Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 156

US Army and National Guard Army of Excellence divisions in 1989
As is back to his relaxed and cooperative self, and is now in the process of helping improve the listings of the US Army and National Guard Army of Excellence (AOE) division listings for 1989 I have started this new thread to work with him,  and all other interested editors ( maybe?) to improve, correct, reference the organization of US divisions in 1989. I only want to do the Army of Excellence divisions, as for these the Table of organization and equipment is known. The five National Guard divisions, which were not yet re-organized as AOE divisions I had no plan to create listings as I doubt the information for these five to be adequate (26ID, 28ID, 38ID, 42ID, 47 ID). As for the other divisions, and taking into account Buckshot06's comments I will below explain the sources for listing the battalions/brigades for each of them (bold = done):

Active army unit locations and equipment are sourced to Army Regulation 600–82, which gives a full listing of all active army battalions of regiments (Infantry, Field Artillery, Armor/Cavalry, Aviation) with their location and type of equipment in the fiscal year 1990 (which started on 1 October 1989). Artillery, signal, and military intelligence units are sourced to the army lineage series publications. Field Artillery is additionally sourced to the December 1987, December 1989 and December 1990 editions of the official US Artillery magazine "Field Artillery" with descriptions and listings for each US division artillery, corps artillery, etc. Other units are sourced to different editions of the: Engineer - Professional Bulletin for Army Engineers, Quartermaster Professional Bulletin, United States Army Aviation Digest, Army Logistician, Armor, etc. If I understand it correct the main request by Buckshot06 is to explain the assignment of maneuver battalions to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd brigades of each division. As for the various AOE divisions in 1989 (minus the 35th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized), for both of which I have not yet looked for detailed sources):


 * 1st Armored Division: sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 2nd Armored Division:
 * 2nd Armored Division (Forward) sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 3rd Armored Division: sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 49th Armored Division: 43 sources for the 1989 listing
 * 50th Armored Division: sourced to the Annual Report 1988 of the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
 * 1st Cavalry Division:
 * 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized):
 * 1st Infantry Division (Forward) sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 2nd Infantry Division:
 * 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized): sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized):
 * 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized):
 * 6th Infantry Division (Light):
 * 1st Brigade: Army Source 1 and Army Source 2 placing the brigade at Fort Richardson - Army Regulation 600-82 placing the 1-17th and 2-17th Infantry at Fort Richardson
 * 2nd Brigade: Army Source 1 and Army Source 2 placing the brigade at Fort Wainwright - Army Regulation 600-82 placing the 4-9th and 5-9th Infantry at Fort Wainwright
 * 205th Infantry Brigade (USAR): bunch of sources for the assigned battalions
 * 7th Infantry Division (Light):
 * 1st Brigade: sourced to Invasion, Intervention, "Intervasion": A Concise History of the U.S. Army in Operation Uphold Democracy published by the US Army Command and General Staff College Press
 * 2nd Brigade: sourced to Class I Resupply in the LIC Environment published in Quartermaster Professional Bulletin, by the EXO HHC, 2nd Brigade during Operation Just Cause
 * 3rd Brigade: the Army Regulation 600–82 lists nine light infantry battalions at Fort Drum for FY 1990, six of which are sourced to belong to 1st, respectively 2nd Brigade. Leaving 3-17th, 4-17th, and 4-21st Infantry as the units of 3rd Brigade, which lines up with the Order of Battle for Operation Just Cause
 * 8th Infantry Division (Mechanized): sourced to O. W. Dragoner's "Die Streitkräfte der U.S.A. in Europa 1989"
 * 9th Infantry Division (Motorized):
 * 10th Mountain Division [Light]:
 * 1st Brigade: the Army Regulation 600–82 lists six light infantry battalions at Fort Drum for FY 1990, three of which are sourced to belong to 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain. Leaving 1-22nd, 2-22nd, and 1-87th Infantry as the units of 1st Brigade
 * 2nd Brigade: sourced to 10th Mountain Division, which is confirmed partially by the narrative of 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain on the division's website: 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain
 * 27th Infantry Brigade (Light) - New York Army National Guard: sourced to Global Security
 * 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized):
 * 25th Infantry Division (Light): sourced to 25th Infantry Division Association
 * 29th Infantry Division (Light): the 29th Infantry Division: A Short History of a Fighting Division lists most of the division's units on page 67
 * 1st Brigade & 2nd Brigade: the division's reactivation ceremony invitation lists the units of both brigades. However the invitation lists the 2nd Battalion, 115th Infantry as with the 2nd Brigade, while the later (below) Maryland National Guard Annual Report Fiscal Year 1989 list the battalion as with the 3rd Brigade.
 * 3rd Brigade: the Maryland National Guard Annual Report Fiscal Year 1989 lists the four infantry battalions of the 3rd Brigade, 29th Infantry Division (Light) on page 25
 * 82nd Airborne Division: sourced to U.S.A. Airborne: 50th Anniversary, 1940-1990 - that listing says the division was last re-organized in 1973, but as the Joint Chiefs narrative of Operation Just Cause in Panama, and the Desert Storm order of battle list the same battalions with the same brigades it can be assumed that the organization in 1989 was still the same as in 1973.
 * 101st Airborne Division: the assignment of the battalions was taken from
 * 1st Brigade from: 327th Infantry Regiment (United States)/ 327th Infantry Regiment (United States) (this battalion / brigade assignment lines up with the Desert Storm order of battle)
 * 2nd Brigade from: 502nd Infantry Regiment (United_States) (this battalion / brigade assignment lines up with the Desert Storm order of battle)
 * 1st Brigade from: 187th Infantry Regiment (United_States) (this battalion / brigade assignment lines up with the Desert Storm order of battle)


 * I COULD NOT CARE LESS what sources you cite at this page, Noclador. :WP:REFERENCE says NOTHING about citing articles at a different talk page. I SPECIFICALLY warned you about to cite in free form text. CITE IN-LINE at the 225 or so manoeuvre battalion entries, or face an ANI report in 25 days. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is despicable and beyond acceptable. If you had taken a minute you would have seen that I CITE the above in-line at the respective division articles, and ONLY present them here with an explanation so that YOU have the possibility to check them. I do this, because it seems that at the division articles you only do a bad-faith minimal, superficial check of a few sources, then delete whole sections, while accusing me of falsification. This here is a service for you to guide you to the proper citations your should be reviewing. If you insist on being rude, and to keep threatening me - I will stop this work here, revert your all deletions and add more in-line citations at the divisions, while ignoring you. It is down to your behaviour if this is a cooperation or a confrontation. noclador (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to calm down as OOBs are an extremely uncontroversial subject and it is disproportionate to have such anger over it. But noclador, you cannot assume that unit locations are the same in the 2000s as in 1989 as the 1990s brought a large amount of change to NG unit assignments and locations. For example, HHC, 1-112 Armor was at Dallas between the CARS reorganization and 1992 and then moved to Wylie. Kges1901 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However wrongly User:Buckshot06 phrased his concern (seriously, OOBs should be a matter of non-controversial fact, so this shouldn't be that hard), it still remains that you should cite the sources directly in the article, as that would probably go a long way in fixing this without having to resort to WP:CESSPIT. You've probably been here long enough to know about this, but there's an easy way to cite internet sources (or books for which you have an ISBN number), see File:How to cite a source.png. (though it doesn't usually work with PDFs)
 * Much simpler for everyone would be to ignore (and not make any further) drama. If there's problems with the citations, you can either a) WP:FIXIT yourself, or b) ask nicely (while remaining WP:CIVIL) and maybe either User:Noclador or somebody else will do it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reminder, RandomCanadian. However I phrase this, whether I use ALL CAPS or not, the fact is that I am disgusted by this user's repeated citing of sources like Rottman, "The U.S. Army in the 1980s," which I have shown to have been used above, while actually Rottman does not support the detail presented. The other user can call that 'bad-faith', but Rottman *simply did not support* the battalion-brigade affiliations given. Apparently the basic source may be AR 600-82 for assignment of maneuver battalions to divisions. Why did the other user not *cite* AR 600-82, with his other supporting sources now listed in free-text above, and avoid embedding falsehoods into our article histories?
 * But beyond my anger at the falsehoods now embedded into the article histories, which, again, should be WP:REVDEL'd, the other user has now acceded to my basic wish. I do not want to see detailed discussion here. That's for the article talk pages. My function in this affair is to bring each and every infraction of this site's rules, as many times as necessary, to this page, to shame the other user into following this site's rules and conventions. His function is to in-line cite the details, and to write up the supporting sources etc, if necessary, at Talk:I Corps (United States); Talk:4th Infantry Division (United States); Talk:5th Infantry Division (United States); and the other associated talk pages.
 * I welcome the other user's acknowledgement of the proper function of the various talk pages, and expect to talk to him there; if I have to post here again, it means that I have had to alert the whole Milhist community again that he has not properly cited the sources he is actually using.
 * , what is the proper forum for a WP:REVDEL request, which now has to be made? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I regret to have to report that by this edit Noclador tried to roll me back at 2nd Inf Div, retaining the unsourced material at 2 ID even after this long discussion, and at  he tried to revert me at 5 ID, taking again the WP:BURDEN of saying that Gordon Rottman's 'The U.S. Army in the 1980s' gives an assignment of battalions to individual maneuver brigades, which it again, does not do. I urge this user to properly follow this site's rules about proper attribution of sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I have also just removed a very recent addition by this user to I Corps (United States), including battalion and even company level details, which is only cited to support the identities of brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I am also more than extremely dissatisfied that this user has attempted to block-revert me at  - CENTAG wartime structure in 1989; and at  - NORTHAG wartime structure in 1989. I am forced to conclude that he is only interested in properly following this site's rules when he is repeatedly abused in public, with anger. If he continues to block revert in this fashion, at the 72 hour mark I wil make a ANI request that he be blocked from editing. If there is one thing that can really steam me up, it is abuse of sources, and then continuing to abuse sources even after a public spat!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:REVDEL does not include information that is incorrect or unsourced without being a BLP violation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your note . No, the reason I am so steamed up about this is not incorrectness or unsourcedness but that the sources have been misattributed. The sources do not say what this user has said that they say. That's why I want them revdel'd. Are the stipulated rules for this particular situation not specified at WP:REVDEL, or will I have to ask for a special application of the REVDEL tool in this case? Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding and from Talk:49th Armored Division: "By this edit I've just stripped out a Texas Military Forces museum webpage link and a general officer bio because they do not support what the editor who inserted them say they did: the assignment of 6th Battalion, 112th Armor, to the 1st Brigade in 1989, and specific text saying that particular battalions of the 141st Infantry Regiment (United States) were assigned to the 1st Bde in 1989. It remains unclear what the original source actually was. As with my previous practice, I will post this note to the ongoing discussion at the main WT:MILHIST talk page."

Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With this edit, I have just removed from 49th Armored Division two sources, both ostensibly claiming to source which battalions were part of particular brigades in 1989: a source about 1981 summer training; and a 1992 newspaper reference attributing that 3-112 ARM was at Brownwood, but not which brigade. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe is correct about REVDEL. However, a quick look at Noclador's edit-warring to insert material on the 2nd Infantry Division (United States) article and repeated justified removal by Buckshot06 indicates that this is more of the same, using citations that only partially supports the material that immediately precedes it, and particularly does not support the camp locations, brigade allocations, and equipment allocations that are at the heart of this problematic editing behaviour. Specifically: This is the second time in the last couple of days that I have closely examined edits made by Noclador regarding US ORBATs (the other can be seen at Talk:50th Armored Division (United States)) and concluded that they are failing to comply with verification, a core content policy of WP. This is extremely disappointing behavior from an experienced editor who has made many great contributions to WP over many years. I do, however, see that Noclador is apparently attempting to do better at 50th Armored Division, per this edit] (although I haven't verified that all the material is now properly sourced, and would appreciate an examination of this from Buckshot06), and at this stage am going to give Noclador the benefit of the doubt that they will in future fully cite all information they are adding to US ORBATs and will go back and add citations or remove material that is uncited. If this doesn't happen, I will not hesitate to block them for refusing to comply with WP:V. Buckshot06, feel free to ping me if this occurs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the citation for 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry only supports the fact that the unit was assigned to the 2nd ID in 1989. It does not support the contention that it was at Camp Casey, assigned to the 1st Brigade or that it was equipped with M113 APCs
 * the citation for 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry only supports the fact that the unit was assigned to the 2nd ID in 1989. It does not support the contention that it was at Camp Hovey or assigned to the 2nd Brigade
 * the citation for 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry only supports the fact that the unit was assigned to the 2nd ID in 1989. It does not support the contention that it was at Camp Hovey, assigned to the 2nd Brigade, or had the (Air Assault) tag
 * the citation for 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry only supports the fact that the unit was assigned to the 2nd ID in 1989. It does not support the contention that it was at Camp Greaves, assigned to the 2nd Brigade, or had the (Air Assault) tag
 * the citation for 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment only supports the fact that the unit was assigned to the 2nd ID in 1989. It does not support the contention that it was at Camp Howze, assigned to the 3rd Brigade or that it was equipped with M113 APCs
 * Regarding and from 50th Armored Division: "I have just removed 5-102 Armor from the listing of the 1st Brigade. Of the three sources, one is a lineage, which lists 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Battalions as elements of the division in 1975, but says nothing subsequent to that regarding battalions until 1991; one is a general officer bio that substantiates Dover as the battalion location, but does not give a brigade assignment; and the third is the 1988 annual report, that only mentions 5-102 Armor with a planned deployment to Fort Drum, NY, from 14 - 28 July 1990. None of these references makes any claims about which brigade 5-102 Armor was assigned to in 1989. I will copy this note to the main talk page." Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding and from Talk:10th Mountain Division (United States): "With this edit, I have just removed the individual battalions listed as part of 1st Brigade, 10th MDLI in 1989. The sources cited and linked - official lineage & honors - do not support assignment of particular battalions to particular brigades. I will copy this note to the ongoing listing at the WT:MILHIST main talk page." Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also cleaned up unsourced listings of battalion level units at III Corps and XVIII Corps, when only the Green Book - ARmy Almanac for that year - listings show identities of brigade level equivalent formation HQs only. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving question re Attack on Mers-el-Kébir
I added an archive template to the talk page then noticed that the banner already had one. Does anyone know how to sort out which one to use? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Talk header template will link all Archive pages only if they follow normal naming, e.g. Archive 1, Archive 2, etc. If not then another template for the archive links will need to be added for the archive page links. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

