1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918, division renamed Western Division in Germany) > 1st Division (1919, division reformed in England-until renamed) > 1st Infantry Division (at least 1939 - until 1950s) > 1st Division (1950s-1960, when disbanded in England) > 1st Division (1960 division reformed in Germany–mid 70s) > 1st Armoured Division (mid-70s–1993 and disbanded) > 1st (UK) Armoured Division (1993–2014) > 1st (UK) Division (2014-present)
1st Armoured Divison (1937-1945) and then another 1st Armoured Division (1947)
B.
1st Division (1809–1814) > 1st Division (1815) > 1st Division (1854–1856) > 1st Division (multiple points through late 1800s on and off) > 1st Division (1899–1900) > 1st Division (1902-1918)> 1st Division (1919-until renamed) 1st Infantry Division (-until 1960, existed simultaneously with 1st Armoured Division during Second World War.) Last confirmed existence 1960.
1st Division (1960–1976) possibly aligned with 1st Infantry Division (all divisions infantry unless specified otherwise, would be the reasoning).
1st Armoured Division: 1937-1945, existed simultaneously with 1st Infantry Division; 1947, 1976-2014 with a brief consolidation/amalgamation in 1993, lost its armoured character in July 2014 as became a headquarters for light brigades, but retained the lineage, especially visible in parenting former 4th and 7th Armoured Brigades. Continues in existence.
Instructions
Enter A or B, with a brief statement, in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section.
McNish, Messenger, Bray (2000), Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000, p. 151: references the 1st Division as being reformed in Germany, after the 3rd Division took over their role in the UK.
Heyman is a defense analyst and a retired British Army major. His regularly updated guide on the British Army (example) and websites associated with him, state that the current division was formed in 1940. This argument has been made since as far back as at least the 1997/8 edition of his work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Survey
I've been hesitant to participate in this, given that this is very far from my domain of expertise, but decided to finally throw in my two cents given that nobody else seems to be chiming in. While I can't make sense of the complete lineage, the fact that both the division itself and the British Army in general state rather unambiguously that the 1st (UK) Division's lineage goes back to 1809 speaks rather strongly against B. At the same time, I can't really make sense of the BAOR era stuff, which means that I'm not certain that A is completely correct either. So I guess my !vote is not B, if you'll allow such a weird hedging? -Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that not only do the sources not support the status quo, they (while acknowledging that the likes of the self-published would not be used in the articles) outright state the current division is in a lineage with the one formed in 1809. A variety of sources discuss the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division and the current formation as the same entity.
I apologize for any potential 'short hand' descriptions or interpretations of the above sources, and ask that editors read them to see what they say.
I note that in 1942, the 1st Division was converted into a mixed division: a concept to try and find a middle ground between infantry and armor. When reformed in July 1960, the formation controlled armoured formations before the name subsequent name change to "armoured division". The current formation now controls only infantry brigades.
I highlight that several of the sources above, and additional sources not cited, contradict several points made by Heyman. Per Joslen, the compiler of the official order of battle for the British Army during the Second World War, we know that the 1st Armoured Division existed prior to 1940 (it was just renamed that year). Joslen also informs us that this division was disbanded in 1945. Heyman states it carried on existing. He does not explain/discuss the Cold War period, does not support the 1st (UK) Division being formed in 1960 or the 1st Infantry Division/1st Division ceasing to exist in 1960 etc. I understand, per wiki policy, that we are not here to interpret the sources and rather just indicate what they state. I would argue that the rest of the sources outweigh this one. I would also conceded that changes to article should include this opposing perspective in a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, EnigmaMcmxc clearly Heyman is far more concerned with *right now* and didn't do his homework re 1940 etc!!
It's the two divisional histories produced by the division itself that are the most authoritative sources offered here. Without the ability to actually read them and to see whether (a) they present the division's history as a history of a single, not two separate formations (which would be hard since two separate entities definitely existed during World War II!!) or (b) a history of all the '1st Divisions' between 1809 and the late 1980s, we must go on the evidence of the titles alone, which clearly imply a single formation (despite the World War II anomaly!! again, staff officers are generally focused on the right-now and near future to the near total exclusion of all else).
So, for the moment, I withdraw my objections to the inclusion of a template claiming descent from both 1AD and 1ID to the present division in the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article. That may change if anyone gets to the IWM and manages to read both div histories, which we would should do at some point anyway for completeness. But that whole sweep from 1809 is a bit too broad for a single article, and the 1800s temporary formations have never been strongly associated with the 20th-century divisions by secondary sources. Thus I will go ahead with my delayed split out of 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), with its wartime history and 1977-2014 period, and participate as appropriate in summarisation of that history at 1st (United Kingdom) Division. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)08:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it would probably be best until the RFC process has came to a conclusion before either of us make any changes to the various articles. For example, I would argue that the 1977-2014 period should not be included on the 1st Armoured Division article as that period is still relevant to the 1st Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought I *was* concluding the RfC process, but, as you wish. It's a bit inarguable to include the 1st Armoured Division material in the 1st Armoured Division article as it's the same titled division with the same insignia!! Buckshot06(talk)07:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of the process is, since we disagree on a couple of points, it would be best to garner more thoughts on how best to proceed. I think if we do not end up with any additional input, we could start making changes. Although, it seems we will still butt heads over some of the nuances that may end up requiring further consensus building.
At the moment, based off the variety of things I have read, I feel that the Cold War 1st Armoured Division is kind of like Facebook/Meta. Its the same thing as the Cold War 1st Division, regardless of the name and insignia changes, so should be in the same article as the 1st Division. Yet, I do believe we need a cut-off so that the 1st Infantry Division article can be used as a "history of" article and cover the founding through to some undetermined point after the Second World War, where the 1 (UK) Div article can pick up and discuss things like the Gulf War etc. That would leave the 1st Arm Div article to solely focus on the 37-45 formation, with a special mention for the 6th Arm Div being renamed the 1st for a short while in '47 (no ideas on if they kept the 6th Arm Div insignia or if they switched to the 1st).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As I have said above, I disagree fundamentally with most of these points. The 1st Armoured Division existed from 1937-47 and in 1978-2014; the 1st Infantry Division has a clear, unchallenged, and separate existence from the time the Mobile Division was renamed 1st Armoured to sometime after 1955, depending on exact dates which are in the 'British Army in Germany Organizational History' book; and I would not support any changes to those articles along those lines.
Which is the whole purpose of attempting to garner further consensus, and hopefully at some point additional editors can chime in so we can build a consensus on how the articles look.
Watson and Rinaldi, while it would pose a challenge to use moving through the various review steps due to the self-published nature, state that the 1st Infantry Division (the Gazette, for example, implies there was a name change before that year to just 1st Division) was disbanded in June 1960 and then reformed by in July 1960 when the 5th Division was renamed (p.25). It states that the 1st Division was retitled as the 1st Armoured Division in 1977 (p. 74): "Towards the end of the decade, BAOR underwent a major restructuring ... The three divisions ... disappeared, reorganized into four divisions ... 1st and 4th Divisions became 1st and 4th Armoured Divisions ... in 1977". It does not state that it is a reformation of the 1937–1945 division, and the only implied connection is the adoption (in the 80s) of the charging rhino.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the 1st Infantry Division's confirmed existence ends in 1960 (maybe not 1958, should have read W&R more closely). Then 1st Division, which cannot be definitively ascribed to either Inf nor Armd, but if there's no descriptor, all divisions are infantry, is the rule (one would place the text in the 1ID article, without trying to make hard and fast claims beyond the sources). 1st Armoured Division 1937-late 1940s, reformed 1977, existed to 2014. I did know about the 3->4 division reorganisation in 1977-78, the British end of experiment with 'small' divisions, from the time I first got hold of Armies of NATO's Central Front in the early 1990s, and AONCF is quoted all over the place here because I've copied the references in. W&R make not one single statement about division lineages at all, through the entire work, so absence of any comment means nothing. Buckshot06(talk)06:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have asked on the resource exchange to see if anyone can access the The First Division 1809-1993: An Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Per the OCLC, there is only one public copy and it is in a library in London.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion under "Inappropriate sanitizing of terminology" in Operation Wigwam
Discussion at Talk:Operation Wigwam deals with deletion of a key, though now very objectionable, definitional term in the operation. I support purging the repeated use, but the term was the assigned name for the 4/5 scale of the SS-563 class hulls that were the test subjects of the nuclear explosion. In my view must be defined at least once else readers running across the term in the now declassified reports (and if I recall a few published stories after declassification) will not have the definitional reference. Palmeira (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Several "Nazi ..." pages moved to "Nazi German ..."
