Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 155

RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages
Should table of "current inventory", commonly found in Air Force pages which list air force's aircraft inventory, allowed to be filled by aircraft with "on order" status (not in the inventory yet but will be, as the contract have been signed). Ckfasdf (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Air Force pages (or it's derivatives such as list of aircraft of xxx air force pages or equipment of xxx air forces pages) usually contain "Current Inventory" table. As an air force editor along with, both of us have history on updating those table. Recently, I have disagreement with him regarding whether aircraft "on order" status should be included on that table or not.

I propose not to include aircraft "on order". The main rationale is name of table itself, which is "Current Inventory", So it put heavy emphasis on "Current" fleet. Not future. Not "soon will be" inventory. Those "on order" aircraft can be added once they are delivered. And most of the time information on aircraft "on order" already covered on other section (sometimes named "Plan" or "Future" section), so there is possible redundancy on that topics. Note:I also used to add "on order" aircraft into that table, but got my edit reverted due to above reason. FOX's edit also have history to get reverted for the same reason

Since discussion between only two us may not reach any conclusion. I hope I can have other insight on this issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree partly as it's done on the air frame pages themselves ie: Bell UH-1Y,  AH-1Z,  CASA C-295,  AW139,   CH-47,  JAS 39 Gripen... -Based off WP: AIR OPS it states in part "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production " Those air frames are in these tables, making the two points interchangeable. I agree when it comes to "potential" or "planned orders", that goes to far. FOX 52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * IMO, WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS only applies for aircraft/airframe pages. Lead section of that guidelines essays even says This is a set of suggested guidelines for articles on specific aircraft types. Therefore it should not applies to Air Force pages (and its relatives) and lead to discussion here. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Using the example of Lebanese Air Force, I think it is reasonable to include the MD500 Defender in the current inventory table as it is a short article in terms of air force articles - it does not contain a Planned or Future acquisitions section. Some air forces articles do not contain such section and adding "on order" is a concise way of including this information in a article. The inclusion is not confusing the "In service" column is empty and the "Notes" column explains it is on order. What is reasonable depends on each article. Including it for all articles presents the information easier to a reader and also allows for comparison to other aircraft types. --Melbguy05 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * IMO, the problem to only list it on table, is the reader may not know when the aircraft actually get into the inventory and the table title itself "current inventory". For example Bulgarian Air Force, just signed contract to purchase F-16 per source and the order expected to complete in 2027. So, if we allow "on order" on the table then it will only be shown "on order" maybe until 2027 without clarity of when will it entered service. Whereas if that information placed on other section (history, plan, future, or others), more information about the procurement process until it's delivery can be shown. Also most of "on order" are using source from Flighglobal's World Air Forces, which also didn't provide information on when will it be delivered. Hence, it'll be better to take it out from the table and describe it on other section.Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that aircraft "on order" should not be included. Even if there's no specific section for planned acquisitions or future procurement, you can always reference the aircraft order on the History section. -- Get_It (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Concur with Melbguy05 as a long time maintainer of these inventory tables, there are drawbacks to “future program/history” sections – One we end up getting unverified orders with weak sourcing, that no one ever checks on. Over time some of them never materialize, & we are left with pointless bits of text.  Noting these “confirmed orders” in the tables gives a concise view, and does not confuse the reader. It also is an easier way to make changes update that countries inventory. FOX 52 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The wording could emphasis it is a new model/series/block on order, instead of the number on order, for example "New model on order" excluding the number. --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * IMO, no source reliable for all. even WAF (the usual source used) can be debatable. Weak sourcing can be fixed by replace it with other sourcing or even simply remove the claim if it was really dubious.Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Get_It, all air force pages have history section, it could go there if there's no specific section for upcoming procurement (future, plan, and etc).Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well super if it can be in the article, then it can certainly be in the table - just like having native names in info boxs - FOX 52 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, IMO that's two different things. Table is part of article, while infobox is summary of article. Also refer to lead section of MOS:TABLE which state ....sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs, and MOS:NO-TABLES which also state Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Space Directorate, UK Ministry of Defence
I write in regard to Articles for deletion/UK Space Command. Air Vice Marshal Harv Smyth's Harvey Smyth's twitter handle is now available, at https://twitter.com/HarvSmyth. His title is given as Director Space, UK [MoD I would believe], and his organisation as the Space Directorate. It's a two-star staff branch. Remember the original story said "Based in the MoD’s main headquarters in central London, up to 25 civilians and military personnel involved in finance, policy and capabilities will support the new space directorate." (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/01/15/former-fighter-pilot-picked-to-lead-british-militarys-space-command/).

At the moment I am leaning towards the appropriate way of doing this to be writing a bio of Air Vice Marshal Smyth ?. We do not know the exact place in the org chart where the Space Directorate sits, so we cannot as yet tie it into the existing structure very well. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - There is already an article on him: see Harvey Smyth. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, many thanks . Stay safe and stay home, everyone!! 2 metres between you and everyone else.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be somewhat surprised if he had not commanded a flying squadron in the period after 2006. Are you able to double-check? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * His RAF bio says that he commanded No. 4 Squadron, added. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume I was supposed to be pinged, well I would say this verifies my concerns, it does not look like a separate operation command. In fact it looks very much like an admin department (not even the RAF equivalent of a concrete frigate).Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I copied you in. Yes, it is a staff branch, in no way shape or form a formation, but it does a considerable amount more than pure administration of activities 'below' it. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review requested
G'day all, if anyone has a spare minute or two, WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 needs a source review (NB my nom). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I picked this up. Harrias  talk 06:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

UK National Archives: free access
The UK National Archives are giving free access online, while their physical HQ is closed:


 * https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/digital-downloads/

Records viewable under this arrangement include:


 * First and Second World War records, including medal index cards
 * Military records, including unit war diaries
 * Royal and Merchant Navy records, including Royal Marine service records

Registration is required. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Recognizing User:Wreck_Smurfy
I'd just like to recognize and commend to your attention, who is continuing the *mammoth* job of translating, collating, and writing the histories of literally hundreds of Soviet World War II Red Army divisions. Doing a great job against WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Much obliged for your kind comments. And for the implied hint that I should buckle down and get back on the job. :-) Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Heavens, no, man!! Your second sentence is completely not what I thought. Take a break now and then - work on some tank brigades, or run a 10k or something - we need you fresh, rested, and keen..!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day . How about a set of WikiChevrons! Seems to me they'd be well deserved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * хорошая идея!  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much endorsed, PM67, Hawkeye7. While we're at it, I'd like to also raise with you the continuing work of on African military articles. Digging into "small wars" of the 1960s and 1970s I'd give my eyeteeth to be so abreast of!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you User:Buckshot06, but I couldn't have done so much without User:Applodion, my partner in crime on Ugandan milhist, or User:Eddie891, my recent collaborator on the Katangese Gendarmerie. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally Milhist doesn't do enough to recognise continuing, high-quality work. You've been editing for some time, ; I would kindly request you to (a) examine the various awards that this project gives, (b) consider your previous co-authors' work, and, if justified, (c) forward recommendations to the coordinators for consideration in the stipulated fashion. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stipulated fashion"? I've been around for a little while, but I'm not very familiar with the awards system formalities of this project. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Under one of the pull-down tab at the top right hand corner of this talk page is "Awards", where you will find WikiProject_Military_history/Awards and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

LTC Daniel M. Gade, PhD (USA, Ret.)
I think Daniel Gade falls under the purview of WP:MIL, but I wanted to ask here first before adding the WikiProject Military History banner to Talk:Daniel Gade. What makes this retired soldier notable? IMHO he is notable because he ...

- earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science (West Point); a Master's degree in Public Administration (University of Georgia); and a PhD in public administration and public policy (University of Georgia).

- WIA in 2005 while serving as a company commander in Ramadi, Iraq; wounded 2nd time while serving in Iraq. After his second injury, his entire right leg was amputated.

- military awards and honors include Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal (with Combat “V”), the Purple Heart Medal (2nd Award), Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Army Commendation Medal (with Combat “V”), Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Combat Infantryman Badge, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Tab, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, and Presidential Service Badge.

- became the world champion in his category at the 2010 Ironman 70.3 in Clearwater, Florida.

- served in the George W. Bush administration, working on issues related to veterans, military health care, and disability policy.

- taught political science, public policy, and leadership courses at West Point.

- served on various committees advising the U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

- has penned opinion pieces published in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

- has an academic appointment as a Professor of Practice at American University's School of Public Affairs.

- is a candidate for the 2020 Republican nomination to represent Virginia in the United States Senate.

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability for those who have commanded only a company in combat, purely on MILHIST grounds, is not automatic. (The qualifying post is commanding multiple battalion-sized units in combat.) But as long as the article exists, for a retired lieutenant colonel who has done multiple combat tours, the WPMILHIST tag is applicable. I've added the tag. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (If y'all want to collapse this post (section) or the like, it won't bother me since the issue is resolved.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WW1 casualties again
I would like to bring to the attention of this group the disruptive editing being done on World War I casualties. User:The Banner and User:FDW777 have reverted and deleted massive amounts of text on the page, causing the following changes: the continent of Africa is listed as an Allied power, WW1 casualties now includes losses from the Balkan Wars for Serbia, a paragraph explaining what conflicts are included and not included in the chart was removed, the lower-bound #s for total dead no longer add up, the article misstates what the Africa numbers refer to (the source given is for whole of Africa theater, the article reads it as part of only East Africa campaign), among other glaring issues. Despite my warnings to them that their edits were lowering the quality of the article, they have persisted. At Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2, they have refused to participate in simple discussions about what they think is part of the war, instead claiming it is my personal "homework" (?). This has caused me to believe that they are not interested in constructively editing the article and instead are committed to WP:HOUNDING me at any cost. I request that MilHist users make a massive intervention to stop this tendentious editing, lest hapless Wikipedia browsers suddenly discover the continent of Africa fought as an Allied power in World War I. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I suggest you read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the above issues are not personal attacks. They are problems that have returned to the article due to a series of edits advocated and done by the Banner and FDW. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny that you blame us, instead of looking at your own substandard work, WP:SYNTH and creative use of sources you have never checked. That is why I requested a check by experts. But in fact the only replies of you are "NO" and WP:IDHT. You are running around in circles to let others do your homework while accusing others of all kinds of everything. If you wonder why I have lost my trust in you: just read your own words this thread. The Banner  talk 14:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Substandard? You mean you wanting to keep Africa as an Allied power? I won't post here anymore. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ... said the person who wanted the 1917 Potato riots in neutral Amsterdam as part of the war! The Banner  talk 16:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * can we not rehash this here please?16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Meritless. If the IP editor is so concerned about any aspect of the article content, then I suggest reading the discussion they've linked to. I cannot see a single occasion where they have made a clear suggestion where an obvious change to be made to the article has been suggested with supporting references, like people would make when making a protected edit request (the article is currently semi-protected due to their edit-warring). Instead they have persistently argued that the article should be reverted wholesale to their preferred version, despite unanimous opposition to that version. The Banner has repeatedly suggested they made country-specific proposals for changes to the article, none have been made yet that I can see. FDW777 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * FDW, Slater has requested that we stay off this talk page so as not to make any confusion. And for the record, I have given an RS for every edit I've made, you simply refuse to reply when I present it to you... And as to the untruth that I have made no country-specific proposals, anyone can check the talk page, I have proposed adding China with a RS but FDW and Banner have conspicuously remained silent about it.2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I cannot see a single occasion where they have made a clear suggestion where an obvious change to be made to the article has been suggested with supporting references, like people would make when making a protected edit request Provide a diff or it hasn't happened. FDW777 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"My first addition, when May 5 passes, would be China with 101 dead. Sources:

Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)

Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 Chinese civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)""

Quote from the talk page. You never responded. And when I asked if there were actual issues with the Chinese source, which you characteristically assumed there were, you never replied. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But the 1915 mutiny was not part of the great war, do you have an RS that says it was?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an RS that explicitly says the Battle of Verdun was part of the great war, but it was. The mutiny somehow found its way in to this: Template:Campaignbox Asian and Pacific Campaign for a reason. It was part of the wider Hindu-German Conspiracy during the war to complicate British war efforts. The mutiny cannot be understood as outside of the war. If we say the mutiny was not part of WW1, then by that logic the Arab revolt wasn't part of the war either, and this reasoning all becomes simply inarticulate. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * [], so stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a source. No, I won't stop if I'm backed by RS and logic. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I call that a single passing mention without real evidence that it was part of the war. It coincides, that is true. The Banner  talk 19:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The same can be said of Slater's source, and the same can be said of the Arab Revolt. So what's your point, only the Western Front counts? Huh... 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And this. Enough with this. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this reflects your standard reasoning: it looks like a war, it coincides with a war, so it is part of the war. Ehm, nope. This intro is definitely not a usable source. The Banner  talk 19:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the sources explicitly say it was part of the war. Stop mischaracterizing what the sources are saying, you are confusing people, deliberately or otherwise. And what is your "reasoning" precisely? Or will you avoid the question and resort to ad hominem attacks as you just did. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I "mischaractarize" it by stating that your source is just a short summary? The Banner  talk 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually I did reply, you just ignored what I said. Your proposal was the same tired suggestion to include the same original research using the same primary sources that has already been removed from the article and been repeatedly objected to prior to you suggesting it again. That you were proposing to add China also makes a mockery of your original post here. If you are so concerned with the Balkans or Africa, why haven't you made a clear proposal on the article's talk page to change them? Why not fix them before even starting on China? FDW777 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Untruth: how is the WW1 online encyclopedia a primary source? Listen, I don't have time for lies. You never replied about China, you actually avoided that subject. And I have made repeated attempts to ask to change Africa (hell there's a whole subsection in talk page) but it remains the same. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy. It's a primary source because all you're using it for is primary source data, that 98 supposed (since the reference doesn't say they were Chinese and/or civilians) Chinese civilians were killed. You're combining that with another primary source to come up with a total for Chinese civilians killed, instead of relying on totals from secondary sources. Who is to say 101 is correct? Your "research" (and I use the term loosely) involves looking at articles that are present on navigation templates and assuming that's the extent of civilian deaths. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness, an encyclopedia is not a primary source. And again with the mistruths. The source literally references Chinese civilians, apparently you don't even care to read. I'll quote at length: ""Upon investigation, the Peking government determined that the Japanese army had caused losses to the Chinese government and its people in its passage across Shandong to invade and occupy Qingdao. These were divided into private losses and public property losses. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from the Japanese State: It was estimated that Japanese troops killed nintey-seven people and severely wounded twenty-eight, and also raped a certain number. There were fifty-two cases in all, and 9,624,908 yuan was requested as reparations. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from Private Japanese Subjects: It was estimated that Japanese subjects killed one person and wounded two. There were three cases in all, and 50,687 yuan in silver coins was requested as reparations." The Chinese government is explicitly saying the Japanese killed during the battle their subjects, "its people." Get your facts straight. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about all of them being Chinese, or civilians. Good work ignoring the last, most important, part of my post. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So a subject of the Chinese government is not Chinese but what, Martian? Nice try. I do no research per se, I get RS to support my edits. You reject those RS, why? Because for you an encyclopedia is a primary source, a subject of China is not Chinese, and Africa is an Allied Power. Ok. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strawman after strawman. Where have I said, or made any edit to the effect of, suggesting Africa is an Allied Power? Nowhere, that much is a fact. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That you assert the following quotation does not refer to Chinese subjects is very odd, do you really want to double down on that mistake? Remember, you're the one who can edit the page to change the Africa error that I have been talking about in the talk page, but you choose to mass delete explanatory text, and then are reverted quickly afterward... 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So no diffs of me saying Africa was an Allied Power or saying anything to that effect? Didn't think so. If you really think the removal of text including the phrase "The figures listed below include about 6 million excess civilian deaths due to war related privations, that are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties" is a bad thing then there really is no hope of redemption for you. FDW777 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no hope for you likewise if you think that subjects of the Chinese government are not Chinese. I wonder what you think they are... 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox aficionados
Horn of Africa needs an infobox expert to sort it out. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I got it. Garuda28 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That was quick, thanks. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement
I have a vandal attacking 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, attempting to change the ENGVAR. If someone could revert for me, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  07:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is odd behaviour. I've never seen anyone changing the dates of use dmy date or ENGVAR templates before. I have asked on their talk page and reminded them about edit-warring given they have broken 3RR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the ENGVAR issue but for, the template documentation says:
 * Use the parameter for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found.
 * and:
 * After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the Use dmy dates template.
 * This is exactly what was done with this template. Editors can use a script to maintain date format consistency.  It is the script that changes the visit date as described in the template documentation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trappist, I'd just never seen it happen before. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trappist, I'd just never seen it happen before. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bots are prohibited from merely updating the template (WP:COSMETICBOT). They may only do so if a substantive change is also made. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Honorary Colonel (UK)
Your advice is kindly requested at Talk:Tom Moore (fundraiser). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Destubathon
Would there be interest in a military history destubathon contest sometime in the future? It would be along the lines of The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon, that might help the project cut down on the 51,000+ military history stubs... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. In my areas, there are dozens of American and Russian military unit and person stubs that can be expanded. Kges1901 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds great. There are plenty of stubs that could be easily brought up to a higher class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We did a backlog drive in September last year and again in March this year, maybe a stubathon this September? Might be nice to mix it up a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , any contrary views? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * None here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was already wondering when this idea will pop up here. We have over 50,000 stubs and it might be time to reduce them like our missing B-class checklist campaign last year. It also can be a great ending of our terms before a new term would start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be in favour of a stubathon in Sept. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a destubathon would be a fun change to the normal drives. If @Zawed wants to turn everything into stubs during a stubathon I guess I could help too. --Molestash (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Doh, lol! Zawed (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It might make sense to get a project page up and running soon(ish) so people could start organizing the front page with potential resources and stub listings, though there's obviously no rush seeing as September is a long ways away. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked the MilHistBot for the best MilHist stub articles. These are the ones it picked:


 * 3rd Division (South Vietnam)
 * 20th Indiana Infantry Regiment
 * 31st Division (United Kingdom)
 * 35th Division (United Kingdom)
 * 81st Regiment of Foot (Loyal Lincoln Volunteers)
 * 92nd Brigade (United Kingdom)
 * 173rd (3/1st London) Brigade
 * Advanced Landing Ground
 * American Horse (elder)
 * Arlington Memorial Amphitheater
 * Bagsecg
 * Battle of Forum Gallorum
 * Battle of Mutina
 * Battle of Soissons (1918)
 * Burma Corps
 * Ciompi Revolt
 * Federalist revolts
 * Fédon's rebellion
 * French cruiser D'Entrecasteaux
 * French ship Bretagne (1766)
 * Haitian refugees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
 * Hukbalahap Rebellion
 * Ignacio Hidalgo de Cisneros
 * Invasion of the Spice Islands
 * Julian's Persian War
 * Lashmer Whistler
 * Military Airlift Command
 * Montagu Stopford
 * Mustafa Reşid Pasha
 * Protectorate General to Pacify the West
 * Republic of Vietnam Marine Division
 * Royal Berkshire Regiment
 * Ryvangen Memorial Park
 * Skirmish at Terre Noire Creek
 * SMS Szigetvár
 * Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit
 * Swiss neutrality
 * Timeline of Paris
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  10:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Navy.mil website
There's a discussion at Bot_requests that could use input from this group. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the physical appearance of Genghis Khan
I started an RfC on the physical appearance of Genghis Khan here. There's been a months-long dispute about what should be included, which sources are reliable, and what constitutes a neutral summary of the sources.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Scope question
Are all articles relating to the United Nations Security Council (i.e. organs, subsidiary groups, elections) in the scope of this project? Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view, no, they're not. The Military Staff Committee, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (note that there has been an organisational change there and the name has changed without our article being updated), all the individual peacekeeping operations (eg United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan) - basically anything relating to the use of military force, or supervising it, is in scope. Others are not. Department of Field Support and United Nations Security Council itself are marginal but yes. Others, no, not in my view. Keen to hear others' opinions. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Buckshot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Peacekeeping operations are clearly in scope because they involve military units, but general UNSC articles are really more political than military, so the latter should not be in scope. Kges1901 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge
Just an update, I've revised it so there's £250 ($ 310) to be won in total by doing articles from different regions of the world. There's £100 going into the UK and the rest other continents. So potentially somebody could win the full amount purely by doing military history destubs if they're willing to think globally! £250 Amazon vouchers might save you some money on books! Ends in July.† Encyclopædius  19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Overhaul of American Revolutionary War
There is an ongoing discussion concerning on Talk:American Revolutionary War about the scope of the article and viewpoints asserted in the article as it now stands after a major overhaul, section of the article have been deleted and others dramatically changed. Any participation and participation in the discussion is encouraged and appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not at all an accurate account. Most of the article is the same, save minor edits, as it was in terms of text. The only 'dramatic' change involved Britain's other global involvements, as it was covered in some eleven pages of text. Eleven. There were two sections for India, two for Europe and two sections for the Americas, involving Britain's other global involvements that did not involve the struggle for/against American independence, posing a clear due weight issue. We have a clear consensus to summarize this coverage, in proportion to how the Reliable Sources cover it, when they do, most don't,  and place it in one section, as we have done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, thats why this dispute is ongoing.XavierGreen (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, all you have confirmed here is that you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion before your return to the Talk page, and overall. Aside from myself, editors TVH, Dilador, Canute, Vyselink, Calidum and A D Monroe III, an uninvolved editor, seven editors, feel there was too much weight given to Britain's coincidental and scattered efforts about the globe, and that there is no actual POV issue inasmuch as we have not ignored these involvements. Once again, we have a rather large section covering these affairs, except for the Mysore War, as explained several times now. Once again, how is the Mysore War, wholly involving the East India Company, in India, part of the American Revolutionary War if it continued into 1784, the year after the war in America ended? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Two "Major generals" with different stars
In Bulgairan Wikipedia (project Bulgarian Military History) we encountered a problem that needs a better solution and I would like to ask for your help. Up until 2000 Bulgarian Major generals were 1 star generals. In 2000 a new rank "Brigade general" (1 star) was introduced and the Major generals become 2 star generals. This way in year 2000 a lot of "Major generals" (1 star) were raised to "Major generals" (2 stars). In our military personnel articles we have a section called "Military ranks" in which there a list of all the ranks and dates of promotion, and due to this 1-2 star change, for those generals it looks like: This is confusing, even that in the text of the article we explain (1/2 star general). Can you give us some ideas on how to make this "Military ranks" section better for this special case? Thank you! --StanProg (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Major general (21 October 1996)
 * Major general (21 October 2000)
 * Could you please provide a link to the article? While I can't read the language, it would be useful to visualise how you have organised the information. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a sample article with such case: Димитър Георгиев (офицер). It's just infobox, main text and then "Military ranks" section (this is the most common case for officers from this period). --StanProg (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So long as the distinction is explained and cited in the text, perhaps just append "1-star equivalent" and "2-star equivalent" next to the relevant entry? For instance: "Major general – 1-star equivalent (21 October 1996)" and then "Major general – 2-star equivalent (21 October 2000)". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe we should use this for these special cases. --StanProg (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do make sure you explain the context: following Soviet practices until 2000, then NATO from 2000 onwards. Insert a standard sentence in every article: something like: "in 2000, Bulgaria switched from [link to Soviet ranks article]|Soviet ranks to a more NATO style rank system [link]. Thus the title of major general was upgraded from 1 to 2 star [link both articles]."Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Major general" article is just one in our local Wikipedia and it covers all the "stars" and countries. --StanProg (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem. The people with a more detailed knowledge about military topics know that the Russian (Soviet) armed forces and the armed forces of countries, which follow/ed the same organisation principles do not (did not) have the rank of a Brigade general. The people, who do not have that knowledge aren't particularly interested in this topic to make the distinction any way. How many stars on the insignia of the rank is a minor detail and does not demonstrate the distinction well. In the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact member countries and their closely related countries worldwide and the present day Russian Army a Major general normally commands a division. In the armed forces of the NATO member countries and their closely related countries worldwide a Major general normally commands a division. Not to mention that, just because a Soviet/ Russian Army General and a NATO General are not automatically equal just because both insignias have four stars. A Soviet Army General is an intermediate rank between the generals and the marshals. So this argument to search for a common ranking system, based merely on the stars in the insignias does not make sense. In the same way most European NATO member countries have a rank of Commodore or Flotilla Admiral. The US Navy does not. It goes from the rank of Captain straight to the rank of Rear Admiral (as far as I know the distinction between a lower half and upper half is introduced out of convenience to discriminate between the two and it is not included in official Navy documents). So does this mean that a US Navy Rear Admiral is equal to, say, a Spanish or Italian Vice Admiral? No, it does not. It is sufficient to note that: "The officer ranking systems used by Bulgaria during the Kingdom, Socialist era and the 1990s lacked the rank of Brigade General, with Major General being the lowest general officer rank. As part of the reforms to bring the Bulgarian Army in compliance with the NATO ranking system, the rank of Brigade General was introduced between those of Colonel and Major General." There is no need to add this clarification in every single Wiki article concerning a Major General, former or present.B.Velikov (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with my good friend Mr Velikov here. He is saying that we could write for specialists; but the rules are we write for generalists and those who many not have much specific knowledge. I believe some clarification ought to be added as many more Westerners seem to read this wiki than others. Minor clarification regarding U.S. Navy rear admirals: no, very much shows up in official Navy documents; even different rank codes: RDML for one star Rear admiral (United States), and RADM for two star rear admirals. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is not that we should be writing content for professionals. On the contrary. Exactly because the articles should be orientated towards the general population we shouldn't dig too much into it and write a separate dedicated article on the topic, when the distinction could be explained with three or four sentences in the present article. A Soviet (or related) Major General does not correspond to a NATO (or related) Brigade General. The latter was not introduced as a substitution for the latter. The rank of Brigade General was introduced for two reasons. The political reason was dictated by the country's asspirations to join NATO, so the military ranking system was brought in line accordingly. The organisational reason, which is actually more important, is that the main operational formation of the Bulgarian People's Army was the army and the main tactical formation was the division. With the reform around 1995 this changed from army - division to army corps - brigade, so a separate rank was needed to discriminate between Colonels in command of regiments and Brigade Generals in command of brigades. Which reminds me, that the Bulgarian military ranks in the article about Comparative officer ranks of WWII is an abomination. Some tragicomic hybrid if Serbocroatian, Czech and Socialist era BPA's ranks. Oh, and as a bonus, the information that we did not have a Field Marshal rank is false. It was supposed to be bestowed upon King Boris III to commemorate 25 years since accending the throne. He died five weeks before the anniversary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9SmyvXiHWI . This is another example how the section about Bulgaria in the article is written by someone, who not only hasn't made any research, but clearly does not understand Cyrilic. I tried to edit it, but it is so hard to fit the boxes when editing manually. I'll give it another try tomorrow.B.Velikov (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Army structures
While doing an update of the Structure of the Royal Netherlands Army User:Bliekindewater and I differed on how to best list the units. This led me to check how current armies are listed; turns out all of them differently (except for Austria and the Netherlands which I updated this week):


 * Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces: English translation "honorific title" (native name), in location, with equipment
 * Structure of the Royal Netherlands Army: English translation "honorific title" (native name), in location, with equipment
 * Structure of the German Army: English translation (native name) in location with equipment (no commas)
 * Structure of the French Army: native name - English translation (equipment), in location
 * Structure of the Spanish Army: English translation "honorific title" in location with equipment (no commas)
 * Structure of the Italian Army: English translation "honorific title", in location (region) with equipment (1 comma)
 * Structure of the Romanian Land Forces: English translation "honorific title" in location (no comma)
 * List of units and formations of the British Army 2020: name, in location, with equipment
 * Structure of the Australian Army: name (type/equipment) (location)
 * Structure of the Belgian Land Component: English translation "honorific title" in location (equipment)
 * Structure of the Hungarian Defence Forces: English translation "honorific title", in location, with equipment
 * Ground Forces of the Slovak Republic: English translation, in location, equipped with equipment
 * Swedish Army: English translation (native name) [not for all units], in location, equipment
 * Croatian Army: English translation "honorific title" (location)
 * Czech Land Forces: English translation, in location (equipment)
 * Lithuanian Land Force: honorific title English translation, in location with equipment
 * Operational structure of the Polish Land Forces: English honorific title 1 translation "honorific title 2", in location with equipment
 * Structure of the Norwegian Army: native name, in location (equipment)
 * Structure of the Chilean Army: English translation "honorific title" (native name) in location

And the Canadian and Swiss articles do their own, totally different thing:
 * 3rd Canadian Division:
 * Swiss Armed Forces:

My question is: should we create a standardized way how to write [Structure of the --- Army] articles? If yes in what order, with what separators (none, comma, dasha, or?) and with which layout (bold, Italic) should the following info be listed:


 * English translation
 * honorific title
 * native name (Is it needed? as of now only the German, French, Austrian, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, and Chilean armies have this info. I included it in the Austria and Netherlands articles, but as Bliekindewater pointed out it is often redundant)
 * location
 * equipment

Any thoughts? suggestions? Thank you, noclador (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant Wiseacre Comment ...and here I was thinking the Army Facilities Component System was gonna finally get some coverage... Qwirkle (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Relevant comment I fully agree with noclador that a standardised format would significantly increase the readibilty of the aforementioned Structure of ... Army articles. I welcome good ideas on how to format the articles in an aesthetically pleasing and clear way. --Bliekindewater (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Initially, I would stress that as often points out, the way military organisations work can differ to a great degree outside English speaking countries. For example, 'Special Forces' battalions available to Arab field commanders can just be sometimes slightly better trained infantry, intended for use not in separate special operations, but in and alongside manoeuvring divisions. For that reason, there should be no rule banning the native name; sometimes it is necessary to aid proper understanding of the composition and type of the unit and it should be included. Keen to see others' views. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For me the main question is how to connect the various parts. I.e. which of the following is best - first without native name, and then with two possible variants of the native name:
 * 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta", in Messina, with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles (2x comma)
 * 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta", in Messina with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles (1x comma)
 * 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta", Messina (Freccia infantry fighting vehicles) (1x comma + brackets)
 * 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta" (5° Reggimento Fanteria "Aosta"), in Messina, with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles (brackets, 2x comma)
 * 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta" (5° Reggimento Fanteria "Aosta"), in Messina with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles (brackets + in Italics, 1x comma)
 * I think I find 2 and 4 most pleasing, but I hope for input from more editors, before we re-work all the structure of armies articles. noclador (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Number 5 over 4 because of italicizing of foreign words. But what about:
 * 6. 5° Reggimento Fanteria "Aosta" with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Problem with 6. is, that it might work for an infantry regiment of the Italian Army, but what about i.e. Italy's Reggimento Gestione Aree di Transito, or Austria's Führungsunterstützungsbataillon 1, or the Netherlands 42 Brigadeverkenningseskadron, or Hungary's 43. Nagysándor József Híradó és Vezetéstámogató Ezred. Readers will never understand what those units are unless we translate it. And then Greece, Israel, Bulgaria, Japan, etc. which use different alphabets. noclador (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "42 Brigadeverkenningseskadron Huzaren van Boreel (brigade reconnaissance squadron) with Fennek vehicles"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Number 5, when needed. Distinction sometimes needs to be made between English and the original language, because there are some false friends in military terminology. Qwirkle (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree on number 5, still well readable and not too much going on formatting wise. --Bliekindewater (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am convinced, that the units listed in the articles about the structures on the English Wiki should be in ENGLISH, as closely resembling their official designations in the languages of the respective countries, as long as this makes sense. Just to give you some examples:


 * Hungary: 5th Infantry Brigade "István Bocskai", in Debrecen. The official name is: Magyar Honvédség 5. Bocskai István Lövészdandár (Debrecen). 1) The Hungarians always include Magyar Honvédség (Hungarian Armed Forces, abbreviated MH) in the official designations of their units. This is a national peculiarity. The Turkish do the same with their government institutions - their names are always preceded by T.C. (for Türkiye Cumhuriyeti or Turkish Republic), like T.C. Ministry of Education for example. I don't think we need to necessarily include HAF 5th Infantry Brigade,... HAF 61st Infantry Battalion,... HAF xxx Artillery Battalion and so on in an article, that is clearly about the Hungarian military. 2) Lövészdandár does not mean Infantry Brigade. It actually means Rifle Brigade. I don't think that we need to look for the literal translation, when the Hungarians themselves use Infantry Brigade as an official translation. 3) You know how they put the family name in front of the given name. So if we follow the translation from Hungarian as closely as possible, then the English name of the formation should be: Hungarian Armed Forces (or HAF for short) 5. Rifle Brigade "Bocskai István". To me 5th Infantry Brigade "István Bocskai" is clearly far better.


