The very short article has existed since 2006, essentially in its present form, and has now been translated into five languages. None of them have any sources beyond the one given here on en.wp, however: F. Macler, Armenia, The Kingdom of the Bagratides, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IV, p. 158. The Russian article is most detailed but is also based on that single source.
There are a few odd things about it. F. Macler is probably Frédéric Macler who was a French Orientalist who apparently wrote the History of Armenia, which seems to be a remarkably obscure book. If there is a real reference, it's probably there, but I can't get access. Can anyone else?
The mention of The Cambridge Ancient History is also strange, since Volume IV covers the 500s BCE and the whole 19-volume work doesn't go beyond 600 CE, while the battle supposedly took place in 863 CE. I'm unable to find other references to the battle online that aren't linked to Wikipedia. If anyone has a better source or can read Armenian, they might have better luck! Thanks for the help. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Further mystery: Volume IV, page 158 of The Cambridge Medieval History (not Ancient), which is available in full here, does talk about the Armenians. It contains this passage referencing a battle in 861 -
For many years his chief desire was to pacify Armenia and to restore the wasted districts, and at the same time to earn the favour of the Caliphate. In return, the Arabs called him Prince of Princes (859) and sent home their Armenian prisoners. Two years later Ashot and his brother routed an army, double the size of their own, led into Armenia by Shahap, a Persian who was aiming at independence. Ashot's politic loyalty to the Arabs finally moved the Caliph MuHamid to make him King of Ar- menia (885-7), and at the same time he likewise received a crown and royal gifts from the Byzantine Emperor, Basil the Macedonian.
This implies that the battle took place against a Persian army, two years earlier than the article states, and that it was not an anti-Muslim campaign but in fact a campaign to increase his favor with the Caliphate. Do others agree - is this probably a reference to the same battle? And if so, can we use it in the article, since it neither mentions a location nor the same year as what we currently have? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I have physically verified both the First and Second editions of the Cambridge Ancient History. Neither Vol IV p158 mentions anything about Armenia, though I realise that I did not check the volumes of plates (pictures). I fear the page & volume reference may have to be removed. In addition, even Vol XIV of the Second Edition covers events no later than 600 AD. Buckshot06(talk)03:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that! I think it's likely that the reference is supposed to be to the Cambridge Medieval History Vol. IV instead. What are your thoughts on the passage I quoted from p. 158 of that work above? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The article in its present form needs to be sent to WP:AfD. "Karasounk" is simply not in the source!! We are perpetuating a wiki-ism!! Anything that is corroborated by CMH Vol IV p158 can be incorporated into History of Armenia. Buckshot06(talk)05:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source referencing a battle at Karasounk (a location, incidentally, which I can't find reference to except in relation to this battle)? If not, I agree with you, Buckshot06 - this article should be AfD'ed and any information from the Cambridge Medieval History that's relevant can be incorporated into the Ashot I of Armenia or Bagratid Armenia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. This may be a case in which discussion to build consensus on future scope should precede any future move request, for the sake of clarity in the discussion. Dekimasuよ!01:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
– The scope of the project concerns twelve states, so it’s not fair and balanced to define this WikiProject naming only one of them (see WP:BIAS). The Russian Empire and Soviet Union are common to the history of all of these states, as were other entities (e.g., the Golden Horde, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, etcetera), so mentioning these is also unbalanced. “CIS” was a convenient shorthand for “former Soviet Union” in the 1990s, but the Commonwealth of Independent States only includes nine of these and its name is no longer used this way. The proposed title is current and neutral regarding the equal status of the subject nations and their respective histories. —MichaelZ.16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Provisional oppose As far as military history is concerned, particularly recent military history, the link with the Soviet Union (and the historical position held in the region by its predecessors) is undeniable. "Eastern Europe" is a bit too wide and includes a few countries which were not part of either the USSR or of the Warsaw Pact; "Eurasia" refers to the continent (Europe + Asia) as a whole and is clearly wrong. Looks like the only thing this title change would achieve, besides bowdlerising a mention of Russia, is more ambiguity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
And, in case anyone needs re-educating, we have never been at war with Eurasia. We have only ever been at war with Eastasia... ;) SN5412916:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
And it’s unfair to denigrate this proposal as “bowdlerizing.” Naming “Russia” is 1) completely inaccurate because the scope a) includes territories that were never in any sense Russia, and b) excludes territories that were “Russia” in a sense. And representing twelve states under a former colonial hegemon is unacceptable: it’s not the nineteenth or twentieth century, these countries are neither “Russian,” nor “Soviet,” nor “CIS,” and post-colonial academic practices in history have been around longer than Wikipedia. —MichaelZ.17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding geographic definitions, please do review the most common twenty-first-century definition of Eastern Europe. Eurasia was good enough for the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies when it renamed itself Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies in 2008. Many Russian and East European Studies departments, journals, and guides have renamed themselves Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies or some variation years ago. —MichaelZ.18:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"Russia" at least makes it clear what is being referred to, and worries about post-colonialism aside, it remains a fact of history that it dominated the region for a significant period of time. Hell, many of the post-Soviet collapse states did not exist with their modern names or boundaries prior to the USSR (for example, Belarus was part of, variously, Kievan Rus, Polannd-Lithuania, ..., but AFAICS there was never an independent "Belarus" before 1990). "Eurasia" has multiple meanings and while it might be clear enough in the context of the name of a particular scholarly society; for a general readership (like Wikipedia editors), it isn't. A better try might be Central Asia. I mean, I'm not opposed to a better title, but your specific proposal isn't it. Maybe "Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian military history" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
While I appreciate the initiative, I think it's a good idea to leave this task force only for Russia. How about we give all the others their own task forces? The five Central Asian countries could get a Central Asian task force. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia could also get a Caucasus task force, where we could also include stuff in the North Caucasus from the times before the Russians arrived (for example, the Crimean-Circassian wars). Ukraine probably has enough material for its own task force, Moldova could be merged with Romania (which lacks a task force of its own right now, but could definitively have) as both countries' history are very interrelated and we could give the Baltics their own task force too (which I just realized they already have [1], so it can serve as a precedent). Belarus is the problem here as it wouldn't make much sense to merge it with any other country and I doubt it has much military history of its own but we could just exclude it from every other task force and editors more focused on Belarus can make one in the future if they deem it necessary. Also, I am not sure if I've understood it, but it seems that Mongolia is also included in this one. I refuse to believe Mongolia does not have enough material to give it its own task force. So we would be dividing the 15 post-Soviet states (+ Mongolia) into 7 task forces (one for the Baltics already existing, and a total of 8 if Belarus gets one too).
We could also restrict this one to Russia only and just not give all the others a task force, at least on this discussion. SuperΨDro20:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose "Eastern Europe" is a very vague construct. Does it or doesn't it include Central Europe, Finnish isthmus, Kola, Italy, Denmark, Alps, Balkan peninsula? And Eurasia includes all of Europe and Asia, which is clearly not part of this workgroup. We already have separate workgorups for Korea, Japan, China. Perhaps it should be called "Slavic, Soviet, and post-Soviet military history task force" instead. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
But they are post-Soviet states (the entire CIS); Slavic would cover Latvia, Latgalia, Lithuania, Poland-Lithuania, Ruthenia, other Rus, Western Slavs, Southern Slavs; similar to the original proposed expansion of scope at the head of the move request. Mongolia should just be dropped and created as a different task force covering the Hun, Tartars, Parthians, Mongols, Xiongnu, Jurchen; ie. the Steppe peoples;; I think that the Nordic task force already covers the Finno-Urgic peoples? So that would be Karelia, Lappland, Livonia, Ingria, Estonia, Finland. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Slavic is an ethnic classification, and it does not define some of the things you named. Post-Soviet is a dated political one that only refers to some things by reference to something that is gone.
I did not propose any change or expansion of scope, so I don’t know what you mean by that. I’m trying to name this after the history of the territories of the same set of twelve extant states, rather than after Moscow-dominated defunct political entities. —MichaelZ.17:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose this proposal too. The military history of Russia (let alone all the other countries included in this) long predates the USSR; so "Soviet" would just be a bad term, even if we were referring to only Russia. And we are not referring to Russia only, as I was saying... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment: WikiProjects and their task forces only exist so long as there are editors to support them. I feel it's best left to those editors to define the scope of the task force (and its name), of what they're interested in and willing to support. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had posted a notice of that TfD here on April 30 (a copy of the notice Ttm posted at wt:ships the same day). The notice here was archived on May 7. That said, I definitely agree with Graeme, and if any editor watches one project, it's worthwhile to watch the other as well. Cheers - wolf08:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have just submitted the article about the Ukrainian military leader Nestor Makhno for peer review, and I wanted to request feedback from the members of the Military history WikiProject. The main section of the article which concerns this WikiProject is the one titled "Leader of the Makhnovist movement", as it covers Makhno's military career during the Ukrainian War of Independence. For this section I am primarily concerned with ensuring it meets Wikipedia's standards for Neutrality. If anyone here is willing and/or able to help review this section, I would appreciate that greatly. Thanks, --Grnrchst (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability of coast guard vessel
I half-assed USCGC Barberry last night to fill in a redlink on a ship class template up for TFD for too many redlinks and woke up with it having a notability tag and a well-deserved non-independent sources tag. I can see some news coverage for it's service as a Maryland icebreaker; I have no ideas if there are books for 1940s coast guard tenders or not. I'm going to be stepping out for a few days, but if anyone would be willing to look into if the notability template is warranted I'd be very appreciative; I try to keep any articles I create tag-free but just don't know if I have the energy to throw much more in this one. If it's not notable, go ahead and PROD it, I won't be offended. Hog FarmTalk14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"Cavalry", "Cameronians", "London Yeomanry", "Commissioner of National Service": Request for advice and further direction
I am in the final stages of completing a new article (1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game) devoted to a famous Australian Rules Football match, between two groups of First AIF soldiers, that was played at Queen's Club, West Kensington, on 28 October 1916.
UK probate records state that "Holman James" resided at 88 Sutherland Avenue, London W.9, died at the Midtown Hospital, Manhattan, New York, on 2 February 1946.
UK probate records state that his widow was Irene Louise James (other records give "Lintott" as her maiden name).
On many occasions after the First World War, "Fred Lindsay" identified himself as either "Lieutenant-Colonel Holman James" or "Colonel Holman James"; and, at the same time, claimed that he had served in the British military during the First World War; two examples:
"During the Great War, Colonel James was organiser of cavalry for the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th provisional brigades, and later commanded the 4th brigade; became First Commissioner of National Service under Mr. Neville Chamberlain and finally commanded the Cameronians." (Piracy was Banned, The (Perth) Daily News, (Monday, 25 March 1935), p.3.)
Having no experience with UK military records, I would be grateful for any hints on how I might go about (a) confirming the claims that Holman James did, indeed, serve in the First World War and, as well, (b) identifying the precise descriptions of that service? Lindsay658 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Not saying for sure that this is the same Holman James, but:
Made a lieutenant in the 3rd County of London (Sharpshooters) Yeomanry on 24 February 1912 ("No. 28587". The London Gazette. 5 March 1912. p. 1665.)
Promoted from captain to temporary major and seconded to the Yeomanry Squadron, Provisional Brigade on 24 October 1915 ("No. 29337". The London Gazette (Supplement). 22 October 1915. p. 10486.)
Still a temporary major, seconded again to a Provisional Brigade Yeomanry Squadron on 2 January 1916 ("No. 29425". The London Gazette (Supplement). 31 December 1915. p. 112.
"Fred Lindsay, the Australian stock-whip artist, who . . . is in private life Holman James—Colonel James, as he was during the late war, when he had command of a battalion of a Scottish regiment." ((News Item), The (Hobart ) News, (Saturday, 23 August 1924), p.6.)
This article in The Stage (Jan 1915) confirms that Fred Lindsay was indeed "Captain Holman James" (regiment not given). Later on, there are a series of adverts in the Clydeside papers for late 1917 for concerts by the band of 17th Battalion Cameronians and so forth, "by permission of Lt-Col Holman James"; the 17th was a home service unit for port duties in the Glasgow area. It looks like the earliest reference I can trace to him being with them is June 1917 and he remained with them until at least June 1918. Here there is even a small and grainy photo of him awarding a medal - looks middle-aged and quite heavily built, though that might just be the effect of dressing for a Glasgow winter.
