Per an ongoing GAR for Russia, there's statements about the Eastern Front and Soviet casualties in percentage for WW2 cited to op-eds currently. If someone could replace these with reliable sources from more scholarly writing, it would be nice. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Besides a better copy of the lead image, I also found this undated one. It'll be sometime before the 1890s going by beard colour, (compare [1]) and presumably after he left the academy in 1867, but I'm guessing the rank emblems and uniform style can place it a bit more firmly. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs05:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
There are also some of the early 3 month regiments that have an extra 1861 qualifier, like 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (3 months, 1861). We should probably try to be consistent one way or the other. Ultimately, a lot of these might be worth merging together anyway, but for now I'd like to get the disambiguation format consistent. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Help from ship people
Just wrote an article on NNS Obuma Nigeria's first flagship. Help with template adding would be nice and with some of the construction/design specs as this is not my usual topic area. Janes and Conways appear to have entries that have that detail. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Not my benefit; yours. Now page watchers might assume—which they might have been forgiven for not assuming following your first comment—that you understand our guidelines on infoboxes. Happy days! SN5412916:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Jefford, 230 Squadron, and RAF Dishforth
We have a gap in the location history for No. 230 Squadron RAF. It left what is now Dishforth Airfield in 1958, returned briefly in 1959, but then the next exact location is in Germany in 1962. Can some helpful soul with a copy of Jefford, RAF Squadrons, indicate where it was in the intervening years? Buckshot06(talk)06:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I've expanded the relevant bit of history based on Halley and Rawlings, although the squadron's location was already covered in the Squadron bases table further down the page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou so much Nigel Ish!! Should have looked a bit closer then I could have done it myself. Two further things: there's no such table for 215 Squadron, and, also, guesses on which transport units from Egypt, Cyprus and elsewhere would have been the squadrons helping move elements of the Sudan Defence Force south to suppress the Equatoria Corps mutiny at Torit in August 1955 (leading to the First Sudanese Civil War)? Buckshot06(talk)06:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Banshee, formerly a Russian gunboat
Can anyone shed any light on the previous identity of the schooner Banshee, which sank in January 1880 in Gare Loch, but was subsequently raised and repaired? She had previously been a gunboat in the Imperial Russian Navy ("Shipping Intelligence". Glasgow Herald. No. 12499. Glasgow. 12 January 1880.). Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, would anybody have these two books that could help me with a photo/scan of the indicated pages or otherwise help me to verify some content being attributed to these.
p.13 Adams, Gregg Japanese Soldier vs US Soldier: New Guinea 1942–44 Osprey Publishing; 1st edition (October 28, 2021)
p. 11 Henry, Mark The US Army in World War II (1): The Pacific Osprey Publishing; 1st edition (May 20, 2012)
Just like with many other things on Wikipedia (DYK, ITN etc) the vital articles system is managed by a small group of dedicated people who are not experts of the topic at hand topic. Hence its completely unsurprising that on occasion articles are granted vital status on seemingly arbitrary criteria.--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Catlemur hit the nail on the head. The determination of what is a vital article is subjective and often not done by subject experts. For instance, as an expert in the matter of trains, I added several obvious oversights that were not listed as vital, such as Passenger train, Diesel locomotive, and Rail freight transport. Military history is of course a much more comprehensive subject area that rail transport, and will require correspondingly more work to get the vital articles in order. I've noticed in general there's an over-emphasis on biographies, and a lack of articles on concepts (as buidhe mentioned, military occupation, insurgency, and other such articles are pretty clear contenders for vital status). For level 5 vital categories that are not full, new articles may be added to the list by anyone. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Military history is split over bigraphies and history. In the biographies there is stuff to scratch your head at. David Stirling and Michael Wittman are "Vital" but Hugh Dowding and Max Horton aren't (Battle of Britain and Battle of Atlantic are, by the way)
or something like that), where editors can list articles they feel need attention on this, then it would bring that needed awareness, and then any needed changes are more likely to be made. (jmho) - wolf18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Reading the project notes the idea is that vital articles are key to understanding the higher level of the topic. So you can't discuss World War I without having a high quality article on eg the Western Front underpinning it.
For individuals listed under the People section, they "represent the pinnacles of their field".
The voting system is that a proposed addition to list at level 5 passes if >50% of !votes support. Removal just seems to be carrying the argument. I would suggest if there was to be any suggested addition or removal to carry it out on article talk page first. Then one could point to the discussion there when proposing a change to the lists. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Further reading reveals that to add someone at Level 5, an editor can just do it, and equally an editor can just remove a level 5 from the list. So quite likely that was method by which Castleman was added (May in 2021). But "Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed" and the relevant section "Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists" is now at its 1000 article quota.
Further, further reading found that under military technology at level 5 the 19 specific aircraft entries are B-29 Superfortress, 'Enola Gay', B-52 Stratofortress, Dassault Rafale, EMB 314 Super Tucano, Eurofighter Typhoon, A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-16 Fighting Falcon, C-130 Hercules, SR-71 Blackbird, F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, MiG-21, P-51 Mustang, B-2 Spirit, Panavia Tornado, B-1 Lancer. And that is the only level at which specific military aircraft exist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Having recently nominated a couple of changes to Level 4 and Level 5 lists, I think the whole system is highly subjective. Further, the process to amend some of the levels does not adhere our practices of seeking consensus, instead it is a pure vote counting exercise with minimum participation and percentage of support requirements. Cavalryman (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC).
I'm not convinced that large-scale changes to the VA list would be particularly useful for the reasons stated by Cavalryman, but I've gone ahead and requested the removal of Castleman at WT:VA, as he seems to fairly clearly not meet the criteria. Hog FarmTalk02:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The process needs revamping. Perhaps tying in Wikiprojects would be useful? Members of Wikiprojects covering specific subject areas are far more likely to have a good idea of what articles should be vital than a few editors trying to assemble lists for the entire encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Does this part of Wikipedia even matter anymore? I want to say vital articles were legitimately given more priority back in the day, but the distinction now seems meaningless. Unlike a traditional encyclopedia, we do not have a page limitation which we have to work with and decide to devote more page space to more "important" topics. The spirit of placing priority on certain subjects has merit, but from a mechanical point of view this seems to matter little as we build Wikipedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
A query from a consistency point of view. Unlike some projects, MILHIST doesn't gave an importance ratings to articles under its umbrella. According to what I've read here, this is because it would be both subjective and divisive. Would the project therefore welcome getting tangled up in what seems to be a subjective and ill-thoughtout listing process assigned vital status to articles? Monstrelet (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The vital article project aims are to identify key subjects and raise them towards Featured Article level. Giving them a nudge in the right direction, so their article targets align with Milhist, can't be a bad thing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
If there is an appetite within the project to improve which of the project's articles are listed as vital, I suggest a discussion and consensus here then propose the swap there. A detailed discussion there would just result in no action. Cavalryman (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC).
Discussion over there will only result in revision of the vital article list. As you say, the big issue is whether the project is interested in improving the vital articles. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the discussion would be worth having even if just as an exploration of how MILHIST would go about determining which articles are vital. I don't expect much drive within the wikiproject to actually improve said articles, however, unless they already fit our niches or special interests (e.g. me with Spanish or Mexican articles, Cavalryman with guns/equipment, etc.) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!21:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently expanded the Hanover Expedition from a redirect. It seems to be a shockingly badly recorded campaign, and I've had to dig a bit to produce the final order of battle. One final mystery remains, however. As part of reinforcements for the expedition after it had already landed under Sir George Don, Lord Cathcart brought out 12,000 more men. These were split into four brigades, whose commanders and makeup are recorded. However, these brigades were split into two divisions, under Francis Dundas and George Ludlow. I've struggled greatly to find any evidence of which brigades were attached to which of these divisions, and would appreciate any assistance in this matter. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, the line battalions of the King's German Legion on the expedition were split into two brigades under colonels Ernst, Baron Langwerth, and Adolphus, Baron Barsse, but again I've got no idea how the battalions were actually split between these two brigades. Any help there would also be great...! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Knights Templar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk04:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Commander in Chief (Australian - 1946)
Is there a list of Commander in Chief(s) in that covers the 1940s in Australia for Australian Commander in Chief(s) of the Australian Military forces? NAA page of this has been torn and hasn't got the name of this person, maybe I can narrow it down to a few names. Adamdaley (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Would that be the Governor-General? - the January 1946 Navy List [4] refers to the "Governor-General and Commander-In Chief", sitting below the King and above the Department of the Navy and Naval Board.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The Govenor-General of Australia is the commander in chief of the Austalian Defence Force, though their military role is constitutional and ceromonial. You will find that there was no unified military commander of the services that is now titled the Chief of Defence. Each service reported to their respective (different) ministers and to the war cabinet. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
But in the 1940s in Australia - or, arguably now despite what the ADF and NZDF say - the Commander-in-Chief remains the Queen of Australia and the Queen of New Zealand. I am baffled as to how either force can argue that the GG, who is subordinate to the Queen, can be the Commander-in-Chief!! (disclaimer: personal view, the GG is named as Commander-in-Chief in current NZ statutes). Buckshot06(talk)14:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
In Australia the Commander-in-Chief is the Governor General. not the Queen, under Section 68 of the Constitution "Command of naval and military forces": The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen’s representative. The role cannot be exercised by the Queen, even when she is in Australia. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Understood. Whether or not it is specifically laid down in A/NZ statute or not, it appears daft, ridiculous. The Queen is superior to the Governor-General. Buckshot06(talk)19:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"The role cannot be exercised by the Queen, even when she is in Australia" - where is that written? It would seem that "...as the Queen’s representative.", they are just a place-holder for her. Maybe it's different in Australia, but in other Commonwealth countries, the titles invested in the monarchy are held by the GG for the Crown. - wolf20:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course it is daft and ridiculous. The Queen appoints the Governor General, and the Governor General appoints the Prime Minister and Defence Minister. But by convention the Queen and the Governor General act only on the advice of their ministers. The Governor General has the powers that Queen Victoria had in 1901, which are greater than those the present-day Queen of the UK wields in that realm. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Sorry, not trying to be snide, this just seems unusual and wanted to know if its codified somewhere. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. - wolf06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but still don't see where the monarch the GG represents is somehow excluded as Hawkeye states. Cheers - wolf09:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
A complete guess might be that the GG having power over the military rather than the Queen goes back to a time when it would have taken the monarch six months to get a message over to the troops, while the GG was actually capable of being useful as CinC? Of course it's probably not correct... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Its all piffle, "only on the advice of their ministers" means that sovereignty inheres to the legislature, same as in England since 1688. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It states: By Order of the C-in-C, Australian Military Forces "Signature next line". Ripped page, Lt. Colonel Chief of Sta Ripped page, Services Reconnaissance Department. Adamdaley (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Free French, Poland, pipes and Infobox military conflict
Infobox doc states "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." Usually in WWWII context we link to countries. Recently there was a discussion at Talk:Battle of Berlin in which a question was raised regarding the level of detail in the lead. Before, Poland was piped to Polish Armed Forces in the East (so, [[Polish Armed Forces in the East|Polad]]) the pipe was changed to Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (so, [[Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland|Poland]]). This got me thinking and led to looking at sme articles. It does seem that such piping in the infobox is consistent with the best practices. Battle of the Bulge and Operation Overlord pipes India to British Raj, New Zealand to Dominion of New Zealand, Italy to Italian Co-Belligerent Army, South Africa to Union of South Africa , Greece to Greek government-in-exile, etc. Germany is usually piped to Nazi Germany but described just as Germany in the infobox everywhere. But I noticed inconsistences with France (and smaller, with Poland).
there is the issue that sometimes "France" could be on both sides of the infobox, ex. Tunisian campaign pitted Free France against Vichy France. But is this the reason enough to make French what seems like the exception when it comes to the WWII faction naming in the infobox? Looking at the infobox for the Italian campaign (World War II), which lists Italy on both sides with the clarification for dates (plus lists resistance separately), I think all instances of Free France should be changed to Free France piped through France, with clarifications (small font in parenthesis) added when necessary (such as when French forces were found on both sides). That of course relates only to the period of early/mid war, since from June 1944 we have the [[Provisional Government of the French Republic|France]].
the inconsistency with Poland is related to pipes. Polish Armed Forces in the West is often used instead of the Polish government in exile. Likewise, for the Polish under Soviets, Polish Armed Forces in the East is used instead of the relevant (puppet) governments. I don't see any good reason for such exceptions, and I'd therefore suggest we fix the pipes from the formation to the respective Polish governments (pretty easy, since most Polish participation was on the West which had a stable political representation in the form of the Polish government in exile, while the Eastern participation, while more complex in terms of political entities, was much less prominent; and primarily related to the operations of the 1st Belorussian Front; anyway, the link to the Forces in the East seems appropriate until PKWN government was established in July 1944, then the right pipe target changes to Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland from 1 Jan 1945).
