Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161

Marcus McDilda, the American pilot captured and tortured by the Japanese after the Nagasaki bombing
Hello,

An article was created for Marcus McDilda, an American P-51 fighter pilot who was captured by the Japanese after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. According to the story, McDilda "revealed" under torture that the U.S. had 100 atomic bombs ready and that Kyoto and Tokyo were the next targets (something about which he of course did not have any idea), which may have influenced the Japanese decision to surrender, as well as fueled future debates on the ineffectiveness of torture. However the article does not give any information about his rank, his unit, his dates of birth and death or the rest of his career.

I suppose there must be records somewhere of a WWII pilot, especially if he was shot over Japan, especially if something so important happened to him. Notably, the "Orimori PoW camp" cited in the article is otherwise unknown on Wikipedia. I placed him in a USAAF category because the P-51 article tells that USAAF was the primary user of the type. If there aren't such records, this may be a hoax, or a good tale about torture.

Does anybody know where to look for more details about this aviator and if the story checks out ? pinging creator. Place Clichy (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's a hoax* then it pre-dates the internet. Marx, J. L., Nagasaki; the Necessary Bomb? (Macmillan: Nagasaki, 1971), 59-60, and the following year's The Big Brothers, the Story of the B-29s (Naylor Company: NY, 1972) from Sinclair, W. B., 129, both discuss it in some detail. As do, for later examples: Frank, R.B., Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House: London 1999), 290. So go for it. * I do not think it is. ——  Serial  10:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally,, the article's had a citation to a whole chapter from a book published by a reputable university press since it was created. While not providing automatic credibility as a source, it makes it highly unlikely that it is a questionable one.  ——  Serial  10:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And, if you're going to all-but accuse an experienced editor in possession of an unblemished reputation of effectively writing hoax articles, then you could at least have a semblance of good faith and attempt to discuss it on their own talk page first. Frankly, I'd say you'll be lucky not to be the star attraction of an ANI case if you don't apologise to .  ——  Serial  10:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason there was no information on Orimori camp is because it didn't exist - it was a typo of Omori, whose article mentions the POW camp (albeit not McDilda) Loafiewa (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually do not think either that it is a hoax, and I don't think that anything in my message was in the form of an accusation. I was interested in knowing more details about the character and I thought a message here would yield that. My question is just, rephrased and shortened: do the members of this project know of databases where personal details of a US WWII PoW aviator could be found?
 * E.g. this page of uncertain appearance mentions the award of a Prisoner of War Medal to Marcus E. McDilda with a reference to NARA Database: Records of World War II Prisoners of War, created, 1942 - 16709, but I wasn't able to find a corresponding record on the World War II Prisoners of War Data File. Citation: First Lieutenant (Air Corps) Marcus E. McDilda (ASN: 0-758027), United States Army Air Forces, was captured by Japanese forces after his aircraft was shot down on or about August 8, 1945 and was held as a Prisoner of War until his release from captivity after the end of hostilities in September 1945. Place Clichy (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Porte de Clignancourt. Please do not attempt to pretend that comments such as this may be a hoax... and does anybody know...if the story checks out? are anything other than what they are. Extremely bad faith at the least. ——  Serial  12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed the part where it says If there aren't such records. My most sincere and lower-than-earth apologies to Arrivisto if I hurt heir feelings unintentionally. However I feel that I mostly hurt only yours, Parallel . Place Clichy (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you did not, : Since numerous book sources already attested to the existence of the individual and the events, the fact that you seemed unable to either find or accept them indicates further issues to merely casting aspersions. And aspersions are not dependent on the existence of such records. That remains a fact whether your—in fact wholly insincere—non-apology is accepted by Arriveisto or not. Desolé, or what. ——  Serial  14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kinda going off the rails here... - wolf 15:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and thanks: it is occasionally necessary to call out trolling and personal attacks though. Cheers! ——  Serial  18:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(break)

 * Looks like this is just a quirk of their indexing - there's no hits for "McDilda" but there's also no hits for the much more common "McLeod", which is a good clue it's not coping well with "Mc". Searching for "Mc Leod" brings up 23 entries, and "Mc Dilda" one. It confirms the basic details, though it's a bit tricky to work out what the unit codes mean. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More findings:
 * Social security records know of only one person with such a name, albeit with duplicate records, for a Marcus Elmo McDilda, b. January, 15, 1921 in Istachatta, Florida (spelled Istachata), of John L. McDilda and Evelyn H. Kirton, d. August, 16, 1998  with a residence ZIP code pointing to Merritt Island, Florida. However these records are not connected to the military in any way, do poorly if a nickname was used at any point or is Mc-/Mac- is mismanaged and do not turn out entries for which there is no certified record of death.
 * findagrave.com (hardly a reliable source either) has an entry for Marcus Elmo Mcdilda (Dec. 15 1921 - Aug. 16 1998) with a grave in Rockwell Cemetery, Dunnellon, Florida, which features a military-time picture and a grave photograph. A user-added comment reads: Thank You for your Service - 46th Fighter Squadron, 21st Fighter Group - 7th Fighter Command - P-51 Pilot off of Iwo Jima - POW Japan.
 * The Ocala Star Banner has an article "Local authors pay tribute to WWII heroes" telling about a book titled Central Florida's World War II Veterans, by Bob Grenier, curator of the Lake County Historical Museum, and "the story of Lt. Marcus McDilda of Dunnellon". Abstract: According to an email from Sam Scott, with the Dunnellon Historical Society and Dunnellon's Historic Train Depot, his friend John Everlove, a historian and author, has written that one day after Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb, McDilda was forced to bail out of his P-51 off the coast of Japan and was taken prisoner.
 * This book writes that McDilda, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Force, was shot down in his B-29 over Osaka, Japan, on August 8, 1945. This corroborated the earlier mention by another user of McDilda's includion in The Big Brothers, the Story of the B-29s.
 * This forum comment calls the story true and documentable, and gives a quote from Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy narrating how McDilda's "confession" was discussed as high as the Japanese cabinet meeting of August 9: "Anami [War Minister Korechika Anami] then shared the latest news about American possession of the atomic bombs, which he had obtained from the interrogation of an American prisoner named Lieutenant Marcus McDilda. During the interrogation McDilda had allegedly betrayed that the next atomic bomb target would be Tokyo. The war minister further revealed that the United States might still possess more than one hundred atomic bombs. Shocking though it might be, this news did not seem to impress the cabinet ministers. It is not clear why Anami revealed this information. Just that morning, he had argued that they could not base future action on the assumption that Japan would be attacked by additional bombs. Now he was telling his colleagues that the enemy had more than one hundred atomic bombs, and that Tokyo might be the next target. Still, he insisted upon continuing the war. Anami’s argument simply defied logic, contributing only to the erosion of his credibility. Each minister spoke, but no conclusion was reached. The first cabinet meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. without reaching any decision."
 * There is a lot of consistency there, but also a few inconsistencies:
 * Was he flying a P-51 or B-29?
 * Was he shot over Iwo Jima, Osaka, Nagasaki, off the coast of Japan or elsewhere?
 * Is there better data than a personal comment on findagrave.com to identify the actual unit of a WWII hero?
 * It is probably wrong to write that he was captured [...] after [...] Nagasaki (Aug 9).
 * Anyway, nothing would be better to substantiate the details than an actual military record. Place Clichy (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first two questions, World War II: An Encyclopedia of Quotations confirms he was a B-29 pilot, shot over Osaka, and there don't seem to be any sources suggesting otherwise Loafiewa (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a bit odd. One B-29 was lost on a raid on the night of 7/8th August and seven more during the day on the 8th per the USAAF chronology, so that part makes sense, and one was lost in a raid on Yawata, near enough to Osaka to be plausible. However, the "21" in the POW record would suggest 21st Bombardment Squadron if he was a bomber pilot. 21 BS was part of 501st Bombardment Group, which did operate in the relevant area but apparently did not have any combat losses in this period (unit history). There was also a 21st Fighter Squadron, which the WP article suggests flew an escort mission on 8th August (the same raid against Yawata) but was operating P-47s. Lastly, the findagrave entry suggests 21st Fighter Group, which was operating P-51s in the right area at this time. This page refers to an attack in the Osaka area by the 414th & 21st Groups on 8th August which had two P-51 pilots missing.
 * I would be tempted to put these together and say that the most likely explanation is that the B-29 detail is wrong, and that the quoted unit in his record reflects the fighter unit known to have lost two planes near Osaka that day. This is consistent with the sources that appear to have personal knowledge of him, and the one bit of official documentation available. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really know how to trust second-hand accounts about a P-51 or a B-29. They were both so popular types, both in numbers and in the general public, that some writer would easily pick them at random to give color to a story they only knew the half of. That said, Thomas McKelvey Cleaver Tidal Wave: From Leyte Gulf to Tokyo Bay] gives a pretty precise account: First Lieutenant Marcus McDilda, a pilot in the 46th Fighter Squadron of the 21st Fighter Group based on Iwo Jima, had bailed out of his P-51D 44-63901, named “The Gator,” 500 feet over the ocean and just off the coast of Honshu after having been hit by flak while attacking coastal shipping..
 * William Craig's The World War II Chronicles: The Fall of Japan and Enemy at the Gates also cites among his sources for the McDilda story: operations reports, 21st Fighter Group, Iwo Jima, August 1945 together with conversation and correspondance with Marcus McDilda and interview with Hisatsune Sakomizu. This last book, originally published in 1968, may be one of the first accounts of the McDilda story, and tells which tells in great detail the capture, the first interrogation, the transfer to Tokyo, subsequent interrogation by a civilian, the liberation of the Omori camp and the massacre of the Osaka airmen. Place Clichy (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My source was Hagen, Jerome T. (1996). War in the Pacific, Chapter 25 "The Lie of Marcus McDilda". Hawaii Pacific University. ISBN 978-0-9653927-0-9. Arrivisto (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is www.forces-war-records.co.uk a reliable source? It seems to be the main source of most of the page. I was intrigued by the claim that "after the announcement of the Japanese surrender, fifty U.S. soldiers imprisoned in Osaka were beheaded by Japanese soldiers" which I have never heard of before and which would presumably have been covered in the media and later books and presumably invited American prosecution. Enemy Airmen's Act refers to "33 American airmen were deliberately killed by IJA personnel at Fukuoka, including 15 who were beheaded shortly after the Japanese Government's intention to surrender was announced on August 15, 1945". Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Panzer I
We have one article for the Panzer IV and all of its variants. Now we have three articles for the Panzer I, the original Panzer I and two new articles for the Panzer I Ausf. C and Panzer I Ausf. F, these need to be merged into one article. Are they really significant enough to warrant their own separate articles?Pennsy22 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that Ausf C and Ausf F don't have to be folded into the Panzer_I_variants but I'd like to see better sourcing so we can be sure they are as distinct as claimed. The Sd.Kfz. 265 Panzerbefehlswagen which is a Panzer 1 with a new superstructure has its own article and the Panzer II Ausf L has its own article as Luchs (tank) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are using a wargaming site as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wargaming certainly isn't a Reliable Source, they cite wikipedia in some cases. I wanted to bring the question here before I did anything formal.Pennsy22 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * B T White's German Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1914-1945 mentions the Ausf C (VK 6.01) and F (VK 18.01) separately to the production models though only has room for a paragraph on them. As the designation indicates VK 18.01 was a tank in the 18 tonne class. It probably depends what Foss Chamberlain & Doyle and Jentz say in the books cited. (I removed the wargaming link by the way). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can justify an article on the Sd.Kfz. 265 variant because it has an entirely different superstructure, which is not the case for the command variants for the larger tanks. And, thumbing throught Jentz's volume 2 on the Pz I, I think that individual articles on the Ausf. C and F are justified as they have entirely different chassis with interleaved roadwheels and are much more heavily armored. IMO, they're entirely different vehicles with the same role as the Pz I, machine-gun armed light tanks, and were thus named in the same series.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Army Order 324
Anyone got a digital copy of it? —— Serial  13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like they cut out part of paragraph 2 and all of paragraph 5 (possibly tables of units?), but the rest of the order is available from the Internet Archive in the 1917 Times Documentary History of the War - Dumelow (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This version has a little more text - looks like para 2 is a reference to an appendix (not printed in the Times version) which lists all the unit names/numbers, and para 5 is a list of locations, then there are further appendices with training details.
 * Interestingly, while AO 324 is dated 21 August, there's a few newspaper articles on 17 August referring to "an army order bearing yesterday's date" (example) - it seems that this was A0 311, which was cancelled/superseded (?) by AO 324. The descriptions given of it sound like it was very similar in form. The War Office had announced the names for the divisions, associated regiments (but not battalion numbers), and provisional stations as early as 11 or 12 August. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone! Funnily enough, it was the Appendix C I was after, which had the infantry training stuff in it (although I could be wrong on that!). Thanks for all your help though, much appreciated! ——  Serial  09:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha - in that case then this might help. It's from the records of a K1 service battalion in 1914 and looks like it's probably more or less the same as was set out Appendix C - might even be an offprint from it since it looks like an extract from a larger document. Interesting to note that it was clearly written with that specific time period in mind - it mentions that the later months will have shorter days so less training time. There's also a précis here although it focuses more on the post-1914 changes.
 * Unfortunately it doesn't look like there was ever a formally published series of Army Orders, so this might be the best we can do. I guess their slightly ambiguous state as mostly intended for internal use, and dealing with often very specific issues, meant that it didn't seem sensible to publish a unified series. TNA has a full set (eg 1914 is WO 123/56) but they're not digitised. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian Army
Can I ask for some additional eyes on this article over the next few days? Some editors are objecting to the inclusion of some perfectly reasonable recent material, such as the well-referenced August 2013 Rabaa massacre and the dismal performance of the Army in the Sinai. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

HMS Figaro?
What is the identity of HMS Figaro, which ran aground in the West Indies on 4 December 1864 please? Not listed at List of Royal Navy ships, F. She was of 1,059 tons, with a 300hp engine. A Court Martial found two of her officers guilty of negligence -. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try posting at WP:RX see if somebody can get me the relevant issue from Newspaper.com (it's long out of copyright)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth looking through Lloyd's Register. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, no luck there. Nothing in the 1863-1864 register (Fiery Cross [888t] - Fietjoff [300t] - Fife Maid [93t] - Fifteen [216t] - Filey [233t]; no "Figaro"). Nothing in the American and Foreign Shipping 1863. Further attempts can be made through other lists shown here; though I doubt we'll find anything significant. Once I get the pages from RX we'll see if there's anything more to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got a Newspapers.com access (you can get one through WP:LIB). Article states: "Vigaro, 1059 tons, 300 horse-power, N. America and W. Indies, stranded on one of the West India Islands, on the 4th of December, 1864. No lives were lost, and no expense was incurred.  The court-martial found two officers guilty of negligence".   The paper have got her name wrong, it was the HMS Virago (1842) (they also detail her 1861 stranding: "Virago, 1059 tons, 300 horse-power, Devonport, stranded in going through the East Swin Channel, on the 22nd of October, 1861.  No lives were lost.  The cost of the repairs was 30l.  The court of inquiry held that the accident arose through the negligent conduct of the commander and the master") - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice catch - wolf 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think maybe if I clip the article non-subscribers can see it? It's at, if so, and looks to be very useful, listing more than 100 RN incidents from 1860 to early 1872- Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Thought the name looked "wrong". I am currently ploughing through the article and adding them to the shipwreck lists and expanding articles where they exist. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hitler
You're invited to the request for comment at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

More eyes needed at List of aircraft shootdowns
It looks like an edit war is in the process of starting at List of aircraft shootdowns about an apparent loss during a confrontation between Greece and turkey. More eyes are needed there.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Could someone check if this edit in Iowa-class battleship should be reverted. Most other recents by this IP have been but I'm not sure about this. MB 18:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

C-Class criteria discrepancy
WikiProject Military history/Assessment has a specific requirement for C-Class. The article (my emphasis). This is also implemented in the WikiProject template. If an article fails both, it will not get a C-Class rating.

I was wondering if this sits well with the project wide Content assessment. It mentions no such requirement. It says a C-Class article is Indeed, it explicitly says the article  (my emphasis).