I think it seems a reasonable supposition that the Yeomanry officer and the Cameronians officer are the same man - all the dates line up and it's a very unusual name. (If it were "James Holman" I would be a bit more cautious.) Andrew Gray (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Some further Gazette suggestions:
Captain (temporary Major) H. James moved from a Yeomanry Regiment to become a captain, honorary major, in the Territorial Force Reserve on 13 January 1917 ("No. 29950". The London Gazette (Supplement). 16 February 1917. p. 1732.)
Captain and Hon. Major H. James of the Territorial Reserve promoted to temporary lieutenant-colonel and given command of a battalion of the Scottish Rifles (Cameronians) on 25 April 1917 ("No. 30071". The London Gazette (Supplement). 15 May 1917. p. 4735.)
Temporary Lieutenant-Colonel (Captain and Honorary Major) H. James relinquishes temporary rank upon vacating command of Transport Workers' Battalion of the Scottish Rifles on 13 June 1918 ("No. 30742". The London Gazette (Supplement). 11 June 1918. p. 6997.)
Again, can't say for sure that these relate to the same man but there's certainly a pattern. Suggest he commanded the 16th or 17th battalion of the Cameronians. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this picture is him sitting in the centre of the front row with the officers of his battalion (17th). Your suggestion that he fought in South Africa matches with the medal ribbons shown too. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - I was able to turn up a postwar picture that looked similar. One more Gazette entry - "No. 29675". The London Gazette. 21 July 1916. p. 7228. - "restored to the establishment" 10 June (presumably indicating he stopped serving with the provisional squadron at this point and returned to the regiment.)
Regarding "First Commissioner of National Service", I think this may be a bit of a garbled title - there doesn't seem to have been such a post per se, but there were a variety of regional (deputy/sub-)commissioners around the country, and no clear list of holders, so he may well have been one. Judging by the papers they were generally active from Feb 1917 onwards, so it seems to neatly fit the gap between his going to the Territorial Reserve and then coming back to active duty to take over 17th Cameronians? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
So here's an oddity I've just noticed: I've looked at the program and I can't see anything specifically attributed to Fred Lindsay. Cover is Cecil Hart; then Fred Leist p3, Hart p4, Laurie Taylor p8, Leist p9, Dan Lindsay p10, Ruby Lind p11, Will Dyson (I think) p12. Was Fred Lindsay mistakenly attributed on the title page? Or did he also go by Dan for some reason?
(If a different "Dan. Lindsay" is indeed the artist I'm not sure who he is - perhaps it is Daryl Lindsay, one of Ruby's brothers? According to the ADB he "...enlisted as a driver in the Australian Army Service Corps..." and indeed he is noted here as AASC. The style of the signature is similar to this. But I don't know why he'd go with "Dan". A mystery!) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
First, I want to sincerely thank both User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe and talk for their thoughtful kindness, meticulous research findings, and insightful advice.
On the basis of the many typographical errors (some of which are almost impossible to resolve) occurring in the lists of the players on page 7 of the programme — and the outright mis-identifications of individuals and/or their original football teams — it would seem that, rather than (a) the written copy having been created and cross-checked against all available records by a single, well-informed individual, and (b) the cluster of pages from which the programme was constructed having been imagined and realized by a single creative designer, the entire programme was, in a manner of speaking, nothing more than a set of associated fragments, each of which had been constructed by different individuals, at different times, and had been hurriedly put together at the last moment. (Given the fact that all of the players were soldiers, whose states of health, and demands of military duties, might make them either suddenly available (or, not available), my "last-moment-ness of production" assertion is strongly supported by the omission of the names of two of the players-on-the-day (Alf Moore, and Billy Orchard) from their respective team lists on page 7.) Based upon the advice and directions given above, I am now satisfied that the individual in question, despite the appearance of his name on page 2 of the programme, was not "Fred Lindsay"/"Holman James" — although it does seem, from the information given above, that he (James) is certainly "notable", and remarkable enough to have a small, independent Wiki-article constructed by some-one familiar with UK military matters — and that, the creator of the cartoon on p.10 was, indeed, Daryl Lindsay (1889-1976). I must admit that I had completely forgotten that Daryl Lindsay had produced a wide range of watercolours and other works of art relating to soldiers and warfare, due to my own interest in the exceptional contributions that he made to the advancement of military surgery with his extensive set of images as a "medical artist" ([2], [3], etc.). Finally, the experience-horse-and-rider atmosphere of the cartoon — which had ever so strongly seemed to support the identification of the Boer War Light Horseman "Holman James" — now makes complete sense, given the fact that, for at least 4 years prior to the war, Daryl Lindsay had worked in remote Queensland as a jackaroo. So, here’s the situation:
Unlike all of his (otherwise) official records (e.g., birth records at Victorian Birth, Deaths, and Marriages, Aust.Dict.bio.[4], etc.), which have him as "Ernest Daryl Lindsay" all of his military records have him as "Daryl Ernest Lindsay" ([5], [6], etc.).
At least as early as 1914 he was contributing cartoons ([7]).
In relation to "Dan", "Daryl Lindsay (Dan to his friends) is the sixth son . . ." ([8]).
Also in relation to "Dan", and in relation to [9], "When the 1914-18 war started, Daryl enlisted as a footslogger and went to France, but before many months had passed he became batman to his brother-in-law, Will Dyson, who was an official war artist. This pleasant arrangement (salutes being demanded and ignored by both sides) enabled Daryl to spend a lot of time drawing in the trenches, and eventually resulted in his being given a commission and transferred to Sidcup Hospital."([10]).
Once again, "Thanks" ever so much for the accurate information, insightful observations, thoughtful advice, and encouragement. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Glad to help! It was an interesting rabbit hole to go down. And interesting to know that now we've confirmed he was "Dan", this seems to be one of Daryl Lindsay's first published works - might be worth a mention in that article.
I think Holman James/Fred Lindsay might just be on the borderline of reasonable notability, but I'll try to find some way to write up the notes and get them posted somewhere so it's not lost should anyone else ever go looking for him... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on Daryl Lindsay. Although not the first ([11]), but certainly very early. I will note its "earliness" in the article. In relation to "Fred Lindsay", there's quite a lot in the Australian press that has been digitized and is freely available ([12]), imagine there must be quite a lot in the British press, and some in the US press ([13], [14], [15]) as well. Also, in the digitized Australian press, there's "Lieutenant Holman James" ([16]), and "Holman James" ([17]). Lindsay658 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Missing Period parameter in Milhist banners for recent/current events
Please remember to add a "Post-Cold-War=yes" period parameter to the project banners for articles that relate to anything after the end of the Cold War. Basically since the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and breakup of the Soviet Union right up to the present. Many articles, particularly about current events, structures, equipment, etc. lack this period tag. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dodger67: isn't there a bot that can add "Post-Cold-War=yes", to all the applicable article talk page banners, without blowing up watchlists? Cheers - wolf15:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, myself and others would like the additional input of others in reaching a consensus for determining what to include/exclude on List of military alliances as there have been some minor disagreements recently when attempting to clean up the List. I would like to invite everyone to contribute to the discussion here. Thank you, —dainomite19:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, come across this article because it was being cited as an example of infobox "best practice". The article was promoted in April 2007. Since then, it has had over 3000 edits and doubled in size. The linked discussion about its FA status went stale quickly about a year ago. Posting here to some fresh input. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I will be especially thankful for your valued opinion in the latter discussion, which has attracted no comments for months. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest the identity or location of the house in the above image, painted circa 1855, please? Commons' description includes:
Flying atop one of the seven visible chimneys in the white British Naval Ensign, signifying the naval rank of the property’s owner. The racing crews, alternative a red versus blue theme to their caps, flags and bulwark rail of each oared scull. Thought to be a north-west river in the English countryside.
Pinging the uploader @Broichmore: in case they've anything to add to the extant description. I made a small attempt to figure this out...assuming that the text is correct in saying that the ensign correlates to the resident admiral's rank, I started to look at what admirals/vice admirals/rear admirals of the white held the rank in the period, but it's a very awkward method! A navy list for 1855 would be helpful, but the closest I could find is 1853. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I just came across Template:14HighValue, and this doesn't seem like a great use of templates. Essentially, it pastes the same two sentences into every article it appears in. If the two sentences need to be edited, then it must occur at the template and changes would be reflected across several articles. I'm inclined to send to TFD and have the usages replaced with actual article code, but I'd like to see if there are any other views on this. Hog FarmTalk14:43, 17 May 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. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The other thing is why some people think that if something was originally German after modernisation it became German-Polish. No. Leopard 2PL is still German tank made by the same two German companies and is just modernised by Polish company. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The other case if German riffle with its original name would be manufactured only in Turkey. It not became Turkish or German-Turkish, it's still German riffle just manufactured in Turkey. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Country of origin could mean either the originating country of design or the country that built the product, or even the country that provided the product in the case of second hand supply - it would depend on context. During WWII everyone and their dog was using 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors guns but they weren't all coming from Switzerland and Sweden. If there is a concern that it gives the wrong impression then a explanatory note may be useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
That link is not an example of anything. As I said, in any given usage "origin" may mean different things and it's dependent on context as to what is intended on being conveyed. If talking about arms supplied to Ukraine in the current war with Russia, then it may be in political terms that the country supplying second-hand arms is more relevant than the country that designed or built the weapon in the first place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Finnish Civil 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. (t · c) buidhe06:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps someone from MILHIST could help sort this out. It might only need to be rewritten, but there might also be a need for revision deleting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion: new scrolling function between articles
In Siege of Acre (1799) you can click the left third of the image within the infobox and you will be scrolled into Siege of Jaffa. If you click the right third of the image you will be brought to Battle of Mount Tabor (1799). The middle third will link to the description of the image. By doing that with imagemap, we would give the reader the opportunity to easily scroll from one battle to the next in sequence. Is this a progress we should use? Ruedi33a (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is a major change to how Wikipedia articles operate. You can have a discussion here to get a rough indication of support but make sure you don't try implementing anything before holding an RFC. Changes on this scale need to be decided by the community and not an individual project. Personally, I would be opposed to this idea as it hides multiple links within an image, which could easily be abused by vandals to misdirect readers to incorrect locations or even spam sites. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I have found this new concept in The Last Supper (Leonardo)#Subject as an an image built with imagemap with the caption "The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. (Clickable image—use cursor to identify.)". That means for me that the concept of "clickable images" is allowed in other areas of Wikipedia, so no RFC needed. But the question is indeed open: does it improve the usage enough to risk more complications? I have tested Leonardo's image on a mobile device. It is a great improvement Ruedi33a (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
That is an imagemap where clicking on a person goes to a relevant article. You are suggesting arbitrary links, which would conflict with WP:ASTONISH and WP:EASTEREGG. It would also be a horrible to maintain, as it seems the imagemap would need to be updated for image or size changes. (Hohum@) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Please look into User:Ruedi33a/sandbox for my last try to solve the astonished egg problem. You are right that a change of the image means also a change to the numbers within rect but a User's Manual is added. It is also correct that more doors are open for vandalism. The usage improvement on a mobile is great. I vote with +1 for the clickable image Next battle/Previous battle concept. Ruedi33a (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding instructions in the caption of the infobox just to tell readers how to use the clickable image is rather clunky. This idea offers no benefit that a pair of text links in the infobox couldn't provide. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Meh... they're just links. Articles are full of them. This is all much ado about nothing. (imho) - wolf21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
More cruft - oppose. He's doing this with buildings in Venice, and should stop. Plus it doesn't actually work for me. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
It may have details of her loss on D-Day, although that seems to be covered sufficiently now. Any other details missing from the article could be added. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Saw some discussion about it ~7yr ago on the MP40 page when it was used as a source there. Discussion seemed to agree that it's not a very reliable source. Unfortunately, it's still used rather frequently. I was hoping to discuss two things here: whether it's a reliable source and, if not, is there anything we can do about it to discourage its use?
As to whether it's reliable, I don't think it is. Part of it is gut feeling--it's got this look that reminds me of wikia's and IMDB. It doesn't cite any sources which is troubling. In its defense, it does seem to mention some stuff that is verifiable; for instance, on the M110 SASS page, it mentions a $24,909,740 contract on April 2, 2012 and includes the federal contract W15QKN-12-D-0029. Very easy to check. But it's stuff like the list of operators that really makes my nose twitch. They list a bunch of countries that supposedly use the M110 SASS but they provide zero evidence for it. I'm sure some of them might be correct and if I was familiar with the languages, I might be able to find sources confirming it. But that's a lot of work to....basically do the source's work for them.
