Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

rfc

Consensus was reached amongst the participants to deprecate WP:SOLDIER in its current form. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should WP:SOLDIER, an essay, be used as a basis for nominating many dozens of soldier articles for deletion? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong question. The real thing is WP:GNG, and the other concerns of the usual deletion criteria. If WP:SOLDIER is wrong, or does not properly reflect the situation, then either a) we change it or b) we stop using it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I apologize that my question was ridiculous and that it didn't make sense. This is why I ask. The essay currently says that for a soldier to be notable ---> "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times;" It is the multiple times that I question. This is why I ask also, WP:SOLDIER is being used as the basis for nominating dozens of articles for deletion, in fact hundreds but the request for hundreds was procedurally closed. The nominator was told to nominate each article individually for deletion. Please advise as to best course of action for questioning specifically why multiple times is the requisite for finding a soldier notable. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No need to apologize, and calling your question "ridiculous" was perhaps an inarticulate, if not inappropriate, way to criticize the OP. That said, your comment "The nominator was told to nominate each article individually for deletion." caught my attention because multiple BLPs (of the "single Navy Cross and ship namesake are not sufficient for notability" type) are being lumped into a single AfD as we speak. That said, this isn't the first time this issue has been raised. It was recently discussed just up above at "having a military ship named after you proves notability" and continues to be a contentious issue for some people. fyi - wolf 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER technically has no official bearing, especially in regards to our officially notability guidelines. I prefer to see it as a checklist whereby if someone doesn't satisfy the SOLDIER criteria then they probably would not satisfy GNG. In regards to the "multiple times" awards, I think that should be interpreted as meaning that if a soldier has one such medals for valour multiple times it is more likely that they will have significant coverage in independent reliable sources than those who have only received it once. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER contains guidelines for when something may be notable. It is never exclusionary criteria. Even if it were an SNG, it's not exclusionary criteria. If something meets the GNG, it already satisfies notability guidelines. If it doesn't meet the GNG, it could meet an SNG, but if it also doesn't meet an SNG then it probably isn't notable. Not meeting WP:SOLDIER is never a reason for deletion, but meeting it might be considered a reason to keep an article (even though it isn't currently an SNG). The AfDs linked don't seem to be inconsistent with this principle; they're arguing that GNG and SOLDIER aren't met, i.e. that no applicable notability criteria are met, which is a fine argument to make on its face. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That having been said, WP:MILNG seems to be well drafted in my opinion and should be approved as an SNG. I don't like this weird status of "well-drafted notability guideline and widely accepted at AfD, but not technically an SNG". If it's accepted as a guideline at AfD, it's de facto an SNG and should have the proper project-wide recognition of being such. An RfC to test whether the community agrees it's fit-for-purpose seems like a good idea to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
From my experience, any attempt to make WP:SOLDIER an SNG is probably going to fail and generate more heat than light. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 for a fairly recent discussion that invoked the nature of WP:SOLDIER. In addition, there are several very vague spots in SOLDIER that would require clarification: For instance, does becoming a brevet general in the American Civil War count as meeting SOLDIER #2? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gardiner where that would have been relevant. Or SOLDIER #4. What classifies as a major military event or an important role? For a potential example, Edward Lynde played a very significant role in the First Battle of Newtonia, but is a redlink. Is First Newtonia a major enough battle of SOLDIER 4? Or what about William F. Wade, who was one of the primary Confederate commanders at the Battle of Grand Gulf? There are several spots that are not explicit enough. Hog Farm Talk 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've only skimmed, but it seems like in that discussion people discussed whether it is an SNG (it isn't), not whether it should be? And User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for flag, general and air officers seems to track how close #2, at least, follows AfD practice. No SNG is bulletproof, of course, and ambiguities on interpretation are usually debated on a per-AfD basis even on official SNGs. For example, an AfD might debate whether WP:CREATIVE #2 is met (if something is 'significant'). Many popular YouTubers technically meet WP:ENT #2 yet are still deleted (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf). Interpretation for cases is always done at AfD anyway, so niche cases aren't necessarily a problem imo if it's otherwise generally close to AfD outcomes. Granted that there's some unpopularity towards the concept of SNGs these days, but so long as they exist I'm not sure it makes sense to never promote more which closely meet AfD outcomes. As for the other examples, I'm not sure about Edward Lynde but it appears to have never been created yet ( I'm not sure who that is. Would they meet GNG? I'm presuming they're covered in literature/books if they played a very significant role?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
First Battle of Newtonia was my first FAC, and the question was raised in the FAC if Lynde met SOLDIER or not, which is why that was the example I came up with. Lynde's actions during the battle get significant coverage, but I've come across rather little about him outside of the context of First Newtonia. I'd say he is probably non-notable, as the coverage is only really focused on one thing, but it's the sort of argument that could come up if SOLDIER is an SNG. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Indy beetle stated that "In regards to the "multiple times" awards, I think that should be interpreted as meaning that if a soldier has one such medals for valour multiple times it is more likely that they will have significant coverage in independent reliable sources than those who have only received it once. " Then perhaps this should be clarified. Perhaps it should be clarified that it is not literally more than once that the soldier had to receive the Navy Cross. It needs to be clarified because that is exactly how the nominator and others are arguing their point. They are taking the more than once literally saying and I paraphrase 'you see, soldier only got the Navy Cross once....Example: "All fail WP:SOLDIER (single award of Navy Cross..." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear; my interpretation of WP:SOLDIER as a guideline was not meant to subvert it in such a way. Do note, passing or failing the SOLDIER guideline doesn't necessarily mean the subject passes or fails WP:GNG. If a sailor had won only won navy cross but had a full-biography published about them by Cambridge University Press, they would almost certainly be notable, whereas a sailor who won two crosses but there's no information about them other than that would almost certainly not be notable. A strict reading of SOLDIER here is doing more harm than good. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is the original mass deletion request using WP:SOLDIER with "Fails WP:SOLDIER as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross." which was procedurally closed and led to a flood of individual Afd requests using same essay / argument.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The Eloquent Peasant the mass deletion was closed as procedural keep without prejudice for renomination. I agree with Indy beetle. It is amusing to see that until recently at Military AFDs SOLDIER was frequently cited as the relevant criteria and many Users took the very narrow view that if someone satisfied one of the 68 presumptions then they were notable, ignoring all the words before and after those 68 presumptions and the discussion that led to SOLDIER which make it very clear that SIGCOV in multiple RS is required. For me the most outrageous recent examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination) both Brigadier Generals who have almost no coverage, but various Users clearly just felt that as their rank satisfied #2 of SOLDIER therefore they were notable, which is completely wrong. It should also be noted that there are a number of informal criteria not reflected in SOLDIER, such as that we treat Flying aces as notable. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point above; if WP:SOLDIER isn't sufficient enough for the community to be an SNG, then it should not be used at AfD... at all. These types of deletion proposals should stand or fall on GNG alone (or any other actual policy or guideline that may apply). jmho - wolf 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't cite SOLDIER at a Military AFD then some Users will raise it and claim it as community consensus, if you do cite it then other Users will say it isn't an SNG and should be ignored... That's why I always say fails SOLDIER and GNG and discuss sources as necessary. As is being shown at the individual AFDs, most of the WWII single Navy Cross recipients just do not have SIGCOV in multiple RS and so should be deleted or, if a ship was named for them, redirected to the ship. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well again, if an article fails GNG then it fails, period. So no need for Wp:Soldier. If someone does cite Wp:Soldier as a reason to keep, well, you already stated you like to follow up with every person who disagrees with your delpros with a discussion, which is where you can point out the issues with said essay for the benefit for the closer. - wolf 03:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As you will see from the two cases I mentioned above, I argued strongly for GNG and lost in both cases to the SOLDIER arguments. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well in that case (if it is indeed the case) you should appeal the decisions to DRV because clearly GNG >> any SNG/pesudo-SNG; and also because AfD is not a simple headcount. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You can read the two AFDs to see that was indeed the case. I didn't go to DRV because the closer would say they based their decision on the consensus on the page, instead I opened the RFC noted above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm entirely in favour of getting rid of WP:SOLDIER. I've been whinging about criterion 2 (generals) for years, given it fails to recognise that the vast majority of modern generals labour in total obscurity outside the military so WP:BIO can't be assumed to be met. Criterion 4 ("significant contribution) is too subjective to be of any use (and likely violates WP:ONEEVENT in many cases), criterion 6 (military science) is rather obscure, I doubt that anyone ever has met criterion 7 ("the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war"!) and criterion 8 ("authoritative source on military matters/writing") basically declares the vast majority of defence journalists and academics to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, those are actually some terrible guidelines. Would anyone else be in favor of calling an RFC to at least change WP:Soldier? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that WP:SOLDIER is that bad. The flaw: the concept of presumed notability should be removed, and reworded to something of the lines "may be notable if one of the following criteria apply..." Additionally, it must be made clearer that the proof of the pudding lies in WP:GNG, this could greatly improve the idea behind WP:SOLDIER, an indicator for something of interest on Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Break

Essentially, I think that SOLDIER has probably outlived whatever usefulness it once had, and like Nick-D, would not mind if it was decommissioned. It was only ever an indication that a person might be notable, but while it exists, some will always treat it as if it is canon law, while others will always dismiss it as an essay that has no standing. It has been weaponised by both inclusionists and deletionists, and also given far too much weight by some. I'd be happy to draft an RfC proposing decommissioning it as Milhist guidance. Before I do though, I'd be interested in the views of other members of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can you chime in here please, along with a wider cross-section of the project membership? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • No Soldier should not be used as the rationale in the deletion nomination. 1) Because GNG trumps all, and 2) those discussing it are not necessarily all going to be WP:MILHIST and used to our understanding of it, you need to avoid giving the impression that it is Special Pleading (for or against). It might be mentioned as general consensus that lower medal awards are not often written about sufficiently to meet requirements for GNG, and therefore it might be difficult to find adequate sources. but that is not its purpose. WP:Soldier, or elements of it, should be retained as part of guidance on choosing to write about an individual as warning about GNG requirements. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined towards decommissioning. For me, the main issue is that its standing, relative to GNG, has been a source of confusion for sometime now. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:SOLDIER should neither be used as rationale for deletion or retention, WP:GNG should (and currently does) trump all; per Peacemaker I think it has become weaponised by both inclusionists and deletionists as as such it should probably be decommissioned. As a comment, having reviewed dozens of these nominations I have found only one so far that (in my opinion) passes GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
  • If SOLDIER isn't to be revised and turned into a guideline then we should get rid of it. As several Users have noted, it is used improperly at AFDs to argue for and against deletion and for Users deciding whether or not to create a page about a military person its often either ignored completely and a page is created from a ragtag of sources or one of the 8 presumptions is met and the page is created with complete disregard for GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decommission. It could, and perhaps should, be useful per GraemeLeggett. In practice it is a loose cannon rolling around the deck per others above. And it is probably irredeemable, per Nick-D. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My views are generally in line with Peacemaker's and Nick's, and I'd be happy seeing it go. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree; ultimately SOLDIER is a failed attempt at an SNG since it doesn't seem to actually reflect the reality of what would pass GNG and what wouldn't. Due to this, we're better avoiding the use of this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which isn't even a local consensus anymore) and just falling right back to GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I like having subject-specific guidelines, but agree it should not be misused. To start, I would reword the first two sentences to: "An individual is likely to meet the general notablity requirements if they:" This puts more emphasis on GNG, and removes the word "presumed" which I think makes people think they don't actually have to prove notability with sources. MB 14:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The only part of NSOLDIER that is, imo, approaching beint useful or accurate is about a top-level award, which is already listed in WP:ANYBIO. In my experience the other criteria are too subjective (such as major role in a significant battle) or broad (such as 'general') to be useful. The nice part about GNG is it isn't open to very much misinterpretation (though it still happens). This is not the case with NSOLDIER. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I generally agree, but without it some Users will argue that one Navy Cross or two Silver Stars is "a well-known and significant award or honor" as is happening already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Rodríguez (soldier) Mztourist (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
For once I agree with you here. WP:ANYBIO is often misused in this way. I've even seen it claimed that a Purple Heart meets the criteria! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Even the "top award" criteria is dubious and needs significant parsing when it comes to top awards with multiple levels. The never-ending disputation about what level of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross meet the criteria is an example of this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. The Légion d'honneur is another case in point, with the lower levels being well beneath the criteria of meeting WP:ANYBIO #1. But it's not really a top award unless it genuinely is a top award. Common sense has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at the WP:Soldier, the only point I really see as being particularly useful is #3 Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); everything else is either so broad that it is flat-out wrong (#2 & #8) or simply of no use (#6 & #7). #4 and #5 can encourage violations of WP:ONEVENT. Really, the fact that WP:GNG so easily trumps most of these points indicates how outmoded they are. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and formalise as an SNG. WP:SOLDIER is widely acknowledged and a very good guide to who is and is not notable. Decommissioning it will merely open the floodgates to those who would like to delete as much as possible. But conversely, also to those who would like to keep service personnel of all ranks and with decorations of all levels just because they've served their country. The current criteria are fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that list is very useful here. The older AfDs are of course an entirely different beast to what AfD is now. Your list also includes plenty of AfDs which were closed as no consensus or later re-nominated and deleted... Some of them, ex. this one, should probably have been deleted the first time around per current standards... Some of them were kept because WP:SOLDIER was cited as if it were rule of law, which is of course the entire point of this discussion: that it shouldn't... "Decommissioning it will merely open the floodgates" - no, we'll now just default back to WP:GNG, which is what SOLDIER was supposed to be an indicator of -- again, simply because something meets some arbitrary criteria, the ultimate criterion is always GNG - if you have a high-level officer but there's little coverage of him, either A) he's not notable (and WP isn't supposed to be a database listing of non-notable persons, no matter what rank or honours they might have held) or B) A hoax... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And once again Necrothesp your list arises from Users thinking that SOLDIER was a guideline and that just satisfying flag rank meant notability, completely ignoring GNG, something that almost all Users in this discussion reject. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbuthnot is a pretty poor one to cite, given that as a CB he clearly meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway, whether we use WP:SOLDIER or not. Your list also includes plenty of AfDs which were closed as no consensus or later re-nominated and deleted And if it was closed as no consensus I have indicated this! I count only two (including Arbuthnot) on that list that were renominated and deleted second time around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a perfect example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination). Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
You mean there were two editors who accepted that WP:SOLDIER was valid and one that didn't? And nobody else who cared. What point are you making? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Providing an example of exactly what User:RandomCanadian was referring to above and below here, that you assert SOLDIER at AFDs as if its a guideline when it isn't, completely ignoring GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment- one thing that seems to be generally acknowledged here is that SOLDIER is, correctly or incorrectly, often cited by many users. There may be value in that (or not). Straight up deleting it may just create new problems, so maybe that should be a last resort? It's obviously flawed in it's current condition, so if there is an appetite to keep, but re-write, add clear need for GNG above all, and perhaps make it an SNG, that may prove to be beneficial going forward. (JMHO) - wolf 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that as soon as something is made into an SNG, some people start referencing it as though meeting any criteria implies automatic notability, even in marginal cases (in which case we get treated to fine arguing as to whether this award or this rank is really meeting the criteria). The list above by Necrothesp, upon close look, only confirms that suspicion: many articles were kept because the prevailing argument was "meets WP:SOLDIER"... So if we want a rewrite and not outright deletion, we need solid and specific criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Surely if people have cited WP:SOLDIER as a reason to keep that indicates that they are happy with WP:SOLDIER as a reason to keep? It doesn't in any way undermine the validity of the list as indicating a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
IMHO the chances of SOLDIER being approved by the wider community as an SNG are extremely low. It has not got a great reputation outside the project, and many non-Milhist editors consider it a "special pleading" by a wikiproject, local consensus, creating a "walled garden" etc. I think there is sufficient support for an RfC to deprecate it here, and frankly, if there is this level of support here, there will be far more in the wider community. I will start drafting something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
On this point, my very unscientific impression has been that WP:SOLDIER is more frequently cited by non-members of the project than members in AfDs, which suggests that general editors might think that it has more support by specialist editors than it actually has. I agree that it's gotten a mixed reception in recent AfDs though, which strongly indicates that there isn't a consensus that it's suitable. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
PM67 makes some good points, while also speaking an unfortunate truth. That said, once SOLDIER is gone, I hope we don't see a ton of mass-deletions of military BLPs ("Subject not noteworthy enough, only has one Medal of Honor and there were alot of these awarded during WWII", etc.) We can pretend that GNG is clear enough, but there is still a lot of grey area and I think we should look at creating some kind of specific guidance. But after this RfC has been dealt with. - wolf 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. Decommissioning it would be a deletionist's wet dream! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
With this in train, I'm wondering if The Eloquent Peasant would be happy to withdraw this RfC so we don't have two on the same general issue happening at the same time? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Sure. I withdraw this Rfc. Not sure how to though. Is this comment sufficient? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
G'day The Eloquent Peasant, per WP:RFCCLOSE, you can just remove the rfc template at the top, that'll do it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Would this be like the "special pleading" that has already long been accepted on WP:POLITICIAN (any member of a national or sub-national legislature, however short or non-notable a time they served) or WP:NFOOTY (anyone who has played a single professional football match at fully professional league level)? We're really not the only ones here. We're happy to accept that someone who has kicked a ball around for a few minutes is notable, but not someone who has reached the top levels of a nation's armed forces. I'm sorry, but that seems like madness to me. What it clearly does is favour pop culture over genuine contributions. I never thought that's what Wikipedia was here for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decommission: the page is often misused is if it were an SNG by those advocating for both keep or delete, which takes the focus away from WP:BIO. Given the present consensus within the project, it's unlikely that the page would achieve an SNG status among the wider community either, so it's best to retire the essay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Break #2