1644 Siege of Liverpool
A few days ago, because of an edit request on Talk:Liverpool by I noticed that there seem to exist about two or three different claims about the duration of the siege of Liverpool by Prince Rupert in 1644. I'm not very good with history, but if anyone is interested, I've listed the first few sources I could find and their different claims at Talk:Liverpool. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Aircaft identification question
Hello, I am wondering if anyone can help with an aircraft identification question. The NARA caption just states, "Aerial photograph of flood, unidentified stretch of lower Mississippi River. Float planes are moored at the riverbank." (It was taken during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927). I am restoring this picture for a possible featured picture. Thanks in advance. (t · c)  buidhe  07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Vought O2U floatplane variant. Monstrelet (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The two diagonal struts connecting the wing to the body are wrong for O2U. The engine is wrong for Douglas DT. And two crew would be wrong for Naval Aircraft Factory TS. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Better image of plane in question:, doesn't have type. It is a US Navy plane (writing on plane, both images). Vici Vidi (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Frontal image of plane model in question (the one in front, the ones astern are different aircraft): Vici Vidi (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably two of 31 seaplanes sent from Naval Air Station Pensacola: . Vici Vidi (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Martin T4M, fitted with floats. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks too small to be a T4M, which is a three-seater with a distinctive rear gunner cockpit.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, it is not a T4M, but the strut setup is similar. Not sure what it is. It is a radial engine, 2-seater, and probably an aircraft that often has wheels but can be converted to float. US navy plane, based in Pensacola in 1927 (who probably sent out whatever they could equip with floats). Serial/navy number 7 and 25. Vici Vidi (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, got it! It is a Boeing NB-1, which apparently had a number of different strut configurations (so it is not (or maybe that is the wrong plane?), but is, , , ). The NB-1/2s were the trainers that replaced the N-9s. The NB-1 itself was replaced by the N3N (which has a similar but different wing configuration) which was longer liver (also post-WWII). Vici Vidi (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! That was very helpful. (t · c)  buidhe  22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC source review needed
G'day all, if someone would be able to find time to do a source review for Featured article candidates/George Gosse/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated. It already has three supports and an image review. Thanks in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is done, thanks ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please do me a favor?
At Landis' Missouri Battery, there's a citation in the lead for the alternate name. It's been requested in an ACR that this be moved, probably to where the alternate name is given in the infobox. My computer's not working, and my mobile system won't let me copy and paste. I'm afraid I'll insert a bunch of errors if I try to retype. Can someone move the citation for me? Thanks. Hog Farm Bacon 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ although honestly, I think it's just fine, even better, as a citation in the lead. Alternate names are one of the only things that might be in the lead but not the body. (t · c)  buidhe  13:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think in order to show that alternative names are sufficiently significant (per MOS:LEADALT, they need to be reliably sourced in the body), and therefore a citation in the lead is not needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested page move
9th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) should probably be moved to 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment as the Union counterpart received a redesignation and was almost never known by that name. I would move it myself, but ongoing computer issues reduces me to mobile-only editing, and I cannot find for the life of me where the page move spot on my mobile system is. I can add a hatnote after the move. Hog Farm Bacon 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am so ready to get my computer back from the shop. Hog Farm Bacon 02:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Who was the Soviet journalist "Svetlagorsk"?
Can anyone identify the "well-known Russian journalist Svetlagorsk" who was in Berlin at or immediately after its fall in 1945? Please see here for background. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

New content from US National Archives
FYI, new content from US National Archives my be interesting to folks - Civil War Defenses of Washington Fort Plans Now Available Online (July 7, 2020) -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken references
I'm trying to make a dent in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and a few articles within the MILHIST sphere have issues that I can't fix. Basically, some refs linked via sfn and harvnb and similar have missing full citations or have some other problems. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup).

In particular, the following articles could use some of your attention The cause is often copy-pasting a short reference from another article without copy-pasting the full reference. If you can find where things were copy-pasted from, you can usually find what the full reference is.
 * 5th (Huntingdonshire) Battalion, Northamptonshire Regiment: Joslen 2003 missing or has wrong year in either short or long citation went with 1990 date because it matches the cited ISBN Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 9th Infantry Division (Ottoman Empire): McKay 2018 missing found the only McKay 2018 and added another source Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 17 cm SK L/40 gun : Gröner and NavWeaps (17 cm/40) missing/unclear. Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 21st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht): Ambrose 1997 missing Found cited quote Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 21st Rifle Corps: Meltyukhov 2008 and Feskov et al 20 missing Done, but please review. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 25th Battalion (Nova Scotia Rifles), CEF: Miles 1938 and Prior & Wilson 1996 missing. Added, was Miles 1992 based on Capture of Regina Trench Eddie891 Talk Work 15:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun : Garzke & Dulin missing /incomplete information Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 42nd Rifle Corps: Volny 1992 missing - fixed Kges1901 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 62nd Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment: Higginson (1900) missing or wrong year fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 99th Infantry Division (United States): Eisenhower 1969 and '& Cole 1964' missing /incomplete information. fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 119th Field Artillery Regiment: misc issues replaced both broken sources Eddie891 Talk Work 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 148th Field Artillery Regiment: Gill 1957 missing - fixedNigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 161st Indian Infantry Brigade: Brett-James (1951) missing or malformed fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 515th Regiment (United States): Clay 2010 missing fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 23rd Army (People's Republic of China): Zhang 1995 missing Fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 50th Army (People's Republic of China): Zhang 1995 and Spurr 1988 missing Fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 152mm SpGH DANA: Tanks 2010 missing fixed Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 20-pounder Parrott rifle: Downey 2019a and Downey 2019b missing corrected based on 3-inch Ordnance rifle Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4th Infantry Division (Belgium): CARL 2005 missing Someone added it! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 115th Brigade (United Kingdom): Joslen 2003 missing or wrong year, as above - fixed AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All taken care of, thanks! I'll search for more, but those were all at the top of the category and easy to find and associated with MILHIST. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll also take the opportunity here to mention that setting harv in references is no longer needed (compare before and after ). Anchors are now automatically generated, so all templated citations can work out of the box with sfn and harv and similar templates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is that true even when you want to set a custom anchor by using harvid? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you can always set custom anchors, but those that you would generate with harv are now generated by default. Like they are/were in citation. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

More broken refs
• # 2nd 90mm Antiaircraft Artillery Gun Battalion

• # 59th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment

• # 1838 Mormon War

• #1920 Nebi Musa riots

• # 1943 BRUSA Agreement

• # 1947 Poonch rebellion

• # 1948 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania

• # 1948 Arab–Israeli War

• # 1956 in the Vietnam War

• # 1954 Geneva Conference

• # 1957 October Revolution Parade

• # 1960 Force Publique mutiny

• # 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash

• # 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état

• # 1964 Gabonese coup d'état

• # 1964 in the Vietnam War

• # 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

• # 1965 Algerian coup d'état

• # 1968 in the Vietnam War

• # 1969 in the Vietnam War

• # 1970 in the Vietnam War

• # 1971 in the Vietnam War

• # 1972 in the Vietnam War

• # 1971 Bangladesh genocide

• # 1982 Lebanon War

• # 1984 Guinean coup d'état

• # 1980 Entumbane clashes

• # 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash

• # 1989 Sukhumi riots

• # 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état

• # 13th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment

• # 2004 unrest in Kosovo

• # 2008 Kufra conflict

• # 2011 Libyan rape allegations

• # 1950–51 Baghdad bombings

• # 1966 Syrian coup d'état

• # 1975 Monte Chingolo attack

• #1989 Tiananmen Square protests (Many errors)

• # 1990 Scotland RAF Shackleton crash

• # 2002 Gujarat riots

• #2006 Lebanon War (Cordesman et al. needs fixing. Refs should be converted to sfn/harv-family templates)

• # 2009 Kokang incident

• # 2012 United Nations Mi-8 shootdown

• # 2015 Kumanovo clashes As above. Some may be unrelated to milhist, in which case feel free to remove them from the list. Although if you can fix them first, that's even greater. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing these up; I wonder if there isn't somewhere in the userspace or project space we can list these on to avoid clogging the talk and possible early archiving. Given that we're still in the numbers of the category, I'd imagine there's a lot more to come Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

De-archived. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Added details to facilitate fixings. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed 1966 Syrian coup d'état per Resource Exchange request. It was Helms 1984 not Seale (added reference as well). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Guha 2002; the error was most probably a result of an editor changing the citation style back in August 2014. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cordesman et al.: it probably is the same work already cited ("Lessons of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War", ref no. 16 as of right now); a search in the google preview for the "20 tanks" citation no. 18 is used to support yields, indeed, a result on page 110. Haven't taken the time to fix the citation style though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A comment to prevent archiving since this has not been fully resolved yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
@User:Eddie891 see Copying within Wikipedia for some advise on this issue and also the tool WikiBlame which can be used to help find the original text and the editor who placed it into the article (to ask from whence it came), or the text found by WikiBlame can be searched for in other Wikipedia articles to see if the long citation is available in another article. -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles Erasmus Fenner‎
I have started Charles Erasmus Fenner‎, who has many points of notability, some related to his captaincy of a battery in the American Civil War. I think this article definitely has GA potential, and am hopeful experts on that aspect can work up that portion of the article while I continue to improve on his legal career. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Ceber flagged as hoax
The article Battle of Ceber was flagged as a hoax and is being discussed at AN here. Some knowledgeable editors may wish to chime in. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How to tell when ACR passes
I'm new to this, so I'm not sure. Talk: Landis' Missouri Battery had the act parameter moved from current to pass, but the article class remains at GA. The ACR review passed an image review, source review, and had three supports. No edit was made to the review page. Thanks. Hog Farm Bacon 19:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That article is marked as passing an A class for Military History now. Passing the A class review only applies to the MilHist project, not other projects. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By a coord marking the |A-Class= in the banner as "pass" that automatically shows the Milhist class as A (but our processes only apply to our project, so it remains GA for other projects), the Milhistbot will see that on its next run (shortly) and it will close the review page and do a few other things to document that the article has passed and give you credit for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a delay in promoting the article because the MilHistBot had a problem. The transclusion did not match the article name. I can teach it about this, but for the nonce I simply altered the transclusion to match. The MilHistBot then promoted the article. This involves updating seven different pages.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Edward VIII
I have nominated Edward VIII for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

USCGC Taney and the Attack on Pearl Harbor
Please consider weighing in on the dispute at Talk:USCGC_Taney_(WHEC-37).--Mox La Push (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who participated in the conversation.--Mox La Push (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Huáscar (ironclad)
Per WP:NC-S, shouldn't this article be housed at BAP Huáscar? Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't find any mention of "BAP" in the article now. Could this ship have pre-dated Peru's designation system? (I have no idea.) -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Does it pre-date the system though? The List of Peruvian steam frigates has BAP Apurímac listed, but it also has PERUVIAN IRONCLAD Independencia listed. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * says in its list of definitions: "B.A.P.: Siglas empleadas desde el año 1921 como prefijo para todos los buques de la Marina de Guerra del Perú", which Google translates as "B.A.P.: Acronym used since 1921 as a prefix for all ships of the Peruvian Navy" - Dumelow (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a Spanish speaker I certify that this is a correct translation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried quite a while ago to move that article to a name better conforming to WP:SHIPS naming conventions, but was shot down by both Peruvian and Chilean editors. Apparently it's still a hot-button issue after 140 years. Maybe the nationalists have gone away in the interim, but good luck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in 2010 Spanish Wikipedia moved it from "BAP Apurimac" to "Frigate Apurimac", perhaps worth revisting? there's a number of pre-1921 ships listed as BAP at List of Peruvian Navy ships - Dumelow (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Perhaps we should clarify this by means of a RFC to only use the BAP Foo title for vessels in service in 1921 and thereafter. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary; WP:NC-SHIPS already instructs "Do not use prefixes that predate their use". Just remove the prefixes. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Leopard 2PL
Hi, I am Polish Wikipedian and I translated my article from Polish Wikipedia, and I'd like to ask you to review it. I was redirected here by another editor who reviewed the article but asked to check it here :D Polskiarmator123 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is For referencing orders and awards of a particular person, are uncaptioned pictures of the person wearing the regalia acceptable sources?. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Milhistbot B-Class assessments
G'day all, Milhistbot has now been run over the unassessed article categories, and has thrown up about 1,800 articles that it thinks are B-Class. As agreed, we need human eyeballs to check these ones. Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6 and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria, and provide feedback on any trends at User talk:MilHistBot. Please also delete any that you have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What I've noticed so far, at least on the articles I've worked on, is that it checks B2 fairly easily, even when the "coverage" probably wouldn't satisfy the necessary level of quality for B. Kinda hard to automate that process though, since bots aren't exactly good at knowing what it is they don't know about a subject if all they can examine is the article text; and what counts as good coverage for, say, German submarine U-153 (1941) (random hypothetical example), is probably way less than for Mengistu Haile Mariam. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is clearly one of the limitations of Milhistbot in doing this sort of assessment. I think once we've worked our way through the backlog, the dozen or so articles thrown up each month will be manageable. Hawkeye is posting them so they can be checked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review needed
If someone could do a source review on Featured article candidates/William Edward Sanders/archive1 that would be greatly appreciated by Zawed, I'm sure! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Query re: primary and disambiguation of 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment
G'day all, in the ACW there were (at least) three units called the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment: Questions: Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment (originally Clark's Missouri Infantry Regiment) a Confederate unit that apparently served as the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment from July 1863 to the end of the war
 * 12th Missouri Infantry Regiment (originally White's Missouri Infantry Regiment) a Confederate unit that apparently served as the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment from May to December 1863 (I know, there appears to be an overlap)
 * 59th Illinois Infantry Regiment a Union unit that served as the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment from 1861 to February 1862.
 * are their any others?
 * is there a primary subject?
 * is the dab page at 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment (disambiguation) ok, or could it be improved in view of the primary subject etc?

This is a fun one. There was a Confederate 9th Missouri Infantry Battalion, there's the 9th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate), there was a 9th Division in the Missouri State Guard, the Family Search genealogical website suggests there was a 9th Cavalry Regiment in the MSG. There seems to have been a unit named the 9th Missouri Enrolled Militia on the Union side, don't know if it was infantry or a regiment. There also seems to be a 9th Provisional Missouri Enrolled Militia, same unsureness as above. There were also 9th Regiments in the regular Union cavalry and Union militia cavalry. I don't know if the two enrolled militia units were infantry or regiments, but the others don't fit the criteria.

I think the one currently at the base title is probably primary topic because it was the only permanent exact designation. I have a few doubts, though. Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to worry about any that were not regiments or were not infantry, as they will not need dabbing and don't come into the question of what the primary subject is. So the only one of those we may need to take into account is the unit that may be the 9th Missouri Provisional Enrolled Militia or 9th Missouri Enrolled Militia. A quick look indicates that a couple of the Missouri Provisional Enrolled Militia units were regimental size (the 6th and 7th, for example), but others were battalion-sized or smaller (a couple were single companies). It is an open question whether the enrolled militia units are even notable, so I don't think we need to be too concerned about them. I think we just need a discussion about the primary subject, dabbing of 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment with (Confederate) and whether the dab page is ok as is, or needs to treat all three as equal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review needed
G'day all, WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Normandy campaign has three supports and an image review, and just needs a source review. If someone could take a look, that would be awesome! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On it. Harrias  talk 08:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harrias! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

More ACW naming stuff
It feels like I'm responsible for about half of the ACW regimental naming issues brought up here (leaving out regiment a month or two back, my naming a bunch of things with (Confederate) at the end got mentioned on here, I totally screwed up Landis's Battery, which has been through multiple page moves since creation). So with my history of article naming problems put out here, the name for another of the article's I've created has been challenged. The following text is copied from Talk:Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment, see there for attribution. I'm gonna set the text as collapsed, to not take up as much space on the talk page.