Looks like the perfect place to me. Military conflicts and infobox are pretty much within the area of the MILHIST project, and I don't see where else this should be discussed (short of having a duplicate discussion on each individual article, but, come on, nobody wants that, right?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm struggling to see a problem here. We have an articles entitled Union of South Africa and British Raj as natural disambigs of South Africa (disambiguation) and India (disambiguation) respectively. They could equally have been entitled South Africa (dominion) or India (colonial era). Clearly we do not want easter eggs, but none of these really qualify as such in my view. In the case of governments in exile, there is often a degree of helpful ambiguity. For example, the Belgian government in exile had no role in the Normandy landings whatsoever, but Belgian troops participated in it. They were in separate national units but under strictly British command. There is a degree of ambiguity with providing "Belgium" in the infobox in such situations, but it is the best solution in my view and should pipe to a reasonable relevant article. This seems to be essentially the argument going on at Talk:Battle of Berlin. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft for the Rapid Trident military exercise held between Ukrainian, American, and other nations forces. Any help from those with expertise would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Could someone with the necessary powers have a look? It's a dispute between two editors about whether one can delete uncited text without providing a source for the new version. It seems to have passed 3RR already. For what it's worth, the old text makes an uncited inaccurate claim, which is removed by the proposed edit. Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Both parties are culpable; both have been warned. A couple of blocks wouldn't go amiss, although page protection might be an option; however, both partiers are confirmed users, so everyone would be stopped from editing the page, which would be a shame, especially as there's no "right version" at the moment :) SN5412919:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I am overhauling List of British corps in World War II at the moment and trying to figure out what happened to XI Corps. Colin Mackie's lists (I do not believe meets WP:RS) of British GOCs states that II Corps was disbanded in April 1943 and that XI Corps was subsequently renamed as II Corps in May 1943. Heathcote's The British Field Marshals does state II Corps was disbanded in April 1943 (p. 275) I have seen other sources that indicate Herbert Lumsden was II Corps GOC a short while later, which implies it was re-raised or supports the notion Mackie makes. But other than that, I seem to have hit a dead-end. Does anyone know any sources that spells out what happened with these two corps?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
EnigmaMcmxc you may wish to consider signing this post. There is very little information about the details of II Corps being re-raised for Suez (1956), but I have discovered that GOC I Corps (United Kingdom) was moved over to command it. Have to look again for that reference, I'm afraid. Buckshot06(talk)06:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that catch, missed that I had not signed.
Interesting that I Corps was moved to Suez in the 50s. I thought they remained in Germany for the duration of the Cold War. As for II Corps, I have been able to verify their foundation date as well as XI Corps. I have also been able to source when II Corps was disbanded and became a deception for formation in 1944–45. But this 1943 period alongside XI Corps is just a bugger!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I Corps was not moved to Suez in the 1950s. It stayed in Germany. For Operation Musketeer, Headquarters II Corps was specially (re)-raised. There are a bunch of files in The National Archives but no source I have found, reliable or unreliable, seems to indicate when it was exactly raised, from whom/what, any permanent garrison, and how long it lasted. The only thing I have recently found is that GOC I Corps was returned back from Germany to the UK during the planning to take command of II Corps for the invasion.
For both our queries, a polite letter to the Army Historical Branch seems like the best option, which would best come from a British citizen. If such a letter were written and an answer received, it could be uploaded once identifying information were removed through the WP:OTRS ticket process. Buckshot06(talk)18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Some extra eyes would be appreciated on this article, as there's a lot of attention from new editors to it as a consequence of the invasion, and less scrutiny that at the main invasion article. In particular, there's disagreement on the use of the conflict infobox belligerent section (related talk page thread) and I expect editors of this project will be familiar with best practice. Jr8825 • Talk00:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've decided to have a stab at this biographical article; it's my first time and wonder if experienced biographers have any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed only one point for improvement: "to this day the best history of the ACW" or some such was not highlighted as being written in 1974, now some 45+ years ago. I have reworded. Buckshot06(talk)20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
British Army Air Corps history - Light Aircraft School
Does anyone have any good books on the history of the British Army Air Corps?
I'm trying out what happened the the Light Aircraft School RAF after control passed to the Army Air Corps on 1 September 1957 while at Middle Wallop. I've read rumours online that the unit turned into the "School of Army Aviation" during August 1965 then to current "Army Aviation Centre on 1 August 2009.
But it's possible the Light Aircraft School had zero connection to the School of Army Aviation.
Well beyond my competence and only working from Google Books, but the following sources have it becoming something called the "Army Air Corps Centre" at transfer in 1957:
"In 1957 a decision was made that AOP Squadrons and Light Liaison Flights would be incorporated into the newly formed Army Air Corps and the servicing of Army aircraft would become the responsibility of REME. The old RAF Light Aircraft School at Middle Wallop became the Army Air Corps Centre." from: Sibbons, Mike (10 January 2017). From the Archives: An Eclectic Mix of Stories from the History of REME. Bloomsbury USA. p. 44. ISBN978-1-4728-2233-8.
"The Light Aircraft School RAF at Middle Wallop became the Army Air Corps Centre embracing the Depot of the permanent cadre AAC" from: The Aeronautical Journal. Royal Aeronautical Society. 1974. p. 252.
"the former Light Aircraft School is now called the Army Air Corps Centre" from: The Aeroplane. Temple Press. July 1957. p. 367.
"The Light Aircraft School at Middle Wallop had become the Army Air Corps Centre , and its first Commandant was a remarkable personality , Brigadier Pat Weston" from: Mead, Peter (1967). Soldiers in the Air. Allan. p. 84.
Interestingly Ashworth, Chris (1990). Action Stations: Military airfields of the South-West. Stephens. p. 245. ISBN978-1-85260-374-8. has: "The School of Army Aviation was formed at Middle Wallop in August 1965, incorporating the Flying Wing, Aircraft Engineering Training Wing and the ground instructional part of the Tactics Wing". The Army website states "the school of Army Aviation, subsequently retitled the Army Aviation Centre on 1 August 2009". Where the Army Air Corps Centre fits into this I couldn't work out, though it continues to be mentioned in sources into the late 1990s. - Dumelow (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I don't think i've used Google Books before. I've had a look and i still don't know how you got those quotes. I've bought the first and last bulletpointed books online to have a better look along with a few others. Thank you again. Gavbadger (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Gavbadger, Google Books is an excellent source which I use all the time. To do this kind of thing above, I would have searched, in Google: ''Light Aircraft School'' ''Army Air Corps Centre'' [double quotation marks here are *essential,* otherwise you'll get all combinations of 'Light' 'Aircraft' 'School' etc] site:books.google.com
Using double quotation marks around exact search terms is how I find 75% + of my search targets on the Net. Please forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs. Buckshot06(talk)06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I just joined (put my name on the active users list), but I have editing for a bit. I was just wondering how important it is to add "| territory =" information on articles. This puts territorial changes onto the infobox that is on the right of the article. Alexysun (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Alexysun, see Template:Infobox military conflict: territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement. It is optional. It all depends upon the significance of the changes and sometimes, a battle does not result in loss of territory. Fighting along a front is largely a 20th century thing. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Alexysun: Hi & welcome. This parameter is best left out while the situation affecting it is so dynamic and constantly changing. Once the dust settles, and we know what the final disposition is, then the paramter can be added, but the entry should also be included somewhere in the article prose, painting a fuller picture of the territory's status and any changes, and of course, everything should be supported by sourcing. (JMHO) Cheers - wolf06:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have been updating some images on Commons and I stumbled on this picture of two members of the Women's Royal Naval Service working on a mine. I'd like to place the image in an appropriate category but I can't identify what type of mine it is. Given its size and that the WRNS are working on it, I am guessing it is part of a naval mine. Is anyone able to provide further details? From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
appears to show at least one of the same women. It is captioned as being at the minesweeper base at Lowestoft in 1918. It gives a clearer view of whatever they are working in in its complete state. Monstrelet (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Got it . These pictures are in fact from a whole series. This one :
"Women In Uniform During The First World War: The Women's Royal Naval Service, c. 1918, Two WRNS ratings on the quayside at Lowestoft checking the air pressure in Electric Contact (EC) mines circa 1918. Note the mines laid out in the background. They are being connected to form mine nets which were used along the French and Belgian coast to conter the operations of coastal U-Boats, circa 1918. (Photo by G P Lewis/ Imperial War Museums via Getty Images)"
The manual Notes on Anti-submarine Defences ONI Publication No.8 1917 describes the deployment of the mines in the picture and provides cut away diagram
Yes, they somehow got away with 7RR(!) on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement against Ahunt and BilCat a couple months ago, then another 7RR(!) on Polish Air Force against Ckfasdf and FOX 52 just the other day. Then there was all this page-move warrning today. This user has been fortunate to escape any sanctions, despite the warring and NPA vio's, (calling editors "racist", and "trolls", etc.). I don't say this to critcize any admins, rather I'm just pointing it out in the hopes that the next this happens, it will actually be dealt with, and not just given say... a warning for a first-time offence. That said, I'd like to think we can now consider these matters closed, and hope that we will see Tbx3571 start to engage on talk pages, and in a more friendly and collaborative manner. I know that should they require any assistance on any milhist pages, they have but to ask and the good folks here will help them out. (jmho) - wolf04:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This image was removed by an ip user on Kadyrovtsy who claimed it was likely an American airsoft player. Can we verify that this image is legitimate, and if it isn't find an alternative image? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks that way with the glasses and particularly the face mask. This is an older person by the looks and not a trainee. The new kit is a bit sus and the name tag is oddly English? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just nominated the image for deletion at Commons and removed it from the article, as it is highly unlikely to be the uploader's work as claimed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion for improvement of Template Infobox military conflict
Status: The very complex battle structure of the French Invasion of Russia is described in the appended {{Campaignbox French invasion of Russia}}, just a plain list without a structure that is invisible for mobile users currently representing 50% of the visitors of this article. Any attempt to describe this war in {{Infobox military conflict}} in a structured way seems to violate the rules of this infobox.
