fighter Command and Bomber Command group commanders have received significant coverage). USAF-style air forces use the terms in the opposite order - wings are the senior command, and comprise several groups (which sometimes have very few squadrons). A USN Carrier Air Group forms part of a wing, so isn't comparable to a RAF group. And of course there are anomalies - for instance, the World War II-era No. 300 Group RAF is pretty obscure and only comprised a handful of squadrons. RAF/RAAF peacetime group COs are generally pretty obscure, and the same applies to peacetime USAF wing COs. TLDR: I'd suggest removing this text, as I don't think that the guidance is particularly helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the (US wing) is appropriate, although some explanation beyond the "air group" with its current link might be appropriate. US wings are considered the equivalent of brigades. They mostly call for commanders to be brigadier generals (authorized), but the slots are more frequently filled by colonels. Before 1948, operational wings generally had 2-4 groups assigned, with each group having 3-4 operational squadrons. 1948-1950s and post 1991, wings have three or four groups with only one controlling operational squadrons, since US wings also include support elements for their base. US group command seems too low for presumed notability. Also, should the guideline be clarified as limited to operational groups/wings? USAF has had such organizations as Weather Wings and Communications Divisions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- So, are we saying that the guidance should be reduced rather than expanded? It seems to me that we need to retain some sort of guidance for air units, as they are varied and there is the UK/US reversal of group/wing nomenclature, plus non-Anglo-US structures like air regiments and brigades. Given what has been said, I don't think using a minimum number of squadrons is particularly useful. FWIW, Soviet/Yugoslav and other air forces used regiments, which it seems to me were roughly equivalent to UK wings/US groups and therefore beneath the threshold for assumed notability per SOLDIER, and the Yugoslavs also used brigades (commanded by colonel-equivalents) which seem roughly equivalent to UK groups/US wings, and therefore possibly meet the threshold of SOLDIER. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Soviet regiments had about 30 aircraft in World War II in 3-4 squadrons (nominally), so I would agree with PM about notability. Aviation division commanders were generally colonels or major generals, so I would consider those equal to infantry division command for notability. Kges1901 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- So, are we saying that the guidance should be reduced rather than expanded? It seems to me that we need to retain some sort of guidance for air units, as they are varied and there is the UK/US reversal of group/wing nomenclature, plus non-Anglo-US structures like air regiments and brigades. Given what has been said, I don't think using a minimum number of squadrons is particularly useful. FWIW, Soviet/Yugoslav and other air forces used regiments, which it seems to me were roughly equivalent to UK wings/US groups and therefore beneath the threshold for assumed notability per SOLDIER, and the Yugoslavs also used brigades (commanded by colonel-equivalents) which seem roughly equivalent to UK groups/US wings, and therefore possibly meet the threshold of SOLDIER. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose, Nick-D, and Lineagegeek: Before I put a proposal together, just pinging a few more aviation-focussed people for an opinion on whether SOLDIER really needs a tweak here, maybe to provide some more specific guidance for non-Common1ealth-US countries or even some flexible squadron numbers guidance? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- You may be right... I'm working of a sense of size, not a sourced number. It made me leery. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I thought Carrier Air Groups/Wings included at least four squadrons, even during WWII? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be careful about using number of squadrons; that would seem to disqualify any CAG. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to this proposal. We've got a disparity of two grades between army division commanders, who are almost always 2-star generals in the Anglosphere (OF-7 in NATO grades) and commanders of capital ships who are almost universally captains (OF-5 colonel equivalent). If we're going to change the standard to specifically include OF-5 level aviation unit commanders, then I see no reason why we're not including the army equivalent of brigade/regiment commanders. At least in the US most such will have published military biographies, but I'm not at all sure about other militaries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- In the Soviet and Soviet satellite militaries both army and aviation divisions were commanded by colonels or major generals, who were OF-5 or OF-6 equivalents. So for such militaries WP:SOLDIER already allows for a smaller equivalent notability than the Anglophone militaries. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposal[edit]
I propose we make a tweak to WP:SOLDIER to say something like:Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron.)