I think the current name is correct, but since I have a history of FUBARing article titles, I think it's best to take this here. Breakdown of the names the sources use for the unit:
 * 1) Busch: "Slayback's command"
 * 2) Collins: "Slayback's Detachment of Missouri Cavalry", "Slayback's command", "Slayback's Battalion", and "Slayback's (Missouri) Cavalry Battalion"
 * 3) McGhee: "Slayback's Regiment"
 * 4) Monnett: "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion"
 * 5) Official Records: "Slayback's (Missouri) Cavalry Battalion" and "the command of Slayback"

For background, the unit was originally formed as a battalion, and then enlarged to a regiment. Monnett, Collins, and the Official Records are referring to events before the unit was enlarged to regimental strength.

I think the current title is the best, what do others with better article naming experience think? Hog Farm Bacon 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no opinion on the name but just wanted to say that I don't think you've made any serious errors here. When creating an article, it's always worth putting some thought into what would be the best name, but names are much easier to fix than poor article content. (t · c)  buidhe  02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with buidhe, no harm done at all, articles are easily moved. In this case, the current title is best IMHO, as we use the last name it had unless it is clearly better known under a previous one, it wasn't ever numbered, and it complies with   which is what we are trying to implement. An argument could be made that it didn't do anything notable as a regiment, so it should be at Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion, but frankly this isn't clear-cut case, and as long as there is a redirect for Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion, I think we're good. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It still seems wrong to me. WP:Article titles says, "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Using a relatively unknown person's last name without his or her first name is not "natural." The problem with the examples used just above is that (unless I am mistaken) all of them, "Slayback's Regiment," "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion," etc., are undoubtedly in sources where the first name has already been mentioned. Alonzo Slayback is not like William Shakespeare (although both wrote poems); we need Alonzo's name as parr of the title for it (the title) to make sense to the reader. WP must serve the reader ahead of anyone else, it seems to me. So, I propose Alonzo Slayback's Confederate regiment. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is sufficiently recognisable, concise (more concise than adding his first name anyway), natural (it explains the state it was from, what type of unit it was and its size), precise (there is no other one to confuse it with) and consistent. Re: consistency, there are many military units (not just ACW ones) that are named using the commander's surname. It used to be common in the British Army. Lumsden's Horse, Danks' Rangers, and Roll's Regiment are examples from different periods. There are dozens of "named" ACW units in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the example. I did not know it was military lingo. Best wishes. I believe we are finished here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment notice
Ambrose Burnside, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

J. W. Dunne
There is a disagreement at J. W. Dunne over the semantics of describing his father, who was born in Ireland of Irish stock but served as a General in the British Army. Any contributions to the discussion at Talk:J. W. Dunne would be appreciated. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate use of "family oral history" in Battle of Glorieta Pass
In 2007, User:Ljb-esq added a bit about an individual involved in the battle sourced to "oral history of the family." On its face, this seems to be a violation of WP:RS as well as perhaps WP:UNDUE. I'm presenting it here for review of those more involved in military history, in case there is some precedent I'm unaware of. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Worst, it would contravene WP:VERIFY since oral histories are not likely to be publicly accessible. (t · c)  buidhe  14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This would violate WP:Primary sources, even if verifiable. BusterD (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, but wanted to err on the caution. Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And wp:undue as if RS do not care why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove. Not verifiable and not an RS. Also undue weight. Hog Farm Bacon 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Alabama Flag controversy
There has been raised via the RefDesks some editing on 167th Infantry Regiment (United States) which uses Facebook and Twitter as references. I have added in some tags, but perhaps somebody that understands the nuances of the subject might like to have a look; it seems like a bit of a minefield to my British eyes. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That section needs a good clean-up. This Wall Street Journal article contains a little information but I don't have a subscription - Dumelow (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All sorted now. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Titling of ACW regiments
I had thought we had decided that ACW units would be consistently titled including the size of the unit in the article title. However, I have recently seen quite a lot of regiments being titled without "Regiment", eg 4th Missouri Infantry (Confederate). I appreciate that "4th Missouri" etc is a shorthand used within articles because it is often used in sources, however as a matter of MILMOS, I think we should be consistent with article titles for all military units and include their size in the title, ie 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate). Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping  Harrias  talk 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, I'll move the three I've created. It looks like most of the Confederate regiments are out of MOS, see 22nd Virginia Infantry and 1st Missouri Infantry (Confederate) for long-standing examples. Hog Farm (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't having a crack at you, just wondering if I had missed a change of MILMOS. You are doing great work on ACW articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The inconsistencies arise because there has not been a systematic movement of all articles to standardized titles, and there have been several mass movements to titles which are out of MOS in the last few years. Kges1901 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are they consistently categorised so we could move the non-compliant ones easily? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See Category:Regiments of the Confederate States Army and Category:Union Army regiments. Kges1901 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems odd that they are categorised differently. Should Category:Union Army regiments be changed to Category:Regiments of the Union Army to conform with the general approach of WP:MILMOS? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes, but moving a category results in a messy category redirect that would result in much more work to fix over thousands of pages, so that would seem to be lower priority than page titles. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is put through CFD (it meets criteria WP:C2C) the category move is done by a bot, and there will be no need for a redirect at Category:Union Army regiments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are suddenly numerous regiments getting renamed with (Confederate) as part of the name? The reason for that (or Union) being added in the first place is do disambiguate when there are regiments on the other side with the same name; which is only true for a comparably small number of units. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we need to make it clear what side they fought for and in what war/era in the title. Many ACW unit titles lack clarity due to the lack of this. Any regiment from Alabama (for example) could have fought for the Confederate or Union side, we can't expect readers to know that only the Confederate side had a Nth Alabama Infantry Regiment, or that it only existed in the ACW and isn't a current national guard unit. So it isn't clear from the title Nth Alabama Infantry Regiment which side the regiment was on (or even which era/war it fought in for that matter). Adding Union or Confederate makes it clear not only what side they were on, but also which war/era. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * However, there were 61 Alabama Confederate infantry regiments, compared to just three Union regiments that later were redesignated as United States Colored Troops units and did not see combat under their state-name designations (which included the distinguishing 'African Descent'). No current National Guard units have the name of their state in their unit designation as since World War I there has been a standard 'national' numbering - Alabama's infantry regiment is the 167th Infantry Regiment (United States). There were three Alabama volunteer units that saw no combat during the Spanish American War (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Alabama Volunteer Infantry Regiments), but those are not the primary topic as few will be looking for them based on US interest which is primarily focused on the Civil War. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Alabama Infantry Regiments were called up for duty on the Mexican border in 1916–1917 but again these units are comparatively obscure (and 4th Alabama, which carries on the Civil War 4th Alabama is related to the current 167th). It does not seem that military history unit articles always disambiguate of there is another unit of the same name, for example Manchester Regiment and Manchester Regiment (Jacobite) or Royal Scots and Royal Scots (Jacobite). In this case, the primary topic principle is applied. From what I can see, numerous articles about units with a unique name don't disambiguate, for example Hohenlohe Regiment - not knowing about the history of the Bourbon military, I might think this is a Prussian unit, but there does not appear to be a principle of generally disambiguating by side. This would seem that a unit like the Perote Guards whose name is unique does not need a disambiguation. But, as for articles titles that are entirely out of line:


 * Category:Connecticut Civil War regiments - 30 noncompliant
 * Delaware Civil War regiments - 4 noncompliant
 * Category:Massachusetts Civil War regiments - mostly noncompliant Kges1901 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's put aside the disambiguation for a moment (I only did Alabama, and am happy to revert the moves if there is a consensus they are unnecessary), and concentrate on getting categories and obviously non-compliant articles into compliance with policy. I have asked for a speedy move of Category:Union Army regiments to Category:Regiments of the Union Army on the basis of 2C2. If someone knowledgeable about ACW units can go through state by state in subsections below, I'm sure a few of us would be happy to move the articles that need moving to make their titles consistent and disambiguate them when both Union and Confederate forces had units of the same name or where confusion could easily arise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Kentucky
As requested:
 * Category:Kentucky Confederate Civil War regiments - All infantry regiments can be moved to the title format xth Kentucky Infantry Regiment (Confederate) as there were also Union units with these same designations.
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments - All infantry and cavalry regiments can be moved to the standard titling format - xth Kentucky [Infantry or Cavalry] Regiment - Disambiguation (Union) needed for 1st through 9th Kentucky Infantry (inclusive) and 1st through 16th Kentucky Cavalry (inclusive). Mounted infantry units should follow the same format: xth Kentucky Mounted Infantry Regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, I'll start in on these shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, just an additional query about this second one. They all seem to include "Volunteer" in the title, but that seems to go against WP:CONCISE. I think we can reasonably drop that from the titles. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Volunteer can be dropped as most secondary sources do not mention it when they refer to units. Kges1901 (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Who whoa whoa!!! Uh, Kges1901, completely different song from the one you were singing in April?? And "Volunteer" was a specific type of regiment? What gives??? Please see below. Historical Perspective 2 & TwoScars, any comments? Hhfjbaker (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No need for the implied bad language. Volunteer is unneeded, as the titles of these ARW and ACW are not the same, because the ACW ones have "Infantry" in them. Hatnotes and dab pages can sort them out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Implied bad language was directed at myself not anyone else. Also, it was implied. Hhfjbaker (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1st through 9th Kentucky Infantry done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, rest of Kentucky done. Next! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Other Union states
Kges1901 (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:New Jersey Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units (all regiments).
 * Category:Rhode Island Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units (all regiments).
 * Category:West Virginia Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units (all regiments).
 * One done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Query, the arty units are a bit different because the individual batteries are generally notable, but to be consistent with the standard titling, should Battery A, 1st Regiment Rhode Island Volunteer Light Artillery be Battery A, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery Regiment? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that would in line with the article titles of other units. Kges1901 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, re: numbered/alpha battery titles, I'm thinking they should be standardised like Battery A, 1st Rhode Island Light Artillery Regiment. There are quite a lot of variations, like 1st Battalion Tennessee Light Artillery, Battery "A", Battery "I" 1st Regiment Michigan Light Artillery (no comma),  Battery "H", 1st Illinois Light Artillery Regiment etc. The double quotation marks should be avoided in article titles, per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS, so regardless, they need to go. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The apostrophes resulted because of the copying of articles from Dyer's Compendium. Dyer was one of the few authors even then who used the apostrophes and contemporary reports refer to lettered batteries without them. Standardizing them the way you suggested would be in line with how secondary sources refer to them. Kges1901 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, 14th Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (Colored) ended the war as the 11th United States Colored Heavy Artillery Regiment, so should probably be at that title per WP:MILMOS unless an argument can be made that it is clearly more commonly known by the current one, or 8th United States Colored Heavy Artillery Regiment (which it was only briefly). It spent the most time at its final name (nearly half its existence, just shy of 18 months), and none of its constituent battalions seem to have been involved in any major fighting. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the 14th RIHA, the site with Dyer's Compendium online has much more info under the state designation than under the USCT designation. However, standardization of article titles is desirable and redirects can handle just about anything. The designation as 8th USCHA was short-lived because it was discovered that another unit already existed with that designation. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Rob. In that case, I think we should just go with the name at the end of the war then. I'll move it to 11th United States Colored Heavy Artillery Regiment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three done, . Next! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Nevada Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units.
 * Category:United States Colored Troops Civil War regiments - The units titled 'Regiment United States Colored Troops' should be standardized as 'United States Colored Infantry Regiment', and add size for 3rd USCI BusterD (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Connecticut Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units.
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Delaware Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units.
 * Category:Minnesota Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units.
 * I've looked over these two. One query: to move to the standard titling, I think Brackett's Battalion, Minnesota Cavalry should be at Brackett's Minnesota Cavalry Battalion. There is one more like this, Hatch's Battalion, Minnesota Cavalry. Any alternative views? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved these two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Kges1901 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Nebraska Civil War regiments - Standard titling format needed for all infantry and cavalry units.
 * I got a bunch of these, but I had to csd tag a few in order to clear the way for the moves. I see Peacemaker67 helping me with this and looking over my shoulder a bit. Thanks. Now I'm going through the state categories in alpha order to be certain we got them all. BusterD (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, hope you don't mind me looking over your shoulder, just making some consequent changes to leads etc. Also, if you strike any page moves needing deletion, just ping me on the talk page and I'll do it. Could you post each state here as you do them so we can keep track of which ones have been done? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your help and apologize that I didn't perform many of the the simple consequent changes (to MN and NE units) you made after my page moves. At some point I ran out of gumption and stopped working, so I definitely appreciated the fresh eyes. I had pursued Category:Regiments of the Union Army by state beginning in Alabama and stopping in Illinois. Looking at them this morning I notice that my Alabama moves somehow left categories in the redirects so I fixed those just now. I also see that articles like List of Alabama Union Civil War units will need follow up changes. In Illinois I discovered 92nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment and 92nd Illinois Volunteer Mounted Infantry Regiment. These appear to be the same unit (strangely created by the same user back in 2007) and so those pages need to be merged. In the case of named units (Cogswell's Battery Illinois Light Artillery) I was unsure of whether any change needed to be made and so performed no change. Finally, there is a variation noticeable in Category:Regiments of the Union Army. Some categories seem to be in the form "X Civil War regiments" and some (CSA or border states) follow ""X Union Civil War regiments". I'm wondering if there should be standardization here. Category:United States Regular Army Civil War regiments reveals a few questions too. Sorry for my inattention. Thanks for the encouragement. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. There will be some exceptions for unique units, but I think in general the named units should be at 's , per my suggestion above regarding Brackett's Minnesota Cavalry Battalion. This would make the named battery titles like Cogswell's Illinois Light Artillery Battery rather than Cogswell's Battery Illinois Light Artillery. Normally we wouldn't change redirects if they exist in articles, but I agree that the state lists should be brought into line with the new titling to avoid editor's seeing the lists and then moving the units to match them. Not sure about what to do about the cats, will think on that. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day any more? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi could you provide guidance on the dabbing of the Missouri regiments please? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

