Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145

Category:American military personnel of Armenian descent
Please see this category discussion. In particular, please see comment about removing categories about military service when that service is not defining (which deviates from the category discussion at hand). IMHO, a category on military service should be included if a person wore a uniform, even if it was not a defining part of what the person is known for. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing us of this. This has the potential for a wide impact on categorization of veterans and current servicemembers of Wikipedia. Reading the debate, if someone isn't notable for their military service, they need not be categorized as such. That means that many veterans who later became notable for other things, will have their veteran categorization on Wikipedia removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Gordian dynasty needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gordian dynasty; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability of John Geoghegan
John Geoghegan died in Vietnam aged 24 and was awarded a Silver Star. Is that notable enough for an article? I was going to move his article and turn it into a disambiguation page, having just created John Geoghegan (publisher). Edwardx (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At first glance he does not seem notable per WP:NSOLDIER. But then neither does the publisher. I don't think you need a dab page, just hatnote both articles, assuming we keep both. Actually I see now that there are three of them, so a dab page might be a good idea. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Publisher has a lengthy NYT obituary, so his notability is clear. Looking online, there is probably enough out there on the soldier to pass GNG/probably survive AfD. Forgot to mention the scouting one. Will try to find time for a dab page tomorrow. Bedtime here. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see his particular history was highlighted in the movie We Were Soldiers, but I am not finding his NYT obit. It is likely that he is as notable as some members of Easy Company.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Please read my comment again, it is John Geoghegan (publisher) who has the NYT obit, NOT the soldier of the same name. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

John A. Dramesi
An IP made two edits on 22 March 2018 which broke the dates in the infobox. An edit summary gave this as a source for the claimed date of death. Perhaps someone here knows how to find a better source? Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I corrected the infobox format. I didn't readily find sourcing on his death date.  No Google search, no newspaper search, nothing. — Maile  (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Warrior
Can anyone review the recent edits to the article warrior? A couple of journal articles have been removed as citations, and a lot of content (including a quote in the lead) has been added using a 2018 book as source. The 2018 book -- The Warrior's Manifesto by Daniel Modell -- doesn't look like a scholarly source to me; the author is an NYPD officer, not a historian. utcursch &#124; talk 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A good catch – the changes are, to be frank, masturbatory nonsense. My only disappointment was that I didn't see Dave Grossman (or the word "sheepdog") referenced once. Reverted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)::It seems to have drifted away from military history and into some kind of urban mythos. In an ideal world. it would deal first with the concept of warriordom through history, some sociological studies and then into the modern practice of analogous use e.g. police as warriors, eco-warriors etc.  The relevant balance needs to refocus on the primary meaning.  The section on warrior women could be improved, setting individuals into a cultural context. The myth of the Amazons?  Scythian warrior prices?  Women soldiers of Dahomey? Russian womens battalions in WWI?

The section on Warrior Communities is particularly problematic. Someone has gone to an enormous effort of inline citing all of these links. Yet they are a mixture of genuine warrior communities, peoples, types of soldier and even people involved in a specific activity (crusader). It needs some sort of definition of what a "warrior community" is and then remove those which don't meet the definition. This is a poor article and an important subject. Rant over. Back to the question.

It would improve things to revert to give greater weight to historical examples and then try to improve that (some of these example are a bit school book rather than academically solid). However, I think the Modell book does say something about this modern (US?) phenomenon of using warrior in a civilian context, involved in battles against crime, environmental destruction or just bad life chances and, as such, could form a basis for a section on this modern usage. Monstrelet (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

188.215.109.113 Impostor?
Talk:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II

Could this new account belong to our periodic Italian nationalist visitor who was barred ages ago? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. I've blocked them. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Operation Zarb-e-Azb
Operation Zarb-e-Azb, an article that you or your project may be interested in, 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. AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we have an objective review of the page Charles Moses
So I do not get threatened. CactusFlower (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of clarifying in the lede that he was a media executive at the time he crossed the Rhine with the British commandos. Hope you don't mind. RobDuch (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Authenticity of File:OPFOR_Soldiers.jpg and the "Operation Cajun Fury" hoax article
Recently a hoax article called "Operation Cajun Fury" was deleted after over twelve years of being created. The File:OPFOR_Soldiers.jpg image was on both the Operation Cajun Fury article and the Opposing force article for over ten years. The WM Commons page for the picture claims that the image is of Operation Cajun Fury. However, the original uploader of the file, Rarelibra, who was apparently in the U.S. armed forces at the time, never claimed the images were of Operation Cajun Fury; he simply claimed that it was a photo of soldiers at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The image was re-uploaded by Innotata in 2015, who subsequently claimed that the image was of Operation Cajun Fury. Perhaps an administrator can verify if Rarelibra or Innotata ever added the image to the Operation Cajun Fury article (or even edited it at all)? Perhaps the image was recycled from the OPFOR article by a third party in order to create the hoax. If the image is authentic, and was simply repurposed for the hoax, perhaps then it could be re-added to the OPFOR article? --ElKabong888 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have actually been a hoax: the Illinois National Guard's website says that an exercise of this name fitting the description in the article took place . It's highly unlikely to have been notable though, so deletion seems sensible. I've deleted the listing of this being a hoax - aside from it not being a hoax, it's generally not a good idea to save hoax articles unless they're particularly interesting examples for some reason, as this encourages others. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I will re-add the image to the OPFOR article then. --ElKabong888 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
How will the MILHIST coords count all the points of everybody? Especially if it's buried in tons of Huggle reverts and stuff. Is there some sort of bot? Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You should create an entry for your edits right here on the worklist and then list your edits within each category accordingly. Counting afterwards shouldn´t be the problem. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I log my points immediately or note them on a file on my computer and then write them down at the end of the month?
 * As you go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 at Women in Red including Military History
--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Confused Puzzle
Another visit by our impostor? Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it  that  may be of  interest  to Military History contributors. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yeomanry Cavalry needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yeomanry Cavalry; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New article Free Iraqi Forces
I was kinda surprised that we didn't have an article on this group, given our Iraq coverage is pretty good, but I suppose they peaked before Wikipedia was big. This was the "fighting arm" of the Iraqi National Congress government-in-exile, which was mostly a puppet-show for the media (I recall seeing them on the news and wondering who the heck they were). So not a successful program, but an interesting blip in history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the term Intelligence Community be capitalized?
I was looking at Category:Intelligence communities and it has inconsistent capitalization. I think this term should be decapitalized, as it is not official, or uniformly capitalized. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. There is not one particular group to whom this applies, although I would expect usage to predominate along the lines of the US intelligence community and the intelligence communities of allied nations (with various degrees of inclusion). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not a discrete and invariable set. It is not an "official name". It is clearly a broad brush generic reference. It does not satisfy the requisites of a proper name. That some writers might capitalise does not make it otherwise. That one part of a noun phrase (ie a country) might be capitalised does not require that all words in the phrase be capitalised. Simply, no. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends - in some instances it may refer to an officially designated distribution list (which varies per country).Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in general use; you could probably see it capitalized in "government speak."-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about the U.S. Intelligence Community, then yes, capitalized, because it's a name. - the WOLF  child  00:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

USAF Space station
Is the USAF space station programme in scope for WPMILHIST? I saw an article being detagged as an equipment article for the MOL was deemed not "in-scope". I thought that odd -- 70.52.10.192 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is in scope.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely in scope. The giveaway is the "USAF" part... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

RAF Brawdy and Cawdor Barracks
Members might want to have a look at these articles; currently the former (after some ornery reverting) is a duplicate of material previously merged into the latter. I suppose some clearer consensus in that regard would be useful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be normal for the RAF Brawdy to have the history of the airfield until it was handed over to the Army. Cawdor Barracks just needs a brief intro on the history linked back to Brawdy, it should then concentrate on Army use. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:MilborneOne. The RAF Kinloss and Kinloss Barracks pages provide a useful template for how situations where RAF stations have become army barracks have been handled on Wikipedia. Another example is the RAF Leuchars page which was recently split to form the Leuchars Station page. Happy to give the Brawdy and Cawdor articles a tidy if required. Thx811 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind? The current double-dipping is probably not optimal. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation of informal military organisations
I've done a lot of work on the categorisation of organisations, and I am beginning to look at the irregular military ones. I'd like some guidance please, as this is not an area with which I am familiar. How do I differentiate between Category:Paramilitary organizations, Category:Militias, Category:Guerrilla organizations, Category:Rebel militia groups etc? There are clearly some issues about the relationships between such groups and the official armed forces, but there are also political issues about whether the group is on the side of the winners - and that may well change over time.

I would at least like to ensure that the articles about organisations are linked to the country in which they are based, but if possible I'd like to try and classify them according their function and behaviour. Can I use Category:Paramilitary organizations by country as a container for a variety of different sorts of groups, or would that be misleading? And how military does a paramilitary group have to be? Some people say the scouts are paramilitary, but I'm inclined to think only groups which have weapons and use them should be included. I'm assuming that the distinction between military and paramilitary is not very helpful before the twentieth century. I realise that a lot of these definitions are fluid and contested, but I think we could improve on what we have now.Rathfelder (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

76th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)
This article has a section propped into it in this edit that should probably be remedied or edited out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on Chengdu J-20
Could one of you guys help me out for my GA nomination of Chengdu J-20? It's my fist one so help would be welcome. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a red link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the red link? <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You have altered the link now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Redlinks for 420 (Cannabis) collaboration for April
At the WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration we have several redlinks for MilHist articles about cannabis we need. Posting here in case anyone is interested in creating these topics as part of this month's collab.


 * Cannabis and the Afghan military
 * Cannabis and the Canadian military
 * Cannabis and the Israeli military
 * Cannabis and the Mexican military

We also have an editor working a draft for this category, in case anyone is curious or wants to contribute.
 * , 1933 US military report

Hope this may be of interest to the project! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Assistance please
Over the last few days, I have added a considerable number of details to embellish the Hugh Boyd (footballer) article. Given that my ‘expertise’ is in the history of Aussie Rules, rather than the details of the military operations at Polygon Wood, I am finding great trouble in accurately transcribing three tiny bits of the hand-written text of the recommendation for his DSO.

I wonder, please, if someone can help me by doing the following: Thank you, in anticipation, Lindsay658 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (a) (to get the general idea) go to the Commonwealth Gazette at bottom right hand corner of page 1658 and top right hand corner of page 1659;
 * (b) (to see the actual hand-written recommendation) go to the item held in the collection of the War Museum at      (note that there’s no reference to this item in his service record);
 * (c) (to provide the assistance sought) go to HERE and     (i) (using (b) above) check the accuracy of my entire transcription; and      (ii) (again using (b) above) insert the missing word/expression in each of the three spaces marked “[…]”.


 * The second word appears to be "enfiladed" (which is what is mentioned in the Gazette citation, and would make sense if he were flanked at that point), so I've filled and wikilinked it to clarify. The first appears to be the sector designation, and I'm not familiar with the patterning of such, so I can't distinguish whether it's "15 B60", "15 1360", or something else. Hope I've helped a bit, though. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sasuke Sarutobi: Thank you so much for your amendment, added linkage, and explanation (to make things easier for others to assist, the text from the section of the article is included below).
 * He was awarded a Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in 1917:
 * At Polygon Wood on 25/9/17 this officer was in charge of "A" Coy the right company in the line. He was on the extreme right of the […] […] Sector. At 5:30 AM his line was heavily attacked by the enemy. By the vigorous resistance of his Coy the enemy was beaten back and the front line held intact. The enemy penetrated the front & support lines of the 1st Middlesex and enfiladed him by Machine Gun fire. This officer formed a defensive flank & foiled repeated attempts by the enemy to roll up his line. His […] work was magnificent & his courage inspired his men to hold out in a desperate situation. Had he failed to hold his line the success of the attack on the following morning would have been in jeopardy. It was largely owing to his celerity in appreciating the situation that the Brigade front was held intact.