Thoughts/tweaks before I open a survey? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- That wording looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, PM67, that looks pretty good. I'd support it. - wolf 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Survey[edit]
- As proposer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Kges1901 (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
William Chapman Foster[edit]
Hello, I am looking for some help to expand the page for William Chapman Foster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Chapman_Foster Since he is family, I do not want to contribute myself. I have collected a mountain of research though, that I'd be happy to share with someone to expand the page. WCF had a long history in government service with several significant posts so I know it's not a easy page to write. Here is a link to one obit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1984/10/16/former-arms-control-director-william-foster-87-dies-in-dc/67100b6c-87ec-4cf9-b4cb-e7793fba495d/?utm_term=.38a102f18909 Please let me know how I can find someone or a group to expand his page and if I can support that process by directing people to information. Many Thanks, Marcie Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarcieM (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Post the material you wish to add on the articles talk page, in small bites.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Capture of the Anne[edit]
I was thinking about the Capture of the Anne article. It has just been assessed for B-class. Would it go one better at GA? I've not contributed anything to it, but was seeing if it could be a GA? Adamdaley (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Have you got access to the sources? That really is necessary to be able to navigate it through GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- No I don't have access to the bibliography/references. Adamdaley (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Then I wouldn't nominate it yourself. Perhaps you could contact the main contributors as suggest it to them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Is http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk a reliable source[edit]
Is British Army Units From 1945 On a reliable source? Gavbadger (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- You might better ask that question over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. FWIW, I would challenge that source in any source review I might make in any of the review processes (ACR, FA, etc.). Looking at the website, it provides no information about what editorial oversight or peer review the information it provides is subject to, or indeed any definitive information beyond a copyright notice as to who owns and operates it. Factotem (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
WWII Photo Request Petition[edit]
Consider signing this petition, as it requests numerous Soviet WWII era photos to be released on Wikimedia Commons. Regards.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
AfD needing more attention[edit]
G'day all, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle has been re-listed and could do with some more attention from interested editors. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Battle of Mouquet Farm[edit]
Does anyone know how to centre the two photos in the Gallery? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is the current set-up with the wikitable markup and part of it is due to the very long image captions (the wikitable stretches to fill the whole screen width to minimise the number of rows used for the image captions). I tried a set-up using the gallery markup below - is this something like what you wanted? You can play around with the widths and heights of the images as needed - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Aerial photograph of Mouquet Farm and its defences, June 1916 (north at top). Ruins of farmhouse buildings are rectangular area at lower centre. Trench across top right is the western end of Fabeck Graben Trench at top left heading NNW is Zollern Redoubt. From lower centre a road not extant runs ENE to Courcelette; road at bottom heads SE towards Pozières; road running WSW at bottom left connects with Thiepval–Pozières road. The attacks were made from south to north, British on left and Australians centre and right
- Yes, I can put the verbiage in a footnote if necessary. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: You know what would be really cool with those images, a third one showing an aerial view of the area today. All fields etc., I know, but I think the roads are still in much the same place. Possible, you think? ——SerialNumber54129 14:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- It crossed my mind too when I read the description of the roads. I wonder if we have one in commons with the usage rights; I'll have a neb. Keith-264 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a French version of Geograph.co.uk? ...especially if it releases its stuff CC-BY-SA, etc :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft discusssion relevant to your project[edit]
Greetz, Milhisters. Interested parties may wish to take a butcher's at this Korean war-related AfC Draft, and/or comment at the concomitant talk page. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Help get a World War I draft article published[edit]
Any World War I buffs want to help get this draft article up to snuff: Draft:Battle of Henin? Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Military historian of the year 2018 and Military history newcomer of the year 2018[edit]
G'day everyone, at the beginning of December we'll be calling for nominations for the Military historian of the year 2018 and Military history newcomer of the year 2018. Please think about who you might nominate for these prestigious awards, and while we all tend to remember the content creators, please don't forget those that do a whole bunch of work behind the scenes in adding Milhist banners, assessing new articles, and filling out B-Class checklists, as well as other backroom jobs that keep the project ticking over. Nominations will open on 1 December. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
IRC Channel[edit]
G'day everyone, our front page notes the availability of our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist) for communication. I have never personally used this. Is it still used? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have sometimes connected to the channel, but there is never anyone on. IRC is falling out of use anyway. Kges1901 (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject article number summary table[edit]