All of the Confederate units that need disambiguations already have them. For the Union infantry 1st through 12th and 16th Infantry Regiments need disambiguations. For Union cavalry 1st through 13th and 15th Cavalry should be preemptively disambiguated as the Confederate cavalry regiments sharing these numbers are of equal notability even if articles do not yet exists. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of these, there are several Missouri infantry regiments that have articles for both their three-month and three-year iterations. In some cases, where the three-month regiment mustered out and the troops essentially became the three-year regiment, I have suggested a merge. Obviously this isn't appropriate when the new unit that absorbed the majority of the remaining men changed ordinal/name/role, ie 1st Missouri Infantry Regiment (Union) became the 1st Missouri Light Artillery Regiment, but where the unit retained the same name, ie 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment (3 months, 1861) became the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Union) and many of the troops, it seems logical to merge them. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, Missouri done, except for the partially done ones mentioned above where a merge is possible. do you have any views on the above? Also, can you feed me another state that needs doing? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the three month and three years' unit has the same personne, yes, a merged would be logical. Category:Ohio Civil War regiments will be a lot to tackle, but you just need to add 'regiment' and standardize those with volunteer in the title. Kges1901 (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two points: One, 7th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Union) may possibly be the primary topic. The Confederate 7th Mo. never completed (or even really started) formation, and the 16th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) was only known as the 7th Mo. Infantry for about 6 or 7 months.  So the Union regiment may be the primary topic.  Also, I've started on the Ohio units, and I'm unsure about 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery (I've done through the 5ths I think, but I skipped this one.  Should it be 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery Regiment or 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery Battery?  Some of them, such as the 1st Regiment Maine Volunteer Heavy Artillery were converted to infantry regiment, but others remained as artillery units and saw garrison service.  This particular unit was actually the 117th Ohio Infantry unit it was redesignated to heavy artillery, so a merge may be in order there. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think in general if a unit saw action on one side, it is equally notable as a unit on the other side with the same ordinal that also saw action, so there is no primary. If one of them didn't see action (was just a garrison unit, for example), then the one that saw action is probably the primary. If a unit changed branch, ie infantry to artillery, it probably needs separate articles for each iteration unless one of them saw no action, and it should probably be at the title of the unit that saw action. I'll have a look at the linked examples shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Be aware that a change in branch and organization was not always accompanied by a change in unit name, at least on the Union side. The 1st Maine HA (which started life as the 18th Maine Inf but got an arty reorg to serve in the Defenses of Washington) became an infantry unit in early 1864 (gaining great fame as such for 1E), but retained the artillery designation and uniforms. Same for the 2nd Connecticut HA. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob, sounds like such units might need to be done on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've started in on Ohio. Quite a few to do there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Retitling of Civil War Regiments/Removal of Volunteer
I vehemently feel that one needs to keep the word Volunteer in the title of the page if it is a Volunteer regiment. Their official titles were  Regiment,  Volunteer , I understand Wikipedians (but disagree) in not using the official title. In keeping with Wiki practice of terseness and common appellation, I understand   at the start but strongly, strongly believe Volunteer needs to be in the title. This helps identify rapidly that it was not a militia regiment, but one that was raised in answer to Lincoln's calls for 90-day, three-month and three-year volunteers (pls, see 7th New York Militia Regiment vs. 7th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment vs 7th New York Veteran Infantry Regiment. For standardization purposes, once Volunteer is used in the title, it should be used in all (not to mention, I did expend a lot of effort into renaming a bunch of them). When I studied American History 1977-1982, it was common to use Volunteer at first mention to identify them. While working at a historic home in Concord, MA next to Minute Man National Historical Park, 1979-1982, the Park Rangers used Volunteer when talking about Civil War Union volunteer regiments. When I started taking courses again in 1998 and 2009, the history department at UMass Lowell used Volunteer at first mention. I have been to Kennesaw Mountain, Manassas Richmond National Battlefield, Chickamauga and Chattanooga, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County, and Gettysburg between 1970 and 2018; all the NP tour guides use Volunteer at first mention. Wile I will reluctantly go along with not using the official title, I most strongly insist Volunteer should be left in the article title. In some GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) paperwork that belonged to my great-great-grandfather, his unit is listed as "17th Maine Volunteer Infantry." If it was important enough to be included then (circa 1890), should it not still be a way of separating them from the militia? '''Grrr. Gnash gnash. Teeth grinding. 60-year-old crankiness pegging out. Old dog circling before flopping down.''' Anyway, ... I know everyone has good intentions, and as you can see, I feel it is necessary to retain Volunteer. Take care Hhfjbaker (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to include the word "Volunteer" for these units. The titles of these units are sufficiently different so that well-constructed hatnotes will sort out any confusion. The Militia units and Veteran units are far less common than the others, and are identified by "Militia" and the Veteran units are identified by "Veteran". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If Kges1901, Historical Perspective 2,  TwoScars, RobDuch, and GELongstreet are in consensus with you, I will yield. (he wrote with resignation and cranky disappointment at not getting one's way) Hhfjbaker (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am starting to wend my way to your view. I just did some more research (one source being Howard Coffin) and the issue of the militias/volunteers differentiation came back to me. The July 1862 call for 300,000 volunteers by Lincoln for three-year enlistments was met by volunteer regiments. The August 1862 call for 300,000 more for nine-months was a use of his authority to call the state militias into federal service for just nine months. Some of those nine-months regiments are sometimes referred to as Volunteers when they were actually militia regiments that took in new recruits to bring them up to strength. I would like to wait for the comments of the others, but, yeah, I'm starting to see the possible benefit of leaving it out and using the text of the article to address the differences between the militia and volunteer regiments. Hhfjbaker (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Removal of "Volunteer" makes sense to me. Peacemaker67, I liked the way you phrased it on your talk page...remove "Volunteer" for concision and include "Regiment" or other size designation at the end for precision. Speaking with regard to the Massachusetts articles, most of them will need to be moved to bring them into consistency but this doesn't present any problems as far as I can see. I'm going to go ahead and move/rename some that I created recently.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In checking, most of the articles I created recently followed this convention anyway per an earlier discussion. So definitely no problem here. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat neutral on this, but leaning toward leaving out "Volunteer". I like the thought of remove "Volunteer" for concision and include "Regiment" or other size designation at the end for precision. Additionally, once it has been established that the unit is regiment (or other unit), I would like to stop repeating it. Back to Volunteer—I used "Volunteer" for 2nd West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment to be consistent with the other WV regiments (at the time) and because the ribbon (my g-g-grandfather's ) that I have says "2nd. Virginia VOL. Cavalry". I believe 5th New York Cavalry Regiment has been changed back and forth several times. I agree that if "Volunteer" is left out of the title, it should be discussed in the text. We should have a written policy for how a regiment is to be described (Volunteer etc.) so we can all be consistent. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the word "volunteer" can be dealt with via redirects. Throughout the wiki, redirects make the article title less important. Many units had alternate ways of referring to them (72nd Pennsylvania Infantry appears in graffiti at Harper's Ferry as "Baxter's Philadelphia Fire Zouaves") or unusual official names (1st Rhode Island Infantry Regiment was officially "1st Rhode Island Detached Militia") that may be used as redirects and should be explained in the body of the article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I favor the renaming as well. To be clear, renaming the article as in the actual article title, to the both precise and search-friendly XY Whateverstate Whateverbranch Whateversize. In the past Volunteer has, in some cases, been used as disambiguator but there are clearer ways for that. However I have no issue with Volunteer being part of the more formal/complete unit name highlighted in the lead section for Union units though would opt to use the same overall format (so Volunteer added between state and branch with no need for commas) if possible; and of course nobody prevents anybody from making various redirects. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's consensus. You have all convinced me. Yes, Peacemaker67 you have the best solution. Hhfjbaker (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, and special thanks to for being so gracious. I think hatnotes and redirects will solve pretty much all of this. I will continue on my merry way moving titles in my spare time. You are welcome to pitch in, of course. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that once this is done, I will draft a couple of sentences to add to WP:MILMOS to cover this, as it has been a bone of contention ever since I've been on here, and some more specific guidance is probably needed (per TwoScars). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but, hey, when your solution is the best solution, it will win out. Thanks to all in this discussion, and thank you all for past enlightenment. :-) We're all trying to do our best! (Even us cranky 60-year-old Navy bubbas) Hhfjbaker (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A little help needed. Last week I went through and moved nearly all the Massachusetts units which didn't already conform to this naming convention. Got stuck on four of them. For the 11th, 18th and 54th Massachusetts Infantries, the intended destination page (i.e. 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment) already exists as a redirect. BusterD recommended speedy deletion of the 54th destination page so that the move can take place (and I assume we'd do the same with the others). I'm not sure exactly how this is done. And in the case of the 21st Massachusetts, there is no "move" option shown on that page--not sure why. Peacemaker67, BusterD suggested I reach out to you for assistance. Possible you could point me in the right direction here? Many thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can ping me here or on the article talk page and I'm happy to move them. Just don't RM them, as it isn't necessary, and I can't close RMs for these units because I am involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I see now the RMs were a mistake. I thought it would initiate a speedy move and clearly did not understand. So, what's next? Do I need to ping an admin not involved to close the RMs? Thanks for your advice here. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They need to stay open for seven days, per normal RM procedures. Then you could ask an uninvolved admin to close and delete the redirects to make way for the moves. In the meantime, if hatnotes are needed to deal with similarly-titled ARW regiments, you could add them per the example one I did. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

US Commendation medal
Can anyone help me verify that Otto Reich in fact received a Commendation Medal, as our article has claimed? I cannot find any source independent of the subject that says this, but I am not well-versed in military sources that may not readily come up in a search about the individual. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

John Cunningham GAR
John Cunningham (RAF officer), 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. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a serious geographical anomaly, which I've raised on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Help needed on Manhattan Project
A user called is attacking the Manhattan Project infobox. He cannot be bothered reading the article and knows nothing about the subject. Could someone please revert him for me? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Statistics section, updated
Greetings, I added wikilinks to "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible Merge Suggestion
Hello team - I came across this article in WPCleaner as missing reference heading. I noticed there is not much to the article, however, I know there are a couple articles for different wars they were involved in. This page was created in 2007. It does not have a lot in the history of the page either. The page is Siege of Chittorgarh (1535). Thanks, Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 21:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In need of discussants in reference to Russian involvement in the war in Donbass
Please see Talk:War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 01:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevant Commons deletion discussion
See. I've nominated an image used only on enwiki and very relevant to the project for deletion on Commons out of an abundance of caution. Basically, I feel like the image should be PD as claimed by uploader, as it is a picture of a flag from the ACW and the flag would have been "published" before 1925. However, the source claims that special permission is needed for commercial use of the image, which would likely require an OTRS ticket to use on Wikipedia. Since the image is in an article I'm wanting to try to take to FAC eventually (currently has 4 supports and passed image and source reviews on the ACR IIRC), I want to make certain sure the file is usable. I'm not good with licensing. Hog Farm Bacon 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:6th Kansas Cavalry flag.jpg This link works, although I think the discussion has sufficient input now. (t · c)  buidhe  03:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A little help?
G'day all, each month Milhist bot automatically assesses a bunch of new Milhist articles, and all the ones classed as B are listed on the coord's talk page for checking of Milhistbot's assessments by a human. We generally get through then all each month, but a bumper crop in May means that we haven't got through them all prior to the arrival of the June report (which is also big). Any editors with experience in assessing articles against our Milhist B-Class criteria can help out. The thread for May is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators if you have a few spare minutes to help get this done. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
 * This is now sorted, thanks very much to everyone who chipped in to check the assessments. Feel free to have a crack at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators if you get a spare minute! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was incredible. Thanks to all who jumped in a assessed the June list. All done now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

high volume editor whose work needs checking
I have noticed that User:Snagemit has been putting out a very high volume of edits in a very short while. Some of these are corrections of presentation (so, OK), others are factual changes which seem (unintentionally?) to be wrong. I have just reverted some of these edits on Battle of the Atlantic, but scanning some of the others, they need the attention of editors familiar with the subjects and sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Split/merge or I dunno... Help!
As part of my work on a Draft article, I came upon Military history of France during World War II. This comprehensive (167kb) article has everything in it but the kitchen sink. With five levels of subsections, even the ToC was impossibly long; I've since fixed that with a toc limit but see this version just before I did some clean-up, to get a sense of it: just browsing the ToC, your scrolling finger may get tired, before you get to body section one. (Alternatively, unroll the section sizes gadget in the Talk page header.) Anyway, after cleanup (just section re-org, no text changes) it now looks like this: rev 967928981 of July 16, still a Brobdingnagian Rube Goldberg gadget (to mix my metaphors), but easier to take in (I hope).

My cleanup/re-org, was just so I could see the article a bit better from 40,000 feet, to try to get a handle on it. As an initial overture, I've created this discussion to discuss a split and merge, or whatever it is that needs to be done with this article. My basic idea would be to turn it into more of a parent article in Summary style than it already is, slashing and burning and shipping stuff out, leaving a shell of the current article, and hopefully many fewer levels of subsectioning.

I don't want to be lead on this, I'm stretched too thin already, but I thought folks here might be able to come in and take over, and do whatever you think needs doing. If there are issues with French-only sources, hit me up and I can probably help. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC) updated 19:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Rjensen worked a lot on that article in 2014 and is still active in that field, maybe he has some ideas. Alexpl (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

www.armouredcarriers.com
Does anyone know who's behind the website? It's a very well put together site on the British armoured aircraft carriers of World War II which looks reliable, but has no information I can see about its authorship. Google Books indicates that it's only been used as a reference by three books, which doesn't bode well. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The site's Twitter account says it's this chap: https://www.jamieseidel.com/ - Dumelow (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't see any qualifications as a historian there so this unfortunately isn't a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Article expansion
Hi all! Just created an article on the lesser known, but brilliantly named, 19th century cricketer Gloucester Gambier. This chap was also a major-general in the Royal Artillery, so leaving him here if anyone fancies expanding him beyond the stubby information I've found about him. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD
There is currently a discussion in WP:AFD whose subject may be relevant to this project. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation at Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

HMS Sandwich
Is this HMS Sandwich the same as the rebuilt HMS Sandwich (1679), or a separate vessel? Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Colledge & Warlow, it is the same vessel. Launched in 1679 at Harwich, rebuilt 1712 at Chatham, retained as a hulk in 1752, broken up 24 March 1770 at Chatham. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looks like the HMS Cambridge HMS Sandwich page is incorrect then. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see any error on that page. What do you think is wrong with it? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was your post that was incorrect. Rebuilt in 1715 (per my source) and not in 1712 as you said. All is good. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, my post is a correct report of the Colledge & Warlow source. However, it could be that either of the sources made an error in gathering information or even a typographical error in printing 1712 instead of 1715 or vice-versa. I'm not sure how the Cambridge relates to a discussion about the Sandwich though. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad!. Had changed the link. What I said above still holds. shipindex page says 1712, source I gave says 1715. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Military history of the Confederate States
The redirect, which currently targets American Civil War, has been nominated for retargetting at RfD. Your input to the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20 would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 20 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) 05:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Witold Pilecki
I have nominated Witold Pilecki for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  17:53, 25 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! NB: An interesting read about the Panamanian strongman, "Old Pineapple Face". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, this one just needs one more reviewer, thanks to for stepping up! Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and left some comments. Woody (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Help requested
Maybe someone here can help out with this question at the reference desk (titled "Help identifying WWII uniform patch"). Thank you in advance for your efforts and time! ---Sluzzelin talk  12:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