If there's agreement that it's not a reliable source, does it rise to the level of being labeled deprecated where it might be added to the edit filter to display warnings if an edit cites it as a source?
There have also been discussions on RSP about the site, all of which came to the same conclusion. I think its main usage comes down to newer editors not knowing about its issues, and also that nobody's really bothered to go through the (probably hundreds) of articles it's used in and deleting the references. As for deprecation, I believe that's something that only happens for the worst of the worst, sites that have been shown to outright fabricate information, which probably doesn't apply here. Loafiewa (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just figured I'd ask. I took it out of the M110 article already but looking at the 400+ articles which do feature it as a source is daunting and not something I'm up to right now lol. I kinda wish that the criteria for adding sources to that edit filter were a bit more lenient (like maybe include sources that are considered generally unreliable) but that's outside this discussion's wheelhouse.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I've taken over scheduling the featured pictures. Back in 2015, this article was declared to have too many neutrality issues for an image about it to appear on the main page. It's seven years on. Can I get an evaluation of it? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
OOoff....good luck with this. I'm already hearing the "war crimes" and "do it again Bomber Harris" chants.
Disclaimer: I personally believe that we should avoid cultural relativism when looking at the bombing campaign; I'm not sure they were 100% justified in pursuing dehousing as a goal but I'm definitely not a wehraboo apologist.
Cursory glance over the main issues which would likely be problematic: planning and assessment, seem to be ok. Article mentions that the RAF had shifted toward area bombing as a strategy and the source cited and google book previews of other sources backs that up. The assessment section cites many contemporary newspapers and congressional discussion concerning the morality of using a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, later, the morality of developing hydrogen bombs. Those sources seem to check out as well.
The section that is marked as requiring sources for verification is partly sourced further down below in the timeline, though I can't say that all of the stuff in the section is satisfactorily sourced.
Personally, I'd like to see some mention of dehousing. It's a bit odd that there isn't mention of dehousing. The only mention is that the shift to area bombing "was not driven by the inaccuracy of bombing at this stage, but by studying which aspects of the German Blitz on Britain had had most effect." Doesn't mention the potential accuracy in bombing campaigns during training exercises vs the actual (abysmal accuracy) during actual combat missions when bombers were forced to fly at higher altitudes and didn't fly in a straight line (which would make them an easy target for enemy fighters). No mention of the dehousing research and goals which features the bombing of Hamburg as one of its primary examples.
Personally.....I'd shy away from featuring it but I can see the argument that it (in its current form) is adequately neutral.
Not sure quite what to do with this. It's an article on a supposed putative Russian invasion of Belarus during the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, that never happened. Half of the six cites are to a single facebook post by the Ukrainian ministry of defence drawing on supposedly leaked material, and the other three are Ukrainian sources of dubious reliability commenting on the post. Given the current military and international situation this is all highly problematic. There's an obvious advantage to these Ukrainian sources in depicting Russia as having plans to invade other countries at other times. If there was follow up and critical analysis of the claims from independent and reliable sources, that would be something, but so far that doesn't seem to have happened. There's not really anything reliably sourced to even merge into 2020–2021 Belarusian protests. My thought is to take this to AFD but does anyone have any other thoughts? Spokoyni (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
G'day all, sorry I've been AWOL for the last few months. A major project IRL has been impacting on my availability here, so thanks to the rest of the coord team for keeping things shipshape. The project is wrapping up, so I will shortly be back with a vengeance. In the meantime, we could do with some help smashing the backlog of checking Milhistbot's B-Class assessments for March. Plenty of variety, so something for everyone! If we could get this sorted by the end of the month, we'd have a clean slate when May drops, as we just archived April. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Would anyone mind having a look at Talk:HMS Royalist (89) - the section where I and @Nigel Ish: - are 'criticised' - and offer an opinion as to how I should (if I should) engage with the IP user, or whatever is the appropriate action. Is some sort of page protection necessary?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:
1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style
Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.
Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)
Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.
I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
The person who 'pressed the button' to delete the article admitted that they are not expected to be experts or knowledgeable in the field and are not obliged to reply to my counterarguments.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome. JSKutcher (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, if you reach GNG, the article will be good to go. I recommend having at least three reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, which in this case about the person. Here's a good essay about that. BTW, you have put some excellent effort into this article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi FieldMarine, Many thanks for your comments. I read the GNG & Essay I have 5 reliable sources which mention Yitzhak specifically and his actions, but this did not appear to be enough. Which is odd as someone pointed out this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Joshua_Rayzner which had even less. I have also noted that on this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto in the People of the Warsaw Ghetto Section that there is a similar threat to delete names
I am also not sure how or even when to resubmit the article without having to go through the deletion process yet again. Any guidance on this is welcome. Regards JSKutcher (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I have had a quick look but I can see why there is some opposition to this draft article going into main space. As tragic as his story is, the subject seems to be one of several brave and courageous resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and I am not convinced that there is "significant coverage" in the sources. I also have some concerns about the existing sourcing - I notice use of at least one primary source - the death certificate. Also note 2 appears to be to your own website, seeing as the url is the same as your user name. So that would not be an independent source. Suknik also doesn't seem to be mentioned in "The Warsaw Ghetto Revolt" when searching inside using Google. Looking at the portions for which that book is cited, I would have expected him to be mentioned. I hope you can get this over the line but it will be a struggle from what I can see. Just a note regarding to your comment on Joshua Rayzner, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe the deletion process can happen any time, so I'm not sure there is a way to get around that. In anticipation of that, you can identify on the Draft talk:Yitzhak Suknik the three sources you believe are reliable, independent secondary sources and why each one contains significant coverage of Suknik. It looks like some of them may be in Polish, or are not available electronically, so a summary will help people better understand why they have significant coverage. Coverage needs to be well beyond "trivial mentions" of the person. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi FieldMarine. I have just been contacted by a person who has some independent secondary resources in Yiddish which he is going to add & hope it will help the process. Point taken about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Thanks again JSKutcher (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I've consulted Tagg's Generals of Gettysburg and can confirm that the image in question bears much resemblance to David McM. Gregg, and not near as much to John I. Hog FarmTalk12:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Right! Well, after lunch, I'll see about renaming everything. And trying to get something to put in John's article thrown together from the remains of that negative. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't come across many promising drafts as I go through the hundreds of drafts that "expire" each day as their reach their 6 month mark. But I came across this one that looked like it might make for an interesting article with a little more care from an experienced content creator. The subject is covered at War photography but it's not specific to the Second World War. I found the draft interesting enough for me to take the time to read it. I think Wikipedia and Commons have benefitted greatly from the work of war photographers to illustrate our articles with war imagery and maybe there is something here in this draft that would help us learn a bit more about their lives and the work they did or maybe, this draft might inspire an editor here to write an even better article on the subject. Thank you to anyone who is willing to give this page a look. LizRead!Talk!02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
An interesting idea for an article but far too narrow in scope as it mainly focuses on America and then as an afterthought says the British Army had photographers too. Setting aside the British photographers of the Ministry of Information, Royal Navy and Royal Airforce, that doesn't even begin to cover the other allies or axis photographers. Propaganda and reconnaisance were such major tools in that war that every side had photographers. I am not going to have a chance to contribute to a draft directly for a while due to work pressures but you may want to look at a Commons category I have started to populate at Commons:Category:Photographers in World War II. So far it is mainly Royal Navy photographers. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably needs a rename, but the idea's good. I wouldn't mind its American focus if it was given an appropriate scope (e.g. "American photographers of World War II". Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Nor I, but before we start forking, I think we should focus on a generalized article on the subject of WWII photography (covering its role in recon, the homefront, espionage, etc.). –♠Vami_IV†♠23:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The County of Flanders experienced a civil war from 1127 to 1128 following the murder of Count Charles the Good. Two rival claimants, William Clito and Thierry, Count of Flanders, fought it out for the throne. Both contenders have a passage about the war on their page, but I personally think it deserves its own page, given the conflict's scope (multiple foreign powers involved themselves) and length.
I did a google search for notability and found several secondary sources, but I am not sure if they are reliable or otherwise qualify to be used:
I would like to request some input on this war. Is it notable enough for a page? If so, can it be covered reliably with the sources I listed, or should the sources not be used instead? If the latter, would the sources from William and Thierry's pages compensate, or are they not enough? I'm also not really sure on how the article would be titled. One, and only one source (scholarsarchive.byu.edu), speaks of the "Flemish Succession Crisis of 1127-1228", and all others instead refer to it as "a civil war" or "the civil war" (Flemish Civil War?).
Al-Khalid tank 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. Schierbecker (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
What was Andrew Ross doing at Cartagena?
Major-General Andrew Ross (1773-1812) died of a fever at Cartagena during the Peninsular War. My issue is that I can't find any evidence that Ross had any command in Wellington's army, or any command at all at the time of his death. He was, however, aide-de-camp to George III. If anyone has any suggestions as to what Ross was doing at the time of his death I'd be very appreciative. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Apparently he had led a brigade under George Cooke before being sent to take command of the British detachment at Cartagena. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The posting is, for example, mentioned in Wellington's Brigade Commanders: Peninsula & Waterloo, however a quick google-books search should bring up more. The Napoleon Series also has a force composition right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Also: When the Spanish first discussed requesting resistance in garrisoning Cartegena, Wellington chose Colonel Lambert to command British troops chosen to go there. He was to to command until a general officer could be sent. The force sailed in late January 1812. In February he was replaced by General Andrew Ross and he [Lambert] went back to Cadiz and assumed command on Isla de Leon.[21]Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Battle of Dien Bien Phu
I have nominated Battle of Dien Bien Phu 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 FarmTalk18:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Little help with Dura-Europos
Hi all! I'm not a regular editor of historical articles, though nearly half a year ago I tried to rewrite Dura-Europos. It came from this to its current shape, and I got stucked on further improvement. It would be great it somebody knowledgeable in that period can look through, "History" section really needs attention. I don't know why Dura-Europos and all related articles were in such a bad shape, this 'Pompeii of the desert' is really interesting and important from what I've read during my work on it.
Hello! Looking for some assistance contextualizing the size/importance of a 250,000-ruble bank expropriation during the Ukrainian War of Independence/Russian Revolution. Discussion linked above. czar02:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Italian Castles: Titles to use
Hello everybody, I've just created a stub concerning an Italian castle: the Castle of Pavone Canavese. Now, do you think it is better to name the page with the current title or with the title "Pavone Canavese Castle"? Just so you know, Pavone Canavese is the name of the village where the castle is located. Solving this issue thereby creating a convention would be extremely useful for me, as I am planning to translate several articles about Italian castles. Thank you for your time.Plumbago Capensis (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
"Foo Castle" is normal in English. We have the same issue with cathedrals - many Italian articles are translated as "Cathedral of Footown" which is not idiomatic in English - it should be "Footown Cathedral". Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is often a problem with building articles created by editors whose first language is not English, as "Building of Footown" is a common construction in many languages. But not English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have been doing some copy-editing at Battle of Gettysburg, mainly on names, ranks and links - ie that the rank (in full), the full name and a link should only be used on the first use in readable prose in the body of the article (but will also be done in the lead). There is a small conundrum caused by the section, Battle of Gettysburg#Opposing forces, which is basically a list of commanders. I have treated this as not being "readable prose" (because of the list format) and have ignored it (the entries therein) as being a "first mention". Consequently, I have left those links alone and left the abreviated ranks alone too as a "reasonable use". Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it's necessary to link ranks at all from most articles. Generally only biographical articles and articles about military organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I was interested to see a story about a software update to carrier-based fly by wire planes, to make landing easier. [22]. Is there an article where this belongs? Jim.henderson (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: just a minor point of clarification, you wrote; "none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article...". Did you mean; "none of the commanders listed in the infobox had any mention in the article..." ? Thanks - wolf21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
New idea for history task force that would include multiple history-related WikiProjects
Hi. I am the Lead Coordinator at WP:HIST. I would like to form a task force for "Best Practices in History", which would be a task force to include and to benefit multiple WikiProjects that relate to history topics specifically. any interest? I'd like to get this off the ground if possible. please let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@EngineeringEditor:, sure! actually, the scope would not be focused on a particular type of article. it would be a venue and a forum where editors from multiple history-related WikiProjects could exchange ideas and details on some of their current techniques for editing, and approaches to research, and to running WikiProects, in a manner that editors from other WikiProjects might find helpful to their own efforts. I hope that is helpful? please feel free to mention any other questions. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
ok, I will be glad to do so. would you be willing to join such a discussion, Buckshot06? and also, would you be willing to join such a task force? thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Task forces are hardly relevant. Anytime you would like to raise a particular issue, I would start a thread on either Hist or actually Milhist main talk pages for more quicker eyes, with advisories at other projects. Buckshot06(talk)03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
well, I appreciate your reply, Indy beetle; however, over at WikiProject History, we use task forces as a platform to enable any interested editors to focus on specific topical areas that they may wish to work on. also, don't you have something similar here at Wikiproject Military History. as you know the main page for WP:MILHIST states clearly: "We also maintain task forces to organize collaboration on particular military history topics."