First, I agree with your observation that the "[… …] Sector" could denote many things. To me, it seems, even, that it could possibly be "IS B.6c". I suppose that the interpretation of the handwritten text relies on one knowing whether the Sector's identification is, so to speak, a general reference, or whether it is a specific reference to particular location specifically identified within the predetermined battle plan. Second, in relation to the missing word in "His […] work was magnificent". . . I'm certain that it can be identified by someone who is familiar with the sorts of expressions routinely used in making such recommendations. (To my eye, the word appears to begin with a "p" — that is, rather than a "j", an "f", a "y", or a "g"). I wonder what others think? Lindsay658 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The first is simple. It is the "15 Bde". The entry is from the war diary of the 15th Inf Brigade. The writer forms a lower case "d" like the lowercase Greek letter "delta" (𝛿). The second, I am fairly confident is "personal". The first letter is characteristic of the writers "p"s (see "front & support lines" and particularly the second "p" as well as other occurrences). The writers "e"s are not consistently well formed (see "the ememy was beaten back", where it is not). Similarly, (in the same phrase for example), the loop of the single-storey "ɑ" may not be formed. The "on" is per "fr on t & support lines". The "r" and "l" are reasonably clear. I was looking at it at 170% zoom. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Cinderella157: Thank you so much for your trouble, insight, and expertise. On examination, I am now 100% certain that the word is "personal" -- and I have adjusted the passage in the article to read as recommended. Very grateful to you. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unwieldy title
I found a stub entitled Raid of the Ghetto of Rome. Maybe someone will figure out a better title, I am tired right now. It should be Rome Ghetto, I think, and raid... ugh. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The title is drawn from a passing reference in a cited newspaper article. Unfortunately, more sources would be needed to have an informed opinion as to an appropriate name. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

B-class reviews
Could one of you guys asses my three new articles as B-class (so I can get double points for the April backlog drive)? The articles are French submarine Redoutable (Q136), French submarine Ajax (Q148), and German torpedo boat Albatros. Thanks, <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 17:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Assessment requests can be made at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Your articles look great and add to our coverage of less popular topics like French military history. Kges1901 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll request it there. I'm planning on creating around 20 articles about French submarines. I speak fluent French, and all the articles exist in the French Wikipedia. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 19:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to put the translated from the French Wikipedia tag on them as they look identical to me. Also the Albatros German torpedo boat one copied from the German Wikipedia. Not your own work is it? Lyndaship (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Albatros article is a copy of the German one - the referencing is different for a start - but it is sufficiently messed up that it will need considerable clearup - the article is referencing two books by Whitley with no indication which is which, and at least one book (Koop & Schmolke) is cited but not listed in the Bibliography, so the cite is of little use.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only difference in the referencing is Conways and Whiteley which are solely used in the info box and also possibly something in the Design and Armament section which might be original but as it gives the wrong tonnage figures in the text (compare info box) I am wondering if its a copy and paste from somewhere else. The Career 1928-39 I think is word for word from the German (note the mistakes on the ship names Greif shown as Hawk and Koln shown as Cologne and the lack of a space between "Mowe" and "and"). The second world war section only has some deletes and English corrections from the German article. Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Resource section of Medieval Warfare task force page
As discussed above, due to the lack of a dedicated talk page for the Medieval Warfare task force page, improvement discussions need to take place here.

The questions I have are these.

Is the resource section doing what we want it to do? In theory, it should guide new editors on potential sources but even a basic bibliography in this subject would run to hundreds of entries, which we don't have space or resourcing to provide. I'm proposing we treat it as an introductory start point for people wanting to get into medieval military history (which would obviously assist in the original function).

The page is split into topic areas. I think the ones we have are sound but should we have others e.g. fortifications, heraldry, biography? Do we need a Crusades section, given there is a Crusades task force? A naval section, given there is a Naval task force? Or should we list basic books and an equivalent of Main article see....?

Is the books online section useful? Few of these books are specifically related to military history and, by the nature of the fact they are free online, they are dated. Should we edit this to focus on military works?

There aren't many active members of the task force but anyone who wishes to help out or even join is welcome. Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, interesting question. I think your assessment is right, it should serve as an introductory start point in the most part, but I don't think it is a bad thing to include more specific works in break out sections. The extra headers you propose seem good to me. I don't necessarily think it would be a problem to duplicate some topics (e.g. naval). Re the online section: I think it is useful as a means of sharing resources, but potentially it could be broken up into those that are related to military history, and the more general histories (as they may be useful in providing some context). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I therefore invite editors with interests in the Crusades, Fortification and Heraldry to add some key introductory works to the page. I can probably do naval.  I'm wary of biography - such a huge subject and many notable figures have multiple biographies so how to decide who and which study?   Any other views on the online section?  I'm still not sure this couldn't be improved by a cull to focus mainly on military works. Monstrelet (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Two task force questions
I've been working on adding some resources to WikiProject Military history/Medieval warfare task force and realised that it would be useful to discuss the resource section with fellow task force members. Yet the task force has no talk page - it diverts here. Should I therefore raise the issue here, even though it is a page improvement topic elsewhere?

Second query. Task groups have a set format (maybe even a template). How much local control of the format does an individual task group have? I'm not thinking anything radical, just using a three column format on lists to reduce the overall length of the page for people who might wish to scroll through it all and find the resources. Yes, I know they can do it from the contents list links but thinking of overall ease of use. Monstrelet (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Three column format would be somewhat radical, as fixed column counts are now deprecated. See Template:Div col. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Having now looked at the template as used on the page, it originally had the deprecated parameter set to 3. When it was deprecated it seems to have just reset to the default of 2.  So it could be readjusted to a higher number using the "colwidth" parameter which replaced the "column" parameter.  Well, I think so - I'm not great at understanding wiki templates.
 * BTW, the column query is separate from the first query - I'm not that excited by columns :) Monstrelet (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes, IMO it is best to discuss those matters here. The talk pages of most (if not all) task forces were redirected quite awhile ago as they would get only occasional posts, which were often not seen or responded to. On the main talk page there is more visibility, which increases the likelihood of a response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I did have a quick look at the column thing. I believe this is actually set centrally by something called User:JL-Bot and can't be adjusted at a task force page level.  The JL-Bot is defining its number of columns using the deprecated parameter.  The owner of said bot may wish to update settings.  Anyway, I'll leave it there and carry on with the resource lists Monstrelet (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Gerhard Bracke
I have started a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding the source:

Bracke, Gerhard (1997). Gegen vielfache Übermacht—Mit dem Jagdflieger und Ritterkreuzträger Hans Waldmann an der Ostfront, an der Invasionsfront und in der Reichsverteidigung [Against Manifold Supremacy—With the Fighter Pilot and Knight's Cross Bearer Hans Waldmann on the Eastern Front, on the Invasion Front and in Defense of the Reich] (in German). AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which is very similar. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of Military science, technology, and theory task force
As part of the drive I am trying to attach task forces to articles. There seems to be a class of 'generic' articles which don't readily fit anywhere.

For articles such as Peace, Impact of war on children, International Criminal Court, Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration or Protective sign I have been inclined to tick no-task-force. Articles such as Non-combatant, Third Geneva Convention, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, Collective punishment or Neutral country could be said to fit under the "theory" part of SciTech, in a loose sense. But this seems to me to be a stretch and I don't want to attach this task force to articles which don't really belong there and which should be labeled "no-task-force". Opinions, comments and guidance would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits to airborne regiment pages
Airborne506 was permanently blocked today for vandalism and username violation. The specific offense was blanking material from the 101st Airborne Division article; however he and several IP editors (socks?) had edited other pages associated with airborne topics and I'm not sure that they didn't leave junk in their footsteps. One option is to revert all the pages to a point before the "Airborne506" and the IPs showed up. I thought it would be better to talk first.-- <b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of Weaponry Task Force
Just noticed that Weaponry TF mentions "armoured fighting vehicles". As these are already covered by Land Vehicles TF, seems a redundancy that may cause confusion. Can please AFVs be excluded from Weaponry TF scope, to avoid this? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be an error. ? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this probably should be adjusted. I would like to hear from a few members of each task force, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, an armored fighting vehicle is a weapon, so it does seem logical to have them classified as part of the weaponry task force, although I do see the wisdom in excluding vehicles. Personally, I could go either way here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There could be a split. Vehicles with weapons installed could come under the weaponry task force (e.g. tanks), whilst those without weapons installed could come under the vehicles task force (e.g. lorries, staff cars etc). Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Question: main and see also hatnotes
Is there any guidance on changing "X" to "X#Y|l1=Y" so that the blue link is a plain "Y" rather than "X § Y"? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of guidance but what I sometimes do is make a redirect at Y. Then you have plain "Y" at the hatnote, but also anyone looking for Y on their own will find it too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Air Force Special Tactics article
I am currently working on developing an article on United States Air Force Special Tactics. If anyone has any knowledge or would want to work with me on this please let me know. The framework is currently at User:Garuda28/sandbox Garuda28 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Luxembourg Army Air Corps?
The page Luxembourg Army Air Corps has recently been created, which only cites one source (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/lux/army/lux-army-home.htm), which just describes it as Luxembourg Army Aviation. Upon doing a google search I cannot find any citations saying Luxembourg has an air arm at all, and those that do only historically refer to Luxembourg Army Aviation. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case, and was wondering if anyone had any had any experience. I'm not sure this falls into a notable article, as all the historical information is already at the Luxembourg Army page. Garuda28 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Luxembourg certainly has no current separate air force as that was the reason NATO chose to fly its Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft under the Luxembourg flag - I don't think the present-day 340-strong army has any aircraft either. This source confirms L-18Cs (the military version of the PA-18S) were supplied to Luxembourg and there is a 1965 picture of one in Luxembourg Army livery so it did exist at some point.  If more info can be found out it might be worth keeping, otherwise probably just redirect it to the "Aircraft" section of the Luxembourg Army page - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Might be best just to redirect it back to Luxembourg Army as I dont think that leasing three Piper Cubs in the 1950s equates to them having an "Army Air Corps". MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m in favor of the redirect, as suggested. We know it used to have aircraft, but no evidence of a former aviation organization, and at that nothing that calls it the “Army Air Corps” Garuda28 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The creator seems to have a bit of a history of creating articles on air forces that aren't. Although I think it's all in good faith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with redirecting to a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid tag; name "FOOTNOTELodier2004" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Siege of Maubeuge er, how have I managed to bugger this up please? Will the page only allow once? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed it ... instead of Lodier|2004 you had some with Lodier2004. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, thanks I just found it too using Word. What a berk. regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagging Hillforts
As part of April's backlog drive, I've been tagging many articles about sites of Iron Age and Bronze Age hill forts in the UK with the -WPMILHIST- tag on their talk pages. These articles range from hills, towns, parishes, battles, and conservation areas, to archaeological articles. I just wanted to check whether these are within in the remit of this WikiProject, as my reading of the project and understanding is that they are. Cdjp1 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that they are, but I would appreciate confirmation. I wondered why the "Need B-Class checklist completed" was filling up. I suspect that I have been following you around assessing the articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness. You must have added 500 or more. Well done. I think. *Stunned* Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm assessing the ones I'm comfortable with (mainly at stub and start levels), but yes, Since April 1st, I've added ~800, and I still have quite a few lists to go through, although I'm now finished with hill forts. Cdjp1 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You should consider adding taskforces to those as well ... surely the Fortifications task force should be true for all of them and everyone is located somewhere covered by one or several other taks forces. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, I'll make sure to do that from now on, and once I've finished the lists, go back and add it to the one's I've previously added where applicable. Cdjp1 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Medals and awards on Berthe Fraser
Berthe Fraser was a French resistance fighter who received seven medals and many awards. I'm having some trouble recognising what was an important award/medal and what wasn't, plus the correct way of documenting it on the article. The list is posted at the Imperial war museum. If anyone has a chance to update the medal section, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanderingbartender (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Neil Armstrong needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Neil Armstrong; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Romania?
I just realized that there is no taskforce for Romania's military history. Huh, no wonder it's rather lackluster and many normal folk don't even know Romania fought in the World Wars, it doesn't get the attention it should get. I can handle the Navy, but I can't do it all by myself. Torpilorul (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary, already covered by WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force. Its scope specifically says: "This task force covers the military histories of all Balkan groups and states, as well as military activity in the Balkans by non-Balkan powers, from the fall of the Roman Empire (c. 500) to the present day. The countries included in the Balkans region for the purposes of this task force are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey." Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" yeah right, this is why I alone managed to create hundreds of thousands of bytes all related solely to the Romanian Navy in less than a year. The Romanian Navy on this Wiki was a small shabby town when I joined, I turned it into a metropolis. It is necessary, addressing it as part of this cluster is clearly not enough. Torpilorul (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed all the good work you have been putting in on Romanian ships. However, establishing a separate task force for Romania would not result in a load of people suddenly deciding they wanted to do articles on Romania Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on, so a task force is created if a certain number of people want to create content about it? Otherwise, this really makes no sense from a logical standpoint. We have task forces for countries like Germany, who has tons upon tons of well-researched quality content. Shouldn't the poorly-addressed countries be the ones needing task forces the most? Torpilorul (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi@Torpilorul, I am one of the MilHist co-ords. Can I refer you to WikiProject Military history/Academy/What do Milhist task forces do?. Firstly, can I say that I admire your fervor and commitment. Can I also address your concerns. A task force requires a quorum of committed editors. It takes some effort to both establish and maintain a task force - it requires a collective, on-going commitment. A task force is not established because of a perceived deficiency in WP articles or on nationalistic grounds of representation (matters that you have identified). Rather, it is driven by a "body" of editors that have a common interest in a (potential) task force. A task force does not address a short-term goal but is a long-term commitment. Creating a task force does not (of itself) remedy the deficiencies in En WP you have identified. For a task force to be in any way effective, there must already exist a body of committed editors. I hope that this clarifies your perceptions of what a task force is. I would encourage you to continue in your endeavors to add and improve MilHist articles on Romania. I would also encourage you to be involved with the WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force. If there is sufficient impetus from a "body" of editors to form a Romanian task force, we would consider this favourably. Having said that, there does not appear to be such a need at this time. Regards and best wishes, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm afraid so, . The purpose of a task force is not to encourage editors to participate in a specific topic, but instead to co-ordinate editors who are already working in one. So the purpose of a Romania task force would be co-ordinating multiple editors editing articles about Romanian military history. Really, your best bet is to carry on doing like you're doing already; updating articles and discussing it here. You may also find interested editors either in the Balkans task force or in the wider user list. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we need a Category:Military photographers?
I was working on a edit-a-thon draft Elizabeth "Tex" Williams and realized there's no category for "military photographers". We have Category:War photographers, but that's not the same thing since it can be civilian journalists or amateurs who photograph a war, while "military photographers" (or some similar term) could refer to military personnel who are by MOS photographers, including those who take photos in peacetime or in a non-conflict country, such as Williams where she's famous for documenting African-American enlisted troops in Iowa. Do we need a new cat, and if so what should the title be? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MatthewVanitas, Perhaps there are two things needed: (a) a superordinate Category:Military photography which would include technical matters — things as equipment, applications, as well as, for example, the "cameras" and "films" that secretly captured images in prisoner-of-war camps and, also, might include uses in espionage; and, then, (b) your Category:Military photographers (with which I agree) as an associated, but separate, subordinate category. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Active Defense
Hi, there is a merge discussion here from Moving target defense to Active Defense. Comments welcome. Polyamorph (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Irregular units and formations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Irregular units and formations, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:Militias. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo Shults
You are invited to help with Draft talk:Tammie Jo Shults, the heroic (former US Navy) pilot who safely bought the Southwest Airlines plane in for a landing following mid-air engine failure. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Now it's Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Operation Chastise
It is just over a month to the 75th anniversary of Operation Chastise. It would be nice to see the article listed at OTD, but currently the article is ineligible due to being tagged for refimprove. Can we please fix this? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Village_pump_(proposals).Bermicourt (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Donald Forrester Brown needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Donald Forrester Brown; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Captain's mast
I've just discovered we have two separate articles on captain's mast: Non-judicial punishment and Mast (naval), which is more US-centric. And there is no redirect to either one from captain's mast (although there is a redirect at Captains Mast to Non-judicial punishment and one at Captain's Mast to Mast (naval)).