 * Poland. I am the one, who actually added the honorific titles of the Polish Armed Forces units and formations, because they are integral to the official names of those units and formations. The geographic location (or the historic significant denomination like Legionary or Podhale Rifles) is integral to the name and the patron is integral to the name. It is also established which should precede the functional designation and which should follow it. So, for example: 16 Pomorska Dywizja Zmechanizowana im. Króla Kazimierza Jagiellończyka in my opinion should be precisely translated as 16th Pomeranian Mechanised Division "Casimir IV Jagiellon". 1) Pomerania is both the region which gives the name of the division and the region, where it is located. 2) Casimir IV Jagiellon is officially included in the name as the division's patron. The literal translation should be ",... named after King Casimir IV of the House of Jagiełło", but that is too heavy. A link in quotes to the wiki-article dedicated to the person is best in my opinion. 3) It would become a bit awkward, mouthful and cumbersome to put both honorific titles together before or both after the functional designation. 4. These are the names that the Poles have chosen for their military units and I find it disrespectful for someone, who is not Polish to decide "This does not matter, that is irrelevant..."

I don't think it is appropriate to change the official Spanish and Greek designations to bring them in line with the British and Finnish ones or vice-versa in search of some uniform standard. I don't see a problem to leave them as they are:
 * Geografic areas, which denote both current location of the unit and historic connection of the unit to that particular area.
 * Spain: Regimiento Acorazado "Córdoba" n.º 10
 * Greece: XVI Μηχανοκίνητη Μεραρχία Πεζικού "ΔΙΔΥΜΟΤΕΙΧΟ"
 * United Kingdom: 143rd (West Midlands) Brigade
 * Finland: Utin Jääkärirykmentti
 * 10th Armored Regimient "Córdoba" (I support a standard to put the numericals in front)
 * 16th Mechanised Infantry Division "Didymoteicho". Another Greek example: I Μεραρχία Πεζικού «ΣΜΥΡΝΗ» should become 1st Infantry Division "Smyrna", so when you click on the name it redirects you to the article about Izmir and you see the origin of the name. I also support switching Roman numerics to Arabic, when it concerns anything other than army corps.
 * 143rd (West Midlands) Brigade. This was the official name and it is perfectly fine to leave it like that, instead of putting West Midlands in quotes, or adding Infantry Brigade or pushing West Midlands to the back in a pointless pursuit of uniformity.
 * Utti Jaeger Regiment. We embed a link to the town in the designation of the regiment. I believe that everyone knows what Jaeger means, so I see no point to translate it to "Ranger" or "Light Infantry" or "Special Infantry".


 * Hans Majestet Kongens Garde should be His Majesty The King's Guard - Huseby leir, Oslo. When the barracks is well known by itself I think it is good to point it out and add the town or city it is in. The name is self explanatory, so I don't see a need to add "Regiment" to the name, especially when we take into consideration, that from an organisational standpoint the HMKG is a historic regiment, but from a tactical standpoint it is a battalion.

I have other examples too, but I think that so far this is enough to present my opinion. Oh, almost forgot. I think that it is better to give the geographic location with a dash, followed by a link to the place (or the municipality if it is a very small village without its own wiki article). The reason is that in some cases the place, that is given is the city of X, but the actual location is the village of Y, which is 5km away in a different administrative unit.B.Velikov (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with "Rifle Brigade" in a translation - 74th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Style guide proposal

 * 1. Unit names: Number English translation "native honorific title" [optional to add: (number native name "honorific title")], in location with equipment
 * Example a) 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta", in Messina with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles
 * Example b) 5th Infantry Regiment "Aosta" (5° Reggimento Fanteria "Aosta"), in Messina with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles
 * 2. Full structure of an army / armed force only at an article named: Structure of the [country] [title]
 * Example: Structure of the Australian Army or Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces
 * 3. Units like corps, divisions, brigades, etc. only show units directly subordinate to the command (= i.e. a division article will list the units assigned to the division, but not the units assigned to the division's brigades)
 * Example: 1st Panzer Division (Bundeswehr)
 * 4. Article section about a unit's structure will be titled: "Current structure" -> "Structure [year of source]"
 * 5. Article section about a unit's structure will link to the main article: i.e.
 * 6. The names of specialities, for whom an article exists will not be translated. Examples: Alpini, Bersaglieri, Gebirgsjäger, Jäger, Lagunari, Panzer, Panzergrenadier, Paracadutisti, Spahis, Tirailleur, etc.

Anything else? noclador (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Also: some native unit designations are untranslatable. I.e. Italy: Alpini, Bersaglieri, Lagunari, while others can easily be translated: Corazzieri = Cuirassiers, Panzer = Tank, Lancieri = Lancers, etc. I am in favor of translating these names, except when they are part of the honorific title. So i.e:
 * Regiment "Lancieri di Aosta" (6th), in Palermo with Centauro tank destroyers (Lancieri di Aosta = honorific title, therefore not translated)
 * 6th Bersaglieri Regiment, in Trapani with Freccia infantry fighting vehicles (Bersaglieri = untranslatable and has its own article at Bersaglieri)
 * Battalion "Chasseurs Ardennais", in Marche-en-Famenne with Piranha IIIC armored vehicles ("Chasseurs Ardennais" = honorific title, therefore not translated)
 * Battalion Carabiniers "Prins Boudewijn" - Grenadiers, in Leopoldsburg with Piranha IIIC armored vehicles (Carabiniers and Grenadiers are not part of the honorific title, therefore they are translated, while "Prins Boudewijn" = honorific title, therefore not translated)
 * 414th Tank Battalion (Panzerbataillon 414), in Bergen with Leopard 2A7+ main battle tanks (Panzer translated, but in this added the optional native name.
 * Thoughts? noclador (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For now, I have no brief on 1, 2, and 5; I like (3); while Noclador has done amazingly detailed work for structures of whole armies, they can be difficult to read. I have some comments on 4. I have repeatedly and painfully tried to insist that Noclador retains data on changes to structures, and proper referencing of such changes when he seems totally focused on maintaining a WP:RECENTIST approach, laser-focused on a "current structure" that we are often unable to reference or maintain. Repeatedly he discards just-superceded data, and sometimes attached references, when changing articles. The data that superceded just needs to be moved to the history section of the article!! Thus (4) is unsuitable. We need to stick with WP:REFERENCEs. If the reference gives the structure in 2019 then the header should say "Structure in 2019" or some such. We have up to thousands of unit articles which were created and/or expanded when many more editors were working, often with these ridiculous references to "current", - as of 2006 or so. Check any of the smaller U.S. Army state national guard pages. The pages must refer to the structure as of the date of reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Noclador has good intentions, but his changes, especially to unit and formation titles, are essentially WP:OR. What we need is to find authoritative English sources; in the case of German units, NATO publications would be a good start. But titles like "9th Panzer Instruction Brigade" are not only half-translated but also nonsense. We just don't use that terminology for an armoured demonstration formation. Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Panzer needs to be translated - it is essentially a loanword at this point, and translating Panzer would be like translating Blitzkrieg as 'Lightning war' or kamikaze. However, IMO native names in non-Latin alphabets don't need to be in articles because most readers wouldn't understand them, and there should be articles on the individual units that give the native name. Kges1901 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Danish ironclads
I've noticed that the ships linked from Danish ironclads are all at titles in the form "Danish ironclad (name)". Per WP:NC-S, shouldn't these be at titles in the form "HDMS (name) (year)"? Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems that way, yes - seems as though some page moves are in order. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I've moved them all except Stærkodder, for which I created a redirect to Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu. The infobox of that ship needs work, considering that she served in three navies. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Victory's commissioned status
A user has questioned whether the HMS Victory is really a commissioned ship. Please comment at Talk:USS Constitution. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Charles Young
An IP editor has three times added that Charles Young (United States Army) was promoted to brigadier general (and was three times reverted). The IP editor was reverted for failure to provide a reference. It turns out Young was promoted, but by the governor of Kentucky. I'm not sure that really counts, but should we add it as a "curiosity" or posthumous tribute?-- Georgia Army Vet <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 00:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd suggest putting this in #Honors Eddie891 Talk Work 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea.-- <b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 02:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Young's posthumously promotion to Brigadier General is mentioned in the "Dates of rank" section also (and needs a ref there). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I dunno if the rough equivalency of a posthumous Kentucky Colonelship should be treated quite the same as an RA promotion for DOR. Nancy Heinl’s piece appears to be accepted at face value by The Crisis; perhaps we should tone done the level of dubiety in the article?Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Shellum’s African American Officers in Liberia] is freely available during the pandemic. Some good stuff in there. Qwirkle (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a guideline somewhere on military victories?
I could swear I saw one somewhere. Here's an example where something is called a phhryic victory, although I do see one source, perhaps that's enough. Battle of Guilford Court House Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day Doug, there is this guidance Manual_of_Style/Military_history as well as Template:Infobox_military_conflict. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest it's inappropriate to describe the victory as pyrrhic. Besides the guidance linked to by PM, the source in the man body of the article lacks a page number, and the assertion that the victory was pyrrhic appears to be based entirely on a contemporary statement by the British Whig leader (i.e. a primary source), not on any analysis and conclusion of historians. Factotem (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. Doug Weller  talk 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The last of The Few
John Hemingway (RAF pilot) is the last surviving member of The Few. It would be a fitting tribute to him, and all of The Few, if he got a blurb as part of ITN when he passes. Obviously, for this to happen, the article about him will need to be vastly improved. A barnstar is on offer to any editor willing to take up the challenge. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've incorporated The Gazette references and some newspaper articles. What do you think? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming together nicely. Shouln't be any quality issues preventing a MP appearance when the time comes (hopefully not for a while). You can take that stub tag off the article. I've reassessed at Start class, but it may be C once fully assessed against the criteria. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bashan salient
This draft is pending review. Is there any reason why it should not be accepted as an article? It will be accepted unless someone identifies an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone here have Elsevier access?
I'm building a former stub William Longshaw Jr. and found a source which I cannot access. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association, August 1934: "William Longshaw, Jr.,* Naval Surgeon and Pharmacist, a Hero of the Civil War * Section on Historical Pharmacy, Washington meeting, 1934." by Louis H. Roddis. It's only a few pages and I doubt it has anything new but I'm trying to be thorough. Thanks one way or the other. I have JSTOR and am getting my Newspapers.com renewed but don't normally need medical sources. BusterD (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you tried over at WP:REX? The guys there are really helpful and have access to a lot of online journals - Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not. Thanks for the recommendation. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review at FAC
Featured article candidates/French battleship Bouvet/archive1 needs an image review, and if someone has the time and familiarity with copyright stuff to do one, I'd greatly appreciate it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Manzanar featured article review
I have nominated Manzanar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RfCs on MOS:NOTUSA and lead paragraph wording for Battle of Huế
Hi! There are two RfCs open about wording in the article Battle of Huế, located at its talk page here and here. Any participation is welcome! — MarkH21talk 08:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Iranian support vessel Konarak
An article has been created on the IRANIAN SUPPORT VESSEL Konarak. It needs expansion. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded a bit and nominated it at WP:ITN - Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Free for the cost of postage:- book on German Infantry Order of Battle in World War II
has a copy of George Nafziger's 2000 book The German Order of Battle, Infantry in World War II. It goes into considerable detail on the German mobilization waves and it's quite comprehensive. He got it as a gift and he really don't have much use for it. He would be willing to pass it on a good, new, home, for the cost of postage from Canada. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I could make good use of that. That is both thoughtful and generous of you. Should I email to exchange bank and address details? Gog the Mild (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk to him at his talkpage - you'll see the section at the bottom where we were discussing it. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the deal with Gog the Mild. The offer is now closed. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming Convention
If I was to create an article on what was the Highland Borderers Light Infantry Militia, I am unsure as to what the article would be titled. It started off, as the Fifeshire Regiment of North British Militia, and then it's name was Stirling, Dumbarton, Clackmannan and Kinross Militia. The title was changed again to the Highland Borderers Light Infantry Militia, before finally becoming 3rd Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. All of these names have arguments for their use, so I myself am unsure. This is just an example, however I hope to use the consensus across all of the militia articles to be created. SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would use the title of its last name, unless there is a good reason why any of the earlier names are more significant. Create redirects from all alternative to the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is generally how we do it. Most recent name, unless one of the previous versions had such a history that it justifies creating a stand-alone article for it. Alternatively, could all the content be included in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources
I meant to post this much earlier, but I seem to have forgotten about it. I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Headbomb. Will give it a go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too Keith-264 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I love this script! Very helpful. Thanks Headbomb! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markworthen (talk • contribs)

War of Attrition in the Bashan Salient
Hi Everyone

I created a new article at War of Attrition in the Bashan Salient, I would love to get your feedback.

The article is based on the Hebrew version, but I'm working on getting more references in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinelva (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

- Tinelva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge
Would anybody be interested in a WikiProject Military history/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge to see 1000 military history articles destubbed? Not a contest but it might be something which works to help improve existing content. If there is more than five people interested I'll create it.† Encyclopædius  11:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Konarak vessel incident into Iranian support vessel Konarak
An editor has proposed the merger of Iranian support vessel Konarak and Konarak vessel incident. Any interested editors are requested to comment at this merger proposal. Woody (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC pointer
This RfC may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Labeling battles as "victory", and reliable sources
Hi, there is a discussion here about whether one needs to label individual components of the four-part Mongol invasions of Vietnam as a "victory" for one side or the other (or whether the entire thing needs to be labeled at all).

There is also a side discussion about whether certain sources are reliable (namely Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, Ming China and Vietnam, and China's Imperial Past).

Additional input would be welcome. — MarkH21talk 22:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those who gave their input; the issue has been resolved accordingly via a link to the "Aftermath" section. Perhaps the general advice should be written up somewhere, in a subject-specific guideline, or in the template documentation of Infobox military conflict. — MarkH21talk 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Treaty of Tingmosgang
Hi! There is an RfC about the Treaty of Tingmosgang, relating to a border determined by a 1684 treaty that ended the Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War, as well as the modern Sino-Indian border dispute. Any participation is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 23:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The War of 1812
Could we get a couple of experts to look at this article? User:Deathlibrarian has been on a two-decade-long campaign to the infobox changed. Limited to a military campaign, it is a fairly straightforward stalemate. As a political event, it is open to every variation of the outcome under the sun. I've been involved with this far more than I am comfortable dealing with and would like a decision as to what the infobox should list as the result. Though to be honest I just wish we as an institution would just ban infoboxes altogether.Tirronan (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the Crusader States
This has been tagged as requiring an expert opinion and lacking neutrality. All feedback would be welcome on whether editors believe this to be the case, what the issues are and what can be done to remediate this. I'd like to get the tags off but only if there is consensus. Thanks in advance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation now has an ORES "sort by subject" tool, and a set category for pending Military drafts
I think this new ORES tool is absolutely awesome for people who only want to review AFC Draft submissions for particular topics. So for folks here who want to see drafts waiting in the queue, and potentially sign up for AFC script so you can quickly approve or deny them, check out the link: [] MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Manzanar external links
The external links on the Manzanar article are being discussed. There are currently 18 of them, which is excessive. Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Manzanar. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming Convention; Wars of the Three Kingdoms
Apologies if this has been raised before, but the use of Roundhead and Cavalier to describe Parliamentarians and Royalists is outdated. It also causes problems;

(a) I recently expanded an article on John Birch; like nearly every adult male, he fought in the First English Civil War (1642-1646), but is far more significant as a politician (his career continued until 1691). The page has now been renamed 'John Birch (Roundhead)', which is misleading.