MHQ article on M. Francois D'Eliscu
Good read, makes it explicit that Edward Eliscu was his brother, better covers his work in the gentle art of eye-gouging and groin-kneeing. Qwirkle (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Demchok pre- and post-1962 Sino-Indian War
There is an RfC at Talk:Demchok sector about whether to mention the pre- and post-1962 Sino-Indian War status of the articles Demchok sector, Demchok, Ladakh, Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and Demchok (historical village). Your input is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 14:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Eric Brown
A discussion is taking place as to whether or not Eric Brown (pilot) was the Royal Navy's most decorated airman. Discussion centres on the value of various medals and whether or no non-UK medals have any value at all. Input requested at the talk page please. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Surrender of Japan has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 15 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 15, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:MILUNIT and militia units
Does MILUNIT apply to state/provincial militia units? I'm considering writing an article about Tull's Missouri Battery, a Missouri State Guard unit that fought at the Battle of Pea Ridge. The unit consolidated with another unit simultaneously with joining the Confederate States Army. It barely passes GNG due to obscurity and brief service. I'm aware of two secondary sources it has coverage in. Would MILUNIT apply here? Hog Farm Bacon 21:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day Hog Farm, artillery batteries (as sub-units, rather than units like regiments) are usually below the threshold for notability, although we make an exception for the ACW due to their independent nature and frontline nature of their service (rather than later artillery units that were used almost completely in an indirect fire role). In this case, as it existed so briefly and consolidated with another unit when it joined Confederate service, I would just cover it in the Background of the post-consolidation battery article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I'm aware that a lot of the articles I write will probably never be anything anyone besides me finds interesting, so I don't want to go crazy and write a bunch of non-notable ones. Hog Farm Bacon 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Biography of Brigadier General Muhsin, SF Commander of Bangladesh Army
I have marked a draft on Md Muhsin Alam for a wiki article review Draft:Md Muhsin Alam. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2para.cdo.bn (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day 2para.cdo.bn, as he is a brigadier, he is probably notable, but you can't use Facebook and Twitter as sources. You need to cite every para (or even every sentence) to a reliable source like a reputable newspaper article etc. Good luck with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even more importantly for here, you need to write a biography, not a hagiography. Qwirkle (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

American newspaper access
I am blocked from viewing: this Claremore Progress article because I am in Europe. It mentions the American Civil War "Osage battalion was also present at the battle" but the Google preview doesn't tell me which battle. Would a non-EU (or VPN-using) editor mind taking a look for me? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : The full context is as follows: Both the documentary and the book chronicle the last Confederate offensive into northeast Indian Territory. [. . .] The Osage battalion was also present at the battle. This refers to the Second Battle of Cabin Creek, if memory serves. I've e-mailed you the full text of the article. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eddie891 - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure if it would have worked in this case, but often you can still view the Google cached version from within the EU/UK. Harrias  talk 13:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience, archive.org/archive.is often work when something like this happens. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * archive.is is now known as archive.today, but you can still use the old link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One easy way to bypass the EU-wide block is to submit the page to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, for archiving. You can usually view the freshly-archived copy within seconds; in this case, you can do so here - if you get a "Cookies not enabled" warning, enable "reader mode" in your browser. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I had tried the Wayback Machine but it didn't seem to work for me in this instance. I'll try using "reader mode" in future - Dumelow (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

VCJS Caps
A discussion thread was started on Talk:Vice_Chairman_of_the_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff regarding an edit in light of MOS:JOBTITLES. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 05:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

1918/19 Biggin Hill mutiny; Aperfield Court
I have overlapping queries about a 1918/19 mutiny at RAF Biggin Hill; and about the use of Aperfield Court for officer accommodation, nearby; please see Talk:London Biggin Hill Airport. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, I found a few sources and replied over at the article talk page - Dumelow (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Rawlings, Fighter Squadrons, Moyes, Bomber Squadrons of the Royal Air Force (2 x books)
Does anyone have access to these books from the 1970s? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Silent Feet Book
Has anyone ever read the book "Silent Feet" by G.B. Courtney (1993)? The only errors that is in the book I am aware of is the Appendix 2 of the SRD Operatives names and serial number. Adamdaley (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with that book is that it is written by one of the commanders of Z Special Unit, so may not be considered independent of the subject, but I have no idea of its quality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I got it with my Grandfathers' medals. My first ever Z Special Unit book. Adamdaley (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Iranian warship articles
has moved a number of articles on Iranian warships to "IRIS Foo" titles, against WP:NCS. I have asked them to stop, but the articles will need moving back to their correct titles. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox ship begin. Let's continue the discussion there please. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking opinions
I have an article on American logistics in the Normandy campaign. Currently the article contains 135K of prose. WP:TOOBIG suggests that the article should be split. As it happens, there is a good logical split. This would be to split the article into separate articles for the Normandy and Northern France. "Normandy" (6 June - 24 July) and "Northern France" (25 July to 14 September). This corresponds to the Green Books Cross Channel Attack and Breakout and Pursuit. From a logistical point of view, the two campaigns provide a good split: the problems of the former and latter were quite different. The reason it was not done this way was to correspond to the article on British logistics in the Normandy campaign. What the Americans consider five campaigns the British consider just one: North West Europe 1944-45. Moreover, on Wikipedia we did not organise the North West Europe articles this way. Instead, they are built around Operation Overlord, which terminated when the Allies reached the Seine (halfway through the pursuit). (The Navbox has "Operation Overlord" and "Battle of Normandy", with both pointing to the same article.)

Any thoughts on whether the article should be split? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support split—135 kb article is just too long for optimal readability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support split per . Possibly break into two and create a short overarching article? Or one to cover all logistics of the Normandy campaign including both/all three articles mentioned above and bits and pieces such as Pluto? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a split (it feels a bit over long to me) but I don't have much of an idea how this should be done. One query, the article uses the term "division slice", which isn't actually used anywhere else in Wikipedia.  I hadn't come across it before and had to look it up; it is probably worth defining this term in the article. Alternatively, is it a good candidate for a standalone article? - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A division "slice" is simply the number of soldiers divided by the number of divisions. It is commonly used for planning purposes. By mid-1945, the US Army’s division slice was nearly 68,000. In ETO, it was 35,480.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is also sometimes used to reflect actual association with a particular unit; e.g. ”because of their lower organic transport capacity, the 101st and 82nd have a larger division slice...”. Qwirkle (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was intrigued so created division slice. Outside my area of expertise so I'd be glad if someone could check it over/expand it.  Also add any useful incoming links - Dumelow (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a table, and some notes about other English-speaking countries. For anyone interested in the subject, I recommend Burns's book on the Canadian experience. I found my copy in a small book store in Toronto. The Brits put out one of the red books on Manpower Problems, but I don't have a copy; I have the MilHistBot on a quest for it.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support split, and recommend definition of 'division slice' in Military logistics. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support split I reckon go with the campaign split, regardless of the British article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Splitting these articles along the lines of the two US Army official history volumes seems sensible. There isn't a tidy division between the fighting in Normandy proper and the breakout (and where to draw the line when covering the breakout), but that used by the official histories is probably the least arbitrary. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Operation Cobra on 25 July seems as good a point as any, and it divides the article neatly in two.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. An article on US Army logistical issues from say late July to October 1944 would be very interesting, not least due to the way this intersected with the debates on Allied strategies at the time and to this day (I tend to think that the weight of experts' analysis indicates that the Germans simply weren't beaten enough for the Western Allies to have done much better than they did in 1944, especially given inevitable logistical constraints. It took the Red Army three major offensives to get from Belarus to Berlin as they took care to not over-stretch their supply lines). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Invasion vs conquest in the Second World War
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Italian conquest of British Somaliland on the relative merits of invasion vs conquest. I recently raised this at Talk:Japanese invasion of Burma which was moved, but without much apparent interest.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Cold War Task Force
I Have noticed that a number of articles on USAF units inactivated in 1946 (frequently active after being assigned to Strategic Air Command in March 1946) are tagged as within the Cold War Task Force's area. This strikes me as too early for inclusion, even if within the parameters of the Task Force. I don't want to remove the task force if there is a consensus that this is proper, but what is the consensus? Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest 24 June 1948, the start date for the Berlin Blockade, be used as the start date for the Cold War task force. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, seems legit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Iranian mock aircraft carriers
Apparrently the Iranian Navy has had at least two ships built which the United States describes as "mock aircraft carriers". The navy article only says that Iran was trying to acquire aircraft carriers. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the mock aircraft carriers are used for target practice. Possibly decoy use. They are not functional and are meant to be sunk or damaged in Iranian training. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These ships (which, as I understand it, are basically target barges) have probably attracted enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let's just add some material, at least initially, to Iranian Navy, because trying to title the article would be quite difficult!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Article title could be "Iranian mock aircraft carriers". Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave this here. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Snagemit, recently banned, appears to be editing as Ninevehorion
pls note. Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, will report if and when I see the username. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ta Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SPI filed here, members welcome to contribute diff-backed evidence. ——  Serial  15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A merge effort going sideways
At Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783) there is an initiative that is amiss procedurally. It should have initiated at the target article, "France in the American Revolutionary War". We need some guidance and perhaps remedial action to get us wiki-fencing editors back on track procedurally.

The merger is initiated by editors appealing to the precedent in an earlier merger of "Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)" into "Spain in the American Revolutionary War". I am disagreed with these two efforts to conflate (1) the “European war 1778-1783” of Great Powers over empire (their Simms, my Morris) with (2) the "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783": a conflict among British subjects in North America & North Atlantic over independence (Britannica “American Revolution: United States History” by Willard M. Wallace; and (2) Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)” by George Childs Kohn (1999)).

This issue is apart from (a) elaborating the Euro-RS “War of the American Revolution” (WoAR) encompassing all European-related activity 1775-1783 among merchants, financiers, and especially government war, privateers, and diplomacy – an article non-existent at Wikipedia, lost in a redirect to “American Revolutionary War”; or (b) expanding the article Second Hundred Years' War. The issue is (c) Whether Wikipedia is to have an “ARW-America”, or wp:original research “ARW-Global”.

PROCEDURE posts on the Merge : "NOTES ON PROCEDURE", "Wikipedia article titles", "Merging by edit".

SUBSTANCE posts on the American Revolution : "English usage for "occur in"", "Unsourced wp:Original research", "Historiography of the American Revolutionary War". Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Chart of the Second Hundred Years War
Here is my systematic historiography to date, showing American and European wars in the Second Hundred Years' War. . . but it seems my idea will be overtaken by mergers before I have a chance to complete it. ..


 * Clodfelter as an RS : ‘Warfare and Armed Conflicts’ 4th edition: In the introduction, five eras of warfare 1492 to 2015 are defined: (1) Age of the Wars of Empire, from Egypt to Islam; (2) Age of the Wars of Religion, from Muhammad to the Thirty Years’ War; (3) The Age of the Balance of Power Wars, from the Sun King to the French Revolution, 1643-1802; (4) the Age of the Wars of Ideology, from the Reign of Terror to the fall of the Berlin Wall; (5) and the return to the Wars of Religion, from Khomeini to Osama and beyond. [p.1]
 * Conflict selection includes both major wars and minor conflicts, but they are confined to those “for which there exist statistics”. He maintains a careful distinction among battle deaths, wounded-in-action, missing-in-action, and prisoners-of-war. They are key to determining the day’s battlefield dead but crucially, the effectives next morning (for the most part, the drowned were missing, removed downriver). Figures and quantities among conflicts are assessed in relative terms: each action that is included was "of some significance to the conflicts surrounding them”. An ambush in the American Indian Wars with less than 2,000 casualties may be of consequence to an overall outcome, but there were exchanges between Nazi Germans and Stalinist Soviets with over 2,000 dead of a morning at Moscow without effecting the siege result. [p.2]

The American Revolutionary War, and the now redirected War of the American Revolution are located in the chart with bold font.


 * Ferreiro, Larrie D. “The American Revolution and the Second Hundred Years’ War”, the introductory essay in Allison, David K. and Larrie D. Ferreiro, | The American Revolution: a world war. (2018) Smithsonian ISBN 9781588346599 p.1,2,8,9
 * Clodfelter, Micheal. | “War of the American Revolution” in Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500-2000 (2002) McFarland & Company “War of the American Revolution 1775-1783” entry.
 * Kohn, George Childs. “American Revolution (1775-83)” in Dictionary of War (1999) ISBN 978-0816065783
 * | US Department of State, “The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3, 1783, ending the War of the American Revolution.”
 * Wallace, Willard M. "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783", in the Encyclopedia Britannica: United States History, online.

Sincerely TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Charles Rafter's sons
On Charles Rafter, we read:

"Rafter's two sons, Charles and Robin, were both killed while flying with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, six weeks apart in October and November 1940."

which lacks citations. Can someone with access to the relevant records kindly oblige? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, I've expanded this section and added some sources. Quite a sad story - Dumelow (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great; thank you. And yes, very tragic. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Project Magnet issue
See Talk:Project Magnet for a first cut on the issue. We have a fairly sketchy "military project" dealing with UFOs under that name without any coverage of a large, legitimate, major project of the U.S.N. under the Naval Oceanographic Office. It ran from the early 1950s into the 1990s and had generations of aircraft flying magnetic surveys worldwide. The geophysical ships collected bathymetric, gravity and magnetic data during surveys. The 1966 report covering early days, U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office Geomagnetic Surveys 1953 — 1965 gives an idea of the project's scope. The Super Constellation nicknamed Roadrunner and several P-3 aircraft that followed gained some fame appearing in locations all over the world in their colorful livery. When I get some time from some major home projects I will try to fix the omission and the bizarre precedence of a fringe UFO project while a big and very serious military/scientific one is entirely missing. NOAA's NGDC now has the entire project data available for the 1951-1994 project. The VXN-8 Aircraft {VXN-8 flew the missions with Magnetic Division personnel aboard) collection has a few good photos of the aircraft. Palmeira (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great!! Looking forward to anything about VXN-8; very low profile bunch, for which a squadron article would be helpful too!! Suggest perhaps 'Project Magnet (unidentified flying objects)' and 'Project Magnet (United States Navy)' with a disambig page, when you have enough prose to reach the WP:SIZERULE split point.. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the big U.S.N. project in that UFO article was purely Do not confuse! until I got around to doing some justice to the Navy's Project Magnet. I reverted your categories because the "Nope, not this" in my opinion should not have gotten that recognition. I've had a long list of references as bookmarks for several years and it was on a "someday" list. Then I began running into bits and pieces linking the Navy project to UFOs referencing the Wiki entry and that led to the "Nope!" and our add/revert/damnit! do the stub at least! I'd also just added the S.W. Pacific survey to USNS Sgt. Curtis F. Shoup (T-AG-175) where magnetic data were collected with gravity and bathymetry. There is reasonably deep material, most official, on Project Magnet. A number of the ships covered here were involved (any with "geophysical"), though it was usually in addition to primary geophysical missions such as gravity and bathymetry. Yes, Oceanographic Development Squadron Eight definitely deserves a page. It was somewhat famous as the planes showed up] in foreign and domestic civilian fields all over the world and were colorfully distinctive. Aside from navigation information, in chart and report form, the project contributed to the non-submarine contact charts and data by identifying MAD contacts that were not submarines and often old wrecks. Palmeira (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been surprised to see that, after I read the article carefully and noted that there was referenced content on the USN projects, and I thus categorised the page with Category:Geophysical survey and Category:Anti-submarine warfare, thus WP:CATEGORIZING the page appropriately for both, different, projects, I was reverted. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The duplicate name and being the only reference on Wikipedia, a likely search "hit," had consequences. For example, U.S. Special Project Linked to UFOs talks about a highly classified program with "ABOVE 'Top Secret'" BS. Obviously clueless about classification and connecting apples with oranges at best. Palmeira (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If these are two unrelated projects that share the same name, there should be 2 separate articles with a dab page, even if both are stubs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Buidhe. These two topics are divergent enough they need split. Hog Farm Bacon 11:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

See above. The split is done, if before I was ready to do justice even in a first cut. When I ran across trash outside sources connecting the UFO thing with the geophysical survey citing Wikipedia because a search brought up "Project Magnet" — a UFO project — I could stand it no longer. The the tagging with categories inappropriate for UFO stuff forced my hand so we can thank (talk). I'm snowed under with some urgent personal projects so development by me will be bits and pieces in very sparse, spare time. Anyone wanting to use references already used or new to expand please chip in. In particular, the VXN-8 coverage in a separate page would be great for someone interested. There is a fair amount out there. By the way, the older aircraft are quite interesting as well. Palmeira (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I got in your face . I cordially *hate* tiny stub articles that could be in context if they were part of larger articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You got me to go ahead and start the magnetic Project Magnet page. The sole Wiki page being UFO long irritated me because it fostered conflation in other web sites (as the really off the mark one above). I've a good bit more in both on line and hard copy references so perhaps I'll expand later. At least for now your action got something done. The VXN-8 history is oddly missing here. It actually got more publicity and "fame" in many ways than the patrol squadrons due to its use of military and civilian airports all over the world and ties to oceanography. If I recall some of their missions stretched for months with relief crews meeting the aircraft all over — so a nickname "World Travelers" got applied. Palmeira (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "World Travelers" official nickname showed up in one of my old AIRtime reference books, now unfortunately sold, and is in the Dictionary of Naval Aviation Squadrons. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Drill Halls in counties
Hello all,

I've recently started a new article, titled List of drill halls in Merseyside.