Suggestion: Let us add a new parameter like Structure in {{Infobox military conflict}} that behaves exactly like the existing parameter Notes and adds the following information, that is shortened for this discussion. See User:Ruedi33a for an example incorrectly using Notes within Template Infobox military conflict):
Agreed, {{Campaignbox French invasion of Russia}} is structured chronologically by starting date but gives the reader this unhelpful example: Saltanovka(23 July 1812, Davout, Napoleon's main army), Riga(24 July – 18 December 1812, MacDonald, Prussian Corps), Ostrovno(25 July 1812, Murat, Napoleon's main army) follow each other chronologically but not logically. I am not an enemy of the campaignboxes as they give the desktop users a standardised list of the battles. I suggest to create additional ways to help all readers to understand faster and better.Ruedi33a (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The book "Military reform and Russian militarism" by Alexander Golts
I'd like to recommend the book "Military reform and Russian militarism" by Alexander Golts [5] to anyone interested in military history of modern Russia. This book was published by Kph Trycksaksbolaget AB in Uppsala, Sweden, in 2017, and distributed by Uppsala University (ISBN 978-91-554-9936-5). It covers the period since 1991 and tells about Russian Armed Forces, Russian military reforms including unexecuted, Russian military education, Russian public and military figures. By addressing the issue of Russian military organization in an integrated fashion, including political, social, economic, demographic, cultural aspects, the author came to the conclusion that Russian militarism and Russian aggression against Europe are inevitable. Unfortunately, this book is written in Russian and there is no English translation of the book. K8M8S8 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)WP:BOLDLY moved from Talk:Military history of the Russian Federation
RIIA articles by Keir Giles and works by Mark Galeotti cover some of this material in English, also some bits in Kilcullen, "The Dragons and the Snakes." Buckshot06(talk)20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I was browsing some portraits when I found this one of "Admiral Sir Charles Everard". Only problem is I can't seem to find evidence of any such man existing. Any suggestions as to who this man is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Having followed up on the 1748-1767 uniform, he does not appear to be wearing an admiral's uniform. He seems to be a captain in full dress. Monstrelet (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I've been looking too and am convinced the last name must be wrong. There's nothing mentioned in the London Gazette about an Everard being in the Navy (there was a William Everard in the Victualling Office) or knighted in this period. The only two "Admiral Sir Charles"'s from the period that I could find were Charles Hardy and Charles Saunders. There is potentially some similarity with the portrait we have of Hardy and I note our article has him inheriting Delapré Abbey. A bit tenuous but potentially "Everard" is a very poor deciphering of "Hardy" - Dumelow (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the guess of Charles Hardy seems plausible - he was knighted in 1755, and sold Delapre in 1756, the year he was made a rear-admiral.
The ODNB says there is a presumably 1750s painting of him in Brooklyn which I think is this one on Commons - it does not seem to be a very close resemblance to the Northampton picture, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Most portraits we have of Hardy are later, as an admiral, so ageing might be a factor. Looking at online histories of Delapre, Capt Charles Hardy lived there from 1749-1755. His knighthood and rise in rank came later. He was born c. 1714, so he would be in his mid 30s-early 40s. This would fit with the portrait, though obviously proves nothing. Monstrelet (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I wish the Delapre Abbey article was a little better to assist in this! The only Everards to be commissioned in the Royal Navy between 1660 and 1815 were Thomas, who died a captain in 1814, and William, who died a lieutenant in 1834. I think we can pretty safely assume that the surname at least is incorrect here. I had thought that perhaps the name was a mistaken version of Admiral Charles Holmes Everitt, but he was never knighted. I've contacted Northampton Museum and Art Gallery in the hope that they will be able to provide clarification. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This would potentially have implications on other articles if taken as a precedent, since (to my understanding) arms suppliers are not currently listed as belligerents in infoboxes at other conflicts, at least usually. SnowFire (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Ironically Vietnam is listed as a party to the Russian-Afghan war :) my point was on the technical side, that~40 coparceners are listed in the IB, but the sections are all hidden, so it looks uncluttered. If course, whether that's in line with WP:ACCESS... SN5412913:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Issue is mobile devices, which do not support collapsing, so it all becomes uncollapsed. Even worse, since there's less screen space, the IB appears right after the first paragraph of the lead, and you have to scroll past it all just to get to the second paragraph. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that many editors want to circumvent WP's encyclopedic style and write an article in the infobox. This is contrary WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is a summary of key points and with few exceptions, should reflect the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Especially in recent conflicts, it seems like usages of {{Infobox military conflict}} end up as a bag of OR. There's a dispute above w.r.t. NATO but I mean more broadly than that. e.g. with the list of commanders, often editors pick the department leaders for various possibly involved departments and say they were involved in X conflict. Often this data doesn't appear in any reliable source, at the very least there are rarely ever any citations provided. For the list of battalions involved, similar issue, often it's just a lot of OR. It also just lengthens the infobox and distracts from the main parts of the conflict, and so the infobox ends up being used almost like a replacement for the lead, except with it emphasising less important information. Don't really have solutions but wanted to moot the issue here and make sure it's not just me? I think it's worse on articles of modern conflicts than historical ones. If it is an issue, perhaps better (MOS) guidance would be a possible way to try address it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
There complaints about commanders listed at Talk:Crimean War last month for similar reasons. I do find most modern conflict infoboxes to be absolute jokes, cramming in way too much "detail". The "Units involved" sections I agree are particularly terrible and I don't think are really that useful beyond like three units each side, especially when branch and regimental flags are dumped in in probable violation of WP:MOSFLAGS. I would support more MOS guidance on this issue, but it would have to come with rigorous enforcement. People already disregard MOSFLAGS because they can get away with it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I regularly delete unsourced material in infoboxes of military conflict articles of all historical periods, and suggest that all experienced Milhist editors do that in the first instance, and follow BRD if reverted. The material does not have to be cited "in" the infobox itself, just in the body of the article. Many editors that add such material are inexperienced and unfamiliar with the MOS, so tighter MOS guidance may not help in any substantive way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I find the kneejerk response to infobox deletions is for the proponents to add citations into the infobox, which is not desired. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I have made a couple of comments at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which is the subject page. I think that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tends to cover this. The purpose of the infobox is to provide an "at a glance summary". We don't write the article in the infobox. The content must be verifiable and should be supported by the body of the article. There is advice in the template documentation to limit the number of cammanders to about 7. Bloated infoboxes filled with comprehensive intricate detail are a disservice to our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This is not actually related to that article, per se. Some edits there reminded me of these issues, but those edits were generally reverted. (The main remaining issue on that article's IB is the commanders, where only the respective heads of state/government have citations (in the body) but none of the other ~10 entries.) On other articles, with less visibility, where this is a problem they generally stick around, which is the broader issue I wanted to raise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I think that the various guidance is already sufficiently strong and adequately reflects the broad community consensus on these issues. The problem is that many articles fly under the radar. As PM67 says, we should all act with a common purpose to remove unsourced material (and generally address bloated boxes that fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Part of the solution is to shine a light on particular issues through appropriate notifications to the broader community (such as here). It then comes back to the individuals that form community taking an active role in confirming the guidance and the strength of the consensus upon which the guidance is based. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is quite generic though. Example: at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine we mention individuals like "Leonid Pasechnik" and "Vladimir Pashkov" and "Ruslan Khomchak". None are discussed in the body, so there are no references for their involvement in this war. Presumably they were added because they are leaders of some unit/republic that may be involved in the war (people just presume it is). Same is true for the other commanders. I wouldn't remove this because it seems to be standard practice on military articles, to include a litany of random "commanders", so it would just get re-added since folks think it's the correct thing to add. Obviously it flies in the face of WP:V/WP:OR, but it's so ingrained as accepted practice that I don't really think there is any consensus against doing this. I'm more hard pressed to find military articles (non-FA/GA, and maybe even those) that don't do this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think if we had a clear consensus saying this stuff isn't good practice, and added to a MOS guideline as such (perhaps MOS:MIL), then it would be easier to resolve. Right now it seems it's mostly a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue, which is why it takes time to resolve, as there isn't really a broad consensus that this is a problem. There is the general principle, but general principles are interpreted differently by different people. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it's quite reasonable to demand that a commander's role in the conflict actually be demonstrated before including them in the infobox. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
For future reference, the AfD's inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military is documented as Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)" immediately below the nomination. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Pericles for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin Tilley, with Commanders' arm stripes which date it 1896-1901An image the Naval archive dates to the 1890s, despite him looking significantly greyer-haired
So, asked this before, but now that it's done: Anyone have any idea as to dating of these images? I'm thinking the first has to be between 1896 and 1901 given the rank stripes on his sleeves would be rather hard to interpret any other way than commander, but that does lead to the question of why he looks so much greyer-haired in the image supposedly from the 1890s. That latter one has a lot less evidence going for it rank-wise: I've tried to identify the shoulder badge in the greyer-haired image, but it's.... honestly pretty hard for me to identify what it's even meant to be. Maybe an anchor? Hard to tell from the little bit we can see, and I'm not an expert on rank insignia. He died in 1907, so it can't be too far off the Naval archive's estimate. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought this was an inspiring article, for all sorts of reasons and wondered if there has been any subproject or contest by this group to gather war images by country/battle/artist/museum? My focus is generally paintings, but old photographs are equally fascinating (mostly because they were such a production to do in situ). Thanks for tips about WP article category trees or Commons category trees. Jane (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Rewriting article about Reserve officer training in Russia
I've finished rewriting of the article Reserve Officer Training in Russia. Please take a look at this. Now the article describes the process of military training itself. But I would like to remove the section "List of Russian civilian institutions of higher education having military training centers", and I will do when the article Draft:Military training centers of civilian universities (Russia) has been accepted, because this list organically looks in new article but not in aforementioned one. K8M8S8 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Virginia units needing disambiguation
Looks like there are a good number of similarly named Revolutionary War and ACW units from Virginia without any disambiguation or hatnotes. Using the "1st Virginia Regiment" as an example:
Seems like we need dab pages and hatnotes. Presuming all of these names are consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and other naming conventions and prior consensus, we could keep the continental units as primary topics and create dab pages with (disambiguation) qualifiers to link to in hatnotes. Probably other states have similar issues, but let's start here. There are also some West Virginia ACW units that will be in the mix due to their names prior to statehood.
Yeah, we at least need some hatnotes. I do think dab pages would be best, as all of the examples above except the battalion article are a "1st Virginia Regiment", even if naturally disambiguated. One could even argue we should have dab pages such as 1st Virginia, since units are often referred to by these short names (e.g. 20th Maine), which would encompass all of the military units and probably bring in other things like 1st Virginia General Assembly (though perhaps most of these non-military uses wouldn't be referred to as just "[ordinal] [state]" and run afoul of WP:PTM). I was thinking of congressional districts too, but these are usually [state] [ordinal] or [state's] [ordinal] and not the former. But, I can't find any examples of such pages, so it seems like existing consensus is to defer to search results, which is probably best as we'd be talking about a lot of dab pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
My instinct is maybe 1st Virginia Regiment (Continental Army) and 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment (Confederate) or something like that. The state one is probably fine as-is, as I'm not seeing that the others are ever known with "state" in the title. Unless there's a lot of non-military uses of "1st Virginia" (I don't think the assembly is ever known as "1st Virginia" alone, and the congressional districts are known as "Virginia's 1st" or "VA-1", the dab page would be at 1st Virginia Regiment and could be linked as a hatnote for all 5 units. Hog FarmTalk22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I think for now, I will slowly work on creating dab pages at [ordinal] [State] Regiment (disambiguation) for use in hatnotes as appropriate, leaving natural disambiguation in place for the titles (unless there are any glaring issues that come up). This would at least be an improvement over the status quo. The ARW articles aren't really primary over the ACW articles, but I don't think typical volunteer infantry regiments in the ACW were referred to as, for example, "1st Virginia Regiment" very often (except in contexts where this would be unambiguous), whereas use of other shorthand combinations of the full name like "1st Virginia", "1st Virginia Volunteers", and "1st Virginia Infantry" were more commonplace. So I think for now we should favor natural disambig until it is shown that parenthetical disambig would be better, unless there are objections. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice war overview templates?
Hi! I want to make an overview template of the First Carlist War to place at the bottom of articles (listing battles, major operations, and other miscellaneous articles) and I was wondering if there were any that would be good references to base my work on. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For context, during the invasion it was observed that the Russian military has attached makeshift, improvised slat armour made from steel grilles above the turrets of their T-72s and T-90s to protect against top-down missile attacks, however because these improvised countermeasures have proven to be ineffective against Javelins and NLAWs, they've been commonly and humourously dubbed "cope cages". All of this is factual, well-documented and sourced (e.g. here and here), and I don't have an issue with that. The problem is that every 14 year old kid who browses OSINT threads on twitter now thinks that it's funny to change the lead paragraph so that it reads "Cope cage is a type of vehicle armor designed to protect against..." or something along those lines.