  • I say keep it as a guideline, but perhaps a better clarification as two when the essay is in play should be considered. Something like "A warrior is generally considered notable if he meets all criteria set forth as GNG and at least one of the following points below..." or something to that effect to make it clear that the person needs to be satisfying the GNG and not this next car back on the train. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In his capacity as commander and chief Donald Trump meets the GNG, but doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in our project since he claims no additions standing under SOLDIER. In this sense then, SOLDIER would tell us that while legally in charge of the military Trump is outside the scope of the project. In his capacity as a Scientist, Albert Einstien developed the theory of Mass–energy equivalence results in the equation E=mc2, upon whose basis the Manhattan Project was initiated and thus the nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry introduced along side nuclear power, but under WP:SOLDIER he would meet no criteria for inclusion in the project. June Wandrey served as a medic in WWII, receiving no awards, badges,or medals for her service, yet she is listed as being part of the project even though she doesn't meet any criteria set forth under WP:SOLDIER. Its little things like this for which I would would suggest holding onto the essay - If they meet the GNG, then they meet meet the criteria for inclusion in the project (IE, tagging for milhist) if they meet one of the criteria listed at WP:SOLDIER. That could help us by providing a barometer for when to consider tagging a biography article for MILHIST, hence the suggestion that we keep it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I could see WP:Soldier being and altered and kept as a guideline for what falls under our domain, but that's not the same as what is used for now. What you're suggesting would change its purpose entirely. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decommission, consider marking as historical. It's too frequent misused, and there's just a lot of situations where the essay is either too vague or is too far below GNG. Creation of a better-worded replacement, that makes it clearer that this is only an indication that subjects may be notable, not that it is automatically notable, would likely be a good idea. Hog Farm Talk 00:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decomission: i think category:soldier is quite contradict. Soldiers who believe that each user is widely known may vary depending on the user's position. It happens regardless of the policy or agreement of the Wiki. I think this kind of problem occurred in the first place because Category: soldier itself is too vague and broad. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate ('decommission', really?) as not fit for purpose; the sole argument for keeping is—not unsurprisingly—wholly unconvincing. ——Serial 14:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate I just don't see it as currently useful in deletion discussions. Ultimately, notability of any topic has to be based on availability of independent, reliable sources, or else it is not possible to write a good encyclopedia article about it. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Depreciate If their are not enough reliable sources to tell a persons life story beyond his military contribution then whatever his rank was wouldn't matter. There are probably hundreds of general or flag officers that would qualify under WP:SOLDIER that there are no sources out there for their personal life outside the military. How does one assess an article for completeness under criteria B2 in that case. Under WP:SOLDIER, an admiral who was awarded a Navy Cross gets an article about him but a petty officer who wins the same award doesn't, even though we know more about the petty officers life than the admiral. If we want notability and completeness in Wikipedia military articles we must have more than the fact that the subject won a Navy Cross. GNG covers this and SOLDIER doesn't. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Towards closing

As things stand, there seems to be broad consensus to deprecate WP:SOLDIER. Other than marking the page with Template:historical, this should probably be announced somewhere, else we'll be having people unaware of this discussion continuing to cite it for a while. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Once this discussion is archived we can link it or transclude it to the talkpage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

IAR SNOW closed; @Indy beetle: There's nothing that prevents this being manually archived right now; though ideally I think we should wait a few more days to see if there's any serious objections to the above. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I count eleven outright votes to deprecate, maybe about five or six or so calling for modifications (of varying severity) with some saying keep and others saying keep only if the changes are made, one keep and transform into site-wide notability guideline. Any other takeaways? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Would suggest listing at a neutral noticeboard (WP:AN/RFC, despite this not being a formal one); although yes it is clear that in its current form it cannot be kept. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that apparently it seems that some non-MILHIST editors seem to mistakenly think that this went through the community approval process, when in reality, I've seen no indication that the essay was ever formulated outside of MILHIST. I can much wailing and gnashing of teeth happening in a noticeboard about the "deprecation of a SNG" that has never actually been a SNG. Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm, oh good. We like wailing and teeth-gnashing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but couldn't that be resolved by saying "It was never an SNG." ? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The gnashing of teeth is also on my end, since well WP:SOLDIER is just a sub-section of WP:MILNG; and well the rest seems fine. Should I just remove the whole of the section, except maybe the first sentence (the only thing that should be kept in light of this...)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually think it would be of value to run a fresh RfC, as I suggested earlier, widely advertised across en WP, but especially the policy page at Village Pump. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
And how exactly should we phrase this? It's unlikely that the rest of WP would want to keep WP:SOLDIER if milhist wants to get rid of it. Unless you have a proposal for a revamped version, which would naturally be appropriate for VP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
PM67, what would be the goal of the new RfC? There is basically consensus here already to decommission (ok ok... "deprecate") it, and (I would think) keep it as a historical monument (ok ok... "page"). And it appears that the consensus here also believes that any non-milhist users from other areas would !vote the same way. So it seems the only reason to have a new, WP-wide RfC would be to see if there is an appetite to keep it, in some form. But for that to fly in any way, I would think it would need to be re-vamped. If I have that right, then our options are to either kill it here and now, or see if one or more editors want to take it, re-do it, then bring it back for a community-wide RfC, with an eye to keeping it, perhaps as an SNG. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 10:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that User:Peacemaker67 offered to rework WP:Soldier several comments back under Break. He may be working on it right now. His comment was on February 12. Just saying... Cuprum17 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm with wolf on this one. The MilHist project has a free hand to write, alter, and deprecate essay material that MilHist hosts as it pleases. The only instance here where we would need wider community input would be if we were trying to make it an SNG. Seeing as only one !voter has proposed that out of more than a dozen, I find that a highly improbable outcome. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Wolf and Indy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Klomp! ——Serial 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I get the message. There seems to be quite a strong consensus to deprecate WP:SOLDIER. What I propose is that we move SOLDIER out of WP:MILNG (leaving the see also template to WP:BIO), and replace it with the following words:

The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion (with a link to this discussion). It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO.

And create a new historic page on which WP:SOLDIER is preserved and which it links to. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I like your suggestion Peacemaker, and I knew you would come up with a workable plan. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd also endorse Peacemaker's approach here, which I think is based by a clear consensus from the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thirded. - wolf 16:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, that solution is the proper course of action. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Fifthed (if that's a word ) Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
yellow tickY Partly done per so-far unanimous suggestion; I have replaced the text with the material above, and replaced the redirect with the former content. Something needs to be done about the remaining shortcuts (WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:MILPERSON, WP:NSOLDIER. I'll add a formal closure template, and then the discussion can continue below this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

RandomCanadian, Peacemaker67, I've moved the old essay page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Historical SOLDIER essay to unlink it from the WP:SOLDIER shortcut; the shortcut can be kept pointing to the new guidance or redirected elsewhere, as you all see fit. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should let the old regulars know at AfD that it’s been deprecated. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, Kirill Lokshin, and Indy beetle: I've left a note at WP:VPP and at WT:AFD too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill and RC! I will implement the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see if the folks at The Signpost care to know too. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I think all the redirects should still link to the People section of WP:MILNG, as anyone clicking on it gets the updated information straight away. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
That's where they already link so no change required? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, just confirming we are happy with that. I think that is the way it should stay. Thanks for chipping in! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice: "User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion"

Currently taking place here. It seems most if not all of these deleted [BLPs→ pages] are military bios, so this is likely of interest to this project. FYI - wolf 04:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Off topic
:They are all deceased U.S. military people (so not BLPs) who received a Navy Cross or lesser awards and had ships named for them during WWII. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just a notice. - wolf 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Notices should be accurate. Mztourist (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Oy... it's a typo, with no bearing on the fact that there is ANI complaining about your behavior wrt articles that fall under milhist and this is simply a notification of said complaint, not an invitation to debate the merits of it. The place for that is said at said ANI. - wolf 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Not just one typo, but incorrect in every respect. As I said they are all pages of deceased U.S. military people who received a Navy Cross or lesser awards and had ships named for them in WWII, so a much narrower set than you alluded to. This is not debating the merits of the complaint, it is making sure that Users are accurately notified of what is being discussed. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ANI notice - pretty straightforward and factually correct.
  • "User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion" - direct quote of the ANI thread title. I didn't create the thread. Any issues you have with the title should be addressed to the OP at ANI. Otherwise, pretty straightforward and factually correct
  • Currently taking place here. - pretty straightforward and factually correct.
  • It seems most if not all of these deleted [BLPs→ pages] are military bios,, pretty straightforward, and (with the exception of the now-corrected-minor-typo that had no bearing on the notice) factually correct.
  • so this is likely of interest to this project - pretty straightforward a d factually correct.
  • I would think (and hope) that "FYI" and my signature are not at issue. So the comment "Not just one typo, but incorrect in every respect" is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The rest of it doesn't even belong here, it belongs at the ANI. I don't think there's anything else to say, this was just. a. notice. So unless you really feel the need to somehow belabor this further, I think we're done here. Have a nice day - wolf 15:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It always amuses me how you think you get to decide when we're done. Obviously I was not referring to the boilerplate aspects of the notice. "most if not all" is incorrect, all are U.S. military bios. You've acknowledged your mistake on BLP. Then there's the omissions, not saying they were awardees of Navy Crosses or lesser decorations and had ships named after them in WWII which would frame the issue for anyone who has been following the recent ship namesake AFDs and this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Anyway the ANI attracted a lot of input and appears to overwhelmingly endorse my actions so I think we really are done here, unless you want to keep criticising my responses. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It always amazes me that when that when it appears there's really nothng left to be said, you always feel to need to add more.
"Omissions"...? So, now the problem isn't what I wrote, it's what I didn't write. Yeesh.
For the last time; this. was. a. notice.
And with that, I have nothing to more add here. But we know you do, so... keep on truckin' - wolf 18:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of flags from infobox

Bloodyboppa is today removing flags from the military infoboxes in articles. Special:Contributions/Bloodyboppa. I noticed, because in the case uf Audie Murphy, they not only removed the flags, but also removed the awards. As I have been personally involved in the latter article, I leave this to be discussed here at this project. But I think the editor is in error to make all the deletions. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I am doing this after having learned that "flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" - WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Flags and images of this nature are used inconsistently all over Wikipedia. As for the awards, they are listed and described in great detail in their own separate article Audie Murphy honors and awards. It seems excessive to list all of these awards in an infobox that is already full of information.Bloodyboppa (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Every project has its style, and it is the style of the military project to put both the flags and awards in the infobox. Someone here will likely give you a more full explanation. As a rule of thumb, it's not a good idea to make a list of deletions on several articles without a consensus of discussion on either each article talk page, or the particular project's talk page. Wikipedia rules and styles are sometimes in conflict, but are generally decided by the project under which they fall. The Audie Murphy articles all went through review processes, either Good Article, Featured Article or Featured List, overseen by the Military History group, to arrive at the total sum of how they are done. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood, my apologies. Just wanted to improve the uniformity but I understand.Bloodyboppa (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the MOS trump what a project likes to do? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the "Generally..." part of the MoS instruction is what gives local consensus room to do it. Though I note that when Audie Murphy reached FA there were no icons for service branch nor the units only for the awards. I note also that none of the double VC winners have a single icon in their infoboxes nor does Wille Tait with four DSOs and 2 DFCs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Mick Mannock, Rene Fonck, Paddy Mayne, Leonard Cheshire, none of the military members of the Leakey family have icons in their infoboxes... Alvin York has a few icons but reader is directed to article for rest of awards. It's starting to look like Murphy (or just Americans?) is the odd man out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that interesting about AM when it became FA? But there have been 500-700 edits to the article since FA, and 1357 editors total. I'm not going through them to see who did what, and why, or if there was a discussion somewhere about it. Not that anybody suggested that. Maybe there was a consensus on the service branch icons, maybe not.— Maile (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, MOS allows them, but there is also an argument they are cruft. Personally, while I did a bit of icon scattering in my early days, I am generally in the latter group these days, and I have contributed to about a dozen VC FAs and none of them have flag or award icons in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I regularly remove flags from military infoboxes per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, always for bios (except where they had multiple allegiances) and generally for battles except to show the belligerents and where there are mixed forces. Too many infoboxes are cluttered with flags and icons. Mztourist (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

USS Polaris (1871)