A group of "Nazi ..." articles have been moved to "Nazi German ...". See Special:Contributions/Micga. I don't know if this is sensible for all or any of the pages, but interested editors may want to review it. (Hohum@) 00:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this made the mess that those article titles represent better or worse. There never was a 'Nazi Germany' - it was Germany during the Nazi period. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I can relate with the decision though. "Nazi" was never really a national category (in the way "Soviet" was, for example), though people generally see "Nazi Germany" as a unique historical period/state structure in modern German history. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't "just" Germany", as Indy beetle's comment suggests. Sorry for disagreeing, Nick-D--the term is incredibly common. But "Nazi German--Soviet relations" is just awful, and Acroterion, thanks for reverting that one. Micga, I don't kow if you were pinged here. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
There are some circumstances where Nazi German might make better sense, but this was a wholesale, undiscussed set of changes, seemingly intended as another round in the Polish-German resentment cycle. Acroterion(talk)22:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: I agree that the term is fairly common, but it's not accurate. The more cutting edge historians of the term don't use it, and neither do the museums I've visited in Germany. The modern literature tends to stress that the Nazi era was the result of long-running trends in German politics and society, and not an aberration. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
For the record "Nazi German" is *not* common in English-language works. "Nazi Germany" is, but the adjective "Nazi German" is not common and when it is used it is almost exclusively by Polish authors and is therefore a poor choice for an international encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I too have noticed this trend previously, and I have unmoved such moved pages/categories/templates etc. I will defer to others here more familiar with a majority of sources about just how common it is, but the only place I have personally observed this naming trend is here on enwiki. Nazi is fine for Nazi party related matters, otherwise it was Germany. Cavalryman (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC).
Having just written the above I noticed an op-ed at the top of the The Australian's webpage using the term “Nazi Germany” in the title [1], so striking part of the above as the terminology does appear to be used (in conservative op-eds at least). Cavalryman (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC).
Ralph Alexander Spitteler
Hi all. I'm going to be creating an article on this first-class cricketer soon. However, I'm wondering if anyone can fill some missing gaps in his life. He served in the 10th Gurkha Rifles (3rd Battalion) during the Second World War and appears to have been captured by the Japanese, I'm guessing in the Burma campaign? He is recorded as having died from wounds in Java in March 1946 – how he came about these wounds I can't seem to find, mistreatment as a POW, or perhaps he was wounded before he was captured? Or why, 6 months after the end of the war, he was still in Java and hadn't returned to India/UK. Any help filling these gaps much appreciated. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if you spotted from the Commonwealth War Graves site that his grave appears to have been relocated from Muntock. This information is on a rather ambiguously worded grave concentration report. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Latin/South America
I've seen some pages of the military history of Central America and the Caribbean lumped into either North or South American military history task forces. Most of these categorized as South American are actually of the Latin American task force, currently a redirect. For example, Talk:Costa Rican Civil War is labeled as South American military history (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:1917 Costa Rican coup d'état is North American. Talk:Rafael Antonio Gutiérrez is South American (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:United States occupation of Nicaragua is North American. Talk:Cuban Revolution is South American (categorized as Latin American), but Talk:Fidel Castro is North American. This may create confusion and is already erroneous categorization. Aside from that, there is an obvious question: Why does the Latin American task force redirect to the South American one being that there are many countries that are not South American yet still Latin American? Is there any reason for this? In the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Latin American military history task force/Paraguay, there was reference to a discussion, which I can only assume is this. FredModulars (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The geographical distinction between north and south America is (I would expect) geographically defined. That WP articles have not abided by this is another matter that can and should be remedied - though it always requires somebody to do this. You would have my support iaw a clear definition - though this may need to be resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Those are not synonyms and not interchangable. North and South America are geographical terms. "Latin" America is a cultural term and not entirely congurent with the geographical limits. The Guianas do not entirely fit with "Latin" America though they are in South America. The entire isthmus is North America yet Mexico and the majority of other nations there are very much "Latin" as in "Spanish" America. The islands are North America geographically and a mix culturally from Spanish Cuba to British, French, Dutch and, importantly, African on the smaller islands. Even on one island we have the very "Latin/Spanish" Dominican Republic and adjacent the very French speaking, culturally African Haiti. And then we have the biggie. In most popular usage "Latin" = "Spanish" but the largest South American nation is distinctly not Spanish. I know some Brazilians who will not mark "Hispanic" on U.S. Census forms even though Portugal is on the Iberian peninsula. It is Portuguese in language (still as Latin as Italian) with a distinct culture of Portugal heavily influenced by African and indigenous as well as whole areas very Italian, German, Japanese and even "Confederate" (Down south there is a Confederate colony that still has celebrations one might see in Alabama). The problem you raise is to maintain a clear separation in discussions here of whether geography or culture is the subject. Palmeira (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And I would not be surprised to see some examples of arguments ignoring the fact the geographic and cultural in this case has no 1:1 correlation. Cuba and Mexico are both Latin America and North America. All could probably use a check and scrub. The question of projects and task forces was mentioned. A Latin American project/task force should include all those North and South American countries with Spanish heritage — and despite some occasional Brazilian objections I include Portugal within the larger "Latin" community — so Brazil is a legitimate candidate I think. (If there were an Italian heritage state in South America, beyond some Argentinian aspirations, I'd include that in "Latin America") The geographic projects and task forces should strictly abide by geographic conventions. Ah, the interesting problem of what "Latin" really means here! Some of southern France is far more "Latin" than northern Spain and Portugal which are in landscape and culture a bit more Celtic than most realize. So many of our little bins and buckets ooze and bleed under scrutiny. Palmeira (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Coming out of dormancy to put in some context. When they made the change to realign taskforces years back the "Latin Task Force" was rebranded South America and had it's scope narrowed. Going through a quick spot check, the vast majority of pages I would consider in the wrong task force seem to be hold overs from the transition. --Molestash (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Demosthenes
I have nominated Demosthenes 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) buidhe04:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
No one is automatically notable per se, but some people will have reached a position or status in society where they will have been covered enough that they achieve SIGCOV. This doesn't look like one of them at them moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I would have thought notable commanders were ok, but all commanders of a brigade or smaller unit seems excessive, particularly peacetime commanders that have not led the formation or unit on operations. And the notable commanders could just be integrated into the prose in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the notable ones should be incorporated into the main body of the article and the others dropped since they're not notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
If someone insists on retaining the gallery, one option would be to create a gallery page on Commons. There could then be a link from the article to the Commons gallery, if editors are in agreement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Sturmvogel 66, we used to have "List of Commanding Officers" (and even Chiefs) on numerous ship articles. There were several discussions about this, and the consensus (aside from the non-notable crew outcome) was to add notable CO's to a chronologically appropriate section of the prose and remove the lists (non-notable CO's would only be added to the prose later of they became notable). I don't think galleries should be treated any different than lists in this respect, I don't see a need for an image of CO in a unit article. If they're notable, then people can see their image in their bio. (jmho) - wolf23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. I have deleted §Commanders because none of the named commanders are notable.
I'm finding fairly inconsistent dates of birth for Sterling Price, a Major General in the Confederate States and Missouri State Guard forces in the American Civil War. Ezra J. Warner's Generals in Gray gives his date of birth as September 20, 1809, Albert E. Castel's General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West and the Missouri State Historical Society have September 11, 1809, and our article currently gives the date as September 14, 1809 citing this 1893 source. Robert E. Shalhope's Sterling Price: Portrait of a Southerner doesn't seem to be more specific than 1809. Anyone familiar with this case or know of anything that would explain the differences? Hog FarmTalk05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm, there could be a number of reasons for the discrepancy. Older church records would record the date of christening/baptism rather than the actual date of birth. In the absence of "definitive" evidence, I would tend to report the most consistent date with a note appended to acknowledge the other source|s. Even if there appears to be a definative source, I might still add a note. To my mind, this is the most neutral way of dealing with conflicting "facts". Anything else might fall to OR or SYNTH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
G'day all, does anyone know what the USN did with the DefenseLINK media files it had at dodmedia.osd.mil? File:Jadran saling ship.JPEG which was originally at this address is now not resolving as the server IP address cannot be found. Ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Some ended up in DVIDS, but a lot fell into the internet memory hole. The only saving grace is that the US military has generally been very good with metadata, so the metadata at Commons is usually marked with the key details (e.g. that they are US military images and PD, as well as who the photographer was to confirm this). Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just created the article for Kenneth Shugart. He was an All-American basketball player at the Naval Academy but I feel like his service and later military career summation could be improved. I would appreciate anyone here looking at it and seeing how it could be improved. Thanks! I had previously posted about this subject when considering writing the article about a year ago, but just got around to it. Prior discussion is here. Rikster2 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Well you can still try and utilize the sources that people suggested to you in the previous thread. E.g. Mention that he died from cancer, his exact retirement date, the unit he served in during the Korean War etc. I am sure there is more out there.--Catlemur (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)
Hi, I have a question about Category:Battles by country.