I see we have a new table listing article numbers at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics - presumably because the Wikipedia 1.0 table stopped working. I notice the total at the very bottom of the non-article pages doesn't include the redirects. Not sure if this was intentional? If so the redirect line should perhaps be at the bottom, below the total. I also notice it doesn't include Category:Unassessed military history articles, Category:User-Class military history articles and Category:SIA-Class military history articles? - Dumelow (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like a question for Kirill Lokshin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've added the missing classes. Please let me know if you see anything else not working as it should. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking good. Thanks Kirill Lokshin - Dumelow (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- In adddition, the wiki-work factors for the TFs have disappeared. Kges1901 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone actually use those for anything? I was under the impression that they were a statistical curiosity put together by the WP1.0 bot team, rather than something that editors found useful. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- In adddition, the wiki-work factors for the TFs have disappeared. Kges1901 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking good. Thanks Kirill Lokshin - Dumelow (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've added the missing classes. Please let me know if you see anything else not working as it should. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Lists of commanding officers[edit]
Didn't we just have a discussion as to whether naval ship articles should include a list of non-notable commanding officers, and decide against it? I can't remember where that was. We may need to write some policy around this, as the issue has again begun heating up at USS Coronado (AGF-11), where there is currently an edit war going on. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is still ongoing at WT:SHIPS, but the consensus seems to be for a formulation that deprecates such lists. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but my mind is like a sieve these days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Kendall-K1:, Thers is currently a discussion that is building consensus toward a proposal that would cover such lists, but there is also a previous consensus, specific to lists of COs, found here. Cheers - wolf 06:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but my mind is like a sieve these days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
RfC on 1998 Sokcho submarine incident[edit]
Can you please provide your views: Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident#RfC on Infobox regards Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Notability: first Commonwealth air force woman group captain, had squadron command[edit]
I have just discovered that Wing Commander Leanne Woon (RNZAF) has been promoted to the rank of group captain, making her the first woman group captain in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Checking around, it appears that she commanded a base defence / operational support squadron, literally the Operational Support Squadron, earlier in her career. Also commanded Task Group Troy, NZ's logistic detachment at the nobody-knows-where-it-was Camp Mirage in the Middle East. But has not commanded at the rank of group captain or equivalent. Is she notable? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It depends on the sourcing of course, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't notable. Googling her turns up lots of useful-looking sources (for instance, [12]), so I think she meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the header is right. Sara Mackmin was promoted to group captain five years ago. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- And Julie Hammer was promoted to group captain in 1996 after commanding an EW squadron. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the header is right. Sara Mackmin was promoted to group captain five years ago. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
And this is why we need notability and verifiability rules. So do we have any RS saying who was the first?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure we need to start a competition, certainly Group Officers were in the WAAF/WRAF in the second world war, and I suspect somebody must of held an equivalent rank in 1918. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks guys for the quick responses. Er, I meant the first group captain female officer in the Royal NZ Air Force, not first in the Commonwealth - well aware we were behind a bit. Secondly, I have discovered that there was a group captain female officer in the RNZAF circa 2008 (see my link now at WRNZAF), though probably not operations/logs branch like Gp Capt Woon, more like the 'historically female' nursing/medical/personnel side of things. I'll have to do some googling to discover who that was.. Many thanks again.. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Problem with Parachutist Badge (Germany) that has BLP implications[edit]
An IP brought an issue to BLP/N Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stephen J. Townsend which they had partially resolved. While investigating it, I found we have a problem. Parachutist Badge (Germany) is an article on the Nazi Germany Parachutist Badges called de:Fallschirmschützenabzeichen in German. German Parachutist Badge redirects there. However quite a few of the links [13] to the main article (whether direct or via a redirect) are clearly not supposed to be for the Nazi Germany badge but the modern German one called de:Fallschirmspringerabzeichen. While we can fix all the current links, the likelihood of it reoccurring is IMO too high and considering many of these will be BLP cases and it may understandably be seen as offensive to say someone received a Nazi medal, even an innocuous one, I don't think this is a suitable long term solution. Although I know disambiguation pages for only two terms are often not popular I think that turning Parachutist Badge (Germany) into a disambiguation page may be the best solution. (Keeping the redirect and moving the Nazi Germany badge to something like (Nazi Germany).) The alternative is to turn both links into a redirects to the modern German badge and hatnote for the Nazi one, but particularly with the current possible targets which seem to be Awards and decorations of the German Armed Forces and Parachutist Badge it may be a bit odd to have the hatnote there given how general they are. (Someone could write a standalone article if they feel it's justified.) A final alternative is to mix both the modern and Nazi German Badge in one article, but I'm not sure if that is a generally accepted solution. I'm posting this here since I assume it's more likely something this project will have experience with than BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)