There is a serious referencing issue with the USS Polaris (1871) article. Apart from a complete lack of inline references, the link that claims to be the DANFS entry goes to a page about a ship named Periwinkle. I tried changing periwinke to polaris in the url, but that 404s. In effect, the entire article is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Polaris was formerly the USS Periwinkle (and before that the civilian vessel America built in 1864). There seems to be something wrong with the entire DANFS site at the moment but the Periwinkle link is the correct one. You can see the text of the entry at this archived link, it is essentially the same as that in our article - Dumelow (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If you read the DANFS article (url works for me), it clearly says America, a screw tug built at Philadelphia in 1864, was purchased by the Navy 9 December 1864 from John W. Lynn; renamed Periwinkle; and commissioned early in January 1865[...] Renamed Polaris early in 1871-- Eddie891 Talk Work 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No inline citations because it appears to be a copy and paste from the (public domain) DANFS article. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies - Don't worry, it's not all ship articles. It's articles throughout the project. So, for instance, there appear to be over 30 articles about firearm cartridges with referencing issues. Although there are a bunch of ships - There are about 200 United States Coast Guard cutters in there, and over 6,000 articles with referencing issues that are for ships with the prefix "USS". And a bunch of USNS. So while there's not 111,000 US ship articles with referencing issues, we do have over 6,500 US ship articles tagged with referencing issues. Having directory-type public domain sources generally results in huge mass-creations. We've got thousands pulled from DANFS, tens of thousands of place name stubs from GNIS, and hundreds of ACW unit articles pulled directly from Dyer's Compendium which are very problematic because Dyer didn't actually use complete sentences in his compendium, so they're basically unreadable. Hog Farm Talk 04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we not discourage this practice? It's plagarism, and what's the point of having an article for our reader when they can read the exact same thing on the original website? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Having worked on a number of ship and ship class articles since 2013, it seems that in the early days of WP a group copy/pasted virtually the entirety of DANFS, creating ship articles for the vast majority of USN commissioned vessels. At some later time infoboxes were added. I know that for many submarine articles, inline cites were provided within the infoboxes but not in the article bodies, which also had little repetition of the infobox information. Eventually WP:SHIPS decided that the accepted practice should be pretty much the opposite of the existing state of many USN ship articles. That is, infoboxes should not contain cites, and the article body should repeat all of the infobox information, with inline cites of course. I haven't done much on ships in the last 2-3 years, but I'm thinking most USN articles have not been brought into compliance with this. Of course, much of DANFS could be paraphrased and wikified as well, as I've observed very few wikilinks in the early DANFS copy/paste effort. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Hero of Belarus 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 01:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox

Participation welcome at Talk:Nazi Germany#RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox. Levivich harass/hound 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? We don't have post-WWI France as a successor of the German Empire because of Alsace, do we? Ha! Actually, it was there, so I've duly removed it. The RfC seems to be nearly unanimous so far anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

New version of Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy

FYI the standard reference on RN warships going back to the 15th century and earlier, "Colledge" (Ships of the Royal Navy) has just had its 5th edition (ISBN 978-1-5267-9327-0) released in the UK. There's also a Kindle version available from Amazon UK for GBP7 as of yesterday and a US release scheduled through NIP on 15 May. It's the first new edition in over a decade, and now includes the RFA. So if anyone has some time on their hands and wants to work on all those British warship red links from Napoleonic times and earlier, you know what to do!!! Le Deluge (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ben Warlow (who took over from Colledge) has another book due out at the end of May, Pendant Numbers of the Royal Navy: A Complete History of the Allocation of Pendant Numbers to Royal Navy Warships and Auxiliaries ISBN 978-1526793782 which may also be of interest. Le Deluge (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you confirm he uses what I've just found as the pre-1948 spelling, "Pendant number?" Apparently after 1948 became Pennant number, which is what I grew up with..Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Also anyone interested in up to date pennant numbers, the standard official reference is Allied Communications Publications, ACP 113, of which AI is find-able on the internet. Search "ACP113AI" and "Call Sign Book." Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hull classification symbols are used in lots of articles, but seldom explained - or with links to the Hull classification symbol article. In other words: that article need more backlinks!

Please see discussion over at Talk:Hull classification symbol#Backlinks regarding this if you are interested. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Amchitka

I have nominated Amchitka 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Carswell Air Force Base or Boeing Military Aircraft Company (BMAC) plant in Wichita, KS....

...to see if File:B-52s at Carswell AFB Texas.jpg is mislabelled as an edit to the file page asserts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The orig photo description does not say where it was. This site says this plane was built in Seattle, so Kansas may not be correct either if this is a photo at the manufacturing location. MB 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
BMAC did Air Force contract modification work at Wichita, so an aircraft could have been built in Seattle but modified later at Wichita. The background in the picture could certainly be Wichita, but I can't for certain identify any of the buildings in the picture. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

More detail at Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, but some B-52D, E, F and all B-52G, H were "BW" (built at the Wichita plant). This is more than half the Buffs built. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Partner_to_publish_first_Wikipedia_Article_-_How_to_find_one?

New user seeks help with draft about

"Commodore William J. McCluney (12 April 1796 — 11 February 1864) was a United States Navy officer whose service included the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Battle of Ty-ho Bay, China. McCluney commanded two of the flagships—the USS Mississippi and the USS Powhatan—in support of the Perry Expedition to Japan in 1853-1854. As a flag officer, McCluney transported the first Japanese Embassy to the United States aboard his flagship, the USS Roanoke, in 1860 on the last leg of their journey." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviews needed - William Hardham

Hi all, I have William Hardham at FAC here and the article is struggling for reviews. It would be greatly appreciated if some extra pairs of eyes could take a look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Horst Ademeit, article renamed

Hi, I don't understand the reasoning of this move. Cuddles9999 would you care to explain your reasoning behind this change, I don't understand it? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Many years ago there was a persistent vandal who added "on wheels" to multiple article titles. There's no need to engage with them; just block and revert. Kevin1776 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I've tagged the redirect left over from the page move for G3. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Had you waited five more minutes I could have fixed that without having to look for a valid alternate title. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I could have just used my admin bit to make the "on wheels" redirect go away permanently, but since I promised not to do speedy deletion in my RFA, I though it best to not perform the deletion myself. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Blatant vandalism is, well, a special case... timidly points at IAR RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Service rifle

Do we really need another almost endless list of guns in this article? We have so many lists of military equipment for every nation and army in the world that it's a miracle not more people accuse us of gun fetishism. Plus, it's terrible article writing--it invites endless additions and updates, many of them based on unreliable and primary sources. Imagine we did this for Pilsner or State language; we wouldn't want someone to list all of Nigeria's 525 languages in that article. I propose we cut that entire list. If editors feel inclined, I suppose they could add a list of links to Military equipment of Turkey or whatever's appropriate, which would make at least this article look better, and would cut down on maintenance. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It list rifles for several countries in a long list of tables. Some examples of common service rifles makes more sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
It could definitely use some attention. As currently titled, it should be an article about service rifles, not a short blurb followed by a long list of lists. (jmho) - wolf 19:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with wolfchild here, nothing wrong with explaining what service rifles are and their history, but exhaustive lists go elsewhere. Loafiewa (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
An IP user reverted the removal of the excess tables a little earlier, but I reverted it back to the slimmed-down version. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: IPs reverting the removal of excessive stuff from an article? Never seen that before... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Want to create entry spanning multiple columns at List of inactive AFCON wings of the United States Air Force

I'd like to fill in some of the row entries here with entries spanning multiple columns, but don't know the coding required - can someone help? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

G'day, not sure, but this might help: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You want colspan="2"| before your entry. I added an example to your article here. Feel free to revert if I got the wrong entry - Dumelow (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
VisualEditor is very effective for working with tables. Eg in this edit using it I could merge three cells easily and add missing cells without the usual counting of "|" and the preview edit/amend/preview/amend cycle I have to go through. Thinking of it, on really big tables it's probably the the least painful way to find and amend any given cell (that isn't in first dozen rows). I don't have it switched on normally but this seems to be one of those use cases for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, good shout! I've never had visual editor enabled before but I've just tried it and it is very handy for tables, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

American soldiers stationed in Europe (before 1917)? - in article The United States in World War I, section Neutrality

Although this statement in the 'Neutrality' section is cited (to a Finnish language publication), it is hard to believe that 'early in the war' (sic - before America's entry) there were "1,452 [American] troops stationed" in Europe. Can someone clarify in what form this element was and where based? I understand there were American citizens serving voluntarily in the French forces (mainly Foreign Legion) and in the British and Canadian forces (the latter allowed Americans to serve on condition they renounce their nationality during service) and generally speaking these Americans would have been officially in the service of the country whose forces employed them.Cloptonson (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cloptonson, interesting question. A quick search for the obvious terms in various forms turns up no English-language source, but that's not to say one doesn't exist, it might just be harder to find. The Finnish source isn't anywhere online I can find. Perhaps try posting this at WikiProject Military History - the folks there were once very helpful when I was trying to track down a source for a uncited little story about some troops during WWII. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
American Volunteers Entered World War I Early mentions Morse, Edwin W. (1919). The vanguard of American volunteers in the fighting lines and in humanitarian service: August, 1914-April, 1917. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons..
We also have articles on Norman Prince and Lafayette Escadrille, a squadron of the French air force composed of US citizens.
On an alternative tack, there would have been the US Marines of the Marine Security Guard Battalion protecting US embassies in Europe. There are 20 detachments of Marines at embassies in Europe today, so 1,450 during a war doesn't sound unreasonable. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There were a few military and naval attaches at all embassies. at most 100 men in Europe. Were US Marines stationed as security guards in embassies in Europe at that time??? The Marine Guards are NOT mentioned in the comprehensive list of names and stations in Officers of the Navy and Marine Corps of the United States by United States. Bureau of Naval Personnel (1913) online although attaches are mentioned. (Marines are not called "soldiers") I recommend dropping the unsupported claim--the Finnish source is not a reliable source on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I stand corrected Rjensen; The United States Marine Corps in the World War has a table on p. 17 which shows that there were no Marines stationed in Europe in April 1917. Agree that we should just delete the contentious text. Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Have to agree with everyone, best to remove it. While there were some amount of military observers, it's too high for that and too low for the number of Americans serving in all of the allied armies. My only thinking is that it's related to the number of American soldiers who deserted the army to fight for another country but they shouldn't be considered in the US forces anymore. Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Well somebody needed to WP:FIXIT so I've just done that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Would anybody like to add in something about the volunteers? It seems pertinent. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Military-Industrial complex

There is one ongoing discussion about adding part of the Animal–industrial complex in the article about Military-industrial complex. Content what some editors want to add is basicaly some arguing and claim based on one book. So if some editors could take a look would be great, about if there is enough notability and relevance to that be added under the military industrial complex article apart to be added under "see also" section. Discussion is here Talk:Military–industrial complex#Recently added content. Thank you. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of the article on General Sir Charles Asgill

This article Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet is assessed as “C” on the basis of lacking sufficient referencing and citation. There are 131 links under Footnotes, so may I request this be re-graded as “B”? May I also mention that at the end of 2019 his story was radically changed, following the publication of an 18-page-letter he wrote in 1786, which had been hidden for 233 years. The new sister article, Asgill Affair has fewer sources and yet is graded “B”. Thanks in advance! Anne (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Normally the place to go for this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. I asked the MilHistBot for an opinion, and it re-graded the article as a B. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

First day on the Somme question

Does anyone know of a quick way to resolve Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors? I can't find anything in this (First day on the Somme) article. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain in a little more detail? I'm not sure what the problem is. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, Keith, I think I might have resolved the issue with this edit: [2]. Please check and revert if that wasn't what is needed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks that's done it. @Indy beetle: see here [3]. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a fun picture of a Vought VE-7 floatplane with Marine Corps insignia at Sumay, Guam in 1925

Hello!

I have a definitional issue for a MILHIST-associated issue that I am unable to resolve using my current references and I can't find anything online that helps. I am hoping someone here has access to a reference that clarifies things.

Background: The most relevant article is probably Sumay, Guam, which I just created. I have some references that say that a "Naval Station Sumay" was established in 1898 after the Capture of Guam, while others say that it was "Naval Station Guam" (that is a redirect to Joint Region Marianas right now). They all agree that a Marine Barracks Guam was formally established in 1901 at Sumay, and that a Marine Aviation unit arrived to set up a seaplane base at Sumay that operated from 1921 to 1931. Guam was run by a Naval Governor from 1899 to the Japanese occupation.

My problem: At least one source seems to suggest that "Naval Station Guam" was just another name for "Guam under U.S. Naval Governance" since the U.S. considered the entire island a military installation under a Naval commander, so that Naval Station Guam might deserve to be a redirect to History of Guam#Capture of Guam, or at least a disambiguation page. This also implies that maybe "Naval Station Sumay", just meant "the military center of the Naval government of Guam." One source only uses "Naval Station Guam" for the Marine Aviation base from 1921-1931. I simply cannot figure out if "Naval Station Guam" and "Naval Station Sumay" are officially installations that are smaller than the entire island or not, how they are related, and if the floatplane base was an installation that was also smaller than the island.

Does anybody have access to a handy-dandy historical reference that explains the U.S. military installations on Guam from 1899 to 1931? I would greatly appreciate any clarification on what pages I should be red-linking, redirecting, or disambiguating. - Featous (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that Naval Station Sumay is now Naval Base Guam as they both occupy essentially the same area. Presumably Naval Station Sumay became Naval Station Guam and was the Navy's administrative center. I will take a look at a couple of books I have and revert further. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You should take a look at [4] pages 342-57 which details base construction on Guam after it was reoccupied. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I was not aware that the harbor breakwater was partially constructed before the Japanese invasion. Every source I've read has talked about it as construction project after the war. Best, Featous (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I also found reference here: [5] to a naval base at Piti, Guam, which I believe is across the harbor, but I think the entire area comprised one large naval base. the base and Pan Am hotel were apparently destroyed by a typhoon in early November 1940. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This [6] has some good information about the Marine aviation units on Guam from 1920 to 1931. Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with identifying people in photograph

Field Marshal Montgomery poses for a group photograph with his staff, Corps Commanders and Divisional Commanders at Walbeck, Germany, after issuing his final orders for the Rhine Crossing, 22 March 1944.