It seems to me these should at least be hatnoted to each other, but it might make more sense to merge them. The US Navy considers them to be the same thing but that's a US-centric view; Non-judicial punishment has a more international focus.

Suggestions? Is "captain's mast" a US-only term or is it more international? Do we need a separate article for the US version? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As you've alluded to, the official term for "Captain's mast" in the USN is "commanding officer's non-judicial punishment", often abbreviated NJP. It's under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and is the same as the US Army "field grade Article 15". Unlike the Army's "company grade Article 15", the USN does not use lower grade NJP. If the USN version is sufficiently different from other countries' NJP, maybe a separate section in that article would do it. RobDuch (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning toward merging it all in to Non-judicial punishment. It's a more generic term that can include Army Article 15, and leaves open the possibility of including non-US material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jackspeak: A guide to British Naval slang & usage by Rick Jolly says "Captain's mast: USN version of the RN "Angel's Whisper". Disciplinary procedure at which the Commanding Officer of a US Navy vessel deals with any members of the crew brought before him for investigation and possible punishment". Apparently an "angel's whisper" is slang for "defaulters parade" which you can read about here. BTW, Surgeon-Captain Rick Jolly is famous for setting-up a field hospital in a bullet-ridden sheep-shed during the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For good measure, from the Imperial War Museum; "On board HMS RODNEY the Master at Arms (left) reading out the names at the "Captain's Defaulters and Requestmen" parade. A Defaulters and Requestmen parade is a court (petty sessions rather than courts martial) for both trying minor offences by defaulters or hearing pleas and petitions whilst aboard ship. It takes place at the break of the quarterdeck on a ship at the same time each morning. As the sailor in this image is still wearing his cap in front of the Commander he is a 'Requestman'. Defaulters have to remove their caps". Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a merge discussion at Talk:Non-judicial punishment. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Page moves
There's someone going round mass renaming pages. . No RfC is cited, just "more common name". But it seems strange to disambiguate an air force general as "US Army officer". Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We should pause this until some general discussion takes place. Disambiguation is generally done at the simplest level possible, so there seems little point in turning Robert Wynn (soldier) into Robert Wynn (United States Army soldier) unless there's a more famous soldier with the same name in another army. In any case why the long-winded "United States Army soldier" instead of "US Army soldier"? Further, disambiguating generals as just that rather than as "xxx Army officer" is a long-time practice and while that doesn't mean it's perfect it again warrants discussion before changing. could you respond here before any further moves? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NCDAB says "The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible)". This suggests these moves are wrong and should be reverted. Also I question whether we should include a disambiguator when there is no ambiguity. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox military award
Template:Infobox military award has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox award. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese-Ottoman War
What is the opinion of the Military History community on this page, The Portuguese-Ottoman War? It used to be called just Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts until a user took the initiative to change its name and merge it with Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-89).

I disagree with these changes, since the last two articles were meant to detail very specific periods of fighting on their own, while the name "The Portuguese-Ottoman War" does not seem as appropriate, since the Portuguese and Turks fought occasionally and undeclaredly for a period of some 200 years, between the 16th and 18th centuries.

The author of these edits however, refuses any changes regardless of arguments, so I'd like to consult with the community if splitting them again would be in order, and if moving to the old name would be more approppriate. Crenelator (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The article itself requires a lot of work. Style-wise, its use of frequent bold type and a great many quotations from sources is poor.  Some of the English is eccentric and non-encylopedic in tone. Monstrelet (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Obscure chemical lineage and honors question
As reveals, some U.S. Army Chemical units have a much longer history than otherwise known. Fixing their Lineage and Honors now presents a serious question. Unusual knowledge may be required. Can anyone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was just a little more creative than usual vandalism. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * NBC in the US military is notoriously...hyperbolic. I'd let it lie barring compelling information. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree -- always let sleeping dragons lie. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have a Middle-Earth task force to tag it with? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just don't put it through assessment. It shall not pass. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review that needs one more set of eyes
G'day all, it's mine, but WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Commissioner Government has been open since 22 January, so closing in on three months. It has two supports and just needs another reviewer to get it over the line. Any comments appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs
There is currently an ongoing move discussion at this page which could probably benefit from additional disinterested opinions of editors who have experience with potentially controversial non-obvious titles. Your input is appreciated. Thanks. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:World War II reenactment
There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether adding certain material at this time is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion remains unchanged, and consensus here and at the article supports your recent edits. I've again removed the material as it lacks the support to be included. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Frank Richards (author)
Was wondering if someone from WP:MILHIST would mind taking a look at Frank Richards (author) and seeing if they can help out his grandson whose trying to correct some errors in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

==Infobox issue==

|place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France
 * |coordinates =
 * |map_type = France
 * |map_size = 200
 * |map_caption =
 * |map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pl? Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) See below for legible version

Loc Map Q

 * place= Serre-lès-Puisieux, France
 * coordinates =
 * map_type = France
 * map_size = 200
 * map_caption = Serre-lès-Puisieux, a village in the commune of Puisieux in the Pas-de-Calais department in northern France.


 * map_label = Serre-lès-Puisieux

Does anyone know why this isn't producing a red dot and village name on the loc map pls? Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Found it, buggered up the coords....Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul von Rennenkampf
Up until a few days ago, Paul von Rennenkampf contained two sources that supported spelling his last name with a single 'f'. Recently, has removed those sources, replacing them with an offline source (so I can't readily verify spelling) and attempting to add de.wiki as a source.

There are two issues: first, the change/removal in sourcing; but more critically, the spelling of the last name. TsaristAlvin has attempted to move the page to Paul von Rennenkampff and Paul Georg von Rennenkampff. What name should the article have per MOS and other Wikipedia policies? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article should be kept at original title. A single f at the end of his name is the standard English transliteration and also the most accurate translation of his Russian last name per WP:RUS romanization. Double f is his German name, but even though Rennenkampf was a Baltic German he spent his career in a Russian-speaking army so English sources refer to him by the Russian transliteration of his name with a single f. Not a single English google books hit refers to him with two f's, so clearly Rennenkampf is his common name.  Kges1901 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing name change to "Phosgene attack 19 December 1915"
I came across the oddly-named Phosgene attack 19 December 1915 page. I am not sure if naming it like this was intentional or not, but since it comes across as oddly-written, i'd say the effect wasn't achieved. Proposing a change to "Phosgene attack on 19 December 1915" or "Phosgene attack of 19 December 1915". YuriNikolai (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the articles talk page about this, and have replied there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26
The Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 article describes a sub-scale replica which has nothing to do with the original Supermarine company. I am posting here because of the confusion this article could cause. I have started a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Question re: scoring for the April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive contest
Still feeling somewhat like the "slow kid in class" (once again borrowing terminology from Gog the Mild), but am also becoming more comfortable with various Wikipedia tools, etc. thanks to tips from everyone during the April backlog drive. So, first, many thanks to creators of the drive and to all who have provided input. Second, from the various instructions I've read over the past few weeks, it looks like backlog drive participants are supposed to be doing their own rough scoring, but I'm confused about how to do that because I've seen what appear to be two different "how to score" charts:


 * 1.) WikiProject Military history/April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive; and
 * 2.) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest

Which one do I use (no. 1 or 2)? Thank you in advance for the scoring tutorial. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No.1 - the rules for the drive. Ignore no. 2, those are the rules for the contest. (Unless you want to put articles into the contest as well. I do.) Don't worry about actually adding up your score, a helpful if underpaid coordinator will do that for you. Just make sure that you record all of the articles you tag, assess, etc on your Drive worksheet. Which you seem to be doing.