(b) It seems to be a term only applied to English participants; if the objective is to view this as War of the Three Kingdoms, its inconsistent;

(c) It doesn't distinguish between different factions within Parliament, or those like Rowland Laugharne who fought on both sides.

I'm not necessarily proposing we go back and correct every page, but I do think its worth being clear going forward, that it doesn't need to be included in the page title.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My experience of the more recent sources is that Roundhead and Cavalier are rarely if ever used, and would support changing any existing usages, and certainly depreciating their use going forward. In any event, I also agree that in this case Birch's military career is not his reason for notability, and 'John Birch (MP)' or 'John Birch (politician)' would seem more appropriate. Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * that's John Birch (Roundhead) for the record. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the issue starts at Category:Roundheads and Roundhead where CommonName leads to those terms carrying over into the disambiguators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Awards - Which ones are notable?
I wonder if you can help? At 's suggestion .... I'm working on notable women for the Women in Red project. One problem we have is finding pictures of notable women because of copyright so I was pleased to see that the Indian government, who use open licensing of their pics, gave out an award called the Nari Shakti Puraskar which is given annually as the top award for women in India. Brilliant! However, some question these women's notability where I thought we could just say "significant award" .... but???? is it? BlueRasberry suggested that you have people who are notable because they received an award. Are there rules/a method\a rule of thumb for testing the significance of an award? Is there a way to read these rules over from Milhist to Women in Red? Anyone care to conjecture? (Can I suggest that to avoid having two streams you might post at the discussion here?). Thanks for your attention, good editing. Victuallers (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Thatone weird wikier &#124; Say hi 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on SEAL Team Six
I noticed some sharp back and forth reversions on this article so I took the liberty of starting a discussion thread on talk. They are engaging, so that's better. There's an issue about terminology/euphemism that's outside my field. Strong opinions. I'll choose not to take a side myself, but am curious if other interested parties have something meaningful to add. Thanks, in any case. BusterD (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move discussion on Normandy landings article
I didn't see this one flagged up so I thought I'd mention it here in case I wasn't the only one that it passed by Talk:Normandy_landings is for moving the page to D-Day. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media
There is currently a draft proposal at Draft:Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, a UK think tank group best known for claims relating to the OPCW leaks regarding the Douma chemical attack. As you guys are likely familar with Syrian civil war and the disinformation that surrounds it, your input would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues with article size
There is a discussion at Talk:Unit colour patch which might be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Food and Agriculture in Nazi Germany
Requesting additional people to opine here. I've tried starting a discussion with, but that is being ignored and the D part of WP:BRD is not happening. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is extremely frustrating. They've abused rollback, keep reflexively reverting to restore contextless nazi quotes, broke references, and are completely ignoring the talk page. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I asked User:Headbomb to take the disagreement to the talk pages before he reverted the material for a third time. He didn't do so. He continued to revert. I think he should explain why he doesn't believe the material he is deleting doesn't belong in the article. I'm puzzled as to why he would take offense to well-referenced, relevant material which doesn't seem at all disputable or controversial to me. Smallchief (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As you have once again deleted referenced and relevant material and have not responded to my request above for an explanation, I am reporting you for edit warring. Smallchief (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * C+P from my talk page "You're ridiculous, you know that? I have explained my actions multiple times, you abused the rollback function, you reverted reflexively many times, you refuse to use the talk page, etc. I have sought outside opinion, I waited 2 days for your 'nap' to be over, and you still refuse to engage. If you revert again without engaging, I will take you to ANI." &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox pictures
Did someone change the pictures of the task force infoboxes? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I changed some *years* ago. Can you be more specific? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if my memory is serving me properly, it seems the Africa, WWI, and WWII task force boxes have changed. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the icon used in the wikiproject template used on article talk pages, or something else? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean the user infoboxes which say "This user is a member of X" -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS K13 moved to HMS K13 accident
The article on the British submarine HMS K13 has been moved to HMS K13 accident without any discussion with the mover claiming that "The submarine is known only for the accident. Not notable on its own". This may be of interest to this wikiproject and if not contested may have implications to other articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move, and invited the user to start a discussion on the talk page if they want to propose the move again. Given that we have articles on all the other K class submarines, there is no way this can be considered a non-controversial move. Harrias  talk 09:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article to give more details about the submarine and its career other than the accident - hopefully this will make it less likely that someone will conclude that the submarine is not notable. I do notice that in the past it did contain some details of its career post accident but they appear to have been accidently removed. Perhaps something to be borne in mind when merging or deleting articles - check the article history to see if there is more than meets the eye.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Pushpin maps
What is the policy (if any) on adding pushpin maps to base pages? Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no policy on it, but there is nothing wrong with adding a pushpin map so long as the coordinates are correct as it would aid understanding of the subject by clarifying its geographical location. Kges1901 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox military installation says "map_type – optional – the base map to be used for the location map, e.g., "Scotland"; see Location map for more details.". As far as i remember MILHIST articles should include information so users with little knowledge of the bases have basic information such as location and operator. Telling a user that a airfield in Vietnam is in a provice that is thousands of km squared is not helpful. A map shows that information clearly.
 * The clear majority of military installations outside of Vietnam have had maps for years look at:
 * List of French Air Force bases
 * List of United States Air Force installations
 * List of Royal Australian Air Force installations
 * Japan Air Self-Defense Force
 * Austrian Air Force
 * The Vietnam articles are the main articles which do not maps, they also have typical two infoboxes saying the same information such as Infobox Military installation along with Infobox Airport which have similar parameters. Their is no point have the two infoboxes together. Gavbadger (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gavbadger's changes are clearly acceptable as it is obviously redundant to have a separate infobox airport below the main infobox both for reasons of formatting and concision, especially as many of these military airfields are not airports anymore. Just because a format has been used for years in a given set of articles does not mean that these articles have to have it forever if someone figures out a better formatting approach. Kges1901 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a dot on a map of Vietnam conveys very little useful information while taking up a lot of space on what are (in most cases other than the largest bases) small pages, e.g.: Catecka Base Camp, Camp Davies and Cai Cai Camp. The Vietnam base pages all have coordinates and usually state distances to the nearest geographical landmark such as a city or border. If a reader needs a map they can just click on the coordinates. The pushpin maps don't show the DMZ or any of the major cities and so the only information they convey is "its in the north", "in the middle", "in the south" or "on the coast" of Vietnam. The examples given above of lists of air force bases aren't comparable as they show all the bases of the particular air force in a country which arguably serves some purpose and conveys useful information. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Backlogs creeping up
Hi all, just to let you know that the backlogs at Category:Unassessed military history articles (1,324 articles) and Category:Military history articles with no associated task force (565 articles) have been creeping upwards. I'm going to try to focus on these for a bit but would welcome any help - Dumelow (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested for two move requests
Your feedback would be welcome at these two related move requests: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Wiederbewaffnung
 * Talk:German rearmament

March Madness Question
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split at Philippe Pétain
Your feedback would be appreciated at this split proposal at Philippe Pétain. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TfD discussion
Ship event row and Ship builder, which are used in various lists of ship launches, and may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject, have been nominated for deprecation, removal and deletion. Discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 27. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Shoulder mark
Hello, can somebody please tell me what is the formal name of shoulder mark/badge? Like, what do you formally call "I.P.S." in the picture at right side?--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the article epaulette covers it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Shoulder mark or shoulder board is the better term and article, Epaulettes are related but different. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. The lead to epaulettes seems to me to draw out the distinction well, with a reference and link to shoulder mark, which is why I flagged it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the UK, these would be called epaulettes (definitely the common term in the police), shoulder slides or rank slides. However, I actually thought the original poster was referring to the letters "IPS" at the bottom, not the whole thing. These are generally known as shoulder titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Necrothesp, in this case "IPS" is a "shoulder title", used for national or corps abbreviations and other indications of specialisation or mustering in different armed forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys for replying. So, I should use "shoulder title" while referring it in the articles? FWIW, the article in particular is on an Indian paramilitary force so, thanks to the colonial heritage, what's good with the Britons is good for us :P --Deepak G Goswami (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Might be a little late to this query, but in the Australian Army the formal name for these are indeed "shoulder titles" - see ADM (Army Manual of Dress) paras 3.166-3.169 and Figures 3-38 & 3-39 and given common parlance in all UK origin military forces, should be common to all military forces that take their leaf from them (but other forces could likely have quite different nomenclatures). Kangaresearch (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC) In UK Army - "shoulder title" - see  Kangaresearch (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

New task force for war crimes?
There is a vast amount of RS on this aspect of warfare, but it is currently underrepresented on WP. A task force might help coordinate efforts at creating and improving articles in the proposed scope: Eligibility:
 * 1) Any war crimes, massacres, or other crimes that occur as part of an armed conflict.
 * 2) National and international law that defines and regulates the above.
 * 3) Articles about any person or organization whose association with the above is a defining characteristic according to reliable sources.
 * 4) History and historiography of the above.
 * 5) Memorials and depictions of the above in all media, such as music, film, poetry, and prose.
 * 1) Articles that are about an armed conflict or battle during which war crimes occurred are not in scope.
 * 2) Any time period is eligible.

How easy would it be to set up? (Pinging as he may be interested.) <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would support this. Although I think being clear on what constituted breaches of "the rules of war" prior to the Hague Conventions will be difficult. I assume that it would start in the incubator. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a very good idea. This topic area could benefit from some content guides developed by members of this project (diff where I recently proposed wider community consensus about all articles on the topic of genocide) even if this idea would not be accepted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've now started a draft at WikiProject Military history/Incubator/War crimes. Please join! <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in its current form A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. As the laws of war were extremely poorly defined before 1899, the potential for this proposed task force to suffer extreme "mission creep" into events earlier than that date is considerable. For something to be in scope for this task force, it should require laws of war (in some form) to be in existence at the time of the event, and be limited to subjects that have been specifically described as "war crimes" by a consensus of the reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise we are promoting concepts that are ahistorical. Most of the various Sacks of Rome are frankly a ridiculous inclusion, as the inclusion of all of them implies that the Gauls, Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths had a concept of the laws of war as we know them now (or as understood by their victims, or a reasonable facsimile). I am not aware of any such understanding. The 1084 and 1527 Sacks of Rome might be included as they were conducted by forces that had similar concepts of what laws applied to warfare at the time, but they would still require a consensus of the reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I would only support such a task force if it was strictly limited in this way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your feedback. Verifiability and neutrality are certainly very important, and I'm aware that many historical events are disputed (e.g. whether various genocides of indigenous peoples can accurately be classified as such). How do you think about altering the definition as follows:
 * "The task force primarily focuses on the period after the 1899 Hague Convention. Earlier events may be considered, but only if high-quality reliable sources consistently describe the subject as part of the law of war, a war crime, genocide, or similar. If high-quality sources disagree, the article is not in scope." <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, certainly on principle; plenty of reliable sources have discussed, for example,  Henry V of England's war crimes, so an umbrella project would be useful.   ——  Serial # 00:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of what I can see about Henry V and war crimes on Google Books is based on Shakespeare's work rather than scholarship on the man himself. There is no mention of war crimes in the current article. Could you link to a source or two you think support an academic consensus that Henry V committed war crimes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of what I can see about Henry V and war crimes on Google Books is based on Shakespeare's work rather than scholarship on the man himself. There is no mention of war crimes in the current article. Could you link to a source or two you think support an academic consensus that Henry V committed war crimes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * While Henry V may have been brutally unpleasant, the idea that he violated the rules of war wouldn't have found much support at the time. War crimes imply an agreed legal definition against which such things could be judged and it is safer to stick within such definitions, as earlier actions may be subject to much more subjective judgement, or involve weighing against moral considerations the perpetrators would not share.  Such things should not be ignored in describing historical events but undue focus risks modern POV concerns Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - My opposition is only in relation to scope and I agree with Peacemaker67's reasoning on this. It seems to me that "war crimes" are a relatively modern construct. A crime is an activity deemed to be illegal; accordingly there has to be some definition/understanding of what was legal and not legal by the participants involved in the war crimes which I think will be hard to achieve for most events prior to the 20th century. Unless a persuasive argument is advanced in response to my concern, I currently consider that a more practical, easily implemented, and readily understood criteria would be restricting the scope to events of the 20th century onwards, which I would support. Zawed (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Peacemaker - This is an area which is both very important and worthy of its own categorization, but also contentious so we must apply a solid criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question To be really blunt, given that all of our task forces have been defunct for a decade, with their talk pages redirected to this page, why would this be a success? Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To that point, the task forces still serve as useful categorization tools. I often reference lists of articles under the Africa task force to track progress and find things to work on, even if it's on my own initiative and not part of an organized group effort. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am most interested in getting tagging and article alerts set up. These are definitely the most useful feature of task forces. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with the timeframe defined as starting from the 1899 Hague Convention. Categorisations & alerts would be useful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This proposal is utter common sense, IMHO. Do not believe needs to be limited to post 1899 period. Law (1919): in the history of Greece the Amphictyonic Council, the first League of Nations, as far as we know, though formed for religious purposes, made perhaps the first organized attempt to ameliorate conditions of warfare. Its members bound themselves by oath not to destroy utterly any town that was a member of the league nor to cut it off from running water. In addition, the Delphic oracle exercised a wholesome influence whether in the penalty assigned for excesses that had been committed or in acting as arbitrator in disputes. Lanni (2012): Thucydides' presentation of inter-state relations has cast a long shadow on modern interpretations of the effectiveness of the ancient Greek laws of war. The reputation of the Greek laws of war also has not been helped by the massacres of noncombatants and other gross violations of modern humanitarian norms that regularly occurred in the classical period. There was (emphasis in original) a relatively effective law of war in ancient Greece. But the Greek law of war did not encompass humanitarian ideals. Instead, it focused on protecting sacred objects and observances. The great irony here is that despite the central role played by religion and honor in the Greek laws of war, these laws were indifferent to considerations of mercy and the pro tection of noncombatants. Notwithstanding Thucydides' grim view of the efficacy of international law, I will argue that the evidence from ancient Greece actually supports the position that international law did serve as a meaningful check on state behavior.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Hel question
Anyone know why the coords I've put in the infobox aren't showing in the top right of the header? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have edited it accordingly. If you just want them there, remove "inline". Harrias  talk 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Total war discussion
Members of this project will probably be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Commando Basic Training Centre
Just finished Commando Basic Training Centre, thoughts? --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done a quick pass through it. A few statements here and there also lack a citation. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thsnks for your help

--Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Racial views of Winston Churchill
This AFD has been opened and may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Question at Template:Infobox military unit Comment
I left the following question at Template:Infobox military unit, which has direct relevance for this project: The template contains specific parameters for battle honours and decorations, but what of the opposite; units responsible for infamous actions, eg war crimes? Take a relatively simple example: the 114th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht) took part in at least two incidents of mass execution of civilians. It does not seem to me the current infobox allows this to be mentioned with an appropriate parameter. Would be interested to hear others' comments on whether another parameter could be included or how to do it with the current parameters. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Information about atrocities would be better included in the lead of the article given that a parameter for war crimes in the infobox would in many cases be an oversimplification of more complex issues and be a magnet for edit warring. Including the details about massacres in the lead of the article that is given as an example would serve the same purpose and allow for more details than the simple infobox parameter. Kges1901 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. And the same can be said of many details in the military unit infobox. Forex, participation in battles and campaigns should be mentioned in the lede with full coverage in the main body, which makes mentioning them in the infobox redundant and excessively long, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR
I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

New AfD
Expert input would be valued at Articles for deletion/Théophile Figeys. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

