Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 148

• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 143
• 144
• 145
• 146
• 147
• Archive 148
• 149
• 150
• 151
• 152
• 153
• 160
• 170

Norman Gavin

Hi. The above chap played first-class cricket for the RAF in 1946. I'm sure given his age (born 1922) that he could have served from 1940 onward. However, I can't seem to find anything on his RAF career. I wonder if anyone on this project would be kind enough to see if they can find anything? Many thanks! StickyWicket (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

He died in 2013 and lived in Sevonoaks but I cant find any information on RAF service, he may have been an airman rather than an officer. MilborneOne (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Can't find any mention of him in the London Gazette, if he was an officer his commission, promotions and retirement would have been covered there. He is listed as a director of a textiles firm and a property management business in the 1990s - Dumelow (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Input on article size and comprehensiveness

I wrote an article on the Lumumba Government and published it a few weeks ago. It was very long, with five lead paragraphs and readable prose coming in at 156 kilobytes (recommended maximum is 100). I nominated it for A-class review, but withdrew after two editors expressed concerns about the length. As it stands now, through a combination of excising, summarizing, and splitting/moving text to other articles, I've brought the rps down to 136 and slimmed the lead to four (slightly smaller) paragraphs. It is presently necessary for some consensus regarding size, focusedness, and comprehensiveness. Otherwise the article will be continuously stonewalled at the review boards. Comments here or on the article talk page are welcome. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think that even 80k is usually too long for an article. (According to Wikipedia:Article size, even 60+ rps articles should be split). This is an encyclopedia article, not a book on the subject, and is intended to provide an overiew of topics. Even Nazi Germany is less than 100K. While the work you've done on the article is commendable, it needs to be broken out into separate articles and summary style used for the most important information. Catrìona (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Propose merging Hawaii National Guard and National Guard of Hawaii. Both articles are ≈ 3kB each. Discussion is here. fyi - wolf 03:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush – Needs B-class Assessment

I've noticed that this article – George H. W. Bush – hasn't properly been assessed with B-class. Could someone assess it with B-class for WP:MILHIST? Adamdaley (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've assessed it as C-Class as there are uncited paras. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've assessed WP:Aviation the same way. Adamdaley (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input on naming convention of USAF Squadrons

Dear all, I have noted that there is a certain inconsistency in the naming conventions of articles on numbered USAF squadrons. As I understand, numbered USAF Squadrons whose number ends with 2 or 3 customarily do not use the -nd or -rd suffix but rather -d. However, I note with concern that this principle has been applied rather inconsistently between articles and even within articles.

For example, 3d Airlift Squadron uses 3d in its article title (aka wikilink URL), but the name in the lead sentence uses 3rd instead. On the other hand, 33rd Fighter Wing uses 33rd in its article title, but the name in the lead sentence uses 33d.

As can be seen, this is rather inconsistent. This is a concern because:

1. There is inconsistency in the naming of the articles of different USAF squadrons. MOS:LEADSENTENCE tolerates and anticipates situations where the article title does not match the lead sentence name, but it appears to be specific to situations where an official name differs significantly from a common name. However, in this case, they only differ by a letter, so one would ask why having to maintain this discrepancy in the article title and lead paragraphs is necessary.
2. It is unclear how the squadrons should be named and what is the proper practice followed by the USAF. It remains the general naming convention that the article title should be WP:COMMONNAME, while the lead sentence can incorporate the official name. However, in the above examples, it appears unclear which one is the the official name and which is the common name seeing as different articles appear to swap their places. One could understand how numbered squadron titles with -d may be considered official, while -rd might be a common name. However, it seems strange that even a squadron - even one that happens to use -rd as its official name - might end up using -d in its common name, something which I have not been able to find support for via Googling.

If you reading this, I would like to seek your input and views on how to proceed and apply a consistent naming convention for this category of articles. Furthermore, if there are any experts on USAF history here, I would also like to hear your advise on the principles and conventions that should be followed when entitling the articles of numbered USAF squadrons, so it can be applied consistently. —Madrenergic^talk 17:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Madrenergic. This has come up before, but I'm struggling to find a thread. I'm no expert on USAF, but the Air Combat Command official factsheet [1] lists quite a few wings that end in a 2 or 3 and they are all given as X2nd and X3rd, not X2d and X3d. It also lists one squadron as the 823rd, not 823d. I personally think we'd get less reverts and page moves by standardising the 2nd and 3rd usage, which appears far more common in book sources I looked at. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that references and some official sources (namely the unit history outlines, which use highly abbreviated language) on US Army units have the same issue. I personally go with -nd and -rd, but have no "official" basis either way. RobDuch (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this (dropping the "n" or "r") was a US military (not just USAF) WWII thing. I've never seen it for example in official Civil War documents. But it's common in some photos and unit histories I have of WWII artillery batallions. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an utterly perennial topic and this has come up multiple times. We should wait until our USAF units expert Lineagegeek repeats what he's said elsewhere. I would recommend everybody interested read Talk:2d Bomb Wing#"2nd" vs. "2d", and then everybody will at least know the USAF official policy on the subject. After that, we need to amend WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME with a specific note about how to name USAF units, which will have to be thrashed out. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The official source for the name of any USAF unit is the document which called it into existence, or if it has been redesignated, the document that renamed it. When the Air Force was still part of the Army, these documents were Adjutant General Letters or AG 320.2 Letters. (the oldest I've seen is from August 1940 and includes the Base Headquarters and "2d/3d" Air Base Squadrons Since USAF has been independent, they have been Department of the Air Force (DAF) numbered Letters (later Memoranda). These start at 001a, running through 999a, followed by 001b, etc. (currently in the t series). They are the authority for the existence of the unit and, therefore, for its name. These documents consistently use 2d and 3d when numbering USAF units using Arabic numerals (note that numbered air forces use the forms "Second" and "Third" and the former numbered commands used Roman numerals.) Although the current USAF regulation that covers how units are named (Air Force Instruction 38-101, Air Force Organization, 31 Jan 2017) does not directly address the "d" issue below numbered air force level, its Figure 5.1, Unit Designation Examples, uses the "2d" form in its example. OTOH, the Air Force Historical Research Agency policy seems to be to avoid the issue by not using suffixes at all with numbered units (e.g. 633 Aerospace Medicine Squadron ). In addition, the vast majority of articles on USAF numbered units use the official form, which implies a consensus on using this form and would make any effort to standardize on "rd" and "nd" a much more difficult task. I support using this form as consistent with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, which calls for using "the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit . . . belongs." In citations, however, I believe the form (correct or incorrect) used in the cited reference should be used, so I would cite the AFHRA Information Sheet on the 2d Bomb Wing as "2 Bomb Wing (AFGSC)" and the local Barksdale one as "2nd Bomb Wing." --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06 and Lineagegeek. I'm convinced. Let's work on an addition to MILMOS to formalise this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 and Lineagegeek: I propose adding the following after "18th Army" at WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME.

The United States Air Force (USAF) uses a unique system of ordinals. Numbered air forces use the ordinal as a word, for example "Second Air Force", but all lower level organisations with numbers ending in a 2 or 3 use the ordinals "2d" and "3d" rather than "2nd" and "3rd", for example "3d Air Division". All other ordinals for USAF organisations are per MOS:ORDINAL, for example 7th Fighter Squadron.

Thoughts? Tweaks? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of 2d and 3d is standard US English, and is not restricted to the USAF. The US government style manual mandates it, as does the Army's CMH guide. However, our MOS:ORDINAL does not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we identify 2d and 3d as valid options for US units because it is standard US English, but don't mandate it, stating that the ordinal used should be what is most common in reliable sources on the individual unit? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

To end the constant back-and-forth over USAF units (this comes up every so often) and to provide a backstop for any more bickering at The Old Guard talk page, suggest strongly that the 2d/3d ordinal use is strongly recommended for USAF units and TOG, unless overwhelming majority of reliable sources specifically on the individual unit indicates otherwise. That last phrase would provide a majority-of-reliable-sources get out clause, but we would have a 'Milhist official answer' to recommend people to.. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the "strongly recommended" with an out for contrary use if an ovewhelming majority of RS use the 2nd/3rd form. However, since we are talking of American units, they are "organizations". --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 what is TOG? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The 3d Infantry Regiment "The Old Guard". As the US Army Center of Military History uses "2d" and "3d", suggest we follow suit with the US Army articles as well. Kges1901 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Endorse both LG and Kges1901. I try to be very careful to use U.S. spelling in U.S. articles, but on talkpages I don't worry so much. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In UK English it is customary to abbreviate "first" as "1st", "second" as "2nd", "third" as "3rd" and so on. I see no benefit in ever abbreviating these further. I cannot speak for US English. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

While we're at it, @Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66: do you guys know if this is also a thing with USN and USCG? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The USN uses Cardinal numbers rather than ordinals - see for example Destroyer Squadron 2 or Carrier Strike Group 1. The exception is numbered fleets which are spelt out, or if in ordinals I have never seen any reference to anything but 2nd Fleet and 3rd Fleet. I believe without knowing much about it that the USCG follows USN practice. Note that Task Forces (eg Task Force 60; Task Group 38.4;) are all cardinal rather than ordinal, across all U.S. and Allied useage. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

As per MOS:COMMONNAME, we're not bound by official spellings or terminology, so I don't see the official name really matters. Just like how one of the services (the USN?) officially spells out the number in capital letters; we needn't follow their stupid rules. Despite the Army's Center of Military History using 122d Field Artillery for my old unit, we generally used 122nd on our own documents and I'd be willing to put some serious money down that many units did the same sort of thing. So long as there's a redirect going from one to the other so that the article can be found, I don't really care.

Problem is that plenty of people can't get past the official name, or what they think the official name is, and so we keep having attempts to move the article(s) from one to another. So maybe what we need to do is to create a prominent template saying that those moves are forbidden as they're a waste of time or somesuch and then salt the variant name so those moves can't be made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for declaring these sort of moves to be pointless and a complete waste of time, but it's not just about the official name; there is still an issue of WP:ENGVAR if this ordinal form is official in American English. I know how distraught Americans get when you fail to use their spellings (note comment above about spelling of "organisations"). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Although the alternative may be in a US government style manual, I can assure people that -nd and -rd are overwhelmingly the most common usage in American English, specifically including unofficial military reference books. RobDuch (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me from the above that any guidance we create needs to do three things: 1) state that 2d and 3d is what the current official US Govt style manual says, 2) note that article titles are based on the common name in reliable sources, and 3) discourage editors from moving articles to or from 2d or 3d unless it is clear that the majority of reliable sources use that form of the ordinal for the subject of the article. Any other things that need to be included? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the word of others re 1) and agree with 2). I disagree with 3) though. WP has its own house style and is not bound by the style of any outside sources. That house style is intended to avoid WTF reactions by following what the overwhelming majority of readers expect to see, which in this case means "1st", "2nd", "3rd", etc. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your point about WP having its own house style is well made. And I agree that my WTF response is exercised by the 2d and 3d versions. On the other hand, in terms of house rules, MOS:ORDINAL is pretty sparse and really doesn't address this particular issue. Is that because it is such an uncommon way of presenting ordinals (outside US Govt, of course), or because the issue just hasn't been looked at before? Hard to know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the reason mosnum does not mention possible departures from st, nd, rd and th is that mosnum assumes no reasonable editor would contemplate any alternative abbreviation. My impression is that reasonable editors ARE contemplating alternatives, which suggests to me that mosnum should be updated by explicitly stating that "2nd" is preferred over "2d", even in cases where RS use "2d". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll just note that the US Govt style guide only mandates a different version of nd and rd, not st or th. But your suggestion seems like a reasonable approach. Coming to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here is of limited value when what is needed is a wider community consensus on our house style per MOS:ORDINAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside military usage, does anyone know what US style guides such as AP or Chicago say? It might be that the US Govt guide has adopted Army usage rather than fight the Army or is retaining a somewhat dated usage for consistency, but is not widely followed outside government and not uniformly followed within government. For examples, I find the White House refers to GW Bush as the 43rd president (as does Wikipedia), the NYTimes seems to use 22nd rather than 22d in headlines, and a Google N-gram shows 22nd and 42nd overtaking 22d and 42d in US books shortly after 1910.[2] 92.19.29.177 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Running the same query on British English gives a cut off after 1830. Looks like the American form is an older one. I note that the he University of Chicago Manual of Legal Citation calls for American ordinals. Looking at a series of American University style guides reveals division on this issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, there is a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific mosnum proposal about this issue. Given it is likely to create a MOS issue, I thought it was worth trying to get a community-wide consensus on it before falling back on a MILMOS one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