so wouldn't the statement above clearly indicate that task forces are used for editing activities, and not merely for sorting articles? --Sm8900 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sm8900: Yes, I'm familiar with MilHist Task Forces, I'm a member of one. I was in fact describing what they have de facto become. I use our African task force for keeping track of GAs and FAs that come through it as well as stashing a few reference links, but no collaboration occurs there. The closest things there are to functional task forces I can think of are/were Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Operation Bora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan; the the former is mostly a list of stats and the latter essentially "completed" its job and moved on. WP History might need task forces considering just how broad "history" is, but MilHist simply no longer sustains task forces in an active sense aside from categorization, as what activities they encompass are typically subsumed into the parent project. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ok, I appreciate your reply. if you might be interested in helping with this task force, we could sure use your help! feel free to let me know any questions or comments. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lindsay658: Well I'm impressed. This is a monumental work. What you still need to do is to ensure that every paragraph has a reference. The article can then be given a B-class rating. It's beyond the deadline for appearing on the front page on DYK as a newly-created article, but once this is done it can be nominated at GA and then run on DYK. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thanks. I'll do my very best to locate the sorts of reference to which you refer, although, I suspect that it may not be so much a question of locating a "new" reference, but far more one of re-citing a number of "old" ones several times. Lindsay658 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Editorial consensus on this was not to move to a rename. Discussion has now moved on to the use of primary source quotes in the article. As the quotes are quite fundamental in the origins of the longbow debate, they are widely quoted in RS. How, or indeed whether, they should appear in the article in line with wikipedia's policies is up for discussion. Any editors interested in the topic or, indeed, with experience of use of sources in similar situations elsewhere, welcome to contribute Monstrelet (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Help identifying mentioned conference
I have a source that speaks of a 1932 "Conference of Chancellors" in Brazil that broke relations with the Axis. I have no idea what this is referring to, and given what I know of history, at least one of these things must be an error. Do any of you happen to know what this is talking about? —Compassionate727(T·C)17:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
What's the possibility that the date in the source is mistaken?
"Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States entered the war against the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan). Foreign ministers of the American republics met in Rio de Janeiro in January 1942 to consider whether all the republics should break diplomatic relations with the Axis"[1]
Yeah, that’s probably it, especially since this is not the first time my source has butchered a year. (In fact, I’m noticing that Spanish-language sources in general seem to have that problem.) Thanks a bunch. —Compassionate727(T·C)19:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
^Dulles, John F. (1986). "VI. Brazil Enters the War (1942)". The São Paulo Law School and the Anti-Vargas Resistance (1938-1945). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. p. 96. ISBN9780292771680.
Style guide question
Thought this might have been in the Milhist Style Guide but couldn't see it.
Is there a convention on use of "Second World War" or "World War II" when writing the article text in subjects where British English idiom is used? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR should already be applicable in said circumstances. If the article uses British English, then "Second World War" would be preferred. BilCat (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't actually think that that's a thing anymore. I've got plenty of recent British books that use World War II. Personally, I use one or the other on alternate Tuesdays and Thursday and on nights with a full moon. That said, I'd treat it like CITEVAR, respecting what's there already, but free to pick one or the other if both are used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Or as one of my history profs used to insist: World War IV. (World War I being the Seven Years War/French and Indian War and World War II being the Napoleonic Wars/War of 1812). ;) --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
New Vietnam-era article about Army ship
I just completed an article about Operation Flat Top, an extremely unusual project that converted a WWII seaplane tender in an offshore helicopter repair depot operated by the Army for 6½ years during the Vietnam War. You input and assessment is welcome. — btphelps(talk to me) (what I've done)03:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
btphelps I think you should lose everything in the Background section up to Project Conception and the entire Air mobility tests conducted section. The U.S. Army's adoption of airmobile doctrine doesn't belong on the page. Various minor fixes like use of South Vietnam, rather than Vietnam and non-repetition of ranks/titles are required. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Concur with this. You might also consider standardizing "theater" instead of "theatre." US english and all that. Also, the Howze Board didn't specifically target cavalry...in fact there was some tension regarding just where the airmobility concept should go. Kinnard obviously favored cavalry, but there was also a push to lump parts of it in with airborne stuff (hence the original 11th Air Assault Test and later 1st Cavalry Division having an airborne brigade as part of the original organization). It might be better here to just focus on the operation itself and just wiki-link to the Howze Board article and others to round out the story. Intothatdarkness23:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've made a couple of wording adjustments to this, but am considering doing some possibly major work on the lede and some sections of the article. Specifically I hope to trim and possibly remove much of the discussion about the development of air mobility, as it's really a tangent to the main subject of the article. There's plenty of good information here about the ship and what feels like padding isn't needed. Intothatdarkness23:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Lechaeum 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 FarmTalk18:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
For some reason User:Unbh is insisting I get consensus to make housekeeping edits to hatnotes.
As a courtesy to readers, it is common for articles to include hatnotes that include both a link to the main disambiguation page and one or more highly sought after topics by the same name. For instance, Titanic includes a hatnote to Titanic (1997 film), and Top Gun includes a hatnote to the sequel.
What have Titanic and Top Gun got to do with this - WP:OTHER. There's no need to link to pages beyond the general disambiguation or to overemphasise AFVs and weapons systems.Unbh (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
In the cases of Centurion and Scimitar, hatnoting the AFV directly is definitely of use to the reader, as they are military topics and the searcher is pretty likely to be searching for them. Not sure about Stinger though, seems a long bow. I'd leave that one as the general dab page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems like the massive majority (~75%) of the incoming page views are from stinger and the massive majority (~75%) of the outgoing clicks are to FIM-92 Stinger. Given how massively skewed those numbers are, saving the readers that one page load seems like a solid enough reason to directly include the MANPAD in the hatnote, like is done with Turkey linking to both Turkey (bird) and Turkey (disambiguation).
Please see this discussion at the subaltern talk page about the meaning of the term and whether it might or might not include captains ... any comments/edits to the article would be appreciated. Graham8708:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
We have an article on Global Firepower Index, which produces comparisons of military strength. It's used in some articles such as Russian Armed Forces, but its use is problematic, see Talk:Russian Armed Forces#Global Firepower Index and ranking for more, and it's getting into WP:OWN territory. More eyes and opinions would be useful. But essentially, is Global Firepower Index reliable? Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Globalfirepower.com said no. The site's rankings has been reported on in some outlets, but there is no indication who is behind this site, how its rankings are worked out, or any objective information and analysis over whether its rankings are reliable or used in authoritative sources. Should this source be deprecated across wikipedia as unreliable? And should it even have an article on it at all? The website is part of a network of others of identical design, consisting of:
It is an opaque data aggregator that takes user submissions. No professional staff listed. Heck no, not reliable. A hallmark of the earlier days. That Wikipedia article on the index should also probably be deleted, the only coverage provided is cheap reprint stats from the margins of the sometimes reputable press, aka The Times of India and modern-day Newsweek, etc. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There's quite a bit in the contemporary press - eg this quite detailed summary in the Belfast Telegraph on 3 June. 144x RAF Meteors in two large arrowheads, and a smaller group of 24x RCAF Sabres between them. Flew past at about 1500ft over the course of a minute (apparently after some tweaks to the flight plan due to bad weather and delays in the procession). Happy to add it to the article if you could point out where it should go! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Need help reading/transcribing/translating a plan-of-battle diagram caption
The parish register of the Catholic Church in Seligenstadt (Offenbach District)—otherwise recording baptisms, marriages, and deaths from 1710 to 1774 and baptisms to 1784—features a battle plan map, apparently drawn and explained by the parish priest. It is recorded under date of 27 June 1743.
The caption reads:
A – Brucke mit der fortification bey Aschaffenburg so mit Canonen beschlware von denon Engellandern wo auch das haubt quartii ware für den Konig in Engelland.
B – Engellandischer lager.
C – Hanoverischer lager.
D – Oester reicherishes lager.
E – Die Canonen der Engellander.
F – Die Canonen der Hanoveraner.
G – Die Canonen der oesterreicher.
I – March dißer alliirten nach dem Camp de Battaille.
H – bagage derer alliirten.
K – Corp de reserve derer allilrten.
L – Schlacht ordnung derer alliirten, allwo zŭ fordens als[]d a fronte gestanden die oesterreicher Unter dem Herzogs von Armberg
M – franzosches lager bey Stockstatt von der Battarde unter dem marchal de Noailles.
N – March der franzosen nacher Seligenstadt uber die d[ ] brucken zu gehen.
O – Französiche Canons.
P – Schlacht ordnung der Franzos.
Q – ein Französich detachament Cavallerie welche den feised [ ] [ ] engtreiften.
R – ein Französich detachament cavallerie welches den sein [ ] sinis[]tis solte ang[]eist
S – Corp de reserve der Franzos
T – Relirade der Franzos nach ampfangenen sehlägen
U – Zwey beuchen bey Seligenstadt
W – lazarel der Franzosh zu Seligenstadt wa[]nichts[?]
At Battle_of_Dettingen#Battle I've added a pretty good scan of a really nice old battle map, with handwritten detailed caption in German (with a bit of French?). It was sent to me by a non-WP-editor just because I had edited the article and he was able to find my email address. If someone can read German handwriting from a few hundred years ago, it would be good to get a better transcription of the details in the caption, and a translation to English. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Other people will be better at this than me, but here's my contribution:
In (A) I think it's "befehl ware", not beschlware. Making lots of allowances for 300 years of language change (Brucke = Brücke, bey = bei, fortification = Festung, C = K, ware = war, denon = denen, Engellandern = Engländer, wo auf = worauf, haubt = haupt, Engelland = England) it becomes "Brücke mit der Festung bei Aschaffenburg so mit Kanonen befehl war von denen Engländer, worauf das Hauptquartier war für den König in England", that is, "Bridge with the fortress near Aschaffenburg was so commanded by cannons of those English, above which the headquarters were for the king of England." I don't think the word translated as "king" looks much like König at all. Is that really a K, it doesn't look like the other Ks, and where's the umlaut on the o? Skipping to the end, does the text in the bottom right, partly crossed out, say something about Kloster Seligenstadt? "wo nichts im Closter [...]", "where (there is) nothing in the monastery [...]" ... the final word is puzzling. Card Zero (talk)19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
In (A) the word is besetzt: canons were placed on the fortified bridge. "denon" should be read as denen, and "auf" is actually auch (also). The "K" is okay, and there is no other capital K to compare it to, is there? I read (A) as
Brucke mit der fortification bey aschaffenburg so mit Canonen besetzt ware von denen Engelländern, wo auch das Haubtquartir ware für den Konig in Engelland
In (W), the first word is lazaret (how do you translate that? a field hospital?). I agree with Closter, and I can't make out the last word either.
(U) is Zwey brucken bey Seligenstatt (two bridges near Seligenstadt).
In (T) the first word looks like retirade, not a common word, but I would understand it as "retreat". Overall retirade der franzos, nach empfangenen Schlägen, a rather curious formulation, maybe "retreat of the French after being beaten" or maybe better "hit". --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Well item K, two lines below what we think is König, has a capital K. There's no such word as donig, though, so I guess it's just a flourish, you must be right. Yes, besetzt, I was sure that letter was a z but couldn't make anything of it. Card Zero (talk)20:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Continuing backwards, (R) is ein französisch detachament Cavallerie, welches den feind â sinistris solte angreif[en], i.e. "a French cavalry detachment, that was supposed to attack the enemy from the left". The circumflex on Latin â is odd.
(Q) is the same except for â dextris, i.e. "from the right".
In (N), the missing word looks like dahige. The common word (today) would be dortige, so "across the bridges there", meaning the bridges (U).