 * If I get problems I tend to peek at what others are doing, via user contributions, view history and compare selected revisions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Number 1 is the thing to do. Number 2 is the regular writing/improving contest that is run every month (and the whole year for that matter) and is not related to the drive. As for scoring itself just add your edits to the worklist and once the month is over a coordinator will do the math for you ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your helpful explanations. Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
There is an ongoing discussion here related to WWII, which may benefit from knowledgeable editors from this project. Thanks. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would encourage to visit this discussion as certain actions by the project have been indicated in discussions to date. The case is titled German war effort of 1939–45. It directly arises from / is linked to the recent Review essay by @K.e.coffman (ping for courtesy) that appeared in April's edition of the Bugle. The matter is of relevence to any editors that contribute in any way to articles related to or touch upon the German war effort in WW2. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. And edits such as this (edit summary: "note about Cinderella157"), where MILHIST co-ordinators are, apparently, named and shamed. MPS1992 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ? What's your problem with my edit, MPS1992, and did you consider pinging me? I made the edit because Cinderella hadn't mentioned in their statement that they're a MILHIST coordinator, unlike Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth who (appropriately, IMO) stated it first off, and I wanted it made clear. Mainly for the benefit of Newyorkbrad, who had asked specifically for input from "subject-knowledgeable editors", something a coordinator surely is. As for my repetition of Cinderella's links, I didn't want any arb to miss those either. Incidentally Cinderella "thanked" me for for my edit. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC).
 * No I did not consider pinging you when mentioning your "note about Cinderella157". MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I did thank @User:Bishonen for their edit in correcting what was an unintentional oversight in not making it explicit that I am a Coord. As for their highlighting of my closing links, I cannot I cannot speak to their motives (other than as stated above) or how they have construed these links. How they are construed; however, may well speak more to the person doing so than to my intent. @MPS1992 for your concern, but I think that there is nothing shameful in making these links or in my statement as a whole. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to comment here further after your childish reply to me, MPS1992. But if you think my neutral note constituted "naming and shaming", you may be interested in the comment here by one of our most respected and experienced arbitrators, Newyorkbrad. You too, Cinderella157. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

French frigate Virginie
What is the identity of the French frigate Virgine wrecked in 1844 under the command of Ferdinand-Alphonse Hamelin? Threedecks and Shipscribe websites not giving any results that fit the date. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to List of French sail frigates the Virginie was launched in 1842. Couldn't find any record of her being wrecked (and the list article states she was in service until 1881) but she is noted as "the French admirals ship" when she called at Concepción, Chile in 1845 which fits with the time Hamelin was in the Pacific.  The Virginie saved the crew of HMS Raleigh (1845) in 1857 when she was wrecked on a rock at Macao - Dumelow (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; The report was that she was wrecked with the loss of all hands, which clearly cannot be so. Am still ploughing through contemporary newspapers so maybe something else will turn up. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Le Niobé, construit en 1827 par les chantiers de Rochefort est renommé "la Virginie" en 1839. En juillet 1844, la Virginie, sous les ordres du contre-amiral Hamelin, appareille de Rochefort et, après une escale à Rio, passe le cap Horn pour ce rendre dans le Pacifique. Après 4 ans de navigation, c'est le retour à l'île d'Aix, le 2 février 1848".    Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Translation: Le Niobé, built in 1827 in the Rochefort naval shipyards was renamed la Virginie in 1839. In July 1844, La Virginie, under the command of admiral Hamelin, set sail from Rochfort and, after a stop at Rio, went around Cape Horn to go in the Pacific. After 4 years of navigation, she retuned to the island of Aix on February 2 1848. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 13:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that "chantiers" may be translated as "shipyards". Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My interest raised by this exchange I visited the page Ferdinand-Alphonse Hamelin. The page contains an image needing review by one of our French naval experts, as it appears to be a portrait of the subject three years after his death.Monstrelet (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... What exactly do you want me to check? Where does the picture say that it was taken after 1864? I f you have a particular question I will be happy to address it. Thanks, <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It has already been removed by another editor. See the article talk page.  But thanks for offering to sort it Monstrelet (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for 57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Table formatting errors
I'm looking through some Special:LintErrors, and I've found that quite a few of what's called the "deletable table tag" error happens in MILHIST articles. This error mostly happens with nested tables. I've put a list of 114 affected articles (found by this query) below. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

So what's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side display. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed. Taking the first item as an example, the "Family information" succession box (using S-fam) is the only difference that I found between the two. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering, then you're done.

If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90649651
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89320894
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llywelyn_ap_Gruffudd?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89822636
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92225690
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92225726
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Artiste?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72983519
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83843408
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_40?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79782757
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pitt,_2nd_Earl_of_Chatham?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90508210
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86021636
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Service_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89253430
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Service_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89253431
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Expeditionary_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81138037
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_Victory_Medal_(United_States)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72884011
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_Victory_Medal_(United_States)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72884012
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_Victory_Medal_(United_States)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72884013
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_Victory_Medal_(United_States)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72884014
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_Victory_Medal_(United_States)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72884015
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78236668
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85956365
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85956366
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European–African–Middle_Eastern_Campaign_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79544618
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European–African–Middle_Eastern_Campaign_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79544619
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Campaign_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79542646
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Campaign_Medal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87139218
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_Go_242?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=82683740
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_of_Foreign_Wars?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90200044
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Klakring?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=73080119
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_the_Great?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=75891955
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89028430
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89028431
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89028432
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Medical_Research_Institute_of_Infectious_Diseases?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78423869
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_ranks_and_insignia_of_India?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78956060
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Northwind_(WAGB-282)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89423563
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hotspur?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=84946760
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_AF_Guardian?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80577053
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_D.V?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89335797
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Desert_Hawk?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=40235303
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_College_Jhelum?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=75957328
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91388365
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_Harrison_Smith?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=82078835
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Leach?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=84908166
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Adam_Burnham?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86384101
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/445th_Airlift_Wing?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=55581867
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_B._Harris_Jr.?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92147639
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah_Kau_Kong?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85996149
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87586482
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wakeful_(1943)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80085006
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91875547
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_L._Vosler?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=68769427
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeromarine_700?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72910980
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Edgerton?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=45166512
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/403d_Wing?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=70877331
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giorgio-class_amphibious_transport_dock?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85898469
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_M._Ingersoll?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=33108374
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Seney?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78866402
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90862387
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Arthur_Mander?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=25978578
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/349th_Air_Mobility_Wing?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80042776
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_family?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81551696
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colditz_Cock?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=76433139
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Forester_(H74)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80294865
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gedeon?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87377712
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_of_Paderne?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78833758
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Engineer_Group?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83906632
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Airlift_Squadron?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47032987
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-13?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91397381
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mercado_Jr.?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91929087
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner_L?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86181531
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Marines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81793408
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/62d_Fighter_Squadron?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=54186012
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-404?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=5174041
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arundell_(admiral)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=52016123
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_684?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=73423517
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Verband?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=82247876
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikitin_PSN-2?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=82275462
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_III_Fajardo,_5th_Marquis_of_Los_Vélez?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=45635885
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=88527963
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_U-3_(Germany)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79935215
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_U-49?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=5447397
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-751?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=5447552
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikulin_AM-37?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=74623570
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-716?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=5471771
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-758?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=5471851
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People's_Air_Force?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85077730
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cubitt_(K512)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=45677837
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Andreas_Cornelius_Ohme?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=51001493
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hillforts_in_Monmouthshire?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=32316369
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-272?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=6141378
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoram-class_ferry?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72091979
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_and_theatre_honours_of_the_Australian_Army?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=33564980
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_in_Australian_service?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=73933070
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-594?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83654863
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANTEX-M?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=4372359
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisheng_ASN-209?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=6695883
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Kukui_(WLB-203)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79229805
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Walnut_(WLB-205)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79229808
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bolton?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=4988919
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Alouette_III_in_Portuguese_service?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=90856374
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_813_spy_ship?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83652548
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_814A_spy_ship?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83652561
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Harriet_Lane_(WSC-141)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79238854
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ababeel1?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=38962905
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_submarine_Enrico_Toti_(S_506)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89601607
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_life_under_the_German_occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47895915
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_minesweeper_M-1?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=28844309
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_minesweeper_M_107?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=44228256
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_Operations_Group?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89137783
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane_in_Yugoslav_service?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=75021132
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_in_Yugoslav_service?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=71218418
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Acacia_(WAGL-200)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83652572
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_Vengeance_in_Australian_service?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80541258
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McCloughan?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=66640009

(There are also 220 articles tagged by this project that have the "misnested tag" error; ping me when you'd like a list of those posted, or check the later results in the query linked above.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Useful collection of WW1 official histories
I spotted on Twitter this very comprehensive listing of the official histories of World War I which are available online. It's interesting to see that both the French and German histories are online (albeit in French and German), but the British ones aren't! Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Military Intelligence Hall of Fame
Hello. There are a lot of names in the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame that do not have articles. I've updated the list to 2018 but requires a look through to see which of these names actually have articles and are currently unlinked. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are many more of these people likely to be individually notable? (per WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT, etc) Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

New archive material via BNA
For all Royal Navy submarine enthusiasts, the latest release on British Newspaper Archive is the wartime publication "Good Morning", produced by the Daily Mirror specially for the submarine service. Nthep (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"stormo"
FYI, there's a deletion process notice for stormo on Wiktionary for the Italian airforce unit type -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

M1911 firearm discussion, criminal use.
In order to notify all projects associated with the M1911 pistol article, there is a discussion related to inclusion of criminal uses of the firearm here. [] Springee (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors for this WikiProject
Here's the list of misnested tags that I mentioned above. This is about the wikitext parser changing in June; any page with an error may display strangely.

Again, what's needed is just for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If the second column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

This list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. Taking the first link as an example, when I click the link and scroll down to the wikitext editing window (and down through a lot of wikitext), I see highlighting that indicates that the problem for that article is with the citation needed span template, which seems to contain a redundant citation needed tag. When I look at the side-by-side display of that text, they look the same, so it's not urgent, but removing the regular fact tag would probably solve the error.

I'm posting a kind of technical identification of the errors, in case it's helpful; you can ignore that part if it's not useful to you.

Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Army Medical Corps Images
There is a collection of 709 mostly unsorted images of the Royal Army Medical Corps on Commons belonging to the Wellcome Images Collection of 38,000. I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look.--Catlemur (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...
The requested move at Talk:2018 missile strikes against Syria has been relisted, because there is no consensus yet either to move or not to move the article to a different title. Your !vote and rationale in this debate would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  23:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Abandoned draft with potentially useful information
Greetings! I've been combing through abandoned userspace drafts recently, and happened upon one User:Mikkow/Roles (aircraft). This long-inactive user at one point took it upon himself to classify and explain all types of military aircraft. I have no idea if any of this information is of any use, and so have left a message here for someone to possibly look into it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . This would probably be a good fit for Military aircraft, as there are a number of sections tagged as needing expansion. I'll mention it on the talk page there as well. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Article needs some attention
Can someone look at Talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Otr500 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

MGM-31 Pershing
MGM-31 Pershing is currently rated as C-Class. What can I do to improve the article? Should I consider splitting the article between Pershing 1 and Pershing 1a as they had different ground support equipment and roles? --21lima (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The project banner has it as a C class due to lack of references. I suggest try adding refs where you can and also distribute the images through the article.  There is far too much text to be using image galleries.  If the Pershing versions are closely related, then it is better to cover in one article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. That's why I have Pershing missile bibliography. --21lima (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Polaris (UK nuclear programme) needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Polaris (UK nuclear programme); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLV, May 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Review request for Fort Bute
I've added an article for colonial Fort Bute and would like to invite others to review the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDelaune (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Oyster
Hello. I had an editing question I was hoping I could get an answer for. I am nearly done with an article on Operation Oyster, the 2 Group raid on the Philips works in Eindhoven. The problem is there is already an article by the name of Operation Oyster. What would you suggest for the title conflict. Should the new article use a clarifier, such as Operation Oyster (RAF operation), or should a change be made to the title of the current article? Thanks for your consideration.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would disambiguate your article as Operation Oyster (1942), that is the usual arrangement for multiple uses of an operation name. The other article may be lacking in notability anyway. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will go with that. Thank you for your help!Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Query on ship lists
Should the cruisers, destroyers, and submarines of the Imperial Russian Navy, Soviet Navy, and (modern) Russian Navy be combined? I am asking this because currently there is a separate List of ships of the Soviet Navy? Kges1901 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems logical to separate them, for example, there are separate lists for the List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy and the post-war List of ships of the Yugoslav Navy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would probably argue the opposite, depending on the specific type of vessel - if we're splitting up by ship types, there likely aren't enough of each type in each navy to warrant splitting them off. For example, List of battleships of Germany does not differentiate between Imperial and Nazi eras. On the other hand, for types where large numbers of vessels were built, they would likely need to be split due to size concerns, so splits by country would be an obvious option. Types like destroyers and submarines probably will need to be split, but cruisers perhaps not. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they should be combined. Splitting by period just makes double work Lyndaship (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Imperial Russian Navy, Soviet Navy, and modern Russian Navy have each been among the largest in the world (they aren't like Yugoslavia) since the late 19th century so I would prefer to split by type. I agree with battleships being combined but cruisers seems borderline - List of cruisers of the Russian Navy is already 47k bytes without any context/tables and is incomplete in that it doesn't include ships considered cruisers only by Western sources. Kges1901 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also argue for split for the same reasons. Plus with the USSR, even though the RF is the successor, Ukraine also got some, which would make it a little messy if we combined USSR with RF ships.Garuda28 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cruisers probably ought to be split between different subtypes. For example: List of protected cruisers of Italy or List of armored cruisers of Germany. Splitting the cruisers into subtypes would likely take care of any size issues. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion discussions
Greetings. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to participate in the following two Articles for Deletion discussions - Articles for deletion/Gustavus Zesch and Articles for deletion/Zesch's Militia Battery Kansas Light Artillery. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback round: A proposal for referencing sections of the same work more easily
Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) has posted this note at WP:VPT, and I think it will interest people working on articles about history even more:



"Referencing multiple sections of the same work in an article is currently cumbersome. Editors have asked for an easier way to do this for more than ten years. In 2013 and 2015 a wish to change this made it into Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishlist and it was wish #24 in the international Community Wishlist survey 2015." "WMDE’s Technical Wishes team conceptualized an idea how the problem could be solved: A generic solution that can be used for any refinement, such as pages, chapters, verses etc., and that could be used as a voluntary option, not forcing the users who don’t want to change their working mode to use it." "In order to find out if we can start working on this solution, we’re inviting editors from all wikis to have a look at it and tell us what they think in a feedback round from May 14th to May 27th. Thanks to everyone who participates and helps spreading the word!" "* feedback round on Meta" "* page of the wish with more information"

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Links in TFA blurbs
Starting today, I'm going to be making more changes than before in the way links appear in blurbs in the Today's Featured Article section of the Main Page (in blurb text only, not in article text). Generally, it will happen more often (but not always, there are lots of exceptions) that I change the wording of the link to match the page title that it redirects to. One example is in tomorrow's TFA, where I just changed Albuera to La Albuera. The reason for all of this is that WP:ERRORS is becoming less pleasant by the day ... not in the TFA section, but I don't want battles fought elsewhere to be spilling over into TFA. Consistency in links is one thing people like to challenge. I'm posting here because I can easily see this change backfiring on me. For instance, Auntieruth, I know you're an academic studying the Napoleonic time period, and if you like "Albuera", who am I to disagree? At ERRORS, someone might tell you that if you want to use that wording on the Main Page, then you need to get the page title moved, but I completely understand that that's not always an optimal, realistic, or even relevant approach. Nevertheless ... I think it would be wise to take a more easily defended stance at ERRORS, and consistency in links is one way to do that. Thoughts? Objections? - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Changed to "Albuera". - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dab page
Greetings! I recently created a disambiguation page, Treasury Police, with two entries, which I am certain is far fewer than the number of treasure polices out there. I was hoping I could get some eyes on the page that could perhaps expand it to include a better number of entries. Thanks! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Name dispute on PLAAF Airborne Corps and PLA Marine Corps
There is currently a dispute over the names of both of these organizations on their pages that an IP and myself are involved in, and I would really appreciate an outside opinion to help resolve this. I have tried to engage with the IP user (who has multiple IPs) on both their talk page and the article talk page, but have not been able to get them into a discussion. Any help would be really appreciated, and if you don't want to get involved any advice would be appriciated! Garuda28 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be beginning to have a discussion at PLA Marine Corps; I have locked PLA Airborne Corps to administrator-only for a week to calm things down a little. I'm not sure whether the IP that was so vehement about PLA Airborne Corps is the same one you now appear to be talking to at Talk:PLAMC. So far, no English-language material has emerged that backs up the IP's position that it should be just Airborne Corps. This is a bit like Germany where the Bundeswehr has official translations to aid work with English-speakers which may not give the sense of the German original (like their new CIS Command). If the problem resumes, ping me on my talkpage, and potentially explain to the IP that the PLA may have an official English-use name (it certainly appears to) which does not exactly match all the syllables or words of the Mandarin name.
 * While old, and potentially superseded in some cases, the most authoritative source for name translations is probably Ken Allen, Chapter 9, "PLA Air Force Organization", The PLA as Organization, ed. James C. Mulvenon and Andrew N.D. Yang (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002). The exact Chinese equivalents to English names are discussed in page after page after page of detail. There's chapters in there for the Army and Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty confident it’s the same IP, but they’ve seem to gone dormant. As always, much appreciated.Garuda28 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages
I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the potential deletion of thousands of USAF/RAF pages. In 2013 a CCI investigation was started of User:Bwmoll3 here: Contributor copyright investigations/20130819 who created/contributed to over 5000 articles largely focussed on USAF bases and Squadrons and RAF Bases. Only a small number of these have been checked for copyvios to date. The CCI instructions state that: “''If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal''.” I first became aware of this issue in April 2016 when Da Nang Air Base disappeared and I then had to completely recreate it. More recently Admin User:Buckshot06 has deleted Tuy Hoa Air Base and Nha Trang Air Base, when I asked for an explanation of this User talk:Buckshot06 advised that “''My method is when I see a large article filled with generally obscure USAF facts, that I go to the history section and see how much it has been written by Bwmoll3. If it's 80%+ his work, all the text gets deleted- because it's almost certainly all copyvio from the books listed at the bottom''.” So no copvio check is necessarily being carried out, rather entire pages are being “presumptively deleted” (User:Buckshot06’s description) based on the fact that User:Bwmoll3 wrote a substantial amount of the relevant page. I don’t believe that deletion of entire pages is what is intended by the CCI policy of removing a CCI violator’s edits indiscriminately and it is unclear if any account is taken of intervening edits that may have rendered the text not a copyvio, or that sufficient efforts are made to "avoid collateral damage". Given the vast size of the investigation I would like to see a more transparent and orderly process of tagging problematic pages so that interested editors can rewrite/source them rather than pages randomly disappearing. Your thoughts below please. Kind regards. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , as the CCI expert, would you care to comment? Mztourist, should you wish to amend the Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions en generale, for a process that involves 50+ open investigations and many more closed ones, you may find it more fruitful to engage on the CCI/Instructions talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06 at this stage I am simply alerting interested Users to the issue, once other Users have had the opportunity to consider and comment, next steps can be decided. I would hope that you would stop all "presumptive deletion" of pages until this is addressed. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm operating under the existing CCI policy. If you wish to change that CCI policy, as I've just advised you, you are probably at the wrong noticeboard. Trying to amend the existing CCI policy based upon a single (if large) CCI among the hundreds of open and previously closed CCIs, at two noticeboards which focus on aviation and military issues, simply probably won't generate enough valid reasoning to amend the policy because aviation and military issues are only a small subset of the issues CCI has to react to. That is why I advised you to lay out your arguments where you might be heard by the users that deal with these issues much more frequently. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am only interested in stopping you "presumptively deleting" the pages created by Bwmoll3 which is why I have raised it on these Project pages where other Users affected by your actions will see it. Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to stop any such deletion. With the exception, perhaps, of libel, copyright is probably the single most important policy on Wikipedia. It has very-real-life legal implications, and thus the policy is deliberately designed to ensure a "delete-first-recreate-later" approach. No article—or any number of articles—is / are important enough to be worth endangering the project over. CCI merely reflects the importance with which copyright suspicions (i.e., not necessarily even proven cases) are handled. Thank you for your assistance in this affair. Happy editing!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 11:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, hello, and some general comments. The approach was created to deal with egregious copyright infringers who created more content than can reasonably be reviewed. It is my personal preference to review when possible to avoid damage to the encyclopedia by removing content that could be retain and to those contributors who spent their time on that content beyond the infringer, but we have also seen painful cases where individuals have spent hours polishing portions of articles only to have the whole piece later lost as a derivative work. It's been a while since I've been really active, but I determine personally where to take this approach by the scale of problems that have been identified. Just as with whether copyright infringement exists or not, there is no magic formula. It's a case-by-case basis. Decisions about the legitimacy of the approach properly belong in a more central forum, per WP:CONLIMITED, but discussions can certainly happen anywhere. :) We do not limit copyright cleanup to cases of external complaint, but are proactive - an approach that has served us well when legal issues do rise. Sorry for the kind of scattershot input; had to skim and need to duck out, but wanted to give context since I was invited. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I understanding this correctly? In 2013 a user was identified as likely to have created 5000 articles involving copyvio and now 5 years later only a handful have been resolved? Lyndaship (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, created or contributed substantially to them. Mztourist (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Try not to stress about the articles too much. This happens on Wikipedia all the time and all or most of those military articles have been pulled into the Military wiki at Wikia. So, if you find one that's been deleted, chances are good you can see it there and help fix it rather than just live with a lazy deletion. I'm sure the people who edit that project would love it if some of the people here helped out over there as well. Cheers! 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:658B:51FB:A830:CCC3 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how insults from some obnoxious IP user can be an effective way to recruit people for another wiki... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since the only comments that were obnoxious were the ones you made. And you shouldn't change other peoples comments. PS, your signature looks exactly like an editor that was blocked call The Fear God. I wonder if you are the same person. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:658B:51FB:A830:CCC3 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the IP's signature looks just like another IP that was blocked. I wonder if you are the same person. - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ♠It looks to me like Buckshot06 is in-bounds on deletion, much as I dislike it: deleting presumptively troubles me.
 * ♠It also looks like the rule in question is trying to have it both ways: presumptively guilty, yet examine if possible? So which is it? Or is the presumption of wrongdoing & immediate action intended only in cases of external complaint, when rapid action is necessary, & so warranted? If that is meant (& I would hope), this issue could be dealt with in a more reasoned (&, IMO, sensible) manner.
 * ♠Note, to be clear: I am one who has repeatedly opposed even copying wholesale from DANFS, so I in no way am defending copyvio. I do, however, prefer so rescue a page, when possible.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I think the key problem here is editing in Wikipedia is down significantly and there aren't enough editors willing to take the time to go through the articles on SPI to fix them. That doesn't necessarily require an admin, but these articles sometimes linger there for months or years. These articles, as has been pointed out, have been around for as much as 5 years. More editors are needed, rather than the current environment of trying to get rid of as many editors as possible for more and more insignificant reasons. At anything is possible, was that IP making simple comments, creating/improving articles or vandalism. If it was the latter, it wasn't me, if it was the former, it's possible it was an IP I have used. My ISP changes my IP everytime I restart my PC. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:658B:51FB:A830:CCC3 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - While this is a less than ideal situation, I don't think is a hopeless situation. To be honest (and not to blow any trumpets), the Military history Wikiproject is probably best known of any for organised action, which suggests to me that we may be well-placed for a coordinated review-and-remove of the articles to assist in the workload incumbent on admins having to deal with this user's contributions. It was mentioned that there are a set of books to which User:Bwmoll3 helpfully made reference in copyvio additions. Do we know if there is a collected list of these books to see how available they are to members of the project for comparison against the text? From there, I can see possible scope for distributed comparison and flagging, especially if there are digital copies of these books available to assist the process with more automated tools. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SerialNumber54129. However, let me give you another spin on this. Think about our gamification as an incentive structure. Bwmoll3 cheated and created articles illegitimately. He doesn't deserve any credit from Wikipedia. Deleting those articles opens up the opportunity for hard-working editors here, perhaps leading to new GAs, FAs, and Four Awards not to mention the array of recognition that MILHIST awards. People that argue against deletion either put misplaced emphasis on the reader (who doesn't matter in our incentive structure) or they fail to see the potential good work done by reserving article creation to legitimate efforts. Other editors are making good policy-based rationales but I'm thinking about how Wikipedia sustains a volunteer effort. If we don't delete those articles we'd be guilty of restraining incentives for our good-faith editors. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment As much as it pains me to say this, the articles need to go - the copyright issue isn't a trivial one and yes, it's a huge shame that decent editors have put work into these articles. Unfortunately, the work is wasted & the person to blame is the one who created these articles in the first place. Genuine editors should be welcoming the removal of these tainted articles because it'll give us a chance to create them again, from scratch, using the high standards that this Wikiproject is known for. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate Chris Troutman  's view, but I have to disagree. Our goal here isn't to provide incentives to editors. Our audience is not us (or other potential editors). It is the readers who never edit a single word. Our goal, I suggest, is the knowledge gained, gathered, & disseminated. Yes, it should be done ethically. Yes, having more editors would be a good thing. (Indeed, I have made efforts to recruit experts from several websites I frequent where they may be found, so far to no avail, in hope of attracting subject-area experts in fields poorly covered on WP.) For all the lack of editors, it is not we who are, ultimately, disserved by deletion--it is the casual reader who is. Would you casually excise pages from Britannica? Or casually cut articles or photos? That, I regret to say, reminds me all too much of Soviet practise. That isn't, I don't imagine, the goal--but enforced ignorance is the result in either case. That isn't a position I will endorse. Not ever.   TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  23:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No amount of reader interest causes articles to be written. Rather, contests like what MILHIST does every month as well as the GA Cup and the WikiCup, cause editors to contribute. Many of these CCI messes wold be cleaned up faster if there was editor incentive. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "No amount of reader interest causes articles to be written." I'll agree, as far as that goes. I've never created a page to win an award (or even to get a DYK, tho a couple have earned one). I have because of my own reading interest, & because I expect other readers (not editors) may want to know, too. I've created pages based on gaps I found as a reader, not as an award-chaser (or, strictly speaking, an editor). I am saying, whatever the motivation, the ultimate goal isn't to have more editors, it's to have more knowledge. So long as that's true, deletion for its own sake is misguided. And I will wager there are other readers who don't find what they're looking for who will also create pages, & become editors, the same way I did (do).  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  00:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I first helped explore the extent of this problem back in 2013. Some simple analysis of the extent of copvio can be seen here (, this may help answer a bit of your question). Additionally, the problem isn't limited to wholsesale copying text from books, it extends to using copyrighted images without credit and duplicate (unattributed) text across articles. This continued even after the editor was told about the issue, and continued later with sockpuppet accounts. As I looked through my book, Airfields of the Ninth in 2013, the scale of the problem quickly became apparent and at this point I gave up looking at individual examples, it's simply too big. Basically, this is a massive issue extending across hundreds/thousands of articles, many of which are wholesale copyright violations. Sadly, it's probably easier to delete them and start again than try to fix individual examples.  Ranger Steve   Talk  07:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing this, . If this is the case, then we may simply have to list what articles in that user's contributions are within the scope of the WikiProject, and then recreate them from scratch. It may be worth adding a list of recommended resources to aid in this, and perhaps even create a coordinating group through the Incubator, should we have enough editors agree on that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment Firstly we can all agree that any proven copyvio must be removed.