My 2d (tuppence) worth is that this is a matter of style rather than RS/common name and should be resolved as such per Dondervogel 2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Tuskegee airmen

Is simply being one of the Tuskegee airmen like Julius Freeman enough to pass WP:GNG? Thought I would ask before nominating it for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, though it would depend on the coverage available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Receiving a Congressional Gold Medal should show notability, though not automatic. But there's essentially no coverage on what he did during WWII there. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

For the records, the Tuskegee Airmen were awarded that medal collectively, so de-facto as a unit award. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not. But you should check WP:NSOLDIER too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Kendall, I don't think it is notable enough. It'd be like a page for each person who was in the charge of the light brigade. --Molestash (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

If anyone has time and the inclination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petropavlovsk-class battleship/archive1 needs a source review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

American Civil War Query

Last few days, I've been going through some biographies that involved the ACW and people included. A query of mine would be would the Confederates be classed as "Americans" in the USMIL WikiProject United States/USMIL/ACW? Adamdaley (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. — Marcus^(talk) 05:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Bouvines

Dragovit has helpfully made a considerable expansion to the "Belligerents" in Battle of Bouvines, see here. This seems to me to go into excessive and confusing detail and I am minded to do a good faith reversion. Possibly with the suggestion that this information would be better, if used at all, in a collapsible box. However, I am unable to identify a policy or guideline which clearly indicates that this is over the top. I would appreciate it if editors with more knowledge and experience could have a look and offer advice as to what, if anything, might be done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox military conflict could this help? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thanks. I got there and saw " When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict." It was the may that gave me pause and brought me here. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and wondered if a lot of the territories in the list were participants, rather than the most significant ones. Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The list appears to be of participant territories. It is my understanding that combatants are independent political entities, not simply subsections of those entities. So, really, you need to work out who is there under obligation and who as independent ally. Though, granted, with the Holy Roman Empire and 13th Century France, this isn't always easy. Monstrelet (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure of RFC

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, there is a request for Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment. An uninvolved Coord or editor might consider closing this. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hitler Family

I've come across the article of Hitler family. The minor problem I have for it being listed under WikiProject:Biography is, they'll (individuals of the family) will always be alive and therefore classed as living. Should it be listed under WikiProject:Biography? Adamdaley (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Adam, that is a matter for WikiProject Biography not us, but I would have thought so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Biography is not limited to coverage of only living people. Their project banner (Template:WikiProject Biography) has a field (|living=yes/no) to cover either. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae

I posted a request for input about my efforts to keep this a Featured Article at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Battle of Cannae. Comments wlecomed. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier in Newport News

Mystery aircraft carrier at Newport News, 1977

This is a long shot, but perhaps it's possible to solve this mystery. I've just uploaded File:Newport News station and aircraft carrier, 1977.jpg, which shows not only the train station that attracted my interest, but also an aircraft carrier. This is just south of 23rd Street in Newport News; this Street View shot is on the other side of the station building shown. There is some confusion from the source - the filename said 1977, but the caption 1971, so it's in one of those years. Is there any possibility of identifying the carrier, or at least narrowing it down? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Between the low resolution and the intervening telephone poles this is going to be a challenge. That big radome should be a clue but I am not aware of anything like that on any carrier, and I wonder if it's on something else closer to the camera. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like an Essex-class aircraft carrier. 1977 in Newport News eliminates a lot of East Coast-based ships as there were only a couple left by that time, and they were mostly in Philadelphia or still being used as a training ship. My best guess for that date is USS Intrepid (CV-11). If the date is 1971, then it's much harder to figure out which one it might be, but you might try to go through them all and see if any of the articles mention being based at Newport News that year. Or in reserve there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I was looking at it wrong, that's a view of the stern. I'm not sure what that radar is, but Ticonderoga had one in 1971, as seen in this photo: [3] Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Lexington got one too, as did Wasp got one. None of the Atlantic carriers were based in Newport News (or were laid up there) as far as I can tell, but any of the four we've identified could well have stopped there in 1971 (assuming that's when the photo was taken). Wasp and Tico were scrapped by 1977, but Lexington and Intrepid were still active. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks more like an Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship, see the radome in this photo [[4]] and radome and side-deck elevator in this photo [[5]] I think you can see the Sea Sparrow Box Launcher, but obviously no Phalanx CIWS is installed. It doesn't seem to have the Intrepid side gangways as seen here [[6]] regards Mztourist (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right - the funnel isn't right for an Essex either. That'd mean it's either Guadalcanal, Guam, or Inchon. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much to all of you! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Reluctant Tommy

Hello, I have been advised to ask for wider consensus regarding additional content I would like added to the above article. My suggestions (requested edit) are on the article's talk page. I have a 2 COIs which are declared on my user talk page. Please could you advise? Thank you. *ptrs4all* (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There may be some work to do beyond the original request. Though The Reluctant Tommy is only a start class, the closely related bio page Ronald Skirth is rated GA. The latter page copies large amounts of the former article verbatim (or vice versa) so any action on the Reluctant Tommy ought to have an impact on the bio article, if it is to retain its status.Monstrelet (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Though this blog https://eamonnlynskey.com/2016/01/25/the-reluctant-tommy-historical-fiction-masquerading-as-war-memoir/ cannot be considered RS, it does give some further information about the controversy. We might note the critical but unpublished report and potential COI issue related to it. Monstrelet (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Monstrelet. Is there anything I might be able to do or add to the discussion that would help? For example, this is the link to the study mentioned in the CAJ article https://www.iwm.org.uk/search/global?query=skirth&pageSize= Unfortunately, it cannot be read online. There was also a brief article printed in The Times (online) some years ago now, when the IWM stated they were going to withdraw the memoir and then backtracked on the decision. However, this related to the early 'discrepancies' which preceded the study they now hold.I will insert the link asap. *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC) This is the link for the Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/reluctant-tommy-book-clearly-fictional-5nsncr85btw *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the existence of the Ward study could be mentioned, along with the fact that it is held with the Skirth papers in the IWM. This is a published fact (the IWM catalogue being online). But no content can be used as this would be OR as the study isn't published, unless it comes from comments or quotations in an RS source.Monstrelet (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist? It duplicates almost word-for-word the Memoir section at the author's article. It seems like a merge candidate to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't disagree, especially as a lot of the info in the bio page is, directly or indirectly, from the memoir. Very little is truly independent.Monstrelet (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Could text from the published article in the Canadian Army Journal be used? *ptrs4all* (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Potentially but I'd be cautious. There is a style issue about too many quotes, rather than summarising scholarly opinion. The article is already heavy on quotes. Monstrelet (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Talk:The Reluctant Tommy. Factotem (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

AFD for Audie Murphy honors and awards

Don't know if I'm even supposed to mention this here. AFD: Audie Murphy honors and awards. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It is indeed courteous to notify projects of AfDs pertaining to articles within their scope, especially when the project is as active as this one. For what it's worth, though, I've closed this one per the snowball clause. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with List of Chinese wars and battles

I was struck by this pair of edits - hardly minor. It turns out to have been reversing a change by an IP some time ago (albeit that the editor seems to have a bit of a pro-Chinese agenda), but there's a bit of a bleeding ulcer here in that the page is full of redlinked battles with no cites. I am seeking input on that situation. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Some questions about recruiting and retention of Milhist members

G'day all, I wanted to gather ideas from more recently joined members (and old hands) about what more we as a project can do to welcome new editors and encourage them to participate in the life of the project. At present, when new people come to our attention, someone invites them to join, either in a free-form message on their talk page, or using one of the two boilerplate messages below:

Hello, WikiProject Military history, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, assess and review articles, read the news, or find an open task. If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please add your username here. We hope you will join us!

Hello WikiProject Military history! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards,

When they add their names to our list, one of the coords generally posts this boilerplate message welcoming them to the project:

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!

Are there any tweaks to these templates that would be useful to better encourage new members to engage with the project? Is one of the invitation templates better than the other? Or is there a way we could break down the welcome into bite-sized chunks, perhaps spaced a couple of weeks apart, that would make it easier to digest?

Often, other than occasional encouragement, people are then left to their own devices to find their way using the links in the welcome message and the project navigation box. We expect people to induct themselves, and I wonder about how many just find it too hard for something that is a potential hobby, and lose interest. I have noticed a discussion over WT:WIR#Moving the needle about the perceived obstacles for new editors. There have been suggestions that the difficult-to-master user interface and policy density are both issues, and also that mentoring might be a good avenue for retention. I really just want to open up a discussion with all members (but particularly newer members) to get a sense of what you feel the obstacles were, how you overcame them, and how we could make things easier for new members. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Registered 2007, but didn't really see the point in formally joining MILHIST, and didn't do so until this month. Membership does not seem to confer any additional benefits and non-members can still, for example, participate in ACRs as both nom and reviewer, in project TP discussions, etc. In my dealings with MILHIST, I've never had any impression that I've been discriminated against for not being a member. Any obstacles I encounter are not specific to the project, and I've always found MILHIST to be a very helpful resource. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There is one change that might be appropriate for the welcome notice, arising from the Arbcom case. Some coordinators caught flak for behaviour that was "...influential due to their position" in matters of content (FoF #9). I do not see anything in the evidence offered there to suggest that the coords were asserting for themselves any extra authority, nor have I encountered this myself, but I do wonder if members incorrectly assume that coords, because of the title and their visibility throughout the project, do have some kind of extra authority. It may be worth explicitly stating in the last sentence of the welcome message that this is not the case. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for raising it. Within this project, the coordinators have exactly two reserved responsibilities (such as it were): we are invested with the responsibility of closing the A-Class reviews (which includes everything that closing an A-Class Review entails), and we are entrusted with handing out the Chevron with Oak Leaves Award (which is handed out by the coordinators in the name of the project as a whole) and the end of year awards (newcomer and military historian of the year awards). Beyond these two specific reserved responsibilities, we carry no special authority or power in our position as coordinators save but for those which got us elected in the first place (like "creative thinking" or "good at finding consensus" or "dedicated to closing reviews timely" or so forth in that matter). Insofar as we are looked to as people who help resolve conflicts its less about what our position is and more about what guideline and policy pages say need to be done, and while it is true that we have occasionally help to resolve issues by proposing and adopting positions (such as the use of "she" for ships) we are not now, nor have we at any point in the past ever been recognized as being a formal dispute resolution force. That fact is borne out both here in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, which contains a section originally written by me as an essay and later incorporated into the policy page offshoot at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Coordinators, which explicitly lays out the primary responsibility of project coordinators - ours or anyone else's - is and always has been "... maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping their project and its internal processes running smoothly." TomStar81 (Talk) 08:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There also the checking of the monthly contest and handing out the awards for it, and (with the help of Milhistbot) approving ACMs/ACCs, which are related to the A-Class process, but require separate action. I echo Tom's point about formal dispute resolution, but some of us are also admins, which can make it hard for the uninitiated to see where the coord duties end and the admin ones begin when disputes or behavioural issues arise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that both boilerplate invitiation are more likely to put new editors off being involved, I think we need to tone down the language to be more simple and less officious. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We could dis-establish the templates and the list entirely, and instead reduce our project membership list to a mailing list of people who want our monthly newsletter. In that way we could assume everyone to be project members and therefore no one needs a template. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