Because C is not a custom class, it should follow the project wide assessment scheme. It also leads to awkward situations where meeting identical criteria on two WikiProject templates leads to different grades. See for instance Talk:Reconnaissance aircraft. Yes, WikiProjects may have "variations" of the project wide scheme, but this is an outright contradiction. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Having differing ratings between different projects has been a feature of the assessment system since it was created; as Content assessment notes, "different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area" and "when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article". Requiring that an article satisfy items on the quality checklist before advancing to C-Class is hardly an unreasonable adjustment to the baseline assessment criteria, and is consistent with the general focus on article quality that we've maintained over the years. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I note that within the milhist assessment scheme, 'coverage' and 'referencing' are the two main issues - sectioning, adding an image, and having readable prose are low hurdles to cross. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Readable prose should have the highest hurdle. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's a big difference between readable prose, which merely communicates the information in an understandable way, and well-written prose which does the same in a more elegant, and often deeper, way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman Featured article review
I have nominated William Tecumseh Sherman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

HMS Crane (U23) - potential copyvio
I've just run across HMS Crane (U23) - created in October 2020, where the text seems quite similar to that in the naval-history.net entry for the ship on first inspection (duplication detector report: )- does this cross into the realm of copyvio, and if so can it be repaired or should the article be recreated from scratch.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * doesn't seem to cross into the realm of copyvio. Only parts of phrases are identical and those are largely factual. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be a copyvio (IMO), just sets of facts taken from a source and written into the article with different phrasing before and after. - wolf  15:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The structure is the same and some of the wording is very similar. Certainly I've seen articles blanked with less close paraphrasing than in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think action should be taken, then go for it. Better safe than sorry. Since copyvio is taken so seriously, you can't be faulted either way. - wolf  19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Diannaa is the resident copyvio guru. You can contact her on her talk page if she doesn't respond her. BilCat (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some, most, of the matches seem much too trivial for me. "1st support group for joint anti submarine operations with raf coastal command in the bay of biscay" is just a long unit name. "she was laid down" (vs. the ship was laid down) is the proper terminological way to say this, unless if we really want to avoid paraphrasing of any kind (In which case it might be better to just write "Construction of the ship began in..."). Plenty of other "matches" are other such common terms ("at portsmouth"; "arrival after"; "november 1942"; "she joined sloops hms chanticleer and hms pheasant"). Creative re-writing is possible and should be undertaken if it allows for better prose. But it's not a copyvio, IMHO (as much as copying data from a chronological table could be). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned the article. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Diannaa rocks :-) - wolf 01:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Who won the Battle of Chawinda?
You are invited to comment in the RfC on Talk:Battle of Chawinda.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This relates to how the infobox should give the result of the battle. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Scope question
Edward Douglass White has been tagged as falling within this project's scope for north of a decade. That seems incorrect to me: while the article discusses his military service at length, it seems to be irrelevant to his notability, i.e. he would not be notable had he died immediately after he left the army. That being said, I know you all interpret your scope guidelines rather capaciously, so, being a non-member, I'd rather not reverse one of this project's longstanding determinations without hearing from one of you. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally don't tag someone as MilHist if there wasn't anything notable about their military career. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed White, as well as Justice John Marshall Harlan. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

More eyes wanted at Portugal and the Holocaust
It would nice to have some WWII/Holocaust experts help out at Portugal and the Holocaust. I've done some cleanup already, but there seems to be a problem of its text trying a little too hard to defend the Portuguese government and absolve it of any guilt in failing to help Jewish refugees more than it did. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

List of aircraft shootdowns
Why does the list List of aircraft shootdowns begin at 1947 and not WW1? Would it not be better to have a comprehensive list of all verified shootdowns all in one place? Is there a reason for the start date of the list. Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would assume a list including all such events from World Wars One and Two onwards would be incredibly large and too unwieldy for its purpose Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston
Hi there. I'm finishing up an expansion on Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston, who primarily interested me as a former co-owner of my favorite baseball team. He also had a noteworthy military career as a civil engineer rebuilding Cuba after the Spanish-American War and maintaining roads and railways in France during WWI. If I might enlist (pun intended) your help, I'd appreciate it if anyone with better military knowledge than me can tell me if there's any glaring errors in how I wrote up his military service.

But also, there's this article that I found that I wanted to ask about. It says that Huston found the "keyboard" that may have been used to blow up the USS Maine. First off, I don't know what a "keyboard" refers to in this context, as I'm only familiar with what I'm typing on and the musical instrument, but that seems to be referring to a piece of ship equipment. Also, I'm wary of the yellow journalism of the time. Should I consider this article to be disinformation and skip it? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Keyboard" was apparently used as a term for the controls of remote activated torpedoes (note that in the late 19th century "torpedo" could mean either the modern-style propelled device or static mines). There's examples of the contemporary use of the term in this 1880 book on torpedoes and this 1901 congressional report on the US Navy.  The implication would be that Huston found the "smoking gun" that proved the Maine was sunk intentionally by the Spaniards; though, if he had, it would be mentioned in modern sources.  Even the 1899 article concedes that he found little more than a cable and seems to be reporting it second or third-hand.  Might warrant a mention of the basic facts that "it was reported Huston had found..." or similar, but I don't think you could say much more than that - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that! I'll leave it out. Certainly he didn't prove that the Maine was sunk. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Crusades
There is a general discussion ongoing about how to organise the aforementioned topic (which does not solely revolve about its military aspect). Being previously uninvolved, I closed two RfCs, at Talk:Crusades and at Talk:Crusading, since they were pretty much about the same fundamental issue. A further discussion is ongoing at Talk:Crusades. Your participation is naturally welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass changing of military siege and campaign titles from upper to lower case
User Dick Lyon is currently mass converting the names of sieges and military campaigns from upper to lower case. This would appear to contradict the normal convention for naming military battles and campaigns as per the sources and as reflected by MOS:MIL. To take just one example, "Grant's Overland Campaign" occurs around 5 times more than "Grant's overland campaign" in the sources. See here. My sense is that these edits should be reverted unless there is a clear consensus to change the convention. Bermicourt (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO, WP:SENTENCECASE applies, so I don't see what's wrong with those. There's plenty of stuff where we shouldn't capitalise everything. Now of course you might have picked an exception case here, but the others seem fine. BTW, the user in question is . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The agreed convention here does not contravene WP:SENTENCECASE which allows for appropriate capitalisation: "... otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." Proper names of battles, sieges, campaigns etc are usually capitalised in WP:RELIABLESOURCES which is the primary rule anyway. Moreover, no editor should make mass changes without ensuring there is a clear consensus. That's just courtesy and commonsense. Bermicourt (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to write stuff such as "preparations for the campaign in Normandy began..." or "for the Normandy campaign..." in the middle of a sentence. But anyway seems that's personal preferences (I might also be under the influence of French practices, which are to not capitalise, ex. fr:Bataille de Waterloo, fr:Bataille de Normandie - capitalised, force oblige, as the incipit a title but then in the first sentence not capitalised as it is running text). Also compare inconsistency "Manassas campaign" vs. "Jackson's Valley Campaign". If we need to pick out a consistent form, I'm all for decapitalisation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Random, that inclination to cap in the bolded lead what you would not cap in a sentence otherwise is the main problem, I think. As Bermicourt points out, it's not what the guidelines say WP style is. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly think that all of them should be reverted and separate discussions opened for each proposed change on the applicable article's talk page with a notification here. If a consensus is formed for decapitalisation in a specific case - and I would not wish to generalise as to the possible merits or otherwise of decapitalisation in advance of this - then fine. Otherwise they should be mass reverted per WP:BRD. I confess to being a little irked at the number of Featured Articles changed without prior discussion, which - IMO - simply shouldn't be happening. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog, you are of course free to do reverts and start discussions, though I think hundreds of separate discussions for one issue might be seen as disruptive. Since you did one revert just now, why don't we look at that one in more detail as an example of the general issue:  Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC).  Might  as well keep it here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That editor relies on Google n-grams to demonstrate that the most common usage is decapitalized, despite being proper names. And WP:PNPN says that that's a good way to decide if they should be capitalized or not, although it contravenes everything I was taught in English class. Frankly, I think that that guideline was written to prevent fights over the issue, much like WP:CITEVAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the guidance is intended to prevent fights over settled issues. The outcome shouldn't depend on what people think they recall from English class.  In discussions over many years at this project and others, editors have had a chance to air their opinions and preferences on capitalization, and compare those to the guidelines, and suggest changes, etc.  But we keep coming back to following the guidelines, as anything else would open the project up to chaos.  There are still some areas that haven't been fixed from editors' original tendencies, which are typically to use title case and/or to cap all  the terms important to them (see WP:SSF).  This siege thing is one that I recently stumbled on, and my impression, after a month of hard work, was that there was general acceptance that these were improvements (I even got a handful of thanks for the case fixes). Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Using a quantitative method to decide a qualitative matter is inherently flawed and should be deprecated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am open to better methods to determine whether a term is treated by sources as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In many cases, the relevant terms don't even occur enough in books to get counted in the n-gram stats. So we do deeper searches, looking at individual books and articles.  See section below on Lilybaeum. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, there are many perceptions about what is a "proper name (proper noun phrase)" and what should or shouldn't be capitalised. Because of this, WP relies on empirical evidence (per MOS:CAPS) to determine capitalisation rather than an argument based on a perceived definition - on which few can consistently agree. I would point out though, that one defining property of a proper name is that it is not descriptive. "Siege of" or "X campaign" etc are all descriptive. While they might be the title given to a particular event and by which it is formally known, this is not, of itself, the definition of a proper name in the grammatical sense. There is as tendency to perceive a need to capitalise a noun phase in full whenever one of its parts is a proper noun. This is a common error. There is also a perceived need to distinguish a particular noun phrase by capitalisation because of its "importance" but this falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and should not be done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) as an example
Here are some book sources:. I don't see any caps. Why would we cap siege here? Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reasons some editors insist on stuff like A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (which is even worse than military battles, if you ask me). Misguided and inconsistent, as usual. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , can I ask that you please watch your tone? This is a discussion about capitalisation, people's mileage is going to vary. 'Misguided and inconsistent, as usual' is unnecessarily hostile, let's try to keep the atmosphere collegiate. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a case of MOS:CT (composition titles), no? Not applicable here.  (also pretty consistently capped in book sources). Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a case of MOS:INCIPIT; but nevermind, it's off-topic here, I was just noting the similarities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't realize it was one of those. Probably should fix it then. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should look at some 20th, or 21st, Century sources rather than Victorian ones. And not double count different collections of the same authors. But most of all make sure they are all ones that refer to the siege in question and not eg for one of the listed examples, a siege that took place near 150 years later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't counting, just looking for examples of caps. Google books usually ranks capped instances higher, so if they exist they're usually easy to spot in a book search.  I take it you haven't  found any either. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 21st century and 20th century books also don't use caps for siege there. So it's unclear why this revert was done by Gog.  Perhaps he'll say. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I do a Google search for s/Siege of Lilybaeum the first page gives seven Sieges and one siege - the example Dicklyon gives above.
 * Is there any way of knowing when the n-gram is picking up "a siege of Lilybaeum" as opposed to "the Siege of Lilybaeum"? If not this would, obviously, skew the result.
 * I reverted because changes to Featured Articles are supposed to be discussed on the article's talk page and consensus for the change reached before they are made. If the article had not been featured I could have reverted the change as the "R" part of WP:BRD because I disagree with it. It would then have been discussed on the article's talk page in search of a consensus. This is how Wikipedia normally works and so I am a little surprised that it needs explaining to an experienced editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The web search you linked is picking up mostly blogs, fandom, and wiki mirrors. It's not a useful way to find or characterize reliable sources.  Try book search or scholar search.  The n-grams count different cases as separate terms, but have a threshold (e.g. must appear in at least 40 books, or something like that, to be put in the database); so if the capped on isn't showing up, it's less common, but it's hard to say by how much; certainly far from "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can also do n-grams with "a ..." vs "the ..." and other variations, if there are enough occurrences to make the cut (try it with a more commonly discussed siege). Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, you did revert, as is your right, and that's why we're discussing. Moving that discussion to the article talk page wouldn't seem to be the right thing at this point, but feel free to put a notice there. Also, I was in my rights to do the "Bold" edit, even if it's an FA, as there's a longstanding consensus behind MOS:CAPS including the Milhist part of it.   Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are scholar sources. Still no capped Siege. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course's there's a way to separate "a" from "the" in those search results. Just prepend the word. One who doesn't even know how the N-gram tool works isn't in a good position to argue against the veracity of its results. In fact, one should search for "the siege of" vs. "the Siege of", because not only does this eliminate "a siege of" false positives, it also eliminates " T he Siege of" from title-case titles/headings, a form of false negative. Regular users of the tool, and regular RM participants familiar with proper use of it, already understand this. Since you brought up "[s|S]iege of Lilybaeum", here's the test : it's consistently lower-case, such that the capitalized "Siege" version cannot even be found at all in any modern books Google is aware of. The urge to capitalize stuff like this is nothing but MOS:SIGCAPS emphasis (which is a WP:UNDUE problem not just a style matter). Next, FAs are not mystically immune to editing, including BOLD edits, and there is nothing in fact bold about bringing material into compliance with guidelines and policies in the first place. One only needs to be caution at FAs when it comes to changing substantive factual claims. There is no principle anywhere on WP, and ever will be, that old articles, or GA and FA articles, somehow escape compliance with guidelines, policies, and RM and other consensus decisions. There is no "grandfather clause". (See also ongoing thread at Village Pump about adding even a tiny hair of protection to FAs, an idea which is going down in flames.) Nor is "I think you should get permission beforehand" ever a revert rationale. See WP:EDITING policy, which does not entertain a system of prior restraint.  The tendentiousness of this stuff is getting (well, long has been) out of hand. First tooth-and-nail fighting to prevent lower-casing in titles, and now further squabbling to prevent mid-sentence use complying with title changes? WTF? I'll repeat what I said at User_talk:Dicklyon: Given that WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS say not to capitalize anything that isn't consistently capitalized in sources, and we have also had RM after RM after RM about events of this sort for two decades of Wikipedia and counting, and they keep going lower-case, because the sources come nowhere near to being consistent about capitalizing them, except in specific cases (which WP then also retains capitalized), then it's very clear that . MILHIST cannot make up it's own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus. This is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, which was specifically written to curtail attempts by wikiprojects to behave as if topics they claim within their scope are walled gardens, and it's why we've had around a dozen ArbCom cases focused on wikiprojects attempting to "control" articles they wish they WP:OWNed, all concluding against this idea. For ArbCom-ruling language that is directly applicable to this, see:
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * Arbitration/Index/Principles
 * among others. It would be one thing if this were a one-off incident, but it's not. Pretty much every time I log in, I see someone from MILHIST somewhere (usually several somewheres) engaging in yet another petty style fight in favor of their personal peccadilloes despite the matter in question already being clearly covered in the MoS and/or the naming conventions guidelines. Just read the guidelines and give it a rest. This wikiproject may be about warfare but it needs to stop being a source of internal fighting over already-settled matters. It's anti-collaborative, anti-consensus "fiefdom" behavior.
 * among others. It would be one thing if this were a one-off incident, but it's not. Pretty much every time I log in, I see someone from MILHIST somewhere (usually several somewheres) engaging in yet another petty style fight in favor of their personal peccadilloes despite the matter in question already being clearly covered in the MoS and/or the naming conventions guidelines. Just read the guidelines and give it a rest. This wikiproject may be about warfare but it needs to stop being a source of internal fighting over already-settled matters. It's anti-collaborative, anti-consensus "fiefdom" behavior.

Looking at Gog's web hits that aren't blog, fandom, or wiki:
 * historyofwar.org uses lowercase siege, though the search snippet was upper case from a title.
 * punicwars.org does cap Siege like Battle for all.
 * ancientworldmagazine.com caps all sort of things (e.g. "such as the Siege Rhyton from one of the Shaft Graves in Mycenae"), so not useful as evidence of treatment as proper name.