What is the specific meaning of Battles involving X (country name)?
I guessed 3 meanings of involving.
For example, Category:Battles involving South Korea.
(1) Battles took place in South Korea territory.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.
(2) Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.
- We can not classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
(3) Battles took place in South Korea territory and Battles carried out by South Korea armed forces
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by US armed forces in Korean War.
- We can classify battles carried out by South Korea armed forces in Vietnam War.
The scope of the classification does men "3". One only needs to look at the sub-categories for South Korea. I see no problem given the clarification inherent in the the sub-categorisation in the particular example. Any other example can be resolved by sub-categorisation in much the same way (if it isn't already). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Footwiks. If it were up to me, I'd split all these "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X". (t · c) buidhe03:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
That's what I meant to say! I think we chose the wrong scope of the classification in the early days of wikipedia. if possible, I hope that we rearrange category - "involving X" battle categories into "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X".Footwiks (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
As something to consider: For "Battles involving Germany", it's quite clear to me that for cases where "Germany" is used in the locale sense, we're talking about the contemporary borders, i.e. I read it as "Contemporary Germany was involved as either the location or one of the combatants" But for "Battles in Germany", I'd be less clear whether we are talking about contemporaneous or modern-day borders or both. Admittedly, I'm a non-native speaker of English so this might be just an idiosyncrasy of mine. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the ambiguity is present in both formulations. I would support assigning the meaning "what the borders of Germany were at the time" to both. (t · c) buidhe01:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Most country naem have similar territory issue - (Germany means contemporaneous or modern-day borders, China means contemporaneous or modern-day borders.)
But I think this is a side issue. Current category - Battles involving X (country name) is too comprehensive.
We have to narrow scope of current category. I have a good idea.
We keep current categories - Battles involving X (country name) and then We created 2 subcategories - "Battles in X" and "Battles fought by armed forces of X" and subdivide the current category
For example
Category:Battles involving South Korea
- Category:Battles in South Korea
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of South Korea
Category:Battles involving the United States
- Category:Battles in the United States
- Category:Battles fought by armed forces of the United States
What do you think of this idea?
Footwiks (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This sounds good to me, but I'd phrase the latter subcategories as "Battles involving armed forces of X" to preempt weirdness related to, say, a hypothetical peacekeeper force getting stuck between two more active combatants or something like that. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I hope that native speaker user polish belows category names convey the same meaning
I just encountered this wreck of an article that is written in an incredibly unclear, essay/textbook mishmash manner. I've already removed two sections that are about conflict escalation in general, but I'm not sure if any of the remaining content is relevant at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from sunny Australia! I hope that all members of the project are able to enjoy a good Christmas and a break over the holiday season, albeit in less than ideal circumstances in many places. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Tis the season of surplus gift money for new books with which to write Wikipedia articles. At least, that's how I like to see it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, does anybody have a copy of Anderson handy that you could check at p25 and the date that B Coy 39th Bn arrived at Kokoda. Sources consistently say 15 July but for some reason, I have said (quoting Anderson) 14 July at Invasion of Buna–Gona. This is clearly wrong. I just want to check if it is my error or Andersons. Hawkeye7?
Anderson, Nicholas (2014). To Kokoda. Australian Army Campaigns Series – 14. Sydney, New South Wales: Big Sky Publishing.
@Cinderella157: G'day, I have a copy. I think the relevant paragraph is: "B Company, led by Captain Sam Templeton, was the first sent across the Kokoda Trail to implement the battalion's orders. The men left a staging post at Uberi on 8 July with Kienzle guiding them, and arrived in Kokoda on 14 July". Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
G'day, it doesn't hurt to check the War Diary, but ultimately I would suggest dealing with the discrepancy between Anderson, Brune and McCarthy with a note as all would be considered RS. I personally probably would try to avoid citing Teague until it can be determined whether or not it is considered an RS. What are his credentials, what is the editorial policy of the website for instance? Anyway, probably best to outline your concerns on the talk pages of the individual articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, the war diaries of both the 39th Bn and 30th Bde give 14 July, so my apologies to Anderson. Yes, I guess I should take my own advice (per Hog Farm above) but the diaries are definitive. I will have to work on it since it affects a couple of articles and it will be one of those complicated notes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
PS, I'm curios as to what Williams says, if anybody has him handy.
Williams, Peter (2012). The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality. Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-10701-594-4.
Hi all and many thanks. I was able to get my hands on the hard copy. Williams avoids the matter in that his narrative does not touch on how the 39th came to be at Kokoda or when (as far as I can see). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert, could you have a look at Anderson again (probably p25). B Coy departed Ilolo to Uberi on 7 July and Uberi on 8 July. Uberi/Ower's Corner is considered the start of the track. McCarthy and the war diaries are consistent with that. The Teague source says they started on 7 July but it is really a case of where they were considered to have started from. I was just wondering what detail Anderson gave re their departure (from where and when). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: G'day, prior to the paragraph on p. 25 about B Coy departing the staging post at Uberi (on 8 July, according to Anderson), Anderson provides that the full battalion was in a "reserve area within the Port Moresby defences" around 24 June. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 31 December 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.
Military historianof the year 2021
First place
Second place
Third place
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 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.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
[user name]: [reason] ~~~~
OK, I'll kick this off. Hog Farm continues to make significant contributions to our coverage of the ACW. In 2021 he has received three A-Class medals, so at least nine A-Class articles, and many more GAs, and is everywhere. A stellar year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, for a tremendous output of GA, A, and FA articles across a range of subjects. Finds time to be a Milhist co-ordinator and a FA delegate as well. Zawed (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Nick-D: In 2021, Nick has successfully taken at least six Milhist articles through ACR this year on a variety of topics including military procurement projects, naval operations and a land battle in Normandy. Additionally, he took five articles to FAC. In addition, Nick has been a consistent reviewer at peer review, GAN, ACR, FLC, FAR, and FAC, has contributed as a Milhist co-ord emeritus, editor of the monthly Milhist newsletter, and in an administrator capacity. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7: In 2021, Hawkeye has continued to contribute quality articles, successfully taking nine through Milhist ACR on topics including logistics during World War II, nuclear weapons, military operations, space shuttles and policy debates/disputes. In addition, he has also taken at least seven Milhist articles successfully through FAC this year. Hawkeye has continued to contribute as a reviewer at GAN, ACR, FLC and FAC, as a project co-ord and operator of Milhistbot. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Rickfive, the man, the myth, the legend! Rickfive is done amazing work (especially this year). He started off with the Royal Corps of Signals, and finished with the Royal Artillery. He's not only considerably helped myself, but has made numerous improvements to former pages, and always has something innovative to add up his sleeve. I hereby nominate the amazing Sir Rickfive. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Good nomination, however, can I suggest moving this nom up to Military Historian of the Year section rather than here? Rickfive isn't technically a Milhist newcomer, IMO, as they have been editing Milhist topics since 2007. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 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.
Voting
Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.
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.
Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2021 are open!
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.
Military history newcomer of the year 2021
First place
Runners up
As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors whom we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.
Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2021 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2021. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.
Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2021. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! For all the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 1 December 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.
Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:
KiwiSpike1: active since 3 January 2021, working on several articles related to the Royal New Zealand Navy; contributions unfortunately stop at March, but hopefully this nomination might encourage them to continue editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 December 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.
Voting
Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.
The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.
All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2021.
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.