What a strange reply, a template would clearly be of help but I presume from your reply that you dont need any more suggestions on how to improve the template. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I've been re-reading the Wikiproject guide I linked to above, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Inappropriate_exclusivity discusses how lists and such play into project's become walled communities and I guess I sort of took your comment and interpreted it based on what I re-read and then ran with a new idea. It happens :) As for a template, we could use one, but keeping it simple and informative should be the primary goal and with 14 years of Wikipedia under my belt I'm not sure what simply and informative should be interpreted as anymore. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not opposed to clarification per Factotem, though dual roles can create impressions (per PM) that I don't think can be reconciled easily in a simple welcome. It starts to become too complicated for a new comer. Looked at WT:WIR#Moving the needle briefly. Comments by Alanna were particularly insightful. To the subject here, breaking messages down to multiple messages risks the perception of pestering. Looking back for myself, the only thing I might change is how the Bugle is handled. We might send a new member a copy of the Bugle (+1 full month) on spec with an invite to subscribe, opt in or opt out. As a new member, the "value" was not clear to me without reading it. There are then matters like awards, which have no initial meaning to a new member but the Bugle announces these. I did not start editing WP for awards etc, so the relevance of these may not be apparent to a new editor/member; however, the Bugle gives relevance to the spirit of the project. I still donot subscribe but I might have back then. I first gathered its value after watchlisting another subscriber and pick it up now from watching the TP.

Other issues about joining WP are probably outside the project directly. The basic editing interface is clumbsy. It lacks an undo and a broader range of markup. I was using another that was better but it became problematic through a lack of support Hawkeye7). There are other issues around the front-end of WP that are far more problematic than MilHist. While I may have stumbled at the start of editing, this had more to do with the environment that the project or individuals and any issues with individuals were directly related to the environment. By environment, I mean: policy, guidelines etc. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the invitation template is a good idea and should be kept. As for the two examples listed, the second one is more steamline and the link is helpful. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kierzek which of the two invitations do you think is best? And would you change anything about it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I like the second one (middle one), the best. Short, friendly and to the point. Not intimidating to a new editor. Kierzek (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• I joined the project in early 2017. The reason that I waited until then is that, more than any other project, from the outside MHIST seems to be a very exclusive project. I was never approached about joining, never had anyone just say 'hi, if you need any help, feel free to ask me.' The welcome I got felt pretty cold and impersonal, and I got the impression that I lacked the experience necessary to be in the project. It was nothing someone said, and nothing anybody did, rather the lack thereof. I completely agree that " We expect people to induct themselves, and I wonder about how many just find it too hard for something that is a potential hobby, and lose interest." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Eddie891. That is helpful feedback. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• "If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here." – Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't see anywhere there or even on The Bugle sub-pages which also suggests that MILHIST members are welcome or invited to contribute towards The Bugle, in the form of an op-ed, book review, or whatever. Perhaps if the The Bugle was seen as a more accessible feature of MILHIST it would draw more attention? As it stands, The Bugle has a small team of coords contributing to it regularly, which limits historical coverage to their favoured conflicts rather than a broader range of periods, as well as lacking international scope. — Marcus^(talk) 13:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you wanted to contribute you would be welcome, Marcus. I know Ian and Nick would always welcome new contributors. But advertising the fact anyone can contribute is something that could be given greater prominence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they would, but I've been around for years and don't have a problem with speaking up or posing questions to anyone. Given that we're talking about a "Welcome" message for new members, they may not feel quite as open to offering to contribute without invitation as it appears. So yes, more advertising of that fact should definitely be considered. — Marcus^(talk) 20:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please suggest how we can better advertise that all members of the project can submit articles? Ian and I regularly note in our 'from the editors' column that contributions are strong encouraged. As part of this, we provide links to where they can be submitted directly (here), and also offer to also take them from editors' user space. There's also a link to the Newsroom at the bottom of each and every article - we could tweak this to make it clearer that it's a good option to submit material. Many editors have contributed, and I don't think that we've ever knocked anyone back. We even edit contributions for formatting, etc, to save contributors needing to do this and make the process easier for them. I haven't been a coordinator since 2014 BTW. Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, since I thought we were giving suggestions on how to tweak or improve the templates above, I thought the part which reads "If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here." might be expanded with something along the lines of "If you would like to contribute to The Bugle please contact the Newsroom team." Maybe... and this is just a theory... because the Newsroom link is within the Coordinators section people might think that only coords are permitted to work on The Bugle and that's why they hesitate to contribute. So inviting new members to the Newsroom within the welcoming template might make it clearer to them that it is not the case. — Marcus^(talk) 03:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good addition, but am wondering if the welcome template is a follow-up thing a week or so after a less formal welcome without so many links and suggestions which might overwhelm a new editor? I'm wondering if an initial welcome should just be a brief acknowledgement of them joining, plus a pointer to The Bugle so they can sign up if they haven't already? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much about overwhelming a member as to planting an idea in their head: that virtually everything the project does is accessible, whether it be on the main MilHist page or behind the scenes. I mean, let's be honest, most people who sign-up to anyting, whether it be online, a social group, a political party, a new energy supplier, whatever, gets a welcome email/letter. What percent actually reads it all thoroughly versus what percent just gives it a cursory look? I think the important thing is more transparency, an extra link or two won't make a difference, as I very much doubt many new members will click every single one... that's just human psychology, to read and do what interests them and ignore the rest. But if you inform a new member today that he can contribute to The Bugle, who knows, in 6 months time he might be reading about a lesser-known piece of history and thinking "I'd like to share this with more people", remember that invitation, and there you have a potential book review or op-ed, as well as anything he contributes in article space. — Marcus^(talk) 12:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's highly unlikely that editors will have any significant interest in contributing to The Bugle at the time they join the project (people who contribute material are almost always established members of the project), and adding this to the welcome message would risk overwhelming them with information. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• These look great, @Peacemaker67! I'd have to say of the two introduction templates, I prefer the briefer second one, but would propose replacing "... editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage... " with "... editors who are also working to improve Wikipedia's coverage...", as this will make it more inclusive and help interested editors begin to identify with the project. I'd perhaps also recommend having a signoff line that invites editors to take a look at MILHIST resources even if they don't feel like signing up (e.g. "If you don't wish to sign up, you don't have to - our resources are for everyone who wants to improve Wikipedia in some way."). And lastly, I don't know if you want to mention the Academy in the welcome template as well? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a reworked version of the second invitation, to try to create a more inclusive template with an option to just sign up for The Bugle as a first step. Let me know what you think?

Hello WikiProject Military history! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

On example #4 (immediatly above) "to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to" could be a simpler, and less official looking, "working on"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:900:73B4:111D:2586:A83C:1B78 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made that tweak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the tweaked one. Any further feedback? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Military history! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working on military history topics, please take a look at the WikiProject Military history—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've not joined because it is almost always the case that any MILHIST connection with articles and lists I edit is peripheral to the reason I'm working on the article or list. I do value the knowlege base here when I have any queries. You guys and gals do great work, keep it up! Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots! So far as the invitation template is concerned, unless someone objects, I'm going to replace the existing invitation templates in the Handbook with the revised one in a day or so. Then I'll start working on the welcome one. Thanks to everyone who has provided feedback. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, so I've implemented the new invitation message. I've now added personalisation to the welcome message, so that it now includes the user name of the editor concerned. It now looks like this:

Hello WikiProject Military history and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that this should be the first formal contact from the project after someone joins. What things could be improved with this message? Should the order of the bullet points be changed, new bullet points added or removed, or wording improved? For example, should we give priority to info on how to write articles and signing up for The Bugle over other things? What is most important to a new member/editor, and what could they learn about later? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Name of proposed article???

I am proposing an article, however need some help/suggestions on the naming of the proposed article. The issue is the Guyenne War, part of the Anglo-French Wars (1294-1303) is known by a few names. My suggestions are:

• Guyenne War (same as French wikipedia, however Guyenne is not as well known as Aquitaine)
• Aquitaine War (Anglicized version of Guyenne)
• Guyenne and Gascony War or Aquitaine and Gascony War (Based on Duchies fought over)
• English expedition to Aquitaine (1294-95) and English expedition to Aquitaine (1296-98)(Deals with English expeditions only and does not include French army incursions)

Just to confuse the issue is that some books identify the expeditions in 1294 and 1296 as to Gascony only. Thoughts and suggestions welcome. Newm30 (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What do most of the notable historians call it? What name is used the most in notable sources? Especially sources being cited in the article? - wolf 05:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - Most contemporary English sources call it Gascony. Maybe English expeditions to Gascony (1294-98) would suffice? I am still not 100% happy as it was over the Duchy of Aquitaine, not just Duchy of Gascony (which formed part of the Duchy of Aquitaine) Newm30 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Was wondering whether you had any thoughts as you have been currently editing battles during Hundred Years War? Newm30 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gascony seems to be the name used in a lot of books. I'm not sure most English books refer to it as a single war but a series of expeditions (e.g. Expedition to Gascony in 1294). To add more confusion, I note that David Simpkin in The English Aristocracy at War refers to the 1294 confiscation of Gascony, which gives it a slightly less anglo-centric spin.Monstrelet (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. When you first posted this I checked my sources and couldn't find anything meaningful, which is why I didn't reply. Prestwich, for example (p. 398), refers to it as "the war against France", or "the war against the French". Other historians, so far as I can find, do the same. So on the basis of what RSs call it, it should perhaps be Anglo-French War of 1294-1303. If it is just the Gascony campaign, then I can find even less specific reference to it. I would argue against Guyenne, on the grounds that I prefer titles in English. Historians seem to universally use Gascony rather than Aquitaine these days, so that leaves something like Gascon War of 1294-1303 or Gascon campaigns, 1294-1303. I think which depends on how you are planning to structure the article. I would argue strongly that the date needs to be in there. There were a lot of wars/campaigns in Gascony and I think that the date reassures a reader that they have found the right (or wrong) one. (Eg I have just written Gascon campaign of 1345 and plan eight or nine more from the early 100 years' War.) Does any of this rambling help? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Yes your ramblings make sense. It would appear that modern historians use Gascony to describe the whole of Aquitaine, which confuses me, as I am aware that Aquitaine did not just contain Gascony. Most historians seem to link expeditions to Gascony in 1294 and 1296. I think Gascon campaign (1294-1303) would suit the purposes of the article I wish to write. I will also flesh out further the over arching article Anglo-French Wars (1294-1303), which these campaigns where a part of, which will satisfy your comment below.