Lacking any support from capped sources (with the exception of punicwars.org if that's a reliable source), this over-capitalized Siege should be fixed soon. Anyone see a reason to wait? Anyone working on more to say here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO we should be using basic MOS rules (sentence styling) when creating article titles, unless there is an obvious COMMONNAME that is different. In the latter case, I think its much more effective (if more laborous) to go through the sources individually instead of attempting to analyze aggregate ngram data without fully knowing the context or reliability of sources. We should also be cautious about potential Wiki mirrors. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Here the issue is not about the article title, but just about the use of that title in a non-initial position. I agree that a good look at sources is sometimes needed, and that's what I've been doing in this section.  Finding essentially no capped uses is more compelling than not seeing a compelling ratio in n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re wikimirrors, yes, extreme care is needed. Sadly, a whole lot of 21st-century books are already strongly influenced by stylings found in WP titles, including over-capitalization.  Sometimes you can see the ramp-up of caps percentage in books from about when the WP title got created capped. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is quite convincing. I have reverted my revert in Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) and put a link to this discussion in its talk box in lieu of a discussion there. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Consensus for lowercase is well established. Tony (talk)  01:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Keith-264 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It most certainly isn't. However much we prefer the look of lower case, perhaps because e.g "it's what I was taught at school", Wikipedia is very clear that we should follow the sources, not impose our own version. We are meant to reflect the world, not act as if we're above it.
 * In fact the guideline should be changed anyway because it defaults to lower case unless the majority of sources capitalise. That's biased and wrong; if the sources were, say, 50:50, Wikipedia should allow editors to reflect that (consistently within an article) just as they did very early on with WP:ENGVAR in order to avoid endless disputes like this. Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have a consensus guidline/style to avoid endless disputes like this; our house style is biased toward lowercase, but that's not wrong. Gog just wasn't aware that the sources generally lowercase siege.  In the case of "Action" (see below), I don't know whether the editors who capped this all over were unaware of the guideline, or unaware of the sources, or maybe just wanted a different style for milhist articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Request re-evaluation
I would like to respectfully request a re-evaluation for the article Alexander Hunter (novelist). I believe that it could be a C class article as opposed to a start class. Thank you for your consideration. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gandalf the Groovy, you'd be best to post this at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, our dedicated assessment review page. Though note that you can feel free to self-assess articles up to and including C-class level - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ACW unit categories for discussion
In accordance with previous discussion on this talk page, I have nominated a number of categories and subcats for renaming. The intention is (by the use of the noun "units") to make the categories more inclusive of non-regimental groups, like artillery batteries, battalions, companies, and even some brigades. Discussions are here, here, here, and here. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have boldly removed all three pages (each) from Category:Cavalry regiments of the Confederate Army and Category:Infantry regiments of the Confederate States Army, leaving both empty. I can see some advantages for using such cats but IMHO having such broad containers would require sorting by state and duplicate the entire units category structure. Since nobody seems to be using these, I've emptied them and will ask for deletion unless someone here objects. BusterD (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Over-capped "Action of"
I've stumbled upon another pattern of over-capitalization in "the Action of " across many military and piracy articles. I can't find any support in sources for such capitalization, so I've started to fix those. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also things like "Action of El Mughar"; sources use lowercase action. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. - wolf  18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There are a ton of these (e.g. in Category:Naval_battles_involving_France), and most I can't find in books at all, capped or otherwise.  Is this a pattern made up by Wikipedia, or is there a set of sources I just haven't looked into yet? Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is a system we came up with. Many of these naval battles have no true names at all. This was just a standard way of organizing them. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll stop looking for sources then. It would be good to document this scheme (if it's not already), and add a note to not capitalize.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

With help from JWB, fixed about 200 more of these. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is just a titling thing, there is no need to use the exact title phrase in the first sentence, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. It would be better to just describe the action in the first sentence without bolding, ie "On X April 1807, ships of the Fooian and Musorian fleets clashed off the coast of Sicily during the Whovian War, resulting in a Fooian victory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. But there are so many that I'm just doing case fixing for now. Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The British have a system of official names for WWI battles. Perhaps these don't need to be capitalized, but "officially known as the action of El Mughar" looks a little weird to me. Especially when the unofficial word 'Battle' is capitalized (as in that article). Srnec (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There actually are some "Action off Foo Island" titles that are used by reliable sources, but they are rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The question, I think, is whether the official names should be capitalized. I find it odd to label something an "official name" and not treat it like a name. For example, see Battle of Tell 'Asur, the official name of which is "Actions of Tel Asur" (not "action of Tell 'Asur"). decapitalized the word 'action' while leaving 'Battle' and I find it odd. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit odd. I don't find any source with "the action of Tel 'Asur" in a sentence, capital or not, so it's not clear why the article says it's also known as that.  As for the plural, I find one capped and one not; so probably we should change to the plural at least.  We (WP) don't usually put much weight on what's "official", but I don't have any strong feelings about such rare and obscure items. Generally, Battle is much more often capped in sources (if I recall correctly), but it does seem odd when that's not the official name and there are two different Battle proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I found Action off Bougainville and Action off Lofoten and Action off Lerwick, which do not appear to be much capped in sources. Let me know if you know some that are.  Some n-grams on that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"Report of the Battle Nomenclature Committee: official names of battles and other engagements fought by the military forces of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1919 and the Third Afghan War, 1919" gives the official names of affairs, actions and battles. Using En Grams as an excuse to slash and burn them is wrongheaded and should stop. Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keith, let me know if Action off Lerwick or Action of the Cockcroft is in there; the other two are WWII, so would not be. As for your suggestion that I'm "Using En Grams as an excuse to slash and burn", I don't see that as a sensible characterization of how I work; I agree it would be wrongheaded. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, according to this historian, "Although useful for constructing a narrative, the official, unwieldy names did not catch on." So I think we need to know whether either of these is adopted as a proper name by reliable sources other than this one that tried to officially names things. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be this historian Gary Sheffield (historian)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another great guy. We've been over this before: where there is a common name, we use it, otherwise we use an official name where these is one, but some of the official names sound odd to the modern ear. We try to minimise the use of Wikipedia-created names. (You can find the official list of the US Army's campaigns here.) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By great luck I quoted someone you guys like; good. I'm glad to see that list of US campaigns; that explains why you told me that "Wilderness" is official over "Overland" for Grant's campaign; I started  a discussion about that.  Does anyone have a copy of that list that Keith mentions (only through 1919, but still maybe useful for British names)? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would mention the Army's campaign titles are somewhat arbitrary, especially when it comes to somewhat open-ended or disjointed conflicts (the Indian Wars, Vietnam, GWOT). A prime example is Comanche Campaign, a term used by the Army but not found in the majority of RS history because it lumps a number of conflicts together. Handy for lineage purposes, but not an accurate historical descriptor. Intothatdarkness 13:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no reason why we would just capitalise everything in running text. There are very few words which are capitalised consistently in English running text, for ex. "President of France" but "the French president"; or "the monotheistic God" but "the Greek gods"; and then you come to stuff like "battle" and "action" which are just regular words used as part of a title and are usually at its beginning, so "Action off Bougainville" or "Battle of Trafalgar" but "the action was fought between..." or "the battle is considered a decisive blow...". These shouldn't be capitalised unless they are at the very beginning of a sentence; otherwise we should just all forget English and start speaking German and capitalise every Noun. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man, it is called The Battle of Britain and in the text, if it needs to be referred to, "the battle word word word", because after the first sentence in the lead, the reader knows which one is being referred to. President of France is a title hence the capital p; same goes for the Battle of Langemarck. Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also posted questions at Talk:Action_of_the_Cockcroft,_19_August_1917, particularly the question about capping in "Action of Cockcroft" that I haven't gotten an answer on yet. If there's a source-based reason for capping this, I'd like to see it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does your source criterion exclude Mickey Mouse publications, old wine in new bottle pot-boilers and discriminate between AmEng publications and BritEng ones? Keith-264 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, all such sources are excluded, since I don't find any sources calling it Action of the Cockcroft. I take it you have no sources to offer? Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Theramenes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

harvc question
Plan XVII I've incorporated the reference to Krause into the references section but have created a "Harvc error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKrause2014 (help)" which must be because I've cited Krause as an editor and an author, does anyone know how I can resolve this? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is because you have Krause (2014) twice - once as the editor of the book, once as the author of an article in it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know how to get round it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried Krause as the editor and Krause a as the author, it seems to have worked. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I normally call one of them 2014a and the other 2014b. This can be done with a CITEREFKrause2014a card in the cite template. You can then link to them with .  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're using the harvc template. Use 2014a Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tatmadaw
Could be good if someone from here check the Tatmadaw article and recent changes of the lead section. I hold to present lead as a short summary about that institution is fine and main things are linked and address all issues and I have explained that on the talk page there and to new edit of lead section is not an improvement. I have been busy lately and can't focus in general on that. With kind regards. Nubia86 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Checked, I don't think the two paragraph version is superior. IMO, the five paragraph version that goes into the role of the Tatmadaw as de facto rulers of the country for many years is the better version. For an article that long, a four or five paragraph lead is probably appropriate. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just checking it again and took more attention this time and I must say, I agree! Nubia86 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A query regarding Colonel Gregory, Continetal officer injured in battle
I have a question here Isaac Gregory which I would be most grateful if someone/anyone could answer for me? All I need is "yes, it is one and the same man" or "no, they are two different men"! Anne (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited the Gregory page now, so will take this talk page off my watch list. Anne (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: application of MOS:JOBTITLES
The application of MOS:JOBTITLES varies across articles relating to a head/chief of defence (see link for list). Most articles tend to open with something to the effect of:


 * The head of...

or
 * The Head of...

Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized?

WildComet (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'll begin by noting that MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:INSTITUTIONS may also apply in this case, as well as relevant discussions at Talk:Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada) (which prompted me to start this), Talk:Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151. Given the fact that "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" in MOS:JOBTITLES is violated with capitalization, I favour decapitalization. WildComet (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - SECDEF is described as "the leader and chief executive officer of the United States Department of Defense"... both titles in lower case. While I generally think the whole "decapitalization" scheme has run needlessly amok on WP, and that some currently lower-case titles should be upper-case, I don't see "head" or "leader" in lower-casd as being a big deal. However, (if I have this right) it appears this RfC stems from a dispute involving the OP at Talk:Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada), where was changed to lower-case. That I don't agree with. (jmho) -  wolf  10:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment After having spent some time thinking about this, which at the end of the day I think most would agree is ultimately an exceedingly trivial matter that has no bearing on any actual article content, I came up with something which I hope is helpful here. As I see it, argument for change for the "decapitalisation" of specific heads of the armed forces' titles based on the MOS:BIO guide used by the proposer must pass four tests or logical gateways in order to be valid:


 * 1. Does MOS:BIO apply?
 * No. MOS:BIO "sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles". The Chief of Defence Staff (Canada) article used as the test case here is not a biographical article as it is about the office not it's holder. While it could contain some information on the holder, the title itself is not part of any biographical information, and thus the article in question is beyond the scope of MOS:BIO.


 * So the argument fails the first test and we stop here. However, for argument's sake let's say the answer is yes (a pass) and we do consider the MOS as appropriately applicable. So we go on to the second test.


 * 2. Is capitalizing the title against the MOS guides?
 * No. MOS:BIO (under titles of people) states that "Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically."
 * So, as the article/title is a globally unique title (the Canadian CDS is a specific position of which there is only one in the entire world) the MOS states that it should be capitalized. If the article was using the title of CDS generically, for example in a statement such as "many militaries are led by what are known as a chief of the defence staff", then it would be different.
 * Further, MOS:CAPS (under MOS:MILTERMS) which is more specific to this case, states that the "general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page."
 * So, once again as we can readily see in our Canadian CDS test case, the term/title is consistently capitalized in the sources so therefore the MOS states it should be capitalized. Further, the MOS also states where there is any uncertainty, it is up to consensus on that article's talk page (i.e. at the article level, not as a universally applicable rule).


 * So, the argument fails the second test and we would stop here. However, once again for argument's sake let's say the second test passed and move onto the third test.


 * 3. Are MOS guides sufficient to force change (i.e. must "contraventions" be corrected automatically in line with the applicable MOS)?
 * No. As we can see from the MOS themselves, they state that they are guidelines and that "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
 * Further, WP:COMMON states that "it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule" and "as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy".
 * So, the argument fails test 3 as a contravention of the applicable MOS is not grounds enough for change.


 * 4. Is there editor consensus for the decapitalisation of this specific title?
 * No, by my current count there is one for and three against the proposal.
 * Inline with WP:CON, WP:COMMON,and WP:IAR, consensus is the key factor, as nearly all rules can be broken if there is consensus for something that makes common sense / is a clear improvment.

In sum then, I see there being a series of four tests for this argument, and it does not successfully pass through any of them. trackratte (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case/regular English rules seem to be required. Formal titles, such as "Chief of Staff" or something like that, might require capitalisation (ex. "President of the United States"). But say, "the head of the organisation" or "the reports were passed on to the president" don't require capitalisation. So I don't think we need a formal guideline unless this isn't already stated as such in the MOS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends whether it's a formal title or not. If it is then it should be capitalised. If it isn't then it shouldn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wording decisions like this depends on usage in high quality reliable sources. These are likely to differ between positions and/or countries, so this issue isn't suited to a broad guideline. For the Canadian example, I'd look at whatever the usage is in the Canadian mass media and specialist literature to figure out what's the most common capitalisation. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Case-by-case/it depends - Capitalise in the list where they are official and complete proper nouns of the office or institution and indicating a specific that is phrased “Chief of Defence”, use initial capital where the article title Chief of defence or beginning of a line where just discussing the generic “chief of defence” concepts.
 * Note that examples at MOS:JOBTITLES are not stated as universal, that subsection falls under the higher overview for Titles of people, and it’s own leading premise that it is about common noun use. And generally I would suggest follow predominant RS usage rather than WP:OR.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think if it is a formal title, then it should be capitalized. Otherwise, it should not be.Bh2021 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with an image required
Could somebody in the project please help me identifying the below gun as I have little experience in doing so? The gun is located at the Rockingham RSL, Western Australia. It has no information displayed but, given the close proximity to Garden Island, I would say it might be from an Australian Warship. I would really like to name and categorise the images correctly so somebody pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an expert but I think it's a Bofors 40 mm gun. There's a similar one (the mount is different) shown in this AWM image of HMAS Bataan. Someone with more knowledge may be able to narrow it down further- Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I can see the resemblance. It would be good to know what ship it came from. I may have to contact the local RSL. Unless somebody is able to narrow it down further, I will rename the files on commons and catergorise them accordingly. Calistemon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is the exact same gun, but this article discusses a very similar gun in probably a similar situation, suggesting that it perhaps comes from a Fremantle-class patrol boat. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a serial number on the back image at the base of the pedestal. However, I have no idea whether it relates to the gun or just to the manufacture of the base it is sitting on. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A Bofors 40 mm L/60 see . Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, I have renamed and categorised accordingly. Calistemon (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically a Mark VII mounting if hydraulic or Mark IX mounting if electrically powered. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Human
Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Kursk period of WW2 occupation
Would any Eastern Front experts be able to clarify what period -- or indeed more than one period? -- Kursk was under German occupation? The article seems both internally inconsistent on this, and with other topic-related articles, but none give exact sourced dates. My best guess is that it was liberated sometime during Operation Star. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See the Battle of Kursk article - it gives a date of 8 February 1943 for when the Red Army liberated the city. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd missed that date. From the lack of any 2nd, 3rd, etc Battles of, I presume it wasn't reoccupied subsequently?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I think someone had got confused by the template and not checked its output. I have corrected it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, thanks. I've detagged it and noted this on the other (lack of a) discussion.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is military cooperative an English term? And if not, what is?
On pl wiki we have a poorly referenced article on pl:Spółdzielczość wojskowa, "a form of cooperative movement aimed at providing equipment (or capital for them) by conducting workshops by military units. Such cooperatives aim to supply soldiers with all kinds of products; in peacetime they are also supposed to defend soldiers against exploitation." It cites examples from a number of countries. On English Wikipedia we have nothing about this concept and my literature review failed to find this term being used in English works much if at all. At the same time, we have articles for Army & Navy Stores (United Kingdom) which is under Category:Consumers' cooperatives (the unreferenced stub at Army & Navy Stores (Canada) is not, and on a sidenote, it may end up being deleted as failing NORG unless someone cares to improve it). The Polish article mentions a number of similar organizations in various countries, but sadly the few it names don't have articles on other wikis, and that article doesn't have any interwikis. Seems like a fascinating, if niche topic, but before I write anything on English Wikipedia using Polish sources (assuming I can find anything decent), I could use help in figuring out relevant English name(s), which hopefully would lead to some English-language sources, too. TIA! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI) may be of interest to you. (Hohum @ ) 10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the British Empire forces of the late 19th and early 20th century Julia Wightman, Sarah Robinson and Agnes Weston opened various institutes and clubs for service personnel, some of which had canteens that sold basic necessities and luxury items; though they were aligned with the wider temperance movement rather than open to all - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