To clarify, a "cope cage" is a specific subset type of improvised slat armor specifically mounted to the top of the turret; not all slat armors are cope cages (more often than not, slat armour is put around the skirts of the hull, and anywhere the crew might reside), so the disruptive meme edits don't make sense from a factual standpoint. --benlisquareT•C•E08:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In general sense only, it is uncommon for a recipient of a second tier non-operational gallantry award to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to meet the notability guidelines. The key would be to look for sources and assess it that way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
History of the Great War has the image of an inside page of OH 1914 I. Does anyone know how to do the same thing with the image of the OH in the infobox (page 11 of the volume) in the Edmonds article? I've had a stab and got nowhere. The red cover is a very nice red but I'd rather it showed page 11. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I would be if was good enough; I'm having a 90s trance revival at the moment. ;O) Thanks for the edit, much appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I have been doing extensive work on Civil War Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed some problems. For example, I finished the T-Z sorting page and I found that a link that was blue actually linked to a different person and not the medal recipient it should have been. Later whilst looking around the A-F article, I noticed 3-4 blue links that linked back to the A-F page. I want to know if there is a way to find out how many of these false blue links there are and how widespread this issue is. Thanks in advance, Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
Assuming I didn't mess up my regexes along the way, this page should now show a table containing every linked person from those lists where the link is not the trivial case of "Link Firstname Lastname to a Wikipedia article entitled Firstname Lastname. The first column of the table is the link as it appears in the MH tables, the second column is the combined Firstname Lastname as used for sorting those tables, and the third column is the manually modified link for that entry. The items you want to find should be entries where the third column is neither "Example text" nor something that is obviously correct for the name, such as "John Smith (Medal of Honor)". No warranty that I didn't mess the parsing, tho. To find cases where the entry for "John Smith" links to a wrong John Smith, I don't think there's any way of automating that. So you'd just have to manually go through the original tables for that. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
We are making some progress but some experienced editors might provide some insight into how to best deal with the casualty figures. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Three Staffeln in parade formation, nine planes each, 1937
There is some confusion regarding the strength of Staffeln in Nazi Germany's air force. Can someone with access to relevant sources please help sort it out? The Staffel (unit) article and similarly the section Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45)#Staffel say without references that a Staffel consisted of nine to twelve planes and was subdivided into three Schwärme of four to six planes. That can't both be true since three times four to six planes would be twelve to 18 planes. The German "Staffel" article says they had three Schwärme of four fighters or four Ketten of three bombers; the German "Kette" article says that a Staffel consisted of three to four Ketten which would yield the result of nine to twelve planes for bombers. The German source (which I cannot access) is Ulf Balke (1998). Der Luftkrieg in Europa 1939–1941 (in German). Augsburg: Bechtermünz Verlag. pp. 25–26. ISBN3-86047-591-6. I also found a photo of three Staffeln of nine planes each flying in parade formation in 1937; I would assume that on parade they'd be at full strength, and to me those planes don't look like fighters, but I'm not enough of an expert to be sure. It seems likely that our description is correct for fighters, but for bombers it should be three to four Ketten of three bombers each, not three Schwärme of six bombers each. Huon (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Mierzejewski's book, "The Collapse of the German War Economy, 1944-1945" suggested that EOU only considered targets that were militarily important. Opposed the Tedder and Zukerman transportation initiative- which brought the German industrial coal economy to collapse. COA falsely claimed that oil was the key to the German economy, whereas coal provided 90% of German industrial energy. EOU credited Germany with spare production capabilities which did not exist. The EOU obdurately opposed anything other than petroleum attacks which hampered the German military but not its military production, which was coal based.
Tedder augmented his transportation plan by petrolium bombing and some bridge and line cuts, rather than the oil sole solution. Tedder and Co. also emphasized revisit bombing to negate repairs, and riverine/canal bombing to cut alternative means of transportation to the German railroads; these railroads tied together areas of German production and final product integration of components.
The book portrays the EOU as Obstructive rather than useful. 76.182.3.29 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Holbeach Air Weapons Range or RAF Holbeach?
Dear all, at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed movesNightsturm and I are reaching an impasse. There's been an air weapons range at RAF Sutton Bridge, now Holbeach, for decades. In 2006 the Defence Training Estate took control of all RAF (Strike Command?) air weapons ranges. Later DTE was folded into the new Defence Infrastructure Organisation. I found the listing of all the AWRs (actually on the Holbeach article, where Nightsturm had helpfully collected the list) and because they no longer appeared to be under RAF control, and because a previous user had tried to change the page title, I moved the page to Holbeach Air Weapons Range (simplifying the clumsy full DIO title "DIO Holbeach AWR") as well as the other four range page titles.
Both Nightsturm and I have collected a number of official documents accessible on the web which use both designations. Nightsturm has helpfully located Flickr photos of the main gate sign(s) which on the left of the entrance say RAF Holbeach; and the right of the entrance say DIO Holbeach AWR!!
It appear to me that this is virtually a tie: different groups of people use both designations at different times for different reasons!!
Can anyone suggest a source for "Edmonds died on 2 August 1956 at Brecon House, Sherborne, Dorset, after a brief illness." please. Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I have a copy, It's my main source for the article but it ends when he retires (it's Green's PhD thesis). Some sections are all over the place so I might find a decent cite as I plug away but I'm not optimistic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Keith-264 I have access to Times online, an obituary is lodged on 7 August 1956. It makes no mention of a brief illness, just that he died aged 94, and that he was born on 25 December 1861.[1] Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that editors are being targeted/at real risk of being targeted for posting material that runs counter to Russian propaganda. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Russian law punishes anyone who calls the war anything other than a "special operation" and spreads "misinformation" about the topic with up to 15 years in prison. In the past people have ended up in prison for far less (posting memes).--Catlemur (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment - the article has an edit notice. Would it be beneficial to extend the edit notice to state that editors in Russia need to edit with extreme caution, due to the penalties that could be imposed? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you can come up with suitable wording, I or another admin can amend the edit notice. Would suggest that the Russian flag is prominently displayed with the text. We shouldn't need to remind editors of NPOV in the edit notice. This needs to be aimed at making editors in Russia aware of the potential consequenses if they do decide to edit the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The hazards of public speech are not specific to a particular article or topic, nor just to one country. I would not take it upon myself to point out that something in particular is unsafe, lest someone infer something else is safer, and suffer for it given the arbitrariness with which oppressive laws can be applied. I’m afraid it’s mainly up to editors to understand their own risks. (But does Wikimedia or en.wiki have any guidelines or advice for them?) —MichaelZ.18:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I've seen a few articles covering historical military figures with debated existence listed as part of this project, and I'm curious if they fall under the scope of this project. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Military figures fall within the scope of the project. Whether they deserve an article or not depends on whether or not that they have significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG). It is possible for a figure whose existent is contested (eg. King Arthur) to warrant an article. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Emphasis on military figure. They fall under the project if their involvement in military matters contributed towards their notability or was a significant part of their life. Merely being a veteran, for example, doesn't make someone fall under milhist. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Russian military-focused secondary schools are usual secondary schools conducting secondary general education programme (level 3 according ISCED) and providing their pupils with training in additional military-focused subjects. These schools don't prepare military personnel, and their graduates can choose either military or civilian way of life.
The section List of Russian military-focused secondary schools
Presidential Cadet Schools:
Kemerovo Presidential Cadet School
Krasnodar Presidential Cadet School
Kyzyl Presidential Cadet School
Orenburg Presidential Cadet School
Petrozavodsk Presidential Cadet School
Stavropol Presidential Cadet School
Tyumen Presidential Cadet School
Cadet Corps Schools:
Aksay Cossack Cadet Corps named after Danila Efremov
The military warrant officer schools are educational institutions conducting the training career warrant officer programmes. Education acquired at such schools is vocational military education (level 4 according ISCED). The duration of studies is 2 years and 6-10 months. Graduates of these schools are assigned the military rank of praporshchik/michman.
At the moment, there are no separate warrant officer schools in Russia. The training warrant officer programmes are conducted by military educational institutions which also offer commissioning programmes.
The section List of Russian military educational institutions conducting training warrant officer programmes
The military commissioning schools are educational institutions conducting the training career commissioned officer programmes. Education acquired at such schools is higher military education (level 6 according ISCED). These programmes are named specialitet (Russian: специалитет) and take 5 years. Graduates of commissioning schools are assigned the military rank of lieutenant.
The commissioning schools are the first (tactical) level of officer training. Their graduates are appointed as platoon/company commanders and at equivalent positions. After several years of active duty service they can entry military post-commissioning schools for further education.
At the moment, some commissioning schools also conduct warrant officer programmes.
The section List of Russian military educational institutions conducting training commissioning officer programmes
The military post-commissioning schools are educational institutions conducting the advance training career commissioned officer programmes. These programmes improve the military occupational specialty knowledge of commissioned officers. These programmes are named magistratura (Russian: магистратура) and take 2 years. Officer wishing to join the program shall comply with the entry requirements illustrated below[1]
Reached educational level
Years of active duty service as commissioned officer
Military rank (no lower than)
Military position (years of experience)
Expected number of years of active duty service after graduation until general upper age limit for tenure
Military school or Military training center (tactical level)
The military post-commissioning schools are the second (operational-tactical) level of officer training. Their graduates can be appointed to battalion/regiment/brigade commander or equivalent positions.
A special case is Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia which is the third (strategic) level of officer training. This academy prepares highest ranking military officers. The educational programme at Military Academy of the General Staff takes 2 years. Officer wishing to join the program shall comply with the entry requirements illustrated below[1]
Reached educational level
Years of active duty service as commissioned officer
Military rank (no lower than)
Military position (years of experience)
Expected number of years of active duty service after graduation until general upper age limit for tenure
The citations button in the edit page has disappeared and I can't find it in the preferences page. I had a look in preferences and changed a couple of things before noticing that it had gone but nothing that was connected. Can anyone shed light on this pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Keith-264: Just an fyi, but the cite button is still present in my edit window. Have you considered restoring your preferences to default? Cheers - wolf18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Additional standard terms for parameter result in infobox Military conflict
In the Battle of Berezina the result within Infobox Military conflict says: "Inconclusive (See the Aftermath Section)". The Aftermath section says: "Napoleon was in a position to claim a strategic victory." Strategic victory says: "A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war." The Documentation of Infobox Military conflict says: "Result: The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict" and "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
All this shows that the term "victory" as a result does not help in complex campaigns. I suggest adding to the documentation of Infobox military conflict for the parameter Result three new terms: "X advance", "X retreat" and "X standstill". The outcome of the Battle of Berezina will be: French retreat Russian advance. The outcome of the even more complex Battle of Maloyaroslavets will be instead of "See Aftermath": French standstill Russian retreat. Ruedi33a (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
There are some battles and even wars that have the same issue. Jutland quickly comes to mind. As does The War of 1812. Berezina and come to think on it The Battle of Wavre are particularly thorny. Oh, and we have the Battle of Borodino as well. We need a process that is different from the way that is not working right now. Really complex battles and wars don't always fit our way of doing things. It ends up with endless squabbling without real answers. I'm going to suggest that such articles be worked over by designated teams and locked.Tirronan (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
No, never, this is a recipie for endless hair splitting, see aftermath is a far better way of dealing with the subtleties, the solution is to write a better aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. If the result is sufficiently complex that neither side can be unambiguously called a "victor" then the solution is not to cram more and more information into an infobox but to omit the argument or, as an alternative, to refer to a section of the prose that describes the outcome. As per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: [T]he purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize [..] key facts that appear in the article[.] The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Adding additional qualifiers would also result in a bunch of (in my view rather pointless) infighting regarding which qualifier to use for any specific battle where a few sources describe it as a "pyrrhic victory for A", others call it a "tactical victory for A", a few more use "strategic victory for B" and the rest do not use any specific modifiers. Ljleppan (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to leave a courtesy notification that I changed a few links in conflict infoboxes for 18th-century Spain from Enlightenment in Spain to History of Spain (1700–1810), but I don't know how widespread this practice was, and only looked at the members of Category:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War involving Spain. Some of those linked to Bourbon Spain, which redirects to the 1700–1810 article. I thought it was strange that we'd link to an article about intellectual and scientific development—even if it's a common way of referring to that time period—in a historical or military context. A clue was that some of these infoboxes had linked to Enlightenment Spain (not in Spain), which better captures the meaning of "Enlightenment-era Spain".