Just discovered that Wagner calls it the Anglo-French War of 1294-1303 in the Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Newm30, give me a ping when you have finished them, I would be interested in taking a look. The link above to Prestwich is to the whole book, so it may be a useful background source for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Article is up as first run Gascon campaign (1294-1303). I will leave it for 24 hours to permit any editing on it before fleshing out further, if I can. Newm30 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Help needed: source review

G'day everyone, if you have the time, a source review is needed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Neville's Cross, which already has three supports and an image review. Gog the Mild would really appreciate your help with this. Thanks in advance! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderella157, appreciated. (Did you mean to type 'Sources review', not "Images review"?) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Duh (head slap) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Unresolved

Hi, can some editors here please take a look at Talk:Medal of Honor#Roosevelt & MacArthur, where an editor discusses his claims that "MacArthur's MoH was illegal and Roosevelt's was questionable"? Thanks - wolf 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• A couple editors have commented and there is the beginnings of a discussion, but some more contributors would be helpful; to assess the current proposed edit and it's sole source, to provide additional sourcing if possible, and to build consensus. Thanks - wolf 18:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Foo Army in 1989

A number of list articles are appearing like British Army 1989, US National Guard 1989 and Swiss Army 1989, not my field but I dont see the encyclopedic value of them (or why pick 1989). MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that. I assume 1989 as a marker for the end of the Cold War? Also unsure about the value of them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a fairly large literature on the armed forces circa 1989 as this represented their peak strengths at the end of the Cold War. I think that the various treaties which came into effect at around this time have also helped coverage, as NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations were required to detail their orders of battle. 1989 is often used as a comparison point to the structure of post Cold War forces (for instance, I recently read an article somewhere which noted that the number of infantry battalions fielded by Western European countries is now only a fraction of the number at the end of the Cold War). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I've asked him. So, hopefully we'll see. - wolf 10:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

88/89 are often important markers. If these are retained, they should be renamed in my view to Order of battle of the British Army in 1989 or something similar. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

1989 seems like a reasonable point for orders of battle because for many Cold War armed forces it was their peak strength. I agree with Icewhiz that they should be moved for grammatical correctness, and am concerned that this user does not provide references, and seems to be unaware of certain US military terms, ex American divisions did not have a 'division support unit' as support functions were provided by 'division support command' and National Guard infantry brigades did not have the state they came from in their designations which could point to a usage of non RS sources. Kges1901 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz about the renaming. Also, if they are kept, a hub page should probably be created listing all such articles. YuriNikolai (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Essentially there already is one, the editor added several of his articles to List of orders of battle. But maybe @J-Man11: has something to say as well? ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

See also the discussion relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of battle of the Spanish Army in 1989. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"But maybe @J-Man11: has something to say as well?" - he doesn't seem to be a particularly chatty fellow so far... - wolf 00:07, 15 October 2018 (

Articles created by this user so far:

• British Army Structure 2020 - redirected to Future of the British Army (Army 2020 Refine)
• Portuguese Army 1989 - moved to 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle
• East German Army 1989 - moved to 1989 East German Army order of battle, redirected as duplicate
• British Army 1989 - moved to 1989 British Army order of battle
• British Army 2007 - moved to 2007 British Army order of battle
• Irish Army 1989 - moved to 1989 Irish Army order of battle
• Swiss Army 1989 - moved to 1989 Swiss Army order of battle
• Swiss Air Force 1989 - moved to 1989 Swiss Air Force order of battle
• US Marines 1989 - moved to 1989 US Marines order of battle
• US National Guard 1989 - moved to 1989 US National Guard order of battle
• Royal Air Force 1989 - redirected to Structure of the Royal Air Force in 1989
• Royal Marines 1989 - nominated for deletion
• US Artillery Structure 1989 - moved to 1989 US Artillery Structure order of battle
• Norwegian Army Structure 1989 - moved to 1989 Norwegian Army order of battle
• British Army Regional Forces
• US Engineer Corps Structure 1989 - moved to 1989 US Engineer Corps order of battle
• US Army Europe Structure 1989 - moved to Draft:US Army Europe Structure 1989
• 1989 Austrian Army order of battle potentially partially duplicates Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989
• US Army Pacific Structure 1989 - moved to 1989 United States Army Pacific order of battle
• 1995 British Army order of battle - created 18/10.

I agree that they have value and should be kept, however the series needs attention. Some of them cite no sources at all, there needs to be incoming and outgoing links added, some aren't tagged for milhist. They could all use a short introductory paragraph to provide context and describe the significance of 1989. Possibly an overall summary article could be created listing this series within it - Dumelow (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with keep, too, & with the notion of renaming (otherwise, it looks like it means a calendar of events participated in, or something). Given the number of pages, the choice of year & the reason, & the confusion over why 1989 already noted, I'd suggest an "umbrella" article, explaining that, with each of these as "daughters", would be a good idea, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why 1989 and these could be a usefull snapshot as the cold war ended but frankly looking at one area I do know about the Royal Air Force the article includes some really strange terms for units almost as if they have been machine translated into English which then produced basically unreferenced junk. MilborneOne (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but given the examples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), perhaps 1989 Fooian order of battle is the better format for the retitling? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

While it is justifiable to create 1989 structures, J-Man-11's creation of unreferenced structure articles with incorrect terminology, as MilborneOne has pointed out (the RAF did not call units based at a station [station] Air Forces), does not at all help this subject area. J-Man-11 appears to be using the NATO OOB found on this site [7] (adding inaccuracies and changing it to British spellings), which is a WP:SPS. Kges1901 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've posted on J-Man11's talk page introducing some basic policies like WP:V and WP:RS, let's see if we get a response regarding sources. In the meantime, I think we could move them all to XXXX Fooian order of battle etc if there are no objections here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected Royal Air Force 1989 to the far better, referenced, and generally correct Structure of the Royal Air Force in 1989. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be moved like Peacemaker67 suggests. I've also partially referenced the BAOR section of British Army 1989. Gavbadger (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed name changes. I have added all of the 1989 ones to the Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989 to keep track of them. Shame the user doesn't seem to want to communicate with anyone. His latest article 1989 Austrian Army order of battle needs reviewing by someone with knowledge of the field as it probably partially duplicates the existing article Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 - Dumelow (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected the Austrian OOB as it is a less detailed duplicate. Kges1901 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the majority of articles to the correct name. Gavbadger (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The user is now directly copying information from an archive of a 2007 version of the British Army to create 2 Regiment RLC (since blanked and re-directed to RLC article), something to watch for. Gavbadger (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War

Recent edits on the page Second Italo-Ethiopian War have moved the end date of this conflict in the infobox and introduction from 5 May 1936 to 1939, based on the opinion of a single historian, for the reason that some Ethiopian guerrillas fought on after May 1936. This despite most sources and historians (and pretty much every other wiki page in any language) considering the war as having ended on 5 May 1936. Needless to say, if the questionable criterium ‘some guerrillas fought on’ was used, the ending dates of several other wars (especially colonial wars) and military campaigns should be changed as well. In all, this seems to me a very arbitrary edit, and I suggest that the end date should be moved back to 5 May 1936. Opinions? --2.35.62.117 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There's already been a discussion about this on the article talk page. But I'll go ahead and restate the key points here:

• based on the opinion of a single historian This is false. The historian cited in the article is Mack Smith, and he says the Italians more or less had the situation under control only by 1939, hence us using that year as the end date. Angelo Del Boca pushes the war "end" even further. In his The Ethiopia War : 1935–1941 (1969) he writes (p. 185): "As they reached the gates of Addis Abbeba, the Italians were delirious with joy; not a single man among them...foresaw that, far from coming to an end, the war would continue for five years."
• According to Abbink, De Bruijn & Van Walraven, there were 10,000 Ethiopian troops (not guerrillas) under the command of Aberra Kassa were still marching around after the fall of the capital. They continued to fight.
• Even though the Emperor had fled, a rump government was present in Gore.

So how the war could the war have ended in May 1936 when the Italians did not control but half of the country, there was minimum of 10,000 active Ethiopian soldiers that had to be dealt with, and there was still a government present administering the unoccupied territory?

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You're distorting what Del Boca says... pretty much every source consider the was as having ended in 1936. Aberra Kassa's "army" was wiped out a few months after the fall of Addis Ababa, and he himself was killed before the end of 1936, not in 1939. Gore was taken by Italy in 1936, not in 1939. The "discussion" on the talk page is essentially a monologue between you and an IP... --2.35.62.117 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how a verbatim quote is distortion. You're also still ignoring the fact that the Italians struggled for years to establish control over Ethiopian territory. A quote from Anthony Mockler's 2003 book, Haile Selassie's War (pp. 149–150): "But even the mere paper division of the country into governorates and residencies helped to convince both Italian and European public opinion that the war was won, the Empire conquered, and the Italian administration almost in place. This impression, totally false..." So it would seem that the notion that the war ended in 1936 is really just the underchallenged Fascist Italian penetration of historical record. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you go on with the "verbatim quote" you are pasting here? Ethiopia ceased to exist as a country after 1936. The Negus had fled, there was no Ethiopian state apparatus or army afterwards. You don't come here and decide by yourself, based on a couple of random quotes, that decades of historiography are "the underchallenged Fascist Italian penetration of historical record". Why don't you go around and revise other colonial war's ending dates, since apparently the fact that the winning power did not immediately obtain undisputed control of a vast and wild territory is enough for you to declare the war “not over”? Could someone else intervene here and give their opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.35.62.117 (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, the line that "the war would continue for five years" seems crystal clear to me, and what you add to it doesn't contradict that at all. If anything, it reflects a poor understanding of the topic (i.e., what "war" is) on your part. War is not simply between states. Moreover, we do not write articles based on personal opinions, we write articles based on reliable sources, and so far, you have failed to provide any that support your viewpoint. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a conventional definition of the end of a state? "Substantial" hostilities ending perhaps, a surrender document, de facto foreign recognition of the new situation? Did other powers acknowledge Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia de jure? Can it be compared with the extinction of Czechoslovakia and the 2nd Polish Republic in 1939? The destruction of Somalia, Libya and Jugoslavia? Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of placating the IP, the full quote from Mockler continues as follows: "This impression, totally false, was furthered by two linked events: the return of Marshal Badoglio to Italy and the repatriation of most of the Italian troops." As you can see, it adds nothing to change the substantive meaning of the false impression of the war being over. As for Keith's points, I can say definitively that the Ethiopian government did not formally, legitimately surrender, as Selassie fled to Britain and used the gold reserves to fund rebellious activity in Ethiopia.