New task?
could we add reviewing MILHIST new pages and afc drafts listed at User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/History and Society/Military and warfare and AfC sorting/History and Society/Military and warfare to the listings of open tasks? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am notoriously slow, so bear with me, but they all seem to have been assessed. What do you mean by "reviewing"? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are unreviewed through the new page patrol or the Articles for creation process (i.e. somebody has to say whether they are notable or not (and if they aren't mark it for deletion)). MY thinking is that these pages that have been considered to be in the Military subjectspace could benefit from having users experienced in military notability (likely members of this project) assessing them. These links are very hard to find without knowing what to look for, so I thought it could be useful to provide a link at the open tasks page for interested users (with the correct permissions) to look at. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. (In my lexicon, they need patrolling.) Yes, good thinking. If a place could be found for them that would seem to be useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the AFC Sort tool is outstanding, but I think the preferred link is now this one: AfC sorting/History and Society/Military and warfare. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Qased and Ghassed
Are Qased and Ghassed the same thing? Or is Qased article topic a version of the topic found in the article Ghassed ? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Natzweiler-Struthof
Ongoing discussion on how to characterize the camp's historical location may be of interest. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A class reviews need you!
A couple of A class reviews need just a little more work from reviewers to get them over the line. Can I interest anyone in having a look at: If neither of these takes your fancy there are articles on all sorts of topics from all sorts of eras which could do with some attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Battle of Hel - just needs a source review. Done, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Lipari Islands (my nom) - needs a third review Thanks
 * Historiography of the Crusades Just a source review is needed.
 * I've added another nom to the list if someone has the time and motivation you're invited in the nominations. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military memorial
We have a field in this infobox for the date when military memorials were established, but not a date for them being removed. With the increasing number of removals of monuments to the Confederacy in the U.S., we now need a field for this. Can anyone help with this? -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added this in the sandbox, take a look at the infobox on the right at Template:Infobox military memorial/testcases: is that what you're after? Harrias  talk 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm after! If you can release this to the live version, I can add it to the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument (Birmingham, Alabama) infobox. -- The Anome (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll tidy up the documentation later. Harrias  talk 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harrias! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

New WWI maps on Commons
Hello. I just wanted to point out a new collection of over 100 historical WWI maps uploaded to Commons by the National Library of Wales. They are fairly high quality so could easily be cropped ect and may be useful for illustrating some articles. You can browse the maps here. Many thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just nabbed one for Hill 70. Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Mareth Line
Would a kind soul mind looking at the commons category template, i can't find a way to get the red off it. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ at least I think that's what you wanted. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 14:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Operation Ramrod 16
Does anyone know how to abbreviate the interminable Goggle urls in the Bibliography? I'm sure that there's a formula for it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Everything after the page number. Which for page 162 in a given book will be "&pg=PA162", bit to the left of that is the book, everything after the page will be the search terms used to find the particular line in the book, plus other googlish stuff. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Afternoon Graeme, thanks, I'll put that to good use. Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keith-264, you may want to include a wikilink to Koninklijke Hoogovens, which I think is the steel plant that was the target of the operation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

'Tis done. Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Help identifying a militar uniform
I came across this image by Edgar Alfred Holloway: C:File:A_wounded_soldier_is_found_by_a_rescue_dog_who_alerts_the_nu_Wellcome_V0015262.jpg and I was wondering if anyone would be able to help me identify the uniform of the solider? At first I thought it might be a British light infantry uniform but I thought it could also be Prussian infantry. I am hoping if I can identify the solider I may be able to identify the context where this ambulance dog is being used.

Thanks in advance for any help!86.186.107.93 (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Courtesy link: File:A wounded soldier is found by a rescue dog who alerts the nu Wellcome V0015262.jpg. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he's a Russian Hussar from the Russo-Japanese War; the cap at the foreground looks to be a busby with red bag and the tunic is similar to that shown third from right in this image. Interestingly the Russian army was experimenting with rescue dogs lent by the Germans during this war - Dumelow (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The picture is form 1904, so that might fit. But beyond that I ma not sure we can guess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The dog seems to be a Collie which the link posted by Dumelow above says was used by both Britain and Germany, so that would fit if the Russians were using German-trained dogs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do we feel it represents a real conflict? The uniforms do look rather British to me - the wounded soldier looks like a fairly generic hussar, the orderlies in the blue uniforms of the RAMC, the nurse from Queen Alexandras Imperial Military Nursing Service? Monstrelet (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) As context, Edgar Alfred Holloway was a war artist in the Second Boer War (1899-1902) and was noted for his representation of British military uniforms. It is possible that this picture from 1904 relates to that war, or it could be that he moved on to illustrate the Ruso-Japanese war as suggested above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you may well be right. Looking at the carbine in the foreground the stock and band behind the trigger match the Lee–Enfield - Dumelow (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The khaki 1902 Pattern Service Dress had been introduced for all arms in the previous year, but I can imagine a uniform artist going for the more picturesque alternative. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know some of the yeomanry still had fancy costumes (see The yeomanry force at the 1911 coronation, Picton Publishing 1988). In fact it could pass for East Riding of Yorkshire Yeomanry (lieutenant) (front cover illustration). Thought a few wore that uniform, style.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "fancy" uniforms were retained for parade and for off-duty "walking out dress", until the outbreak of the First World War; but khaki would have been worn on manoeuvres in 1904 if that is the right date. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but this seems (well maybe seems) to be a general picture of a non specific incident. NO war, no battle is mentioned in the title. So I wonder if it is just "generic".Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

→One point to note on the date is that the catalogue suggests it is based on the artist being "active" in 1904 but the publication details are missing. How much evidence the source collection has to say it dates to 1904 is unclear. Another point is that this is a drawing and not a photograph; he may have created it in 1904 from recollections of his time during the war. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Though we know he was professionally illustrating in the 1890s and was a war artist in the Boer War, so why chose 1904 as "active" unless there is some connection to the piece? Its very frustrating.  Monstrelet (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well there is this [], which stats it was painted in 1904, note it says nothing about the Russo-Japanese war.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WE have a clear picture of the horse. This is not my field, but an image search reveals plenty of images of British cavalry around 1900. The tack of this horse seems to fit. Note the brass on the breastband - a crown over an oval. The layout of the kit on the horse seems to be field rather than parade order, as expected. That Holloway is drawing on his knowledge, perhaps even his sketches, of contemporary British uniforms seems likely. If only we knew a possible context. Had the British army recently introduced rescue dogs, or some such? Monstrelet (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I have a lead (sorry, bad pun). https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-an-ambulance-dog-supplied-by-major-edwin-richardson-the-renowned-dog-105373849.html  In 1904, Major Edwin Richardson supplied medical rescue dogs to the Russian army in the Russo-Japanese War.  This attracted attention and led to press coverage at home.  The dogs were trained to find the casualty and bark, attracting stretcher bearers.  Pictures show the dogs had drinks barrels round their necks.  See also https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/first-aid/2014/11/dogs-war-first-aiders-four-legs/  So, this picture may have been inspired by Richardson's attempts to popularise his idea.  It's a thought and it does connect our two threads - British uniforms and the Russo-Japanese war.  Monstrelet (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of wars by death toll
Any ideas what to with this article? See my comment on the talk page, the page needs a new name at the very least. Perhaps it should just be deleted? Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

New template
After a comment in a GA review about if a particular navbox existed or not, I've created the navbox at Template:Missouri Confederate units navbox. I'm not familiar with template creation, though. Could someone look it over to make sure it fits with the MOS before I start adding it to the articles? There's only about 12 links in it right now, but given that I've created about half of the articles in the template, I hope to get several more of the gaps filled in the next several months. Hog Farm (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. There's no reason not to add the redlinks now if the topics are notable. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Buidhe, you should add the red-links if they are notable. Other than that it looks fine to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks y'all. I've added the redlinks I know off the top of my head are notable, there's probably a few others.  I hope to get some of these gaps created in some way over the next couple months. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a different view about redlinks in navboxes. My ten cents worth is that the very nature of navboxes is that they are there to allow readers to navigate between articles on a topic area, and therefore links in navboxes are not the same as links in articles (which can and should be red if no article has yet been created but the target is notable). If there is no article there is nothing to navigate to using the navbox, so articles should only be added as they are created. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers needed!
G'day all, WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of avisos of Germany needs a couple more reviewers. If you haven't reviewed a list before, it really isn't a lot different from an article review. Generally one of the reviewers will be au fait with the special requirements of a list and will cover off those bases. If you are unsure, have a look at MOS:LIST first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee-Metford or Lee-Enfield?
Is the rifle in this image: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 135-S-10-11-11, Tibetexpedition, Tibetischer Soldat.jpg a Lee-Metford or a Lee-Enfield (the 1895 long version)? Or is there no way of telling? I was looking for an image of the long Lee-Enfield because we only have pictures of the short one in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The forward end of the wood and barrel tip look more like the Lee–Metford than Lee-Enfield such as the No. 4 versions from the 1930s. That's my untrained take at least... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a long rifle (i.e. not a carbine of either type or an SMLE) - but whether it is a long Lee Metford or Lee Enfield is unclear as they are effectively the same but for the rifling of the gun's barrel.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an expert by any means but I think it's a MkI* Lee-Metford. I believe later versions and the Lee-Enfield didn't have the groove in the wooden forestock.  The MkI Lee-Metford didn't have a butt disc, which is visible in your photograph - Dumelow (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That said this gun may have been modified to match the sling style of the MII and later rifles. In the MkI and I* the sling attachments were near the muzzle and in front of the magazine whereas this has the sling attachments at the butt and forestock which I think was introduced in the MII - Dumelow (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's quite possible that the guns are Lee-Metfords converted with the new barrel - once you start doing this the difference between a Lee-Metford and a Lee-Enfield becomes a bit moot.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all; the search continues for an image of an MLE. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Success! File:Rifle, bolt-action (AM 1962.132-1).jpg Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Article title
I've been working on writing a series of articles about Confederate units from Missouri during the American Civil War. However, I'm unsure of how I should title one of them. The battery in question was officially known as the 4th Missouri Light Battery, but is almost always referred to as Harris' Battery in sources, both primary and secondary, so WP:COMMONNAME would suggest using Harris' Battery. This battery was formed in 1864. However, there was a previous battery commanded by the same Captain Harris that was formed in 1862, never issued cannons, fought in one skirmish, and then was consolidated into an infantry battalion and then into the 6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate). Artillery batteries from the ACW are generally considered to be notable per WP:MILUNIT. However, I have my doubts about the 1862 battery being notable, as it was never issued cannons, was rather ephemeral, and only existed for about 8 months (and receives very little coverage in sources). I'm making the draft for the 1864 battery, which is notable, and User:Hog Farm/Harris' Missouri Battery (1864) and will move it to Harris' Missouri Battery (1864) when completed. I've got a hatnote in there, but it's really long and clunky. Can someone with more experience with naming pages give some advice on how to title this one? Hog Farm (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of having the hatnote, you could instead give a textual indication somewhere in the article that Capt. Harris also commanded a different battery in 1862. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, based on the above what information is available about the 1862 battery should be detailed in the Background of the 6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) article, and the main battery article titled as you have done. I suggest a hatnote about the earlier battery on the latter article pointing to 6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate). Something along the lines of Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Austerliz FAR
I have nominated Battle of Austerlitz for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Page move during ACR
I've started a ACR review for Landis' Missouri Battery, and the source review and image review have been completed. However, when I opened the ACR, the page was at the title Landis's Missouri Battery. After reviewing the sources, I realized that both the sources describing the battery, as well as English grammar rules would prefer Landis' over Landis's, so I moved the page. Will this mess up the ACR? Hog Farm (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I implemented article history template and moved the ACR page. All sorted. Generally try to avoid moves during reviews, as it creates a bit of bookkeeping. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Mayoyao Ridge
Not sure where to post this but the article Battle of Mayoyao Ridge was recently wiped out as a copyright violation. The only thing that remains is a fairly detailed infobox and a couple of (unreferenced) sentences I added to make it look a little bit more like an article. But I know nothing about this battle or even the Philippines campaign so I'm hoping someone at MILHIST can help out. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article was actually not copyvio - it was copied from the main Mayoyao, Ifugao article instead and the flagged copyvio was actually a wikipedia mirror. However, the content is by the longstanding Philippine vandal/hoaxer who added details about imaginary Philippine Army units to WWII articles. Kges1901 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I can't believe that we're still cleaning up the mess that vandal caused. Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

After further investigation, I've blocked the editor responsible here as being the latest iteration of that vandal. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would invite editors to remove the content added by the vandal, which was characterized by the addition of references to nonexistent "Philippine Commonwealth Army" units, most of which still extant can be found in this search. IP and sock list here and here. There should be some sort of list of affected pages since this is long-term recurring disruption affecting the same set of pages. Kges1901 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I've done an initial pass to delete the articles this account created and to remove material they added to some articles, but a larger clean-up effort is needed. A long term abuse case page is a good idea - I'll try to set this up on the weekend. From checking my records, I've been chasing this jerk for 10 years. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rudolph von Ripper
I've created a page for Rudolph von Ripper, an Austro-Hungarian nobleman artist who served in the French Foreign Legion and Spanish Civil War and spent time in a Nazi concentration camp, before moving to the US and enlisting in the US army during the second world war, where he received a field promotion to second lieutenant, and seems to have served variously as intelligence officer, infantry commander and war artist. He was also the artist of the 1939 Time magazine cover when Hitler was declared Man of the Year.

His story is frankly astonishing, especially given he didn't have an article (in English - he has a fairly brief article on German Wikipedia) up until this point, and one of the first articles I found on him was from a publisher without the best reputation for fact-checking. However, sources I've found since include Ernie Pyle 1944 book, and his official biography in a 1943 War Office publication, and they all seem to tell essentially the same story.

I'd appreciate critical eyes, and especially anyone who could check up on things like the Silver Star nominations and service records. TSP (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, his story seems well sourced. Although his Silver Star citation isn't online, contemporary news reports provide verification that he received a Silver Star. Kges1901 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are those news reports already referenced in the article, or do you have sources that could be added? (I can't actually access the NYT obituary so I'm not sure what's in that - though I included it as a source because even the headline is valuable!) TSP (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've done so, thank you! TSP (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Related question that people here may have relevant expertise on: this 1943 US government publication contains a picture of, and a painting by, von Ripper: The Army at War. It seems to me that this is a work of the US government, containing works created by employees of the US government as part of their official duties, an should therefore be public domain in its entirety, including all the art within it? von Ripper, says in his profile in the catalogue, "The things I am doing now will again belong to the War Department and some to the Division, with the exception of my small preliminary sketches". Can anyone confirm or deny this? Have I missed a subtlety? TSP (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that specific image, but National Archives Catalog has a number of listings for him, including some of his paintings. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Missiles and Rockets
Is there a page for a current naming convention for military missiles and rockets? The only one I can find is at WikiProject Rocketry, but that project is currently inactive. Is that convention still in force, or has it been superseded, and where? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, that looks like a sensible approach to me, we might look at adopting it as part of MILMOS. Any article in particular that you are wondering about? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are some missile articles that follow Manufacturer/Name, such as de Havilland Firestreak and Vickers Vigilant, which ought to be at Firestreak and Vigilant (missile) per those guidelines. Some editors support using the manufacturer's name, under COMMONNAME, and that's a valid argument too. The ROCKETRY guidelines are well over 10 years old now, and there may not be a current consensus to support them as written. - BilCat (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Aircraft, which is also relevant to rockets and missiles I guess, uses the format [MANUFACTURER]-[DESIGNATION]-[NAME], ie Morane-Saulnier MS.755 Fleuret or in the case of an aircraft without a designation, Hawker Hurricane. This makes a fair bit of sense also. I wonder if some sort of combination of the two would be best, although I wonder if "missile" or "rocket" needs to be added to achieve the characteristics expected under WP:TITLE? I mean who would recognise that 9K38 Igla is about a missile? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggest you look back to see if any discussions on past moves - eg Bristol Bloodhound went to Bloodhound (missile) English Electric Thunderbird to Thunderbird (missile), Hawker Siddeley Red Top went to Red Top (missile). GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point Graeme, but the first two are clear candidates for disambiguation regardless because they are not the primary topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They were disambiguated when they were at 'Bristol Bloodhound' and 'English Electric Thunderbird'. I think the rocketry guideline was invoked to move them. By comparison I think Seacat (missile), Seaslug (missile) have never had the manufacturer's name in front.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the naming conventions for missiles and aircraft should be the same. Working primarily in the area of US air units, I am struck with the listing of missiles and aircraft for units that have operated both that include (e.g.) Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and SM-65 Atlas.  I see no justification for the different naming conventions.  I assume this must have changed at some time in the past for aircraft, because I run across Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress type entries on occasion.  Of the two formats, I prefer the Manufacturer/Designation/Name used for aircraft for two reasons.  It provides more flexibility for differences in national naming systems and in most cases avoids the need to add a parenthetical (Missile) or (Rocket) to disambiguate the page.  Lineagegeek (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the manufacturer makes for a good "natural disambiguation", which is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. But when the shorter name without manufacturer is sufficiently recognizable and precise, I'd leave it at that.   Also, there should be no need for piped links  like Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress since redirects do the job more cleanly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lineagegeek. It would be simpler to have one standard for aircraft, missiles and rockets and incorporate it into MILMOS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?
Is Powder_Alarm the same event referred to at Leslie's Retreat? If so, should Leslie's Retreat be located at Salem Gunpowder Raid, which seems to be the more common name? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They do appear to be the same event (both describe a bridge not being lowered to delay and eventually prevent the seizure of a cannon...); I've added a main template at the relevant place. No idea for the title, but if you're confident it is the more common name then WP:FIXIT... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsible Tables and our guidelines
Not a rickety old pasting table but the use of show/hide to compact large tables in military articles. I removed the collapsible option from a table of aerial victories in Wilhelm Mayer (fighter pilot) according to my understanding of the manual of style instructions at MOS:Collapse. User:MisterBee1966 who has been expanding and improving the article restored the collapsible option saying that the project guidelines WikiProject_Military_history/Content_guide said to use collapse for tables.