Here's one for the World War II buffs. Here's a group photo of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery with his staff, corps and division commanders on 22 March 1945. The task now is to identify the people in it. I'm pretty certain about the second row: Lieutenant General Evelyn Barker, Lieutenant General Brian Horrocks, Major General Matthew Ridgway, Lieutenant General Sir Miles Dempsey, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery, General Harry Crerar, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham, Lieutenant General Sir Neil Ritchie, and Lieutenant General Sir Sir John Crocker. In the front row are Brigadier General William M. Miley, Major General Lewis Lyne and Philip Roberts. I think Major General Daniel Spry, Lieutenant General Guy Simonds and Major General Christopher Vokes are standing behind Crerar. Anyone want to have a go at identifying some of the others? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The picture is also already on the commons right here. According to the descriptions in the linked articles there supposedly are Major-General Gordon Holmes Alexander MacMillan (top row, fifth from left), Major-General Gerald Templer (sitting on the ground, fourth on the right), Major-General Richard Hull (top row, far left), Major-General Lashmer Whistler (top row, third from left), Major-General Ivor Thomas (standing second row, third from right) and Major-General Robert Knox Ross (standing second row, far right). ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Surely that's [Monty's brother-in-law] Major general Percy Hobart second from right (black beret). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you're right [7] Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm rubbish with faces but I thought the chap at far left might be Polish tank general Stanisław Maczek. The cap badge and black collar tabs are fairly distinctive and the 1st Armoured Division (Poland) was part of Monty's 21st Army Group at this time - Dumelow (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The RAF bloke second from right on the back row looks like Harry Broadhurst (it's the receding hair! See this 1944-45 photo), he was commanding 83 Group under Coningham - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The RAF officer to the left of him could be Air Vice-Marshal Edmund Hudleston, commander of No. 84 Group. He looks quite similar in this 1944-45 photo - Dumelow (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll concur on Broadhurst, same hairline and gravity-defying improbable angle of his field service cap. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to take a punt that one of the three officers Tam O'shanter-ed in the 'celtic' group behind and to left of Monty is Tom Rennie GOC 51st Highland Div (killed by mortar on 24th March) and, as in photo on his article he has a 'tache in 44, it's probably 4th from left on back row. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also looking at the order of battle, we might expect Allan Adair of Guards Armoured Div (liberator of Brussels) to be there. This pic in IWM collection of him with Dempsey might help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Could he be the one behind Horrocks? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Richard Gale is in the third row, sixth from left, behind Dempsey. Since we have Spry and Vokes, I'm guessing that the one next to Vokes is Bruce Matthews. Could the RAF officer next to them be Basil Embry? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good work guys. Make sure to update the discussion page on Commons with the above guesses etc so your efforts live on for the next person.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I've put a table and space to leave comments (or copy across comments from this discussion) on the page [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Field_Marshal_Montgomery_with_his_staff,_Corps_Commanders_and_Divisional_Commanders.jpg here on Commons]. I've labelled table as rows counting 1 to 4 from sitting at front to standing at back and numbering along row from left to right, so you can correct me easily if I've misunderstood any so far ( "King's knight to 3:6" and so forth) GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War infobox RfC

An RfC which some project members may be interested in is taking place here. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Military history draft

Is it possible to have someone help me with my draft. I want to make sure my sources are reliable or if the article is notable enough. Here is the draft,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antarctica_in_World_War_II. Any help is appreciated. If you have anything could you leave it on my talk page please. Sorta new to this. I do have more topics to add it just takes time to write.Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Good start!! Gandalf the Groovy!! Well referenced!! Do remember to sign your posts with four ~~s, though. If the activities in Antarctica were solely restricted to those two, however, and there is nothing more to add, I am not sure a separate page is justified, WP:NOTABLE. But do not let that discourage you!! Other opinions welcome.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

United States Navy environmental protection award pennant

Would someone mind a peek at this article? I think the award might be notable? but I'm not sure the pennant is and can find no information with which to build an article. Thanks either way. StarM 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Battle of Borodino and Battle of Berezina at this moment appear to be duplicates, although this is recent and there have been a lot of editing and/or reverts to both in the last month. Can someone sort this out? MB 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@MB: seems like some copy and paste vandalism form IPs; I've restored a good version. @Deepfriedokra: Sorry for requesting your services again: would you mind semi-protecting that page for a bit? Technically the copy and pastes from Borodino to Berezina are copyvios but I don't know if we usually bother with revdel for that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
And fwiw the culprit is Special:Contributions/188.122.201.91. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Somebody needs to check Battle_of_Borodino#Footnotes because most of that requires some more formatting. And also a lot of the new content seems to be based on exactly one source. There's a review of (an older edition? the title is practically the same) it here and here so I assume it's okay, but a lot of the edits need copy-editing so watchful eyes from other project members would be a good idea. @Rjensen: Do you have access to the second one of these? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry -I just tried & I do not have access to "Reviewed Work: 1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign by Richard K. Riehn" Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Solved through WP:RX. The German reviewer doesn't have too kind words for this, saying that "Das zweifellos größte Manko der vorliegenden Monographie ist aber die unzureichende Quellen-und Literaturbasis. R. hat weder die einschlägigen Archive in Frankreich noch die in der ehemaligen Sowjetunion besucht. Selbst die umfangreiche, gedruckt vorliegende „Correspondance" Napoleons wurde nicht benutzt." [also mentions that most of it is based on French, English and German litterature, while Russian sources are not used - indicating possible NPOV problems]. Additionally "R.s Darstellung wird sich bald in der wahren Literaturflut des Feldzuges von 1812 verlieren, ohne bleibende Spuren zu hinterlassen.". However he does praise the "meticulous" descriptions of battles &c. so this might be ok for such things (he does say it's a "traditional military history" - while also criticising the lack in describings matters outside of this...). My bigger concern is that the editor here seems to have replaced most of the prior content with information sourced to only this (30 or 20 years old, if the re-print contains significant updates, but given the similar title that's unlikely) source... The whole article will need a thorough check, I'm afraid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And the grammar is also not very much of an improvement... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
To be fair the editor also removed another source which was some obscure work in Vietnamese (while there's no prohibition on using non-English sources, Vietnamese is rather hard for others to verify...) so fair point on that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly similar issues at French invasion of Russia - at least one editor is very keen to replace sources with ones that can be verified online (including on the Internet Archive).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisted, will take a look when I have time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also watchlisted Fire of Moscow (1812). @Ruedi33a: Hi! Just FYI, this (immediately above, last few comments) discussion is about your edits to these articles. One improvement I'd suggest is for you take a look at {{sfn}} and how to use it because that will simplify the footnotes, especially with multiple references to the same book. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: When you are finished with "Battle of Borodino" I will learn a lot of your way to do it, especially {{sfn}}. But for me the point "Quality of a source" is more important. For me it must be possible to check a source online without buying a book, paying a fee, learning another language other than English as it is the English Wiki. I am searching in archive.org and other libraries for sources about 1812, Napoleon in Russia, that fulfill these conditions and the authors must be of different countries, especially Russia.
I have created a kind of "Click and check" to allow to check the sources directly with one click and you are on the right page of the source and can compare the content. Example of the old way: chapter "Pyrrhic Victory", ...peace terms, link to Sokolov, pp. 454–55. ctrl-c:Sokolov, ctrl-f:Sokolov, 4 occurrences, best is (in French) Sokolov, Oleg (2005). L'armée de Napoléon. Éditions Commios. ISBN 978-2-9518364-1-9 click on ISBN-Number: Google Books:no, Open Library:no, Amazon: no money left, KVK - Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog: ISBN is wrong.........Example of the new way: chapter "Napoleon's invasion of Russia", last words are "on the left" with a link: Richard Riehn: Napoleon's Russian Campaign Page 244 access-date=18 February 2021. Click and Check: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780070527317/page/243/mode/2up Account is free, Borrow for one hour is free...
There is absolutely no requirement for sources to be online or in English - just that we use good sources - just because you personally don't have access to a source doesn't mean no-one has. You should NEVER replace sources just because they are not online or in English.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Robert E. Lee the primary topic of the General Lee disambiguation page?

A discussion at Talk:General Lee#Requested move 8 March 2021 aims to resolve whether the General Lee disambiguation page should follow the example set by the General Grant (disambiguation) page in making each Civil War commander the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of his disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was this discussed with respect to Grant? Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There never was a discussion. The General Grant disambiguation page was created in May 2005 and in August 2013 was unilaterally moved to General Grant (disambiguation) with the edit summary, "If General Sherman redirects to Wm. T. Sherman, General Grant should redirect to U.S. Grant". The move has remained unchallenged. Most likely as a result of this nomination, the General Grant (disambiguation) page has been expanded today from 8 entries to 25 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Got it. Following an undiscussed example seems like a poor idea. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The likeliest explanation is that it remained unchallenged simply because those who noticed it felt that General Grant was an obvious redirect in the same manner as the edit-summary-mentioned General Sherman or others, such as General Washington, General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Marshall or General Patton. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for War of the Fifth Coalition

I have nominated War of the Fifth Coalition 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is beyond saving. I'm happy to chip in and help on this one if there's interest? - Dumelow (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Dumelow, I'm down to help out if possible Eddie891 Talk Work 01:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I have any particularly good sources on me for this, but if we can get something going, I can make a trip to the local library and see if they have anything. Also willing to do prose/formatting work on this as well. Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Excellent stuff, I think we can make a good go of this. Not an expert in this war by any means but I'll start looking for refs for the missing citations first off. Probably best if we co-ordinate this over on the FAR page - Dumelow (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

US Intelligence Community Military Members

Some additional perspectives and user input would be greatly appreciated at United States Intelligence Community to determine what, exactly, are the military members of the intelligence community. Garuda28 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cold War

Hi, everyone. While I review the Template:Cold War, there are numerous conflicts which is not related to Cold War (such as Bougainville conflict, Egyptian–Libyan War, Spanish transition to democracy and many others). I think this is because there is no guideline for template, and it causes many users to put the concurrent/contemporary battles which is not related to Cold War. It will be huge jobs to do, so I want many to help this. -- Wendylove (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that Spain didn't join NATO until 82 following the transition. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
That is the one of the result of transition, so we cannot say whole course of transition was part of Cold War which is described as challenge between USSR and USA with their allies. -- Wendylove (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The entirety of it is a bloated mess. I'd advocate splitting it into manageable sub-navboxes: "key events of... " (Berlin Airlift... Hungary...Fall of Berlin Wall...Velvet Revolutions etc) "Organizations of ..." (NATO/unaligned/USSR/China) etc etc. and dump the arbitrary sectioning by decade. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I put the Libyan-Egyptian War under it because of the US influence on Egypt’s position, plus the fact that Gaddafi had a cozy relationship with the Soviets, and the whole thing was essentially an outgrowth of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which had much to do with the Cold War. I can understand why we would actually want to limit the use of the Cold War category to full blown proxy conflicts or very straightforward communist-anti communist conflicts, but the categorization didn’t seem erroneous. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Then, I think we have to put your point on article, because current article is mainly focus on conflicts between them. I think if articles on this template are related to Cold War, then article at least contain the context, relations, or connection with Cold War, so that no one can confuse whether conflicts are part of Cold War or not. -- Wendylove (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Military history of Puerto Rico

I have nominated Military history of Puerto Rico for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Arab-Iranian conflict

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab–Iranian conflict (2nd nomination)


I opened up new debate for deleting article called Arab-Iranian conflict. Pls participate if you can, and I hope many to leave their own view on talk page. -- Wendylove (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for Fort Concho

Hello everyone. I've made substantial improvements to Fort Concho, which I intend to take to FAC. I have opened this peer review for that purpose, and I'd appreciate some input. Thanks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

INFOBOXFLAGS guidelines for MilHist articles

What are they? Are they codified anywhere? Any hard-and-fast rules? Thanks in advance, GenQuest "scribble" 05:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

See [[8]] and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS#FLAGS, also. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for DFC and two bar category

Be interested in whether we think that receiving a DFC and 2 bars (3 awards of a gallantry award) is trivial in terms of categorisation??!! Clearly defining IMHO. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom) Kingbird1 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also I note there were a large number of categories deleted back in 2016, nominated by same person as above and a grand total of 2!? other people voted for it. The argument is that this creates an irreversible precedent for all similar categories. Happy to take the consensus view but should one user be pushing for mihist categories to be deleted en-mass with due consideration by this project? Kingbird1 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Huang Chao's rebellion should get its own page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_Chao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Xianzhi_(rebel)

Just been reading on these guys and I noted a lot of the content here is more about the rebellion than the people themselves.

I was just thinking, wouldn't it be better to create a separate page for the rebellion itself and move the relevant content there?

After all its the rebellion itself that's notable rather than the individuals.

Imcdc (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to start them!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC notice

A RFC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#RFC to discuss the relocation of a wikilink in all "(year) shipwrecks" templates, such as {{2021 shipwrecks}}. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Caroline Island

Trying to clean up this article at WP:FAR; does a ship claim an island, or does the ship's crew claim the territory?

  • In 1868, Caroline was claimed for Britain by HMS Reindeer, which noted 27 residents in a settlement on South Islet.

Could someone fix this? I can't access either of the sources so don't how or if to rephrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It was claimed by Captain George Nares of the Reindeer on 9 July 1868. See page 20 of this report, there were 27 residents who raised livestock, fished and harvested coconut oil - Dumelow (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia: Page 119 of this book, if you need a more modern source. Though on inspection they both name the wrong captain. It was Commander Edward Nares who captained the Reindeer in 1868, per page 352 of British Warships in the Age of Sail and this non-RS website - 19:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) - Dumelow (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dumelow ... since not-my-article, just cleaning up, I just left it at ...
  • In 1868, Caroline was claimed for Britain by the captain of HMS Reindeer, which noted 27 residents in a settlement on South Islet.
Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ACW regiment naming and categories

I have completed my initial work on Category:Regiments of the Confederate States Army and Category:Regiments of the Union Army. 99% of unit names have now been put in the following order: 1)Ordinal, 2)Location, 3)Branch, 4)Size of unit. This went smoothy, though I've taken my time doing the job. The word "volunteer" is gone from unit names, but I occasionally left it in descriptions. I'm sure I missed something and I haven't really dealt with artillery units much, where often we have two ordinals, the unit ordinal and the battery ordinal letter. We have a few areas where we'll need consensus. Virginia and West Virginia units are of course mixed a bit. Arkansas is a bit of a mess. State category names are not perfectly regular. I see some subcat names which deserve discussion. I believe I found and merged the last duplicate unit this morning. I have two pending G6s but I've already done the subsequent work on these pages. Anyone have a minute to look these categories over? BusterD (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been wondering about the naming of the state unit categories. For instance, Category:Missouri Confederate Civil War regiments contains several non-regiment units - the artillery batteries and Quantrill's Raiders, a guerilla unit that was not organized as a regiment. I personally wonder if renaming these state subcats like that to have the more accurate "units", not "regiments", might be better. Hog Farm Talk 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. Now that every individual unit has its size/type identified in the page name, "unit" is more appropriate. IMHO every state category should be in the form of "Missouri Confederate Civil War units" and "Missouri Union Civil War units", even if no opposing units are categorized for that state. I'm concerned about cats like "Cavalry regiments of the Confederate Army‎" and "Infantry regiments of the Confederate Army‎". I believe we might empty and delete these; fortunately they are not well-populated. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Could I ask you to use your new mop to delete these speedies? see 35th Virginia Cavalry Battalion and 10th Virginia Infantry Regiment. Thanks for your eyes. BusterD (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. Technically, my RFA suggested that I shouldn't be doing speedies, but this is pretty darn noncontroversial, so I don't see any issues with me doing a couple G6s. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. "Pretty darn noncontroversial" is always a good place to practice something new. BusterD (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much, BusterD! Yes, I agree, "units" is better for the categories. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Hi - members of this project may be familiar with the sourcing restriction in the topic area of Polish history in the Second World War, described at WP:APLRS. I have raised a request for clarification on the wording of the restriction, interested parties are welcome to comment here. GirthSummit (blether) 19:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I see it says "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II " which could be applied very broad brush. Eg Sten gun supplied to to Polish underground ergo Sten gun article falls under that remit. And this has been brought up in comments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated War against Nabis 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 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

UAV company

This isn't military "history" so much as "present" but I was wondering if anyone was interested in reviewing Navmar Applied Sciences Corporation and seeing if anything useful could be added. I was addressing a category problem on their UAV, Sonex Aircraft Teros, which led me to see the article for this company. It looks like they are working on some interesting stuff in unmanned aerial vehicles but I know zip about aircraft, manned or unmanned. I do see that they do work for the Defense Department so this all might have military applications if anyone here is interested in drones and the like. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant to post this on the Aviation Task Force talk page but it seems that it is a redirect here to the general talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Liz: What about WT:AIRCRAFT? - wolf 01:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Coalition Forces Land Component Command

This article starts out talking about "Coalition Forces Land Component Command" as an abstract concept which could exist in any military coalition, then moves on to talking about a specific instantiation of that concept in the Iraq War.