To be fair to the IP, I have found other sources that consider the war to have ended in May 1936, and I'm going to list one here, seeing as the IP has so far failed to provide any of their own evidence. David Nicolle in The Italian Invasion of Abyssinia 1935–36 (2012) writes that "the entry of the Italian army into Dire Dewa on 9 May 1936....effectively marked the end of the war". Clearly though, Nicolle is discounting the continued fighting, the government in Gore, and the thousands of Ethiopian troops. Maybe we could have a paragraph in the Second-Italo Ethiopian War explaining this discrepancy. But nevertheless it seems the only reason sources use May 1936 as the ending date is because international interest greatly subsided after that point. The Italian press stopped commenting on Ethiopian affairs in 1937 after a serious insurrection to not arouse such interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Further context: George W. Baer writes in Test Case : Italy, Ethiopia, and the League of Nations, "Mussolini declared 'l'Etiopia e italiana' and the war was over, on 5 May. On the ninth Badoglio and Graziani met at Diredawa. Of course, Italian control of Ethiopia was not sealed with their famous handshake. Badoglio estimated it would take ten years to put down brigandage and impose order on the countryside". Indeed, Mussolini held a rally in Rome on the evening of 5 May to announce the end of the war. That's why people say the war ended on 5 May. Because the man who had everything to lose by getting his country bogged down in a long war said it ended then, and people stopped caring. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mockler puts the end of the war at 19 February 1937 (he literally calls it "the final battle of the Ethiopian war"). That day, regular Ethiopian troops (remnants of the Armies of Sidamo and Bale) clashed for the last time with Italian forces at Gogetti. The Ethiopians were defeated and their leaders killed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wiki page itself states: "On 18 November 1936, the Italian Empire was recognised by the Empire of Japan and Italy recognised the Japanese occupation of Manchuria; The Stresa Front was over.[95][96] Hitler had supplied the Ethiopians with 16,000 rifles and 600 machine guns in the hope that Italy would be weakened when he moved against Austria.[97] By contrast, France and Britain recognised Italian control over Ethiopia in 1938. Mexico was the only country to strongly condemn Italy's sovereignty over Ethiopia, respecting Ethiopian independence throughout. Mexico was amongst only six nations in 1937 which did not recognise the Italian occupation, along with China, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, the Republic of Spain and the United States". Therefore most countries, including France and the UK, recognized that Ethiopia was under Italian control well before 1939. The "Gore government", as explained in the pace itself, ceased to exist before the end of 1936... Given that different sources give different views, at least it should be mentioned as "

disputed" rather than "1939". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.35.62.117 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm for putting Mockler's date (19 February 1937) in the infobox, as his date seems the most concrete and the reasoning behind it is easy to follow, and including a paragraph of discussion in the body of the article for it and all the other perspectives. I still don't see the recognition of Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia to be very material to discussing the war date, unless you're answering Keith's question. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about Mockler's date. Srnec (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Block of J-Man11

Readers of this page will have seen the discussion above about this editor who is creating list articles, but without introductions or references, and totally failing to communicate. I have now blocked him for two weeks, though not without qualms because there's no communication from his side. Additional views on how to handle this situation are welcome; because he won't communicate, I would also not mind too much if he were unblocked quickly, just as long as the unblocking admin had well-justified reasons. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Buckshot06, I agree this was inevitable if J-Man11 continued to create these lists without sources and refused to communicate. Two weeks is a bit harsh IMHO, but so be it. Hopefully they will get the message about sourcing and communicating. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, J-Man11 could very likely make that block much shorter if he posted a unblock request that showed he's willing to communicate, work on his problematic editing, help fix the pages he created and promised not to create a work for others while going incognito again. (that's just my guess, it would, of course, actually be up to the reviewing admin and Buckshot06). Just my 0.02¢... - wolf 03:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Request Military Historical Society of Australia / Sabretache (journal)

If someone could write an article about the society, that would be great and much appreciated. We could then redirect the journal link to the society. Or if the journal is notable, we could have a standalone entry too (see WP:JWG for how to write about journals). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

French and Spanish naval sourcing

I just attempted to do what I thought would be a rather quick and simple task, that ended up after an hour's research resulting in this note. Is it normal for France and Spain to basically ignore their naval history? One French-language blog I found complained as much, but I'm still surprised I could find nothing. Did I look in the wrong places? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers wanted

If someone could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project E/archive1 with a few comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Warships of Russia and the Soviet Union

G'day all, Warships of Russia and the Soviet Union has just reached 100 GAs. Well done to all those who have contributed to reaching this milestone! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Assessment bot processed WP Military history 4 times

Greetings, For 21 October 2018 the WP 1.0 bot processed this WP four times. Details from the log are at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Why is bot "stuck" repeating WP Military history?. Wondering if there is anything in WP Military history that can be causing this? I understand this is a complex issue & hoping an expert is able to help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Kges1901 I wonder if the new Indian TF is causing this? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The bot seems to be updating the total MILHIST count, specifically. Not sure that it is related to the Indian TF. Kges1901 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Bot processing Oct. 22 to Oct. 23

Greetings (Kges1901—Peacemaker67—Kirill Lokshin) - Last night starting at 22:15 WP 1.0 bot processed WikiProject Military history a total of EIGHT times finally halting the bot at 04:14 on Oct. 23. JoeHebda (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Same errors - Bot processing Oct. 23 to Oct. 24

Greetings, Chances are there is nothing "wrong" with WP 1.0 bot. Since it is driven by Category tree and Wikiproject templates - Looking for an Expert to fix. How to find errors? Also, is it only certain articles that are tagged incorrectly?

Many Wikiprojects are missing Assessment logs since October 8, 2018. JoeHebda (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes to setting up the Indian TF are certainly coincidental with the error? I might suggest backtracking (one at a time) those changes that specifically relate to assessments to see if these (and which one) is responsible (if at all). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely unrelated, as JoeHebda reported seeing this behavior at least as early as October 15, well before anything was done for the new task force. Prior to that, the MILHIST assessment template hadn't been edited since February, and the MILHIST assessment category hadn't been edited since last June.

Given that this behavior seems to affect the larger projects, I wonder if there isn't some performance wall we're hitting here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

WP Biography first

From "way back when" I seem to remember a discussion about placing WikiProject Biography first in the talkpage list of WPs. To correct some kind of flagging issue. So when I'm doing assessments I like to move WP Bio to top of list. Doubt this will solve bot repeating WP Biography (military) & WP Military history on the "WP 1.0 bot" daily processing. JoeHebda (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

A request for closure has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards for a discussion at Talk:Natalya Meklin#Awards. A disagreement between two protagonists (not me) has led to the article being protected. I believe that there has been sufficient discussion involving other parties to identify a consensus which would be respected by the protagonists and result in a return to normal editing. Alternatively, a close might indicate further action to resolve the matter if a consensus is not clear. Would an uninvolved Admin consider closing this discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is a request for closure by an Admin or experienced editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment for the RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A question about dates

Second Phase Offensive (Korean War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is really quite a Jekyll-Hyde - the infobox mostly has DD-MM, while large parts of the prose seem to go by MM-DD. (I initially thought that only the first paragraph had that problem.) Is it fine if I just change everything to DD-MM? WP:MILDATE would seem to back the DD-MM approach, but I didn't want to ruffle too many feathers. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Hbdragon88, I would normally suggest posting on the article talk page, but there are only a couple of watchers, so here is probably the best place. Given the article is already a mix of MM-DD and DD-MM (even taking into account your recent edit), I wouldn't have thought MOS:DATERET really applies, so it's probably best to go with WP:MILDATE (also the UN standard, given UN forces were involved). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting of history in Battle of St. Quentin (1557)

There seems to be a lot of pro-italian shenanigans going on. The above article has had its infobox tampered with to try and suggest that the Duchy of Savoy was one of the belligerents whereas from what I can gather the forces were Spamish and English under the command of the Duke of Savoy but there were no Savoyard troops involved. Can someone help and do a rewrite if necessary. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Deprecation of 2d and 3d ordinal suffixes

G'day all, just a note to let you know that MOS:ORDINAL has now been amended to deprecate the ordinal suffixes 2d and 3d, after unanimous support for the move. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review needed

An entirely self-interested request for a source review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/38th Infantry Division Dravska, which is otherwise good to go. If you can help out and take a look, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been done. Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: What details should be included in Vietnam War infobox casualties section?

What details should be included in Vietnam War infobox casualties section? There are several edits I noticed which has deleted info on wounded or equipment losses within the infobox. There is also a secondary question on disclaiming which sources give which figures. There are a series of edits altering "US Bodycount Claims" or "US Sources" to "US Bodycount" that links to another page explaining issues around the figure. E.g. on this article here Battle of Minh Thanh Road. My assumption was indicating which countries give which sources and where the source as derived from as the standard, e.g. as outlined in the infobox here Operation Barbarossa.Piccadillysquare (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be very much opposed to including equipment losses under "casualties". As for the sourcing (US body count vs North Vietnamese sources), I could swear we just discussed this recently but can't find it now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This all ties back into a certain POV. If the US body count was high, but weapons captured were low this was meant to imply that the US forces had killed civilians. The wikilink to Vietnam War body count controversy makes it clear that this is the US claim with all the issues that implies and which are discussed in detail on that page. I'm happy for Users to add the numbers from North Vietnamese WP:RS where those are available. I oppose inclusion of wounded on one side when comparable figures are not available for the other side as this gives a completely misleading view of the results of any given engagement. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am currently working on a review of the MilHist Acadamy module, "Using statistics". It touches on such matters. In short:

1. Captured weapons are not casualties and should not be reported as such in the infobox.
2. The POV identified by Mztourist is nuance. An infobox is not a place for such nuance, in that, understanding the significance requires explanation in some detail.
3. The POV may have some validity but the counterpoint is that, in an asymmetric war, the resource poor belligerent is very likely to collect weapons from the wounded as it withdraws. It then comes down to the reliability of sources and dealing with potential bias through appropriate weight. This is a matter for the body of the text.
4. Sources aligned with the belligerents are likely to be biased and the more contemporaneous, the greater the potential for bias.
5. All reasonable sources (even if biased) should be reported and attributed in the article. This will lead to a range of both US and NVA casualties. Analysis by sources used in the article is for the main text. In the infobox, it is probably best to report ranges from the available sources rather than a specific figure.
6. The lead and infobox donot usually require references with the rider that statements made therein are supported by references in the main text. However, there are cases where the nature of the material might require a reference (per guidelines). Where the range is particularly broad, it would be appropriate to reference the upper and lower limits given in the infobox.
7. The hover feature makes footnotes very accessible. I think that readers expect certain fields in an infobox (such as casualties) are filled. Sometimes, for reasons of accuracy or NPOV, it might be necessary to qualify the figures given in an infobox. A footnote may be appropriate. See Battle of Buna–Gona for how I have dealt with a problematic case.

I hope this is of assistance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, casualties should be human, not material.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, often the material losses are what matter most - the Battle of Midway is a clear example of this. Individual weapons that were captured is a bit excessive, but vehicles should generally be included (though we don't need a breakdown of specific helicopter types as was the case in the Minh Thanh Road article linked above - just say "X helicopters destroyed" or whatever).

As for recent discussions on this topic, see here and here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ship losses in a sea battle should obviously be included. The US losing a few helicopters or tanks in an engagement in Vietnam is immaterial and not worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Such losses are routinely included in infoboxes - see for example Battle of Prokhorovka, Battle of Villers-Bocage, Battle of Leipzig, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Its a matter of context, Prokhorovka and Villers-Bocage were both tank battles, so tank losses on each side are relevant. In relation to Leipzig, losing 325 guns would have been a material loss that would have been difficult for the French to replace and so material to the entire French military. For the US to lose a few easily replaceable tanks or helicopters as at Minh Thanh Rd was immaterial both to the battle and the war. Mztourist (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Then why are we including casualties at all in small actions like this? The 25 men killed on the US side were even more easily replaced and their loss had no effect on the war either. It seems you're moving the goalposts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

because manpower losses in any engagement are material. No goalposts being moved here.Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So the tank losses at Villiers-Bocage, which had absolutely zero effect on anything, should not be included in the box? Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Slight revision of my comment above: The field in the infobox is "casualties" but is displayed as "Casualties and losses". As such, it is appropriate and common to report losses of significant material in this field. I might have looked more closely at this.

I suggest that the infobox doc should be amended to reflect this. Comments please.