Hi y'all. Since the WP:RSN RfC regarding theaerodrome.com was recently closed with a consensus of "generally unreliable", something should probably be done about the 1639 articles referencing it (including at least one FA-class article with an indirect reference). At the same time, it's not quite obvious to me what the proper next step is. To wit, any suggestions from the more experienced Wikipedians? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
One way of less intrusively diagnosing this problem is to tag all instances of it used as a citation with a "better source needed" tag (see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). In instances where it is used marginally or the claim seems out of step with everything else, wholesale removal of the citation and the info it purports to support is probably fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, this sounds close to what I had in mind before I got concerned about this being seen as WP:TAGBOMBing. I've made a snapshot of the search results (see here in case anyone wants to contribute) and will try to slowly work through the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Indy's nuanced approach in this case. With clearly unreliable sources such as axis history etc, I recommend deleting the source and any citations to it, but leaving the information unless it is a quote or could be considered in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. This accords with WP:V, and can help later editors to find more information on the subject in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been adding an "rs/unreliable source" tag when I can't find an easy replacement (which is maybe a little stronger than the "better source needed" tag - and deleting external links where they havn't been cited and don't add significantly to the references that are already thereNigel Ish (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
At what point did we decide to create all those "List of aerial victories of X ace" articles? Some are so small they could probably fit into the parent ace articles. They're also poorly sourced with improper notes vaguely saying where the information came from, which makes cleanup difficult. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Just came here to comment on the "List of aerial victories of..." issue myself. Any short ones should definitely be considered for moving to the pilot article (losing the time of day of the incident along the way IMHO). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It arose out of the insistence of some editors that they were unbalancing the bios (the old excessive detail argument among others), and are not supposed to be collapsed. We should probably have a rule-of-thumb for numbers. Say 20 or 25? If over that figure, then a separate list is recommended? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems fine enough to me. I think it's much less crufty to include air ace tallies in a main article Is there any MOS guidance on including collapsed tables in articles? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Related to this, is there any consensus on whether things like this list of members are appropriate? My intuition says this should be instead "Notable members" or something equivalent, with every name then a wikilink. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Lists of members seem a bit clunky like that, even if they are all wikilinked, do they not? If the men are notable enough members of the squadron then surely they should be mentioned in the prose anyway. If a list of notable members is still deemed necessary, would a template called something likes "Aces of XXX" not work better? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, that was more along the lines of "at the very minimum". Folding the information into the prose would indeed be better. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on a re-write of the First Carlist War article as it is terribly biased towards the Basque region and lacks in analysis of one of the most important wars in Spanish history. I'd appreciate it if y'all could take a look at the section I recently wrote on the Royal Expedition here and tell me if there are any major issues with my way of writing. I am aware I only use one source for that section but I'm working my way through some long volumes on the economic and political context of the war for now so it will be some time until I can add another source. The rest of the draft is seriously under-written for now and it will take me probably until next Christmas to finish it but hopefully it will be at FA level by then. Nonetheless, it is a terribly influential conflict in modern Spanish politics (origin of the idea of Two Spains) and so if I can get the article to FA level and then translate to Spanish I hope future Spanish generations aren't as easily brain-washed by demagogues into a simplistic view of the war. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Santacruz, I'm glad to see someone working on Spanish history but I would say that, although the source looks reliable, I would hesitate to rely on a single source for large areas of content. It can introduce POV issues since different historians often put their own spin on things. (Also, with so much detail on this expedition, maybe some of it gets put in the Royal Expedition article and summarized in the First Carlist War article?) This book looks like it might help you; you can probably get chapters of it from WP:RX. There's also an entire book The Basque Phase of Spain's First Carlist War (accessible via WP:TWL) so First Carlist War in the Basque Country would be a notable subtopic. Lastly, historical connections between the Carlist War and the Spanish Civil War seem to be getting more attention recently so that should also be covered. Let me know if I can help with anything else! (t · c) buidhe20:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Just opened the link, turns out its the same book I read this summer when starting work on it. For some reason I forgot to continue once I'd gotten past the background stage of the book due to uni deadlines distracting me. You'll notice the author is the same as the source I used for the Royal expedition. On the Basque subtopic, there are essentially two relatively separate theatres within this war, the Basque-Navarrese one and the Maestrazgo-Spanish Levant one. I expect both to be possible to split off once the main article reaches a good size but that'll be a latter step. On the matter of sources, hopefully the UvA will allow me to check out some other books they have on the subject, as I am currently working on this article and other articles on battles (like the Battle of Alsasua) based off four sources: Basque Phase, Mark Lawrence's History of the War, Mark Lawrence's work on Cabrera, and Galeria Militar Contemporanea. All of these works, except the latter, frequently reference physical books I neither have access to nor can assess for quality. Nonetheless! We do what we can with what we have :) Santacruz⁂Please ping me!21:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Using only "Protector" for an article title is not good since that is such a common word. Either of the other two seem fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME comes into it. And going with what the sources say. Plus consistency - 99% of mortar articles are "X mortar" form. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: So there should be included official name too in the lead "oficially". Consistency - 99% of Wikipedia articles are "X (mortar)" form and "X mortar" is missleading because you expect this is a part of name especially if there is such a mess with name in lead and infobox (sometimes there are 3 different names without any xplanation). Eurohunter (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If a thing has a bunch of different names it's knosn by they go in the infobox. If it's not well explained in the article text, then that's an editorial issue GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA is a balancing act and WP:QUALIFIER doesn't "require" parenthetic disambiguation. We don't actually prefer an official name or its capitalisation but WP:COMMONNAME. We don't use army-double-back-speak for article titles. I would tend to agree with Protector remote weapon station since it is a natural term, recognisable, concise and sufficiently precise and I see no issue of consistency that would suggest it should be otherwise. Furthermore, we only capitalise "if necessary". "Protector" is the name. All the rest is a description that serves for disambiguation. To all the rest, I am not seeing any particular issue with the names of choice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I can say in service it is known by the acronym RWS and as soon as I saw the section header I knew what this thread is about. I like the current title, Protector RWS, as it is what I know it as, but would be happy with Protector remote weapon station. Cavalryman (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
Hi Cavalryman, per WP:TITLEFORMAT at WP:AT (a policy), we are told quite specifically to avoid acronyms (and consequently initialisms, which are the same but different). While you might instantly recognise the acronym, our readers are not necessarily going to but they will nonetheless see that the Protector is a remote weapons system in Protector remote weapon station. I know what I wrote (it was a slip of the fingers) but this just goes to prove the point. Ultimately, it is not what "we" think is the best title, but the title that best serves our readers. I get where you are coming from but there are other considerations. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
According to WP:MHA#CRIT, the C-class rating follows from failing either the b1 (referencing) or b2 (coverage) criteria of the B-class criteria. The current C-class example rather handily covers the referencing failure, but I think it would be useful for newcomers to also have an example of a coverage failure. Any thoughts on adding a second example or what a good example would be? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The example (Yellow Turban Rebellion ) seems to be aiming to demonstrate the b1 failure rather than a b2 failure, but I have recently downgraded Milhistbot ratings of B to C due to b2 failure (as I'm sure other have, as it is far harder for the bot to assess coverage than seeing if there is a citation for every para). Recent examples across diverse topics include: 1st Infantry Regiment (Lithuania), Andrew Rawlins and Inns of Court War Memorial. In each case I explained my reasoning in the edit summary on the talk page. I would have thought either Rawlins or the memorial one could be used as an example. Interested in the views of other experienced assessors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Would it be useful to have comparisons of different versions for different kinds of b2 fails that later succeeded? E.g. battle articles might lack coverage of the context of the battle, the aftermath, tactics or strategy common in that war that is relevant, etc. I'm not as familiar with unit, weapon or officer blp articles but I'm sure there's examples of all those as well.Santacruz⁂Please ping me!11:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Falklands War
2nd April 2022 is the 40th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War. It it is to appear on the MP as part of OTD, those unreferenced statements will need to be addressed. Other Falklands-related articles could be nominated to appear as part of OTD, but referencing will need to be up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Half-related but what's the deal with navsource.org I see referenced in all of these? It's used on ~7,200 articles, including 32 FA-class articles and has its own template {{Navsource}}, but the website itself seems like just one more hobbyist site? -Ljleppan (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Haven't checked out navsource for this one, but at least for the ACW ships I've worked with, it frequently seems to just be a summarization or reprint of the DANFS entry with a collection of pictures thrown in. Hog FarmTalk19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
So I'm working on creating pages for some of the "minor" units of the British Army (minor in the sense that they aren't combat infantry/armoured units). This is roughly the basis for what I'm going for if a few could review it, that would be great. Here: 1st Regiment, Royal Military Police. Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Coming from the recent RfC regarding theaerodrome.com, I took note of the use of british-army-units1945on.co.uk as a source. Are the people behind it sufficiently established for this to fall into the SME exception of WP:SPS? I found this old RSN discussion which doesn't fill me with confidence. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've personally been using 1945on for years now, and as far as I'm aware, and what I've looked into, it is very reliable. The reasoning for this is because the author used a mix of primary and secondary sources, and as the author even notes ("The information is being continually updated with information received and research results and is by no means complete."). In addition, the author uses a mix of primary and secondary sources, and in-fact uses the secondary references I use myself, including the History of the Royal Engineers, History of the RedCaps (/Royal Military Police), or Units and Organisation of the Royal Corps of Signals. I will additionally tag @Buckshot06, @SmartyPants22, @Dormskirk, and possibly @Rickfive as they also use the site in addition to myself often. But overall, as far as I'm concerned, yes it is reliable. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
J-Man11 / Coldstreamer20, do note that "major" units = battalion (or above); and "minor" units is usually attached to company strength or below, please. The distinction you talked about above is combat (Infantry, RAC, RA); combat support corps (historically like RE) and combat service support corps (for example, the Adjutant General's Corps). Heyman explains this categorisation. Buckshot06(talk)07:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Coldstreamer20, on what basis (ie the criteria outlined at WP:RS) do you consider this website reliable? The 2018 discussion at RSN linked above has three editors stating it is unreliable, none who state it is reliable. Given you have form for using unreliable online sources in the past, if I was you I would be avoiding using sources of dubious reliability. Surely there are reliable sources on these units? There certainly are reliably published books and journal articles that provide detail on the RMP regiments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I routinely remove dabs when they aren't necessary, whether they're years of launch or hull/pennant numbers. There's no reason to discuss this every time when WP:NCSHIPS is long settled. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Chiming in as the Maria J. Carlton reviewer to say that I agree they're unnecessary and don't believe they're controversial moves either. As there were no other ships of XXX name, there's no need to disambiguate it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
More eyes on this article would be welcome, since there is a persistent IP editor who doesn't understand that we don't write articles by dropping unattributed quotes in the middle of prose for no good reason. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we do not want articles to become mere collections of quotes, particularly when the quote is already summarized in the previous sentence, as it was in this case. However, the quote is correctly attributed as it does come from the cited source. Indeed, I have a link from the earlier edition, here.