Rereading the MoS it states that content (there are exceptions for info repeated from prose eg infoboxes, summaries) should not be collapsed by default, and when collapsed should still be accessible eg in mobile view, other browsers etc. Can we get a quick consensus to update the Bio guidelines to add a note re the MoS and when using collapse option with a default of shown in full? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I am not an architect of the guideline, I do want to point the readers to Manual of Style/Tables, it states "Consideration may be given to collapsing tables which consolidate information covered in the prose." I think the WPMILHIST guideline is therefore in line with MOS. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For Mayer, as it stands at this point in the article's development, the table is listing all his claims and probables including those he wasn't credited for in detail and noting discrepanccies between various sources. It's not consolidating data so it ought to have a default of uncollapsed/expanded/show (the mobile view, Win 10 ChromiumEdge and Android ChromiumEdge in my case, shows it expanded) which is not currently noted in our guideline. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My memory of this is that opinions in this project are divided, as some say having the table uncollapsed means the detail is undue, but collapsing it makes it less so. However, there is MOS:DONTHIDE, which says "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading". One solution is to branch off a stand-alone list with a brief intro and the aerial victories tabulated, along the lines of Aerial victories of Wilhelm Mayer. This may not be necessary in the case of Mayer (in fact a table with 27 entries is hardly an issue IMHO), but is certainly an option for aces with a large number of victories like Hans-Joachim Marseille. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rodger Young
Hey folks, I was advised at an ongoing peer review to get two or three people fem this project to solicit some feedback about the article Rodger Young, an article which I've recently gotten to GA (thanks for the review Zawed!) and would now like to improve to A or FA class. Feedback doesn't need to be detailed - just a couple words would suffice - but if you're interested, the place to go is right here. Cheers and thanks for all your work -- puddleglum  2.0  00:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

HMS Balaclava
My addition of HMS Balaclava to the List of ship names of the Royal Navy (B) was reverted by with the summary "(Undid revision 962673816 by Mjroots (talk) not a HMS, not listed in College and see )"

Accepting the reversion has a valid rationale, there is also the fact that I now have two separate contemporary sources claiming there was a "HMS Balaclava" - The Standard of 25 February 1865 calls her "HM Steamer Balaclava" and the Liverpool Mercury of 1 March 1865 calls her "H.M.S. Balaclava". At the time of her stranding, she was transporting twelve heavy guns from Woolwich to Liverpool.

Can any members of this WP shed any light on the ship? Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also described as "Her Majesty's Ordnance screw steamer, the Balaclava" by the Wexford Constition of 1 March 1865. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is a matter of abbreviations. In this instance HMS refers to His Majesties STEAMER - a ship chartered by the government and not His Majesties SHIP - a commissioned ship of the Royal Navy. Contemporary sources have confused the two, although Colledge has errors and omissions I feel we should go with its list. See also [] for a couple of newscuttings which confirm the ownership Lyndaship (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So are we talking SS Balaclava (1856) ( undefined) rather than HMS Balaclava then? Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reckon so Lyndaship (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Stray page
One of your pages seems to have ended up in article space - MilHist::Template=HASH(0x558b35e8a908) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * These, too:
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x55d6f8611180)
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x55f062ce6998)
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x558b35e8a908)
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x5556e00ea7e8)
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x55972b9dd088)
 * MilHist::Template=HASH(0x56515b56c8c0) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, pretty sure these all duplicate WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2020. These probably just need to be WP:G6'd. might be able to confirm if this was just an error by Milhistbot. If you wish for me to delete these, please just let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, so I've G6-tagged them. They were created by the MilHistBot in error in January. I will correct the Bot before 2021 rolls around.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have deleted them now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I've corrected the error.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DVD citation format question
I want to add a citation or external link for "The Royal Air Force at War" to Operation Jericho. It's a dvd of The Gen (episode 10) the RAF news magazine, which starts with a report on Percy Pickard. Neither cite AV media or cite episode look right but cite AV media looks the best fit. I'm also struggling to collect the publication information as the DVD appears defunct and I didn't keep the DVD cover. Does anyone know of an online database (other than IMDB which only has the VHS details) where I can look it up? If not can anyone point me towards a better project page to try? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cite AV media is as good as it gets, mainly because although we have Template:Cite DVD...it redirects to AV media :)Also, bear in mind that you don't just want a database: you want a reliable one. I had a (very brief, admittedly!) look, but most of the stuff—Fandom, etc.—would run a mile from WP:RS. Good luck!  ——  Serial # 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've got this far *
 * How much of that needs to be filled in, would you say? I mean, obviously all of it, preferably, but how much can be ommitted and still be useful and pass WP:V? ——  Serial # 11:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Haven't a clue ;O) I've sent an e-mail to the IWM. Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got a reply. Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Naval armour
Howdy hello folks! A bit ago I realized that we don't have one central page for discussing Naval Armour, thus I put together Draft:Naval armour. Its mostly just text copied from parent articles at the moment, but its a bit unwieldy and I don't have the time I'd like to do a proper job. I'd love some help putting it together. I had considered just moving it to the mainspace so it could attract more eyes, but its pretty bad, so your help would be great. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Make sure to use a consistent spelling for armour (or armor). I see mostly "armour" now but a few of the other used in the article; I'll try to correct these. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User repeatedly using OR arguments at Talk:Alexander the Great
Ok, I've already declined a few edit requests and this obviously isn't stopping so I'm going to leave a note here for somebody who is more familiar with ancient history than me. Their arguments include that an initial assault being repulsed at Granicus constitutes a defeat (while sources describe the battle as an overwhelming defeat for the Persians)... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing Operations
Have we any "Operations" that is not listed on Z Special Unit page? Adamdaley (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Second level award recipients
Hi all, I'm seeing a lot of new articles on recipients of the Maha Vir Chakra (people like Harbhajan Singh (military officer)), including many who never reached OF-6 or higher. As the MVC is not a top level decoration, I'm inclined to think the articles on soldiers who weren't a one-star general equivalent or higher should be deleted. I'm not that familiar with the Indian Army, and would like to get some other opinions before considering any sort of deletion nominations. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the Indian army is still subject to our SNG's.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * They would have to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements (WP:GNG), which is the default requirement. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Only MVC and Bar recipients qualify under WP:SOLDIER. Only those listed at Maha Vir Chakra would qualify under our SNG unless they met another criteria (rank, size of command etc). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New project proposal
Editors have proposed a new WikiProject at WikiProject Council/Proposals/British Armed Forces. All constructive comments to that proposal are welcome there. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wissel Lakes
The only link I can find for Wissel Lakes somewhere in Indonesia (and under any other name on wikipedia) is that of Paniai Lakes. Would this be correct? Adamdaley (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows? Adamdaley (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Defunct airports in the United Kingdom
While reading over an Royal Air Force airfield i came across Template:Defunct airports in the United Kingdom

I have no problem with the civil aspect but the military aspect is troubling me and should be removed in my eyes. To have every UK RAF station we have article for (around 750) in there the template would be massive.

Any objections?

Gavbadger (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, surely this can be reasonably covered by categories, such as "Defunct airports in...". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An interesting selection of stations, I wonder if they had a link over just being RAF? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Their is nothing currently in the articles to suggest such a thing. Gavbadger (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Gavbadger (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes if national-level categories are too big I've tried dividing by a subnational division. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland could be separate, but for England one would have to break down former RAF facilities by county. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Some counties had a lot of airfields - Norfolk around 40, Lincolnshire 60 - better left to categories and lists? Perhaps better for navboxes to form naturally around concrete themes - eg Army Air Corps, aircraft manufacturer "home" airports (dH -Hatfield, Avro -Trafford Park, Vickers- Brooklands). GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A 17th Century battle scene


A new upload on Commons; can anyone make use of it, or identify the subject(s)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously: a cavalry engagement. I don't know about the hats, though obviously these appear to be well armoured troops so some cuirassiers, clearly (although, depending on the period and the nation, not all cuirassiers wore armour). If the attribution is correct, then the description makes no sense because the author appears to have mostly painted Napoleonic scenes. The headgear of the (presumably French, in blue) troops, though, doesn't look like a match for the Napoleonic variants (the plume is more often red..., and the helmets have a different shape). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The swords are strait without baskets and as the men are like armoured lobsters it is probably before the middle of the century possibly the 30 Years War. That the fighting is taking place near the walls of a fortress or town is most likely significant. Although crude it reminds me of some of the paintings of the death of Gustavus Adolphus, not of that specific incident, but of about that time (see this image of GA death as a comparison). -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One other point. As none of the combatants are wearing orange, it is unlikely to be depicting a Dutch battle during the second half of the Eighty Years War. -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a scene of a battle between Dutch and Spanish forces from 1630. The uniforms with the red sash and plumage appear to be very similar to those in the picture above. One thing to note about John Augustus Atkinson is that he was an engraver; that means he would have been well used to studying and adapting other art works. Though he was born in the late 18th century, he could have been inspired by any number of art works created in the previous century. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The painting needs a clean (or at least the image does), however I think if you look at the sashes around the waists of some of the combatants they are probably orange, and it looks to me as if there is an orange and a blue flag in the near distance. Of course that may just be me subconsciously trying to justify my last statement and I am seeing what I want to see :-) -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Compositionally, it is similar to a number of imaginary cavalry battles by Francesco Simonini, an early 18th century artist and engraver. Simonini did several with fortresses as a back drop. It is possible Atkinson was influenced by these or by similar works - cavalry battle scenes were a stock image in 17th early 18th century art.  Without knowing more of the context, it's hard to be sure whether it illustrates a particular action.  The equipment looks to be intended as 2nd or 3rd quarter of 17th century, though not with the precision expected if he were working from historical artefacts, rather than earlier art. Monstrelet (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation scanner
Does anyone have the link for the details, mine isn't working. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean Citation bot, it's currently down. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, get well soon. Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe these will help:
 * Google book tool Converts bare url into cite book format
 * yadkard similar to the book tool
 * -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a butchers'.

Feedback at Kommando
Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Kommando, regarding a possible split or other refactoring of this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

French speakers: Lycée militaire de Saint-Cyr on ENwiki is small while its FRwiki one is a featured article
I notice Lycée militaire de Saint-Cyr is not developed so much but its French Wikipedia counterpart fr:Lycée militaire de Saint-Cyr is a featured article.

I took some French in university but it would be cool if a person who had great French would be interested in adding to this. The book: ... seems to be a major source. One can get relevant pages from RX in relation to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jean-Joseph Milhiet, Saint-Cyr - Trois siècles d'histoire, Éditions Christian, 1999
 * Je peux vous aider (si je trouve le temps de le faire, bien sur). Real-life opportunities have reduced my availability on-wiki (good thing, I otherwise had little to do) but I'll see how I can help. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FAs on other wikis are a great tool to help improve our equivalent article. Great idea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Saint-Cyr is the French equivalent of West Point in the U.S., or Sandhurst in the U.K. thus well worth expansion. Normally I could do this, but I'm swamped right now. Check me in October or so, if there hasn't been enough progress. Also, it's quite easy to find Featured Articles in French that do not exist at all in en-wiki using the wmflabs tool, if you're interested in creating needed articles in en-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's totally fine, and thank you for the tip! I think this article is about the affiliated high school, while the post-secondary training academy is further to the west. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh right, I'm skimming too fast, and completely skipped over the Lycée part of the title. Either way, happy to help some time down the road. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Central Celebes
Would Central Celebes back in the day would of been what? Back during WW2. East Java? Adamdaley (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the Dutch Great East until the Japanese invaded, wouldn't it? ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though it's "Great East", it still would be like Central Celebes, NEI? Adamdaley (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * nobody knows? Adamdaley (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably best asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow FAR
I have nominated Battle of Moscow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Somalia Medal of Valour
Hi all, Medal of Valour (Somalia) was recently created. However, I have been completely unable to find evidence that it exists. I'm sure it's just something that I'm not finding, but can anyone point me towards reliable sources establishing its existance? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks made up, afd'd it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Loc map question
Can a loc map aficionado tell me if a loc map is available showing southern England and northern France or will I have to do one for each country? It's to show the route there and back of the Mosquitoes during Operation Jericho. Apropos is there a way to alter the colour of the red dots (for outbound and return). Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't find such a map, which doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one.
 * "|markX=Blue pog.svg" will produce a blue dot for location X, etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that there doesn't seem to be such a map at the moment; you can browse through Category:Locator maps of Europe to double check. Harrias  talk 11:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much of England you need but the Channel Islands locator maps extends to Amiens in the East - Dumelow (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, the Channel Islands loc map is perfect. Blue dots away! Thanks everyone. Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apols but is there another one for Normandy farther east, as far as Peronne? I've got ambitious and decided to add Luftwaffe bases but haven't found a loc map to suit. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry Keith, I couldn't see one. You can crop one of the existing maps of Europe but then you need to create a new module and fix the longitude and latitude reference points which is beyond me.  Maybe someone here has experience? - Dumelow (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all right, it was just an idea. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this the kind of thing you wanted? ——  Serial # 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, this is where I've got

but as you can see it's looking a little cramped and I haven't added the routes yet. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map change RFC
Requests for comment/Mapframe maps in infoboxes could result in major changes in how historical locations are shown in infobox maps. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 06:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Operation Bluebird
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Operation Bluebird. It's a draft that's been kicking around over a year and appears to be abandoned. But, it also looks like it has potential to develop into a decent article with some attention to sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be notable; I find references to a court case over it here; etc... Based on that I'd move it to article space per WP:BOLD but there's many cn tags so I'll leave it to incubate for the time being. Also, it will need some disambig with the French Operation Blue Bird in Algeria. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