Significant material would include: ships, aircraft, artillery, tanks and other AFVs. In WW1 articles, it might be appropriate to include Mdm MGs, because of the nature of the conflict. I donot believe it appropriate to report down to other small arms. There is a field report (I forget the name) consistent with this. The losses should be grouped broadly by type and avoid excessive intricate detail. The examples above are consistent with this. I would agree with Parsecboy - just say "X helicopters destroyed" or whatever. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Vietnam War the US losing a few tanks, APCs or helicopters was immaterial to them, for the VC, as you note above, "the resource poor belligerent" losing small arms was material. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should either fix all those articles that currently list equipment under "casualties" or change the template documentation to allow this practice. I find it very surprising that we list equipment under "casualties", as this does not match the common meaning of this term. Do we need an rfc for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The actual heading for the casualties parameter is "casualties and losses". The heading supports the inclusion of material. It is a case of tidying up the doc's guidance. I don't think that we need an RfC if the results of this discussion are clear:

1. That the parameter includes material losses per the heading used.
2. The appropriate way to describe and categorise material lost.

Once we have a mandate to act, we might move the discussion to the doc TP to nut out the actual wording (with notification here that this is going on). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief question on edits removing wounded in the casualties section and phrasing the source indicator. Some edits keep removing information on casualties, particularly the number of wounded and keeps rephrasing the source description "US Body Count Claim" and "US Sources" to "US Body Count". E.g. these edits are examples [8], [9], [10]. Ideally what information should be included? I don't find these edits particularly helpful in pointing the facts clearly.

Piccadillysquare as I have stated previously on this topic the US body count is the US claim, retaining the word "claim" after the body count wikilink is like saying "US claim claim" Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Piccadillysquare has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendments to infobox doc

I think that the original question as to sources for human casualties is somewhat muted by events. Further, while information in an infobox (or the lead) is not normally referenced (relying on citations from the main body of the article) it may be appropriate to qualify the source of a figure (perhaps by using a footnote) and provide citations. This would occur when different sources provide different figures and particularly if the figures are considered controversial. An alternative is to direct the reader to an appropriate section of the text where the figures are discussed ("See XXX section for details") or leave the parameter blank. This is appropriate where a brief explanation is inadequate/insufficient.

This is consistent with the advice given in the "Usage" section of the infobox doc, which is in turn consistant with guidelines and policies including: lead section of the MOS, verifiability and point-of-view.

Kendall-K1 has edited the doc to reflect the status quo, making it explicit that the casualty parameter includes equipment losses. This reflects both wide usage in articles and that the section of the infobox is headed "Casualties and losses".

I have subsequently tweaked this and boldy provided guidance in respect to the reporting of equipment losses which I believe to be consistent with the developing consensus. I seek to ratify this as a consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 1

To make explicit that the casualty parameter includes equipment losses. If not supported, the infobox heading will need to be amended so that it is consistent with only reporting human casualties by removal of "and losses". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Reflects status quo but clarifies the usage in the doc to reflect this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support clarification; reinforces general practice. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 2

Subject to the first, to provide guidance that: Equipment losses reported in the infobox using the casualty parameter are "confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc." Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Losses of significant equipment is one measure of the success of a battle. A broad categorization avoids unnecessary intricate detail that would be inappropriate in an infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above. However I´d substitute "destroyers" with "ships", or "vessels". ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would it be possible to clarify that "major or significant types of equipment" can sometimes be contextually defined? I'm mindful of trucks and automobiles, which in some conflicts are not thought of as critical losses but in others (World War I or the Tanzania-Uganda War) definitely are. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Indy beetle, in Vietnam the US losing a few planes, helicopters, tanks, guns or APCs was immaterial to them. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ^Not exactly the stand I'm taking. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on some doubtful editing on the end of WWII.

• Kuru666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone with some decent sources and knowledge have a look at the editing and page creations by User:Kuru666. They seem to have a very liberal idea about what is fantasy and fact. They have created 3 articles about the conflict between France and Italy at the end of the war. They are inserting information that is not included in the sources such as casualty figures and dates and heroic last stands by the Italian fascist army. They have also been going through older French/Italian conflicts with a decidedly anti French brush. I do not have easy access to reliable sources to be able to challenge some of their editing hence my message here. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Working. This is an obvious case of tendentious editing. Without any knowledge of how these things are normally handled, my inclination is to spot-check a few of his edits, rollback all of them if they're mostly or entirely bad, and give him a firm warning about our verifiability and neutrality policies. If he made any good edits during that time, he can do the hard work of re-adding them himself, and if he goes back to disruption, we can say we tried and take him to a noticeboard.

I'm not sure you really need sourcing help, since Google has the text of nearly every book ever published, and allows us to search for text, enabling citation checks. But I'm willing to put in the necessary legwork for those checks, even though real life says I don't have the time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I have examined all of the user's edits and reverted the ones I didn't think were appropriate (which were most of them). His creations still need to be handled, as I mostly left them alone due to not being able to simply revert them, but the really tedious stuff is all taken care of. (And all of his creations are inappropriate, I just haven't done anything about it yet.) You mentioned checking sources, which I did not find to be necessary. If you do want my help doing that, just let me know what I should look at. On the other hand, if you want to rewrite those articles and need new content, I'm not the ideal person. Please do let me know if there's anything else I can help with. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. What I would also really be interested in is someone who has access to some reliable sources that cover this period and let me know if the creations cover notable events. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a more complicated question. Crude results are looking like:

• Second Battle of the Alps: When I searched "battle of alps 1945" on Google, I had a number of reliable-looking hits in the general web search. Searching individual battles returned books and journal articles covering this topic. I initially accused the user of fabricating the current title, but I did find one French-language source that uses that name. At a glance, this suggests that Operation Encore might also be a suitable title. I haven't found a single name used more than once to describe this campaign/offensive, though, so while an article is certainly doable, giving it a home will be interesting.
• Battle of Porta Littoria: I had no hits searching "Porta Littoria" in either Google's main or scholarly engines. Books returned one that might contain a reference. I'll get back to you about my college library when I've verified with a librarian that I've searched correctly. The article's first reference appears to be fabricated (the source contains no apparent mention of the said howitzers). Can't preview the second. My guess is that both citations are forged and the whole article's a hoax. On the bright side, I found this interesting thing.
• Defense of the Redoute Ruinée (1945): Google general web search of "redoute ruinée 1945" returned only this this thing of perhaps questionable reliability and definite trivial nature. Google Scholar gave me this and this. Both are scholarly journals, both discuss the battle. I'm not sure whether the coverage is substantial. Google Books is giving me a number of hits. Conclusion is that it definitely happened, and it was important enough to be covered by a few (admittedly almost entirely Italian) scholarly sources. Whether anything currently in the article is true is another question, but we can probably make something usable out of it, if we want to.

Hope that helps. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Two of these articles have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Porta Littoria and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Redoute Ruinée. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Second Battle of the Alps, the Lyon military history museum's website's account of the campaign [11] states that it was actually a French victory, with small forces making some useful gains before the Axis forces collapsed. The US Army's United States Army in World War 2, Special Studies, Chronology, 1941-1945 summarises what look to be mixed results, but overall progress, for a limited French offensive into the Alps in 1945. I consulted the British official history Allied military administration of Italy, 1943-1945 yesterday, and while it's almost entirely silent on the fighting, it states that French forces advanced deep into northern Italy (almost reaching Turin) in May 1945. None of these sources supports the account of successive French defeats made in the Second Battle of the Alps article. As there's surprisingly little on the French Army of 1944-45 (especially 1945) in English, this area is very vulnerable to hoaxing, and I think that the Second Battle of the Alps article is entirely unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick, the book I recommend is The Riviera at War: World War II on the Côte d'Azur]. The successive French setbacks is described in English therein. We have two articles on the campaign: Second Battle of the Alps and Battle of Authion. They should be merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Authion appears to be about a single battle during this offensive: "A critical choke point was the 2,080 metre (6,820 feet) high Authion massif, held by determined but weakened German and Italian forces. Field Marshal Harold Alexander authorised the assault on Authion on 10 April 1945." Nevertheless, I assure you that there is currently nothing of any use whatsoever in the article Second Battle of the Alps. The overwhelming majority of the article is outright forged, and the things that are reliably sourced are of negligible importance. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Kuru666 has reverted my reverts. They're communicating in edit summaries instead of talk pages. I'm drowning in homework, would someone spot-check them for accuracy? If he's still making unsourced changes, please make a complaint at an appropriate noticeboard. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Kuru666 has been indeffed, so this problem should go away, although there might be a bit of a cleanup required. Let me know if we can help? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth

Help wanted to improve the article 'Ronald Skirth'. I have a COI *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Is the use of the word Purported when describing alleged/reported massacres npov?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is describing alleged massacres with the word purported NPOV? I bring this up in regards to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre with a recent revert here [12]. Likewise it has been added here Bình Hòa massacre, here Hà My massacre, Binh Tai Massacre and here Thuy Bo incident with a revert here [13]. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#03 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There can't be a single answer to this question: it depends on what the sources call the incident. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC, which should be done on the individual pages in question, not centrally here. This one should be speedily closed. As Nick-D points out, every situation is going to be different, based on what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This does generalize however, in whether the word "Purported" should be acceptably NPOV to describe massacres where there hasn't been a complete investigation or settlement of facts. Typically I'd assume other terms can exist which convey the same meaning in a more neutral tone, e.g. "reportedly". 115.94.251.118 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Should massacre events with debated sources be included in a campaignbox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should reported massacres or events in which two sides either tell different stories or one side contradicts the other be included in the Vietnam War massacres campaign box[14]? A recent edit has removed two of them here: removal of Thanh Phong [15] and Thuy Bo incident here [16]. The reason provided as that these were debatable as to what happened, although both are discussed by reputable sources (NYT, PBS). 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#03 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The campaignbox is right near the header of the Vietnam War, and I noticed pretty recent, very bold edits to it. I get that there was a series of sock-edits which is fair to revert, but at the same time I don't see why the initial edits should still stand. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You are the sock! Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to add on the reasoning behind their removals of the above two, there is also a dispute section for the infamous Massacre at Huế#Dispute yet on the balance of probabilities it was a massacre, and with all fairness this should be retained. I am also willing to believe Đắk Sơn massacre would also be denied by the perpetrators, but the sources currently supporting it are even more dubious with much less thorough investigations than the above. Out of logical consideration though I would wager both should bee retained. 183.107.0.107 (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is also a malformed RfC. These matters are best discussed individually on the talk pages of the articles in question. The answer regarding what should be in the campaignbox will depend on the answers on the individual articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is regarding whether it is fair or acceptable that a massacre be removed from the campaignbox where a user doesn't agree with or disputes the facts. Since the list contains alot of other ones which haven't had full, impartial investigations, its not unreasonable to include them in the list. The edits in question seems to be encroaching on WP:OR given ones like Thanh Phong was removed for the reason that it was "debatable it occurred", although the case generated significant publicity back when it was released and not generally disputed. As this deals with massacres committed specifically for a war, and ones with which there is apparent disagreement, it seems reasonable to resolve whether it should be removed or not. 115.94.251.118 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Determine individually. Since every event will have differing accounts, this has no utility to filter cases ... they are all debatable. Also, the principle could run counter to COMMONNAME policy or RS. I might include debate in consideration... but not make it a key one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox–campaignbox widths question