I would recommend warning IP editors. This will help other editors to quickly sum up what is going on with a particular editor, especially in the case of activity spanning multiple articles or separated in the history by other edits. I have done so after my reversions. Peaceray (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
You surprised me a little. Let's assume that such a stylistic edit is better. Although the historian Figes is most likely a good stylist and writing articles in the SMS style, as I think, is not very good. But, nevertheless, let it be so. But if the text says that Russia and the Ottoman Empire were already at war, then it is necessary to specify exactly when this state of war began. When, in fact, was the Crimean War declared? This article about the Crimean War does not say anything about it at all. Shouldn't I be saying that? 93.81.219.212 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. My point about unattributed is that we aren't attributing the quote in the prose itself, we're just dropping a quote from a book in in without saying who said it. See also this, this and this from earlier IPs used by the same editor. FDW777 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have made a proposed change on how the infobox lists casualties. I sadly do not know enough about the war to make proposals to the officers that deserve listing as well. You may wish going to the article talk page to discuss my proposed change. Pinging editors in this discussion that haven't discussed the talk page section already (I assume Cinderella has it watchlisted already): @FDW777 and Peaceray:.Santacruz⁂Please ping me!12:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added an additional heading to differentiate this infobox discussion from the previous discussion on quotes. If you are familiar or experienced with WikiProject Military history infoboxes, please join this discussion at Talk:Crimean War#Infobox from hell. Peaceray (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the site where the link is, but the works are by Dr. Graham Watson. So, in short, the website where you can actually find it is on that website, but it's an independent publication by a very well known author. I'm sure it looks strange that way. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that Watson is the author, Coldstreamer20? What is the title of the independent publication that this content reproduces? There is nothing on this page (for example) that indicates who is responsible for the content hosted there or that it is extracted from another publication. Can you provide some links that show what you are saying is correct? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't add that, that had been on the page, I had nothing to do with that part. I only did the Post-War section. My bad, I thought you meant here. I don't use the order of battle website, it's very unreliable, I agree with you there, that happened to be on the page. I mean I thought "Retrieved 9 August 2018." kind-of gave it away as something I hadn't actually done. I just needed the post-war help with. Sorry for the confusion. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.
I was advised after the last post at WP:AN to seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.
I would now like to seek any additional opinions from any interested editors regarding this potential site topic ban. I will advise Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 of this post. Buckshot06(talk)08:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Several (well over 3000) articles in this project are in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references create via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.
Since there are so many, I've focused the following list on FA/FL/GA/A/AL/List-class articles, and left B and below out of it. These could use some of your attention
If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Headbomb - Just as a note for the future, for MILHIST, "list" class is equivalent to start-class, which is why that query flagged up so many lists with significant problems. Hog FarmTalk18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I mostly picked them because there weren't a great many of them, and list-types will often have the same source reused often (and be relatively easy to track if each entry in the list has a corresponding article [For example in List of wars involving Albania, the Kosovo War entry has Elsi 2010 borked up.... but there's an Elsie 2010 entry in the Kosovo War article, which is probably the one meant here]). There's also relatively high visibility, if only for navigation purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Side conversation about unrelated issues
A|lso note there may be false positives thrown up. E,g: I was surprised to see John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter listed as it was my FAC nom and my citations are usually perfect. But in this case, it's throwing up Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (30 with; 1 without). That's because the one, lone, single, individual, discrete, sole, solitary, exclusive cite that doesn't use a location is a Gmap reference using {{Cite map}} (which is also calling for an ISBN! Wtf?). The other two problematic refs are from ODNB which are now demanding page ranges for chapters, which they don't do with {{Cite web}} but do request from {{Cite ODNB}}. Since my source is the ODNB website and not the blooming 21-volume dead-tree copy, I don't even see how this conforms to WP:V any longer: the digital version is regularly irregularly updated, while the print copy is obviously not. The one thing I can actually change is to archive the WaPo ref, and shall do so. But it doesn't make much of a dent on the rest of that bold black scrawl :) SN54129 — Review here please :)17:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where you are seeing 'Inconsistent use of Publisher Location' but it is not from {{sfn}} and Module:Footnotes. {{Google maps}} does not support |isbn= (though the underlying {{cite map}} would were there a mechanism in {{google maps}} to pass-on an isbn). {{cite map}} does not care if you include or omit |isbn=. Where are you getting the idea that there is such a requirement? {{Cite ODNB}} (which cites the online version) does not [demand] page ranges for chapters; where are you getting that notion?
This whole discussion is about {{sfn}} errors. At John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter, there is one (false positive) {{sfn}} no-target error. The remedy for that is to add {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFGoogle2018}} somewhere in the article.
This is where I get the bloody notion from TtM; I assume we're using different scripts, but, frankly, that's not my problem, as this is the script that most FAC reviewers use. The real issue here is that your defending your post above on the grounds that 'it's not a sfn error', but, you see, I doubt many here care about your how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff and more about how Featured articles are consistently abused by random bodies with multitudinous scripts and bots, most of which would seem to be violating at least one policy and have landed you personally at WP:ANI in the past. I advise colleagues to remove articles from this list unless Trappist mends the bloody things himself rather than continually trying to blame others for not a) instinctively knowing what he's talking about and b) begging him for an opportunity to do more clearing up... /RANT SN54129 — Review here please :)18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ooh! That's a lot of errors. I can't think why they weren't picked up by the FAC source review. Should I redo my source review of your current FAC do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Your script would be User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js? I'm not going to pick apart all of the John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter 'error' messages but I did look at the Google maps isbn thing. {{Google maps}} uses {{cite map}} and |map=. |map= is treated by the template in the same way that |chapter= is treated by {{cite book}}; in other words, using |map= tells {{cite map}} that the citation is to a 'map' in a 'book'. For {{google maps}}, that is incorrect because Google maps is not a book. I'll make a note of that at the {{google maps}} talk page. User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js at line 200 sees the citation's metadata rft.genre=book k/v pair and so assumes that the citation is a book citation. At line 240, the script looks at rft.date. At line 242 et seq. compares the date in rft.date (2018 in the Google books citation) against the fixed value 1970 and so emits the missing isbn message.
Alas, Editor User:Lingzhi2 has, as of 7 October 2021, apparently left en.wiki so the script is no longer maintained; any fixes to reviewsourcecheck.js will have to be done by someone else.