UK Carrier Strike Group 21
Hello all, yesterday/today I wrote this article on the UK Carrier Strike Group 21. I'm obviously going to be adding a *lot* to it as and when events happen, but at the moment I'm not too happy with my design of the tables that showcase the vessels and squadrons involved; if anybody had a better design, it would be great if you could showcase them on the article's talkpage! Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What should be included in the infobox as awards?
Hey, I have a COI edit request over at Bob McDonald (businessman); a paid editor wants Senior Parachutist Badge and Expert Infantry Badge added to the awards section of the subject's autobiography. Is this standard? It seems to me that badges awarded merely for completion of time, activity, and training requirements wouldn't be sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the infobox (only in prose), but I thought I should get input from people who know. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to do something like I've done here: Mark Milley, where the awards are laid out as if they were on the uniform, and then any misc awards go into a "other awards" section. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would take my lead from a good article such as Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.. The awards listed in the infobox could all be considered honours or decorations rather than simple badges such as Combat Infantryman Badge, which is instead in a table later on in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with, only major awards like Medal of Honor or the service Crosses should go in the infobox. If they don't have any of those, then just their top award (Silver Star, Legion of Merit, etc.) Then have an "Awards" section lower down the page, with all awards and medals in a ribbon rack presentation, just as it would be on their uniform, with a table right underneath to list out out the awards, in the same layout as the rack. (Don't agree with collapsing it all though, not sure what that's about). JMHO - wolf  18:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Falaise Pocket, FA-class article, lede too long?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest on this article at the moment, but has been attempting to get some traction going on rewriting the lede for the Falaise Pocket on its talkpage. The article is currently at FA-class level, and it appears to have a bit of al lengthy intro. Does anyone have any time to help this chap out?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments. Actually, the lead is the best part of the article. rest could use some work. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe spread some of the wealth around! Everything in the lede should certainly be in article, so tightening up the summarising and moving a certain amount of detail to later, well-structured sections might be to the benefit of both.  I've compared the FA version with the current one, and the intro is now almost twice as long, and has gone from three paragraphs to five, straddling the recommended maximum of four.  Given that this version is 12 years old, mind you, I wouldn't take it as a bombproof that either version would survive WP:FAR.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Honours categories
See Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 30. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

DANFS abbreviations
I'm drafting an article on the USS Pima County, a WWII landing ship tank that had a second career as a ferry in the UK and elsewhere. I've got the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entry but am a bit baffled by the abbreviations. It includes the line:

LST-1081: dp. 4,080 (f.); l. 328-; b. 50-; dr. 14-1-; s. 11 1 6 k.; cpl. 119; trp. 147; a. 8 40mm., 12 20mm.; cl. LST-511

Which I think means under her former name (LST-1081) she had a displacement of 4,080 (short?) tons when fully loaded. Was 328ft long, 50 ft in breadth and 14ft 1in in draft, with a complement of 119 and a troop capacity of 147. She was armed with 8x 40mm and 12x 20mm guns (cannons?) and was of the LST-511 class. Is anyone familiar with these abbreviations and could check that for me and/or confirm some of my guesses?

I'm a bit stumped by the s. 11 1 6 k. bit. I'm guessing it's her speed (I know as a ferry in Britain her speed was said to be around 12 knots) but is it 11 1/6 knots, 11.16 knots (surely not?) or something else (probably!)? - Dumelow (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per this, the s is for speed and the k is for knots. Which still means the question is what the 11 1 6 means. Although it's worth noting that 11 1/6 is very close to 1.16. Hog Farm Talk 16:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is a second DANFS entry for the same ship, but unfortunately doesn't shed any light on this. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Might the middle '1' in the speed be a typo? Looking at the other LST-511 class ships, they seem to all be down as either '12 k.' or '11 6 k.' Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, I think it's a typo for 11.6 knots. Navsource (I'm not familiar with the reliability of this source) states it reached 11.6 knots on trials.  I'll go with that - Dumelow (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, just found a scan of the DANFS entry on Google Books and it's clearly 11.6 knots - Dumelow (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tons would be long tons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenian and Assyrian Genocides
I have been troubled by some recent edits by a certain user Buidhe to the Armenian Genocide, and I decided to come here as it seems futile to voice my concerns at the article's talk page, and would like some expert opinion here. The Armenian Genocide is commonly cited as having killed around 1.5 million Armenians. This, of course, is subject to considerable debate. It depends on the dating (1915-1918 or 1915-1923) and can rise to 1.8 million in the latter range. On the lower end (and to note, more commonly cited by genocide deniers), it can go down to around 800,000. Naturally, on the Armenian Genocide page, I would expect to see a range for the death toll, just like in the Dzungar genocide, the Circassian Genocide, etc. Perhaps something around the lines of 800,000-1.8 million, something or other. But there is no mention of any number above 1 million or the most commonly cited number, 1.5 million. In the talk page and in his/her edits, Buidhe has repeatedly refused to put a range with any number above 1 million, as he/she seems to prefer a lower number for the genocide. Buidhe has also gone to other genocide pages, such as Seyfo and removed the higher range numbers. Not to have bad faith, but it seems Buidhe has deliberately set about lowering the casualties for these pages. I cannot ascertain his/her objective, but it has the effect of minimizing the tradegy.

Does anyone else share my concerns? If so, should there not be at the very minimum the number 1.5 million in the Armenian Genocide page? Thank you for your patience. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:590B:AC23:75C1:BF73 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you provide the sources on which you are basing 1.5 million? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick google search provides these sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16352745

https://www.dw.com/en/a-look-at-the-armenian-genocide/a-57299201

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/04/24/armenian-genocide-1915-massacre-biden/ *Paywalled, but uses 1.5 million figure

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/armenian-genocide-what-happened-how-many-people-died-and-why-it-still-causing-debate-10196281.html

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html

Among others, of course. This seems to be a sufficient reason to include 1.5 million into the article, if it can get past Buidhe, though. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:590B:AC23:75C1:BF73 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping - IP: it's extremely rude trying to circumvent a debate by trying to take it to a different venue - here on WP we try WP:CONSENSUS, which also involves WP:AGF (judging by stuff like Special:Contributions/98.231.157.169, this likely is the same person and their previous comments on that talk page also had some issues...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, forum shopping is not good form. The estimate about 1 million is used because it would be difficult to find a range that is consistently used in RS. Estimates do vary but they center around 1 million and otherwise it would not be possible to decide whether to start at 600,000, 800,000 etc. or where to end (1.5 million is often referenced in political discussions but has been discarded by more recent research into death tolls during World War I, as stated by reliable sources). (t · c)  buidhe  23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of the other IP, we are not related in any way. We are geolocated in different regions. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:590B:AC23:75C1:BF73 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Spanish ironclad Arapiles
The article on the SPANISH IRONCLAD Arapiles states that she ran aground off the coast of Venezuela in early 1873, and was under repair from May until January 1874. This cannot be so. Contemporary newspapers have her at Cartagena in late August and under repair at New York in late October. Can anyone pin down when she went ashore please? Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Indianapolis News has a report on the series of events that prevented her leaving her drydock in December, without explicitly making the connection the report seems to hint that she was intentionally delayed to prevent her sailing to Cuba during the Virginius Affair. It doesn't give a date for when she entered the Delamater Yard in New York but I mention it as the report gives the reason for repairs as worm damage to her kelson rather than damage from any grounding.  Interestingly she ran aground 100 yards off the Brooklyn shore when leaving New York on 14 January 1874.  According to the New York Sun she struck the stone foundation of an abandoned coal pier and was aground until later that day when freed by 12 tugs on a rising tide - Dumelow (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * She apparently also grounded in the harbour on 2 January when being moved to the Navy yard to load her guns. This New York Daily Herald report of 20 January 1874 has it that she entered New York "several months ago".  After the 14 January grounding she returned to dry dock in New York.  She finally reached Havana, Cuba on 3 February - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, from the Alexandria Gazette of 10 December 1873: "the Spanish ironclad Arapiles, which has been in the dry-dock for two months past repairing". So presumably she began her repairs circa early October 1873 - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Americans did delay the completion of her repairs due to the Virginius Affair. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Recipients
Hello, I was wondering if someone could go through the Medal of honor recipient lists and add redirects to existing articles. For example Thomas Anderson is a red link on the List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F but there is a page for him on Thomas Anderson (Medal of Honor). If someone could add redirects to pages like this which have different names then listed on the list of Medal of Honor recipients. This way people can t.ll which ones are true red links with no existing pages. I am specifically looking to do this on the American Civil War lists. I am not sure how to do this so any help is appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumptively, it's just a matter of finding the redlinks, then searching if we have an article on them, and adding the corresponding WL if there is one Loafiewa (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Requisition
There is an open discussion at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021 April 27; during the course of which it seems to two of us that we lack an article about military requisition in its various aspects. There is a group of ten articles on the subject in other languages. Most are stubs; but de:Requisition and fr:Réquisition are moderately well-developed. None, however, covers naval requisition, which was historically important in the anglophone world at least. So, if anyone feels like taking on a project... Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We have a brief stub, STUFT (acronym for "ship taken up from trade"), which is UK specific; agree we could do a lot more. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Occupation of Tangier (1940–1945)
Input would be very welcome at the RM discussion at Talk:Occupation of Tangier (1940–1945). —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

List of equipment used by the Myanmar Army
List of equipment of the Myanmar Army was moved to List of equipment used by the Myanmar Army by. Most of the lists has no "used by". Is that correct? Eurohunter (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The user is getting a stern talking to at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

World War I expert help
Hello everyone,

I have an important website relating to the Supreme Command of World War I, and I was referred here by an editor for your expert help. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dury,_Compi%C3%A8gne_and_Abbeville_Meetings

Lord Milner (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism heads-up
The editor detailed at Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 has been particularly active over the last 48 hours, including multiple sockpuppets active on the same articles in a short period of time, making rollback less useful. They generally target articles relating to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, but have been branching out slightly more due to many of their target articles being semi-protected. Since they often use "one-edit-and-move-onto-new-sockpuppet" accounts, there might be some edits to random articles that slip under the radar. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KızılBörü1071 for typical username format. FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Torpedo boat confusion
An issue first raised in 2005 by User:PBS at Talk:Torpedo boat has never been resolved. The article seems to say that large steam-powered torpedo boats were replaced by smaller motor torpedo boats during the First World War. This may be true of Anglophone navies, but ignores large torpedo boats built by Italy, France, Norway, Japan and others during the 1930s and 1940s. There is a mention of German torpedo boats of World War II, but under the heading of Torpedo boat, which seems a nonsense to me. To my mind, the article should be about the large steam-powered fleet torpedo boats, and MTBs and destroyers should be written-out with only a brief mention retained. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Special Air Service
Comment invited at Talk:Special Air Service Regiment about whether war crimes investigations should be mentioned in the introduction. Meticulo (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

SMS Helgoland
Should the SMS Helgoland article be moved to SMS Helgoland (1909)? There were at least two other ships with this name - SMS Helgoland (1867) and SMS Helgoland (1912). Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say, SMS Helgoland would be turned into a shipindex page if the move were to happen. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should - I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should redirect to Helgoland (ship), as there are a couple of others that aren't "SMS", and there's no real need to have largely duplicate indices. Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the 1867 corvette to the shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of ship commissionings and decommissionings
There is a discussion taking place at WT:SHIPS which may be of interest to members of this WP insofar as it relates to linking to lists of ship commissionings and decomissionings from individual ship articles. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Allied invasion of Italy - article name
Please see this.DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Militaria - two unreferenced sentences...
Fun article to improve before it ends up being PRODed or AfDed. The odds are some members of our projects may also have images to contribute to Category:Militaria which is not doing very well showing private collections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That article is all of 2 sentences long now. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Josef Mengele
Greetings. I have opened a new RFC at Talk:Josef Mengele. The question is "Should the article have an "In popular culture" section?" Comments and discussion welcome.— Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

List of equipment of the British Army and other equipments lists
I would move text sessions to some other articles and remove unreferenced parts. These text sections originates in 2010 version of the aricle where there was no tables. I would like to mention this is a list so it should be focused on tables instead of text sections. I think all lists of equipments are so messed. I think we should have some standards for lists of equipments. How we should treat former, current and future equipment? I can imagine List of current equipment of the British Army and List of former equipment of the British Army but List of equipment of the British Army list contains current and future equpment. What should be done? Eurohunter (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a look at list of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy (a Featured List) and see how text works within a list. as to lack of referencing, the best approach is to find and add it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is more text than a list so what is that list? There is problem with structure of this artice/list for sure. This is more article describing "Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy" with detailed desscriptions of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy than "List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy" with list of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy because there is no enough material for a list. I think voting went wrong then, maybe because it was in 2010. Basically it's just article pretending to be a list. Eurohunter (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Have look at MOS:LIST, it doesn't specify that a list should be just a table or a bulleted set of let nks.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV violation and factual errors in Franz Halder bio
Franz Halder has some egregious WP:NPOV violations and factual errors but is semi-protected. I've identified the errors here: Talk:Franz Halder. Can someone please have a look and make the appropriate edits? --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 GAR
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, 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. CMD (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move
Members of this project may want to participate in the requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RMs are alerted to the project automatically at WikiProject Military history/Article alerts. No need to canvas. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unbiased requests for input are acceptable and are not canvassing per WP:CANVASS. I'm sure you don't mean it that way. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Milhist editors post notices like this all the time here. Can't remember the last I saw someone deliberately attack the poster with "canvassing" accusations. This is a straight-forward, minimal & neutral notice that doesn't target any specific editors.
 *  owes an apology. (jmho) -  wolf  07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Nick-D owes me an apology for complaining at AN/I after I pushed back on his nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, the vacuous and false arguments of Nick-D, Thewolfchild, Keith-264, SnowFire, DuncanHill, and a few others were weighted appropriately by the closer there. When sources use lowercase, the preference of these editors to use caps should not be what determines the outcome. When Nick-D falsely states what sources use caps, and others simply second him even after the error is pointed out, it degrades the credibility of the project. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A sore winner; isn't that an unAmerican activity? Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's like that old fable, he's just following his nature... - wolf 11:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Inability (particularly having carried the argument) to speak with respect to other editors - that damages Wikipedia as well as projects.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That "inability to speak with respect to others" is currently being discussed at ANI, see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (fyi) - wolf  11:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if you're going to accuse me of being "vacuous and false" at least have the courtesy (look it up in a dictionary) to ping me. DuncanHill (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more precise. Nick's comments about usage in sources were false (partly); yours were merely vacuous (1 : emptied of or lacking content. 2 : marked by lack of ideas or intelligence) when you said "Oppose per Keith, it is a title, and per Buckshot, it seems the natural way to write it" and "I think we should use natural English not a forced and artificial style" when we're in a context where we're supposed to be discussing with respect to policy and guidelines and evidence from sources, none of which influenced what you or Keith or Buckshot said. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should have pinged me whatever pathetic abuse you wanted to throw at me. Creeping about the project to abuse people behind their backs is not the behaviour of a good-faith editor. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not pinging you all. Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Military CfDs

 * Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 30
 * Category:Recipients of the Presidential Unit Citation (United States)
 * Category:Recipients of the Aerial Achievement Medal
 * Category:Military aircraft of World War II
 * Category:Recipients of the Silver Star
 * fyi - wolf  22:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC for List of military disasters
Hello all! I am writing to you in hopes that someone could chime in on this months long RfC on this talk page. It seems there is still a problem reaching consensus and things are getting a bit too heated in my opinion. I was given advice to come here as MilHist would be the best bet to find editors who can weigh in on military related articles. Honestly I agree with the sentiment that these lists are more a hassle than they are worth. Any help would be much appreciated to finaly put this thing to rest. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Another RfC on infobox flags...
See: Template talk:Infobox racing driver. (fyi) - wolf  20:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Multi-criteria search
Can anyone point me to where I can find the instructions / method for searching for articles where: category=military history + class=stub + importance=high? Thanks. Farawayman (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Farawayman, we don't assess for importance at Milhist - Dumelow (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumelow So looking at the "open tasks" - there are 42,600 pages that are stubs and are in need of "significant expansion" - surely the place to start would be those pages where importance=top or importance=high. How do I identify those - that's why I am asking?  Farawayman (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like said above, articles are not MILHIST assessed for the importance= parameter. Military history is too broad to compare, say Battle of Westport and Thrasybulus against each other on importance.  With no importance parameter for military history specifically, Category:All Wikipedia Stub-Class vital articles may be a better cross category thing to run against the MILHIST category. This will sort out articles assessed as being vital in a scope of the whole encyclopedia. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hog Farm - that makes sense. But now I'm running into other problems (and I know this is not the Wiki Help Desk!).  I used advanced search and indicated three categories:  A. Category:All Wikipedia Stub-Class vital articles, B. Category:Military history articles needing attention and C. Category:Stub-Class military history articles.  (I don't really need C, as its actually a duplication of A and B select criteria).  I want the intersection where the list should only show articles that meet category A AND B AND C.  It gives an error "too many categories" - where I think it is trying to list all articles in category A, and B, and C rather than articles that are in all three categories.  Any advice?  Farawayman (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly something to do with the number of subcategories it’s trying to search. I find WP:Petscan a bit easier for things like this. I think this query does what you want? It gives 40 articles at present - Dumelow (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumelow Yep, the Petscan search is much better. Thanks. Farawayman (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's evident from these search results that the "vital article" classification has been used rather liberally! Farawayman (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