Recently, infoboxes seemed wider than the campaignboxes underneath and someone suggested reducing the width of the box by setting images at 250px instead of the old 300px. It did the trick but apparently not everyone is seeing oversized infoboxes at 300 and they're wondering what the fuss is about. Can anyone shed light on this pls? We discussed it here a few weeks ago. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC) @Jay D. Easy: Keith-264 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: unfortunately, the precise conversion from px to em units depends on one's browser. it makes sense for the width of an infobox or sidebar to be specified in em units, since the width of the enclosed text should dictate the width of the infobox or sidebar. when you have a mix of text and images, it's much harder. this is why it's best to have a default image width, which fits inside the infobox (without stretching it) for all the major browsers, and to avoid overriding the default. it would be amazing if we could specify the widths of images in em units, but that's not supported by the backend mediawiki software (although it is supported by newer browsers). Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If I continue to change the px to 250, will this shrink the infobox as it's seen in other browsers (I'm on Firefox) relative to campaignboxes? Keith-264 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

M39 cannon

I could use a reference review on an article that I am working on improving. Actually a pair of them. The subject matter is at best arcane admittedly. To summarize, I was editing last night when Bilcat reverted me in the middle of it. Rather than get into something ugly I asked for clarification and got silence. So I am a bit flummoxed here. The 1st reference is from an online source The Springfield Armory Museum. I thought it a great source as the Springfield Armory was involved with the M 39 project throughout its life until the Armory was disbanded. The second source is The_Machine_Gun_V5/The_Machine_Gun_V5_djvu.txt which is an online archive of the book online. Lastly, the note on the revert stated that it was poorly written and unreliably sourced. Since I was in the middle of writing it at the time this makes working on the article a bit of an uphill climb. Given that I work with the group here I don't want to get into anything Ugly, there is quite enough of that already. Here are the refs and, , and its online archive and the fellow reverting is User:BilCat Tirronan (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored your text as I think BilCat was a little hasty in his revert of you. Chinn's a great resource so no problems there. And I think that the Springfield Armory museum is as well. That said, I'd strongly advise putting up an "in use" or "under construction" template in the section(s) that you're editing until you're done with them. That should stop people from reverting you until you're actually done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

My thanksTirronan (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Help needed: source review

Good day to all. A source review is needed for ACR Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333), which already has three supports and an image review. If anyone has the time for this it would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderella157, that is good of you. However, is possible that you have inadvertently labeled your source review as an image review? And if so, are you doing this deliberately so that I feel that I am not the only one to be a slow learner? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Duh moment. :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review needed

A shameless plug for a source review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• This has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Outside voices needed in dispute

Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision#WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit could use more opinions. There's a question around what sources are required to publish a list of casualties in a naval accident. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the dispute. The discussion is about whether such a list should be included in an encyclopedia article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tables

Why most tables in lists of military equipment are dark coloured like it was in 2005? Can I simply remove them? I already fixed most double bold in the tables. Tables in current form looks like forgotten. Here is the example. Eurohunter (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

G'day Eurohunter. If you mean the shading of the tables, you can boldly go ahead and change that if you like. Just have a read of MOS:CONTRAST first, and keep what it says in mind. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Link

I dont see the 'currently undergoing' link in the WPMILHIST template. Векочел (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Векочел what are you referring to, the A-Class nomination link? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Векочел (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, what you do is explained at WP:MHR. You add the following field to the talk page Milhist banner |A-Class=current after the class= or list= field and save the talk page. Then you will see the red "currently undergoing" link to create the nomination page. If you have any further queries, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User:J-Man11 again

Netherlands Army Structure 1989 has just been created, I've G12 speedied it. Gavbadger (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Good call, it was also not a reliable source in any case. It has been deleted already. I have reached out again, but further blocks seem likely if they continue behaving this way and not communicating/using unreliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MILMOS addition re US ordinals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G'day all, the discussion at MOS petered out, and I don't think there was consensus to amend the higher-level MOS guidance on ordinals anyway. What I propose is that the following be inserted into WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME:

The use of the ordinals 2d and 3d instead of 2nd and 3rd are valid options for US units because they are used in standard US English, but their use is not mandated. The ordinal used in the title of any given article should be that which is most commonly used in reliable sources on the individual unit, and articles should be internally consistent in the use of ordinals.

Thoughts, tweaks etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support – Seems like a fairly accurate summary of what people were saying in the discussion, although it won't make everyone happy. I'm not sure we need "because they are used in standard US English". Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support - at least this is something in the MOS on this subject, thankyou Peacemaker67. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY – If the normal ordinal syntax is acceptable and used by some reliable sources, we should use that format to ensure maximum comprehension. Universal styles are preferred to specialist styles if it can be demonstrated that reliable sources in the topic area use the universal style. The evaluation provided at MOS:NUM points in this direction, and so I must oppose this addition. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I believe 2d/3d are sometimes proper names. On the other hand, has it been shown that 2d/3d are in common use? We (US English) have never seen them outside the military. Sammy D III (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ordinals are a matter of style. Whether they are written as '2d' or '2nd', they are meant to be read the same way. For that reason, we have the ability to style them to fit our manual of style and indeed, the expectations of our generalist audience, rather than to the internal style of the American military. Of course, the military usage can be noted in the relevant articles. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper names really mess things up, otherwise 2nd/3nd would be assumed. In theory you could have the US 2d/3d meet the UK 2nd/3nd. How about article titles? Sammy D III (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment just to comment that the use of 2d for example really confuses Brits of a certain age who automatically read it as two pence and think it is probably a mistake, it would be better to use 2nd but we are probably a minority readers! MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A reading of "tuppence" would require a Brit who could remember the old pre-decimal currency. So "Brits of a certain age" are people like Prince Philip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Decimalisation was under 50 years ago; one could be rather younger than Prince Philip. Additionally vestiges of pre-decimal currency lingered on (eg one and two shilling coins remained in circulation as 5p and 10p coins) and you can be younger than '71 vintage (as I am) and yet read "2d" as "two old pence". Oppose - not just because of this, but it seems just needlessly obscure usage. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY. Should be 2nd and 3rd for global lay audience. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose largely per comment by RGloucester. This is a matter of style in which it is appropriate for WP to determine the style used. If there is any lack of clarity globally a format should be deprecated in favour of that which is universally understood. I believe this applies with 2d. The extent that they are used/favoured in "standard" contemporary US English is not established. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support We can establish a local consensus for style matters related to MilHist. The proposed addition to our style guide does not change anything; it merely sums up the existing situation, and the consensus both here and at MOS:NUM. It was established that they are used in the US outside the military, but this does not concern us. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucestser. - wolf 03:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester. If I've lived in the United States my entire life, am somewhat literate and didn't know this was an alternative, neither will the average American. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucestser. - mention it in the prose but titles should be consistent Lyndaship (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I can think of two editors well positioned to comment on whether this is contemporary standard US English - DickLyon and SMacCandlish. Because of the issue of canvassing I have not approached them. Peacemaker67, I suggest that they be invited to provide comment on this specific element of the proposition. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I encourage all those commenting here to have your say in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS:ORDINAL? That is where we were trying to achieve a consensus for a change to the MOS to address this issue, and it would be preferable to make a change there than have a local consensus on MILMOS. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the switching between here and MOS, just when I thought things had petered out over there, they've livened right up again. Just pinging those that have commented here or in the recently archived thread to engage with the current proposals over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS:ORDINAL so we get a solid consensus on the way to handle these things. Pinging @Buckshot06, Sammy D III, MilborneOne, Pinkbeast, and Thewolfchild:, @Compassionate727, Lyndaship, RGloucester, Madrenergic, and RobDuch: and @Lineagegeek, Kges1901, and Sturmvogel 66: Hopefully I've captured everyone who had expressed an interest in this. I'd encourage anyone else who has a view to chime in there as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at the MOS seems to be going round and round about completely commonly understood things. My original intention was to create a local Milhist standard for U.S. units, which has been voted down; I don't think there's any particular need for anything more. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me as if there will be a MOS change to deprecate 2d and 3d, so you might consider having your say if you favour retaining the option of 2d and 3d. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion to make distinctions in popular culture section

I think that it would give that section greater credibility and usefulness to this section to further clarify it. First, if the item is a one of kind and actually participated in the item IMO such a section should not place a further high bar for inclusion. For example, if the 1st armored division significantly participated in the filming of a movie. Much lower on the spectrum is when there are many instance of the item and it actually participated. E.G. an M-16 rifle (one of the zillions made) was used /participated in the production of a movie. The other metric is actual participation in vs. mere depictions in pop culture items. E.G a video game includes the 1st armored division or an M-16 rifle. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of pop culture sections in military articles. If there must be one, I like it to be as brief, concise as relevant as possible. If a particular book or film prominently features a subject of a military article, such as a ship or a military unit, a person from history, such as a military officer, or an historical event, such as a battle, and does so in a factually accurate and detailed manner that lends to the reader's understanding of that subject, then fine. But blurbs like; " USS Wasp could be briefly seen in the background, before being gobbled down by a Kraken, in the video game Mega-Zombie-Blood-Splatter VII", serve no useful purpose. This is just my opinion, I'm sure others will differ. - wolf 17:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

After more than 10 years of editing, the popular culture sections remain among my favorites. They are usually what I check first in an article. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think most (but not all) of them which are added devalue the project Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In my experience most in popular culture sections are just dumping grounds for uncited drive-by additions by IP addresses who noticed something obscure in the paperback they were reading. Many take on the appearance of original research or use the popular culture item in question as a primary source (for example, if X Division is mentioned in the historical fiction book Y, the editor will cite book Y as the source in an addition on the article for X Division). I believe mention of the cultural relation in secondary sources should be required for anything to be included in such a section, regardless of the prominence of the primary source (even if it is a famous book or movie). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The advice on this topic in the relevant guideline, MOS:POPCULT, is sensible. It recommends that popular culture material be integrated into the body of the article whenever possible. If a separate section is used, it should be written as analytic prose rather than a list. The recommendation that all appearances in popular culture be supported by a secondary or tertiary source is particularly important as a means of avoiding trivial appearances and encouraging useful content. Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest, if (frex) 1st Airborne troopers appeared in "Bridge at Remagen", it merits mention on the film's page (where it's significant), but not on the unit's page (where it's not). OTOH, mention of 1st Airborne being subject of "A Bridge too Far" merits a mention on the unit page; if members of the unit also appeared, both do. In short, is it central to the project? P-51s in "Tuskeegee Airmen", yes; F4Us in "Midway", no. (FYI, there are brief views of F4Us.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of the above comments on pop culture sections. There are obvious exceptions, for example, like with the Russian battleship Potemkin, which was the subject of what is considered one of the best films ever made. I'd expect the article on the ship to reference the movie. But lists of "X ship appeared in video game Y" and the like should be killed with fire. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything required beyond what our content guide already says? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think MOS:POPCULT and WP:MILPOP cover the territory pretty well, deprecating trivial mentions and OR in particular. I agree with Parsecboy about individual ships with movies made about them, I've done something similar with Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb. The same could be said of biographies where the subject is featured in a movie, such as Draža Mihailović in Chetniks! The Fighting Guerrillas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Indy Beetle on this one. At one point I had consensus to herd all that into a single section on the class page for the Iowas; I still lament the discussion that lead to pop culture being reinstated on the individual pages - all the more so since I now have to track six pages to keep BS like cher's music video and the 92 movie under siege to a single, concise, well sourced mention, and I have to keep explaining to people why MGS4, Neon Genesis Evagelion, battleship (movie), etc should not be included in these Featured Article(s) over top of fan boys and girls who constantly add the information just because we had a pop culture section and their specific instance wasn't already mentioned. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

There is an active discussion regarding this very topic, about entries to the pop culture section for the USS Missouri (BB-63) article. It could use some more contributors. Thanks - wolf 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Indian military history task force