Given the inconsistency I came across, I didn't think I was going against any solid consensus, but just in case. Beyond that one category, I'm not sure what the linking looks like. Feel free to ping me if needed. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Tiridates I of Armenia
I have nominated Tiridates I of Armenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Armor-piercing ammunition
This article is a train wreck. There are almost zero citations, numerous errors, half facts, and other fun and exciting prizes. It might be best to put it on a speedy delete list. Failing that, perhaps we can put a team together to overhaul the article. I might also suggest merging this into another article. Tirronan (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tirronan: what page would you suggest merging Armor-piercing ammunition into? Also, have you considered making any improvements to the page yourself? You suggested you would do just that back in 2019 on the article talk. Your comments also indicate you may have some subject-matter expertise on this topic, along with access to relevant reliable sources, so any changes you make would likely be a good way to get the ball rolling towards improvement. (jmho) Cheers - wolf17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I do in fact know something about it. Mind you that a real expert is going to be found at the Yuma testing range or the Aberdeen facility. I'd prefer that someone collaborate with me to help with some of the research if that is possible. Otherwise, I am coming across as a solo effort.Tirronan (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tirronan: It's usually (but not always) nice to have help, but if you have an interest in improving an article, don't let appearances get in the way. If no one steps up to offer assistance, feel free to work on the article anyway.
I have nominated Óengus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk04:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know. I don’t think accuracy is relevant. A notification which adds on an accurate statement which only supports one side of the discussion (which this clearly does) is not neutral. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Originalcola recently removed Hungary from the infobox after a discussion on the talk page. I think this is probably correct, but am unsure. Italy is still there, but no mention of Italians in Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. I think some units from the Italian 8th Army may have been attached to the German 6th Army and caught in the encirclement. I think some clarification is in order here. This is not my area and the discussion on the talk page did not generate much input, so I am posting this here. Srnec (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The Italian 8th Army occupied a defensive line on the River Don, with the Hungarians on their left to the west and the Romanians on their right to the east (map here). Beyond the Romanians further east was the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. The initial Soviet encirclement fell on the Romanians, but the Italian front was attacked in Operation Little Saturn which eventually led to their rout in February 1943. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
But didn't Little Saturn also hit the Hungarians? The troop dispositions I (sort of) know. It is the 'boundaries' of the battle of Stalingrad—what 'counts' as part of that—that I am unsure of. And hence unsure of keeping the Italians and leaving out the Hungarians. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - Russian Military intends to partition Ukraine into 2 parts
Animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 24 March
In editing the article for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the military strategy currently in progress is being described as an invasion of Eastern Ukraine with 4 battle groups, currently involved in besieging major cities which are within 100-200km of the Russian border inside Ukraine. This appears to be an encirclement strategy of Eastern Ukraine, however, none of the news sources are calling it an encirclement. Do any of the military sciences editors here at Wikipedia know what is the preferred description for this type of border invasion: using four battle groups to besiege major cities close to the invaded border before continuing military operations against the targeted nation. It looks like an encirclement of Eastern Ukraine, though news sources are not using this language. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This NBC News report quotes Jeffrey Edmonds, "a senior analyst at CNA", who says that the Russian commanders were given very little time to plan the offensive, resulting in a "just drive down the road and see what happens kind of approach". Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Alansplodge That second Pentagon article you present from last month in February seems to introduce the divide-and-conquer strategy, that is, divide Ukraine in half geographically and then concentrate on defeating the eastern half. Here is a newer strategy analysis from last week discussing the four fronts description of the invasion [7]. Also this article from yesterday states that Russia may wish to partition Ukraine into two parts on the model of North Korea and South Korea here [8]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Certainly sources say that one of the Russian objectives is likely to kettle the defenders in the Donbas area of operations (the JFO/former ATO zone). Salients may form and become at risk to encirclement, but that is true of Russian offensives in the AO at a smaller scale, too. But they have not come close to an encirclement there, except for the isolated coastal city of Mariupol. Sorry I don’t have references at hand. —MichaelZ.18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@The ed17: "height" looks like the kind of stuff that is usually infobox clutter and not really encyclopedically pertinent (and in the few cases where it might be, ex. Napoleon, it's not really something that's worthy of being in the infobox anyways). And if, on top of that, it is unsourced, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I'm with you generally, but in this case the claim is that Ozawa was exceedingly tall for the time (6 feet 7 inches (2.01 m)). If true, I think that's worth mentioning in the article... but based on what I (haven't) found, I'm skeptical. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is trying to reconcile sources concerning what sort of cadet young Grant was during the presidency of his father. The standard biography says Grant was somewhat involved in the hazing of the first black cadet to USMA. This seems likely, given the son's Missouri upbringing, the prevailing climate of racism at all American colleges in the 1870's, and the particular animus at USMA demonstrated a few years later at the expense of then cadet Johnson Whittaker (including the vital research of John Marselek). Along comes a wordpress blog that says the sources in the biography are partially reconstructions (no pun intended) and not from direct testimony. I would normally disregard a blog, but it seems the blog's author has some serious qualifications upon which to base disagreement. This is directly in my wheelhouse but I'm asking for fresh eyes, as I may be required to perform an admin action at some point. I have zero personal interest in the outcome, although by my description of the situation here I have largely disclosed my position. Any comments would be useful. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not able to comment on the substance of the discussion, but at least academically speaking the serious qualifications are, while not trivial, not that great, even if he does appear to be a relatively prolific popularizer and communicator of history. The journal articles listed in his CV include a text published on his employer's website (NPS), another in a university specific undergraduate research journal (The Confluence) and one in what appears to have been a short-lived one-man show (The Americanist Independent). Having two good scholarly publications is of course non-trivial, but then again it's about what I'd expect from a PhD student half-way through their studies. I'd be hesitant to use his WP:SPS as an authority, especially if it's refuting a majority position. If he got his ideas published in a reliable sources, that'd be a completely different thing. - Ljleppan (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
A little help?
G'day all, could those with a few minutes to spare please take a look at the Milhistbot AutoCheck report for January and February? The March lot will drop on the weekend, and it would be good to knock these two older ones on the head asap. For anyone that hasn't done it before, all you are doing is checking whether the autochecked articles really are B class, or whether Milhistbot has got it wrong (in which case re-assess). The B-class criteria are here. Thanks in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC) for the coords
Template:Military navigation with sidebar discussion
Looking at this talk page, the milhist banner displays start, but in wikitext the parameter is set to C class the same as others. I have refreshed, purged, and used one of my userscripts to do a null edit, but I'm not sure whats wrong. Wanted to see if I was crazy on this, or if y'all know what's up. (watching) Happy Editing--IAmChaos13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I used a translation app to read the Polish-language article, and I think that everything there is covered in the first paragraph of the "Operation and Requirements" section of Minesweeper. Degaussing also has a lot of information about a specific method for reducing magnetic signature. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, the 81st Guards Motor Rifle Regiment of the Russian Ground Forces was reorganised in 2009 into the 23rd Guards MRB. That fought in the Donbas and generated the reports which led to the above deletion discussion. I have now checked the history and the 23rd Guards MRB was reorganised in 2016 as the 752nd Guards MRR. I have now created a new article by translation of Ruwiki for the current designation of the regiment. Regards to all, Buckshot06(talk)05:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
ACR reviews needed!
We've got some older nominations at WP:MILHIST/ACR that need some attention.
I saw this photo in the current edition of The Signpost, and it was categorised at Commons under the category "Unidentified tanks". I changed this to the category "Mark I tank". Would a Milhist expert please check the categorisation and amend if necessary, as there are four subcats of "Mark I tank". Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mjroots:Done. For future information, the difference is that males tanks had cannons (on top of a machine gun or a few), while female tanks only had machineguns (yeah, something can probably be said about sexual stereotypes, but that's not really the point here, is it?). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be the same vehicle, identified as a Mk V composite. The Mk V composite was certainly used in the Russian Civil War. Picking up the male/female theme, these were sometimes known as hermaphrodites, as they had one MG sponson and one cannon sponson. Monstrelet (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
74 Mark V and Whippets formed the [British] South Russian Tank Detachment which was landed on the Black Sea coast... Attempts were made to train White Army troops in their use and they were left in their hands when the Allies withdrew. 59 of them were captured by the Red Army.
I have nominated Shangani Patrol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Ukraine)
I just had a look at Oswald Tuck of the Royal Navy and half the references are based on archival material at The National Archives and Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge and Cambridge University Library. Surely this goes well beyond WP:OR? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes citing a boatload of personal correspondence is a sure warning sign. Why? Personal letters are not RS. WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY are specifically what you're looking for. Tuck seems notable but the article is probably in for some massive trimming. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
So (for example) one is suited to say he received his appointment to a post if the latter says "you are hereby appointed" then that does not fail OR, as it is almost a direct quote. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm rather of the same mind as Indy. Citing the article subject's own diary is rather sub-optimal and references as vague as Tuck Papers 2/5 (a collection of letters) rather than describing the titles and authors of the documents aren't helping. Also not-great is things like This was an unusual appointment in the sense that most Naval Instructors had a university degree cited to The Navy List. Ljleppan (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a great research article, but does not belong on Wikipedia!! It's heavily sourced to very primary sources!! Needs to be published somewhere!! Buckshot06(talk)16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we are not historians. Such heavy use of primary sources is something a trained professional or at least a reputable publisher should handle, not us. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The only reason I happened to look at the article on here was because I was thinking of looking at Tuck's papers at Churchill Archives Centre tomorrow about his time as first head of the Historical Section. The author doesn't seem to have edited for many months, otherwise I'd raise the matter on their talk page. In spite of their evident familiarity with Tuck's linguistic abilities they clearly knew very little of his naval career (of which there is very little in the public domain unfortunately). I admit to some responsibility for the line about degrees because until yesterday it claimed that there was only one other without one appointed decades earlier. All naval instructors had their degree listed after their name in the Navy List. However, the author managed to miss another naval instructor without a degree in his source, and at any rate it's a meaningless claim because others had been appointed without degrees who had retired or resigned before his arbitrary 1905 cut off date. I'll have a think while I'm buried in the Caird Library at Greenwich today. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
De-orphaning articles
I noticed that neither the main page, nor the /Open tasks page says anything about Orphans. I've made a start at doing something about this. What I'd like to do, is add one of those "Backlog!" buttons, maybe with a different color to distinguish it from that rose-means-category-backlog convention (how about: Backlog!?) and linking to a new subpage of the project, as a workspace where interested editors can work on de-orphaning articles. Currently there are 1,541 orphans. See demo page at WP:WikiProject Military history/Orphans. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of setlists in the lists of orphans. Like disambiguation pages, if the system is working, they will have few incoming links. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett:, thanks. If they have any incoming (non-redirect) article links at all, they won't be in the Orphan list (or at least, they shouldn't be if the db query is correct). They might be in the second list if they have exactly one in-link.