File licensing help
Can someone look at the licensing for File:James McGown.png? I'd like to add it to the newly created article 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate), but the licensing looks like a mess and I'm not great with image licensing stuff. Hog Farm (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , per Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart, the only way for this file not to be in the public domain is if it was first published between 1925 and 1989 with all copyright formalities followed. Since that's unlikely in this case, I would just upload the full resolution version to commons, using PD-because. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because since 1989, newly published works have their copyright expire 120 years after creation. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There already is a PD-version of that picture on the wikipedia commons, right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment in this WikiProject
If you are interested, there is a request for comment about an article in this WikiProject. Talk:Tripartite Pact. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Battle of Oituz
Would anyone like to write about this battle or translate A doua bătălie de la Oituz from Romanian? has incoming links but currently redirects to a dab listing three battles. Main discussion here. Any help or suggestions welcome, Certes (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Romanian but I have a basic understanding of romance languages (speak French...) so I will try something right now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've Yes check.svg Done the lead since that wasn't too hard. Somebody who actually speaks Romanian can help - will post at WP:ROMANIA. I'll see about working the rest later. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! If you know of any sources, that would be very helpful, though I guess your local library has as few academic texts in Romanian as mine. Certes (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Romanian article references a translation of a book by Erich von Falkenhayn on the campaign. As far as I can tell, the original German title is Der Feldzug der 9. Armee gegen die Rumänen und Russen, 1916/17 [The Campaign of the 9th Army Against the Romanians and Russians, 1916/1917]. (Berlin: E. S. Mittler und Sohn, 1921). ; a book which despite being WP:PRIMARY is described here as being an essential account of the campaign. Anybody have access to this or could point to a relevant place where I could find it online? It's PD in the US, and anywhere where copyright is less than 98 years after author's death (Falkenhayn died in 1922). I trust my German much better than my attempts at Romanian (mostly because at least for the first I have a decent grasp of the language, the second I only have etymology and syntax to guide me, and that's not always an exact science, and machine translations can be sometimes terse...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , The book has been digitized by UMichigan / Hathi Trust here, but not available for viewing as they state it is still copyright protected . I would try emailing them with proof that it is no longer covered by copyright restrictions. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page it appears to have been last updated in 2016; at which time the book would have still (marginally) been under copyright in the US (though I am unsure about even that as there are some reservations regarding "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals". I'll mail them about it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Anybody mind telling me what is wrong with my caption here? It doesn't display as intended... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think I fixed it... Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyway I have found the relevant pages in the Austro-Hungarian volume so I'll work from that, since the Romanian article appears to be incomplete. This discussion could eventually be moved to the article talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  14:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning the participation of notable personalities. For eg. this (French), apparently a translation of the author's (Hans Carossa) diary published in 1924, participated in the assault, stating quite unequivocally he would be part of it:


 * It would make for a decent DYK hook, though :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done for the time being (waiting to see if I eventually get access to the Falkenhayn volume, and a request at WP:RX, and also if anybody who is fluent in Romanian can add from the relevant sources since, well, the Austro-Hungarian account, while very likely quite accurate in its telling of the action, has a very clear and understandable focus on their side of things...). If you think I could include something worthwhile from Carossa (I don't know if the original German is available on the internet or not) do point out. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you to and everyone else who's helped to provide information for our readers and keep this link blue.  Certes (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Internet bot
Is anyone else having trouble with this bot? As I was preparing an article for assessment, I noted that the bot had tagged a reference as a dead link, with no archived version. I clicked on the link and got a 404 error message. However, once I removed the bot's dead link format, I was able to click on the link successfully. Separately, I frequently cite to Cantwell's Citizen Airmen for articles on US Air Force reserve units. The bot is replacing my links with for no apparent reason. The link I included is to a .pdf that is searchable, while the bot link is not and requires page selection. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that Internet Archive Bot is replacing many links for no apparent reason. Another editor told me that, since some online book sites are adding a few lines and thus claiming copyright to entire pre-1924 PD books, Internet Archive is preferable because they do not claim copyright. I don't know how true this is, though. A related discussion is at the Village Pump here, which mentions that Internet Archive is being sued by five publishers over alleged copyvio. So the situation is complex, and I've no idea what the outcomes will be. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem isn’t with IA, but with Google. When someone does a Dover and reissues some Dead Guy’s book, Google sometimes displays the “newer“ version preferentially, and worse yet, only allows snippet views of it and the old PD stuff. Dunno how common this is, but I’ve run into it several times recently. Qwirkle (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
We are unable to reach consensus over addition of some content in 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes which is being discussed here. It started with this edit when Slatersteven removed the sourced content added by me saying it violates NPOV. I opine that Indian claim of downing Pakistan's F-16 aircraft from its Mig-21 Bison should be mentioned as we have reliable third party sources to support that India did officially claim the downing of F-16. We started discussing from the same day but he is opposing any kind of mention of this Indian claim saying they are unsubstantiated claims which violate NPOV and hence should not even be mentioned. Understanding his concerns, I proposed a very trimmed and more neutral sounding version of my edit here but he still rejected it. I believe that regardless of independent verification, claims made by both countries should be added and given equal weight. Four days have passed since we started discussing this but we are stuck in a stalemate. Therefore, I invite other users to participate in our discussion and help us out in reaching consensus. --Yoonadue (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not object to just India's claims, I object to all sides claims (on the grounds it is wartime propaganda and adds nothing). I also made the point it is a NPOV violation to only include India's unsubstantiated claims and not Pakistan's as well (so did object to including only India's claims). The suggested edit does not in fact list or mention all sides claims as to what they did or did not shoot down.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we include each and every claim from both sides, the article would become too large. F-16 downing claim becomes important as it was officially claimed by India and it also provided evidence twice in support of its claim. In this context, what matters is India's official claim and Pakistan's denial which I have already proposed. If you think that something else should also be added to add some more weight to Pakistani claim, then you are most welcome. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest users look over the talk page, rather than me rehashing the arguments here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Torpedownia
Torpedownia has a fascinating history; do we have someone who could translate the article from de. or pl.wikipedia, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Loc maps again
Is there a way to use a subdivision of a national map? I'm hoping for France -> Hauts de France all I've managed so far is location map+|France Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, this is the Hauts-de-France map. Is that what you were looking for? - Dumelow (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Or using the template, ?  ——  Serial # 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The top one is the one I need, I even got locations on it once I remembered where the end squiggly brackets went. ;O) Thanks again. Keith-264 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ACR source review wanted
My ACR nomination for the Treaty of Lutatius is in need of a source review. As another in my series on the First Punic War, I hope that this wouldn't be too arduous. Any takers? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. (t &#183; c) buidhe 00:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

ACR image review needed
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement needs an image review. It has seven images and a sound recording. If anyone has the time, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

TIOH
The website for United States Army Institute of Heraldry is back online at https://tioh.army.mil. A few observations: Due to the changes, I don't see any way to use a bot to make updates. --21lima (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * http://tioh.army.mil/ does not redirect to https://tioh.army.mil/
 * Where one page used to contain the shoulder sleeve insignia and the distinctive unit insignia for a unit, they are now on separate pages.
 * A link directly copied from the site will appear as https://tioh.army.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=16211&CategoryId=9374&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services but can be simplified to https://tioh.army.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=16211&CategoryId=9374&grp=2
 * Note that the AIOH is claiming copyright to the images. There's a procedure for commercial use; nothing is stated about non-commercial use such as WP. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is be a problem for us; non-commercial free images are regarded as "non free" on Wikipedia. Remember: we use "free" as in "free enterprise" not as in "free beer". Technically, they are not claiming copyright of the images, they are claiming trademark on them. Such an image will need to be tagged with Template:Non-free logo and a Non-free content rationale.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be trademark restriction not copyright restriction, which falls under Commons:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions, and is allowed to upload to Commons. The section cited by the website for protection is Title 18, United States Code, Section 704, which is not part of copyright law. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such images here and on Commmons are tagged with PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH. --21lima (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Palestine Military Units
Any reason why this Category:Military units and formations in Mandatory Palestine in World War II is an exception as with regard to air force units we dont normally categorise them by war or campaign. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is an aberration. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

United States military deployments - major topic, terrible execution
I just stumbled upon this, it is a major overview article and a very bad article (just a few unreferenced tables, no historical overview, no good maps). Perhaps someone here will be motivated to fix this a bit. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A class reviews needed

 * The ACR for First Battle of Newtonia has three supports, but needs a source review and an image review.
 * Both now ✅ Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Manuel Noriega needs another couple of reviews.
 * The fascinating Operation Boomerang needs one further review.


 * Any takers?

There are, as usual, a wide variety of other ACRs in need of reviewing which may take your fancy. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a lot of nominations not attracting many reviews at the moment. Part of the solution might be for folks who've nominated an article to review some/more of the other nominations. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Weapons Carrier
Hello all - I mostly edit automobile articles and came across some redlinks to Weapons Carrier. Where should that redirect to? Or has there somehow never been an article written that covers this topic? Military light utility vehicle feels a bit too light and Gun truck feels unsuitable as well. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the only page pointing to that redlink at the moment. Where else did you see it? "Weapons carrier" could have multiple meanings depending on the context of the text in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d expect the intended link was Dodge WC series, that was a pretty common folk etymology. Qwirkle (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or plausibly the Universal Carrier? Depends on the context I imagine. Alansplodge (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Waffentrager possibly? It translates to Weapons Carrier.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Action off Lerwick
Does anyone have a source which cites the two German captains Max Leonardi and Siegfried Westerkamp? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Page 18 of the 1937 yearbook of the German Navy states the following (by my very rudimentary German and Google Translate): "The small cruisers Bremse, Fregattenkapitän Westerkamp, and Brummer, Fregattenkapitän Leonardi, destroy, in the North Sea, a convoy of freight steamers and the destroyers Mary Rose and Strongbow". I don't know anything about the yearbook and presume it may not be reliable for reporting on contemporary events but probably good enough for this? - Dumelow (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it will do; Halpern is a source but I don't have a copy so can't use it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The List of shipwrecks in October 1917 only has seven merchant ships sunk, plus two warships, total nine. Article states nine merchants sunk, but names none of the merchant ships involved. Merchant losses need to be clarified and mentioned in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have a source? Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, Wiki isn't a source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * all relevant entries on the shipwreck list have sources. Mjroots (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, wiki is not a source. If shipwreck article's sources are RS and you want to use them to edit the article, go ahead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is pure gold. We still need to sort out the number of vessels lost. Was it nine merchants + two warships, or nine in total? Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a new source to me but says: "October 1917 saw a daring German cruiser raid on a Scandinavian convoy that resulted in two destroyers and nine merchant ships being sunk, despite the presence of numerous covering forces" - Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise, has: "17 October 1917 North Sea. Two German light cruisers attack a convoy en route from Great Britain to Scandinavia, sinking nine of the twelve merchant ships in the convoy and both of the British destroyers escorting them." - Dumelow (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another one, : "the German cruisers sank first the escorting destroyers, HMS Strongbow and Mary Rose, and then nine of the twelve merchant ships" - Dumelow (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Norwegian page for the MS Habil states the two vessels that sank which aren't on our list are the Norwegian MS Dagbjørg and the Danish MS Margrethe but doesn't give a source - Dumelow (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The website of the Minnehallen, national Norwegian memorial to sailors of the war, lists Dagbjørg as having sunk on 17 October 1917 - Dumelow (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that means two more entries need to be sourced for the shipwreck list. Fortunately WP:SHIPS/R has some Norwegian sources listed which may be usable. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all vessels now added to the shipwreck list. SS Dagbjørg (1914), SS H.Wicander (1892), SS Habil (1896), SS Kristine (1889), SS Margrethe (1880), HMS Mary Rose (1915), SS Silja (1905), SS Sørhaug (1898), SS Stella (1912), HMS Strongbow (1916) and SS Visbur (1911). Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion about Libby Prison Escape
You are invited to join a discussion about Libby Prison Escape at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox weapon or automobile for military vehicles like jeeps
Been wondering about which infobox template is suitable for vehicles like jeeps. I've seen some pages that use the weapon or automobile template. Ominae (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well unless you run people over they are not really a weapon.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you need specific parameters like "armour" or "armament" (or some others?) I don't expect it matters much.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that the jeep-type vehicles made for military use are a mix in the Wiki. At least I know that they can be (usually) have a weapon mounted, so my issue on finding an appropriate infobox can be taken care of (I guess). For instance, the Dodge WC series page has a Weapon infobox. Ominae (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at both (and spent a bit of attention on the Austin Champ) I note that the automobile infobox doesn't have a parameter for number of vehicles produced nor for period in service nor who used it. Probably easier to get the automobile project to add one or more of those parameters to their infobox than consensus to change the infobox on an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That could be a way to "fix" the issue if the automobile infobox is used. Ominae (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually find the weapon infobox has more useful parameters and a better layout, a general rule I have adopted is weapon infobox for military vehicles and automobile infobox for non-military vehicles. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
 * That's a better idea. Ominae (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Leontios needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Leontios; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Manuel Noriega needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manuel Noriega; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for American logistics in the Normandy campaign needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for American logistics in the Normandy campaign; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Falsification of sources by Noclador - 1989 listings of U.S. Army battalions by division
As has already seen,  has within the last four days or so been adding very detailed listings of U.S. Army divisions, listing each battalion in its proper command structure & hierarchy, for 1989. Now Noclador is a very committed editor, an absolute expert on the Italian Army, former Alpini, and I consider him a friend. But for some years he's had this focus on listing NATO armies in great detail for 1989 which was very admirable, but went well beyond the limit of whatever sources he cited. He created large articles on the orders of battle of Allied Force Central Europe etc for which half the references did not stand up - one could not see where he found the data.

Now, in the last four days or so, he has gone beyond his own-created list articles for NATO forces in 1989, and has been adding detailed listings "for 1989" to a number of U.S. Army divisions. I'm very interested in these kinds of lists - they fascinate me. I have made it my business for years to scour the available sources to try and find out which battalions might have assigned to which brigades within the divisions for this kind of time period. Thus I was initially pleased to see that Noclador was rolling out very detailed listings - but my heart sank when I started examining the sources, because I know most of them.

The sources Noclador cites *do* *not* *support* the information which he is writing at the articles. For example, Gordon Rottman's 'Inside the U.S. Army Today' which Noclador was citing at 2nd Infantry Division (United States). Noclador wrote at the article that the 2nd Battalion, 72nd Armor, was assigned to the 2nd Brigade. Rottman's listing of the 2nd Infantry Division, at page 31 of his book (available on the internet) lists the 'Maneuver Battalions' of the division as 1-5 Inf. (M); 5-20 Inf (M); 1-503, 2-503, and 1-506 Inf (L), and 1-72 Arm. & 2-72 Arm. No mention of which brigade each battalion is assigned to.

I have verified these falsehoods at Talk:50th Armored Division (United States), where I found the problem initially, and lost my temper in the process, for which I need to admit fault and apologise; Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United States); and Talk:9th Infantry Division (United States). Additionally in the last four or so days Noclador has been making large scale edits at 6th Infantry Division; 7th Infantry Division; I Corps; 24th Infantry Division; 10th Mountain Division; 82nd; 101st; 29th; and 49th Armored Divisions. I have little doubt that as I continue my verification exercise in the next few days I will find that most of these entries have been falsified.

I do not know exactly why he is doing this, but I am surprised, deeply angered, and shocked by this behaviour by who I believed was a reliable editor. I do not know whether I should initiate an RfC, or move for stronger measures. I would much appreciate others' views on this matter, but I know I do not intend to let such falsified, WP:UNSOURCED data stay in the encyclopedia. It needs to be WP:REVDELed; it dishonors us. We're here to piece the facts together, not make false claims.

Much appreciate others' comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * if he is falsifying information take it ti wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per SS^^^ we don't wring our hands and wonder whether to start RfCs if editors are either deliberately or through incompetent handling of their sources, effectively hoaxing our readers.   ——  Serial # 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, battalions were not officially assigned to brigades of divisions in the US Army of 1989. For administrative purposes, 'on the ground' battalions were in fact assigned to consistent brigades. But in combat, task organization could be fluid and not follow this structure, with additional units temporarily attached or detached as needed. So for Active Duty units it is entirely correct to list battalions with brigades as on garrison battalions would be part of specific brigades. Kges1901 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But only if there is a reliable source which says they were administratively under the command of each brigade. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the sources being used don't say that. Sad to say, I think this might be a matter for ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmmm odd as I am sue it was the division you were assigned to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the most part, Noclador is using the listings in the NATO orbat file on microarmormayhem, so these are not being made up out of whole cloth. Though an SPS, it is probably the most detailed available reference available as the US Army station list collection itself remains classified. The author of the orbat appears to have used the station lists to draw it up back in 2000. To verify, I personally contacted the US Army Center of Military History a year ago inquiring about viewing the station lists, but they responded that the lists as a whole were still classified because they contained unit identification codes, so if I actually went there I would be limited to handwritten notes which would be hard to verify by a future editor. As a result, I did not actually visit, and CMH is now closed thanks to coronavirus.