I would like to propose that Indian military history be 'graduated' from the Incubator and created as its own task force, a split from the South Asian military history task force. I suggest that the task force include pre-independence military history of India, such as ancient warfare in India and the British Indian Army, as well as the modern Indian Armed Forces. Kges1901 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

These days, task forces are really just a way of us sorting articles rather than a way of focusing effort, so the question for me is whether the work involved in adding a task force (and the subsequent retagging of well over half of the 5,600 articles in the South-Asian task force) actually helps the project in any substantial way, or whether the effort on the modern Indian Armed Forces is better off as a special project. I'll just note that the 50+ membership of the incubator project are not all currently active, they seem highly focussed on the contemporary (post-independence) Indian Armed Forces only, and we haven't seen much throughput of articles through assessment other than KCV's work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough point. Let us address Peacemaker67's point so that work on various aspects helps us create a better rationale. However, the reverse is also true, grouping South Asia doesn't motivate an editor from India to work on the superset. AshLin (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@KCVelaga:, @Adamgerber80:, @MBlaze Lightning: and @Kautilya3: for input as they are members of the incubator group. I made this proposal because the incubator is supposed to be a temporary host and the group has been there for over two years. I do not see any issues with limiting the scope to the post-Independence military history of India, but even though TFs are primarily for categorization, I see utility in this as a more specific categorization than South Asia, which also includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think most of the task-force has been focused on contemporary (post-independence) Indian Armed Forces only and for starters it might make to limit the scope to just post-Independence military history. I am going to ping other editors, @AshLin, Gazoth, DBigXray, Sarvatra, Aumnamahashiva, and SshibumXZ:, who edit in the general area but may or may not be in the task force, for their input as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, yep, whilst you are correct that I don't specifically edit Indian Armed Forces-related articles, I would be more than happy to join an Indian military-related task force, as a matter of fact, I was planing to create articles on two former Indian Army officers myself, including one on a deputy chief of the army. I also agree with Kges1901, in that, this task force would also serve itself in further categorising South Asia-related military history articles. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with PM that 50+ membership is not a factor worth considering, many of them are inactive. But there are some who are not regular contributors to military history topics, but yes, they do at one time or the other, like Sshibum. Regarding the scope, I suggest not to limit to history or post-independence or modern armed forces, but anything that related to Indian military comes under the scope of this group. Removing the word "history" from the title will solve it. Also having a task-force will help to have more focused efforts on article assessments. KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with @KCVelaga:. Let it be the Indian Military Task Force. AshLin (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging @Strike Eagle and UY Scuti: KCVelaga (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: pinging the rest of the coord team for opinions about whether an Indian military history task force or a special project is the best way forward given the circumstances. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for consistency with other task forces, it would be the Indian military history task force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the reason why I initially named it Indian military history. I don't any issues whatever the name is. KCVelaga (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian Military Task Force sounds good. While only a small percentage of the articles I edit or create deal with the Indian Armed Forces, would be delighted to join this task force.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day TomStar81, this seems to have legs. With your recent experience with the new geographical TFs, would you be willing to help out with setting this up? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: and @Peacemaker67: Since a week has passed I have set it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force. The only thing left now is for my semi-protected edit request on the MILHIST template to be approved. Kges1901 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, the last few days off I had double duty at my other job so I've not had much time to edit here, much less catch up with the goings on. I'm sorry I missed this, but I'm happy to see that its moved forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Support with Modification as there are more than enough Indian English-language wikipedians to work on this. The only caveat is that modern India is a post-1947 conception, and retaining South Asian military history for pre-independence period content. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This task force has already been established, and the scope was a pre-condition of its establishment as far as I am concerned. I also doubt there would be support for your approach to a task force, but pinging @WP:MILHIST coordinators: in case I've picked up the wrong end of the stick here. We just don't do task forces in that way. For example, we don't have a post-1945 Germany task force, we just have a Germany one, which includes German-related articles going back to the Holy Roman Empire, including Prussia, Weimar and Nazi Germany as well as post-1945 Germany. Parsing a task force to this extent doesn't have precedent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems that both sides of this issue have points. Just as there is Chinese military history or German military history task force, an Indian military history task force has adequate merit when taken into consideration that task forces are not created arbitrarily. However, the evidence remains that: 1) there is already an Indian military history task force in existence, 2) the TF in general has not been active, and 3) if any, most of its activity are confined with tagging. Thus, rather than focusing on whether or not a TF has to be established, it appears that the emphasis must be on improving or modifying the operationalization of the task force. This may not only apply for the Indian task force, but also for other task forces under this project. Arius1998 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer review for New Zealand and Australian Division

G'day all, I have nominated the New Zealand and Australian Division article for a peer review. I would be most thankful for any feedback if anyone has a moment to take a look. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand and Australian Division/archive1 Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong assessment showing up on Sarabjit Singh

Folks, The Milhist assessment of Talk:Sarabjit_Singh is C in the source and yet it is being shown as Start. does anyone know why ? I was about to post this on VP but wanted to check here first. Appreciate if someone can also fix the mistake if any. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This occurs because for MILHIST to display a C class assessment, either B1 or B2 as well as the rest of the B-class assessment criteria must be checked. For the checklist, click 'show' to the right of additional information in the template. Kges1901 (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the MILHIST checklist hasn't been filled in at all. I thought I could fix that but, having read the article, I see no reason for a MILHIST tag on the article, so I'll leave that to others.Monstrelet (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Monstrelet, and have removed the tag as Singh does not appear to have been an actual intelligence agent. Kges1901 (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• LoL, Monstrelet thats another way to fix this , yes there is no evidence of the subject being a military person. India claims he was a farmer while Pakistan claims he was an allged Indian spy. Since Kges1901 has gone ahead and removed the tag, I did not add that tag and I am not going to contest that. Is it correct to make this assumption for future references that spy or alleged spy BIOs are not MILHIST.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Spies are MILHIST only when they have a connection to military intelligence, which usually comes through being recruited by military intelligence or stealing military secrets. In this case, Singh is an exception because there is no evidence of a connection to military intelligence. Kges1901 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Understood, and yes I do agree with the above and thanks everyone for your kind response. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WT:TFA#TFA for WWI centenary

Just a ping. Something will happen (or not) in the next few hours, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018

I wanted to bring everyone's attention to the Arbitration Committee Elections which are currently accepting nominations. Many of you will be familiar with ArbCom via the German War Effort case that ArbCom decided to accept this last year and which dealt with areas covered by this project. There is now an opportunity to ask questions of candidates before the election opens on 19 November. If you have questions you can go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates and click on the links for each candidate to see what they have to say in general, and whether you agree/disagree with their views of various matters and their proposed approach to being on ArbCom. ArbCom produce binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, and it behoves us all to make sure that only the best candidates are elected. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Participants in World War I

A heads-up... Participants in World War I has been moved and then rejected as a draft. I'm not sure if that's the right way to handle things as it seems to be a deletion through the back door. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

William Chapman Foster

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)

Reduction of shadows on images from US Military personnel

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)

Is no one bothered by the fact that someone is claiming authorship and ownership over a public domain work of the US government?[17] 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)

Is http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk a reliable source

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)

Thank you, I have asked over on the Noticeboard. Gavbadger (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

WWII Photo Request Petition

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Draft discusssion relevant to your project

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)

Clairmarais aerodrome

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)

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)

Battle of Mouquet Farm

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
• 
  Same area in September after shelling; the farm building area is open land now and the rebuilt farm buildings are south of the road

• 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)

Help get a World War I draft article published

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)

Access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921

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)

@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)

English cemetery photographs

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)

• There are probably no more than 40, tops, and fewer than twenty are of any value other than sentimental. I’m not even sure if I remember my account - I’ve gotten used to keeping things private, where I can - but there is some I’d like to save. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of commanding officers

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)

RfC on 1998 Sokcho submarine incident

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

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, [18]), 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)

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)

Nevertheless, it looks like Group Captain Woon is worthy of an article. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The RAF has had female group captains (and, indeed, air commodores) for many years, long before Mackmin and Hammer, in fact since the WRAF was formed (following on from the WAAF's group officers). In the flying branches, no, but in ground branches certainly. But yes, I'd still say that Woon is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Parachutist Badge (Germany) that has BLP implications

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 [19] 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)

I suspect a two-item dab page would be the most appropriate, per WP:NOPRIMARY, especially since as you say it may be offensive to equate the two. It explicitly says, "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"The alternative is to turn both links into a redirects to the modern German badge and hatnote for the Nazi one". No, the dab page is probably the best solution. Kierzek (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Disambiguation page would work well in this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Disambiguation page of Parachutist Badge (Germany) with the two article pages listed as Parachutist Badge (Wehrmacht) and the Awards and decorations of the German Armed Forces page until/if a separate Parachutist Badge (Bundeswehr) page is created. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Operation Mincemeat

Comments and opinions are welcomed at the discussion at Talk:Operation Mincemeat#Operation Animals to avoid the threat of an editor edit warring. Hopefully the input of others (on either side) will avoid that possibility and come to a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Military historian of the year 2018 and Military history newcomer of the year 2018

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)

• I suggest using "Military history editor of the year", vs "Military historian", as more specific. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

GA reviews

Does reviewing MH GA noms give five points at WP:MHCON? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you have to be the editor significantly improving the article. Reviewing does not count. Kges1901 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

GA reviews are included in the quarterly reviewing tally, which is a separate contest of sorts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To be entered for the quarterly reviewing tally you need to have reviewed at least one MilHist ACR which closed in that quarter. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject article number summary table

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)

I personally use them to measure the level of coverage in each TF area, but that is maybe just me. Kges1901 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Kges1901, fair enough. I've added the wiki-work statistics to the table. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sharing to (Kges1901—Kirill Lokshin—Dumelow—Peacemaker67) - While WP 1.0 bot is blocked there is a two-step process for current article counts. The resulting Project summary tables page does include the wiki-work factors. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The intent of this exercise was to create something that will be (a) readily accessible on-wiki and (b) automatically updated. An off-wiki script that needs to be manually run doesn't really help in that regard. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: - Since deployment of the new WP1.0bot may be months ahead, the two-step manual process is offered as a temporary alternative & not as anything permanent. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

IRC Channel

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)

Just wondering if we should be suggesting that as a means of communication if no-one is there to answer questions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably not then. Kges1901 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: just checking in as to whether anyone uses this anymore? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never used it. Zawed (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Me neither.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No one ever taught me how to use it, consequently, I have not in fact ever used it. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Regiment vs Battalion SYNTH

A certain regiment of the Greek WWII resistance used Albanian men who were former reserves of the local collaborationist militia. Based on this cited information ([[20]]) we can conclude that this concerned the men of the regiment's battalions (& each smaller unit included in this regiment) in case Albanian men were enlisted. The question is if addition of this is wp:SYNTH because the source doesn't mention the specific battalion by name.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Strikeouts in the Article Alerts page

Hello, I am a loyal follower of the WWII article alerts page. Since the introduction of DYK nominations to that page, the following content is struck out. Is there any way to fix the issue? Catrìona (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin, could this be caused by recent changes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is Template:Did you know nominations/German torpedo boat T23. The nomination text (which the bot copies) is struck out, and the bot can’t handle that. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Experts needed at AfD

I think people familiar with British military history should have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire. The article is a mostly unsourced order-of-battle type transferred from a Wikia. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox pic size question

@Jay D. Easy: Hello everyone, since the infobox and campaignbox changes, a 300px pic in the infobox has stretched it on my Firefox browser and I was advised to try 250px. It works for me but does it spoil things for people using other browsers? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not that boring is it? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)