I'm not familiar with "setlists"; do you mean a set index article? The lists on the Orphans page were generated by a database query which is fairly complex, and I imagine there are ways to fine tune it to correspond more exactly to what would be most useful to the project. If you can give a few examples of the articles you found that don't belong, that would help. If they are only a small percentage of the full list, it may not be worth trying to alter the db query; we could just chalk them up to false positives, as any orphan list would have. To de-orphan articles, a human needs to look at them one by one; if a particular article turns out not to be in need of de-orphaning because it's a set list or for any other reason, they would just mark it "seen", skip it, and go on to the next one. (Speaking of which, I should probably add another table column where check marks or some other icon or term could be added, to mark that row as done.) Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said Set index - so anything with a set index tag, such as Italian corvette Fenice could have no incoming links but in an ideal world might have no incoming links, or be linked from an article such as "List of ship names of Foo Navy". GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Good point: many SIAs are effectively disambiguation pages. For example, a link such as Smith served on HMS Intrepid is a problem rather than an orphan-avoiding solution. Certes (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Redirect deduplication
This section discusses technical aspects of removing duplicate redirects via sql or regex.
@Certes:, Ah, I wondered about that; I'll do that. In the meantime, I had come up with a regex to de-dupe just the orphans from the wikitable-format exported output (s!^\|0\|\|([^\|]+)\|\|(?:\1)\|?!|0||\1||!g); you can see the result here, although the regex must be buggy because some stragglers slipped through, not quite sure why) so it would be better to follow your suggestion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The regex looks good as long as the article is first in the list of redirects. However, I joined the list in alphabetical order, so the article often appeared in the middle and nothing there matches the redirects preceding it. Certes (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it! Will tweak if needed, but probably will adjust the (forked) query as you suggested as a better solution. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
63580 already has AND inlinkpage.page_is_redirect = 0 to avoid counting redirect pages as incoming links. Does it need adding to a second part of the query? The dedup regex is tricky because you want to remove "|Article" if there are redirects but "||Article" if there aren't, and a redirect title may contain the article title. Something like s!^\|0\|\|([^\|]+)(.*?)(?:\|\|\1$|\|\1)(\||$)!|0||\1\2\3!g should work, but if your strings end in \r and/or \n then you may need to replace $ with a lookahead (?=\r) or (?=\n). Certes (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll look into that, thanks! (Also, adding
Magomed Tushayev
I recently created Draft:Magomed Tushayev because I believe we will find this person notable later on despite not meeting notability earlier. Do you have any inputs or ideas about what sources would be necessary to establish notability? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sobski, Marek (2020). East Africa 1940–1941 (land campaign): The Italian Army Defends the Empire in the Horn of Africa. Mussolini's War. Vol. I. Translated by Basarabowicz, Tomasz. Zielona Gora. ISBN 979-8-57-786912-0. is self-published, has an isbn, scholarly apparatus and uses Italian sources not available to us Anglophone monoglots. Any objections to its status as a RS? ([9] review by the 2 Stones) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Given that it's WP:SPS, I'd say the onus is on anyone wanting to incorporate it to demonstrate why this falls under the exception of Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.Ljleppan (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has begun I have been sporadically filling in some of the remaining Russian units without articles, today creating 25th Guards MRB. Its predecessor unit the ru:13-й гвардейский стрелковый полк has a number of interesting photos on its Ruwiki page but they are not hosted on Commons - they're on Ruwiki. Does anyone know anyone who could advise on moving them to Commons so they could be added to other language Wikipedias? Buckshot06(talk)19:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It sure would've been nice if they'd informed us that it was up for deletion, given that the deletion request even noted that it was widely used on our project banner ... Hog FarmTalk03:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated USS Missouri (BB-63) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The project to revisit older FAs that begun in late 2020 is still ongoing, and as Warfare is the largest category of FAs, I think it would be good for the project to "give" back by looking over some of the oldest, as more expert eyes can be a big help. Some of the oldest ones that still need attention:
USS Missouri (BB-63) is in a process of reducing overreliance on DANFS; any help there would be appreciated
Toledo War - an obscure internal US boundary dispute, needs reviews to see if it meets standards
Battle of Savo Island - in good shape, needs some smaller source improvements and maybe some lead work
Ulm campaign - has been given a formal pre-FAR notice for some sourcing upgrades needed. This looks fixable if anyone has relevant sources (I don't). It would be a shame if it were delisted
Battle of Schellenberg - has not been looked at as part of the FA process, could use a read-through from someone familiar with the subject
Battle of Ceresole Looks pretty good, but could use attention from someone more familiar with this
Thomas C. Hindman - in very poor sourcing shape, has also been given a formal pre-FAR notice. I can help with this one, but lack a couple key sources.
All of these were promoted in 2006 or before, with the exception of Hindman, which was promoted in 2007. Any help would be greatly appreciated, and maintaining old FAs is just as important as creating new ones. If we can get these 10 looked at, that would be a great big help for the URFA effort. Hog FarmTalk20:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 - The procedure depends on article state. If it's in good condition RE the FA criteria, you can add your signature and the statement "satisfactory" into the big table at WP:URFA/2020A. If there are enough smaller issues that it isn't satisfactory (we aren't looking for perfection), then some brief comments can be left in a section on the article talk page and then linked to at the 2020A page as "Notes" or some such thing. If it is wholly deficient to the extent that it needs to be delisted, you again leave the explanatory notes, and then add it to WP:FARGIVEN, with a link to the comments at 2020A as "Noticed". Thanks for volunteering to look at this one! Hog FarmTalk13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
MILHIST that have been noticed for potentially needing FAR
These are ones with known issues that preclude status. I'll sort through the list, and post them here. Hopefully they can be fixed, but any editor can send one article to FAR a week, so if one is not going to be fixable in the near term, volunteers for FAR nominations would be welcome as a last-case scenario. Hog FarmTalk21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
These are in varying degrees of condition. Hopefully they can be saved, but don't be afraid to send one to FAR if it is beyond reasonable fixing. FAR has some more detailed instructions on nominating rules, see WP:FAR there or ask at WT:FAR. I can attempt to answer any questions, but of the above, only Hindman is a topic I'm particularly familiar with. Hog FarmTalk21:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I took a look at Finnish Civil War (not listed above, but in the masterlist) and was struck by the referencing style, where all the references for a paragraph are thrown together under a single footnote at the end of the para (see e.g. Footnote 9 at end of the first para of Finnish Civil War § Background, which essentially boils down to "referenced to a total of 205 pages in 5 sourced"). Is this acceptable at FA level? If nothing else, it makes it supremely difficult to actually verify the content against the sources. First glance at the sourcing also reveals at least one master's thesis, several references to newspaper articles and editorials (for things that should be sourceable to academic publications), an SPS website, and a website of a random company selling historical walking tours. Definitely needs a more thorough look. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at that, Ljleppan! It is indeed problematic; I would probably oppose a current FAC using that referencing scheme. The sourcing issues are also concerning. Hog FarmTalk19:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Center peel notability
I don't usually edit on military topics but I came across the center peel article, which has almost no references. I did a little googling and didn't find much that would count as a good quality source. Is this kind of thing usually notable enough for a Wikipedia article and just nobody has done the work of referencing it properly, or is this the kind of thing that should be considered for deletion (perhaps with some of the content merged into Withdrawal (military))? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the confirmation. I've one source and notability tagged. Perhaps someone who watches the subject will step up with some tactical awareness over my head. If not, we'll redirect in a week or so. Suggestions as to redirect target? BusterD (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated United States Military Academy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd help if I knew what it was! But if it makes citations easier, it's got to be good. What does it do? SN5412914:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It appears as a button at the base of the edit screen. When you click on it scans the article for citation and references errors and corrects them. It's really handy but since I tampered with my settings it has disappeared. I hope that someone can help so that I can re-install it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Considering, as the closer notes, there's only slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo, that's one helluva brave close from Heartfox; I certainly don't see—nonobstante NOTAVOTE etc—the overriding strength of arguments necessary to enable ruling in favour of the proposal. SN5412917:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a debate over this taking place at User talk:Heartfox's talk page right now, which is required before the close can be challenged (which it will be) if they don't undo it. (jmho) - wolf19:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It appears that an editor has moved quite a few articles on Royal Navy officers from the usual disambiguation of "Royal Navy officer" to "naval officer" on the basis that "further disambiguation not required" (see George Barrington (naval officer)). I propose we keep with "Royal Navy officer" in the interests of consistency. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
An officer in the Royal Navy is an officer in the navy of the United Kingdom (See Royal Navy). There are over 1,000 articles currently categorised as Royal Navy officers so this disambiguation is in very extensive use. Dormskirk (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not sufficiently familiar with articles on officers from other navies to comment on this. In the meantime I am pleased to note that an admin has kindly started reverting the changes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's rather reasonable to ask whether Royal Navy officershould be the common disambiguator. For example, WP:NCPDAB tells us to If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term and only failing a practical single qualifier, the disambiguator can be expanded with a second qualifier: e.g. Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer). As far as I can see, the default disambiguator should be officer, with a secondarily fallback to naval officer only where required, etc. Directly jumping to Royal Navy offiver for everyone seems to be against the relevant guidelines. Ljleppan (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making which is fair. However, from first glance about 50 articles were moved without prior discussion and then kindly moved back by Necrothesp. There are over 3,000 articles to be considered (including 1,113 categorised as Royal Navy officers, 121 Admirals of the Fleet, 1,115 Royal Navy admirals, 288 Royal Navy vice admirals, 176 Royal Navy rear admirals, 133 Royal Navy admirals of World War II and 123 Royal Navy admirals of World War I) although some will not require disambiguation. We need discussion (comments from other editors welcome), consensus and then an editor who is fully committed to devoting the time to make the changes if such a large undertaking is to be started and completed. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, just to clarify I'm not saying the reverts were improper; mass-moves without prior discussion is unlikely to ever be a good (pardon the pun) move. I'm merely observing that this seems like a good catalyst for a discussion of the topic in general :) Ljleppan (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
For British service personnel, we have always used "Royal Navy officer/Royal Navy sailor", "Royal Marines officer/Royal Marine", "British Army officer/British Army soldier" and "RAF officer/RAF airman". There are thousands of articles disambiguated in this way. It is a very well-established disambiguation system that I think definitely falls into the category of WP:AINT. I see no benefit whatsoever to messing with such a long-established system. Moving back all those that were moved was time-consuming enough, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. As for other countries, they use their own systems which are not always consistent. Ours has the benfit of being exceptionally internally consistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Created a new article. Planning to create more articles on battles in the Mongol–Jin War.
Its not easy to come up with as much info as there is far less source coverage for this war compared to other Mongol wars so it gets overlooked. But I will try my best to show the war wasn't completely one-sided.
Can someone please review? Thanks
I have nominated Cleomenean War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been tinkering with this article and got Harv and Sfn no-target errors but can't find any, can anyone help? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you seeing this in a particular "skin"?. I am not. Which refs are causing the problem? The two I could see that might are the LG and BCE but you seem to have these covered. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there's not any. Harv and sfn no-target errors is notorious for having false positives, as using a perfectly fine source-specific template can flag it up unless it gets whitelisted somewhere that I don't remember. Hog FarmTalk13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
This project may be interested in the move discussion here about Battle of Enerhodar. The page was originally titled Siege of Enerhodar. I boldly moved it to Battle of Enerhodar on 6 April. Elijahandskip has started a discussion about this move, proposing that Siege be restored. I figure it would be good to get wider participation than the small number of folks who may be watching that particular page. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Cretan War (205–200 BC) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe03:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey all, I've recently reviewed the Operations in Valtellina (1866) and it brought thinking "shouldn't there be a German militairy history tag in its talk page?" The reason why I brought question here was due the German Confederation in which Austria was part of. The German Confederation was considerderd as a successor of the Holy Roman Empire however it was never considederd as a real state. The German military history task force states "his task force includes the military history of the modern state of Germany, as well as that of those historical states which may be reasonably considered "German" (such as Prussia and the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire)." so does that mean that we should include the German Confederation as "German"? Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Why is "Country of origin" in equipment tables considered a country from which the purchase was made than country of manufacturer? By country of the manufacturer I mean for example Leopard 2 is German tank because was made by two German companies and Leopard 2PL is still German tank made by the same two German companies just modernised by Polish company. Eurohunter (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
German cargo ship captured in neutral waters in 1918
SS Düsseldorf was captured by a British auxiliary cruiser off the coast of Norway in February 1918. Can anyone shed any further light on this capture, particularly which was the auxiliary involved? Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over this article, which is about the insurgency by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army against the Soviet Union (which the article terms a "Russian occupation") during the 1940s-50s. The article could use more attention by outside editors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This article has less than 30 watchers and has been barely edited since 2009, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. It's WWII related and might not need much work, but thought I'd share anyways :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Alerting editors of the WikiProject that a new set of articles are being created for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and they are the “Russian occupation of (oblast)”. I have trying to create a format for them the best I could, but they for sure need more work done on them. So far, five of these articles have been started.