 * In at least one case, this report is overzealous. For the 9th Infantry Division, the battalion assignments to each brigade are in fact supported by a chart on page 84 of the cited source, McGrath's The Brigade: A History. Technically the chart is from 1988, but it can be verified through lineage that the structure of the division pertaining to which infantry battalions were assigned to it did not change in 1989. Kges1901 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is a 1/300th scale war games site? Enough already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest we immediately roll a 36-sided dice to calculate damage...  ——  Serial # 12:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * no such animal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am indebted to Kges1901 for his checking of my checks. Because of the large scale misrepresentation of the lineage data, which simply does not contain the information that the articles claim it does, I had not yet brought up here the fact that yes, microarmormayhem does contain much of this data. But Noclador NEVER has cited it without my prodding him over and over and over again (for articles such as CENTAG wartime structure in 1989; did not cite it at 50th Armored Division; and told me at the 50th Armored Division talk page that he was *not* using microarmormayhem. I would encourage others, if interested, to verify my verifications - multiple heads are always better than one. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From my own experience, the diagram for the 2nd Armor Div has one small mistake as 2-1 Cavalry only had 2 ground cavalry troops at Fort Hood as part of the Aviation Brigade. I do remember that D Troop (air) was forward at Giebelstadt, but my impression was that C Troop (air) was also forward with them. I could be wrong, though, as they might have been somewhere else on Ft. Hood and I just never heard of them. The actual error, though, would be be the missing minus sign to show that the squadron was not at full strength. All that said, I'd like to see sourcing for these diagrams as well. And if any pages to which these were added were GA or higher, I'd insist on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not be sourcing to wargames sites.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the general caveat that professionally published OB specialists with a website would be RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * has not even given me time to respond and has begun throwing out information left and right that is, as i.e. at the 9th Infantry Division (United States) sourced. For the active army units I base the work on Army Regulation 600–82, which gives a full listing of all active army battalions of regiments with their location and type of equipment in the fiscal year 1990 (which started on 1 October 1989). For Air Defense Artillery units it gives all the active regiments, the locations of the regiments battalions and companies and the type of equipment. I.e. Hawk, Patriot, Training, Airborne, Vulcan/Chaparral. For the artillery units, military intelligence units, and signal units I use the army lineage series publications, which where all published after 1989 and give an overview which units were assigned to what division. Additionally I use the 1987, 1989 and 1990 editions of the official US Artillery magazine "Field Artillery", which besides listing all Army, Reserve and National Guard artillery battalions and companies and to what command they were assigned, also lists the type of unit it is (155 SP, 155 T, 105 T, MLRS, TA, 8", or Lance) and where they were based. For Engineer units I use various editions of the army's "The Engineer". For units in Germany I use the extremely detailed "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989" by O. W. Dragoner, which I cross-referenced with the other sources. For a overview of units of division I use a file by Pat Callahan "NATO Order of Battle 1989", which I have for a decade now and don't know where I got it. However I don't base my work on this file. All units of a division are googled and I look at every possible angle to source it's inclusion in the division in 1989. I.e. the 49th Armored Division was an Army of Excellence TO&E division with 30 battalions / companies, for which I collected 37 references and sources, and of the division's 10 maneuver battalions assigned to the brigades, the place within the structure of 7 is sourced. As noted i.e. the structure and flow text at 9th Infantry Division (United States) are based on the McGrath's The Brigade: A History and the cross-referenced with every other possible source. Buckshot06's accusations of lies and falsifications are baseless. Every division is more than a day of research to ensure a correct attribution of units to higher commands - easy for DIVARTY, DISCOM, 4th Brigade (Aviation) and general troops of a division, but difficult for a division's maneuver brigade. Buckshot06's accusations, in my view, stem from his impatience to go through all the sources and read them in depth - i.e. the Field Artillery alone is 100s of pages. I have in no way falsificated any sources, and I added a reference to a unit's lineage only to prove that the unit in 1989 was assigned to the division. For distribution within a division I use other sources i.e. the 25th Infantry Division Association's listing of battalions assigned to brigades. If someone has a better idea how to source this - I am all ears. To sum it up: Buckshot06's accusations are baseless and the division's organization are correct as to all available sources for each division. noclador (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to give other editors an idea of the work that is being attacked:
 * 49th Armored Division: before my additions: 5,682 bytes - 2 references
 * 49th Armored Division: after my additions: 27,189 bytes - 39 references

The four infantry battalions are assigned to the brigades as listed on the pages of the Texas Military Forces Museum; the 6-112th Armor is listed with the 1st Brigade as in the Military construction appropriations hearings for 1984, the 1st Brigade and 6-112th are listed at the same armory, with a need to move the 6-112th offsite to make space for the expansion of the 117th Evacuation Hospital; the 5-112th Armor is listed with the 3rd Brigade as an NCO of the battalion's mortar platoon listed his unit in his memoirs as: "Mortar Platoon, 5th Battalion, 112th Armored, 3rd Brigade, 49th Armored Division" for the year 1987, the 2-112th was co-located with the 2nd Brigade in the same building. The 1-112th is grouped with the 5-112th in the 3rd Brigade, because for the start of FY 06 Armor (magazine) lists both units as belonging to the 71st Brigade, 36th Infantry Division - which is the successor to the 3rd Brigade, 49th Armored Division. The 2-112th and 3-112th are listed with the 2nd Brigade, as Armor Magazine listes them both with the 56th Brigade, 36th Infantry Division, which was the successor to the 2nd Brigade, 49th Armored Division. All of the units listed by Armor in 2006 were still at the same locations as in 1989. Leaving only the 4-112th without a source attributing it to a brigade... which is difficult to find as the 7th-112th was reflagged as 4th-112th in 1992.


 * 1st Brigade, San Antonio, Texas
 * 4th Battalion, 112th Armor, Denison (1 September 1992 the 7-112th, in Bryan was reflagged as 4-112th, assigned to 72nd Brigade, reflagged as 1st Squadron, 112th Cavalry Regiment on 1 September 2008)
 * 6th Battalion, 112th Armor, El Campo (inactivated on 1 September 1995)
 * 2nd Brigade, Fort Worth -> 56th Brigade, Fort Worth (reflagged 1 May 2004)
 * 2nd Battalion, 112th Armor, Fort Worth = same
 * 3rd Battalion, 112th Armor, Brownwood = same
 * 3rd Brigade, Dallas -> 71st Brigade, Dallas (reflagged 1 May 2004)
 * 1st Battalion, 112th Armor, Wylie = same
 * 5th Battalion, 112th Armor, Marshall = same

No other editor has spent as much time digging into old documents as much as I have to piece together and source the organisation of US divisions in 1989. If someone only spends a few minutes to superficially glance at a few of the sources without reading 100s of pages, I can understand that it may seem the organisations are incorrect, but they are not. They are correct. And 's accusations are unfounded and were unnecessary. If an editor has more questions as to the process of work I employ, feel free to ask. Best regards, noclador (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Pat Callahan doc is the same as the microarmormayhem doc. While the location of units in the same armory does not explicitly state that they were part of the same brigade, this is often remarkably indicative. For example, when 2nd Brigade, 49th Armor trained in 1981, it controlled 2-112, 3-112, and 2-142. This makes sense since a brigade HHC would logically be controlling units geographically close to it and it is not a reach to assume the same of administrative control. Or take 5th Battalion, 112th Armor for which a 1981 article confirms that it was assigned to the 3rd Brigade (Marshall is in East Texas). Although these sources are not from 1989, it is not unreasonable to assume that brigade assignments were still the same then as National Guard organizational structure was generally static during this period, and brigade assignments would not change unless there was a major reduction involving the elimination of brigade headquarters, which did not happen until the 1990s. Kges1901 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Garlstedt

 * PS: re. Troop 2-1st Cavalry: the Dragoner source says: D Troop, 2nd Squadron (Aviation), 1st Cavalry Regiment [4x AH-1S Cobra, 6x OH-58C Kiowa] – Lemwerder (GE) "ANMERKUNG: Der Troop nutzt für den Flugbetrieb den Werksflugplatz Lemwerder. Stabs- und Versorgungsteile sowie Truppenunterkunft in Garlstedt (Osterholz-Scharmbeck, GE), Lucius D. Clay Kaserne.", while the other source I use (United States Military Forces and Installations in Europe, Simon Duke, SIPRI, Oxford University Press 1989) lists "Troop C, 2d Bn, 1st Cav Div"... which already has two errors (Bn? Div?), so I used the Dragoner source. I can add the minus if you want, but according to Dragoner Troop D was at full strength. noclador (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your diligence, but all that needs to be added to your charts for them to be reliable enough for Wiki. D Troop is fine since it was at full strength, AFAIK. The symbol for 2-1 Cav in the divisional aviation brigade needs to the minus sign since D Troop had been detached to 2AD Forward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I will update the graphic tomorrow. Any other changes you want to have to the chart? As for adding the sources to the charts... that is problematic. I.e. for the chart I made this evening File:49th US Armored Division 1989.png I would need to add 37 sources (for now - I have some additional ones I will add tomorrow). The charts are made based on the sourced content next to which they are on wikipedia. Isn't that enough? noclador (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd hadn't looked at the 49th AD's webpage before; I'd say that the chart is acceptable because you've listed all of the units and the sourcing for them. I hadn't noticed an equivalent for 2AD or 3ID, but I expect that you'll get there in time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 2AD: NORTHAG wartime structure in 1989
 * 3ID: CENTAG wartime structure in 1989
 * For the army divisions that were based in Germany or were REFORGER units I only linked from the division articles to the NORTHAG and CENTAG articles, as I didn't want to duplicate the listings. So for the 1AD, 2AD, 3AD, 1ID, 3ID, 4ID, 5ID, 8ID, and 1CAV the listings are there. The sources for both these articles are the booklets by German guys, which created a 2900+ pages list of every allied unit stationed in Germany in the fall of 1989: you can find these booklets here. For the US Army they used the USAREUR Command Telephone Directory 1989/90 and for the Air Force Address Directory 1989. (There is also a booklet with all units of the US Air Force in 1989, and booklets about the Soviet / East German forces down to companies and platoons in 1989). noclador (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Noclador, I am extremely pleased to see your very detailed rebuttal of my charges here. The heart of my disgust and anger was that I simply could not locate & open any links/refs that were cited in-line at each maneuver battalion's listing within each maneuver brigade that *specifically* wrote that such-and-such a battalion was part of either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Brigades - and the date for that source. (Kges1901 helpfully pointed out that I completely missed the 9th Div chart for 1988, for which I apologise.)
 * But the heart of the problem still remains. If I can try to carefully go through the 2nd ID and 50th AD and not find such sources, then the data remains WP:UNSOURCED. If the in-line attributions do not contain complete sourcing for all the data cited for every battalion - designation, location, equipment if you are trying to include that, change-of-designation ("reflagging") then the data remains WP:UNSOURCED. In a way, we've gone through this before; I've prodded you about inadequate sourcing, you gradually start talking about it, and lay out your sources, as you have above, in textual description.
 * Should you wish to continue compiling such data on this website, free-text description is simply not adequate. Your aspiration is laudable, but when Andy Johnson or Vieuxbill started such work, they published it separately, and the credibility of the document rests on their reputation. Because you try to do such work in Wikipedia, you have to provide an in-line citation for every piece of information in that line, individually. (I would strongly advise merging the citations at the end of each line, and in the footnote, saying something like (designation: source 1; affiliation with brigade: source 2; location: source 3; equipment: source 4; reflagging: sources 5, 6, 7 etc).
 * Now, when you were creating your own separate pages, like the CENTAG/NORTHAG and you were the primary author, one could 'triage' those pages, knowing they had not been properly sourced, and ignore them for the purposes of research. But the U.S. divisional pages are compiliations of many peoples' effort over a long time, and are generally of much higher source quality. That was the primary reason I got so angry at you - that you were severely diminishing the quality of the sourcing on higher quality pages.
 * The level to which you have sourced such articles in the past does not meet this site's WP:REFERENCE requirements. I am fully justified by this site's rules in examining each and every line of cited unit listings for each and every U.S. Army division, and I certainly intend to do so for the total 24 divisions which became active in the 1980s, (that is 28 - 4 - the ones in Europe, for which the data rests on Dragoner's etc reputation). You need to have cited each and every piece of information in every line, or I will continue to revert them. If I find such inconsistencies in a month's time, I will, as recommended above, file a WP:ANI report. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United States): "Thank you for removing Rottman as a source, which does not support the assignment of battalions to specific brigades. Because there is now no sourcing for the assignment of battalions to specific maneuver brigades, I have removed the maneuver brigade listing from the 2 ID list, and the chart. The sources you added for aviation, field artillery etc, also, do not always specify 1989; thus I have amended the heading from '1989' to '1987-1993'. I will copy this note to the main talk page discussion." Buckshot06 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * REgarding and from Talk:9th Infantry Division (United States): Thank you for your explanations of the 1972-1983 listing. Once the listing cites the globalsecurity page, I will stop removing it. The 1983-88 changes are indeed well sourced, in-line, and I did not remove them. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1983 structure is currently sourced to Romjue 'Army of Excellence,' and the environmental impact statement, *not* 'Motorized Experience of the 9th Infantry Division', which is not mentioned!!. Stop citing in free text in the talk pages - that's not sufficient. Fix the in-line citations, please!!
 * Once you have cited individual page numbers for pages which support attribution of particular battalions to particular brigades, for 1983, I will stop removing the 1983 listing as well. As with 2nd Inf Div, I will copy this note to the main talk page discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from Talk:6th Infantry Division (United States):, the challenge in sourcing the 6th Inf Div in the 1980s is a little easier than some of the other divisions because 1st and 2nd Brigades were each at a different installation. One can reasonably infer that if a battalion was at Wainright or Richardson, it's with the brigade that is based there. But at the moment, and the reason I have removed the chart and the 1st and 2nd Brigades, is that not even the formation of 1st and 2nd Brigades at the two different forts is sourced. You need to in-line cite that 1st and 2nd Brigades were at their separate fort; you need to cite each individual active battalion being at one fort or other other; you need to find a cite saying that the battalion of the 297th Inf (AK ARNG) was assigned to one or other of the brigades, not just that it joined the division. If you cannot find a cite saying that 6-297 was with a particular brigade, one cannot put it in the list; it will need to stay in free-text in the intro to the 1980s listing. I will copy this note to the main talkpage discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from Talk:5th Infantry Division (United States), re 1989 listing of units: I have removed this section, (a) because Rottman's data, on page 31 of his book, does not specify which battalions were part of each brigade; and (b) because it is not 1989. It is 1988 or before; his book was published in 1988. I will copy this note, as with the others, to the current, main talkpage discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from CENTAG wartime structure in 1989: I have removed the 4th Infantry Division section from this listing, as (a) there are no in-line citations; the listing for the division's three long-time brigades is entirely regarding stationing in the U.S., and thus cannot be sourced to the Dragoner documents, which are not even cited at the page in any case. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from NORTHAG wartime structure in 1989: I have removed the 2nd Armored Division from the listing; and the 5th Infantry Division section from this listing, as for both divisions (a) there are no in-line citations; and the listing for the 5th division's two long-time brigades is entirely regarding stationing in the U.S., and thus cannot be sourced to the Dragoner documents. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have begun a new section below, where I will detail the sourcing for each division so can check them all for accuracy. Divisions in bold are ready to be checked, the others will follow after lunch. noclador (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
noclador (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  demands more sources
 * 2) I spend the whole day retracing my steps and adding the sources to articles
 * 3) I go to bed
 * 4) I wake up and Buckshot06 as again deleted the now sources sections, because it is "not supported by page number references". A cooperative editor would add the page numbers instead of deleting all the data. Now I would be forced to revert him, add the page numbers, and hope he doesn't delete all the data again.
 * 5) I don't want to get into an edit war. I am taking the 1989 OrBat work to my Sandbox and not getting into a fight with Buckshot06. It's not worth my time.

Automatic B-class assessment
Twice, User:MilHistBot has automatically assessed Fieseler Fi 333 as a B-class article, when it clearly does not qualify as one. I've reverted both times, is there a way to stop MilHistBot from assessing the article? - ZLEA  T \ C 02:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid Milhistbot changing the class, you have to incorporate and complete the B-Class checklist into the WPMILHIST banner. I've done that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is a long stub as well based on prose content, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)