HMS Tuscarora (FY 044)
I came across HMS Tuscarora (FY 044) via WP:THQ. Since I'm not very familiar with the notability guidelines for military vessels, I thought that perhaps someone from MILHIST could help sort this out. My first inclination would be to WP:DRAFTIFY this to allow the creator time to find and add citations; if, however, someone here has experience in working on this type of article and wants to flesh this one out a bit, then draftifying it might not be necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Marchjuly. As a commissioned vessel (ie. HMS, USS etc.), she has notability in accordance with guideline WP:NUNIT.  I've nommed the image for deletion at Commons as it is a near duplicate of File:HMS Tuscarora FL20328.jpg (and incorrectly licensed) and added cats and project tags to the article.  I found a source on Google Books that confirms she was commissioned into the Royal Navy.  There's other info online but I am not sure if it is reliable or not.  Uboat.net has some more details; I think this site is generally considered acceptable, can anyone confirm this? - Dumelow (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking at this . I asked about the image at c:COM:VPC because I thought it might possibly be PD in the UK, but wasn't sure. Such a thing, however, will be resolved in the DR you started. As for the notability concern, thanks for clarifying that; I thought that might be the case, but wasn't sure about that as well. Anyway, my main concern was the lack of sourcing since often completely unsourced articles end up being prodded or otherwise tagged/nominated for deletion. FWIW, it seemed viable as a stub which is why I thought draftifying might be a good option until some sourcing could be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - the article needs an infobox - see Infobox ship begin. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info . As posted above, I just came by this article via a Teahouse question and ship articles aren't something I use work on. Anyway, I've added the basic infobox syntax to the article and tried to fill in the parameters as best as I could. Since I posted the above, other editors in addition to Dumelow have been working on improving the article; perhaps one of them or maybe even you yourself will clean up the infobox and fix any mistakes I made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox bloat
Some of you may already know about this, or seen it, but an IP editor has been going to the infoboxes of numerous military units from all over the world, and in the "type" or "role" parameter, adding items like "Special mission unit", "raiding", jungle warfare", "close quarters combat", etc., etc., etc.... sometimes adding lists of up to a couple dozen of these types of entries in one edit.

Many, if not most of these entries are not sourced, and do not belong in the infobox, based on the type of unit. Not every infantry unit is trained in elite, special operations, for every extreme environment on the planet. This person uses multiple IP addresses, that all appear to be from Bangkok, Thailand. I believe they have been blocked, so further edits like this can be reverted as block evasion (on top of a lack of sourcing and just being wrong info).

Anyway, just bringing this to the attention of the milhist community, to be aware of, but also hoping there is something more that can be done. Any admins here have any ideas? Cheers - wolf  06:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

These types of edits are continuing, are there any admins here that can offer advice on what action can be taken to address this disruption? Thanks again - wolf  16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

, you blocked one of this user's IP address a couple weeks ago (still blocked as of this post), yet these types of edits continue. Is there anything else that can be done? - wolf  13:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A smarter admin than me might be able to do a range block. I'm semi-protecting relevant articles for lengthy periods, which often does the trick in cases like this. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For the records that is still running, and thanks to the still effective block it is not only continued vandalism but also block evasion. Apparently among those frequently changing IPs that are not always active but currently not blocked are: I´m really not sure what to make of such editing behaviour. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks to some advice from, I filed an AIV and just applied 1 year range block. Hopefully that'll take care if this issue. -  wolf  17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel stupid but quick question about capitalization
The article Early Imperial campaigns in Germania, should the 'i' be capital as in "early [Roman] Imperial campaigns in Germania" (bc "Roman Empire" would be capitalized) or just "early imperial campaigns in Germania" (as in an imperialist expansion)? I'm not too savvy when it comes to this and forget if having to move an article after nominating it for GAR ruins the process. SpartaN (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The common adjective imperial is lowercased. But it doesn’t really mean what it should. I think a better title would use the attributive proper-noun form: Early Roman Empire campaigns in Germania [ removed hyphen ]. —Michael Z. 00:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve seen “Imperial” used as a stand-alone adjective when referring to the Holy Roman Empire, but I don’t recall ever encountering it used that way for the Roman Empire. Perhaps it might be simpler to put a date in the title (Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)) and thus skirt the Republic/Empire issue? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like "early Imperial period" for the Roman empire is pretty common, but that lowercase imperial is way more common. If you want to switch to  Early Roman Empire campaigns in Germania, keep in mind that while compounds used as adjectives typically get hyphens, it is not the case for proper names like Roman Empire.  So don't put that hyphen that Michael Z suggested. I like Krill's suggestion.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right you are. —Michael Z. 02:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of GAR should always be to make sure the title conforms with guidelines. Nothing wrong with a move to fix it if not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks I wasn't expecting such quick feedback. I'll move it to "Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)" based on the feedback. I appreciate the help SpartaN (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Corps Warrant, 1926 is up for deletion, any interest in saving it? - wolf  22:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oh well... - wolf  21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the "result" parameter of Infobox military conflict at Mongol invasions of Vietnam
Hi! There is an RfC at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam about whether the "result" parameter of the Infobox military conflict at Mongol invasions of Vietnam should point to the aftermath section of the article body, say "Đại Việt victory" or list specific consequences. Any input there is appreciated! — MarkH21talk 02:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Name and scope of “Russian, Soviet and CIS” task force
Hi. The terminology appears to be dated and Russo-centric, and the statement at WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force is ambiguous.

I presume “Russian” refers to the Russian empire, and not limited to Russians’ nationality or some such. Does the scope extend back before Russia to the history of Rusʼ? Does the scope include the military histories of the twelve Soviet successor states with Georgia and Ukraine, or only ten CIS members? If the former, then, for example, Ukraine’s history necessarily includes the histories of Lithuania and Poland.

Please let’s clarify the scope statement, and perhaps rename the project appropriately. —Michael Z. 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the task force scope statement. The new version defines the scope with explicit reference to the modern Soviet successor states and Mongolia, eliminates the Russocentric WP:BIAS that defined unnamed states as “considered Russian,” and explicitly names former Russian-empire states that belong to other wikiprojects. Please review. —Michael Z. 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Liberation of Khorramshahr
Input of MILHIST participants is requested on this move proposal (t · c)  buidhe  16:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Article issues
I ran across several articles that appear to have been prematurely or bot promoted to B-class. I have been leaving notes on the talk pages because of time restraints but articles like Alexander Henry Hoff appear at first glance to be Start-class at best. Otr500 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - It was actually assessed as B-class back in 2016 by with this edit.  I've downgraded this one to C class, as it contains uncited text and is sourced only to what appears to be the subject's memoirs. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC).

FAC that could use attention
Hi all, if you have time, Featured article candidates/Deutschland-class battleship/archive1 could use additional reviewers to avoid it being archived. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've claimed a spot. Hog Farm Talk 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Military history/World War II task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Military history/World War II task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Recipients 2
I have been writing articles on medal of honor recipients and I was wondering if it would be acceptable to move them to main space without doing AFC. They are similiar to other medal of honor articles with same sources and format as pre-existing. Afc takes a bit so I was wondering if it is acceptable to move them early? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 16:59 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on the de facto state of affairs, I think it's appropriate to just create them in main space. I've been creating articles since 2014 and have never used AfC. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Blogs of published authors as references? How would you cite a badly redacted classified document?
Does anyone know of the acceptability of using a blog of a published authors as a reference? Similarly, how does a slightly circular original research work?

To give the short version, I found a document containing classified information had been improperly redacted, revealing nuclear weapon design details. This was picked up by Alex Wellerstein (creator of Nuke Map and author of "Restricted Data - THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR SECRECY IN THE UNITED STATES") who published it on his blog. I'm concerned about how this could stray into original research and given how nebulous the field that is nuclear weapons history given how much is classified a lot of things are guesses or interpretations from limited facts.

Case in point, take a look at the images revealed: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2021/05/17/how-not-to-redact-a-warhead/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/mj3rix/how_to_get_sacked_badly_redacted_document_gives/

How do you cite this and what can you draw from the image before it becomes original research?

For example, the images Alex uses are the images stripped from the highly compressed PDF file of the document. I personally though have the original JPEG images Martin Pfeiffer created when he scanned the documents and when I have some time I was going to try and get more details of the diagrams and text from them. That isn't really original research Alex did and I am adapting for a Wikipedia article, isn't it?

At the same time, I can look at those images and personally go "the W76 uses a keyhole shaped radiation case" (which I can separately interpret from another document that shows the mounting arrangement for the warhead in the Mk 4 RB) - does that count as original research? Not to mention someone else might look at the image and come to a different conclusion. The same can be said for the text; I see the bottom lines as saying the replacement warhead in a Mk 5 RB (i.e. a W88 replacement) would have a yield of 300 to 350 ktTNT, but someone else might look at the blurry text and disagree.

Another is the Swan device issue. Someone might look at the W76 image and go "Swan type primary in front, spherical secondary in the rear". This would likely be a popular view in the community of amateur nuclear weapons researchers and historians, but would be a view I personally strongly disagree with. There's a source out there that says the W88 was the first conical warhead with the primary in the front (this apparently is more desirable from a stability point of view and reduces ballast needed in the front) but then someone will throw in words that it's misinformation and the image proves a Swan type primary is used even though it's more likely a spherical primary with a cylindrical or prolate secondary is used.

This has the possibility of becoming messy, so I'd like to hear some thoughts.Kylesenior (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:OR policy, we should not be making interpretations about what we see in a photo/scanned document. As for using the blog in general, I'd say its fine to cite it and attribute in text to Wellerstein, considering his reputation. Standing consensus is we can use self-published material of people who have formally established themselves as experts in the relevant field (by earning PhDs and publishing journal articles and the like), though anything contentious, as it would seem here, is likely to be challenged. I think you best bet is to hope a news outlet covers what Wellerstein finds or he writes a more formal work about it. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Potentially being messy might be a red flag. I would not "cite a badly redacted classified document" period. What ramifications are possible from using content or citing such a "classified document"?
 * I don't think using the blog of an expert is necessarily an issue. You have far more knowledge on the subject than I do. As mentioned, we cannot make interpretations and a challenge might certainly be offered when there is controversy and blurry text. We cannot "draw from the image" anything that is not self-explanatory and should certainly not use any content that might be sourced by blurry text. A reader can draw any conclusion they wish but editors cannot as that would be OR.
 * Words like "I can look at those images and personally go" or "which I can separately interpret from another document" would be words to watch as individual interpretations. If used and challenged it would need non-primary sourcing so I would suggest being careful of the consideration to use it. A red flag would be any chance of claims of misinformation. Even though possibly an expert, there are likely opposing sides and again, non-primary sources would be better to present both sides for neutrality. At any rate, make sure there are no copyright issues with a blog that has images. Otr500 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Image at Alexander the Great
The involvement of further editors regarding the image used in the infobox would be welcome (there's a section at the bottom of the talk page). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The page is locked for 3 days and both editors have been warned - I'll try to remember to keep an eye on it, but if either one resumes edit-warring after the protection expires, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the talk page seems to have stalled for now so further opinions would be appreciated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently an AfD to delete a military medal. (fyi) - wolf  03:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Satronia Smith Hunt up for deletion
U.S. Civil War veteran, who was a male impostor to do it. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WW1 draft advice
Hi all. I suggested leave a message here asking for advice on a draft they're working on at Draft:Dury, Compiègne and Abbeville Meetings. Unfortunately their thread was archived before it got a response. I was wondering whether someone familiar with WW1 history (particularly the Western Front or allied leadership) could have a quick look over the draft and share their thoughts with Lord Milner, particularly regarding notability? It's not my area of expertise, and I'm unsure whether these meetings collectively warrant an article or whether the details should be merged into an existing one. If it's helpful, there's some more context in a thread on my talk page. Thanks in advance, Jr8825  •  Talk  22:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I found this site thanks to the editor, above, and added my draft "The Dury, Compiegne and Abbeville Meetings" to the list of pending stories. Has there been a reformatting of the screen? I can't find my draft or the pending list of WW I drafts (~100). Lord Milner (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC). FYI: This story is about one of the greatest mysteries of World War I: The role of General Douglas Haig at the most critical time of the War, and whether or not he deserved notoriety, acclaim and a huge financial windfall from King George V after the war. Lord Milner (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's there, though maybe renamed/reformatted at Draft:Dury, Compiègne and Abbeville Meetings. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thxs. Lord Milner (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only 13,000 bytes. Why isn't this great text part of the Michael or Spring Offensive articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help with MSG/MCSFR articles
These series of articles seem all jacked up to me. There's little organizational structure like we would see in another article. I can't tell how these organizations are connected even thought they clearly are. There are also some questions I have. According to my primary sources:

and


 * FAST and MCSFs are listed as part of MCSFR


 * Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) - MSG is part of MCESG


 * MSAU is under MCESG

But the Regiment article doesn't list MCESG at all, and i'm just completely lost here. So we have MSG's and MCSF, both fall under MCSFR, maybe? FAST, RTT, MSAU are all MCSF I think. 03's can become MCSF and have a career through MSAU I suppose rather than going back to 03 (i've heard), MSG is a b-billet open to everyone. Even though MSAUs are MCSF they report to MCESG instead of SFR... I don't know, i'm having a stroke thinking about this... If anyone can help me figure this stuff out, lmk. Working on rebuilding the MCSFR page on my talk subpage. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were the Navy, the answer would be to look at the Standard Naval Distribution List (or actually, the Administrative Organization of the Operating Forces of the USN). Can you find separate overall organization lists/charts from the higher commands that will avoid you having to deal with confusing, potentially sometimes out of date, individual unit websites? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So much done, so much to do...
I just noticed this Featured GA on pl wiki (pl wiki Features GAs on the main page in a separate section): pl:ORP Żbik (1959). Not a stub on en wiki yet... Would anyone like to collaborate on the translation? PS. Hint: google translate does wonders these days... and I can probably help with any Polish terminology that the MT will have trouble with. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