Please feel free to help create similar articles for other counties within the UK.

The scope of the article is former Volunteer Drill Halls and TA Centres that have been converted for other uses, buildings that have been demolished, along with current Army Reserve Centres.

Thanks, SmartyPants22 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work SmartyPants22. I would encourage you to have a word with, who is creating articles on most of the British TA units at their (oldest, unfortunately, rather than following our guidelines, newest) designations. He probably can help you out a bit and maybe you could tie your two's work together. Also creates the Military in England category issue, probably should be 'Armed Forces in England' if we follow en-UK. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright in works by UK military personnel
I seem to recall that works by members of the British military, such as photographs or paintings done when off-duty, are nonetheless Crown copyright, and that those done during WII, are now therefore - being more than 50 years old - public domain, regardless of the date of death of the individual. Discussion on Commons, at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright is inconclusive. Can anyone help, there? Or have I imagined it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Copyright in a work which has been assigned to the Crown lasts 70 years after the death of the person who created it.".Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This would not be an "assignment", as used in this sense, since the copyright would never have belonged to anyone but the crown. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert but under the current act Crown Copyright seems to only apply "Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties". Under the 1911 act: "where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work."; while the 1956 act has similar wording to the extent of crown copyright applying to "original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department".  I don't think personal photographs etc. made by an off duty servicemen would count as being made in the "course of his duties" or "under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any Government department" - Dumelow (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Crown Copyright would only apply to works created as part of the person's official duties. Otherwise snapshots taken by soldiers on leave would belong to the government! Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of photographs taken of foreign vessels by RN officers while on port visits have been correctly (IMHO) tagged as Crown copyright, these were often taken for official intelligence/identification purposes and therefore taken in the course of their duties. But holiday snaps wouldn't qualify. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with Peacemaker on that one. Sounds similar to US gov works as well, and you'll see many photos from American officials that don't seem to have an obvious official purpose but were nevertheless taken in the course of their duties simply for the information they can provide/record keeping. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Checking results at WP:MILCON
Do you have to be a coordinator to check contest entries at WP:MILCON? It looks like it can be a touch tedious, and I'd like to help out, but I don't want to overstep my bounds. Hog Farm Bacon 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Under current guidance, yes. It can be a bit tedious if there are a lot, but a few coords tend to pitch in and make relatively light work of it. Thanks for the offer though! Maybe you would like to volunteer to join the coord team? We are always looking for fresh blood! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Get in there ; you'd make a good coordinator. Nominations open 1 September. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Help checking the Milhistbot AutoCheck report for July
G'day all, anyone who would like to pitch in is welcome to help in checking the articles automatically assessed by Milhistbot in July at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Many hands make light work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

One more reviewer needed
G'day all, my nom Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Beograd/archive1 has stalled with two supports and a source and image review done. CPA-5 (who did a review) seems to be having a wikibreak, so if someone would mind taking a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll post a review today. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check requested


Can I get a sanity check on the above edit. We have a new account who is insisting on removing the National Gendarmerie and Naval Prefecture from Armed Forces of the Argentine Republic, because in his opinion these are not "military forces" (not scare quotes, I'm quoting him). As noted in the article:

there are two security forces, controlled by the Ministry of Security, which can be mobilized in occasion of an armed conflict: the National Gendarmerie, a gendarmerie used to guard borders and places of strategic importance; and the Naval Prefecture, a coast guard used to protect internal major rivers and maritime territory.

Both organisations were mobilised for the Falklands War.

According to Argentine National Gendarmerie:

According to the Argentine Constitution, the armed forces cannot intervene in internal civil conflicts, so the Gendarmerie is subordinate to the Interior Ministry. It is defined as a civilian "security force of a military nature". It maintains a functional relationship with the Ministry of Defense, as part of both the National Defense System and the Interior Security System. It therefore maintains capabilities arising from the demands required by joint military planning with the armed forces. (emphasis added)

Similarly according to Argentine Naval Prefecture:

According to the Argentine Constitution, the Armed Forces of the Argentine Republic cannot intervene in internal civil conflicts, so the Prefecture is defined as a civilian "security force of a military nature". It maintains a functional relationship with the Ministry of Defense, as part of both the National Defense System and the Interior Security System. It therefore maintains capabilities arising from the demands required by joint military planning with the armed forces.

Based on this, I see this as removal of sourced content based on opinion not citation. This is one of those articles that isn't on a lot of people's watchlist so looking to get more outside input. WCM email 19:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The other editor has a point and you two can probably work it out in a text addition to the effect those two organizations, just as the United States Coast Guard, fall under the armed forces in time of war — but only in time of war. Your point is weakened by the articles on those organizations. For example, Argentine Naval Prefecture (my emphasis):
 * According to the Argentine Constitution, the Armed Forces of the Argentine Republic cannot intervene in internal civil conflicts, so the Prefecture is defined as a civilian "security force of a military nature". It maintains a functional relationship with the Ministry of Defense, as part of both the National Defense System and the Interior Security System. It therefore maintains capabilities arising from the demands required by joint military planning with the armed forces.
 * That article is very poorly cited, particularly in-line so that references can tie to specifisc, but presumabley the Argentine Constitution can be located for a check. My reading of that paragraph is that the organizations maintain "a functional relationship" with the armed forces but are not ordinarialy part of those forces. Much as with the U.S.C.G. I would suggest removing them from the box and covering the wartime and peacetime coordinatin in text. Palmeira (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merci, I see he has actually used the talk page on another article. But it seems he is not using quality sources, he is claiming that Argentine commandos wiped out half of the SAS.  WCM email 19:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Numbers at Agincourt
Things are getting a little tense about this subject at Battle of Agincourt. We don't seem to have as many long serving editors there as once we did, so anyone with an interest, please pop over and cast a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement of military general or government sponsored media for casualties in infobox
Input needed regarding Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes. We are having a dispute over information, whether we should use the figures claimed by a military general for adding casualties figures in infobox or government's mouthpiece. Capitals00 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Would like your consensus on an edit war
As this is the ww2 task force I would like your consensus on the edit war at Hitler Cabinet. In my opinion, as it has a wiki page and led all of the Nazi branches of government (even from a bunker) for two days, the Goebbels Cabinet is an Official Cabinet. The reason my edit was reverted is "IT DIDNT OFFICIALLY EXIST". I would love your thoughts on the matter. Please ping me when you respond. Thank You Idan (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism of a IP
User made some contributions which looks like vandalism. Mainly he replaces should strap images with the rank insignia. Is this behavior o.k. or vandalism? I'm not active in your project and I not know what you want therefor I thought I warn you.--Malo95 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a Welcome message to the IPer's talk page. A sampling of the edits do not appear to be clear vandalism, but all the edits may not be helpful. No edit summaries are provided also. Revert where needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 and India/Pakistan issues
There seems to be a lot of edit warring and "he-said"/"she said" type editing (promoting pro-Indian or pro-Pakistan viewpoints) about the shooting down of a Indian Mig-21 and India's claims to have shot down a Pakistani F-16 on the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 article. More uninvolved editors are needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Naive Argentine editor
I am assuming good faith but I have a rather naive Argentine editor who is determined to include Argentina's ridiculous claims to have sank HMS Invincible or at best severely damaged her in the Falklands War. I would appreciate a gentle soul who could gently persuade him to drop the stick as I'm afraid my patience in explaining WP:FRINGE to him has been exhausted. See Talk:Exocet. WCM email 18:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Who gives a shit where the editor is from? Primergrey (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's likely relevant to the reason the editor in question is trying to push this claim in the first place... no need to get hostile. Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No more likely than figuring a user named "WeeCurryMonster" is a Brit who holds "Argies" in no great esteem. And we wouldn't do that would we? Primergrey (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I wonder if the OP has left a similar notice at the Project Argentina noticeboard. I'll bet you a zillion dollars he hasn't. Primergrey (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And waddaya know...according to the OP his own father participated in the Falklands War. I'll let you all guess on which side. Primergrey (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For the record, the OP posted here, not at Project United Kingdom. As to who his father served with, that's irrelevant to what reliable sources say. And they don't back up the fringe theory. BilCat (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And where any editor is from is equally irrelevant. You seem to have made my point for me...hopefully the OP gets it too.  Primergrey (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It matters insofar as the user in question is pushing nationalist propaganda, which the OP is not. - BilCat (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I see. That makes a lot of sense. Good luck and be well. Primergrey (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: reading through the talk page on exocet, it does not appear that he he is supporting this as factual claim, but only as popular belief...e.g. lancers against panzers, the Maginot myth, etc. It may very well make some sense to somehow briefly include this. Qwirkle (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does look quite convincingly that way. However, when you realize that he is from Argentina it clearly becomes "nationalist propaganda". Primergrey (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Monster has reported a dispute and come to a Wikiproject for an uninvolved opinion. While their choice of wording may not have been the wisest, I am unclear why you see the need to continue pushing this point about nationalism. Raising it once to correct the OP is fine; raising it again to explain your point to the editors who questioned you is reasonable; raising it again in response to an unrelated post that appears to be trying to identify a solution to the dispute suggests you are starting to stray into the realms of the poor etiquette guidance. If you have an opinion on the dispute, then it would be useful to comment on the facts to help form consensus. Continuing to allude to the OP's motives is unlikely to help in building consensus. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The underlying myth is nationalist propaganda, and has to treated quite carefully, and minimally, in an article about actual events, . Qwirkle (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Argentine claim is already mentioned in the HMS Invincible (R05)} article and the Falklands War article - the question is whether it has be be added to the Exocet article just because the "British version" is mentioned as the editor in question is demanding - ignoring WP:FALSEBALANCE.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing why a popular misconception belongs in an operational history section for a weapon. It makes sense to include it in articles about the actual war, because misnformation (delibereate or otherwise) and political propaganda are key parts of war and their rememberance, but not in a section of an articles that deals with the actual use of the weapon involved; unless this had some implication for how governments/people viewed that weapon? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is exactly it. There are many pieces of technology, not just weapons, whose popular conception is at odds with historical fact. It might be worth adding a sentence like “wartimes claims of sinking of HMS Invincible proved false, but live on in folklore.” Might not be, too; this is definitely on the edge in this article. Qwirkle (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Shiloh
I have nominated Battle of Shiloh 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. 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wolfgang Engels
I was wondering if someone from MILHIST could take a look at this article. I came across it by chance after reading WP:THQ and looking at some of the other edits made by the editor asking that Teahouse question. Although the two edits made here and here seem like a good-faith attempt to improve the article (the photo which was added might even be OK if it's really "own work"), they (and the Teahouse comments) do seem to indicate that the editor-in-question is not really aware of things like WP:VNT and WP:NOR. The Engles article wasn't really in the best of shape prior to these two edits, and it's been improved somewhat since they were made, but the entire article is still unsourced and might need some more copyediting, etc. to reword and remove the OR type content. Before I tried to do any of that though, I thought I'd ask about it here to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the biographical source and other inline and online references, and corrected the statement that he was a soldier - he wasn't, he was a civilian attached to the East German Army. So I think it's verifiable and if anyone's not sure they can listen to the interview linked from the article or look up the book reference.Bermicourt (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Peacekeepers needed
Bangladesh Liberation War is facing a dirty battle right now. Some editors are claiming the result to be an Indian victory, that despite the Instrument of Surrender clearly stating that the Pakistani Command surrendred to Indian and Bangladeshi joint command. I am having difficulty getting the point across, and an attempt to accomodate both viewpoints were rejected by the warring editors (and posted a warning template to my talk page). When I proposed to take the issue here, they rejected that proposal too.

People, please, take a look at the dispute. The article needs an objective decision by consensus. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Update    and other active editors: Incivilities and crude attacks have subsided. The discussion has moved towards facts and policies. Now is the time for the MilHistorians to lend their knowledge, experience and understanding. Can I request some of that at the discussion?  Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another update The discussion has gone technical now. Which is great. But, it needs opinions of people who know more about military historical articles. I have ever edited only one MILHIST article, so need editors to take a look badly. Anyone there? Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The more the participation, the clearer the consensus would be, otherwise it will remain a nasty battlefield. The article is a Level 4 Vital Article and receives around 1,500 views daily on average and expected to receive even more in the coming months, it deserves attention from the brightest minds at WP:MILHIST. -- Zayeem  (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A relevant question
I think the discussion has now boiled down to the question if the text of a treaty can prevail over historical commentary.

Though a trip to the article history and the discussion on the talk page would be better for understanding the context, I still can lay a brief out.

In the Bangladesh Liberation War the Eastern Command of Pakistan surrendered to the Joint Command of Indian and Bangladeshi forces in December 1971. Despite being the primary comabatant since March 1971, the Bangladeshi forces were a guerilla command, while the Indian forces that joined with the guerillas to form the Joint Command in December 1971. Also the Bangladesh forces were sheltered, trained and supplied by the Indian government for almost the entire time. The Pakistani Instrument of Surrender was bartered by General Jacob of India and signed by General Arora of India, on behalf of the Joint Command. Most Indian historians and commentators call it an Indian victory, along with many international historians etc.