In (M), read vor der Battaille, "before the battle". Not entirely sure about vor, because while it is possible to write r like that (did I mention that the handwriting looks French rather than German to me?), it seems to be the only instance here.
(L): Schlachtordnung derer alliierten, allwo zu forderst und a fronte gestanden die Oesterreicher Unter dem Herzog von Armberg. Something like "battle order of the allieds, where in front (in first line?) and a fronte stood the Austrians under the Duke of Armberg". --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If we can throw in Latin words, maybe the words in the bottom right are im Closter idonee, "in the monestary appropriately"? Except it's written idonie. Card Zero (talk)20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is not idonie but wo nic[hts]. It is the beginning of a clause that continues at the left on the bottom line: wo nichts zu hören ware a? ach und ??? – "where nothing was to be heard ...". --Lambiam12:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh very good. Yes, that's obviously a w with an inkblot on it, and the writer crossed out "wo nichts" to replace it with "im closter wo nic ..." and then ran out of space, that makes sense. I was going to say something about the bottom left (I saw the hören as well, I read bin hören ware ...) but it deteriorates into cramped little scribbles, and what on earth is the final glyph, is that a badly drawn ? I thought it was some scuttlebutt about the retreating French, "I was hearing ..." Card Zero (talk)12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes. Zŭ has a diacritic left over from Kurrent, apparently, a curious handwriting system where the difference between u and n is that the u has a small u written above it. Card Zero (talk)17:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I had completely missed the bottom left... Idiomatically, I'm sure this is supposed to be wo nichts zu hören ware als ach und weh, i.e. "where nothing was heard except for oh and woe". Or something like that. The German name of the letter w is pronounced just like the word Weh, so maybe that's why only w is written? Seems a bit far-fetched, given that no other abbreviations are used in the text... --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I think you've got it, that's exactly what a person resorts to when short of space and liable to mess it up. The writer quit while ahead. "Oh! Woe!", poor historical injured dudes. Card Zero (talk)19:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is also the Latin title, "Campus, in quo habitum fuit praelium inter gallos et Austrianos cum Anglis et Hanoveranis confoederatos prope dettingen praesente rege Angliae 27 junii 1743." – "The field in which the battle was held between the French and the Austrians, allied with the English and Hanoverans, near Dettingen, in the presence of the king of England, 27 June, 1743." --Lambiam12:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@GELongstreet:, Sri Lanka's English is British English, Sri Lanka got independence in 1948 from Britain. The armed forces of the country originated from the British Armed Forces, Sri Lanka still follows the British style regimental system, British style English ranks for ordinary soldiers, also Royal Navy's influence is present in Sri Lanka Navy and Royal Air Force's influence in Sri Lanka Air Force, everything you can say including the rank insignia too. And you have talked about Iran, Prussia and Sweden - these countries armed forces are not like the British Armed Forces. MN Namiki (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The category of British Army generals that you so frequently use as example has bulked up to some 3000 entries with its own table of contents, something that I call overcrowded. In my opinion a prime example to be broken up into subcategories for the specific ranks to diffuse it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion the organisation of British Army general officer categories really isn't something to try and copy. We have a list for British generals and brigadiers but a seperate one for British Army full generals, and while the Category:British Army generals seems to make an attempt at organising the list and differentiating between brigadiers and true generals, it doesn't really succeed. The category is a morass of people of different ranks and stations, and in fact does include many brigadiers as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree. There is never a need to categorise officers of any country by their exact final rank. This is getting silly. It is particularly silly that those who held the rank of full general or admiral are categorised only in the container categories whereas those who held a lower rank are categorised in the subcats. There was nothing wrong with just having Category:British Army generals and Category:Royal Navy admirals or equivalent in other countries. It's holding the grade of general or admiral that's important, not the exact rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
It's apparently infobox week for me and I've been doing officeholder boxes the early governors of New Spain for some reason (thank goodness for translation software). I'm getting the feeling from the sources that the early gangs of Cortés and Columbus didn't really know how governing worked per se. I also don't know if anyone besides Cortés and Columbus were given an official title that translates to governor or similar (I think I saw the still-used term jefe politico (superior?) used specifically in the royal decree for Cortés in one source). The point is that past Cortés and Tapia, some call it a triumvirate, but then sometimes the number in the governing council(?) goes up or down (usually when someone goes on campaign). I also can't tell from sources if these councils separate tasks into treasurer, etc., or have a more equitable power-share. The impression I get, rather, is that these people, prior to the Audiencia, have no idea what the F they are doing and that's a big part of why they were so inept and corrupt. So again I'm back to the question of whether it is appropriate to call anyone past Cortés "governor" unless they are granted an official title, and if not, what should their positions until the Audiencia be called? A governing council? (If conquistadors doing the boring stuff is not your thing, please let me know whom else I can direct this to. WProject Spain seems to be tangential and not very active.) Thanks all. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know anything about the "Horse Kilties" (apparently a military unit) in a Harry Lauder song? Google could only find a mention by Eric Milroy in 1915; "They [some boots] have now arrived and I am now one of Harry Lauder's regulation horse Kilties, except that I have not yet received my kilt". Milroy was in the Black Watch, but what did they have to do with horses? This relates to query on the Humanities Ref Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Kilties are decorative pieces of leather that are added behind shoe laces to protect the tongue of shoes and boots: [25][26]. I suspect that this is a joke, given that horse shoes obviously cant accommodate them. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: Apparently, during stage performances, Lauder would sing the song in an "absurd Horse Kilties uniform."[27] That may suggest a caricature of a real uniform, or just lack of familiarity of an American audience thinking a real highland uniform looks absurd. There is also a photograph of two performers in Lauder's Horse Kilties, which shows the upper part of a Scottish army uniform (see far right of page 25, middle row). From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
According to an official explanation of the lyrics by Victor Records, "Horse Kilties" in the context of the song means "Scotch Regiment."(Record 70006) There is no other indication of which regiment was being referred to (so neither supporting or contradicting your other research). From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
What you added - i.e. specifically adding one person's autobiography (i.e. Don't Rock the Boat) appears to be non-neutral - and are individual autobiographies really appropriate for further reading for an article covering a whole navy?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand. "Do Not Rock the Boat" is a really unusual source, a passionate memoir; I thought it was valuable. I accept that it could have been seen as non-neutral. Understand. I did not want to copy out every source on that list at the time I added that one; the key one I had remembered was that one. If DerbyCountyinNZ feels that that particular book is non-neutral if added alone, he is perfectly free to say that and remove it on that basis. But that does not equal = "Do not improve the article."
I believe therefore that while I may be at fault for appearing to prejudice the article, because I did not at that particular time want to start adding each and every Further Reading on that amazing RNZN Communicators site list, DerbyCountyinNZ is also at fault for not choosing his words better. "Non-Neutral addition if added alone, reverted" would have explained his intent much better!! Would not have got me running here hotfoot!!
I will start working through adding the entire RNZN Communicators' list. It can be added as a single edit, if that appears more neutral and appropriate. Kind regards to all. Buckshot06(talk)23:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
MILMOS question: Names of cities that change names
While rewriting Karl Lennart Oesch, I came to wonder what the recommendation is w/r/t names of cities that change hands. More specifically, the Oesch article discusses the city of Vyborg in connection to both Winter War and Continuation War. The city, called Viipuri in Finnish, was part of Finland until the 1939-40 Winter War. It was ceded to Soviets in the following peace treaty. The (local) consensus in the Winter War article appears to be to use the Finnish name "Viipuri". At the start of the Continuation War (1941-44), the city is captured by the Finns, but later retaken by the Soviets in 1944 just before the end of the war. It has been Soviet/Russian since. The (local) consensus in Continuation War related articles appears to be to use the term "Vyborg". A 2011 RFC was closed as "no consensus".
My uncertainty arises from the fact that the Oesch article discusses the city in both contexts. WP:MODERNPLACENAME is conveniently vague (Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods.) and the ancient 2005 vote on the use of Gdansk/Danzig in biographics seems, well, ancient. I've currently used the term "Viipuri" for things happening before the start of the Continuation War, and the term "Vyborg" for events during Continuation War, but I'm far from certain that this is the right call. Any suggestions on how to best tackle this? Or links to some relevant MOS sections that I might have missed? -Ljleppan (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't seem vague to me - use the modern name unless a consensus of reliable sources uses a different version, in which case use that. Am I missing something? I do a lot of work on Medieval and classical period articles, where this comes up a lot; but is very rarely a problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
IMO it's generally best to use the name that's appearing in the RS discussing the subject, which I've found generally prevents the use of hopelessly obscure names or serious anachronisms. For instance, it might be Jonesboro, Georgia now, but it was Jonesborough during the war, so RS on the Atlanta campaign (and our article) use Battle of Jonesborough. Hog FarmTalk15:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The split appears to be between whether you go off Russian-focused narratives such as Bair Irincheev's books or the Finnish-perspective on the wars such as the works of Kilin and Raunio. Because of this, I would mention both names in the text of an article in both the Continuation and Winter War situations. The difference is political here rather than other situations where the spelling of names changed in other countries. Kges1901 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It is a political thing. There was a long discussion of Danzig vs Gdansk. Similarly, all our reliable sources will refer to Kiev and not Kyiv, but there was a recent decision to use the latter. And sometimes a city changes names many times eg. Lemberg -> Lwow -> Lvov -> Lviv depending on who is in charge at the moment. Vyborg changed its name back and forth depending on whether Sweden, Russia or Finland was in change. I'm with Hog though; follow the sources. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Featured article review for Ulm campaign
I have nominated Ulm campaign 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Peer review requested for "sailor tattoos" article
@JJMC89: Recent changes to the Wikimedia Toolforge means that I can no longer build the newer jobs, which are written in C#. Furthermore, they seem to be migrating to Kubernetes, and there are no plans to support C#. So for the moment, I cannot make any changes, and eventually we may lose functionality completely. I will see if I can find a new home for the MilHistBot. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not conversant in C#, but I do have experience with NLP stuff especially in python. Let me know if there's something I could potentially help with. Ljleppan (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle
So... I might have accidentally screwed up publication of this by thinking June had been published and "helpfully" updating the month to July in the Newsroom. My apologies. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs22:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Republic F-84 Thunderjet's Current A-class article has been nominated for review here, with the main problem noted so far being sourcing. If anyone wants to help improve the article to keep its A-class, or to help in the re-assessment, then please chip in.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Armed Merchant Cruisers on the Northern Patrol, First World War
I know we have some very expert ship trackers here. I have the following paragraph so far in Northern Patrol and have filled some in. But I don't quite know our conventions for naming ships. Any help to link the following with articles appreciated: "Among the AMCs on the Northern Patrol 'were Alcantara, Almanzora (served from August 1915), Alsatian (flagship), Ambrose, Andes, Arlanza, Artois (ex-Digby, transferred to French Flag, 11.15-7.17), Avenger (served from 12.1915), Cedric, Changuinola, Columbella, Digby, Ebro, Eskimo, Gloucestershire (served from 12.15), Hilary, Hildebrand, India, Kildonan Castle (served from 3.1916), Mantua, Moldavia (served from 11.15), Motagua, Orcoma, Orotava, Orvieto (served from 5.16), Otway, Patia, Patuca, Teutonic, Victorian, and Virginian.'[1]Buckshot06(talk)07:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The comedian Don Adams served with the U.S. Marines during World War II. I request that persons with knowledge of Marine Corps records, especially with access to Ancestry.com, read my note on the talk page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Bombing of Hamburg, again
With the help of Schwede66 (who wrote much of the blurb), Brainulator9, and Jmchutchinson, and, of course, the feedback from last time I brought this up, we've come up with what I think is an excellent example of putting propaganda in sufficient context that it educates instead of misleads:
The bombing of Hamburg in World War II by the Allies included numerous attacks on German civilians and civic infrastructure. As a large city and industrial centre, Hamburg's shipyards, U-boat pens and oil refineries were attacked throughout the war. In late July 1943, as part of a campaign of strategic bombing, the Allies launched Operation Gomorrah, an eight-day bombing campaign in Hamburg. In particular, during the 27/28 July raid carried out by the Royal Air Force (RAF), concentrated bombing created one of the largest firestorms of the war. Operation Gomorrah killed more than 37,000 people and destroyed 60% of the city's houses. An unexpected consequence of the raid was the reallocation of some German resources away from the fighting fronts. Large numbers of anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft were redeployed back to Germany, so aiding the Allies in their conduct of the ground war.