T.S. Leopard gate gun
Can anyone identify the UK naval gun depicted in c:Category:T.S. Leopard, in order to add a suitable category, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to put a lot of money on it, but I think this is a QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun - the pictures on Commons in c:Category:QF 12 pounder 12 cwt Mk V show some very similar mountings. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed; there's another Sea Cadet 12-pounder at Tooting, seen here, and another one at southall, File:Naval Gun Southall AF83.jpeg, which someone has annotated as a "QF 12 pounder 12 cwt Mk V gun". Not sure how you distinguish the different marks, but the Mk. V was the last produced. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Asking for a review of edits
User:Ldavid1985 - Special:Contributions has been adding army service awards to infoboxes and in some cases to the body of the article. Sometimes we have a source many times we do not...and sometimes we have a source but does not contain what he/she has added. Can we get a review of some of their edits to see if we should be looking into this more. A few of us have tried to talk to them to no avail. Example of concern with source...Montel Williams: Difference between revisions ....we have a source but not for all that they are listing? Or is it that there is a normal medal when you leave or something? Asking because we are not sure.-- Moxy - 21:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Zangezur Corridor" deletion
There is an interesting discussion on deletion of Zangezur Corridor article, relevant to Armenia-Azerbaijan topic. Members of this Wikiproject are very welcome to participate in the constructive discussion and diversify it. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at France during World War II
It has been proposed that France during World War II be renamed, merged, or deleted. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:France during World War II. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Air Force Officers categorised by rank
Noticed that people are being moved from Category:Royal Air Force officers to sub-categories by rank for example Category:Royal Air Force squadron leaders. I can see that categories for air officers like air marshals is not a problem but putting everybody else into lower order ranks doesnt seem to be of much encyclopedic use and doesnt help finding people. Particularly if the trend continuies into all the military officer categories. I assume that this will be last or highest rank held alhtough that is not explained - as they all started as Pilot Officers then somebody of Air rank could in theory be in up to six rank ctegories as they climb the rungs of the ladder. Before I do something rash like propose deletion of the lower rank categories can anybody explain why these are a good idea, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we usually categorize any rank below general officers for the reasons you say, so I'd go ahead and nominate for deletion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's been our practice. As has been the practice of categorisation based on the highest rank achieved. This should be documented somewhere. Many categories have ambiguous and sometimes contentious names and what is in and what is out should be clearly explained on the category page. WP:SUBCAT says: "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." Large categories are normally subdivided into subcategories, but I'm uncertain as to what qualifies a category for subcategorisation based on size. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse MilbourneOne, Buidhe. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Categorising officers by specific rank except the general category for air marshals and the category for Marshals of the Royal Air Force is a terrible idea. And that applies to any country and any service. See also Category:Colonels by nationality and its subcats, almost all of which should be deleted. Also Category:Australian brigadiers, Category:Argentine brigadiers, Category:Argentine Air Force brigadiers, Category:New Zealand brigadiers, all the subcats of Category:SS generals, Category:German air force generals by rank and its subcats, Category:German army generals by rank and its subcats, most of the subcats of Category:Prussian generals, the subcats of Category:National People's Army generals, the subcats of Category:Reichswehr generals, most of the subcats of Category:Generals of the German Army (Wehrmacht), most of the subcats of Category:Luftwaffe generals, the subcats of Category:Württemberg generals, Category:German admirals by rank and most of its subcats and sub-subcats, Category:Iranian admirals by rank and its subcats and sub-subcats, the subcats of Category:Georgian generals in the Imperial Russian Army, Category:Imperial Russian major generals, Category:Colonel generals and its subcats, Category:Lieutenant generals and its subcats, Category:Major generals and its subcats, Category:Brigadier generals and its subcats, Category:Vice admirals, Category:Navy commodores, Category:United States Navy commodores‎, Category:Four-star officers and its subcats, Category:Three-star officers and its subcats, Category:Two-star officers and its subcats, and Category:One-star officers and its subcats, plus any others I've missed. It's a pernicious problem and it seems to be spreading. I see no value whatsoever in categorising officers by their specific rank unless that rank was "five-star" (e.g. marshals, admirals of the fleet). The highest rank grouping (i.e. generals, admirals, air marshals) should be categorised, as reaching that group is clearly defining, but not specific ranks within it. It's pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

While we're here, I've never liked the definition of rank in Template:Infobox Military Person: "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)." I always thought that we should show the highest rank achieved. Too many people were reduced to substantive rank on retirement or the end of hostilities or simply when their time in a particular position was up. I would like to delete the "unless" clause. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What would that mean for people similar to David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford? Lindsay prior to World War One was a captain, but enlisted in the war as a private. Are people who provide considerable service in their later, lesser, rank still referred to by their less notable earlier rank? (Not the best example I'll admit) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or Major General Percy Hobart, who was forcibly retired in 1940, and served in the Home Guard as a lance corporal. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general it should be the highest rank achieved. Personally, I think that should usually apply even if reduced by disciplinary action. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing the header image for Russian, Soviet and CIS task force


There was no comment or objection to my proposal in, above, nor to my rewrite of.

So in following up, I propose replacing the task force’s image. It is currently the coat of arms of the Russian Federation (adopted 1993). It is inappropriate considering the scope is the military histories of twelve or thirteen modern states, overlapping with others in their region, and including scores of historical countries, nations, and polities.

I would use a satellite image showing all of the states mentioned in the scope. Such an image is used for other regional Mil-Hist task forces, including the African, Asian, Balkan, European, Middle Eastern, North American, and South American. I would probably crop it out of File:Asia satellite orthographic.jpg.

A couple of regional task forces use locator maps instead: the South Asian and Southeast Asian. This would allow the twelve or thirteen modern states to be pictured, but some will be extremely tiny or unidentifiable in the small image, and this would only represent the map as of the last three decades.

Other ideas? Objections? —Michael Z. 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I updated the TF image, using File:Post-Soviet satellite orthographic.jpg. —Michael Z. 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Tigranocerta GA reassessment
The Battle of Tigranocerta article is currently a GA but I believe that its ripe for delistment as it did not meet GA criteria at the time of promotion and neither does it meet them now (imho). I nominated it for reassessment but the reviewer did not address any of my comments and kept it at GA status. What is the next step to get it reassessed if any?--Catlemur (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , follow the community reassessment procedure detailed here. Note also the guidelines at the bottom of that page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

requested moves for articles related to this project
For those who don't trawl through the article alerts:
 * Battle of Greece at Talk:Battle of Greece
 * Battle of Belgium at Talk:Battle of Belgium with a related move for the 1914 German invasion of Belgium
 * Battle of the Netherlands at Talk:Battle of the Netherlands
 * Battle of France at Talk:Battle of France


 * GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia uses "Battle" for World War II invasions far more often than reliable sources do. Terms like "invasion" are used much more. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some events are just plain known as "Battle of..." eg Battle of Crete not "German invasion of Crete", and in symmetry Battle of France is followed by Battle of Britain (eg The RAF in the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain: A Reappraisal of Army and Air Policy 1938-1940, Baughen 2016). There are six invasions of France outside WWII, and four (if you count the Italians) during WWII. Some invasions are over once the army crosses the border and there's only skirmishes (Denmark). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject
Andrew Parker Bowles	215,464	7,182	Start--Coin945 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured articles
Hi all, the Featured articles page is a huge failure in terms of providing actual use to readers (to be clear, the page it self, not FAs in general). Huge, long lists of tangentially related articles, thrown together. There seems to be some consensus on the talk page that it needs reform, but little participation. I would very much appreciate ideas on how to more properly set up the Warefare section of the page. The main issues are finding a balance between massive indiscernible lists, and too niche-small of divisions. The main issues I see are:
 * The top of the Warfare section is a pile of random articles; surely a "Military Units" or something section could be made out of it? I attempted to begin editing this myself, but am not well versed enough (I think) to do it properly
 * I have no idea what "Warfare matériel" means (and what's with the accent?). And I struggle to understand how readers could find use in having "M249 light machine gun" in the same section as hundreds of ships? Any ideas here?
 * It would be nice to split up the massive "Wars, battles and events" section as well, but I don't know that there are any obvious divisions there. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I like what Good articles/Warfare does more - "Armies and military units", "Battles, exercises, and conflict", "Military aircraft", "Military decorations and memorials", "Military people", "Military ranks and positions", "Warships and naval units", "Weapons, equipment, and buildings".
 * This exact setup won't work as well with the FAs, because there are much fewer of them, but maybe a division of something on the lines of:
 * "Military units"
 * "Military equipment"
 * "Warships and naval units"
 * "Wars, battles, and events"
 * "Military biographies"
 * "Military memorials and structures"


 * That still leaves a few loose ends to divide up, like We Can Do It! and United States war plans (1945–1950), but the proposition above would probably be more useful to the reader than the current state. Hog Farm Talk 20:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those could go in a Misc or top section if no-one comes up with anything better -- I think we'd want to guard against very small sections -- but generally I think HF's suggestions make sense. Anyone else?  Cheers, 02:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank HF, these are really great. And yes I agree that the random ones could just be put directly under the Warfare section Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not start with the broader categories from the larger FA list. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.
 * matériel just means military equipment and materials (ammunition, uniforms, cam stick, telephone wire, rations, etcetera); the accent comes from its French origins and makes it clear it’s not just a misspelling of material. —Michael Z. 13:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have an article materiel. The accent is somewhat archaic. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionaries give it as an also variant, so presumably less common, but they do not label it as dated or archaic. Google Books Ngram shows it has been gaining in relative frequency in recent decades. —Michael Z. 15:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to Featured_articles. IMO there aren't enough military structures or memorials to justify a separate category (if it makes sense to lump these together), so I left them in the top level category. (t · c)  buidhe  00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Loads better, thanks . Aza24 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. Nice work . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion on Battle of Saragarhi
There is an ongoing discussion on the, regarding the sources used in the article for Battle of Saragarhi. In particular, the discussion was started as a result of a dispute over casualty figures on. If you are interested, please participate. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Image discussion at Talk:Second Cold War
I started the following discussion: Talk:Second Cold War --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Received request to merge the Connolly Column article into the Irish socialist volunteers in the Spanish Civil War article on 13 May 2021. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. Input welcome. Thank you,  GenQuest  "scribble" 14:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

List of B-class articles with citation or other issues

 * There are comments at Talk:Distant Early Warning Line concerning article issues and current classification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , reassessed the MilHist tag as C, B1=no. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments concerning issues that also involves classification of Eielson Air Force Base at Talk:Eielson Air Force Base. --  Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Thank you, I realize I could have done it but am performing some B-class maintenance, currently Category:B-Class Alaska articles. Venturing too far off slows this a lot and even redirects me (possible ADHD) away from the initial goal. I review the articles periodically to see if there is any progress and work on some when I can. It also lists the articles for other eyes to possibly address issues in the future. I added subsections allowing for the addition of other articles and separating general comments. --  Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What ship was sunk in the General Sherman incident in Korea, 1866?
There are some poor references/problematic links in related articles. Some suggest it was the USS General Sherman (1864). Others that it was the USS Princess Royal. 19th-century American ships are hardly a topic I am familiar with. I am thinking about improving this article, but well, not being able to even identify the ship that sunk there is a major stumbling block... Help? PS. For such a fascinating incident this is terribly undersourced (and underresearched). Even the captain is just identified as "Captain Page", no given name? This could be a good source if anyone has a way to access it:. PS. Found it:. I will be expanding on the incident, but I am still in need of help from some expert of US Naval history re the IDing the correct ship. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine it could be the 1864 General Sherman - a 187-ton river steamer would be unlikely to make it across the Pacific to Korea! I think from the description in the article it was probably not a commissioned warship at all (so no "USS").
 * This report dated 16 October from someone associated with the London Missionary Society (one of the passengers was a Rev R.J. Thomas from the LMS) says it was a "small schooner" chartered by Meadows & Co. in "Chefoo", and sailed on 17 August with a cargo of cotton and silver. The ship crops up occasionally earlier in the year in sailing reports (so it was probably already sailing under that name) but there are no details given. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some related articles from Australian newspapers. Wallaroo Times, 30 Mar 1867, The Argus, 12 Jan 1867, The Goulburn Herald, 19 Jan 1867, The Mercury, 22 Jan 1867. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviews needed
There are a trio of MilHist articles at FAC which could do with source reviews:
 * Featured article candidates/Deutschland-class battleship/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Assassination of Talat Pasha/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Battle of Saint-Malo/archive1

Also needing reviews at FAC are:
 * Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Newtonia/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Treaty of Guînes/archive1

All are worthy articles and I am aware that in April the project only managed one new FA. We can do better than that. If there are editors who have not reviewed a FAC before, then wearing my FAC coordinator hat I would be happy to walk them through the process in a live fire exercise. At base FAC reviews are straight forward; many editors feel they are easier than GANs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

HMS Volage (1825)
An unreferenced claim in the HMS Volage (1825) article states that she was broken up on 12 December 1864. However, the Morning Post of 7 December 1874 states "Chatham, Saturday. The breaking-up of the old ship Volage has been completed, and she has now entirely disappeared from the blocks." Saturday being 5 December 1874. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * | Colledge and Warlow (p. 435) have the breaking up of Volage completed on 12 December 1874 at Chatham. Suspect the '1864' is a typo rather than an alternative claim. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've added a paragraph based on Winfield covering her last two decades of service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Scrapping was completed a week earlier per the contemporary source I quoted above. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Winfield, College, et al. say what they say, but your source would seem to be pretty authoritative. I suspect that the 12 December date is taken from RN records and may be an administrative issue rather than when the physical demolition was completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11
Dear all, was readmitted to this site by a decision of Arbcom that I cannot find the details of. I should note I blocked him - when still an administrator - for his massive amounts of shoddy, sometimes incoherent, work full of mistakes. Readmitted, this user has basically repeated exactly what s/he was doing before. What s/he does is create voluminous order of battle listings often off the back of WP:PRIMARY sources, sometimes referencing Freedom of Information requests among others. Creating massive listings of orders of battle would not necessarily be a problem if s/he stuck to well referenced, secondary & tertiary sources (s/he has been recently amassing material on the Napoleonic Wars) but s/he's greatest focus is *right now*, trying repeatedly to created order of battle listings for 2021, which is well beyond what responsible editors, aware of the limitations inherent in WP:PRIMARY, can do. The data is simply not available to reliably put together such listing for say 2020 and 2021. When this user tries to stitch together things s/he does not appear to demonstrate the understanding of how, for example, the Royal Navy has fitted together over the last 30 years or so.

My problem is that I do orders of battle and military units and formations almost exclusively on this site: honestly I'm an expert. I have been driven half crazy by trying to run around and fix things up after him. Most of these listings were in reasonably good shape, and their quality is rapidly falling off as WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY are repeatedly pushed beyond their limits.

Sample warning at talkpage in last week: "I have just rolled back this edit. I have never found an authoritative source saying *where* HQ 56 Brigade was located, and was initially surprised and pleased to find that you had appeared to find a source for its location at Chelsea Barracks. I was NOT happy to find that all there was at Drenth page 10 was the rough formation and disbandment dates for 56 Brigade, probably sourced from where I got it from, Beevor, Inside the British Army - the information was *exactly* the same. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A BRIGADE HQ LOCATION!! DO NOT INSERT FALSE REFERENCES!! "
 * You will note that this Grenadier Guards history, accessed via Google Books, gives the brigade HQ location as Horse Guards.

I do not wish this user to continue editing on this site. Can people provide inputs, please? ,, other users' views more than welcome. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the ArbCom decision to overturn the site ban. For the board, I will add that J-man seems to have good intentions and wants to help build articles. That said, be had just started a mentorship before his last ban, due to serious editing issues. Given that the same issues seemed to have arisen again on his return, it was repeatedly suggested that J-man again seek a mentor, but for some reason he has so far refused to do so this time. I really think it could've helped matters, as I said, I believe he genuinely wants to contribute, puts in a lot of work, and seems easy to deal with (as in no hostility or attitude problems), but needs regular guidance, if not supervision. That said, Buckshot's frustrations are justified. Something needs to be done, and it seems that that 'something' will need to be decided by the community. Though it seems likely that it will be another site ban, hopefully other options are considered. JMHO - wolf  13:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link and the contribs etc template addition. Further thoughts from others welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would help if (i) J-man would acknowledge that his/her editing style is still causing irritation and / or is disruptive and (ii) he / she were to agree to address this as a matter of urgency. I am still waiting for J-man to respond to a couple of requests in this thread where the underlying problem had also been caused by excessive reliance on primary sources. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness to, that thread is over a month old now, it's possible he missed it or just since forgot. But that said, he has been actively editing since this thread was started, so he should be posting something here. He's not helping his case by ignoring this. - wolf  17:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem he's paying attention, as he's just now replied to the thread that Dormskirk mentioned above... - wolf 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I only saw this now as I've been working on my sandbox, so that's why. No. 1 yes, I do want a mentor but still haven't found any who are in the Military History area. That is why instead I tagged 'the four' for assistance with regards whenever I needed it. No. 2 the reason why I still need and WANT a mentor is because everytime I have an issue I feel like I can't ask questions and get a quick response, and instead I go ahead and get yelled at by Buckshot, and that further makes me stressed out to the point that I'm close to just giving up asking for advise. Of course advise is meant to be against someone like criticism, but yelling and doesn't help me. No. 3 every issue on the 1989 page is being worked on in my sandbox, that's where I've been and why I'm only responding now. That is why I reverted all the old edits and working on a new page and won't be moving it for a very long time until I get it peer reviewed and from an independent source. No. 4 The Primary issue I've been fixing especially in my 2021 sandbox, something which I worked 2 hours on last night, and have learned the difference regarding Primary and Secondary references, and I'm even working on removing them from my articles in my other sandboxes too. No. 5 of course you won't see when I change my user page, but recently I dumped a bunch of planned projects regarding 2021 because I neither had the time or the sources, and only keeping 3: Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force. I'm currently considering moving the Royal Navy one back to end of 2020 because of a lack of refs and so many changes currently occurring. No. 6 last night I decided to completely step out of main article editing until I'm able to actually fully find an assistant/mentor because I'm just getting sick and tired at this point. Also, It is worth noting as I learn more some of my edits might seem extensive or irritating. This I feel is because I'm still learning, and as I just stated was the main reason why I just stepped out of main article editing, something which I need a lot of improvement in. I'm willing to admit that because it is true, along with dealing with some older requests via Dormskirk and SmartyPants on REME. So there you are, there's my response, as I stated I wasn't aware of this thread because I've been very busy with my sandbox and fixing refs and finding proper sources and removing older issues on my sandbox which is related to 1989, and need to fix. J-Man11 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth does ArbCom think it is doing? I too blocked J-Man11 early on, and I will block him/her again shortly if this is the same behaviour as before. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , with under 5% minor differences, this is exactly the same issues as before. Misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources and severe WP:CIR, not understanding enough about how the forces are put together to interpret available sources. I have tried over and over again to advise and counsel; now yes on occasion I shout, because J-Man11 does not appear to heed my words. As can be seen from the text above, this user does not really understand the issues I have raised. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My impression is that this user, as regards 1989 at least, is often taking already written orders of battle from Wikia and possibly elsewhere and then trying to reference them, rather than building them piece by piece from the sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Because that's my own article, and those act as my template, of which I then use references to expand, fix, and remove any missing areas. You can have whatever you view you want on it, but you're wrong there. J-Man11 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But you clearly do not remove missing areas (consistently?) Otherwise I would not have found the fatuous 1989 problem with 'Chelsea Barracks' when the real location for HQ 56 Brigade turned out to be Horse Guards. Otherwise you would have removed the Joint Services Intelligence Organisation from the list of organisations subordinate to HQ London District! This is *not* Wikia. You cannot copy-and-paste large chunks of unreferenced/badly-referenced, or completely incorrect, listings into here and expect it to go unnoticed!! Competence is required to edit this site!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have those problems not been fixed? J-Man11 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban from orders of battle and military unit articles is in order? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At a minimum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Advisory of discussion :Split considered at Russian Airborne Forces
With 's excellent addition of recent sources regarding the post-1990 structure of the VDV, this page is now over 150 kB. WP:SIZERULE suggests it now be split, recreating Soviet Airborne Forces. I would like to go ahead and do this.