I wonder if a better title would be “in X Oblast,” since to date these have been partial and temporary. —MichaelZ.20:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Human shields
Need input to resolve two concerns:
If Ukrainian claims about Russia using human shields can be included, then why Russian claims about Ukraine using human shields cannot be included?
If Ukrainian eye-witness accounts about Russia using human shields can be included then why accounts from foreigners, namely from South Africa and Bangladesh, cannot be included about Ukraine using human shields?
Hi, I created "Military oath", just to plug a hole. I am not interested nor I am an expert on the subject, so I wont work further. Quick google search shows that this article may be significantly expanded, at least by "History" section. I am baffled nobody wrote it before. Even a clothespin has an article. Please do something. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The oath used in the US is not unique to the military, so I think this title is something of a misnomer. Oath of service might be a better choice. Intothatdarkness12:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Again, as a note, context matters for reliability. Like noted by Headbomb above, this is not an end-all-be-all and will have both false positives and false negatives. Hog FarmTalk16:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Trawlers of the Royal Navy lists the Strath-Class trawler as the most numerous class of trawler in RN service during the first world war. No article exists, and I have been unable to find significant reliable sources online. Is anyone aware of offline sources? ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a little bit in Dittmar & Colledge (Dittmar, F.J.; Colledge, J.J. (1972). British Warships 1914–1919. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN0-7110-0380-7.) - at least a list of them and characteristics. There may be something of use in Taffrail's Swept Channels (Dorling, Taprell (1935). Swept Channels: Being an Account of the Work of the Minesweepers in the Great War. London: Hodder and Stoughton.) or other similar works.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no agreed on definition of a massacre - which leads to a general issue with categories (and lists) of massacres, as it often inappropriate conflates very different events - I believe we should delete all such lists and categories. BilledMammal (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no such reservation in military history. Also not really sure how you can both be agreeing ("Exactly!") that "There is no agreed on definition of a massacre" and assert your own definition of massacre. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Because unless there is an agreed definition, we will not know what to place in the category, the category will be meaningless, and we will not be able to defend the use of the term in Wikipedia's voice. Hawkeye7(discuss)08:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't "collateral damage" be the more accurate, and appropriate, term to use here, as opposed to "massacre"...? (jmho) - wolf18:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Remember the duck? If bombing civilians, then bombing them again with a bigger bomb isn't a terrorist attack intended to cause a massacre, what is? Could it be that the difficulty some editors are having is that the perpetrators were US military personnel? Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is straying over into personal opinions. What matters is what the RS say, and so far as I’ve seen we’ve got one politicsed source and one political activist who call them massacres. That’s enough for an attributed opinion perhaps, but nothing more. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed ship-infoboxen template merger
An editor has nominated these ship infoboxen templates for merging:
These claims are new to the pages, and big if true, so they should be backed up by verified reliable sources. I also believe there is too much detail for the carbine page.
I did find an English webpage on weaponsandwarfare.com (probably part of a linkfarm, so don't click it if you find it) about Korea's use of guns after 1592, which briefly mentions Korea's pre-1500 guns. It has an unexplained link to buy a game, does not cite sources, and the text is plagiarized from The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History (page 181). The book says that "We have much to learn about early firearms in Korea".
I do not plan to verify it myself, but thought that it was important enough that people should know about these additions.
--Raijinili (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty (조선왕조실록, simple translation related to se-chongtong, and converted date to CE.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kda_11906027_001 "Se chongtong was easy to carry and operate for scouts. If not for scouts, carrying many and fire while facing the enemy is convenience and beneficial for cavalry. In emergency, children and women can use it." 1437-08-07.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kda_12911016_001 "Create squad with 5 soldiers (or 10) for 4 shooters & 1 loader and increase teamwork to not to confuse with 5 different type of chongtongs (se chongtong being one of the 5). I (Sejong) heard Ming used our horses to carry many chongtongs during their campaign on north, so let's imitate that tactic. The loader will take care of horse, and pack horse with loading equipment, large number of loaded cannons, and pass the loaded cannon to squad member who are armed with bow and sword. Use 5 different color banners on helm to signal which type of chongtong each squad operates for the commander." 1448-01-01.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kda_13012006_001 "Soldiers will perform shooting practice of all 5 types of chongtongs (se chongtong included). Frontier provinces will fire once per year, and other provinces will fire once every two years." 1449-01-09.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kea_10010005_003 Mentions about manufacturing se chongtong (and other weapons) wick hole size as written in the Register of Chongtong, while other weapons getting the modification. 1450-11-17.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kea_10106005_003 Mentions about decrease of usage of se chongtong (and other types) in favor of sajeon chongtong (one of shotgun type hand cannon variant, developed under "one shot multi arrow technique" project. As the name describes, it fires 4-arrows at once, or more depending on the type of arrow. Ancient shotgun yes.). 1451-07-12.
I don't think the "world" really knows about the Korean firearm history. Can't really find anything in English. Kadrun (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I've left a note at the WP:KOREA project. Hopefully somebody there can find proper sources about this in Korean, if there aren't any in English. I can find some mentions of "Korea" and "firearms" on JSTOR, ex. [14], although these seem to be documenting the fact that such technology spread from China to the rest of Southeast Asia, not the precise first occurrence in Korea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Kenneth Chase's "Firearms: A Global History to 1700" (Cambridge University Press, 2003) might also be an authoritative source on this, although I don't have access to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In light of the above, and looking at handgun (which has a well sourced claim of a much earlier "world's first handgun", to Needham, Joseph (1987), Science and Civilisation in China: Military Technology: The Gunpowder Epic, Volume 5, Part 7, Cambridge University Press.), I've slightly altered the existing article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean this to canvass or anything but maybe somebody here could pitch in and share their thoughts? It seems relevant to your WikiProject's scope. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS23:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ama: Not a big deal. The previous notice is a week old and waay up the page. I don't recall noticing it, but I did catch yours, so thanks. Cheers - wolf03:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
1st Moroccan Infantry Division
We currently have three articles on this division:
@BilledMammal: It's hard to be sure, but I think the one listed as Free French is the same as the Division de marche du Maroc listed above - fr:Armée française de la Libération lists a 2e division d'infanterie marocaine, but no 1er.
Similarly, List of French divisions in World War II has the "1st Moroccan March Division (1st DMM)" (the Division de marche du Maroc 1942-43) and a separate "1st Moroccan Division (1st DM)" - but with a note saying it was planned under that name, but was actually formed as the 6th Moroccan Infantry Division (6th DIM). So apparently the only "1st Moroccan" to serve during WWII were the 1939-40 formation and the 1942-43 one. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Linn uses [Numeral][State] Infantry Regiment in his works on the conflicts. Since he's considered the leading authority in the field, I'd be inclined to defer to his conventions. Intothatdarkness17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
When creating the articles I decided on using the [numeral] [state] volunteer infantry regiment [year] to distinguish the Spanish American War regiments from Civil War and Revolutionary units, as well as the state national guard regiments that often shared numbers. I would keep 'Volunteer' in the article title because secondary sources emphasize the volunteer nature of these units and often refer to them as such. Kges1901 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The next example that no one know what is the name of this riffle. How is that possible and how to fix it? Three different and random names in article name, infobox and lead is ridiculous. Eurohunter (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
List of United States Military Academy First Captains
I got tired of constantly referring to this subject in biographical articles and created a list article (List of United States Military Academy First Captains) for it. Unfortunately, a drive-by tags were slapped on it by an editor who asserts that it does not meet the notability requirement. If someone could remove these templates from the page, this would be appreciated. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead. I have as little to do with categories as I can. Even the first post was almost too much involvement for me! And, yeah, I often spot my typos right after I hit send too. And since I use a touchscreen tablet, sometimes it's inadvertent! (Both the send and the typo!) BilCat (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I've notified the IP user about the discussion, and asked them to stop adding the category to any more articles until.the discusion is completed, but they have continued to add the category to more articles, with no response whatsoever. BilCat (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
May campaignboxes include fictional battles?
I'm not sure if a rule against including fictional battles in campaignbox templates exists on English Wikipedia, but I thought I had seen it some years ago. It's relevant to the deletion discussion about Hebrew Bible campaignboxes that I've just opened. Some battles mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are historical, some are not, and some are debated amongst scholars. User:BD2412 and I have been building a new article Warfare in the Hebrew Bible to broadly discuss all battles and warfare-related texts mentioned in the Old Testament, and this is one of the issues that has come up. Feel free to give me an answer here, or join the deletion discussion there! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't have much expertise in this area, but I'd that, if they are definitely fictional, they should be removed and if they are disputed, they should be included. Alternatively, they could be included with a flag making it clear that they are fictional or disputed. Deb (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm okay, but the problem is that history is not always clear, because sources are contradictory. Apart from non-scholar religious apologists claiming that everything in the Bible really happened (because of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy), biblical scholars also do not always agree which battles probably did or did not happen. Especially in the c. 900 to 500 BCE period, some battles may have a kernel of historical truth, and some battles (mostly outside Israel that did not involve the Israelites, such as the Fall of Nineveh in/around 612 BCE and Battle of Megiddo in 609 BCE) definitely did happen as they are confirmed in relatively reliable extrabiblical sources (e.g. victory steles, clay tablets, Greek writings etc.). Your suggestion to 'include battles with a flag making it clear that they are fictional or disputed' is an interesting one that I think is worth considering.