This United States propaganda newsreel(above), released in August 1943, covers the Eighth Air Force's bombing of Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah. The newsreel's narrator states that Hamburg is "Germany's principal seaport and number-one war center" and that the bombing caused "devastation of war plants", but does not mention the deliberate destruction of entire residential neighborhoods. The intent was to reduce German industrial production for the war effort by making workers homeless – an opinion based on study of the effect on British factories of German bombing during the Blitz.
This aerial photograph (below), taken by an RAF officer, shows part of the Hamburg district of Eilbek after this dehousing campaign; it was probably taken after the end of the war and certainly after rubble and other debris had been cleared.
I'd start by going over the maintenance tags and referencing. There are both full paragraphs and individual sentences completely unreferenced, and a lot of the references used seem dubious (SPS-looking websites, youtube videos etc.). Ljleppan (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
He has a lot of images available that we don't even appear to have on Commons, and, while the colours are a bit off - a lot of them were printed on actual real vellum - they clean up really nice. Any ones that people are particularly desirous of?
Seeking opinions on whether these articles actually represent documented factions of the Civil War Republican party or are labels created by an editor.
As mentioned before, WP:URFA/2020 is hoping to get all of the featured articles last reviewed between 2004 and 2006 looked at as soon as possible. MILHIST is currently over 90% of the way to its goal of 1500 FAs within project scope, and helping give these older FAs some love will keep us from going backwards through delisting. Ones that still need looked at are:
Operation Ten-Go - in good shape, needs another set of eyes Reviewed
Toledo War - needs general attention, may not be comprehensive on sourcing
What do we think about Orynx, the open-source intelligence blog as an RS? I've noticed some edit wars on Russian/Ukrainian armored fighting vehicle pages about including that source. Schierbecker (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This really belongs at WP:RSN, but I've seen reliable sources like major news websites citing Oryx's coverage of vehicle losses in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This pretty much boils down to whether the authors are subject-matter experts or not and I'm not sure there is an obviously correct answer. Their numbers might be some of the better ones publicly available but that doesn't make them unproblematic. I'd especially avoid any kind of comparison between the Russian and Ukranian losses based on the Oryx data. For something like According to Oryx, Russian forces have used the T-whatever in Ukraine, I'd probably view it as not-great-but-acceptable. Ljleppan (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The authors have some professional credibility as they are published and have worked as contributors for Janes and Bellingcat (the latter is reliable per WP:RSP).[29][30] —MichaelZ15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
They have also provided similar coverage on the wars in Syria and the Middle East,covering the losses on each side of the conflicts and other information. Basedosaurus (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Per Nick-D, this is probably a matter for WP:RSN. My view is that Orynx is a blog (or a blog within a blog). A WP:NEWSORG citing Orynx does not make it reliable in the same way that a NEWSORG citing or referring to WP (directly or indirectly) does not make WP a WP:RS. We should be [more] circumspect in how we treat NEWSORGS - particularly in the Russian invasion of Ukraine because there are not many other sources. We must be circumspect in how we treat blogs. We should not allow our outrage to compromise core policies (IMHO). Please advise and/or copy this thread to WP:RSN if you take it there. Cinderella157 (talk)
I am renown for being slow, but I can't find the dedicated MilHist section. (Unless you mean the one which includes Mahatma Gandhi?) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that the easiest way to improve these articles are trimming over-long sections and add citations. Don't worry too much about the content right now, improve those first. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible for me to get some feedback as to why this article was given C-class status? Based on the talk-page, it fulfills all B-class status requirements minus 1.Referencing and Citation, but without an explanation as to how or why my citations can be improved, I'm not sure how to fix it. I'm still somewhat mystified by the class-ratings because they seem to be assigned at random half the time, so any help on how I can improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Evansknight (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems to have been auto-assessed by MilHistBot, which can be a bit finicky. A good way to deal with these kinds of things is to list the article at WP:MHAR (also supposedly reachable by WP:MHA#REQ but I can't get the shortcut to work in my browser). Ljleppan (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot thought that "Works published" should have been referenced. I have checked the article and upgraded the assessment to B class. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I actually just underwent a partial GA review of the article with one of your protegés, but about halfway through he failed it and now I've got half of an article with no feedback on it, so I'm not sure what my next steps should be as an editor before I submit it again. Any advice you could offer would be very helpful. Evansknight (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe protegé isn't the right word, but he credited you for mentoring him through a GA review. Thanks for the rec, I'll post it over there so I can get some more eyes on it. Evansknight (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's good to hear that no good deed goes unpunished. GoCER mostly do good work, although sadly there seems to be a bit of a queue at the moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated First Nagorno-Karabakh 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking for feedback or refinements on a draft article
Hello, the article Draft:Maki Mirage is in progress, looking for ideas on the article or any tweaks that could be made before submitting. About a relatively obscure topic but if you have any ideas for contributions feel free to contribute to the article directly, or mention in its talk page or here. Thank you, Rauisuchian (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I was actually looking for Kosovo War in the aforementioned way and was surprised to see it didn't exist. Then I understood it existed in a different title. I believe having such redirects would help in alleviating the confusion a bit but I thought I'd ask before because maybe there are specific reasons such redirects don't exist beside simply having no one actually create them. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This idea seems good in general, but those "War of" names seem unusual and unlikely to me for these examples. For well known wars, the common redirects have probably already been made, though exceptions apply. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think they are more likely for people who don't have English as their first language; for example, Kosovo War is known as Guerra de Kosovo in Spanish, which translates literally to War of Kosovo. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly why I'm asking. In my native language, Albanian, it works the same as in Spanish but I've seen that the paradigm "War of" is usually reserved for abstract terms such as "War of the Roses" in English, not for the places that the war was fought on (which are also places that took part in the war). I'm assuming such redirects could help users who don't have English as a non-native language, no? - Klein Muçi (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Since there were no objections in the last past days I've gone ahead and created the said redirects. If someone can improve them with the correct redirect templates, it would be helpful. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment
Please see Talk:3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment#Deletion of properly sourced information. An IP keeps removing a section from the article suggesting in their edit summary that it is "inaccurate" or "incorrect". The information is properly sourced and The Times and ITV are regarded as reliable sources. I suspect the section is being removed by someone with a conflict of interest. Have any other editors seen a source which supports the IP's claim? If not, please can another editor restore it. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: Looking at the edit summaries, I think their contention is that the text implies the battalion is banned from overseas service, full stop, while the Times article (the unpaywalled bits, anyway) seems to confirm that the battalion was 'banned' from one specific deployment later this year. The Independent and BBC both refer to the deployment as "cancelled" rather than the battalion as "banned", which maybe is a bit clearer in context. I wonder if a more cautiously worded statement would solve the dispute? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this article desperately needs an layout rework. The eight giant-sized maps are put as thumbnails with massive widths, and while I do believe they're useful, surely this is cause for gallery use? The other images are lost in the confusion, and then the gallery at the bottom is largely Gardner's photos of the aftermath, with some other artworks. I don't even know where to start. Find the least useful image and remove it? But we want a balance of image types, and if we're not careful, we'll just end up with a mush of one type. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs11:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
IMO all the maps are really necessary for comprehension, as the fighting in some areas was more convoluted than average
The corps/army commanders block galleries aren't found in a lot of more recent ACW articles; I think it's more standard to pick a few nicer images of the key commanders
@Hog Farm: I wasn't really objecting to the maps as such, more... well, have a look at the diff at time of posting this and you'll see the issue: [31] - the uprights on the maps were as high as 1.8, which made them absolutely gigantic. I'll try to cut what I can, per your suggestions, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs22:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about the James Hope paintings? I think they're nice, but they're kind of shoved into a gallery with a caption that implies it's going to be all Gardner photographs. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs22:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
That looks much better. Apart, as you say, from the gallery. Consider moving the lot to another article, or just dumping the lot. Also consider dumping the popular culture section. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I am inclined to agree with Hog on that. And you probably have room to add it without having to swap anything out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, the article is rated as a GA but would need some work to really be up to current standards. I've got Sears and Kennedy from the secondary sources listing and Gallagher and Gottfried from the further reading, but I don't know if that's enough. Hog FarmTalk20:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
A recent move discussion brought to light the somewhat scattered state of articles about military ranks. I figured this would be as good a place as any to gauge whether the community thinks this is worth doing something about. In general (no pun intended) we seem to have a few standard types of article sets:
Type 1:
A high-level article about the rank in general, without much ties to any specific country: Lieutenant general
One article driven by the German rank (e.g. has {{German military ranks}} at bottom, is in Category:Military ranks of Germany, majority of content is about Germany) but also almost always includes Austria and some other countries with a rank that is spelled nearly the same: Generalleutnant
Individual articles for countries that have an equivalent rank but do not use the English language term: Kenraaliluutnantti, Generallöjtnant
One article driven by the German rank (e.g. has {{German military ranks}} at bottom, is in Category:Military ranks of Germany, majority of content is about Germany) but also almost always includes Austria and some other countries with a rank that is spelled nearly the same: Oberst
Individual country articles: Eversti, Överste (nb: Swedish has both a dedicated article and is covered by Oberst#Sweden)
Type 3:
English language rank, which has a massive per-country list of vaguely similar ranks: Corporal
German-driven equivalent, again with some individual countries as sections, with overlap to the English term: Korporal
Infuriatingly, these things appear to not employ any kind of standard structure even within countries, e.g. Finnish officer ranks use {{Scandinavian military rank sidebar}} which gives neat "higher rank" and "lower rank" navigation as a side bar, which is then broken because Yliluutnantti redirects to Senior lieutenant#Finland.
On suggestion raised elsewhere was to rename the non-English ranks that have a clear English-language equivalent to use "English Term (Country)" titles, e.g. Kenraaliluutnantti → Lieutenant General (Finland), but this gets complicated with cases where the rank structures and terms don't quite align, e.g. English corporal (OR-4) vs Finnish alikersantti (official translation "corporal," OR-4, NCO) vs Finnish korpraali (official translation "private 1st class," OR-3, rank and file).
So with that massive recap of the present states of affairs out of the way: does this strike you as something that should be organized better, and if so, how? Personally, I think the current status is rather difficult to navigate and has tons of overlap between articles, but it's not at all clear to me what direction things should be taken in. Ljleppan (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue is going to be where the ranks differ. Even the UK/US ranks don't line up perfectly (consider Staff Sergeant, for instance). I think that trying to force every country's translations as if they're the same - how official are those Finnish translations really, or is that just an attempt by non-Finnish army forces to make them fit the US OR-4 names, for example? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs19:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
At least sufficiently official that they are used in FDF publications (p. 225 here, p. 71 here). But the misalignment is indeed problematic. Another example of misalignment is between countries with two lieutenant ranks and three. Guidelines say that we are supposed to WP:USEENGLISH, but then go on to describe that It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. [..] If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.). There's at least an argument that many if not most of these ranks would fall under that exception. I guess my biggest annoyance is that there isn't even agreement what to do within languages (e.g. Finnish has mostly dedicated articles under the Finnish terms, but then Yliluutnantti redirects to Senior lieutenant#Finland and Kenraali redirects to General (Finland)). Ljleppan (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Probably also going to hit a secondary problem with that mismatch: while that may be the translation convention now, historically, especially before attempts to have worldwide rank codes, I suspect the translations won't be as convenient. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs14:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I need help with a military biography
Hello! I am requesting some help with a draft article I am writing about a military man. He is a retired Navy pilot who is credited with “the longest dogfight in U.S. Navy history,” and there is a campaign to have him awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I’d like your opinions on the article, including whether he even deserves to have an article (I have only three Reliable Sources; two additional sources I did not use are a press release[32] and an article from Task and Purpose[33]; feel free to add those references if you believe they meet WP criteria). In any case, I need your help with the military aspects of the article - infobox, medal table, more detail about his Navy career, etc. Right now I have the draft in my userspace - User:MelanieN/E. Royce Williams. I would very much appreciate any comments (you can use the talk page) or editing assistance. Thank you! MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
From what I was able to find with a quick Google Books search, Williams definitely meets GNG. If the Medal of Honor award is approved, he will certainly receive a lot more coverage that will establish his notability even more. Since honoring him is not a politically controversial element of the NDAA, I'm sure that he'll receive the Medal of Honor after the NDAA gets signed into law within the next several months. Kges1901 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I am also hoping that some people here will do the necessary editing to add what is needed for a military biography - such as more detail about his actual military service (some of you know how to access that, and I don't), an infobox, and the medals. I have only written a couple of military biographies up to now, and I am in way over my head on this one! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I have launched the article into mainspace as Royce Williams. I think it is ready, although it does still need work. I encourage anyone here to fill in the gaps. Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Toledo War Featured article review
I have nominated Toledo 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Campaignbox Western Front (World War II)
I'm wondering if a campaign box like Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II) is appropriate at an article like Liberation of France, which, while covering plenty of battles and military operations, isn't solely about the military effort, and also covers a lot of politics, diplomacy, Resistance, and other non-military subtopics.