Now, the question is, is the official version of the story, supported and quoted by many independent sources - Indo-Bangladesh victory - more acceptable or the uncoffical but academic version of the story, narrated by many totally reliable sources - Indian victory?

Any opinions? Better if made to the article talk page. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question here is very simple: no. Please see WP:NOR for why we don't interpret historical documents, especially when there are secondary sources available. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree with Nick. We use the consensus in reliable secondary sources, and in this case, given its controversial nature, I strongly suggest using the consensus of Western academics to ensure NPOV, and ignore what parochial local sources say, extending that to Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani sources even if published in the West. From what I have seen, even quite a few of them are promoting nationalist POVs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is some academic and western sources that support Indo-Bangladesh victory posted at the discussion now. Care to take another look? But, if that's not enough, I personally am ready to have any consensus, as long there is one (even if it says "Alaskan victory" or "Papuan victory"... just kidding, getting tired of the discussion, I guess). Right now there seems to be no consensus in sight. No one seems to be willing to concede. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessing Files.....
Should we be assessing files that have been included in the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force? Adamdaley (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. And feel free to allocate appropriate task forces too. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

More reviewers needed at FAC
G'day all, Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/archive1 is an interesting read about a small aspect of the Holocaust, and could do with a couple more reviewers. So if you have the time, please take a look and provide buidhe with some feedback. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Zaharije Ostojić needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Zaharije Ostojić; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! NB: my nom, it has two supports, image and source reviews, but although CPA-5 reviewed and I addressed his comments, he seems to be on wikibreak, so it needs someone else to take a look. Thanks in anticipation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Operation Sutton
Operation Sutton any chance I could get some more eyes on this article. Current infobox reflects the article but I have a guy removing casualties on the Argentine side. It's a stub article that could possibly benefit from merging into another article. I'd appreciate the input. WCM email 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably should merge with Battle of San Carlos (1982), which seems to cover much the same ground. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Winzer family
Charles Freegrove Winzer was a civilian internee during WWI - does that fall within the scope of this project?

Either way, I wish to add to his biography:


 * His paternal grandparents were Eliza Jane (née Freegrove) and Julius Ernst Winzer, the latter formerly Band Master of the 3rd King's Own Staffordshire Rifles.

but lack a reliable source; can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy, I think the war connection is too thin to fall within MILHIST’s scope. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at WP:THQ § Please Respond: I am Christopher S. Adams, Jr., Major General, USAF (Re) and wish to replace and update my photograph with an Official P, IS NOT an official Photograph. Please advise as to the proper procedure.== You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Please Respond: I am Christopher S. Adams, Jr., Major General, USAF (Re) and wish to replace and update my photograph with an Official P, IS NOT an official Photograph. Please advise as to the proper procedure.. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone from MILHIST can help sort this out? Someone, perhaps Chris Adams (general) himself, seems to be trying to replace the infobox image. The photo currently being used seems OK from a license standpoint (at least at first glance), but maybe someone wants a better quality image used instead. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone here have this book?
I need to find some information in this book:
 * Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 by David Evans and Mark Peattie, ISBN 0-87021-192-7 (hardcover). It's also in trade paperback and ebook. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Email librarian@pritzkermilitary.org with the information you need/seek. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll check into that. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you asked at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not. I'll look there. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have Kaigun - what do you need? Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have it as well :) Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Spanish battleship España needs attention
Just one more editor is needed to complete a source check for the A-Class review for the Spanish battleship España. Please have a look so it can be wrapped up. Thanks all, Zawed (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Vechevoral
I have started the article "Vechevoral". Please expand it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Debate on creating a Chris Mullin disambiguation page (now it automatically leads to the basketball player)
Right now, the Chris Mullin page automatically leads to the basketball player - at the same time, there is a Chris Mullin (politician) - the one who led the fight to release the Birmingham Six and vote A Very British Coup (which was adapted to a TV series).

I've started a discussion on the talk page there, requesting to rename the basketball player page to Chris Mullin (basketball), and make the Chris Mullin page a disambiguation page with equal representation to both of them.

Arguments raised against my proposal:
 * The basketball player has more views.

My main argument for the move:
 * The basketball player gets most of his views from the US, while outside the US he's hardly known, and in Britain itself the politician-author Chris Mullin is much better known.

I invite you guys to take part in the discussion.

The link: Talk:Chris Mullin.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Normally I would not create a disambiguation page for just two entries, but would add a for hotnote to the top of each article per WP:ONEOTHER ie
 * .  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, in America the basketball player is the famous one, while in Britain it's the politician - so both sides wouldn't agree which would be the main. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop canvassing. This isn't the place to argue your case. BilCat (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Christopher Mullins also goes by "Chris", so that's 3 for a DAB page. BilCat (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Christopher Mullins also goes by "Chris", so that's 3 for a DAB page. BilCat (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't see any MILHIST connection to these articles? - Dumelow (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty tenuous, but the Birmingham Six were alleged Irish terrorists, which is in our remit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock investigations
Any news on the Nonevehorion (suspected Snagemit et al.) sock? Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Marshalb/Archive. Harrias  talk 09:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

GA review
Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Royal Colonel
Colonel_(United_Kingdom) states for Colonel of Regiment "... the titleholder wears the regimental uniform with rank insignia of (full) colonel. A member of the Royal Family is known as a Royal Colonel".

Royal Colonel states "is an appointment ... to members of the British Royal Family who are appointed to the position of Colonel-in-Chief or Colonel of a regiment ... These appointments ... allow the holder to wear the regimental uniform with rank insignia of (full) colonel, regardless of their official rank." Besides discrepance known/appointment this i (non-British, non-native speaker) read as the royal needs double appointment (Colonel-in-Chief + Royal Colonel / Colonel of Regiment + Royal Colonel) to wear full uniform. Is that true only for royals? Or do non-royals need an other appointment to wear full uniform? Or is one of both misformulated? D-Kollektiv (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with these positions, but the text does use 'or' here "who are appointed to the position of Colonel-in-Chief or Colonel of a regiment". So either position should be all that's needed, but I'll defer to anyone with specific knowledge on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Royal Colonel" is an appointment, just a way of referring to honorary colonels who happen to be members of the royal family. See for example when new royal colonels were appointed for the regiments formed in the 1992 reorganisation their actual appointment was "Colonel-in-Chief".  The appointment is known by various names depending on units (most of the corps use "Colonel-Commandant" for example), there's a good list of all the holders in 2017.  According to Part 4 of the Army Dress Regulations all those appointed to honorary colonel ranks (or equivalent) and their deputies may wear the appropriate uniform, at their own expense:
 * "04.52. Honorary Colonels. Colonels of Regiments, Colonels Commandant, Honorary Colonels and their authorised Deputies may elect to wear the uniform of their current or retired rank OR the regimental uniform of their regiment or corps. In the former case the complete uniform of the rank must be worn. In the latter case the uniform of a Lieutenant Colonel of the regiment or corps is to be worn including regimental cap badge and collar badges with the rank badges of a full Colonel but without gorget tabs. A combination of both forms of dress is not to be worn. The restrictions placed upon retired officers as described below do not apply to Master Generals, Colonels of Regiments, Colonels Commandant, Honorary Colonels and other similar appointments. Although these individuals who have retired from the Services as well as those who have never served may wear appropriate uniform in the course of their duties, there are no grants or entitlements to uniform, any accoutrements or upkeep of uniform at public expense. However civilians who have never served in the Forces who are selected for Honorary appointments to Army Reserve units may be issued with the same scales of uniforms as other Army Reserve officers less entitlement to any grants"
 * This article looks like a good overview of the history of honorary colonel appointments if you can get access (someone at WP:RX will be able provide you a copy, I am sure) - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RS
Hello, has the project determine any sources to be unreliable, or needs caution? I am not an expert in this field. --Horus (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is WP:MILSOURCE as some guidance but no specific list of unreliable sources as far as I can remember. WP:RSNP is the overarching list of advice on whether any source has been deemed to be unreliable or needs caution. Woody (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

HMS Isabella
What is the identity of the HMS Isabella in service in British North America in the mid/late 1860s please? Threedecks / Loney / Britain's Navy all drawing a blank. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Mjroots, what's the context? I can only find references to the 1813 vessel that was wrecked in 1835 - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * - Ran aground at Halifax, Nova Scotia on 1 January 1867. "Her Majesty's Ship Isabella was stranded between Lowpoint Light and the point of the South bar" - The Standard, 16 January 1867. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mjroots, There was a troop ship Isabella that returned British soldiers from India in 1862 and picked up troops from Gravesend for service in Bermuda in 1868 so I suspect it was probably that - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * An Admiralty vessel sailing under the blue ensign then? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure, I get confused by the ensigns in the Victorian-era when they seem to be a bit more fluid! I would assume so - Dumelow (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have used the White Ensign in the infoboxes of all of the 19th century ships in Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy. In an 1882 photo, HMS Tamar (1863) seems to be wearing a White Ensign. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on whether to use Pinyin or Wade Giles (Chinese romanizations) for Zhang Xueliang/Chang Hsueh-liang
Hi! Please see Talk:Zhang_Xueliang which is about how to spell the guy's name. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Would like your consensus on an edit war
As this is the ww2 task force I would like your consensus on the edit war at Hitler Cabinet. In my opinion, as it has a wiki page and led all of the Nazi branches of government (even from a bunker) for two days, the Goebbels Cabinet is an Official Cabinet. The reason my edit was reverted is "IT DIDNT OFFICIALLY EXIST". I would love your thoughts on the matter. Please ping me when you respond. Thank You Idan (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I still have not gotten an answer. Can someone please help Idan (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC) ?


 * I've read extensively on the history of Nazi Germany, and have never seen any history state that there was a "Goebbels Cabinet". Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does it have a Wikipedia article then? Idan (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I am still hoping someone can answer my question. If according to the first reply I received, the Goebells Cabinet didnt exsist in any way, shape or form, why does it have a Wikipedia article. Idan (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * General observation: A Wikipedia page does not mean something existed. There are some paranormal pages that are pretty much CT and well debunked. Anyone with an internet connection can become an editor by logging in and create a page. If it is well referenced it will stand, if not it eventually can be deleted. I could right now create a page "Gerbil powered vessels" and it might stand a while. Now specifically to the Goebbels cabinet page: It has two citations for the "existence" and both cite Hitler's Testament. That does not mean the thing actually existed much less had any effect. It is perhaps the equivalent of plans back in the 1950s for Nuclear-powered aircraft. They did not exist. Palmeira (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Byelorussian Home Defence
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Byelorussian Home Defence about whether it is appropriate to include a large section on rank insignia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose we keep it, as it may be useful information in identifying potential photos of the respective units - after all, this might be the only place where the ranks are available in English. Furthermore, information on Belarusian troops of WW2 is generally scarce, as the official government tries to hide the Belarussian collaboration with Germans in ww2. Here's my 2 cents ;)--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting trivia, but not what Wikipedia is for. Besides, given that it is unsourced I would personally not be comfortable putting it to that use... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, systematic means of representing rank don’t have to be so detailed, anyway. If you know one representative sample of company, field, and general rank, identifying the others is trivial, so a much smaller section might do. Qwirkle (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you explain what you suggest on the talk page? I'm trying to avoid getting too involved for obvious reasons. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ninevehorion
Is still editing in an identical manner to Snagemit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Move request for Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer)
There is currently a move request under way for Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer), which until recently was at. The discussion is at Talk:Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer). The request is not to move it back to the original title, but to agree a suitable title. For context, Chamberlain was a colonel in the British Indian Army in the late 19th century, and subsequently Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, a post he held until his resignation in the immediate aftermath of the 1916 Easter Rising. --Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly believe that Romania should be included in the Balkans theatre of WW1
That the region of Dobruja is an integral geographical part of the Balkans in undeniable, given that it lies south of the Danube River. Even more, the Romanians in WW1 also owned the southern half of the region, which today is part of Bulgaria and as such nobody disputes its Balkan-ness. Romania should be in this article only as much as it pertains to Dobruja, or to Bulgaria itself (see Flămânda Offensive). Through its geography, Romania in WW1 quite simply covers both theatres, Balkan and Eastern, boxing it in only in the Eastern Front is simply inaccurate. As a matter of fact, so is the case with the Gallipoli campaign. Why isn't it in the Balkan Theatre? Just because it's Ottoman territory doesn't automatically place the action in the Middle Eastern Front, the Campaign clearly takes place in the European part of Turkey, ergo, in the Balkans. I was never a fan of sacrificing accuracy for comfort. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what the broader discussion/context here is, but we need to follow what reliable sources say. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer)
An RM discussion which needs attention from some more editors knowledgeable on the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on merging George W. Blunt, No. 11 into USS G. W. Blunt (1861)
The merger is being discussed at Talk:USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861). Please share your input. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Togoland Campaign dates
A discussion has started over at WP:ERRORS about the dates for the Togoland Campaign. Essentially the article previously stated in the lead and infobox that the campaign lasted from 9 August - 26 August. The article text however leans towards 6 August as that is when it looks like some gunboat diplomacy happened and this source suggests Britain and France invaded on 8 August but that Little Popo was invaded 6 August. As such I changed the article lead and infobox to 6-26 August. I'm a bit unsure about that now.