About the excluding fictional battles rule, I just now remembered: material related to the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history has a strict policy of separating fact from fiction; the 14th-century novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTK) is considered historical fiction and not a reliable source for the end of the Han dynasty and military history of the Three Kingdoms. The Template:Three Kingdoms editnotice warns editors about this in many articles. Therefore, Template:Campaignbox End of Han and Template:Campaignbox Three Kingdoms may not feature fictonal battles such as the Battle of Hulao Pass that is based on the ROTK. I don't know if such Wikipedia editing rules or editnotices also exist for other periods in military history, but I think such a rule / editnotice is a very good one. The problem is that the Hebrew Bible is a mix of fiction and non-fiction, and sometimes it is hard to separate the two, especially when there is no extrabiblical evidence to confirm or refute its claims. So unlike ROTK, you can't dismiss its reliability as a source in its entirety. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Bible one is problematic - the campaignbox is just a presentation format, and since the articles all fall under the same general categories, it wouldn't be problematic to have, say, a campaignbox featuring the battles from Joshua or the wars of David. For something like ROTK, if we know a subject is fictional, then it shouldn't be included with the actual events. But for something like the Old Testament, having a campaignbox dedicated to those battles seems like a good idea, as the same questions will apply to them all largely equally. I think at one point we had a campaignbox for battles related to the Lord of the Rings, which was deleted when many of the relevant battle articles were deleted as cruft. Fictional should be separated from non-fictional, but with the case in question I think it is good to keep a single campaignbox to handle the narrative for navigational purposes. Hog FarmTalk13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm fair enough, but that still leaves many of the questions unanswered. For one, many battles included in the list do not have their own battle articles, and many of the ones that do are poorly sourced. Second, it's still a hodgepodge of battles and wars covering 500 years with countless places, ethnic groups, political entities etc. rather than a properly identifiable 'campaign'. There is no clear focus or scope. Anyway, I've outlined all the problems in the deletion discussion, I don't think I'll need to repeat them here. What's more important is whether there is any example left of a campaignbox for fictional wars? I think Category:Campaignbox templates pretty clearly shows that the wars need to be set on Earth (seeing the subcategories, so there is no room for fictional universe wars such as LOTR) and be part of actual history (as it is a subcategory of Category:History and events sidebar templates). By contrast, Category:Fiction templates appears to have no templates for fictional events, let alone fictional battles, campaigns or wars. The question then becomes why we should make an exception to the rule for campaignboxes for biblical battles/wars that are (most probably) fictional. Why shouldn't we limit ourselves to the battles which most scholars agree historically happened? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
PS: I looked some things up, and it appears that there are no templates covering battles in fictional universes such as LOTR or Star Wars (I'm just taking them as two big examples of fictional universes); any articles on them (which are very rare) are subsumed in larger navigation templates at the bottom about these universes in general. Template:The Lord of the Rings has a short list of 3 'battles', Template:Star Wars universe only lists Clone Wars (Star Wars) as a military conflict in 'concepts'. There are no 'lists of events/wars/battles' in LOTR/Star Wars that I can find; the categories Category:The Lord of the Rings and Category:Star Wars only focus on locations, characters, objects etc., not events. It just doesn't seem to be a way of organising information about fictional universes on English Wikipedia, so I think such campaignboxes don't exist and probably wouldn't be kept if someone did create them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do agree that these templates need cleanup - for instance, I'm not sure why the Joshua campaignbox includes Gibeah. For the ones I'm looking at, I don't see the not having a dedicated article as being problematic for most of these, as the subjects such as Ai have a decent section about the biblical battle narrative. My instinct would be to expand Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of the Israelites to cover the scope of all of them, rather than having a bunch of separate ones (the unified treatment would probably be best here). Still, I think this is a useful presentation method - the events are connected through appearing in the biblical text, which would provide the common relation for having a template here. Whether or not the template for this needs to be a designated campaignbox or not I don't particularly care, but having a navigational aid through these biblical narratives is most certainly useful for readers for getting between articles, so there needs to be at least something of this form present. Hog FarmTalk14:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the spirit of both my and your last two comments, how about we subsume all Hebrew Bible battles with their own articles in the Template:The Bible and history template? That navigation template at the bottom seems way more fitting than putting them in campaignboxes on the upper left corner of articles, with the implication that they are just as historical as all other battles covered in campaignboxes on English Wikipedia. We put them in the context of discussing the historicity of biblical events, and retain the navigation option. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
That template seems to be more used for higher-level topics and probably shouldn't be handling the more specific battles and such. A Template:The Bible and Warfare would probably be a better approach, which could group in such things as the overview article, the battle articles, and related concepts such as Herem (war or property). Hog FarmTalk14:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that such a template collating the warfare-related articles with key battles would be useful, but I'm still of the opinion per Hog Farm's previous comment that the campaignbox itself should be retained in a consolidated and cleaned format. This relies on that the biblical battles, unlike the fictional examples cited above, are (a) of uncertain historicity but far from verified fiction, but more importantly (b) the linkage and connections between the battles and events with articles means navigating between them easily is useful. This is the rationale behind all campaignboxes everywhere on Wikipedia, and where no precedent for semihistorical or historicity-ambiguous battles is known, WP:IGNORE and specifically the point which can be paraphrased as "making Wikipedia better for its purpose as an online encyclopaedia overrides prior rules or lack thereof" applies. It should be noted also that transclusion of the same articles in both a template and a campaignbox is not without precedent - I'd refer to the Sengoku Jidai campaignbox series, where a single article such as the Battle of Tedorigawa appears in separate campaignboxes for each warlord or clan associated with it. Multiple templates or variations thereof with the same article included can and have coexisted. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with point (a) because there is scholarly consensus that a lot of early Hebrew Bible battles (Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and united monarchy eras) are almost certainly entirely made up. The authors may not be like Tolkien or Lucas in being clear that they were writing fiction, but at least some of them must have known that at least some parts of what they wrote were not true because they invented it themselves. E.g. scholars firmly agree that the War against the Midianites in Numbers 31 (and its prologue in Numbers 25:6–18) was written and inserted later into the Book of Numbers (by what scholars call H or the Holiness School) and is a distortion and embellishment of the conflict the Israelites supposedly had with the Moabites from Numbers 22 to Numbers 25:5 (which is probably a Priestly redaction of a non-Priestly original; for more details see Numbers 31#Authorship). Whoever the author of Numbers 25:6–18 and Numbers 31 is, he knew he was not writing history, but distorting the existing historical record; and by not being clear that he was writing fiction, but presenting it as if it was real history, he was writing pseudohistory. By analogy to 'verified fiction', I think we can say that, based on the scholarly consensus, the War against the Midianites is 'verified pseudohistory' and not just 'of uncertain historicity'. Alternately, it may be classified as 'mythology' (which is why I included it in Category:War in mythology), which would still not make it 'history'.
I disagree with point (b) because I do not think pseudohistorical (or mythological) battles belong in campaignboxes just because that makes it easier for the reader to navigate between a series of them. It would set a bad precedent (one which has de facto already been set by accepting the existence of these three campainboxes - that I have now nominated for deletion - since they were created in 2011 and 2013). Hog Farm's proposed navbox at the bottom "Template:The Bible and warfare" can fulfil the navigation function without implying that all Hebrew Bible battles are just as historical as the Battle of Tedorigawa and the other battles in the three campaignboxes it has been included in. I think that we should treat Hebrew Bible battles first and foremost as literature; stories, some of which may be (partially) historical. Wherever appropriate, battles with a verified historical basis can be included in a campaignbox, such as the three included in Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar II. In other words, I propose a no, unless principle: a Hebrew Bible battle shouldn't be included in a campaignbox unless there is a scholarly consensus that it is probable or at least plausible that a particular battle happened (either as narrated, or has a relevant historical basis). E.g. although there are no extrabiblical sources for the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC), the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle does provide a source for the Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) ten years earlier, also by Nebuchadnezzar II, so it's plausible that he besieged the city twice because we know he did it at least once before and was still alive as king until 562 BCE, so he could have theoretically done it again. Therefore, I think it's okay to put both in Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar II. To me, this seems to be a reasonable approach to using campaignboxes. All other Hebrew Bible battles should, in my view, be moved to that navbox at the bottom, and not also included in campaignboxes unless it can fulfil these 'Nebuchadnezzar criteria' for plausible historicity as the bare minimum. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment: FYI the discussion was closed as merge, so I merged the three templates into the navbox Template:The Bible and warfare as suggested by Hog Farm and taking into account the suggestions of Benjitheijneb. I thank you both for your imput! In theory, we could later also add some battles mentioned in the New Testament and Deuterocanonical books, as this would be in line with the theme 'The Bible and warfare'. Warfare in the Hebrew Bible will be the main article for now. I'm still open to shortening 'warfare' to 'war' if that better fits established English Wikipedia conventions. The future of the article Warfare in the Hebrew Bible is still a bit uncertain (e.g. it's possible to make it more thematic), but I think we can best discuss that at Talk:Warfare in the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft articles awaiting review
Over the last weeks I edit pages about 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I also created several draft articles, currently awaiting review. As it might take 4 months before being reviewed, maybe someone here is interested taking a look at 1 or more of them:
Draft:Ivan Bidnyak, Ukrainian sport shooter killed in an offensive in Kherson Oblast.
Draft:Alexander Kulyk, Ukrainian national track cycling coach, killed in the Kyiv offensive
DoneDraft:Artur Hrytsenko, Ukrainian professional footballer, killed in the Battle of Kharkiv
@Buckshot06: Thank you for looking at it. Yes I see your point, most of the prose fits also in the scope of Ukrainian Railways. However, still I think a seperate article like this would be better. It’s just a start of an article that is far from complete. Like the first attack has is own article Kramatorsk railway station attack. In my opinion not all the other articles deserves it’s own article; but they are important to have them in a list together. I started writing the prose as introduction to justify that such a list is notable for an article. Most of the attacks are now written in two sentences, while they could be expanded like the Kramatorsk railway station attack. But let’s not start a merge discussion before having the content in main space, haha. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
'Weather' is the first word of the wikitable's caption which is part of the wikitable. The alignment depends on your skin. For me, using vector there is this wikitable css:
That css applies a 1em margin to the top and bottom of the table; no margin to the right and left sides.
Not something to worry about. You could, I suppose, override the skin's wikitable style to change the top margin. But, if you do that, someone might well come along and remove it as pointless.
Force Recon is certainly a special operations unit, but the whole "special operations" thing has more to do with command and control relationships (as in SOCOM and other commands). The Marine Corps originally declined to participate in SOCOM because they didn't want to lose control of their special operations/reconnaissance capability (Force Recon), but later created MARSOC as its contribution to SOCOM. The MEU(SOC) is a different thing entirely. As far as I know the Marine Corps only used SOC in reference to the MEUs trained to conduct special operations prior to deployment, but that wasn't the same thing as being a "special operations unit" or having any command and control relationship with SOCOM. Intothatdarkness12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
"Special Operations Capable" was the term, never heard any reference to "Special Operations Capable forces." It is intrinsically associated with MEUs, and should really be merged into Marine Expeditionary Unit as a part of that article. As IntothatDarkness says, it was an additional level of training which gave the Numbered Fleet commander a few more options immediately available as part of the capability toolkit of his (quite small) Landing Force, and was *not* associated with USSOCOM, an entirely separate organisational development. Buckshot06(talk)00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Just pointing out that an article about Marine MPs already exists. You didn't mention it, so I wasn't sure if you were aware of it. That said, that article is not very big (only 6.7 kb) and your draft is 1 kb smaller, (not sure how much duplication), so I'm not sure if there's enough to support a separate article. I'm not saying don't do it, just the opposite actually. The more articles the better. Hopefully you'll be able to find more content. Just be wary of needless duplication and, any info that you WP:FORK over or WP:SPLIT off from that (or any other) page, make sure you provide attribution. Good luck - wolf00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
GAR for Spirit of the American Doughboy
Spirit of the American Doughboy has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog FarmTalk13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Self-trout Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
An article that you have been involved in editing—1st West Virginia Infantry Regiment (3 Month)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
00:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
_-_NH_43893.jpg)
This is a "cope cage".
This is not a "cope cage", it's just ordinary slat armor..jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done. For future information, the difference is that males tanks had cannons (on top of a machine gun or a few), while female tanks only had machineguns (yeah, something can probably be said about sexual stereotypes, but that's not really the point here, is it?). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva. Venkat TL (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: FYI the discussion was closed as merge, so I merged the three templates into the navbox Template:The Bible and warfare as suggested by Hog Farm and taking into account the suggestions of Benjitheijneb. I thank you both for your imput! In theory, we could later also add some battles mentioned in the New Testament and Deuterocanonical books, as this would be in line with the theme 'The Bible and warfare'. Warfare in the Hebrew Bible will be the main article for now. I'm still open to shortening 'warfare' to 'war' if that better fits established English Wikipedia conventions. The future of the article Warfare in the Hebrew Bible is still a bit uncertain (e.g. it's possible to make it more thematic), but I think we can best discuss that at Talk:Warfare in the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
![[3]](https://i.imgur.com/5LcW8we.png){kind=link}
_-_John_Wollaston_-_overall.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=645226037){kind=link}