I'm only a very occasional contributor at this TP, although I do contribute to a bunch of military articles. Although I've noticed campaign boxes all over, I have only a vague understanding of what counts as a "campaign" and consequently, what belongs in a campaign nav box. I happened to notice Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II) at Liberation of France, and it contains neither Operation Overlord nor Operation Dragoon under the "France" heading. These were two immense seaborne landings that surely must be among the largest of WWII (or ever) and was astonished that they weren't listed in the campaign box. Or, if a battle or operation is not part of some larger grouping, whatever defines a "campaign", does that mean that even decisive operations like these two don't get mentioned? If that's the case, then maybe that particular campaign box belongs more at articles like Western Front of World War II, but not at Liberation of France, where articles links in the "France" section of that campaign box seem more mysterious than helpful.
The article military campaign says that a "a military campaign is [a] large-scale long-duration significant military strategy plan incorporating a series of interrelated military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war." If FDR's instructions to Eisenhower to invade France, drive the Germans out, and defeat them wasn't that, then I don't know what is. Please advise. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Field marshal rank for the SS...
Apparently there was a proppsed rank of "SS-Volksmarschall" at one point. Anyone aware of this? And more to the point, anyone know of a reliable source that supports this? Cheers - wolf03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Just came across this book on Google: "The German Army on the Eastern Front: An Inner View of the Ostheer's Experiences of War" by Adrian Wettstein and Jeff Rutherford, as a possible source. It lists this rank as "planned". Anyone familiar with this book or its authors? - wolf15:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you have access to a version that would show what fn 134 on that page says? In terms of a timeline, both of the book sources post-date this un-referenced stub on nl.wiki: [34]. Ljleppan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I have read some discussion about this supposed rank before. WP:RS sources do not list it at all and the fact is there was no official recognition, nor implementing of such rank prior to the disbanding of the SS or the end of Nazi Germany. It’s really just speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I’m not aware of this book, there’s always one out there that one doesn’t know about. It appears that it probably is an RS book, however, as to this specific issue, it’s still not clear. We would have to see what source they were using for that point. Further, it must be remember that again, it was never an official rank prior to the demise of the SS. I still believe it’s a matter of speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, the book denotes it as a "planned rank", so when searching out sourcing, it is likely more of a matter of finding refs that state the Nazis intended to implement the rank at some point, rather than finding refs that states the rank was ever actually used. But I suppose if that turns out to be the case, then the rank would likely just be a note somewhere, as opposed to inclusion on any rank tables. Anyway, thanks for all the relplies so far, guys. - wolf19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed CCI
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. You can find more information on this CCI casepage. This CCI mainly concerned images of Civil War-era ships; blockade runners it seems. Some images may be deleted on Commons, and suitable and properly licensed images may need to be found to replace them. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Indy - I was involved in the cleanup and have found it frustrating how long the Commons deletion process can take. Hog FarmTalk06:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This isn't my first rodeo with dealing with Commons deletion, and it's probably the most frustrating part, I agree. However, most of the DRs (except for my last few, which were mostly done out of "This is a waste of my time, DR") are very sound, so it's just the fact that they have less than 200 admins overall and less than 100 that had 1 or more admin actions in the last 30 days that causes it to take so long. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
First Macedonian War 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 FarmTalk15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
San Marino? Not sure this meets WP:CRITERIA's Recognizability. Although Russia seems to be unique in having this it seems odd not to have Russia mentioned in the title. I don't know that most readers would get it without reading some of the article. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any good open-access sources for military bios?
I'm working on a draft from a soldier for WWI, but I'm currently stuck right now with sources and don't have access to the Wikipedia Library yet. Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Good question; I can't tell either, since even assuming the articles were merged without any deletion of redundant content, it'd only be about 80kb (which is a bit on the long side, but not that long). There are cases where places or things that changed names warrant two articles (Königsberg/Kaliningrad come to mind, as each of these are longer than a merged Carillon/Ticonderoga would be, or USS Phoenix (CL-46)/ARA General Belgrano, which had notable histories under both names), but this one doesn't appear to be one. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Any merge would need to keep in mind that Ticonderoga is a FA, so any additions from the Carillon article will need to be WP:FACR compliant. Hog FarmTalk16:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anybody could help me with the Latrar Air Station (H4-A) article, specifically regarding its name. I haven't been able to find any reliable official sources that actually state that the name is Latrar Air Station. There are offline sources in the article that I can't access and Icelandic sources generally call it Ratsjárstöðin á Bolafjalli which translates into Bolafjall Radar Station, which is logical since it is located on Bolafjall. As far as I can see, there is no place called Latrar (or Látrar in Icelandic) where the station is located. There was however another air station located 30km to the north, Straumnes Air Station (H-4), decades before. Part of that station was located in an abandoned village called Látrar which lies below the Straumnes mountain where most of the base was located on top of. I'm wondering if the name itself is an error or if it is the former name of the Straumnes Air Station that they reused. This source alludes to the later and this states the Straumnes AS was in fact named Latrar AS (H4) but I'm not sure how reliable they are.
Hi, I've been doing a little work on Commander-in-Chief, India and have left a message on the talk there too, but don't know if it will be very visible. Repeating it here, I question what exactly our criteria for CinC India is for the early days of the position. Sources I've found completely disagree with the extant list, and some officers listed are recorded in other sources as serving in various military positions, but hardly ever as actually "Commander-in-Chief, India" or its like. Would appreciate any comments on whether there's actually some confusion in the list or if it's all in my head. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Freely admitting that most of what I know about British India is through historical military fiction, but was there ever really a CinC, India before 1857? AFAIK under the EIC, India was divided amongst three presidencies that had to be persuaded to cooperate with each other; I don't believe that there was a military commander above them. At least not officially, and I would limit the article to the formally established office when Pitt reorganized the British administration in India.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Royal Navy ship databases
I'm currently tidying up the wikidata entries for Royal Navy ships, and copying across missing information from Wikipedia articles. Is there a database anywhere online of Royal Navy ship properties/histories, especially key dates like launch/commission/decommission/disposal? I am aware of the Ship Loss Database released this year by MAST. Vicarage (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines Featured article review
I have nominated 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Norrköping was a 32-gun sailing sloop/frigate. She was built at Karlskrona by J. d'Ailly in 1858. She was the last sail only ship in the Swedish navy, converted into a naval cadet home in 1903 and condemned in 1936, at which point she was apparently conserved. [36][37][38]Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
More recent NATO documents support the current article contents, see e.g. page 50 here. The document references STANAG 2116 (Edition 6) which appears to be a more recent version of the second document, which would explain the discrepancy. Ljleppan (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking again (sorry, it's early for me), a later table in the document I linked shows that the air force rank is indeed OR-4. So I suppose the air force table should be updated, but he army table is correct as-is. The template to be updated is at {{Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/OR/Canada}}, which I daren't touch my self, since I have no idea what the proper insignias would be. Ljleppan (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
W. R. A. Dawson portrait
Hi, I believe that this portrait is of W. R. A. Dawson, but as it is only named "Lieutenant Colonel Dawson" I can't be totally sure. The man in the portrait wears FWW medal ribbons and the DSO with three bars, which matches what Dawson was awarded (although the campaign medals posthumously?). Our article records that only seven men were awarded three bars for the DSO in the FWW, and the law of averages suggests that only one of these was a "Dawson", but can someone perhaps provide more concrete evidence that this was the case? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, this book, which looks to be reliable, states that there were seven awards of the DSO and three bars in the First World War. It would be possible to track them all down in the Gazette, but a bit fiddly as the all-caps typeface used in this period often misleads the OCR scanning ("third bar to the Distinguished Service Order" ends up being "THIBD BAB TO THE DISTINGUISHED SEBVICE ORDEB" and numerous variations thereof). The painting looks to have been made from a photograph I found, that had been published with a death notice in The Sphere in 1919 and have added to his article (though his medal ribbons were updated for the painting, his third DSO bar was posthumous so he would never have worn the insignia). I think the similarity between the painting and photo is enough to confirm the identity - Dumelow (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
this dosn't look right. a case could be made for replacing mentions of nazi germany with just germany, so can you argue that the Anschluss was not an annexation but an "integration". but suspicion starts to arise when reading about the "italian betrayl of the axis" or "starvation has been a siege tactic since the Middle Ages". such statements create a clear feeling of bias towards one side or another. while im too new to this whole business to really know what needs to be done i can at least reassure you that you're not insane. Bannerman3 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Blaugraf has a long history of tendentious editing mainly focused on downplaying German war crimes (like this from April 2022, this from Jan. 2021, and this from Sept. 2020). How they haven't been booted by now is beyond me, as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I have remedied that situation. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Tbh the same deal goes for a lot of medieval sieges as well, a lot of the time the whole point was simply genocide to get rid of ones enemy.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
dosn't really make it any less fucked up considering the siege of Stalingrad took place in ww2, still, for medival sieges its perfectly acceptable to include that line Bannerman3 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that there were little to no rules of warfare in the medieval period. Blaugraf was purposefully drawing a false equivalency to minimize war crimes. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I have cleaned up most of their edits that hadn't been reverted earlier (leaving the small handful that were clear improvements) -- luckily they were not very prolific -- but if someone else felt like looking over their contributions and double-checking, I would be grateful. JBL (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
i am a graphics designer who digitally recreates flags, is there any way for me to help this project?
hello! i've been a graphics designer for two years by now, one of the fields i've grown particularly proficient in is digitally recreating historical flags especially from the Napoleonic wars. since the help page of this project mainly talks about writing, i've been having a tough time figuring out if someone like me can also contribute. Bannerman3 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure of flags, but I'd appreciate illustrations of Finnish Continuation War army corps's memorial crosses. There are non-free (i.e. not usable on Wikipedia) images online, so let me know if this sounds at all interesting and I'll link you some examples. Ljleppan (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
hello there! i'll be more then happy to help you, as im new to this i'll appreciate if you can tell me if there's an easier way to communicate then using Wikipedia talk pages as i do find them quite cumbersome. 2A00:7C40:C530:38:1542:F8E6:71ED:CA69 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure of a better way for communications, but we can take this to e.g. my talk page if that's easier for you. In any case, for memorial crosses, I'd most appreciate the army corps level crosses for the continuation war, of which there are 6. My plan was to use these for infobox images, because that I haven't really found any flags or other insignia that would fit that role well.
Fir references, see this page starting from Maaselän risti (II AK / Maas. mr.) (belongs to II Corps) to Äänisen muistoristi (VII AK / Ään. mr.) (belongs to VII Corps) under the heading Jatkosodan muistoristit. Other (non-free or otherwise not-great) images can be found at the Finna.fi website, which lists Finnish museum collections. Here's an example search for the II Corps memorial cross: [46].
I know this is quite different from flags, so I'll understand perfectly if something else strikes you as more interesting :) Ljleppan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
digitizing emblems, medals and badges is not too dissimilar from doing so with flags. though as i do not speak finnish i would appreciate it if you could provide a more organized list of what needs to be done. eg: 6 separate pictures and a name next to each one in both finnish and (if possible) english. also, where do i even submit things when im done? 2A00:7C40:C530:38:1542:F8E6:71ED:CA69 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I see what happened; you added the section, but the section header was malformed and did not show up either in the Table of Contents, or on the page. I've fixed that now, so perhaps you will get feedback at that page of the type you are seeking.
Dates of rank, assignments, awards and decorations on military articles violating WP:NOTCV
Recently, an edit was made to David L. Goldfein removing his dates of rank and assignments from the page. While sourced from his official biography, they seem to contravene WP:NOTCV and, while I'm not certain, I believe the edit reason was correct and WP:GOODFAITH.