As such I think the essence of the question is when is a campaign deemed to start? Any input at WP:ERRORS would be appreciated. Woody (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The official history contents page has 6th August summons to Lome to surrender, 7th August occupation of Lome, French action 4-8 August....German surrender 26 August. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on date formatting for military articles
Milhist, please be advised that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers that members of this community would likely be interested in weighing in on. Garuda28 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge First English Civil War
There is currently discussion of a proposal to merge First English Civil War with the separate articles covering each year of it, eg First English Civil War, 1643, taking place at Talk:First English Civil War which may be of interest to project members. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The use of honorifics on pages involving military ranks
It seems that Kierzek has informed me that honorific prefixes of military ranks are an inappropriate use of honorifics, hence his removal of those from certain pages, including an ill-informed mass edit by me. Hence, with pages including most of the German field marshals, and several SS officers such as Gottlob Berger as one of the exceptions I'd like to confirm this is as this case and thus ask if such examples of this should be removed. This seems restricted only to German military and others so I'd like to see if consensus on a high level is necessary here. That way, we can avoid conflicts like mine in future. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Let´s get rid of it. Alexpl (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While it is true a person can receive an honorary rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. So there are occasions where is it appropriate for use, however, that does not apply to the men of articles I reverted. An "honorific" as stated in the Wikipedia article, for example, "is to convey esteem, courtesy or respect for position", often in the academic world. Not applicable to the articles I reverted on my watchlist. In the future please use an article talk page or a talk page such as here before making such in mass changes, so consensus can be obtained and there is agreement for use. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have been told the same by the user above you in my talk page. Regardless, there does seem to be some contention about it proving this is at least a noticeable issue. A user (uncertain if I should mention his name but appears to be an experienced administrator) has told me that he has quite a few articles under his belt with the exact same prefix and no contention has been raised about them. Just something I'd note. EDIT: Never mind his name is Peacemaker67. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out many times in the past, it is common for even retired military officers of the rank of major (equivalent) and above to retain the use of the rank honorific. The guidelines are not clear, and I have over a dozen FAs which have the highest rank at the top of the infobox. This indicates a limited consensus that it is allowed (but obviously isn't obligatory). Happy to discuss at a more general forum like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. I will obviously comply with any consensus that ends up against my current practice, but randomly changing it on multiple articles without discussion isn't ever helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The mass additions/changes made by SuperWIKI should have been discussed first. But, I give him some credit in the end for following the advice given him by another and bringing it here for discussion, after the fact. And as I said, I’m sure it is appropriate for certain articles and I have no idea which other articles the additions were made or ones where honorific titles are used. I only know the articles which are on my watchlist and the listing of ones rank is not the same as an “honorific“ title for those, given the definition and examples I state above. Kierzek (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I steered them here as a first port of call after the changes popped up on my watchlist, too. Had being going through the MoS, but found nothing helpful, one way or the other. I just think this hasn't been given much thought until now, and concur that a more general discussion would be useful. Lectonar (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military person says: rank – optional – the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service). But I've never done that; I've always quoted the highest rank achieved. For example, Royal B. Lord was a major general, but when he retired, he reverted to his substantive rank, which was only major. In 1948 Congress passed a law that allowed persons who had held temporary rank for six months or more to be advanced to that rank on the retired list, and he was promoted to major general again. I don't think putting "major" in the infobox is what is called for. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  07:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the cases we talk about here, the rank was put into the honorific part of said Infobox, so it features rather prominently above the image. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how the template works. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. If called for, rank should be put in the rank parameter, which shows up in the body of the template, rather than the honorific parameter. The existence of separate parameters indicates that they shouldn't be conflated. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If a rank and an honorific are identical, use the rank only and reserve honorific for those unrelated to military ranks. Infoboxes are long enough as is, no need to increase them with something that I regard as marginally important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, then I assume the issue is settled for the time being? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is settled at all. Any decision on this would need to be made via consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove: these are ranks, not honorifics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. A rank is not a honorific.  There's a section section for those.  Infoboxes are cluttered enough without duplication.  Save the honorifics section for the Medal of Honor or the Victoria's Cross, or such honorary awards. Hog Farm Bacon 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Victoria Cross is an Award not a Rank and is made to serving military personnel (the British award for civilians isd the George Cross). Hugo999 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In re: these reverts: and, it seems clear that the discussion above does not support using the Honorific= field for ranks.  --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bit of a double standard going on here. Whenever a discussion here results in an outcome you don't like, you are quick to claim it is just a "local consensus", but when asked to get a wider consensus you claim this one is enough. The infobox military person guidelines also reflect an existing consensus, as do Featured Articles that use rank as an honorific in the way I have detailed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment For German titles, I am unsure if this linkage is valid in this context. The term honorific could be translated as Ehrentitel. An Ehrentitel is something that gets bestowed upon, see Gesetz über Titel, Orden und Ehrenzeichen for modern Germany. The German Wikipedia article on marshals states that holding the rank of marshal (grand admiral) comes along with the Ehrentitel. Something which could make this both an honorific title as well as a military rank? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The law you linked to above is about titles (Titel), Order (distinction)s (Orden) and decorations (Ehrenzeichen). The honorific (titles) we are talking about here would be probably better be translated as Ehrenname. I (still) think it will be necessary to bring this up somewhere else, as there seems to be uncertainty about what really constitues a honorific (our article about english honorifics doesn't mention military ranks at all). Also the content of the infobox mentioned here repeatedly is not really clear(there, under the honorific_prefix parameter, titles such as "Sir", "General" are listed as examples). Lectonar (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems this issue is serious enough to be brought up at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography forum. Shall I bring the topic there for further debate? SuperWIKI (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems it would be better. We already have some input here, so please be so kind as to link to this discussion when bringing this up over there. Lectonar (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I suggested earlier, that is the appropriate forum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been done [|here].SuperWIKI (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I might need backup on this in the general forum. I think Lectonar or Peacemaker can explain the matter better than I can. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to discussion at MOS/Biography
The link is: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging VUP-19 with its predecessor VP-19
There are not a lot of people watchlisting lots of obscure unit talk pages, so I thought I would bring this here to clarify things. We have the bizarre situation of VUP-19 "Big Red", the first uninhabited patrol squadron in the U.S. Navy flying the MQ-4 Triton, having a separate page from its heraldic predecessor, VP-19 "Big Red." The squadron page literally says "VUP-19 is a team of more than 500 active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel which draws its lineage from and honors the rich history of Patrol Squadron ONE NINE (VP-19) “Big Red.”" It is not clear to me why the two pages are separate, because VUP-19 officially claims the history and heritage of the previous PATRON disestablished in 1991. Unless there's any objection I'm going to merge the two pages within the next 48 hours or so. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh you're an aviation unit lineage specialist - do you have any thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FAC needing more eyes
G'day everyone, Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/archive1 is our oldest FAC nom and currently has one support and image and source reviews. Another interesting aspect of The Holocaust from buidhe, well worth the read. If someone could jump in and review, that would be great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Article reassessment needed?
A while back, the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division article passed its GAN and A-Class review. It failed at the FA stage, in part, due to the length of the article. Working on it over the last few days, I have split it two. The above article is still technically rated at GA and A-Class, but has decreased from ~140k to about 55k. Should it be re-nominated for both GA and A-Class reviews to ensure it still meets the standards?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How much of the content has changed from the time of the ACR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So I split off the 1908-1919 sections into their own article. The above is left covering the 1920-1945. The latter is largely the same as when it went through both reviews, with a few tweaks here and there. In addition, a small background section was added to outline the earlier years of the formation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to take a look at both and give you feedback and an opinion. Was a background section added to both articles? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I have only added a background section to the above. The 55th (West Lancashire) Division article retains the original section explaining the original formation of the division. There are a few things I want to tinker with, which I have yet to get to yet. Although, I understand it should go through its own reviews since its technically a new article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that as a matter of principle an article which is split, as opposed to having a sub-section hived off, should lose all of its assessment promotions. I confess that the split/hive off distinction is liable to be a fuzzy one. I say this with some regret in this case as I was involved in some copy edit work and in commenting at FAC on 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division and thought it a fine article; and having just reskimmed it am still of that opinion.
 * However, if this were to be the consensus then I feel sure that members of the project would ensure its extremely rapid re-elevation back through the ranks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't take long. Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, kick it back to a C class as that's the highest you can self-assess. Put it up for GA review, and since this project has a really quick throughput for GANs, most of the time, that ought to be quick.  Then take it back through ACR.  ACR may take a little longer, but there's a handful of editors that review quite a few ACRs, so it shouldn't take terribly long.  I'd try to take a look at it at the ACR stage. Hog Farm Bacon 15:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys for the input. I would have preferred to have kept it all together too, although with a few additional tweaks here and there it just kept growing rather than sliming down. I think this is probably for the best, now that I have some additional time to re-review things. Ill reassess for C, and put it back up for GAN as that appears to be the consensus.
 * Update: I'm reviewing the WWII one, 55th (West Lancashire) Division at GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is that time again!
G'day all, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators listing auto assessments of Milhist articles by Milhistbot for August. Many hands make light work and all that, so if anyone has a spare few minutes and can pitch in to check the bot is on the right track with its assessments, that would be great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguating, lists, etc
While stub-sorting I've come across 301st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). I checked to see whether it was linked from 301st Infantry Division, as I do with any disambiguated title, and that's a red link. Usually I'd move the article to that plain title, but I hesitate to tread on toes around MilHist. There is List_of_military_divisions_by_number (which includes the redlink 301st Division (German Empire) but nothing else under "301st"), there is a "301st Infantry Regiment" mentioned in 76th_Infantry_Division_(United_States), there's a "301st Infantry (Bayanihan) Brigade" mentioned in "3rd_Infantry_Division_(Philippines)#Current_Units" ... and so on. Looking at the dab page for 1st Division, should there be a 301st Division which links this one and 301st Rifle Division (Soviet Union)? and there are various other "301st" units. Over to you. I've stub-sorted it, and added a couple of banners to the talk page, but I suggest that it needs something doing even if it's just creating a redirect from the undisambiguated title (or moving to the undisambiguated title?) Pinging who created this new article, for info. Pam D  18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Having found List_of_military_divisions_by_number and the two 301st Divisions above which look as if they ought to be there, I've added them while I had the tabs on my screen. Pam  D  18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think keeping the parentheses is in order, since that is how virtually all other Wehrmacht formations are categorized as well, regardless whether or not their number is shared by another unit. I'd find it highly displeasing aesthetically for some article names to have the parentheses and some not, and I'll keep creating them with the (Wehrmacht) at the end of the title - but at the end of the day, I don't care that much. Either way works, do as you wish. I however think it's an unneeded change. Ted52 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOS recommends pre-emptive disambiguation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .  It also says If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).. Pam  D  05:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have created the necessary redirect. Pam D  05:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for HSwMS Oscar II needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HSwMS Oscar II; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! This is an interesting article about a Swedish warship, we don't see many of them at ACR. As CPA-5 had a look but is now on a wikibreak, another set of eyes would be very helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

David J. Farrar
David J. Farrar (English engineer who led the Bristol team that developed the Bristol Bloodhound surface-to-air missile) could do with some TLC - and some sources - if anyone is inclined. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Holden (general)
I created this article due to his service on the Rhode Island Supreme Court, but it has quickly become apparent that he is more notable for his service in the American Revolutionary War, culminating in promotion to the rank of Brigadier General in 1779. BD2412 T 22:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find much but I expanded it a little - Dumelow (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well done. BD2412  T 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant AFD
Please see Articles for deletion/14th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment. I'd like input from knowledgeable members of the project, as there are similar articles in existence this AFD could be a precedent for. This could be relevant for a handful of articles listed at List of Kansas Civil War units. Not all of them, but the ones in that section that saw no combat. It'd be nice to get a clear consensus either way with this one. Hog Farm Bacon 02:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As I stated at the AfD for the 14th Kansas Militia, perhaps we need a consensus on how long a unit that saw no combat could exist and still be notable. I would suggest an upper limit of 89 days or less, as many ACW units were raised for three months' service. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not a bad rule of thumb, but I think the GNG is going to work against the shorter service regiments in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except some that existed longer do seem to be reasonably notable: see 6th Delaware Infantry Regiment, which was raised for internal service, technically existed from late 1862 to August 1863 (on second tier duty for a lot of it), and saw no combat, but seems to meet GNG. In turn, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_156, where it was suggested that Tull's Missouri Battery was not likely notable, although it existed for five months or so and fought in the Battle of Pea Ridge.  The difference here is that the 6th Delaware has gotten enough coverage to scrape by the GNG, but I've only ever seen two secondary sources that mention Tull's Battery not in passing, so Tull's Battery isn't notable.  A consensus with MILUNIT and service time vs. combat would be nice, but on the lower tier, it's always going to come down to GNG.  And yes, that means that some unit types will be disadvantaged, but that's how the notability guidelines work.  In the ACW at least, regularly commissioned units almost always get more coverage than militia units (Tull's Battery was militia), northern units often get more coverage than Confederate units, and units that fought in secondary theaters of war like the Trans-Mississippi Department get less coverage. The 6th Delaware was a regularly commissioned Union regiment that served in Maryland, Tull's Battery was a Confederate militia unit that served in Missouri and Arkansas.  It may seem a little imbalanced for units that saw no combat to be notable over those that didn't in some cases, but anything borderline on MILUNIT had better go through the GNG, IMO. It's like notability for battles; GNG is the best way to decide long-term impact for battles. Hog Farm Bacon 20:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * (TLDR version: Go by GNG) Hog Farm Bacon 20:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My intent was to look more closely only at those units that served 89 days or less. 6th Delaware would be a Delaware state militia unit; it was certainly not Regular Army and I'm not familiar with a distinction among state units between "regularly commissioned" and "militia". Some units from some states had "militia" in their name, many others did not. I recognize that different states had different rules and nomenclature. Is there somewhere online I can find the militia distinction, other than the naming? In New York at least, several New York State Militia units had a lengthy prewar existence in state service. Broadly defined, perhaps 80 percent of Union units and 98 percent of Confederate units were militia. All that said, I agree that GNG is a useful guideline. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between volunteer units which were in national service, like the 6th Delaware, and militia, which only served the state, like those New York units you mentioned and the Missouri State Guard. The majority of ACW units were volunteer units, which were in national service and had a bit of a distinction from true militia. Hog Farm Bacon 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is just going to come down to GNG for the short-service units, but agree a good rule-of-thumb is 90 days minimum unless they saw action. I see no reason to make a distinction in terms of presumed notability between Confederate and state militia units though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I see what Hog Farm means now. For Union units there are dates of muster into and out of federal service for those that did so. I don't know if the Confederacy had corresponding dates. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They did, although the state of records don't always allow exact dates. See Landis' Missouri Battery for an example. Hog Farm Bacon 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Manned Orbiting Laboratory needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manned Orbiting Laboratory; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Note: A fairly short but interesting article about some US intelligence skullduggery regarding Cuba. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Richard L. Cevoli Notability
Hey All,

The page Richard L. Cevoli has had a notability flag on it since 2016. Some work needs to be done on the page but I don't think notability is an issue at all. He's mentioned in most newspaper descriptions of Thomas Hudner's Medal of Honor mission, is mentioned at length in Adam Makos' book on Hudner and Brown's relationship, won the Navy Cross for contributing materially to the Battle of Leyte Gulf, had 2 DFCs, a half dozen Air Medals, 4 aerial victories, a post office named after him, etc.

I've edited the page a bit. Is there someone else who can look and impartially determine if we can get rid of the notability tag at the top of the page?

Cheers, Finktron (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Finktron,


 * The page satisfies enough requirements, mainly the "1. Were awarded (...) their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross)" and "4. Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign", both of which lend sufficient notability.
 * The notability flag should be removed. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:SOLDIER says multiple awards of second highest awards like the Navy Cross. Nthep (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * He doesn't meet the threshold of SOLDIER in any respect, and I'm not seeing the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to meet GNG. I think the tag should stay, and possibly it should be AfD'd. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Commanding a squadron that "disabled a Japanese aircraft carrier" and "enabled 30,000 United Nations soldiers to escape encirclement" seems to be plenty for recognition...--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't about "recognition", it is about notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article definitely still needs work, but respectfully I'm not sure how you can be considered not notable while having a post office named after you, having your biography read into the congressional record, and appearing in multiple books as a result of your service. At a glance, he's given multiple paragraphs in Adam Makos' Devotion, and his role in the Hudner/Brown story is mentioned in Barrett Tillman's Above and Beyond; Edward F. Murphy's Korean War Heroes; Thomas Cleaver's The Frozen Chosen; David Sears' Such Men As These; and a wide array of newspaper articles from the 1950s, 1980s and into the 2000s. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fails SOLDIER - did not receive the Navy Cross more than once. Did not make O-6; no particularly standout combat achievements. Probable AfD. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll restore the tag based on your and Peacemaker67's recommendation. I respect both of your opinions and I'm pretty sure one or both of you have helped me with my editing, answered questions or reviewed articles I've worked on. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)