I think the abstract concept and that specific instance really belong in separate articles. I'm not sure if the abstract concept is really notable enough for an article to itself, as opposed to a general article on types of military commands and/or military coalitions. I think the specific instance in the Iraq War is very likely to be notable.

So I'm not sure if we should split this article in two, or even just remove the initial section which treats it as an abstract concept as opposed to the specific instance in the Iraq War. Mr248 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the initial section, which is straight from U.S. military doctrine and explains *why* the term was used. It would not be employed in 'any' military coalition; only ones that pattern themselves off the U.S. A similar article is Joint Force Maritime Component Commander. I don't think it hurts at all to have that explanation. Possibly some of the text might be added at Joint warfare or our article on 'Combined' as a military term, but to just remove the initial explanation without replacement just contributes to our fragmenting things all over the place without context. It does not help explain things, actually makes it harder. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Royal Navy biographies

On Wikisource there are the publications:

I have just finished writing templates to make citing them easier:

See the templates' documentation for more detail on parameters and examples -- PBS (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this PBS, I've just tried this at a recent article (Donat Henchy O'Brien) and it works perfectly. Should make writing new articles a little easier, there's plenty of RN admirals going without at the moment - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Naval History of Great Britain

I have been using the templates {{RNB1823}} {{Cite NBD1849}} to update and check the references in Wikipedia articles that used a url link to access the Wikisource publications of s:Royal Naval Biography and s:A Naval Biographical Dictionary.

I doing so I have also come across broken references to William James The naval history of Great Britain. There seem to be three sources: two edition, one with five books, the other with six in the public domain and recent modern publications which republish both editions. The Public Domain volumes listed in the Wikiepdia article William James (naval historian)#Published works were a mishmash of publication dates. I have altered the list in the Wikipedia article to standardise (AFAICT) on the most recent PD edition. It was published in 1902. It is in six volumes and I have included the date rage of years each volume covers for ease of access. Here they are:

-- PBS (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman frigate "Sharkee"?

What is the identity of a ship possibly named "Sharkee" and possibly a steam frigate of the Ottoman Navy? What I know is that the ship collided with the Dutch paddle steamer in the Thames on 19 October 1872. The ship was described as an "Ottoman Navy steam frigate",[1][2] and also identified as "the Sharkee, belonging to the Turkish government." She was alos described as a "Turkish Man of War."[3] "Sharkee seems to have been built in London, as she was undertaking trials at the time of the collision. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No ships listed in The Ottoman Steam Navy fit with that description. Ottoman frigate Selimiye conducted trials in 1870, and the succeeding Peyk-i Nusret-class frigates all began trials in 1875 or later. None of the steam corvettes fit either. I don't see a name that's even remotely close, apart from perhaps Ottoman frigate Saik-i Şadi, but that vessel was scrapped in 1869. And actually, all of the Ottoman screw frigates were built domestically in one of the imperial arsenals, as were most of the screw corvettes apart from a handful in the 1850s. Parsecboy (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"The BATAVIER (2) was sunk in a collision with the Turkish warship Charkee at Barking Reach on the Thames in 1872, a baby and a sailor lost their lives in the accident". [9] Not sure if that helps much. The incident is mentioned in List of shipwrecks in October 1872 which gives "...the steam frigate Charkee or Sharkee..." for 19 October. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Bingo! "Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a Suit of Damage instituted against a Vessel belonging to the Khedive of Egypt... the vessel Charkieh and her freight... A petition on protest was filed on their behalf, stating that the Charkieh was the property of the Khedive as reigning sovereign of the state of Egypt, and a public vessel of the government and semi-sovereign state of Egypt, and concluding with a prayer to the Court to declare that the vessel was not liable to arrest. It appeared from the answer filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and from evidence which was adduced at the hearing of the petition on protest, that the Charkieh, though carrying the flag of the Ottoman navy, had come with cargo to England and had been entered at the Customs like an ordinary merchant ship, and that, at the time of the collision, which happened in the Thames, she was under charter to a British subject and was advertised to carry cargo to Alexandria.
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY - 1873 March 18, 19, 20, 21; May 7. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
According to the The Marine Engineer: Volume 3 (1881) p. 163, Charkieh was built by the Thames Iron Works in 1865, bought by the khedive in 1872 and sent to England for a 15-month refit. Thereafter, she operated as mail ship between Alexandria and Istanbul, apart from brief service as a troop ship in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). Additionally, the court case is mentioned in numerous legal textbooks, as it set a precedent about whether ships owned by foreign governments were immune from legal action (apparently not). Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, all, especially Alansplodge. So, it's Ottoman ship Charkieh (1865) that was the culprit. She was wrecked in 1900. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It'd be Egyptian ship Charkieh, I'd think - the Egyptians were autonomous and maintained their own navy. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I've rattled off a quick article - messed up the title italics though. Can anyone help? Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Think I got it? If you leave "display title=" blank, the template automatically does the italics and usually guesses right. You can override by putting the wikitext that you want as the title after the equals, I think - Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Marvellous! Thanks Dumelow. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I've tinkered a little, despite some intermittent internet connection. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Latest Shipping Intelligence". The Times. No. 27513. London. 21 October 1872. col F, p. 6. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help)
  2. ^ "The Wreck of the Batavier". The Times. No. 27514. London. 22 October 1872. col B, p. 8. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help)
  3. ^ "Fearful Collision in the River". Morning Post. No. 30848. London. 21 October 1872. p. 5.

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fife and Forfar Yeomanry

I am cleaning out my bookshelves and am getting rid of a copy of R.J.B. Sellars' The Fife and Forfar Yeomany 1919-1956 (1961). I'd be happy to send it to anyone interested. Normally I would give it to a charity shop but it appears to be a moderately hard book to find online so I thought it might tempt someone here. Email me your address if interested; if more than one person asks for it I'll flip a coin. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviews needed

Hi all. If anyone's in the mood to carry out a review, Temporary gentlemen is up at FAC and in need of some more feedback. It recently passed at A-class review. The link is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temporary gentlemen/archive1. Any and all input would be welcome - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Georges Six template

I've dipped my toe into the world of template development, and made one for George Six's Dictionnaire biographique des généraux et amiraux français de la Révolution et de l'Empire: 1792–1814, a useful source of biographical information on Napoleon's generals and admirals, and available in its entirety on Gallica. Once you find the volume and page number(s) of the person you're interested in (use the links in the template documentation), you can use my template to cite it and have the url automatically generated.

The template is {{Cite Six}} (it's a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}}), I'd appreciate any feedback you may have about it. Chuntuk (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest

At Template talk:Infobox country. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

hi – is someone here able to point me to a list of sources y'all have deemed to be "reliable" within the domain of military history?

I happened upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references, although that seems to be documentation intended to help people with the technicalities of adding references to articles.

For context, I am interested in adding to the OODA loop article. Specifically, I am curious to know whether, at any point, reliable sources have commented on Boyd's use of the term genetic heritage within the "Orient" phase of the framework. Stussll (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stussll: The usual concerns of WP:RS are valid here (usually preferable are those sources described at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but of course other kinds of sources are acceptable). Beware of popular histories, as explained in the third paragraph here. I recommend looking for sources that deal on your subject via the usual online repositories (JSTOR et al.; if you don't have access to a particular paper or book chapter you can try WP:RX). Of course you seem to be looking for a rather niche topic so that might not help. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian, reading WP:SCHOLARSHIP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references#What to cite were the frames of reference I needed...thank your sharing these links and responding as quickly as you did ^ _ ^ Stussll (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Chilean Special Forces

A look at Special Forces of Chile shows a lot of red links and no sources. The page was created in 2011 and tagged as unreferenced that same year. There are three blue links, two of those articles also have no references and the third only has a single reference which failed verification. Furthermore;

  • Military of Chile only has one mention of "special forces", the ref attached seems to be a broad reference for more items mentioned, but it's a book, so I can't comfirm.
  • Chilean Air Force only mentions a single, red-linked SF regiment with no sourcing attached.
  • Chilean Navy has several mentions and an image of "special forces", but no sourcing.
  • Chilean Army has several mentions of a "special operations brigade", but again there's no sourcing.

I believe it's likely the Chilean military has some SF component to it, and so I'm sure all this content was created in good faith, but it needs sources. I thought I'd post this here to see if anyone familiar with the Chilean military, or just an interest, would be able to improve the sourcing for these articles.

Also, I don't speak Chilean so my ability to contribute to this effort is limited. Cheers - wolf 21:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, the Military Balance 2010 lists the Army with one Special Operations brigade with 4 SF bn (p72); the Navy's Fleet includes '..Marines, Seals and Transport Units..' (p73); nothing obvious on p74 regarding the Air Force. Trawling the Spanish Wikipedia may indeed elicit some more information. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You removed mention of the Brigada de Operaciones Especiales "Lautaro" from List of military special forces units, correctly, as it was unsourced, but the MB entry confirms its existence, and there are five or six references at es:Brigada_de_Operaciones_Especiales_Lautaro, which we could get via Google Translate. This reference confirms the brigade's formation circa 25 December 2006. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have WP:BOLDLY moved Special forces of Chile to Lautaro Special Operations Brigade; G-translated the first paragraph of the es:article on the brigade, which has about four references; added what might be relevant of the existing article's data with 'reportedly;' added the Military Balance reference, and added stub tags. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Buckshot06, as usual you left things better than you found them. Cheers - wolf 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

B-Class review of B61 Nuclear Bomb

Can someone please review B61 nuclear bomb and see if it meets the B-Class criterion? I believe it does, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to make that decision given I'm the one who did the bulk of the work getting it up to scratch.

Thanks. Kylesenior (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll add W54 to the request as well and I'd hope to see B28 nuclear bomb moved to C-Class. Same issues as I'm involved.Kylesenior (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, I think it would be best for you to add these requests to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Z Special Unit

I am trying to find reliable sources for when Z Special Unit existed. I realise that it was under various names between 1942-1945. What are the names that I could use the National Archives with?
-Services Reconnaissance Department
-Allied Intelligence Bureau
-SOA
Then what was it called after that? Adamdaley (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • This history between 1942 to 1945 of Z Special Unit. I realise there has been dozens of books written about Z Special Unit and its "parent" companies, unfortunately, I had most of those and when moving, had lost all except of 2 books of them. I am trying to a reliable source or either at NAA or another website. Adamdaley (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This recently-released history might provide this, and if not check Alan Powell's excellent War by Stealth: Australians and the Allied Intelligence Bureau, 1942–1945. There should be no need to consult primary sources, which as you note are likely to be confusing anyway. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess nobody knows? Adamdaley (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, Adam, I found a couple of potentials: Australia's first spies: the remarkable story of Australia's intelligence operations, 1901-1945 and ‘Gross inefficiency and criminal negligence’: the Services Reconnaissance Department in Timor in 1943–45 and the Darwin war crimes trials in 1946 and Prelude to invasion: covert operations before the re-occupation of Northwest Borneo, 1944-45. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February needs some help

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for February. We had a particularly big autocheck batch for February, and there's still a number left to look through. Essentially, MilhistBot autochecks some articles against the B-class criteria, and we check the ones rated as B-class to get some human eyes on them. The March list is about to drop in early April, so it would be nice to have the February ones mostly out of the way. If we can get some editors experienced with the B-class criteria over there, that would be much appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR of British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War

I have nominated British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, Alansplodge, Nigel Ish: I see we've been adding refs to the article, do you think it can be salvaged? Looks to mainly be citation issues, though the images need trimming and some paragraphs merge. I can remember reading and enjoying this article when it was on TFA in 2008 and it would be great if we can save its star - Dumelow (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, unfortunately I am limited to what I can find online at the moment as I am away from home, but I will keep trying to help out if I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh needs your help on FAC

Tecumseh is currently a FAC and could use a couple of reviews here. The subject matter might be out of your area of expertise or interest, but if you dive in, you may find it an interesting read after all. Thank you! Kevin1776 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin1776, I enjoyed reading the article (which is well out of my usual furrow) and left some comments at the FAC, for your review. For anyone reading this whose got the time I am also looking for reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temporary gentlemen/archive1, which is in danger of being archived. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Kevin1776 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep on it. It appears that an IPer added some excess wiki links earlier tonight. I restored previous spacing/formatting, but have not gotten into the links. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Some folks really like to add wiki links. I've removed some of the stranger ones, like "leader." Kevin1776 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments appreciated at assessment for Uganda-Tanzania War

Hate to be attention seeking, but my nom, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uganda–Tanzania War, has been sitting in A-class review since October. It needs just one more successful review, and I would appreciate any members comments on it. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

a quick historical review

of a bot (?) mailing that I got, from someone over in the history project. April only has 30 days, there is no April 31, 2021. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Investigating... my knowledge of how many days are in a month. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess you could consider it as alternative April Fool's joke ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this might the last time I get asked to do the mass message ... Hog Farm Talk 19:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Does this mean that we all have to do an extra day's work in April? Boo! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
... or do we get a day off in March May? Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
May Day is cancelled? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm good with it as long as we get overtime pay. Kevin1776 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
    • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
    • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
  • WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
  • Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.
  • Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Military Recruitment

Hi. Could some experienced editors check Military recruitment and especially the Counter-recruitment section there? I have 2 concerns. First, it seems as WP:CONTENTFORK, there is already main article with the same examples listed (Counter-recruitment under "Rationale"). Second, about that examples, it is general overview article about a militaries in general and in Counter-recruitment article that examples are contributed to the countries as opposite to main military recruitment article when it is all generalized. So maybe that section could be removed and linked under "see also"(where is already linked), or left with the link and short summary. I thought about doing some of that but better to ask someone with a lot more experience and knowledge if there should be some action about. Tnx. Nubia86 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand Alliance (World War II)

Why does this exist? Srnec (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