I note that it takes some courage for me to launch this discussion, because I am very afraid that it could spiral into heated debate, ad hominem attacks, etc. Hence, I start this discussion to gather advice and consensus, for whether such edits (including to Goldfein) should stand, from editors far more experienced than me and better able to quote Wikipedia policy and the views of this WikiProject. Thank you. I take my leave. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, with Hawkeye7 in that WP:NOTCV is definitely not being broken here (that is about something different altogether). That said, there is a more roundabout argument along the lines of WP:UNDUE. W/r/t awards for example, I see little value in listing every minor military award a person has ever received. Where the line between "sufficiently notable to be included" and "irrelevant for Wikipedia" lies is something that probably needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thinking along the same lines can be applied to pretty much every aspect of a person's career. On a related but slightly different note, I have a dislike for tables of stuff at the end of the article, and I'd prefer to see important awards, positions, etc. written into the prose. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and Ljleppan: Based on the above, what should be done about the edit being based on WP:NOTCV as stated here? Should I revert it a second time based on this discussion (unsure if this constitutes consensus or not) or leave it as is? I don't feel sufficiently secure enough to quote WP:NOTCV as wrongly applied here. How, in this case, was it incorrectly applied in the Goldfein edit, in case it happens again to other articles? SuperWIKI (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I've restored some of the awards with a reference and dropped a note on the talk page. For promotions, I'd suggest you add what appears relevant into the prose directly. Ljleppan (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can include among those that disagree with the OP on this. The inclusion of awards & decorations, along with dates of rank, etc. are. not a violation of WP:NOTCV, especially since NOTCV speaks to user pages, and user pages only, not articles. The concern is that WP is not a hosting service and would-be job-seeking editors should not be filling out their own pages to look like résumés for potential employers. The information about military ranks and military decorations, on articles about military figures, is a natual part of such articles and is entirely appropriate. I would suggest that SuperWIKI strike their OP and allow this thread to be closed, without delay. (imho) - wolf07:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, you are in agreement with this, correct? Second, to "strike their OP" means to do what exactly? I'm not understanding here. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was speaking in general about the guideline, and how it does and doesn't apply. Specific edits and issues, on specific articles, should be addressed on the article talk page. There, SuperWIKI can tell this editor to knock it off and actually read the guideline as it doesn't apply. That is also where editors such as Ljleppan can raise any concerns regarding UNDUE content. (imho) Cheers - wolf07:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Clarifying on why I didn't immediately ask on the singular talk page is due to, as stated above, the major implications that this could have for other military biographies due to the high frequency of rank tables and "awards and decorations" sections on such pages. Secondly, I was less than confident that my interpretation of WP:NOTCV was correct; to request consensus on a page where replies are infrequent and only involving two users wouldn't count as consensus, and to ping editors, even those with more experience, would resemble canvassing for votes or a manufactured consensus. As I felt this could spiral into a long-term issue, I brought it here immediately. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry; asking for feedback is always preferable to editwarring, and this is a fine place to ask for said feedback. Ljleppan (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Hey SW, I see what this other guy is doing and and why you brought this here now. Jtbc, NOTCV does not apply here. They can't use it to as a reason to remove that content. I've since posted to the article tp and tried to take the page back to QUO, but was quickly reverted. Perhaps a quick strawpoll here to gauge conseensus on the issues at hand would help to bring this to a close before this guy starts mass-gutting a slew of articles, all based on the instructions for userboxes or something equally irrelevant. - wolf08:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a strawpoll to formally establish some consensus would be very appropriate. The discussion on the Goldfein talk page seems to not be going anywhere besides the OP stating that the whole "rank, awards and decorations" thing is a mess and other providing counterpoints. If that is the case, then there should be a consensus on this across the board instead of the Goldfein talk page discussion going round and round in circles about WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTCV. Not adding anything there for now due to lack of points directly related to the immediate article and reversions. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
If anyone knows a little about these events, their help would be appreciated in determining the best descriptive title. And perhaps even checking that the current scope and date range make sense. Srnec (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
1973 army helicopter incident, West Midlands, England
There won't be an AAIB report - they didn't cover military accidents, and I don't think that the military authorities published any results of their investigations - or even details of crashes. I can't find anything in The Times archive - but this - (not a reliable source as it comes from the user editable part of aviation safety network) says the helicopter was a Westland Sioux (i.e. a licence-built Bell 47).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The Birmingham Post of 9th July (through British Newspaper Archive) gives a full account including names of all three persons involved and details of the injuries to Sgt. Cornwall, the parachutist. (Broken wrist, broken pelvis, both elbows dislocated and broken.) The helicopter is listed as a "Sioux army helicopter" and anyone with detailed knowledge of that type may be able to confirm that from the rather poor quality photo of the wreckage of the aircraft. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe was he the eldest son of a baronet? I can find other knighthoods made by the Duke of Richmond (the Lord Lt of Ireland in 1809) made solely because the recipient was the eldest son of a baronet. Nthep (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow: He was appointed sheriff in 1832. I can't immediately find dates for the other two positions but they're the kind of roles that one usually sees people attain in later life. A puzzler! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
He was made DL in 1821 (source). Can't find his magistracy but in principle could have been any time he was a landowner - his father died in April 1807. But we know he was posted to the Trent at about that time, so it doesn't seem like he'd have had much time to do anything in the role. Hm hmm hmm. And would he have inherited anyway? He's listed as the third son in his obituary. Maybe the "public services" was some kind of aide-de-camp role in Dublin? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I could find a copy of the Dublin Gazette announcement (here/here) - there were a few knighthoods at the same time, but he is the only officer. The others are a judge, three high sheriffs, and two otherwise unstated and presumably local gentry. All are given as of somewhere in Ireland except him. So no light from that quarter! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly this list gives a couple more by the LL in 1809, one of whom was a captain in the Marines. It would be interesting to work out if he was also in the Trent group.
I have gone through that list in each direction - the previous man to be knighted at such a low rank was an Army lieutenant in 1783 (Thomas Hyde Page, definitely a special case), and the next was a RN lieutenant in 1820. That was Gregory Allnutt Lewin, also knighted by the LL, and his biography gives us a hint:
...employed in the ... Tonnant 80, as Flag-Lieutenant to Sir Benj. Hallowell, during that period Commander-in-Chief at Cork. Sir G. A. Lewin, who was knighted while in the Tonnant by the Viceroy of Ireland, Earl Talbot, on the occasion of that nobleman visiting the naval establishment at Cork...
"While I'm here, might as well knight someone I suppose. Any volunteers?" type of a deal perhaps (only half joking) Ljleppan (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I was mid-way through writing up my own comment about the Royal Marines captain when yours appeared! There's certainly no custom in the Royal Navy that I've read about involving the knighting of aides-de-camp or similar roles. A thought comes to mind that this could be something like men receiving honours as the proxies for others, which I'm pretty sure was a thing that happened, although I'm damned if I can find any examples! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The closest thing I've been able to think of is the convention of knighting mayors during a royal visit to a city, which doesn't exactly seem analogous here. Honours as proxies - I have definitely run across cases of honours being given to someone as a mark of respect for a relative, but I can't see who that would be in his case!
WRT Lewin in 1820, there was another naval knighthood by the LL in July 1820 (Capt. Richard Grant), and in Dec 1821 (Capt. John Phillimore). Grant's was reported as for "the circumstance of his having had the honour of steering the barge which conveyed his Excellency on board HMS Tonnant ... in September 1818", so another official visit (source). He is listed as Captain, but per NBD was a senior lieutenant of the Tonnant in Sept 1818 and Commander shortly after. (The NBD has it as "on presentation of a civic address in 1820", but I could not find a contemporary ref to this).
Phillimore's reason was not stated but he was the captain of the LL's viceregal yacht, and the knighthood is dated close to when the outgoing LL retired. This particular knighthood seems to have prompted a challenge by the Admiralty (link) - the public reporting is a bit confusing to follow but I get the sense the Admiralty felt it was a bit quixotic and decided to challenge the underlying principle rather than the knighthood itself, which could not effectively be revoked anyway.
So all three of the 1820-21 ones seem to be connected with official viceregal visits or service in some way. Given this, I think the most likely explanation for Jones in 1809 is that it was something similar. But very hard to prove unless someone goes digging in the Lord Lieutenant's correspondence, and even then perhaps not very likely!
I have failed to find anything at all to shed light on Mark Anthony Gerard, the Marine officer also knighted around the same time as Jones. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Traced him (a little) in the Marine records - he's on the list in ADM 192/6 as GERRARD, a Marine captain in 1807, seniority from that year, but disappeared by the 1813 list in ADM 192/7. However, in September 1809, Wellington mentions in passing a "Sir Mark Gerrard" serving with the Portuguese army - the same man? Tight timing if so. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about Wellington's Sir Mark Gerrard, but Lieutenant Mark Anthony Gerard of the marines was injured on board HMS Fisgard during her battle with Immortalité in 1798; odds on that's the same man. On 13 November 1808 Aaron Burr records that he had dinner with "Sir Mark A. Gerrard and Captain Percival of the Marines" in London, with the former having travelled with him from Halifax. This doesn't make much sense, considering this is before the knighthood... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Definitely sounds like the same man in both cases - and amazing that Burr turns up everywhere! Perceval was also a mistake - he was a lieutenant and never became a Captain RM. (In 1811 he transferred to the Grenadier Guards & served with them at Waterloo, ending up a captain; Army List). I wonder if this is either a later editorial interpolation to give the details, or just Burr being shaky on the details of a casual acquaintance. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Interesting quote from p257 of the National Library of Wales Journal volume 33 "Charles Jones, a captain in the Royal Navy, was knighted by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1809 - 'God & his Excellency only know why' (ibid 8610/2). Despite their caustic remarks, he had a distinguished naval career". It's not clear who is being quoted here without full access to the book, but seems like even his contemporaries didn't know why. Obviously they have got his rank wrong but this must be same man - Dumelow (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thanks, so it is. Obviously can't access the actual manuscript but the scope of the "God & his Excellency" quote is "Correspondence etc. relating to an alleged insult to Sir Charles Thomas Jones, knight, by R. O. Jones arising from Sir Charles's conduct towards R. O. Jones's sister and a subsequent challenge to a duel and the arrest of R. O. Jones." Might not necessarily be the most unbiased opinion on the reasons (or lack of) for his knighthood! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree - given we can't tell exactly who wrote the letter, it's hard to tell if they were being deliberately insulting or not, given the context! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have info about this strange twin-fuselage Soviet CAS aircraft?
Hey folks, I've just nominatedSukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90 for deletion on notability grounds. However, there are some intriguing leads out there, primarily in ancient online forum posts... if any members of the project know of any more reliable sources out there, I'd love your input. It'd be great to be proven wrong and see the article kept! Ed[talk][majestic titan]15:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Notability of usage in military camouflage
I’d like the community's take on describing the usage of various military camouflage patterns on their respective articles. I’ve always been under the impression that in the interests of summarization, we should restrict this sort of descriptions to b) national armies, and b) major political-military factions involved in an armed conflict. Personally, I don’t believe that we need to describe the use of these patterns by every last private non-state actor and entity but wanted more opinions on this. Katangais(talk)21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd also agree that we should stick with major uses, with perhaps the exceptional deviation (if some infamous group or military leader is widely identified in sources as using it). We do not need complete laundry lists of uses. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I could see spinning off a list article in certain cases, though it might not be the kind of list that gets much traffic. That said, given camo is kind of a fashion statement for classes of civilians, and used by hunters as well, it'd need to be for patterns that don't have so many uses that any list would be fairly arbitrary. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs23:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about this here. Specifically about whether to include the use of a camouflage pattern by a fringe hate group/criminal organization with fewer than 80 members attributed with maybe a dozen hate crimes. The argument being made in favor of including this in the article is that the group in question is just as notable as national armies and major militant factions with thousands of members who were active belligerents in various civil wars. As the notability test seems to be rather circumstantial, please feel free to weigh in here. --Katangais(talk)12:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
David McMurtrie Gregg, with the exact same button unbuttoned, hairstyle, face, and beard...
... as his cousin, John Irvin Gregg
Talk:Nestor Makhno#Bank expropriation
Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sand battery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Sand battery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Military, 
War to at least GA would be nice, but I'm not even sure where to start with such massively broad articles. Ljleppan (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Done
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. You can find more information on this CCI casepage. This CCI mainly concerned images of Civil War-era ships; blockade runners it seems. Some images may be deleted on Commons, and suitable and properly licensed images may need to be found to replace them. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Talk:Hermann Hoth § Generalmajor and Generalleutnant
![[5]](https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1067859/large/5376937.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1068916/large/5360311.JPG){kind=link}