Umm, I was defending nothing. You came to a discussion that is clearly labelled "List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" and complained about a number of error messages that are wholly unrelated to the discussion topic. I wanted to know where you were seeing those errors and how you were associating them with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. I wanted to know if there is somewhere that someone has written something that associates those error messages with Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}}. Were there such a place, I could then remedy that incorrect association. I also wanted to make sure that you understood that your complaints are not the fault of Module:Footnotes and {{sfn}} and that you need to look elsewhere for a solution to those complaints.
No battleground, Headbomb, merely pointing out the paucity of Trappist's own arguments, and the fact that he would rather argue, obfuscate, distract and patronize than actually confront the issue (which I note you have actually done, thanks). Looks like the system works. Season's greetings to you all! :D SN54129 — Review here please :)20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discernible difference in tone and language between Ttm's comments and your own, self-admitted "rants", SN. (jmho) I'm sure you guys can work this out without any further hostility. - wolf03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello there everyone, I'm working on a sandbox here: User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the Japanese Self Defence Force regarding the structure of the Japanese Army in 2018, with changes to the end of 2021. I'm hereby asking anyone who has further references to feel free to contribute. I would ask that if you do you add a comment at the top of the page and sign it or add a small brief of what was added/removed, etc. Or new units in italics and removed units to be crossed out. Any help is welcome, thanks all! Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages!04:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciation key for "Gneisenau"
I think it would be helpful to add a pronunciation note for articles with Gneisenau in the title. It seems most English speakers mispronounce it with a silent G, and I do not believe it should be assumed that English speakers know that most letters are not silent in German. However I am not 100% sure on this and the help of German speakers or other experts would be much appreciated to render it in IPA.
Relevant articles can be found at the Gneisenau DAB page, but I think the most important would be:
A pronunciation key is probably needed for uncommon foreign words and names if there is any doubt, imo. But double check WP:MOSPRON in the "Appropriate use" section. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I believe it would satisfy appropriateness as a foreign name that is not common, on par with Khrushchev. I would also argue it is counterintuitive due to "gn" usually being pronounced as /n/ in English as in gneiss, gnome, or Gnosticism. To minimize intrusiveness I would add it as an explanatory footnote for the two pages bulleted above.
I don't know if this is the most appropriate place to ask this, but ... Okay, during the early days of Wikipedia (long before I was here), few other Wikiprojects like Bio and Math used to have their own A-class reviewing system (See this and this). Articles like Alan Keyes and Peano axioms were successfully nominated, and are yet rated A-class, when, in my opinion, they don't even meet GA criteria. Since all other Wikiproject A-class review system are marked historical, I was wondering what is the process to re-assess/delist them? I asked this in Wikiproject Bio, but was suggested to ask the same here. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If there's no A-class process, I don't think anyone can object to unilateral delisting. WP:IAR and the articles clearly do not meet A-class by any reasonable definition. I reasesessed the Keyes article as C-class. (t · c) buidhe00:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
G'day Kavyansh.Singh. This project has an operational A-Class delisting process, and if someone thinks a Milhist article is sub-standard they need to use that, but if another project doesn't have an existing process for A-Class, and it is currently a GA, then the article should be put through a WP:GAR, individual or community, and at the end of that re-assessed where it currently sits. If it isn't a GA as well as A-Class, then presumably you can re-assess it in the normal way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Re non-milihst A-class reviews in general, they tend to be done unilaterally and without proper consideration for what A class "should" probably be. Technically, A class is a criteria which can be defined by any project, but since milhist has been so active in this regard and we've moved towards near-FA standards we've set a really high bar for the rest of the project (though we make mistakes). Thus it can mislead editors to list an article as A class without any formal review, since it can appear on the surface a better rating than GA. I'll try and stop someone from listing an article as A across multiple project quality ratings. If someone from a specific project gave it that rating on behalf of their project, it might be worthwhile to consult them on their reasoning and explain why you think the article is faulty. Recent attempts to revive or create A-class procedures in other projects have generally fallen flat. It is useful to look at the June 2018 edition of WikiProject Conservatism's The Right Stuff, where it celebrates the passing of its first A-class article (and only one to date) alongside lots of whining about ANI proceedings with grievances from other editors of the project's gratuitous backslapping and ideological bias which it appears eventually killed the project (though the ANI itself was inconclusive). Long term that kind of A-class system would've certainly become a system of rubber-stamping. I know SandyGeorgia has expressed some worries about friends helping friends at FA in the past. As editors (not MilHist members), we should not allow the rating system to be misused. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Trying to identify a VC winner from Gallipoli
Hi. I have just uploaded a series of images from the Second World War about a ceremony linked to the Gallipoli landings in the First World War. Some of the images, such as this one show a " Sergeant Dick Richards, VC," from the Lancashire Fusiliers, who earned his Victoria Cross at the landing on "W" beach at Gallipoli. I have consulted the lists of VC winners but I can't find his name. The closest I can get is Alfred Joseph Richards, whose story sounds similar to how the Imperial War Museum describes Dick's story. Does anyone have any sources available that would suggest whether Alfred also used "Dick" as a nickname? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost certainly him, based on regiment and VC event, apparent age, medal ribbons, that Richards served in WWII and lost his leg and this fellow has a cane. All OR of course, but too many coincidences to be someone else. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any inclusion or exclusion criteria. I recently removed the entire North Korea section as none of the listed entities are actual companies and they were also all redlinks. The page is regularly edited by only a handfull of editors. I tried to raise a concern about inline external links and WP:WTAF on the talk page but got no response at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've just removed the Australian government's space agency, and an Australian small arms company that hasn't existed since the mid-2000s. This article is full of total rubbish. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The whole article is a real throwback to 2000s-era Wikipedia, where we had lots of articles providing semi-random lists of things with no supporting references. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey Everyone, per this discussion that occurred last month, I went through all articles in WP:South America and sorted articles geographically. This will hopefully prevent anyone from dealing with confusion about where Central American and Caribbean articles fall in the future. Any thoughts on having a bot go through all the talk pages and having any "Latin-Task-Force" updated to South America? It might be overkill but that was the second or third discussion I remember about the issue. --Molestash (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, some eyes would be welcome on this. I am not certain if this is past the point of being constructive and has passed into the realm of disruptive? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
UK MOD insignia images issue - Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence
Apparently, a Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence permits the use of low resolution MOD logos from their insignia lists available on their Defence Brand Portal website for use on Wikipedia (see 4.7 of the Ministry of Defence copyright licensing information guide).
Coldstreamer20 has uploaded approximately 80 images from the Defence Brand Portal website largely in the past month onto Wikimedia Commons. An administrator on Commons has advised Coldstreamer20 that they are of the view that the Ministry of Defence Illustration Licence is not compatible with Commons. Coldstreamer20 was advised that they could upload a Defence Brand Portal image to Wikipedia as fair use if they complied with Wikipedia's fair use policy. Coldstreamer20 had started to upload images to Wikipedia as fair use, however, they have recently been blocked indefinitely (pending appeal). Coldstreamer20 asked for my advice on whether they should delete the Defence Brand Portal images on Commons and I hastily told them that they should delete the images. Coldstreamer20 has now nominated the images for deletion. I started to have a look at what links to the Commons images and there are many Wikipedia articles. If the images were deleted there would be many articles without images mostly I think in their infoboxes. As Coldstreamer20 substituted these images in articles the existing fair use images that other users had uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5 (F5. Orphaned non-free use images) for example this image.