Are there any comments? Please make any additional remarks at Talk:Russian Airborne Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"Honour titles" included in article names?
Recently, 2 Medium Regiment (Self Propelled) (Letse & Point 171) was created. As the last part ("Letse" and "Point 171") are honour titles and not part of the official name of the regiment, I moved it to 2 Medium Regiment (Self Propelled), but this was reversed. I notice that other articles, like 861 Missile Regiment (Laleali & Picquet 707), use the same naming system of including these honour titles. This seems incorrect to me, and isn't using the official nor the most common name of these regiments as the article title, but people here are more versed in these things. as creator of these, your input is more than welcome here. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, we very much welcome your creation of these unit pages on Wikipedia. But the standard disambiguation for such units is things like (India) and (Pakistan), such as I Corps (India). The relevant rule is "For units whose name is ambiguous on Wikipedia, the disambiguating term should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (as in 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom))" which can be seen at WP:MILMOS. I have been involved in military unit article names for several years on this site, and we consistently remove long and / or confusing suffixes: for example 97th Bombardment Wing (World War II) and similar all became 97th Bombardment Wing (U.S. Army Air Forces) because 'World War II' could refer to any state that took part in that war.


 * I would very much like you to kindly consider using suffixes such as 'India' or possibly 'Indian Artillery,' please. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Point noted - and . Akk7a (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that articles on military units should usually be at the base name (without parenthetical qualifiers of any sort) unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. they are useful for disambiguation for units from the same country that have the same name; to disambiguate between units from different countries the country is the best disambiguator, as stated above). These qualifiers often change, their exact usage is often unclear and they are often omitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ship class naming
I am currently writing the article for a class of British frigate designed in 1804. There seems to be some difference of opinion over whether this class was the Circe class (as described by Gardiner in First Frigates) or the Thames class (as described by Winfield in British Warships 1793-1817). Would appreciate any suggestions as to how I should go about naming such an article and the class of ship involved. Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked, but is one more common than the other? If there is a clear winner, I'd go with that for the article title (and create a redirect from the alternative) and then explain that some sources use the other name in the article. If there isn't a clear preference in other sources, I'd probably defer to Winfield, as he's the specialist I'd go to for British ships of the era. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Gardiner uses "Thames class" in his 2011 Warships of the Napoleonic Era: Design, Development and Deployment; perhaps he realised an error in his earlier work, or just changed his mind? "Thames class" is also used in Blake & Lawrence's 2005 Illustrated Companion to Nelson's Navy - Dumelow (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll keep the article as 'Thames-class frigate', but will note the alternative name as necessary. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

IRIS Kharg
The biggest ship in the Iranian Navy, IRIS Kharg caught fire and sank today. Might be worth a few eyes on the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article and main page both claim it as the largest ship in their navy. What about the converted tanker IRINS Makran, which our article says was commissioned earlier this year?  She's longer, wider, deeper and has three times the displacement at full load.  Is it not actually a navy ship?  Does the different prefix mean anything? - Dumelow (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been changed to note that Makran was larger, so I've now removed the claim from the ITN blurb - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11
In accordance with the discussions above I now propose a Topic Ban for from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1900. As has been discussed above, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS) which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1900. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Topic bans can only be given at admin noticeboards, not at project pages, as far as I know. Fram (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I made this proposal as a community proposal under WP:CBAN, and I cannot see anything at WP:BANPOL stopping the community making decisions about such things at project talk pages. Milhist has made such community decisions beforehand. However, if there is any problem with the authority of this segment of the community, if there's some rule I haven't seen, I'm quite happy to take this only as a strong recommendation, and then convey it to an appropriate noticeboard. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a negative, Rafterman. Fram's correct. By 'community', is meant the editing community of the English Wikipedia, not a discrete portion thereof. Per WP:Ban authority, The Wikipedia community can impose a ban by consensus, per WP:CBAN: Community sanctions may be discussed on the WP:AN (preferred) or on WP:ANI. No local noticeboards there. By the way, if anyone has been "banned" by local consensus here (or anywhere, for that matter), give me their names and I'll file at Arbcom :)   ——  Serial  12:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it to wp:ani this is not the place for such a discussion (see wp:talk).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys!! Seems I did not read far enough down into CBAN. Off to AN I go; this discussion serves as a notice to the most interested community that this proposal will be made.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now posted the TBAN proposal at Administrators'_noticeboard. Make all further comments there, please. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now posted the TBAN proposal at Administrators'_noticeboard. Make all further comments there, please. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Help identifying rank of Burundian officer in 1993 from images
Does anyone here have a specialty knowledge in uniforms for the Burundian army/air force (Burundian National Defence Force)? If not, the Belgian and French counterparts. I'm trying to identify the military officer seen in this video at 12 seconds, 18 seconds, and 24 seconds marks. For context, this footage was shot in 1993 and the military officer is accompanying the President of Burundi, so he is likely either an adjutant or high-ranking. He's also wearing a green beret, which not all Burundian officers wore. I'm particularly curious about the wings insignia he wears on his right breast. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an expert by any means. Luckily Burundian officers in full dress (or perhaps just staff officers and generals?) appear to wear their rank insignia on the lapel rather than their shoulders.  In this case the insignia is three stars  which would indicate a captain.  The wings on his breast look to be parachute wings (you can see very similar ones on this modern Burundian brigadier general).  The 121e Régiment de Parachutistes is Burundi's only current paratroop unit, but I haven't been able to confirm their beret colour - Dumelow (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say: in French practice, at least, an aiguillette worn over the right shoulder would indicate an aide-de-camp, staff officer to the president or other senior figure (prime minister, minister, marshal) or an embassy military attaché. Given that our chap is carrying a briefcase, I'd place him as a AdC or staff officer to President Ndadaye- Dumelow (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirm everything that Dumelow says: (a) captain with three pips, also, he's not handling himself as a high-ranking officer, acting more like a bag carrier; (b) aiguillette standard both French and British practice; (c) yes para wings. Would suggest he's the military aide-de-camp to the senior politician shown, not staff officer. Additionally (1) what's your source Dumelow for the 121e Regiment? and (2) the paras of the 11th Parachute Brigade (France) wear red berets, which might be a clue for Burundian wear. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps have said that the 121e are the only current paratroop unit I could find, though I'd be surprised if an army of 20,000 men could support more than one paratroop battalion. The 121e are mentioned in this French news article as one of the units that supported an attempted coup in 2015 - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Dumelow. I went to look at the Military Balance 2017, but was surprised to find they listed no parachute units; clearly their lack of interest in Africa has let them down again. Listing in the 2017 edition was 30,000; two lt armd battalion (actually squadron/company sized); seven inf bn; some indep inf coy; 1 arty bn; 1 engr bn; 1 air defence battalion; reported 10 inf bn. Touchard gives a much better order of battle, including ten two-battalion infantry brigades, but still no parachute units. So thankyou for the data on the 121e. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Belgian army also have red berets for paratroopers, except the commando battalions which, having lineage from the British-organised WWII commandos, wear green. Interestingly the 4th Commando Battalion, a para unit, was garrisoned in Ruanda-Urundi until independence, it is possible that the practice passed on to the Burundian army.  I am not certain what colour berets are used in the rest of the Burundian army, Google images show red and green in use (plus a hideous lime green which I think may be to designate African Union peacekeepers?).  Buckshot06: out of curiosity, what does AD stand for in the Military Balance list? - Dumelow (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Air defence. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all this information. The Burundians did indeed maintain parachutist battalions at this time, so that much makes sense. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * what's your sources for the Burundian parachute battalions? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob Krueger mentions members of the 1st Parachute Battalion being active in the 1993 Burundian coup d'état attempt in his book From Bloodshed to Hope in Burundi : Our Embassy Years During Genocide (pp 7, 20). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1996 UN inquiry names three units - para 122-3 indicates that at the time of the October coup, the 2e Commando were the presidential guard and the 1er Parachutiste and 11e Blinde were the units involved in the coup. (Para 115 notes that some officers of the 2e Commando were previously involved in an attempted coup in July, before Ndadaye was sworn in, but presumably by October the unit was thought to be loyal). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed!
G'day all, the Milhistbot B-Class assessment checking list is a bit backed up, with quite a few on the April report not checked. If project members could have a look a few each, we'll be caught up in no time. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

List of military disasters
Talk:List of military disasters is a proposal for objective list criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

More comments would be welcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Military history/Class storing non-standard values
See the discussion, should you be interested. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian war expert needed
Lichtenberg Siege is a new translation from the Vietnamese wikipedia, and seems to need a lot of attention. Aside from a number of grammatical, punctuation, and capitalization errors that seem to have happened in the translation, there's some stuff here that needs further attention. Parts of the references are almost incomprehensible (what does Tập 1, trang 296 in a reference mean, for instance); the article cite Karl Marx for military history content which it probably shouldn't, etc. There's also stuff that doesn't really seem to make sense, like part of payroll army No. 3 of the German under the control of the Crown Prince Prussia 's Friedrich Wilhelm or Major Von Marchthaler's batteries effectively attacked, there's a few dablinks that need corrected from someone who knows what this is talking about (like Marsal and Vitry), and I'm not quite convinced that the title follows naming conventions. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Doubt I could do justice to the entire article, but the dablinks are looking for Marsal, Moselle  and Vitry-le-François  . Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I´m not an expert either but am on it as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I also need one, for a different reason. We are currently discussing one redirect Siege of Thionville (1870), which has a Vietnamese Wikipedia article but no content at the current target. I was wondering if any of you might be able to identify a better target, like maybe a campaign this siege was a part of. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Need for generic Sea base article

 * cross-posted to WT:SHIPS

Hi all, I was reading about the IRINS Makran since it was in the news recently. The article lede calls it a "sea base", but the wikilink for that term (and "Expeditionary Sea Base" in the infobox) link to Expeditionary Transfer Dock, and I'm reasonably sure this Iranian ship doesn't "provid[e] the US Navy with the capability to perform large-scale logistics movements". Is there an existing article on the general ship type, not exclusive to the US Navy, that I may have overlooked? If not, there would seem to be a need for one. I defer to you on how best to present the information in IRINS Makran and similar articles. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or just repurpose expeditionary Sea Base to be about all ships (not just US ships) of this type?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A sea base wouldn't be just these ships, as there are sea forts, forts that are their own islets, and undersea bases found in spy fiction and military fiction; as well as USNavy undersea bases (ie. SEALAB) and drift base (ie. Ben Franklin (PX-15)). -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

High resolution, public domain WWII maps
Just found this resource with hundreds of high-resolution OSS maps. Most are not on Commons yet. (t · c)  buidhe  06:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice find, Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One of those is mislabeled by a year, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Cardim de Alencar Osorio
This article could use some assistance if anyone is willing.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § armyrecognition.com
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § armyrecognition.com. Worldbruce (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Infobox Statistics for Red River Campaign Battles
(I have boldly moved this detailed material to Talk:Red River campaign) BusterD (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment . I strongly urge we take all this discussion over to the appropriate talk page. Normally this project page is best used for "meta" discussion. If anyone disagrees I'm happy to undo my edits. BusterD (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Troop strength statistics were just significantly revised today in the infobox for a Red River Campaign (American Civil War) engagement: the Battle of Mansfield, which sharply reduced the number of Union Army participants while raising the number of Confederate participants. The edits were made by an unidentified user, and were not suitably referenced or explained elsewhere in the article. (On one of the edit summaries, the editor stated, "According to Shelby Foote," without providing any further details.) This same editor, who has only made three edits to date (all to Red River battle pages, including an edit to infobox data for another Red Red River engagement - the Battle of Pleasant Hill - that may also be inappropriate). Could someone more senior from the American Civil War team on Milhist please take a look and revert these changes if they're determined to be inaccurate and/or vandalism? 47thPennVols (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - The Battle of Mansfield edits are supported by Foote; I've added the citations into the article. The Pleasant Hill edit is simply to insert that the Union withdrew from the field into the result part of the infobox, which did happen and is mentioned in the article.  I think these IP edits appear to be fine, especially since I've been able to add the Foote source. Hog Farm Talk 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely appreciate your willingness to take a look and provide input. I am concerned, though, that you're choosing to rely only on one source and that this source is Shelby Foote because multiple respected historians have repeatedly questioned Foote's accuracy and perspective. Even Wikipedia's own page on Foote notes that "While Foote has been praised as an engaging commentator on the Civil War, his sympathy toward Lost Cause viewpoints and his rejection of traditional scholarly standards of academic history have seen his work reappraised and criticized, as well as defended, in recent years," that "Foote had never been trained in the traditional scholarly standards of academic historical research, which emphasized archives and footnotes," and that "Foote has been described as writing 'from a white Southern perspective, perhaps even with a certain bias.'" (Admittedly, I am only presenting short excerpts from Foote's Wikipedia page, but I think these three quotes illustrate that, perhaps, Foote should not be used as a source, but that, if he is, then other sources should be consulted and included to either back up or provide balance to Foote's perspective.)


 * Additionally, I'm genuinely puzzled by your statement that "the Union withdrew from the field" during the Battle of Pleasant Hill because multiple historians have stated that the reverse was true. For example, American History professor Matthew Pinsker has written: "Continuing the heavy fighting and Confederate success at Mansfield the day before, General Richard Taylor attacked Union units attempting to consolidate after their retreat of the day before. Taylor attacked immediately but the newly reinforced Union troops held their ground and the Confederates were forced to withdraw" while U.S. National Park service historians have stated that: "Early on the 9th ... Taylor planned to send a force to assail the Union front while he rolled up the left flank and moved his cavalry around the right flank to cut the escape route. The attack on the Union left flank, under the command of Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Churchill, succeeded in sending those enemy troops fleeing for safety. Churchill ordered his men ahead, intending to attack the Union center from the rear. Union troops, however, discerned the danger and hit Churchill's right flank, forcing a retreat...." And historians and members of the planning committee for the 157th Anniversary, Battle of Pleasant Hill Reenactment and Festival, which was just held in Pleasant Hill, Louisiana in April 2021, recently noted that "Officially, the battle was a Union victory; as the Confederates were successfully driven from the field. However, because Banks and his army had retreated so soon afterwards, many argued over who had really won."