My knowledge of German is rather rudimentary, but I thought "Anti-Hitler-Koalition" translated to "Anti-Hitler Coalition", not "Grand Alliance". How foolish I must be! -Indy beetle (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Boldly redirecting (and merging if need be) to Allies of World War II seems the logical course of action, unless the content cannot be covered there in sufficient detail. In which case the title is still wrong, German translation issues aside. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I've never heard of the "Grand Alliance" in the context of the Second World War. I think there might be a case for an article on the "The Big Three" though, similar in style to the one on the Four Policemen? - Dumelow (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that an article on "The Big Three" may be possible. "Grand Alliance" appears to a reference to the title of a book written Churchill which is included in the Further Reading section. I've never heard of the the Big Three in that way, and I doubt it has any popular traction. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dumelow: Pretty much what I was hinting at with "In which case the title is still wrong"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected it for now. Probably a Big Three article could be written, but this wasn't it. It had 262 pageviews a day and less than 50 internal links. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The term is one coined by Winston Churchill, and he used it as the title of the third book in his series The Second World War. It was commonly used during the war. It still has traction. ngram. The term "Big Three" was aleays used to refer to the three leaders rather than the three nations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Too bad about the redirect; the Grand Alliance article was fairly good, while the Allies of World War II article is rubbish. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe that redirect should be given some additional consideration? If anything, it perhaps should've been handled as a merge, but instead, the 10kb of content from that page, including more than a dozen sources, was basically deleted. (jmho) - wolf 02:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge it, by all means. It's all still there. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Whizz40 has reverted my bold edit. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Which edit? Whizz40 reverted your redirect, leaving the page at QUO, (ok) then you (Srnec) added a merge tag (ok), but then only a hour later, Randomcanadian reverted the merge proposal (wtf) and left the page as a redirect, again (wtf×2).
Once Srnec's bold redirect was reverted, the page should've been left as is, for discussion. One possible outcome would be merge, so it's perfectly reasonable to add a merge tag. But now that's been undone also, and to add to all that, if people want to discuss the page, or any part of it's content, they have to search it out. Waiting to see if there's a reasonable explanation for that, before I reinstate Whizz40's quo revert and Srnec's merge proposal. - wolf 02:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Done - wolf 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There was pretty clear rough consensus to merge; so  Done. Feel free to mess with my section headers and stuff like that, if there's a better way to do it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Walter Fetterly

Hi Folks! Does anybody fancy creating an article on Walter D. Fetterly. This was the leader of an advanced group who dove 37 miles behind enemy lines during World War II to liberate Stalag IX-B, that was holding American prisoners. He is known as the The Liberator of Stalag IX-B. scope_creepTalk 10:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Sviatoslav I 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 23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatic short description at Infobox military unit

Feel free to contribute to the discussion about adding automatic short descriptions to {{Infobox military unit}} at Template talk:Infobox military unit/Archive 2#Automatic short description. --Trialpears (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

General Johnston, Waterloo

Francis Burgess served on General Johnston's staff at Braine-le-Comte, at the time of the Battle of Waterloo. Who was that general? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It'll be Major General George Johnstone; his 6th Brigade (of the British Army) and James Frederick Lyon's 6th Hanoverian Brigade were at Braine-le-Comte on the morning of the battle - Dumelow (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To add a bit more background, the two brigades were pulled back on the day of the battle to guard the allied right flank at a position SSW of Halle. They protected the approach to Brussels from the Braine-le-Comte and Enghien roads. The other brigade in Charles Colville's 4th Division, Hugh Henry Mitchell's 4th Brigade, was on the Waterloo battlefield, at the extreme right at Braine-l'Alleud. Johnstone and Lyon's brigades were not engaged on the day of the battle, though they may have dissuaded a body of French cavalry from probing the flank. The 4th Division's positions were considered so important by Wellington that he refused to take men from them to reinforce his main line, even at the height of the battle. The division played a key part in the allied pursuit of the French the morning after the battle, storming Cambrai on 24 June and reaching the outskirts of Paris on 30 June - Dumelow (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've created an article on the chap, though there doesn't seem to be much known about him - Dumelow (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Dumelow, I found "Lt.-Col. George Johnstone" who was lieutenant governor of New Brunswick in 1808. The same bloke? Alansplodge ( talk) 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure, it's all very confusing. I thought Dalton had mixed up his service with that of George Johnston (British Marines officer) who held similar ranks in the NSW Corps at the same dates. However, Dalton gives a different death date for the Waterloo Johnstone. Haythornthwaite is also clear that the Waterloo Johnstone served on the NSW Corps. The mutineer Johnston was cashiered and back in Australia by the time of Waterloo - Dumelow (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Gosh. I also found: "Deaths... Dec 19. [1825] At Edinburgh, Major-General Johnstone of Riggheads, late of the 93d regiment". Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 19 (p. 627). Not sure where "Riggheads" is. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"List of Officers Attached to Regiments at present in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope... Rank - Lt. Colonel | Name - George Johnstone | Date of Commission - July 9, 1803." The African Court Calendar for 1811 (p. 24). Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"List of Officers who served in the 93rd... from 1800 to 1825:
"Name, George Johnstone | From what regiment received, 104th | Dates of Commissions in the Reg., L. Col. 1810 | When removed, 1814 | Years' service in the Regiment, 4 | Remarks, Promoted to Major-General".
From Sketches of the character, manners, and present state of the Highlanders of Scotland (1825), Appendix p. xviii. This would fit with the New Brunswick posting. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There's also a mention of him in The 104th Regiment of Foot (the New Brunswick Regiment) 1803-1817 (p. 191) (you have to borrow the book from Internet Archive): "Johnstone, George, Lieutenant Colonel 1803: returned to Great Britain on leave in December 1809". Curiously, our article on 104th Regiment of Foot doesn't mention New Brunswick. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! see 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot. Here there is a mention of our man and another clue: "The regiment's first commander was Lieutenant-Colonel George Johnston, who was promoted from major of the 29th Regiment of Foot. Johnston was in Scotland at the time he was appointed and before joining his new regiment in North America recruited men from Scotland and Ireland to join it". Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"Major George Johnstone: Served on Grenada 1795 to 1796; Major in 29th Foot 9 August 1799; to Lieutenant-Colonel of New Brunswick Fencibles 9 July 1803". [11] Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Bingo!
"Johnstone G., Joined as a volunteer and was gazetted Ens. 1 Nov. 1780, Lt. 24 Sep. '87, Capt.-Lt. and Capt., 24 Aug. '92, Adj. 9 Jan. '93, Capt. 5 Feb. '94. Served with Regt. in Grenada '95-'96. Maj. 9 Aug. '99, and was promoted Lt. Col. of the New Brunswick Fencibles 9 July 1803." From History of Thos. Farrington's Regiment Subsequently Designated the 29th (Worcestershire) Foot, 1694-1891 (1891) p. 568.
I fear the New South Wales connection is a red herring. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Good find! I think you're right, I was uneasy about how close the NSW details were to the other article. Are you OK to correct the article? I'm away this weekend and only have my phone to hand. The NB Fencibles became the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot. I wrote that article too and have just got a new book on the regiment, when I get back I'll see if it mentions Johnstone - Dumelow (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give it a bash. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Now done. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant work Alansplodge, thanks so much! Really glad you were able to get to the bottom of this. We are now the best published biography of this man - Dumelow (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Final score - Wikipedia: 1, Published sources: Nil. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Commodore

Prior to 1857, the rank of commodore in the US Navy was a courtesy title, according to Commodore (United States). So should commodore or captain be in the rank field of the infobox of John T. Newton? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Commodore. It was only an appointment of captain in the Royal Navy right up until 1997. But that doesn't mean it wasn't to all intents and purposes treated as a rank. Same in the USN, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The sources refer to him as Commodore, gotta go with the sources. (imo) - wolf 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on official/alternate name at Israeli Air Force

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Israeli Air Force#Article title which could use some more perspectives. Garuda28 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Flight/Flight International aficionados

* {{cite magazine |last=Low |first=A. M. |authorlink=Archibald Low |date=3 October 1952 |title=The First Guided Missile |url= |magazine=Flight |location=London |publisher= DVV Media Group |access-date=5 April 2021}}

Does anyone know where I can find the url pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Flight archives are still down, see message. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, ta. Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
From 1909 to 1934 you can get to copies on archive.org Collections here. After then unless Wayback Machine archived a link (eg because it was in use in wikipedia) we're out of luck. Rumour has it they might come back as part of subscriber package to FlightGlobal. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is that why it's unavailable, to ponce off it later? Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also note that for a lot of instances where Wayback Machine has archived the link, it will have archived the first page of the article (i.e. the link used in the citation) but not necessarily the rest of the article for multi page articles. The error message seems to have changed, which might suggest that there is still some chance of some kind of restoration.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for a WWII buff

Over at WP:URFA/2020, we're still working on looking at old featured articles to make sure they're still up to par. At this point, a number of the Guadalcanal featured topic ones are some of the oldest ones on the list. From the ones I've looked at, they are all close enough to the current standards to be satisfactory. The idea is just to identify which FAs are satisfactory under the current standards, and which ones need significant work or FAR.

If we can get a couple people to look at the following and either mark as satisfactory on the big heckin' table at URFA/2020 if in good shape yet, or to leave notes on the talk page if work is needed, that would be so much appreciated.

Thanks in advance! Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll look in at some of these over the weekend. These articles were initially developed to a very high standard (well above the norms for FACs at the time), so should be OK if they've been stable since then. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
G'day, I had a look at a few of these and added a couple of refs etc. Most look ok to me, but Savo Island's lead probably is too long (at five paragraphs) and has a couple of spots that need refs, if anyone has the time and resources to assist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Operation Ten-Go: also on the list at URFA/2020; generally looks ok to me -- I did a little clean up work, but I couldn't work out what specific page citation 24 (the generic combinedfleet.com) is meant to refer to. If anyone can assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think I managed to sort out ref 24; there are a couple of citation needed and page needed tags left though that I could use a hand with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I split footnote 16 in two and added a page for Potter's book however his book doesn't mention Task Force 54 but instead just says "Deyo's force", so that's why I left Morison's book reference with page needed. Someone who has that book could check for a mention of TF 54 or we could just replace TF 54 with "Force commanded by Rear Admiral Morton Deyo". Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
        It was TF 54. I've added the required reference for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I managed to replace the page needed cite (which was to a book written by the man quoted, so probably needed replacing anyway) and fill out the missing citations to the same publication. I'm no expert in the field so would appreciate if someone could check that Cleaver, Thomas McKelvey (2018). Tidal Wave: From Leyte Gulf to Tokyo Bay. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-2546-9. is OK for this - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks -- looks ok to me; I don't know much about Cleaver, but he seems to have published quite a few books and the publisher is generally considered ok, IMO. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Viktor Orban hails pilot who flew under Nazi command as a national hero

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/orban-hails-nazi-fighter-pilot-as-a-national-hero-flying-in-heaven-hz6vn8lg7

There is a discussion if this piece of information is notable enough to be included in the Viktor Orbán article. If you are interested, please comment at Talk:Viktor Orbán#Orbán hailed as a national hero the nazi collaborator Endre Franko. 82.78.61.111 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute. Will probably require some kind of dispute resolution. (fyi/imo) - wolf 14:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

ACRs needing attention

Over at WP:MILHIST/ACR, we've got some A-Class nominations that have been hanging around since 2020.

I hope to be able to get around to some of these soon, but if we could get some general attention here, that would be nice. As an added bonus, ACR reviews can be claimed in the ongoing reviewing drive. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:RDH

A question has been posted at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities#Napoleonic-era French gunboat in Birmingham which members of this WP may be able to answer. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Map lookup

Can anyone tell me if there is an on-line service where source for this map [12] could be found? Looks like it might have been made by US military. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe03. There's an American government series of publications called American Foreign Policy, the map in question is on page 420 of 1950-55 Basic Documents Volume 1. The original is black and white, colour has been added by Commons editors. The document was published by the US Bureau of Public Affairs which, as a branch of the Department of State, is part of the US federal government so is correctly licensed as PD - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dumelow! Thank you very much for this!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Coats of arms in infoboxes

Nothing more to be accomplished here. Perhaps a neutral and properly worded RfC somewhere by someone who hasn't posted here will serve better. But after while when emotions have cooled off. - wolf 21:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numerous Crusades-related articles—e.g., Third Crusade, Drenther Crusade, Aragonese Crusade and many more—have recently had coats of arms, flags and other symbols added to their infoboxes. The issue has been raised on Talk:Third Crusade and User talk:Dragovit, but the user is quite insistent. Moreover, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is on their side, since "examples of acceptable exceptions [to "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes"] include infobox templates for military conflicts". I think the results are garish. And useless. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well they're certainly useless for each individual commander; not only because they are mostly not recognisable to anybody but subject matter experts (and well at the scale they are in the infobox most details are too small to be recognisable...). For the belligerents they might be kept if they're an actual non-anachronistic flag or if they're readily identifiable; though I'm personally neutral on that later bit. Too much is just clutter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I can see both sides here; perhaps a compromise can be found? Recently Garuda28 created a sidebar for all the US military branch articles. It looks good, has some handy info and it's collapsible. It tucks right up under the infobox. Perhaps Dragovit (do I have that right...?) could be invited to create an sidebar template like that one, that lists the relevant people and/or groups along with all the coats-of-arms and/or flag icons that go with them, and have said template sit under the infobox, collapsed. This way, the infobox is not crowded, people who don't want to see these images won't, yet they will be right there, easily accessible for all those who might or do want to see them. (Just a thought... ) - wolf 07:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of icons is a shorthand - if the are aren't helping reader identify information or are making other information less readable, then they probably ought not be there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that there are now discussion sections about this on the affected talk pages. I'm going to go ahead and point them all to here for consistency's sake (since, well, the same arguments shouldn't have to be repeated at different places). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The main problem is that conventions on the use of national symbols in infoboxes that were created for modern conflicts and other modern subjects are being projected backwards in time to periods where national flags and symbols did not exist. National flags started to be used for a few European countries during the 14th century, but they often did not become fixed. The national flag of France in 1500 was a white cross on a red background, but it is the same as the modern (and earlier) flag of Denmark. Put this in an infobox and you will just confuse readers. National and heraldic symbols should only be used where: (a) they impart useful information that the average reader can recognise, and, (b) they are appropriate for the period covered by the historical article. Urselius (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty much the point I was making: these are not recognisable except to subject matter experts (who likely are not on WP anyway, and who don't need the CoAs anyway); and well they only seem to be used for decoration (and inefficient one at that, given how small they are). Re. French flag: the earliest one that might be readily recognisable is the white flag of the Monarchy (though unknowledgeable readers might not know it - and then again they might be confused why what is now a sign of truce is used as a national flag...); and well the tricolour dates from the Revolution... So yes using flags for early-modern or medieval states is counter-productive to their alleged purpose, which is as quick identification (and, in cases like that various alterations to the Union Jack, yes, rapid useful information). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but writing about use of the national flags for the Middle Ages it seems to me completely absurd. Moreover, this is not true at all. As far as I know, in no article is the medieval national flag, which would look like Danish, because they played no significant role in that time. The articles we are talking about use dynastic flags or banners or coats of arms, and their use is perfect because it tells you at a glance whether the Capetian dynasty or the Valois ruled in France at the time, both dynasties used their own different flag, the white flag was not used until the reign of the Bourbons, so through flags and other symbols it's possible to recognize what period France was in. There was no white Bourbon flag in any of the articles in which you removed the flags and coats of arms. However the Kingdom of France has existed for about a thousand years, so in the infobox the mere name "Kingdom of France" says nothing more, it's confusing and unhelpful. I appreciate the solution to create a special sidebar, but I don't think it solves this issue, my efforts concern infoboxes about military conflicts to show who is fighting against whom. I didn't find any rule that forbids the use images of flags and symbols. The MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says, that there is an exception for military conflicts and international competitions. This whole matter is based on how to interpret these rules, either they are not followed correctly or they are not written clearly. I think, that there is factually nothing to forbid the use of flag icons or symbols. What's the point of Wikimedia Commons and images there when we can't even use them? After all, this isn't just about tiny flag icons, because somewhere I was also prevented from expanding the article or correct historical errors there. In the article about Sixth Crusade, I was prevented from expanding the list of leaders or commanders, it seems to me degradation of information of the article to a low level as opposed to the encyclopedic style, it means that infobox doesn't contain any extra information and is unnecessary in that case, now it contains only basic trivial things, which is too simple and superficial like learning in elementary school, also flag icons or coats of arms have been removed here, which were helpful for orientation when there is more information. Dragovit (talk 20:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The salient criteria are: is the symbol relevant, does it impart useful information to the average reader?, and is the symbol appropriate for the time period of the article? If either of these conditions is not met the inclusion of any symbol in a userbox should be avoided. Urselius (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course yes. I constantly try to make the symbols relevant to the period of the article. It is part of a development that needs to be improved, just as articles expand, that new images are constantly being created, but if we can't use them, their development will lose its meaning. I mentioned other positives below in other comments. Dragovit (talk 23:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. An outgrowth of the infobox flag wars. Point taken from Dragovit about the symbols denoting dynasties and rulers (which is important considering the personalized nature of monarchal "states" in the Middle Ages), but Wikimedia Commons hosts all sorts of images that we do not use on Wikipedia, and it's purpose isn't purely to supplement the encyclopedia as its image hosting service, it's a repository in its own right. Only thing I can add is at Second Italo-Ethiopian War we've had a history of people trying to add Italian Libya's coat of arms to the infobox, despite said coat of arms not existing during that war. We need to avoid using such symbols for decorative purposes. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's test "their use is perfect because they give useful information". Let's start with one that's easily recognisable; at least, due to some well known symbols. At the resolution they appear in the infobox:
Extended content