I've asked on the Commons Help Desk if there is a way to resolve this otherwise Wikipedia editors will have to upload replacement images if the Defence Brand Portal images are deleted on Commons.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Question: Should Coldstreamer20 perhaps be temporarily unblocked with the strict proviso that it would be only to for him to participate in this discussion? (no other editing would be permitted of course) Otherwise, should he wish to contribute to this discussion, would it be permissible for other editor(s) to copy his comments from his talk page over to here? I ask because after reading Melbguy05's comment above, it seems that edits made by Coldstreamer20 could have a significant impact of numerous articles, which might necessitate his participation. - wolf07:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be clear that Coldstreamer has made a mess up of this; what can they add in a discussion? If there's anything they need editing back for it would be to sort out this out by removing any badly licenced images they've added to articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Endorse GraemeLeggett. Coldstreamer20 should not be unblocked. I do not wish to have to go chasing around again after Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11, whose number and lack of comprehension of mistakes, WP:IDHT is practically legendary, this time over images. Buckshot06(talk)10:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, a correction to my above post for the No. 1 Parachute Training School RAF updated version image. Coldstreamer20's initial upload to Wikipedia was a new image File:Royalcots Fusiliers Cap badge.png with a source of "Ministry of Defence Brand Portal" at 20:27, 10 January 2022. The uploaded new version of File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png was at 14:26, 11 January 2022 which I count (I may be wrong) was their 19th upload. Also, I thought I had changed the source of all of the uploads to "Defence Brand Portal https://www.defencebrandportal.mod.uk" together with adding "Ministry of Defence" as the author except File:Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png. I must have overlooked File:Royal_Scots_Fusiliers_Cap_badge.png. I gave Coldstreamer20 the user warning {{Uw-nonfree}} as there had been a pattern of uploading images to Wikipedia that had a source of Defence Brand Portal prior to the Badge_airborne_delivery_wing_1024x1024.png upload and subsequent to that upload. Apologies to Coldstreamer20 for the inaccuracy in my earlier post on the order of their uploads.--Melbguy05 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Jewish ghettos or Nazi ghettos?
Sammi Brie's addition at Białystok Ghetto of a much briefer short description than the previous default version from Wikidata was a helpful improvement. I then modified it from "Nazi ghetto in occupied Poland" to "Jewish ghetto in occupied Poland". But after looking at the WP:LEADSENTENCE of the article, which in fact defines it as a "Nazi ghetto", I self-reverted. But I have to admit to being more than a litle surprised at the term "Nazi ghetto", which I suppose means, "Nazi-constructed or -defined ghetto containing Jewish inhabitants", or to my mind, "Jewish ghetto".
Any other kind of encirclement or imprisonment of or enclave with some identifiable group that I'm aware of, names either the place (when talking about a specific one (e.g. "Lodz ghetto") or the group being victimized, encircled, or grouped together, e.g. "Black ghetto" (also: Aboriginal *, Armenian *, Christian *, Hindu *, Kurdish *, Muslim ghetto.
The lead of Ghetto says: "A ghetto, often the ghetto, is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, especially as a result of political, social, legal, environmental or economic pressure.[1]" The third paragraph says, "The term was originally used for the Venetian Ghetto in Venice, Italy, as early as 1516, to describe the part of the city where Jewish people were restricted to live and thus segregated from other people." But, two sentences later, it goes on: "During the Holocaust, more than 1,000 Nazi ghettos were established to hold Jewish populations, with the goal of exploiting and killing the Jews as part of the Final Solution." citing the US Holocaust Museum, and Yad Vashem, however neither source says "Nazi ghettos". Is this just poor sourcing, and the unsupported wording from Ghetto has gotten picked up and replicated?
I do see some usage of "Nazi ghettos" in books, and I haven't analyzed the frequency, but is it really used that much in reliable sources? The Ngrams link at the top would suggest not. It seems to me that using "Nazi ghettos" and "Jewish ghettos" to describe the same thing is at least problematic. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
"Jewish ghetto" is not a Nazi phenomenon—it includes pre-Nazi Jewish ghettos such as, you mention, the Venetian ghetto. Therefore, "Nazi ghetto" is more precise as it refers only to those ghettos set up by the Nazis. The term "Nazi ghetto" is definitely not a Wikipedia coinage as it is also used in reliable sources and exclusively refers to those ghettos set up by Nazis to confine Jews. I do not think that using different wordings for the same thing is an issue, as long as we're expressing a consistent concept. There are many Wikipedia articles where multiple names or terms are used to express the same underlying concept; it's not a concern which of the names for a thing are used in the reliable source so long as the meaning is accurately conveyed. (t · c) buidhe04:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Addenum: the term "Nazi ghetto" is likely preferred by some researchers as it clarifies that these ghettos are a Nazi rather than Jewish creation (and not, as Nazi propaganda and some negationist historians have portrayed them, some sort of Jewish self-governing settlement, or "Jewish settlement area") (t · c) buidhe04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I based the description on the lead sentence. "Nazi Jewish ghetto" could also be usable while remaining under the SD goal of 40 characters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be replaced - there was a time when it was accepted at FAC, but standards have risen since then. I can probably take care of it with Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War II (but it might take me a few days to get to). Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I recently ran across the article USS Kitty Hawk riot from a link elsewhere and noticed that there are a number of problems with it in terms of presentation and potential bias. The actual description of the event itself is well done, though could be better sectioned so it's not just walls of text, but it's the combination of detail and lack of detail in the Court martial and Aftermath sections that are concerning to me. Especially with ending the latter with the rather incredibly racist and ridiculous subcommittee quote. It's a good quote to include to show the problematic stance of the military and politics at the time, but just having that be the end of the article more or less is a poor construction.
I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been any form of scholarship at the time or in the 50 years since that have criticized and debunked the subcommittee's claims. But none of that is evident in the section in question right now. I see that the Gregory Freeman book is used as a reference, but only for information early in the article. Did that work not cover after events or impacts? Is there other scholarship on this event that would provide better context? Is anyone available to help in that regard? I'm not a military history person myself and I work through online available sources, whereas I know many of you are real history buffs that go for actual physical copies of the reference material. So you all would know best on what's available to improve this article. SilverserenC03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
WWII. Naval operations. Came across an article where the Med is comprehensively covered as sub heading of Atlantic theatre. Could it be an American definition of "Theater"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ta. If you were talking about the war from a general angle rather than specific USA though, one wouldn't class Med naval as sub-part of Atlantic ops though? (Leaving aside that convoys crossed the boundary) Different battles with different focus and all that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/New articles question
Not sure if I can ask about the WikiProject Military history/New articles, but I noted that the Special Security Response Team was added. I wrote the article and I just wanted to point out (somewhere) that it's basically a law enforcement unit under the Ministry of Justice's Correction Bureau. Ominae (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that list is automatically generated, and it was likely listed there as the article likely includes some key words. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The article lists that she was at Wilford from 2000 to 2001, then Air Force Medical Support Agency from 1996 to 2006 and National Institutes of Health from 2006 to present. The overlap between the first two that does not make sense to me, but I'll leave it to others to correct or clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I figured out how to embed the uniformed service infobox since the PHS service is not technically military. TJMSmith (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the article, her military career seems pretty standard. The inclusion of that "Research" section makes me think that whoever created it probably had WP:NACADEMIC in mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Moroccan Royal Forces on Armed Forces
Hello, I'd like to add the Moroccan Royal Armed forces on {{armed forces}}, but I'm not sure how to do that without screwing up something (I'm not really experienced with templates yet), if I could get guidance, that'd be great. MakhzenHuman (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Template:Navy
I gonna post at this place as well to get some more attention.
Can somebody change it back to Royal Navy ? I never heard of United Kingdom Navy in any books , websites and find it so disturbing when checking articles.-- Comrade John (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Besides the various "Royal" navies the names of most of the others are also rendered incorrectly. Most navies' proper titles, or at least the English versions thereof, use the adjective form of the country name - "Belgian Navy" not "Belgium Navy". In addition the flags are almost all wrong too, using national flags instead of naval ensigns. This template is basically unusable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered Shivangi (pilot), which needs a lot of help. I'm tempted to AFD it, or move it to draft space. Instead, I'm posting here in hopes that someone with a familiarity with Indian topics can salvage it. The article should probably be at Shivangi Singh, but I'm uncertain of that either. To further confuse matters, there are now claims of two pilots with the same name in the article. Help please! BilCat (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I was looking to fix the broken short citations to "Murray 2006" on Battle of Kasserine Pass. After some investigation, the references should actually be to Murphy, not Murray. Original edit: [2]. Archive of the original article: [3]. That's straightforward enough, but I think there are two other issues. First, I would have some concerns about the suitability of America in World War II as a source. Maybe this has been addressed somewhere already, but I can't see using it when Atkinson exists. It appears to be online-only, and I could find out very little about it. Second, while trying to establish what this source was I ran across [4], a new history of the 34th Infantry Division, that pretty clearly copied from our article without attribution, unless we're supposed to believe the author made the same mistake the IP did. Mackensen(talk)18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've started adding material from Claasen 2001 (Luftflotte 5) but his unit names seem a bit all over the place. Are there any aficionados who might have a look pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth II as war leader
"Can I have another medal, mummy?"