 * So, respectfully, my questions at this point are: Do you have any other source(s) (other than Shelby Foote) for the data you're providing about Mansfield, and what source(s) are you using for your statement about the outcome at Pleasant Hill that "the Union withdrew from the field"? 47thPennVols (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've clarified that the withdrawal at Pleasant Hill occurred after the battle, and have replaced the disputed in the infobox to note that historians generally attribute the Union with a tactical victory, and I have cited it to The Civil War Battlefield Guide edited by Frances Kennedy and published by Houghton Mifflin, and Red River Campaign by Ludwell H. Johnson and published by Kent State University Press, both of which seem to be reliable and neutral sources. While Foote isn't the strongest source, I've found Foote to generally be reasonable for troops strengths (although shouldn't be cited for Nathan Bedford Forrest, among other things), but I've added support from Kennedy and Johnson to the Mansfield troops strengths.  Foote gives 9,000 for the CSA, and Kennedy and Johnson both give 8,800, which is in the same ballpark.  Johnson supports the 12,000 Union soldiers engaged.  While neither of them seem to mention the 20,000 overall for the Union, given that other sources are agreeing closely with Foote there, I don't see a big reason to doubt Foote for a pretty routine statement without a source contradicting it. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I genuinely appreciate your hard work to strengthen the sourcing and your willingness to have a constructive dialogue about these Red River Campaign articles. Kennedy and Johnson are sound choices. Best wishes for continued success with your research and writing. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For my part I had the great pleasure of visiting the Mansfield battlefield (it is remote, lovely and well-preserved, partially thanks to recent investments by the American Battlefield Trust). Beware of Curt Anders's Disaster in Damp Sand, which I own. Anders is an interesting narrative writer, but I'm not impressed with his sourcing or his conclusions (nor were the park rangers, who intentionally didn't have a copy in their visitor-facing library or bookshop). Your conversation reminded me that I took some pretty decent photos which I've never reviewed or considered uploading. One of the issues some sources I've read don't adequately cover (as pointed out by the local battlefield guide) was the nature of contemporary road conditions. The "road" Banks's army used to march into Confederate defense was a soggy two-rutter with high banks on each side, making turning wagons around extremely difficult, and passing almost impossible for long segments. It's been a while since I absorbed those sources but my recollection is that Foote captures the Union's strung-out column correctly. Without unencumbered Union cavalry communication with Smith's river forces was difficult, and Lee was fully engaged. My impression of sources is that Banks was deeply surprised at the reverse at Mansfield and didn't arrive on the field himself for some time after contact was made (his chief of staff C.P. Stone arrived in front with Landrum's advance units). On the other hand, Confederates had their full complement of troops arranged in an inverted "L" position and advancing federals found themselves in enfilade fire from both sides as they approached. I've seen maps which clarify this. Despite the disadvantages, Union troops made effective attacks and retired well. That's my synthesis but it's based some some pretty extensive reading. I own Johnson's book and Porter's naval history (which is unkind to Banks), but they're packed away at this moment. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked into the Battle of Mansfield (BM) and the Battle of Pleasant Hill (PH) which are part of the Red River campaign (RRC). I was particularly looking at the result of the Battle of Pleasant Hill.


 * In RRC article, at BM the Union lost wagons. It then says that after PH: Short of water and feed for the horses, not knowing where his supply boats were, and receiving divided opinions from his senior officers, Banks ordered a rapid retreat downriver to Natchitoches and Grand Ecore. Both sides at the Battle of Pleasant Hill suffered roughly equal casualties of 1,600. It was a tactical victory for the Federals, but a strategic Confederate one because the Union army retreated following the battle.[27] However, the retreat had commenced before PH (see below).
 * At BM article lead After a brief resistance, the Union army was routed by the Confederates ... Statement is POV not supported by sources in "aftermath".  Aftermath does not discuss the result, as viewed by historians. The article states that part of the Union Army fled the field but Cameron was "pushed back" and Emory repulsed the Confederates.


 * - Does anyone happen to have a copy of Brooksher to see what exactly that source (supported Cameron "pushed back" and Emory repulsing) says exactly? I'll need to dig Johnson out of storage this weekend, but I have Kennedy 1998 p. 269 available at the moment, which states Soon Walker's men [...] helped Mouton's depleted ranks rout the Federals [Ransom, first Union line] and then has This force [Cameron] held the Confederates back for about half an hour, but, outflanked on both sides, they were soon routed and then lastly has Taylor's Confederates struck this position at about 6:00 P.M. and pushed the Federals [Emory] back slightly from the two streams.  So we seem to have Brooksher stating that Cameron was pushed back and Emory repulsed the Confederates, and Kennedy stating that Cameron was routed and Emory pushed back slightly.  So it looks like we have disagreeing sources here (or mis-citing of Brooksher). Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I own Brooksher, but I haven't seen the book in a while. In the next month or two I'm doing an inventory and I'll locate it. Here are a list of books I DON'T own but would like to read: Richard Taylor and the Red River Campaign by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.; The Red River Campaign: Union and Confederate Leadership and the War in Louisiana edited by Theodore Savas, David A. Woodbury, and Gary D. Joiner; The Red River Campaign of 1864 and the Loss by the Confederacy of the Civil War by Michael J. Forsyth. I took photos of the books while at their museum. I looked at those photos today and the most interesting ones are of the massive graphic interpretative displays inside the museum which actually give out some statistics on casualties (but with no footnotes). I don't suppose we could use those images because of copyright, could we? BusterD (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From PH article, Banks (through Franklin?) had already ordered withdrawal to Grande Ecore before battle: On the morning of the April 9, Franklin ordered the baggage train to proceed to Grand Ecore.
 * Again, other sources like Johnson will need to be consulted later, but Kennedy p. 269 seems to suggest this was only a partial retreat by stating that Banks sent the wagons, two cavalry brigades, and XIII Corps to retreat back towards Natchitoches, while keeping one division of XIX corps, two divisions of XVI, and some cavalry with him for the stand at Pleasant Hill. Kennedy 1998 p. 271 also says the Confederate attack at Pleasant Hill caused the Yankees to continue their retreat.  So there's at least one source supporting that Pleasant Hill helped influence the Union retreat, so I think it's fair to mention that here, even though some of the retreat may have started earlier.
 * At PH article lead: That led the demoralised Union army to retreat the next day. The result of the battle was technically a Union victory but has been disputed by historians. Views on the result of the battle are not discussed so the dispute is not substantiated.  The battle section recounts: However, the Union side succeeded in halting the advance and regained the left and center ground, before driving the Confederates from the field.


 * The claim of "disputed" seems to be largely spurious, I've removed this and replaced with Union tactical victory, with a few calling it a draw per the sources. I've tried to improve this, by adding brief sourced stuff to the body. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOS gives guidance on reporting the result. It restricts the options for reporting the result. The article does not follow the guidance.
 * Per the guidance there, I have trimmed it down to just state "Union tactical victory". I believe the addition of tactical is appropriate here, as I noticed last night when I looked at Johnson and Kennedy that both specifically state this to be a tactical Union victory. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of the PH article is that it was a rear-guard action and a Union victory. Ref 25 specifically supports this.  It is the only statement in the body of the article describing the result.  The battle was covering a withdrawal and was not the cause of the withdrawal.  It "may" be "inconclusive" but only if this is the consensus view of the sources. If there is dispute among the sources as to the result, this should be discussed in the body of the article (aftermath section) and the "see Aftermath" option should be used for the result in the infobox.
 * Ref 25 is pretty weak - it's a primary source Union army report. Although I do agree that the fact that part of the Union force had pulled back before PH should be mentioned, which it isn't for some reason.  Just noting that Ref 25 in the version in place when the above comment was made isn't a strong source for the goals of the action. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are issues with verifiability supporting statements in the lead/infobox that need to be addressed and that the lead/infobox are supported by the body of the article. There also needs to be better consistency between the articles - where the events at the conclusion of BM (aftermath) are the prelude to the PH article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to address much of this to some extent, but as I'm fairly busy, I couldn't make particularly extensive progress here. Both articles need some pretty extensive cleanup. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

While we're at this, if anyone can get ahold of Winters 1963, they may want to check these additions, as there's some edit history from one of the most prolific copyright violators in enwiki history in the Pleasant Hill article. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this detailed material be better served if it were all moved over to Talk:Red River campaign? BusterD (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I just want to thank each of you for your insights and collegiality. I believe these articles will ultimately end up being so much better because of the questions that are being raised and answered as you continue to bounce ideas off one another. Second, I'm providing a link here to Banks' Red River Campaign reports. (I realize this is a primary source and that these reports were Banks presenting "Banks' view," but I'm hoping that Banks' detailing of events as he saw them unfold (or was told of how they unfolded by Emory, et. al.) might be helpful in determining which sources might present the most accurate and balanced presentation by providing more of a chronological view. (The first group of reports, which were written by Banks from approx. mid-March 1864 to mid-May 1864, may be found on pp. 0177 through 0193 of The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Civil War (Serial 061 Introduction): Chapter XLVI. "The Red River Campaign". The second is Banks' longer recap, which was written on April 6, 1865 for a report to Edwin Stanton and the War Deprtment. That one begins on p. 0194.) Again, many thanks for your hard work. This past week was an incredibly busy one for me, but I hope to have some time this weekend to review and thoughtfully respond to those queries of yours which asked for my input. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation template query
I thought that author was deprecated and that last= and first= should be used instead but can only find this have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At present, there are no deprecated cs1|2 name-list parameters.
 * authors (plural) is discouraged because it is a free-form parameter; free-form lists of human names are very very difficult for a machine to decode without lots of computing power so cs1|2 doesn't make the attempt; metadata produced from cs1|2 templates that use this parameter omit the author data
 * authorn is an alias of lastn and intended for use when author has a single name (Bono for example) or is a corporate name; use for whole names is permitted
 * vauthors requires names to be written according to the Vancouver system; most often used in medical and scientific articles
 * lastn and firstn are the preferred author-name parameters. Use of these parameters ensures that name lists are uniformly formatted in both the rendering of the citation (that which readers see) and in the citation's metadata (that which is consumed by users of reference management software).  Humans tend to introduce variations in name style when compiling lists; let the machine do the formatting.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Second Italo-Ethiopian War
Did a bit of refsorting but can't find anything that corresponds to Holt 2011 or Selassie 1999; any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Think the first one is this - Dumelow (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Holt, Andrew. "'No more Hoares to Paris’: British foreign policymaking and the Abyssinian Crisis, 1935," Review of International Studies (2011) 37#3 pp. 1383–1401
 * Looking through the article history the second one is this. Though, as it's Selassie's autobiography its usage should be checked - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating between articles
I'm looking to create an article on the nephew of Admiral Peter Rainier, who was also named Peter and was a Royal Navy officer. How should I go about differentiating between these two articles when the second is created? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You could treat them in a similar way to Hugh Pigot. Note: The links on the disambiguation page are redirects and the articles are named using the date of birth. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll follow that example. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Article assessment
I have run across many articles that have been assessed as B-class that are lacking in one or more areas. I recall there is/was a bot performing multiple project assessments to "equalize" or give some standard to the system. Maybe I have been running across these but it is problematic. Akissi Kouamé is one example (see talk) that I do not see as even approaching B-class as well as many shorter articles that I think could be expanded. If an article can be expanded it is probably not "complete in content and structure" and often not "adequately referenced". Biographies are a concern and particularly BLP's. --  Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Every article assessed as B class by the bot is rechecked by an editor. Any editor is welcome to help with this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Akissi Kouamé has never been bot assessed, but was signed off as B class in 2019. Skimming the article and refreshing myself as to what WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class and WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ say, it looks at worst on the margin and I would personally assess it right now as B class. Which part of which criterion do you feel it fails? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't look but your possible assessment would mean our assessment interpretations are not in the same universe. That might be why I am hesitant to reassess. I have left comments at Talk:Akissi Kouamé. Thanks, --  Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If this was on another project I would rate the article as borderline Start/C-class. As Military History doesn't use C-class, that makes it a borderline Start/B-class here. Formal assessment begins at GA, so anything below that is at the discretion of individual assessors. The B-class checklist is a helpful guide but is still subject to individual interpretation. If you feel strongly that a key element of the article is missing, downgrade that part of the B-class checklist. The checklist is intended to guide editors on what areas need improvement. However, your comments on the talk page pointing out the gaps in the article serve the same purpose as flagging the issue in the checklist (though your comments go into more detail than a yes/no flag). From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of clarification, MILHIST does of course use C-class. It is our second commonest classification after start, with over 49,000 articles.  However, it cannot be awarded by an assessor - it is automatically awarded on the basis of the B-class criteria check list and is dependent on the assessment of B1 and B2.  Otherwise, sound advice.  Monstrelet (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I should have said, "As Military History use a non-standard implementation of C-class." This project was a late adopter of C-class and chose to implement it in a different way to others, which does cause a small amount of confusion from time to time. I am not judging which method is better, just that the difference exists. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I had run into some "confusion" when I tried to assess an article from start to C-class but couldn't. Mainly I am going through categories as maintenance. I tend to leave details so I can return later without going off-base (my daughter says I have severe ADHD) and can revisit going straight to working on an article. I have downgraded some obvious failures. I am not just trying to mass demote articles but work towards improvements. A benefit is that I am reading many new articles, making more simple corrections when encountered, -- PLUS -- There may be other editors that watch a page and have some time to look into concerns that a tag doesn't address. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

MilHist admin sought
There is a difference of opinion at the FA Battle of the Aegates which seems to be lapsing into edit warring. Could an admin perhaps step in to bang heads together, one of which may well be mine? There is a brief outline of positions on the talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved. I hope. Thank you Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to find sources for naval equipment?
Hello! I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and since I’m working on improving some pages related to certain navies, I was wondering of a way to find reliable sources relating to naval equipment. Thank you! TheAnonymous1065 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Military Balance is very useful and highly reliable, and you can access it via a Taylor and Francis account through the Wikipedia Library. Most websites purporting to list the equipment of various military forces are not reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorsed!! Especially avoid globalfirepower.com, which is about as reliable as the Daily Mail. Do ask also if you need clarification with any individual navies - we have a lot of experts around here. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I should also note that Jane's Fighting Ships is the gold-standard reference on equipment operated by navies. It can be hard to find copies though due to Jane's weird access policies, but some universities have access via online databases. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request may be able to help with access issues. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by naval equipment per se, but when it comes to warships, the New Vanguard series by Osprey Publishing can be a good starting point. Loafiewa (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For historical ships 1860-1995, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships (4 vols.) can be found used on various websites. For naval weapons circa 1890-present, navweaps.com is a good source. Jane's is the best for current naval info (or for any specific year since 1898) if you can access it at a reasonable cost. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

21st Regiment of (Light) Dragonons
An administrator will need to move 21st Regiment of (Light) Dragonons.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a new article. Moving to a new name should be possible by normal users unless there's a conflict with another article. What is the new title supposed to be? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We also have 23rd Regiment of (Light) Dragoons and 24th Regiment of (Light) Dragoons which seems to be an 18th century style, most other British light dragoon articles follow the 19th Light Dragoons format. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kinda' like the old style. jmho - wolf 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Landing Ship Tank (LST) 1942–2002 book
Does anyone have access to please? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked was because I was having extreme difficulty in sourcing info for the description section of the SS Empire Gaelic article. However, an unexpected source, The Times, came to the rescue! Any editor with access to book sources on LSTs may be able to further add to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Astronautix.com a reliable source?
Mark Wade's site has been brought up in many FACs, with the self-published nature of the site considered a strike against its reliability. Mark Wade is a reliable source per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee. I have found errors in his work, but no more, and not more egregious, than I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. That said, I tend to use other, more direct sources when I can, but I would not disqualify something from Featured status for citing his work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles Reid (general)
I'm not a military historian but became interested in this gentleman because of the Leeds Tiger (see Leeds City Museum and the work in progress of Draft:Leeds Tiger), a large stuffed tiger which he shot in 1860.

I've created an article but am not sure whether it's even at the right title, and someone more familiar with the Siege of Delhi etc could doubtless improve the text. I've added him to List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire. We have a damaged portrait, but there may be a better image around somewhere. Any improvements to the article would be welcome. Over to you! Pam D  18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi PamD, I see Storye book has renamed the article, my thanks to both of you for your work. I've written a few articles about East India Company chaps and they always seem to make interesting biographies.  Looking forward to seeing your tiger article in main space too! - Dumelow (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)