Easy enough and likely to be known. Yet, those symbols are rather difficult to discern... At least that coat of arms is entirely historical. Next, a flag:
Extended content

You tell me what that's supposed to be, but most readers are far more likely to associate that with something else... And is there any source for this being used as a flag at the described points in time? Dubious... But just in case, a final one:
Extended content

Not only are the quartered arms entirely unreadable and undistinguishable, a look at the description would show that these are attributed arms from a later period and likely not contemporary... In conclusion; using coats of arms is perilous on many fronts. A strict reading of INFOBOXFLAG would have the exception apply only to flags. I think we ought to change that so as the guideline now be that flags or other identifying symbols should not be used in infoboxes of military conflicts, unless they are from modern or early-modern states and clearly distinguishable and recognisable to the average reader. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Seriously...? - wolf 01:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: The intention of your comment eludes me. Sorry if the above is a bit harsh. I was intending to reply to Dragovit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I just don't see the point to this kind of... "demonstration". Images can be expanded. And if anything, this seems like an argument to remove every flag and icon from every infobox, military articles included. Dragovit did make some good points about Coats of Arms of the day and what they represented, and I'm sure you mean well. I'd like to think there's a resolution that can be worked out here. - wolf 01:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, {{flagicon image}} doesn't allow for extension; at least not on my computer. Whether there's another one which fixes this problem is a different question. I don't think the argument for removal is as easy to make for stuff like , but technically yes it's closer to decoration than some people would like to think. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's this option:
But on my device I just click on them as is I can expand them, if I need to. I don't always need to though. - wolf 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
How does the {{flagicon image}} not allow expansion? And what is this? Sorry, but rather, it seems to me that you just don't know how to use it. The way you set the size doesn't work there, you must write "size=", without it doesn't work. I suggested various different sizes of coats of arms in the article Third Crusade, but about small nor larger sizes were rejected as too either too small or distracting, it seemed for me more like an excuses. The reduced File:Armoiries Chypre Jérusalem.svg isn't very visible because it's an older design with shades as decoration, many of them have been fixed over the years or new ones without shades have been created. Why were these coats of arms and their new versions created when they can't be used now? I realized it and spent a lot of time exchanging them in articles. All other wikis language versions use them, so why should English be the exception? It's logical that I am defending them now, because I don't want that all time to be wasted. In addition, none of you are able to make the system without flags and coats of arms in all articles. The Age of heraldry began in the first half of 12th century and the only thing you achieved was that you erased flags and coats of arms only in some about 12th-13th centuries, but they are still in other articles, so somewhere they are and somewhere they are not, and it's completely chaotic, this cannot work for long, the prevailing style of the wiki is disrupted. There are currently two styles in the articles, one without flagicons, the other with. Of course I'm not the only one who returns them, because compared to other articles, these seem to be unfinished. There are many articles about medieval battles, it's not just a few crusades, are you willing to change them all? I'm afraid, that there is no solution until clear and comprehensible general wiki rules are set to flags and symbols use or not, there is no way out. For me, flags, coats of arms and other symbols have more benefits than negatives. Some states have existed for a thousand years, and only a symbol can indicate what historical period or phase it is, as well as a dynasty or political regime etc. it's not just decoration. There can be several states named as Kingdom of France and flag can differentiate it. Each of these terms refers to a different article:
Kingdom of France − the flag indicates here period of Capetian dynasty and feudal monarchy
Kingdom of France − indicates reign of the Valois dynasty
Kingdom of France − indicates reign of the Bourbon dynasty and absolute monarchy
Kingdom of France − indicates constitutional monarchy before the Great French Revolution
Kingdom of France − the flag indicates Bourbon restoration in France
Kingdom of France − indicates constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe I
If the flagicons aren't appropriate to be used, then why were countries data templates created for such as Template:Country data Kingdom of France? The purpose of these templates is precisely flagicons, so why don't they remove these templates now? Is there a need to explain why flag templates have been created and why they are not removed when flags are inappropriate? It allows to use an image instead of longer names (it's not necessary to use the "Kingdom of" either) and creates a visual connection with the leaders or commanders below them, which are another benefits, otherwise you must use another words, for example "Louis XIV of France" instead of " Louis XIV", both variants are used on the wiki at the same time, which should be correct? You can say the same about graphs, maps and other pictorial materials that they are just decorations, it's the same, but it's an important tools and without it it's just a mess of text, which needs to be read in its entirety so that something is not overlooked. There are often a separate discussions on Wikimedia Commons about flags and symbols as to whether the image is made accurate or not, then used in the relevant article or moved to the appropriate category, and I often worked there as well, so what was it for when you promoting a practice that is contrary to this? It was a waste of time propably. I intended to continue adding and replacing coats of arms and flags wherever possible, but now I really don't know what to do next if it makes sense. Without this helpful tools (declared as "decorations"), which also speed up the orientation in the text, it's not worth it for me to continue editing Wikipedia, because it doesn't make sense for me to edit confused plain text. Dragovit (talk) 9:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Except you are using {{flagicon image|Armoiries Chypre Jérusalem.svg|size=40px|border=no}}. |size= is not necessary; you can just use {{flagicon image|Armoiries Chypre Jérusalem.svg|40px}} if you really want to. That does not address, however, that at that size, the coat of arms is way too large for an infobox (what I meant by "expansion" is that there's no link to the file picture from the {{flagicon image}} template). You're really deflecting the criticism from unrecognisable coats of arms at infobox resolution to flags of France - and no, most people will not recognize a white flag with a coat of arms in the middle as that of Bourbon restoration France (and not only because of resolution: it's not that unique of a concept...); and while some people might associate the fleur de lys with France (it's also prominently featured on the modern flag of Quebec), they might not be able to know which variant refers to which periods. Anyway, now that the straw man has been debunked, I think my point is clear enough. And the period in which the battle/event is happening should be clear enough from the infobox itself, which usually should give an exact or approximate date for the battle, no? Without having to resort to mostly unknown and unrecognisable flags. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"Anyway, now that the straw man has been debunked" - Wut.
"I think my point is clear enough." - Oh yes, quite clear. - wolf 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Your "clear point enough" is only the opinion as the person who considers other readers to be a unintelligent fools and considers yourself as their representative and spokesman. Don't judge others by yourself and stop foretelling what other readers think, you know nothing at all. You have to understand that readers of English wikipedia are from all over the world, not everyone thinks like you do. If the flag of France reminds you the flag of Quebec, it's just your feeling, because you're Canadian, on the contrary, I'm European and I notice the flag belongs to the House of Valois, that's the first thing that comes to my mind, I don't care about Quebec. The readers should also be educated in this spheres, not assume that they do not have the intelligence to do so. To assume something like this is a sign of haughtiness and arrogance. On the contrary, it is valuable to find out how symbolism evolved and where it came from, so Quebec also uses French symbolism for some reason. So it's clear that your opinion isn't enough. Even can't change that flags and templates exist for these purposes and therefore will be used, it cannot change one's opinion. It would like to know the attitude of the whole community of Wikipedia, not just small group on this page who share a similar view, because flags and templates have their authors who didn't comment here. Dragovit (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have entirely misunderstood me; but I've already told enough to you directly so I'll not repeat it. Except for "who considers other readers to be a unintelligent fools": I myself did not know the various differences; so if I'm considering our readers 'unintelligent fools' then I'm one of them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, all you have to do to let the flagicon image template provide a link is to add the link= parameter with the title of the article the image should link to.Tvx1 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The link to the relevant article should already regularly appear, independently of the icon, as part of the infobox. What I was saying is that it doesn't link to the picture file (so France does not link to File:Flag of France.svg; unlike regular file usage) - and while this might not pose too much problems for simple flags like this, and while it might be a template problem which can be fixed on its own, it makes usage of this absolutely unhelpful for complicated coats of arms (since they're too small to be discernible at infobox resolution, and they are not linked to the file so even interested users would not be able to easily get more details). Anyway that is all tangential to the real issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
You still repeating the same as a self-proclaimed spokesman for other people you don't know and assume they have an eye defect that prevents them from seeing the icons, yet you didn't answer my questions and tactically avoided the essentials in my extensive comment, just can't oppose them by your arguments, which are weak and still relies on the eyesight problems, what is only theoretical, you are not a doctor. I see reduced flags and coats of arms well and I have no problem with that, of course it's possible to reduce them to any size at any time, it's templates and have an adjustable size, so this argument has already been refuted more than once. This debate is becoming useless. Dragovit (talk) 23:74, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The 'French flags' is a good illustration of why the notion of a 'national flag' is anachronistic for the Medieval period, as the first two flags you show are the personal heraldic arms of the King of France. They were not national flags, they were the blazon of one person, even if the person was a monarch. Urselius (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This is exactly right - we should not be projecting modern conceptions backwards. It would be as inappropriate as applying "HMS" to Mary Rose. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A strict reading of INFOBOXFLAG already includes other identifying symbols, as there are two hatnotes on MOS:FLAGS to that effect. If there is consensus to alter the "infobox templates for military conflicts" exception, I don't see a reasonable reading where that wouldn't cover other related symbols as well. CMD (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
MoS:Flags also "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags"
And, in reference to Subnational flags though I think same principle may apply here, "Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
What does having the flags in the infobox add over just the appropriately linked text? The infobox is meant to be a summary, and using flags or coats of arms that most readers won't recognise and are displayed so small in an infobox that the reader can't see detail in them anyway. If we need the text anyway (because we can't assume that the reader will recognise the flags - and that is probably true for a lot of modern flags, never mind long obsolete flags and cots of arms as use here, then doesn't the flag/coat of arm just add clutter?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This is my thought as well; we shouldn't be filling infoboxes with tiny images that readers won't know. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
If the infobox only includes a list belligerents, then I think you're right; having the flags present doesn't add anything of substance. However, if the infobox lists both belligerents and commanders, then I think the flags can add value by creating an easy visual mapping between the two (in other words, indicating which of the listed commanders is associated with each of the listed belligerents). In this case, the flags are simply visual cues, so whether or not the reader could recognize the flag in and of itself doesn't seem particularly important; as long as they can match the flags in one section of the infobox with the corresponding flags in the next section, the mapping will still work. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that we're trying to clarify the MOS, this probably needs an RfC of some form, even if this doesn't look too controversial (one objection notwithstanding). Update: now broadly notified across relevant talk pages, Wikiprojects, and VPP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No flags or other symbols should be used unless the average reader is likely to recognize them at the resolution they are displayed in the infobox. If in doubt, don't include it. There are few historical or subnational flags that will be recognizable beyond specialists so they should not generally be used. Also, any flags that were not standard at the time should not be used, that's pure anachronism. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, but Wikis for some reason devepoled flagicons function and flagicon templates and is connected with the Wikimedia Commons to use the uploaded images, this is a path that has been chosen and that is constantly evolving, this path needs to be improved, not to be denied, but you suggest the opposite path and it doesn't seem like a good idea. Dragovit (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Whatever is happening on Commons is entirely irrelevant here, as already said. Simply because some people are misusing them is not a valid reason to ignore our content policies and guidelines. The Manual of Style is clear that, for accessibility reasons, we should not use images to convey information if not necessary (see also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES: "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image"); and that images should not be used for decoration (because while some users might find them decorative, plenty of others will find them distracting - and too much is also distracting) and that we shouldn't use irrelevant images (such as anachronistic flags or non-contemporary coats of arms) - see WP:IMGDD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Here it's clear that you only intend to complicate this matter. I already answered, but without factual reaction and yet you still saying the same things again and talking for other people you know nothing about. No, they are not distracting. There are also people who return them repeatedly after you deleted them and you don't take those into account. Nowhere is it set out what is distracting and what it means, it's just your hypothesis based on feeling and cannot be a relevant argument. However, I have already refuted the argument that images are just decorations. There are a lot of positives that make them a helpful tool which you couldn't refute. If I noticed these content policies and guidelines do not applied to infoboxes and aren't intended for them, so it's also irrelevant. The point is that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG allow them for military conflicts and international competitions, there is nothing to discuss further. Dragovit (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You have not refuted anything; and you obviously have not understood what I'm saying despite me trying in multiple ways to elucidate it, so I'm not going to repeat it. INFOBOXFLAG does not say "we must have flags", and WP:Consensus can change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You cannot challenge the rules for infoboxes by other rules about images. This is pure demagoguery and a foul by you. I have written many arguments which you have not even responded. That's your fault, while your arguments were refuted, so you're unsuccessful in this discussion. Consensus can change and will. INFOBOXFLAG doesn't say "we must have flags", but it also doesn't say that they must be removed. So the need to remove flags is based on demagoguery (i.e misinterpretation of the rules) and vandalism that ruining someone else's work. This is the result of this discussion. Dragovit (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You have come close, or actually strayed over the border into, the realms of ad hominem attack here. The result of this discussion is that your views are in a decided minority and that cogent reasons have been raised against the use of flags and heraldic symbols when they are anachronistic and do not materially add useful information to an article. However, you do not seem to recognise these facts. Also, you have displayed bad faith by repeatedly reverting your contentious edits while these edits have been under active discussion. You do your cause no favours by ignoring the norms of Wikipedia process. Urselius (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Where exactly are the ad hominem attacks? I know what that word means and nothing like that has happened. The word demagoguery (i.e misinterpretation of the rules) is a regular naming of a phenomenon. However, it happened that on the basis of a dispute over flagicons, they were removed in several places at the same time with the intention of causing as much damage as possible. My reverts there were logical, because you don't have permission to remove them to more and more places until this dispute is resolved. You must refute the arguments or present your own, not make changes with the intention of doing damage to the articles or taking revenge on me. Dragovit (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
demagoguery (see Demagogue) is "support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument" (Oxford Dictionaries). You need to find a different word. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
But it corresponds exactly to the situation here. Demagoguery means an impressive and deceptive speech used to gain influence, political support and power, which is exactly what is happening here, when instead of arguments there is an emphasis on feelings (user RandomCanadian speaks for all people globally as "average readers" and for their greater good, but he doesn't know them, it's impossible, in fact he has no idea what people want or need, he only judges others according to himself) and aesthetics aspect (he talks about resolution of the icons and that they are disruptive in articles) for which he uses misinterpretations of the references to additional rules which have nothing to do with infoboxes, which is all typical. Why doesn't RandomCanadian tell the truth that he just doesn't like the flagicons? Why does he force his vision of the whole Wikipedia that the absence of flagicons is beneficial for all? Dragovit (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dragovit: No, you added symbols to a previously symbol-free infobox, you made the changes. The article should therefore revert to its original state while the changes you made and the general suitability of such images are being discussed. Urselius (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I said that using flagicons (flags, coats of arms and other symbols) and flagicon templates have more benefits than negatives. These are the main arguments, which have not been refuted:
– MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which says the infoboxes about military conflicts and international competitions have an exception regarding flagicons.
– Wikipedia devepoled flagicons function and flagicon templates and is connected with the Wikimedia Commons to use the uploaded images. Creating templates is not forbidden, I have created another one and I will continue to do so, nothing can stop it.
– Many other articles and wiki language versions use them. Deleting them in some articles means creating two different styles = overall inconsistency = chaotic = which means their repeated return (I'm not the only one who returned them).
– Some states have existed for a thousand years, and only a symbol can indicate what historical period or phase it is, as well as a dynasty or political regime etc. it's not just decoration.
– Beginning of heraldry (the Age of heraldry) is in the first half of 12th century. The removing them in articles after this period doesn't make sense.
– Creates a visual connection with the leaders or commanders below them.
– Visually speed up orientation in the infobox. They have a similar role as dots, but with greater benefits.
– Removing them means weakens the importance of Wikimedia Commons along with the projects there.
Please do not distract from them. Dragovit (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because the flagicon functionalty exists doesn't means it has to be used - just as we don't have to use any and every photo on Commons just because it exists. We don't have to use them to "support Commons" Commons is an entirely different project with a completely different scope. The existing use of flags in infoboxes by this project is already an outlier comparted with most of the rest of the English language wikipedia - adding yet more coats of arms that are unrecognisable as presented in the infobox (even for those of us who are viewing the articles on computers with a large screen) just adds more clutter to infoboxes that are already far too large in many occasions - completely overwhelming the article. If the information is really, really, needed then the text works just as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not think so. Again, you are only solving your concept of aesthetics, but not my arguments. It's debatable because I don't have any problems with displaying them, they don't seem unrecognizable to me. The point is that if I write an article with an infobox and add flagicons to it, then no one has the right to delete them. When I add flagicons to any article, no one has the right to delete them. Because there is no rule that commands or recommends their deletion. It only means vandalism. Do you understand that already? Dragovit (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I have refuted your arguments time after time, you just ignore whatever I have said. Complete consistency of article form between subjects is impossible as subjects themselves are inconsistent. An article on a Bronze Age state is not equivalent to an article on a modern state, and attempts to shoe-horn them into a common appearance is undesirable. Heraldry was in its infancy in Western Europe in the 12th century, it existed to some extent but it had not yet become codified. The back-projection of heraldic blazons from c. 1280, when it was codified, by a century is not defensible from a scholarly or encyclopaedic viewpoint. Furthermore, Byzantine and Muslim heraldry NEVER became fully codified at all, symbols remained largely personal and were never controlled by armorial authorities, as were developed in the West. Please see reason on this matter. Urselius (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
No article in which the flagicons were deleted was about the Bronze Age, and none of the Byzantine and Muslim heraldry were used. Only the symbol (cross) from Byzantine coins and Muslim flags with the color of their dynasties were used. To call both as "heraldry" seems demagogic to me. Please comment accurately and on the topic. Heraldry is commonly used in 12th-century articles, so removing heraldry in the 12th or even the 13th century means creating an exception that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, which is one of my arguments why heraldry should not be removed. The files themselves often indicate the period or range of time they were used, it's usually written in their title or description. If you find any of them doubtful, then go to Wikimedia Commons and correct their description or request a rename. It's inappropriate to travel between articles and delete flags and symbols en masse everywhere, even if their authors put them there themselves. It was you who, in case of doubt about one sign of England, erased all the others. It was precisely you who deleted all the others in the article Third Crusade on the basis of doubts about coat of arms of England. It doesn't mean that when one coat of arms is unsure, so all must be deleted. Adding them was a lot of work for me and a lot of fixes to make it as accurate as possible. Dragovit (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
And here you are again telling that other editors are engaging in demagoguery. I'll point one last time to WP:CIVIL. You're also ignoring all of the other reasons for why coats of arms are not useful. To quote this, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please speak objectively, honestly and truthfully and I will not use the term. Dragovit (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You are yet to quote any WP policy or MoS section to support your position that these particular flags should be used in these situations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Didn't you read the discussion? Probably not. I often point to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which says the infoboxes about military conflicts and international competitions have an exception regarding flagicons. Just follow the rules. No one has the right to remove flagicons or other symbols if someone added them there. Dragovit (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
That's the last straw. Asking me to speak "honestly and truthfully" implies that I'm doing otherwise. Please apologise. As for INFOBOXFLAG, that's already been argued and no, people do not agree with your interpretation. I'm not going to repeat the same quote twice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I tell you again to express yourself objectively. If you were to speak objectively on the topic and didn't try to misinterpret, I wouldn't need to use inappropriate term which wasn't necessary. Unfortunately, it can be seen from the whole discussion that you are trying to divert attention from the essentials. The rule is clearly written and needs no interpretation. Dragovit (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure and arbitrary break