I agree with User:Trekphiler that the policy appears contradictory with a presumption of innocence, but then a presumption that because a CCI has been started all work is tainted. The CCI instructions: Contributor copyright investigations/20130819 state that: ''If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Copyright violations. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal. i.e. if a CCI case has been opened all that Contributor's work is tainted while the headnote states that Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it However, if you look at the actual CCI page here Contributor copyright investigations it states that Accepted cases will lead to a contributor survey... If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Copyright violations. When such indiscriminate removal may be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort will be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions. If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal may be the only choice. This is different from the investigation instructions, as it doesn't contain the assumption that Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation''.

Without that assumption its not clear what amounts to a contributor hav[ing] been shown to have a history of copyright violation. The Bwmoll3 CCI has been open since 2013, on my very rough count, about 181 of Bwmoll3's contributions on 5000+ pages have been reviewed, with 50 found to be copyvios and 131 not copyvios (an additional 53 pages have disappeared with no explanation provided), while Bwmoll3 has undoubtedly violated copyright, where is the CCI determination of a history of extensive copyright violation? Even assuming that is established, may be deleted indiscriminately is subject to the following sentence: ''When such indiscriminate removal may be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort will be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions. If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal may be the only choice.'' Nowhere does the policy say that entire pages can be deleted just because a copyviolator contributed to them, nor that if there are a large number of "tainted" pages that they don't need to be individually checked, but can just be deleted because the copyviolator contributed to them. Some of the comments above say that this task is simply too large, but I don't see where in CCI policy it states that just because it's a big task every tainted page should be deleted.

Perhaps the CCI policy wasn't written to address suspected copyvio on this scale or perhaps it was written deliberately vaguely to allow flexibility, whichever, User:Buckshot06 has not followed CCI policy as wholesale deletion of pages rather than just Bwmoll3's contributions causes considerable collateral damage, I haven't seen any effort made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions, rather User:Buckshot06 has just gone immediately to presumptive wholesale removal of entire pages, not just Bwmoll3's contributions, with no apparent consideration if this may be the only choice as listing the relevant articles for deletion was an option adopted by other CCI checkers. If we consider only the instructions on the investigation page "presumptive deletion" similarly doesn't meet the requirement To avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

As I said in my original post above, given the vast size of the investigation I would like to see a more transparent and orderly process of tagging problematic pages so that interested editors can rewrite/source them rather than pages randomly disappearing. Until this issue is clarified there is no point in any User working on any of these 5000+ pages in case your work may be "presumptively deleted". Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Cases like this are effectively unworkable. No-one will ever go through this number of articles, and when the copyright violations are from hard copy books it's hard to do the checking on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, this means that all the questionable changes this person added need to be removed. We really need some kind of bot that automatically reverts articles like this back to the last good version when it's not possible to undo their changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The best I can do with most of these is an Earwig search, and then a spot check for duplicate phrasing in Google. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with the offline sources. I checked List of Air Service American Expeditionary Force aerodromes in France, and based on these two methods it seemed ok: . Beyond that, there's not much I can do, I'm afraid. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To pick up an earlier suggestion, is there any bot solution? It seems regretably that we have no simple solution to pages created by Bwmoll3 and that they may need to be deleted.  But cannot pages created by other editors and edited by Bwmoll3 not just be stripped back by a bot to before the potentially copy-vio edits by this editor.  Yes, the pages will be damaged but there will be an improvable article instead of a hole.  Also to pick up comments by User:Chris troutman, is there any suspicion that the copy vios were influenced by a desire to fiddle the competition?  Though I am not competition-oriented myself, I realise other editors are and we must be sure of the integrity of the competition process if those editors are to continue to receive their just reward for their effort.Monstrelet (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If a bot can be developed, it should only remove unreffed content written by Bwmoll3 that have not been modified by other Users. Mztourist (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * USAF Individual Unit Pages In the sections of articles on USAAF/USAF units created by Bwmoll3 titled "Lineage" "Assignments" "Components" "Stations" and "Aircraft" (sections almost invariably used) the sources he has taken the material from are in the public domain and are for that reason are not copyright violations.  Deleting the entire article on a unit, including material that is clearly not in violation of copyright seems to me to be an overreaction.  Typically, when he has taken sections from Freeman and web sites this material is in the "History" or other sections, and cleaning out these sections would probably remove most of his violations on unit articles. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lineagegeek Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support Lineagegeek's opinion. Additionally, much of his history text is copied out of Maurer's Combat Squadrons and Combat Units or other PD USAF publications that are online.Kges1901 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. A proper copyvio check must be done in each case to ensure that Bwmoll3's contributions are actually copyvios and not simply cut and pastes of US Govt publications which are not subject to copyright. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

German War Effort arbitration case
The arbitration committee has opened a case to look into editing related to the German war effort in World War II. Evidence from those with a knowledge of the subject, related wikipedia editing or disputes are invited to participate at the case evidence page.
 * For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Newell W. Spicer
Greetings. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to participate in the following discussion - Articles for deletion/Newell W. Spicer. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Orator
I question some recent edits to the article and would like other editors to take a look to avoid a conflict of interest. Keith-264 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would someone with rollback rights restore the article to the state before Grant 65s edit of 09:01, 17 May 2018 please? many of his changes are uncontroversial and there are welcome additions based on new sources but have been botched in the execution and I've found that piecemeal remedies are impossible (see edit history, it's like trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again).‎ There is an irrelevant emphasis on the Australian nature of 455 Squadron (dropped into the lead of all places) that would be better discussed in a note. Many paragraphs had been broken and spread around the article with no citations, headers altered to become so vague as to lose meaning, there are typos all over the place and some of the material moves are anachronistic or break thematic sections, rendering them pointless. A rollback will help all interested parties incorporate the new material better, avoid disorganising the structure and easily gain consensus on most of the new material. I have provisionally changed the article to C Class as this seems the article's level. Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for rollback for that, just do a manual revert. Go into the article's history and find the last good version, edits that version and save.  See Help:Reverting for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm stick at "edit that version and save", what must I do? the help page isn't helpful. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (e/c; Pick the version you want on the history page and click on the time and date of the edit (looks to be "12:51, April 18, 2018‎"). That will pull up the older version of the article. Then edit the page and save.) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually it was helpful and I think I've done what I intended, thanks. I'll do some pinging. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Grant65 and I have got the article into much better shape but we need a page reference for Gordon, Ian (1995). Strike and Strike Again: 455 Squadron RAAF, 1944–45. Belconnen, ACT: Banner Books. ISBN 978-1-875593-09-5 in the Analysis section, can anyone help? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Benedict
RAF operation in north Russia, 1941. I'd be grateful if interested parties could take a look and improve the citations and refs. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; I have a copy of the Eric Carter book somewhere and may be able to beef up the details of what they did when they were there.
 * I also wonder whether we could merge No. 151 Wing RAF with this article, as it was raised specifically for this operation and disbanded at the end of it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having had a butcher's I'm inclined to agree. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As it was reformed with a later operational history (at one point as a transport wing, and another as an air defence missile wing), I'd personally recommend merging some of the details into Operation Benedict, but keeping 151 Wing's article where it is. Tbh, it's a balancing act; either adding all of the details about 151 Wing could outweigh details about other units in Operation Benedict, but current details of the unit's role in Operation Benedict outweigh its later formations. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd put that in a subsequent history/operations section with a redirect, unless someone added sufficient material for an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A question !
Hello I am doing a cut & past from the chat of a linkedin friend I talked to :

Hello I started to work big on wikipedia - adding links to my history knowledge database at eucmh.be then I go 1 then 2 then 3 messages from wikipedia users/moderators telling they had ass hurt about my work ... so I left working on wikipedia :(((

Sorry to hear about that. Were the substantive concerns regarding the use of your database as a source? It might have been the case that your well-intentioned efforts were in conflict with a policy on use of secondary sources. I'm happy to take a look if you tell me your wikipedia username. Thanks for trying to help! I would like you just to tell me what I did wrong because it's not that easy to use the system to chat / answer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gunter_Gillot thank you Ok, do this. You need help from subject experts not random editors who think you're a spammer.

1) Go to the wikiproject for military history: http://enwp.org/WT:MILHIST 2) Create a new post on the talk page and say, "Hi, I'm trying to help but getting told I'm spamming. Here are my contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gunter_Gillot. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong please?

....

I did a cut and past because I don't know the way to create post etc on here :))

Gunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter Gillot (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who told you that, this looks more like an wp:rs issue. It may well be, but RSN is the right place.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are copying and pasting copyright material into articles. I'm afraid that is a no no Lyndaship (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Navy Fleet Air Arm
The article above covers something that does not exist. Could somebody with more knowledge of the deletion process please have a look at it? A look at this talk page might also be helpful since it appears that it is not the first time that the user's contributions have raised questions. PINTofCARLING (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Royal Canadian Navy did in fact have an air arm between 1946 and 1968, but it was known as Canadian Naval Aviation per here. Kges1901 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at this editors creations (and his previous incarnation and the IP address he used after that was blocked for copyvio). Mostly he's done minor airforces and I can't help thinking that I recall an Orbis book which might have been a very close source for these articles. There's also examples of cut and paste without accreditation from existing articles to his new articles. Lyndaship (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the article mostly duplicates information available at Royal Canadian Naval Air Service, List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Navy. The information was copied verbatim which leads to problems concerning structure and cohesion.
 * The biggest issue is that there simply is no Royal Canadian Fleet Air Arm that has been in existence from 1918 to the present as stated in the infobox, hence the article on the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service which deals with the first attempt to introduce an air arm that was then cut short by the end of World War I. The article itself also states that since 1975, all aircraft supporting the RCN are operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force through 1 Canadian Air Division (although it doesn't provide a source). A look at the articles for the squadrons mentioned in the article shows that they are RCAF squadrons.
 * I am not an expert on the Canadian military or the deletion process. I raised the issue on the article's talk page but I just found out that HMAS onslow is currently blocked for disruptive editing. I think this might be another case but as mentioned before, I am not an expert on rules and procedures. PINTofCARLING (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected the article to Royal Canadian Naval Air Service. We can't have hoaxes on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can the redirect just be deleted? It is misleading anyway as nobody has ever called it a Fleet Air Arm because Canada never had a "fleet".Kges1901 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suits me, an Admin can do it whenever they want, I won't be bothered! Exemplo347 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirect's gone now. I suddenly remembered that there's a Speedy Deletion category called WP:R3 for implausible misnomers.. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Canada did have a carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, I am not sure this fleet air arm was implausible.Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And they had several naval air squadrons, for example VH-880 Naval Air Squadron and VF-871. Whether these constituted an "air arm". I don't know, but what do we collectively call a number of naval air squadrons? Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this article (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-rn-fleet-air-arm-history-3.htm) describes Canada having "The Royal Canadian Navy had also recently formed its Fleet Air Arm with a light fleet carrier on loan from Britain, but did not deploy it to Korea." This article (http://militarybruce.com/the-royal-canadian-naval-air-service-the-fleet-arm/) confirms they did have a fleet air arm post world war II, howver in 1947 the name changed to Naval Air Branch, before becoming the Maritime Air Group in 1968, and was absorbed by Air Command (the Air Force) in 1975. Garuda28 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this article, Second World War Canadian carriers had aircrews that were members of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. 'On 24 January 1946, the RCN commissioned its first official aircraft carrier, His Majesty’s Canadian Ship Warrior, formerly known as HMS Warrior. Two air squadrons were also formed the same day: 825 Squadron and 803 Squadron, making them the first official RCN air squadrons... The new air element was christened the Fleet Air Arm in May 1946, following in the footsteps of the Royal Navy. A year later, the name was officially changed to the Naval Air Branch. However, the name “Fleet Air Arm” remained in the lexicon of many naval personnel in an unofficial capacity right up to the end of the branch’s days'.  Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's like we found the same article or something! Maybe a future article to work on?Garuda28 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great minds Garuda28... Perhaps we should go for Naval Air Branch (Royal Canadian Navy)? We already have Naval Air Branch which is a redirect to Fleet Air Arm although I can't see why; the indirect precursor of the FAA was the Royal Naval Air Service, which evolved from the Air Department. Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you title it Canadian Naval Aviation or something similar and focus it on the 1945-1968 period, as this official history refers to it as Naval Aviation. Kges1901 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find! Alansplodge (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in an article on the Royal Newfoundland Air Force Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict deletion
I would like to suggest the deletion of The Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict since in this article there are virtually no valid sources and there are already an article full of adecemic sources named The Portuguese-Ottoman War dealing with the history of the war. Sir Thiago (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A) Sources can be added B) That article serves fine as a directory to the several pages indicated, that's all it was meant for C) The Portuguese-Ottoman War is less encyclopedic and less objective in describing what actually happened, and not without some errors. D) I do suggest moving The Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict back to it's original name Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts, since there was not just one single unbroken period of conflict between the Ottomans and Portuguese, unlike what The Portuguese-Ottoman War seems to suggest. Crenelator (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term "less encyclopedic and less objective" wrote by the user above shows how subjective he is concerning this matter, which is not fair due to the ammount of research and effort put on that article by the contributors, specially when the article Ottoman-Portuguese War cites more than 110 sources, including primary ones concerning this war. Contrary to what he says, the Portuguese primary sources do register the "war" against the Turks, namely Afonso de Albuquerque, D. João Castro and Diogo Couto, all contemporary cronists and soldiers and displayed at Torre do Tombo National Archive in Lisbon. But the scope of this discussion is the deletion of the The Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict which is not only poorly provided with sources, but also misleading in terms of battles between this two powers like Turkish Crusade and Ottoman-Venetian War that are not mentioned by Portuguese or Turkish primary sources at all. Also, this very article leads to other wikipedia pages that are considered a stub and in need of sources like Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) and Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1580–1589) that wrongly separates a long term fight into small periods of years without a reason (again, no primary sources cited there to justify this) leading to informations that are not accurate and not connected to the primary sources of both Empires. Sir Thiago (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a meetup in San Diego
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/June 2018. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

ISBN 10; ISBN 13
isbn: International Standard Book Number; for example: 978-0-8126-9593-9. (See Wikipedia:ISBN and ISBN § Overview.) Dashes in the ISBN are optional, but preferred. '''Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book. Use the 13-digit ISBN – beginning with 978 or 979 – when it is available. If only a 10-digit ISBN is printed on or in the book, use it.''' (my bolding) Bugger, I thought we were supposed to use ISBN 13s by converting ISBN 10s. Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be a problem as long as the 13-digit ISBN is valid. Check with an advanced search on worldcat.org or similar site. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd also recommend using ISBN or ISBNT, which automatically pass the ISBN to Special:BookSources and provide a list of places to check that ISBN (e.g. ISBN 978-0-8126-9593-9 or for your example reference). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not trust that WorldCat is definitive when it comes to ISBNs. This one, for example, is which book?
 * ISBN 9783161484100 (direct WorldCat link)
 * WorldCat is not very well curated – alas, it is the source database for reftoolbar and ve (and we all know that these tools can do no wrong, right?) The advice given at Template:cite book is valid especially the bit that says: 'Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book.'
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been using or  for the more recondite publications, using the book ISBN 10. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no point in converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones as the book search links work with either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, the book you consulted with a 10-digit isbn may have pagination and other editorial differences from the 'same' book with a 13-digit isbn. Use the isbn provided in the source you consulted.  If the source has both 10- and 13-digit isbns, prefer the 13-digit identifier.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 13 digit is the ten digit in the 13 format so I doubt that's possible but I'm in no position to argue. Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 13 digit is the ten digit in the 13 format so I doubt that's possible but I'm in no position to argue. Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Brothers von Blücher
Members of the WikiProject are kindly invited in the AfD process for Articles for deletion/Brothers von Blücher which I recently started.--Catlemur (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Territorial Force needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Territorial Force; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Umpteen Battles of Anandpur
I'm having a bit of a problem cleaning up the material on Wikipedia related to the Battles of Anandpur and the related articles for the Mughal-Sikh Wars and Guru Gobind Singh. Currently, Wikipedia has articles for three battles of Anandpur - Battle of Anandpur (1700), Battle of Anandpur (1701), and Second Battle of Anandpur. Looking at what limited sources I could find (see, for example, this) there are five battles of Anandpur listed, occurring in 1701, 1701, 1703, 1704, and 1705. Another source lists four battles of Anandpur, occurring in 1700, 1701, 1704, and 1704. A user on my talk page is claiming the three existing articles, which currently are dated 1700, 1701, and 1704, should be dated 1700, 1701, and 1701. The pages are written in poor English and in some cases make no sense - the page titled Second Battle of Anandpur is listed as occurring in 1704 but the last section claims that "Sometime after the battle, the hill Rajas negotiated a peace agreement with Gobind Singh, asking him to leave Anandpur temporarily. Accordingly, the Guru left for Nirmoh village (Nirmohgarh) and fought Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702)." (As in, after a 1704 battle, someone fought a 1702 battle. This obviously makes no sense.) The user on my talk page then went and deleted most of the article. Of the sources cited on each wikipedia page, the only one you can actually access is the second source I linked above. With all of this, I'm not really sure what to do - would a more experienced editor in this area mind giving a hand? --Nerd1a4i (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if part of the year problem is just calendar issues. Britain was still using the Julian Calendar at the time in question, which was 11 days out of synch with the Gregorian Calendar, and observed the New Year on 25 March, not 1 January.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with WikiEd editor rendering paragraph breaks
I use WikiEd for editing and have been noticing some weird things happening with paragraph breaks/returns and how these are rendered. Turning off WikiEd and all is back to normal. I have reported this at Village Pump (Technical). If you are using WikiEd, you may wish to turn it off until the matter is resolved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Arctic/Norway/Commando/WWII infoboxes
A discussion has begun about


 * Template:Campaignbox_Arctic_(1941–1944)


 * Template:Campaignbox Arctic Naval Operations of WWII


 * Template:Campaignbox Scandinavia in World War II


 * Template:Campaignbox Raids and Commando Actions in Norway during World War II


 * any other relevant infoboses


 * at Template talk:Campaignbox Norwegian Campaigns (1941–1945) with a view to rationalising them is possible. Editors are cordially invited to comment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes have been spring cleaned and a fair few articles added; if anyone knows of articles that bear inclusion, please do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:MILTERMS
Concern regarding MOS:MILTERMS, after seeing this edit by. The style manuals of various branches capitalized Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, etc. That said it does not appear to be universal. Yet, the MOS also apparently does not follow standard practices for non-military writing of military subjects. So should the MOS be changed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here’s the relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 27 Consensus is currently all lower case, but as always consensus can be changed. Just to note, non-military writing is divided on capitalization, with the Chicago Manual of Style using lower case. Garuda28 (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That consensus does not appear to have had significant by in from those within this WikiProject (then again I have been largely away from here for a while), and you're corrected in pointing out WP:CCC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Relying on my hazy memory, a little observed history of this: The US Marines have always capitalized, at least since WWI. In the late 1980s (or early 90s), the US Army began capitalizing "Soldiers" in official publications, and the USN and USAF soon followed suit. My observation is that caps are used primarily in official publications and rarely elsewhere. I've no idea what other countries do in this regard. I think for Wikipedia lower case for everyone is the best alternative. RobDuch (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too.Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent as to whether its capitalized or not (honestly I could see it going either way), however I do think we should attach an hatnote like we did with she for ships and note that each article needs to be internally consistent, and not to switch from one style to the other unless there is a very good reason to do so.
 * I think MOS:MILTERMS stands as is, and doesn't need modification. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I could have sworn the consensus to use lowercase for titles such as those was older than 2018. In any event, no, we don't need to follow the puffery of the US military. "Soldier" is no more a proper noun than "doctor" or "teacher" is. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that it was older, just not codified. That and there was no guidance on marine, which was wildly inconsistent. Garuda28 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand keeping internal consistency, but it appears that I am in the minority, in wanting to hone closer to the MOS of the services relevant to an article (within reason in regards to Neutrality). So I guess my statements are rocking the boat, and I will stop causing small waves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What Peacemaker said. I've change lots of "Airman" and "Airmen" to airman and airmen (not that would have anything to do with uncredited cut and paste in USAF artiles).  I think that the MOS is clear and the MOS is reasonable.  Lance Corporal --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC), USMC
 * I also agree. I'd also note that this seems to be a US-centric issue. I haven't seen Australian military publications use this over-capitalisation, and the US military's grammar is awful even by institutional standards so we definitely shouldn't look to follow it. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

National Military Templates
Hello! I have noticed that the templates regarding national militaries are named in an unorganized fashion. The majority of countries use the "Template:Military of XXXXX" method, which seems preferable as we do not need to know the nationality term of a country, which I will discuss further. For example, the United Kingdom's national military template is "Template:British Armed Forces", using their nationality term which may be confusing for some. Other template titles are too specific, such as "Template:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation".

Simplifying the naming method of these templates would help users/readers interested in national military templates.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 06:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Britain and British are better than United Kingdom, which is long-winded and rarely used in Britain. Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The navbox are apparently titled to match their parent articles' titles, which is probably better that using a forced standard. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. I was looking at templates and found it strange that they were all so different. Is there a reason why the parent articles would be named in such way?<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 08:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In most cases, they use the official or most common name for a country's military, which will differ for each country. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to add my 2 cents, the templates should definitely follow the name of the article, and the article should be the official name of the military, however if that does not exist then resort to “military of xxxxxxx” Garuda28 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Another annoying pop-up
Does anyone know about a box with "visual editing" and "source editing" popping up when trying to scroll upwards by clicking on the little black triangle, while in the edit screen? How do I get rid? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In namespaces where VisualEditor works, the source editor has a pencil icon at the top right of the edit area to switch between VisualEditor and the source editor. I guess you accidentally hit the icon instead of scrolling. If you never want to use the icon then you can try to hide it with this in :

.ve-init-mw-editSwitch {display: none;}
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion
An indefinitely blocked user dumped several dozen fairly bad machine translations into en.wikipedia. I speak French quite well but my interest in the topic has limits and my knowlege of the topic is certainly limited indeed so any help would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to help with language questions.

There are also a few articles about 17th century French infantry units and a couple about historic battles in Kuwait which seem to be from Arabic and could use quite a lot of help.

Details can be found on the talk page at WP:PNT. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC) I have taken the liberty to move the above request from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks (redirect page) to here. The subject at hand can be found at Pages needing translation into English/Articles by user/OJOM. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:USAAF Service Pilot
This draft is liable to be deleted for lack of editing activity. Should it be moved to mainspace? Does anyone want to work on it in draftspace? Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

First Sino-Japanese War video file
This video has been on the First Sino-Japanese War's article for the past ten years and was even selected as media of the day despite being poorly sourced. I strongly doubt it is from that war and is instead from the Russo-Japanese War. The earliest footage of a war was from the Greco-Turkish War (1897) by Frederic Villiers, all of which has been lost. Compare the explosion that begins in this Russo-Japanese War documentary with the file's which starts at 0:02. The smoke dispersal is identical.

Since this file is used in many articles in many languages, I recommend a simultaneous transfer of this file to the right articles. This includes all languages in wikipedia as well as in other wikimedia projects such as wikicommons, etc. --Countakeshi (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are likely correct, though I would point out that the presence of some of the same footage in a documentary isn't evidence of much - producers of such documentaries routinely use random footage with no care as to what it actually depicts. I've lost track of how many times I've seen Barham blow up in documentaries that had nothing to do with Barham. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer review for WAVES
G'day all, please be advised that the WAVES article has been nominated for peer review. If anyone is able to help out, the review can be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Web gear
I notice that we have very specific articles about Shoulder belt and Police duty belt and MOLLE and ALICE and their sisters, but I'm failing to find one about web gear in general. I'm not qualified, but maybe somebody's up for it. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, there is a little bit here: Webbing and links to several other specific examples here: List of webbing equipment. Overall, though, it does seem there is room to improve our coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

British ship flags
A discussiont at WT:SHIPS has raised an issue that could potentially affect many shipwreck lists and thousands of ship articles. It seems that the Red Ensign was the primary Royal Navy ensign until the 1860s, with the White Ensign being in use from 1864. Apparently, merchant ships were granted the use of the Red Ensign in 1854, but what flag was flown before then - i.e between 1707 and 1854? Discussion over at WT:SHIPS please. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Direct action"
I noticed that several military-related articles, such as US Navy SEALs, SAS (UK), SAS (NZ), etc., have a link to Direct action (the political term) when they should have a link to Direct action (military). I had a look at "what links here" on the former to change links to the latter, but there are thousands on pages listed. I skimmed through the first thousand, and fixed several of the pages that needed it (the more obvious titles that caught my eye), but thought I would post a notice here, and hopefully have more editors take a look at the list, for other articles, such as the not-so-obvious, BLPs, etc. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are thousands of these, maybe the hatnote at Direct action should be adjusted to also include a direct link to Direct action (military). Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed the hatnote to for2 with a custom note about "usage in military contexts". Not sure what we should do about existing misdirections, though. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 13:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I already found a couple dozen. I'll take a another pass through the list when I have some time. I think that if a few other editors take a look through the list as well, we should be able to catch most, if not all, of the pages that need fixing. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try and make some time to go through the list myself later this evening. And while we're here, I'm wondering if anyone would be able to globalise the Direct action (military) article, as it's currently tagged for its predominance of US military definitions. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"German war effort" ArbCom case
We would like to remind you that the target dates of the German war effort case have been modified; the evidence phase will close on 13 June and the workshop on 20 June. Proposed decision is to be posted on 27 June. Your input on the case evidence and workshop phase, as well as comments on the proposed decision, are always welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kazakh 1-st Civil War
This draft is liable to be deleted for lack of editing activity. Should it be moved to mainspace? Anyone want to help improve it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be a translation of the Russian WP article but the only source present does not look very reliable. I couldn't find any reliable open access sources after a quick search. So I would suggest simply deleting it and rewriting from scratch if a source comes up.--Catlemur (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is referenced here. I expect the problem to be the usual one of the literature naming it in idiosyncratically, and that, once that name is known, sources will be easily found. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Based on this, I'm going to move it to mainspace and tag it as ref improve. My main concern with poorly sourced articles about hundreds-of-years-old history is people just making things up completely, so if it's not completely made up I think it's fine to sit around and hopefully be improved eventually. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

3205th Drone Squadron
This is one of Bwmoll3's many articles, but the core of the data for it does not appear to have been a copyright violation. Rather, as an obscure MAJCOM unit, there's an e-mail from the Air Force Historical Research Agency cited, without proper OTRS data. This seems like WP:OR, but only peripheral elements might be copyvio. What do people think should be done to this article? - do you have data that might make a rewrite possible, with citations? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:V probably isn't met, but the article seems likely to be OK. Searching for randomly selected phrases in Google Books didn't turn up any hits, and there seems to be reasonable coverage of this unit so WP:ORG should be met. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I list it for AfD because it appears to be OR? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Roll back to last CV version and see what it looks like first? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bwmoll3 created the article from scratch. has improved the accuracy of the USAF terms in many cases, but the original data is from an offline, unpublished source - a lineage & honors document seemingly sent to Bwmoll3 by the AFHRA. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The best solution here, IMO, is to contact AFHRA again, this time with OTRS properly completed. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you putting your hand up to do this, ? I agree a U.S. citizen would stand a greater chance of a positive response. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could do it, but it might get done quicker if makes the request as I assume he has experience dealing with AFHRA while I don't. 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of reservations about doing so. First, does the squadron have notability independent of the 3205th Drone Group, which has a better developed article.  I'd welcome a discussion on whether the squadron article should be rolled into the group article and made into a redirect along the lines of REDIRECT: 3205th Drone Group .  I have opened a discussion at Talk: 3205th Drone Squadron.  Second, unless Bwmoll3 made a previous request for a Lineage & Honors statement for the 3205th Squadron, it is unlikely that one is on file at AFHRA.  Because the 3205th was a MAJCOM unit at a low level, preparation of such a statement is unlikely.  This would mean asking the historians of AFHRA to conduct research to create a statement, which is quite different than asking for a copy of a prepared statement of an AFCON unit (to be anachronistic), which they will occasionally update.  I would be reluctant to do so in this case, based on what I view as the notability of the unit.  Not at all like asking for similar information on the 6234th Tactical Fighter Wing, which has a combat record.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a note saying that there was a "E-mail communication, AFHRA, Lineage and Honors History, 3205th Drone Squadron, 10 August 2012." Would you mind asking them whether there was some sort of document prepared, and if not, not to worry? Sounds also like there needs to be a request for the 6234th TFW's L&H at some point. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll ping a contact about it. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate input on redirecting the page to the group page.  Right now, the overwhelming majority (me) calls for merger., have you checked 3205th Drone Group for possible copyvios by Bwmoll3?  If it's potentially to be reduced to nothing or to a stub, the redirect issue would be moot. By the way, , I took the liberty of turning one of your allusions into a link. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At least 40% of 3205 Drone Group's history section is probably slab-copyout from the copyrighted books Bwmoll3 cited. I'll prune and revdel it, but there should be a page for you to merge things to. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of person manually types in chunks of text from copyright protected books to expand an article on an obscure training unit? Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Lineage and Honors Statement for the 3205th Drone Squadron exists, and it is dated 10 August 2012. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give a link ? It's not in the squadrons list at the AFHRA site; there are no four digit units listed. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not online. Its a Microsoft Word document.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you do the OTRS thing to upload it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS You have the direct liaison with the person who is responsible for disclaiming copyright. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with OTRS, but it seems to be a vehicle for showing that permission has been received to use copyright material. In this case, the material is public domain (as shown in my edits crediting Patsy Robertson of AFHRA for the cited document.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:OR, not copyright, as per the beginning of this discussion. The L&H you added does not meet our OR standards, as neither a website nor an accessible public work. Please obtain the permission from AFHRA and upload the document via the OTRS process. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While Lineage & Honors Statements prepared by the AFHRA are not websites, they are accessible public works. First, as the project of a government agency, they are public works. AFHRA maintains a library at Maxwell AFB, AL where unclassified documents held or produced by the agency may be reviewed or copied.  This type of document is also available through a statutory request under the Freedom of Information Act, although a simple request for small amounts of materials is usually honored without going through the beauraucratic processes required by the FOIA.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Carthage (c. 149 BC)
Is there some sort of convention saying that date-related disambiguation in article titles should be by the beginning of the time in question? It seems rather awkward to use "c. 149 BC" when we know solidly that it concluded in 146 BC, but I'll comply with a standard if there be one. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a good reason why it is called a battle, rather than Siege of Carthage, which is simply a redirect? The siege title would remove the need for the disambiguation at all.Monstrelet (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

First Battle of Loc Ninh (Vietnam War)
Assistance is sought to clarify whether the page entitled First Battle of Loc Ninh ought to be renamed the Second Battle of Loc Ninh. Please see Talk:First Battle of Loc Ninh for more details. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Group for military historians on Meta-Wiki
Following several discussions on English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki, the planned collaboration for the users working on military history content on all of Wikipedias (may be other projects as well) is now live. The Consortium of Wikipedia Military Historians is intended to bring together military historians from various Wikimedia projects and provide a common platform to military historians from various language, to exchange ideas, share best practices and support each other in the best way possible. The page is at m:Consortium of Wikipedia Military Historians. If you're interested to be a part, please join at m:Consortium of Wikipedia Military Historians/Members. As we've just started to form the group, there are several things to work on. If you're interested to be the part an informal core working group, kindly contact me. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages
I have unfortunately been engaged in edit wars on the Infoboxes of various Vietnam War battle pages with a User who is adding "US claims" or "US reports" or the wikilink to Body count before the figures for North Vietnamese/Vietcong casualties. I am fine with any one of US report/claim/source/body count being added, showing that this is the US account of North Vietnamese/Vietcong casualties and I believe that this is in line with other battle pages, particularly those where casualties are contested. However this User has in various case inserted the formulation "US Claims: X killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" which to me is like saying "US claim claim claim" and I believe that is POV designed to (further) undermine the credibility of US claims of North Vietnamese/Vietcong losses which are already discussed in detail at Body count. Can you please advise below if you support or oppose the use of only one of report, claim, source or body count on all Vietnam War battle pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In war both sides exaggerate or underestimate. But I think after this time most scholarly sources will be fairly OK. But no source is going top be exact. So without seeing the actual edit and what he said (or whether his choice of words was wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven no argument about accuracy of the figures, the RfC is simply whether or not Infoboxes should just say "US claims: x killed" or if "US claims: x killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" is acceptable. You can look on pretty much any battle page with US involvement to see the edit warring. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did look at one, and I could not see what you are claiming was said. But there are a loot of edits (by the pair of you) to wade through. So maybe I missed it, so proved a dif.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not possible for other editors to consider this issue in the abstract, as is being requested here. In what articles is this issue occurring, what are the views of the other editor, where have previous discussions been, etc? Asking for feedback based purely on your view of things is a miss-use of the RfC process. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not an RfC. Please advise. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed by myself and an admin, that US sources for "enemy KIA" are generally unreliable. Mztourist has been engaging in an attempted revision/censorship, and has constantly reverted my edits on this topic. He has also reported me no less than three times, two of them already dismissed. The fact is that US 'body count' claims are without a doubt unreliable given the serious history behind body count discussions. Furthtermore MZTOURIST is trying to inject POV by basically stating not only "bodycounts" are accurate, but they are under-reported, using vague authorship and bad scholarship (Mark Woodruff, AP articles). Below are a few decisions made on the issue by another user. MZTOURIST attempting to remove/censor parts concerning lack of distinction between civilian and combatant casualties for US casualties reporting. MZTOURIST reverting/censorsing discussion on civilian KIA conflation. . Decision made on the unreliable bodycount figures. . A bicyclette (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Nick-D diffs here:, , and  but similar edits are being made on pretty much every Vietnam War battle page. A bicyclette has provided his comments above. I am seeking a consensus on this issue, which to my understanding is the entire point of RFC. Mztourist (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rfc" is a term that has a precise meaning on WP; see Requests for comment. This talk page section is not an rfc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. Mztourist (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Body count figures are well-known to have been horrendously manipulated by ARVN and US forces for a variety of reasons, I don't see any problem with identifying them as US claims, with a link to the body count article that explains the very problematic nature of ARVN/US casualty claims. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest this RfC be withdrawn and the guideline on RfC statement neutrality and brevity be consulted before re-opening. Something along the lines of "How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented" might do the trick. It seems to me that there are actually two issues, the first dealing with how the casualty figures are handled generally, given that contemporary figures are so unreliable, the second dealing with how this is then presented in the infobox, which is not the place for nuance. Factotem (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that the RfC is malformed and should be redrafted according to policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC tag and opened a new discussion below which I hope everyone above will contribute to. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New category: Category:Military draisines
Still needs mirroring on Commons, which has a very good draisine category tree, except no military tree. A bunch of vehicles missing as far as English wiki vehicle stubs, see linked categories (ex. Polish). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)