Can someone uninvolved close this discussion before someone gets even more overheated and blocked? It's very clear that consensus is against adding these sorts of unknown flags to infoboxes, and at this point they're talking in circles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The result of the discussion is that no one found permission to remove flags and other symbols (coats of arms) in the infoboxes. In fact, no rule recommends or commands this. Only a few people do not respect MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and remove flagicons and images based on their assumption. My arguments are also avoided. I agree, there is nothing to discuss anymore. Dragovit (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You are WP:INVOLVED and are not in a position to assess what the result of the discussion is (hence I removed the bold from your comment, because it is entirely inappropriate). Let alone say that others are disrespectful... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
All I did wrong was try to discuss what was clear from the beginning. Dragovit (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave a request at the appropriate noticeboard. For everyone's information, also noting the following:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Too many people for me to go through the list and give templates to everyone, anyway the notice is here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments re: close

@Thewolfchild: I don't think you closing this is appropriate, since you commented on it, even if marginally. An uninvolved editor would do better, and having to repeat the same points at an RfC would be needlessly wasting time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a couple of neutral comments, certainly nothing like your contributions. It needed to be closed. Obviously there are MOS issues that need to be addressed via RfC at the community level (as has already been repeatedly pointed out: local consensus doesn't seem to count in these kinds of matters.) If an admin wants to tack on additional comments to cement this shut, then by all means. But you can't possibly be arguing for this to be re-opened for more of this drama. Let it go. 22:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It was more of my perception that there was one editor who staunchly wants the coats of arms kept; and well they've been pretty much unanimously opposed; so was hoping this wouldn't need an RfC (in the spirit of NOTBUREAUCRACY). Anyway, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please do not trivialize it, it's not just about the coats of arms, but it's also about the flags, flagicon images, Templates:Country datas and Wikimedia Commons files, which then none of this can be used, when someone repeatedly removes them, so even the activities related to them do not make any sense. Dragovit (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
FTR, RC's last comment does not appear to "trivialize" this dispute. That said, there's nothing to be gained here by belaboring this any further, you should also let this go. (IMHO) - wolf 00:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I would also say that marginally involved is not the same as uninvolved. 'RfC at the community level' often makes very parochial decisions; i.e. they make a decision appropriate for one subject area, then extend it globally, without considering that there might be cogent exceptions where the policy is entirely inappropriate. Urselius (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that "local consensus" is regularly trumped by "community consensus" on MOS issues. Just trying to spare anymore disputes, disruption and/or wasted time and effort. - wolf 23:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Post hoc comment

As a post hoc comment, I have to say that, as the principal author of the MOS:FLAG guidelines in question, it absolutely is not intended to permit inclusion of essentially unrecognizable coats of arms as identifiers in lists/tables, whether in an infobox or otherwise. Dagovit is WP:WIKILAWYERING, along "there's not quite a law against what I want to do, so no one can stop me!" lines, but this is not how Wikipedia works. As noted at WP:P&G, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GAMING, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and various other places, WP's policies and guidelines are to be interpreted as intended and as usually applied, and in a matter most consistent with all P&G material; never in a "stickler for semantics" way that perverts their intended purpose on a technicality and defies the consensus interpretation and application of them. ANd Dragovit's interpretation of the page is just demonstrably wrong, anyway. Let's examine the details:
  • "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Obviously applicable here, in all three ways: 1) The icons are recognizable to virtually no one, so they are unclear. 2) They are so small and their detail so inscrutable that they are easily confused with other similar coats of arms, so they are ambiguous (see also "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use ... [because] many flags differ only in minor details"). 3) This heated dispute is proof of controversy.
  • "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Obviously applicable in its entirety.
  • "Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used." This case is clear proof of that concept.
  • "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." This case does not qualify; the lack of recognizability of these armorial icons to virtually anyone means they do not convey information to much of anyone.
  • "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." Doesn't apply here, since these units and persons are not "the subject" of the article. Nor is someone's coat of arms "represent[ing] [a] country or nationality"; those armorial bearings are personal property of specific individuals. Which brings us to:
  • "Do not re-purpose icons beyond their legitimate scope: Icons can represent a specific entity and should not be re-purposed to represent something else, e.g. because an actually appropriate flag is not available." That's precisely what's happening here. These are not symbols of countries, forces, or units, but only of individual historical persons.
  • "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Doesn't apply here. Representing crusader units and their commanders by coats of arms is not "pertinent to the purpose of the list or table".
  • "flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words": That appears to be happening here, where either a coat of arms is being used to stand in for plain-English labeling, or is being added to it as a visual distraction.
  • And it is just a distraction: "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function." That entire inappropriate-use passage applies here. Virtually zero WP readers will recognize any of this blazonry, so it is just decorative, does not provide additional useful information, does not aid reader comprehension, and does not serve a navigational purpose. It's just because one editor thinks it looks good.
  • "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts ..." is an exception for flags in particular, not coats of arms. And it is subject to the general and more guiding principle that the flags should be contextually recognizable and meaningful to a large number of users.
  • "Use a historical flag and associated country name when they have at least a semi-officially applicable rationale to use them." This does not in any way imply that coats of arms should be used in place of flags for cases going to before we have recorded flags/banners.
  • "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about ... provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians." Yet this attempt to use armorial bearings in place of flags essentially presumes our readers are military historians.
  • "An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail." These are not "known flags", or even "known coats of arms" in the sense intended (they might be RS-provable, but they are not known to more than the tiniest fraction of a fraction of our readers).
  • The sections "Entities without flags until after a certain point in time" and "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations" in no way suggest something like "use coats of arms instead". The advice is to not use an icon if there is doubt.
  • Finally, "the bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms, and other representations which serve similar purposes to flag images" does not mean "everything in here I want to apply to coats of arms must apply to coats of arms". In particular where a narrow exception is being made specifically for flags, as such, it cannot be presumed to mean "flag and anything I want to use in place of a flag". Rather, the meaning of that codicil is that any restriction on flag usage should also be interpreted as applying to stand-ins for flags. The purpose of it, in fact, is the thwart WP:GAMING by things like "well, if I can't get away with doing this with flags, I'll just do it all with coats of arms instead, ha ha!". So, this rule is being turned on its ear here, and that will not stand. If anything, we now have cause to go clarify the guideline further to more specifically restrict use of coats of arms in particular.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Quote "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This case does not qualify..." I just don't agree with that and also with the other points. Of course flag icons are not just decorative, they convey information in addition to the text, because without them it isn't clear what historical period it is, as we have shown in the example of the Kingdom of France. This and other states have existed for thousands of years, and the mere term "Kingdom of France" is too broad and ambiguous, but you simply did not deal with my arguments and automatically took the identical stance as my opponents, so I have doubts about the impartiality of your comment and can't be satisfied with this. In addition, no comment can solve the absence of clear rules, which is obvious, that's why your comment is so long and theoretical. It isn't clear in which articles and in which historical periods it is appropriate to use them and in which ones not. I presume that you only dealt with the resolution of icons in terms of their recognition and came to the conclusion that they have only a decorative purpose, but unfortunately you no longer dealt with a feature that you can open and display in full resolution by clicking on the icons as other articles's images, which is the way it is possible how convey information in addition to the text and I normally use that. Without this feature there is nothing to open and view. I'm disappointed because a lot of work for several years has proved unnecessary, not only adding flag icons, but also templates and edits on Wikimedia Commons took many hours. Unfortunately, your comment is written in favor of people who do nothing more than revert the edits of others. This includes a number of articles for which it was difficult to find coats of arms and flags on Wikimedia Commons, which took a long time, than was reversed by one click. I consider it a disrespect for someone's work and the time they spent. Dragovit (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is indeed now a proposal at MOS to address coats-of-arms in infoboxes, it can be found at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole. (fyi) - wolf 10:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

While the RfC is ongoing, also noting that I have brought a specific issue of this to AN, again... (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bludgeoning and refusal to listen on a WP:DSTOPICS subject) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Saluting gun

Can anybody identify the Royal Navy saluting guns used here: Gun salute fired in Portsmouth to mark Duke of Edinburgh's death. A close-up is here. My guess is a modified version of either the QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss or QF 3-pounder Vickers, but neither article confirms this. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The Australians use a gun based on the Hotchkiss apparently. Looks to be similar to the RN's ones to my untrained eye - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
this page on 3-pdr Hotchkiss at navweaps mentions "...many guns were converted following World War I to sub-caliber training and saluting guns" and a sketch of the gun shows a very similar pistol grip. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both, I'll see if I can put something in the article when I have time. Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_160&oldid=1255078576"