As an entirely random comment, one of my amusements is spotting and fixing infoboxes where Queen Elizabeth II is listed as the national commander. Here for example. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding at times of the role of constitutional monarchs in liberal democracies... Technically she's the commander in chief of the British military, but of course has never played any role at all in setting or executing government policies. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Some users like listing people based on official titles vs. actual roles. One idea to alleviate or reduce this stuff might be adding hidden notes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
"Constitutional monarch" is a terminological inexactitude; England had been a republic de facto since 1688; she is the most highly-paid caretaker in human history. Britain is not any sort of democracy. Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
George III seems to have had genuine influence over foreign policy and military strategies during periods where he wasn't totally mad, though the PMs and ministers had a lot more. Monarchs as late as Victoria could explicitly nudge things when they really wanted to. But since the 20th Century the British monarchs have had no real influence, aside from occasionally asking sharp questions or offering advice in private discussions with the PM (George VI had a positive influence on Churchill, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that Queen Elizabeth II would be a considerably better war leader than any of the collection of lawyers, journalists, economists, political activists and other assorted people with zero military knowledge who make up the government of the average country. In fact, giving them control of a department that requires any sort of specialist knowledge and then deferring to them as though they're some sort of expert is generally a terrible idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Use of "union" in American Civil War articles
In his book Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause, Ty Seidule has this to say:
In Northern Virginia in the early 1970s, we should have been focused on the civil rights movement. Yet I remember the echo of the Civil War centennial that ended in 1965. While the civil rights movement raged, the [American] Civil War centennial highlighted the of the martial valor of those in blue and gray. President John F. Kennedy refused to attend a ceremony celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation; it was too controversial for white southerners. Instead, everything I saw showed blue and gray as equal. North and South. Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. Union and Confederate. Both sides were equal, except everyone I knew saw the Confederates as more romantic, the underdogs, the heroes.
I grew up with language about the Civil War that mirrored that parity. The names we gave the war itself and those who fought it matter. Our shared understanding of the war comes from the language that we use. For decades as a child, as an Army officer, and as a historian, I called the side wearing the dark blue, almost blue-black uniform the Union army. I refuse to use that terminology any more. Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and more than two million soldiers didn't fight in the Union army as though they belonged to an organization that only fought one war. An army relegated to the dustbin of history as Karl Marx would say. No, the boys in blue fought in the U.S. Army for the United States of America. The names we use matter. By saying Union and Confederate, Blue and Gray, North and South, we lose the fundamental difference between the two sides. The United States fought against a rebel force that would not accept the results of a democratic election and chose armed rebellion. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and a dozen other U.S. Army posts, the successionists fired on U.S. property and seized it.
The southerners were not fighting some foreign or lost-to-history called the Union. The Confederacy fought the United States of Army, the country I spent a career defending. I will call those men who fought to save their country and, by 1863, end the scourge of race-based slavery by their proper name: U.S. Army soldiers.
In Wikipedia terms, the justification for the use of the term "Union" is that it is used in the sources, at least in those from the 1890-1970 period. However, per WP:Verifiable but not false, I don't think that is sufficient justification for us to repeat in Wikipedia what we know to be outdated and untrue. However, I am not an expert on the subject; my knowledge comes from a single unit of American history, covering the period from 1800 to 1865. I really wanted to take the one that covered the period from 1865 to 1930, but it wasn't available that year. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
While not an expert or active editor in the U.S. Civil War topic, at least in Spanish civil war topics (whether the Carlist Wars, the 20th century civil war, or other wars of similar nature) I have found strong support in neutral sources to support using term dichotomies like loyalist-insurrectionist, government-rebel, etc. through Spanish terms that indicate a similar perspective to the quote you've added above. U.S. coverage seems terribly complicated due to the centuries of historical revisionism (e.g. Lost Cause) and continued support (state flags), so I don't think I can contribute much here, but thought perhaps considering how other countries' civil wars use terms would be helpful here. As a final note, I strongly agree with doing all we can to prevent biased and whitewashed terminology from seeping into our encyclopaedia and therefore the public. Is "union" such a term? Maybe, but I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough in the topic to know. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The consensus of scholarly military sources is to use the term "Union". (AC Santacruz, "loyalist-insurrectionist" and "government-rebel". I've done a semi-random sampling of books in my personal library that are modern and not Confederate-focused (eg excluding Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Foote, and bios of Confederate officers). Kyle Sinisi's The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015); Harry W. Pfanz's Gettysburg: The First Day (UNC Press, 2001); Gordon C. Rhea's To the North Anna River (LSU Press, 2000); Russel H. Beatie's Army of the Potomac: McClellan's First Campaign (Savas Beatie 2007); Donald L. Miller's Vicksburg (Simon & Schuster 2020); Peter Cozzens's Shenandoah 1862 (UNC Press 2008); and John J. Hennessy's Return to Bull Run (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster 1993) all use Union, with some equivalencies thrown in for variety (Federals, Yankees, bluecoats, etc.; much like the Confederates are sometimes referred to as Rebels). Frances Kennedy (ed.) The Civil War Battlefield Guide (Houghton Mifflin 1998) includes pieces by multiple authors; different authors use Union or "US". Clarence R. Geier and Stephen R. Potter's Archaeological Perspectives on the American Civil War (University of Florida Press) consists of multiple essays by multiple authors; the various authors generally use either Union or Federals. Ed Bearss's Fields of Blood (National Geographic, 2006) uses Federals. While I concede that UNC and LSU are both in the South, they are among the top publishers of Civil War material in the US. I think there's a strong consensus for the use of Union - from what I've seen, the majority of modern works that avoid the term are either those written by ex-Lost Cause people who don't feel right using the term or revisionist/leftist works. Hog FarmTalk22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Myself a native-born North Carolinian, I fully sympathize with Seidule's points. The duality posed by the use of "Union" and "Confederacy" does, for political purposes, seem to lend a sort of balanced "legitimacy" to the Southern secession enacted to protect the right of rich idiots to not work and rape and abuse black people *ahem* "freedom" and is part of why you nowadays still have people paradoxically screaming their American patriotism while waving the Virginia battle flag. That said, I must agree with HogFarm that "Union" still has plenty of currency in modern scholarship (I'll also see "Federals" when there's discussion of troops). It is also worth noting that we have the article, Union (American Civil War), which describes Union as the appropriate label for the collective of states which did not reject the idea of the US, and indeed this was a bloc (though not as clear cut as things may seem on the surface; look at how many Kentuckians fought for the Confederacy and how many North Carolinians opposed the secession) that behaved differently than states that sided with the Confederacy. At a nominal level and in international affairs, the United States (with both the loyal and insurrectionary states) existed during the conflict as it had before and after the war. To say "the United States during the Civil War" would thus technically refer to all of the states, not just the loyal ones, because the Confederacy lost and was never formally recognized as a proper country. "Union" is thus convenient shorthand for the political bloc that was fundamentally opposed to the course the Confederates took. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Union (American Civil War) has this to say: In 2021, the Army University Press noted that it was replacing usages of the word "Union" with "Federal Government" or "U.S. Government". The Army University Press stated this was "more historically accurate" as "the term 'Union' always referred to all the states together. It is important that the Wikipedia reader understands that "Union" in this context refers to all the states, not just the non-succeeding ones; the Union was the United States, all of them, and Union troops were raised in all states, including the revolting ones. Hawkeye7(discuss)09:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
To reiterate: I am not an expert on the subject. My purpose in opening the issue was to ensure that the project has consensus on the mattar. I accept Hog Farms' contention that the literature uses the term. I find the characterisation of the U. S. Army as a leftist organisation a little odd, but the majority of soldiers did vote for Lincoln (and Biden). Hawkeye7(discuss)19:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It's worth considering the degree to which the Lost Cause mythology came to dominate the discussion on the Civil War for a significant period of time in the US. And in light of that, should we be propagating an ahistorical and tendentious framing simply because it has infiltrated the public discourse? Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think HF was classifying the US Army as a leftist organization. It's also worth noting that historical revisionism is a normal and not inherently good or bad thing. I agree with buidhe that it's definitely worth mentioning the critique of the use of Union at the relevant article (historian Michael Landis has also criticized the term). I think it's unfair, though, to universally see it's use as a negative thing. Steven E. Nash's 2016 Reconstruction's Ragged Edge: The Politics of Postwar Life in the Southern Mountains and Sam McGuire's journal articles from the early 2010s, which are both revisionist and more sympathetic in nature towards Republicans (and Southern Unionists) in Reconstruction still make hefty use of "Union" when relevant. The US President gives a State of the Union address annually. As for Parsecboy's point, older views of the Civil War (and Reconstruction) have remained pervasive for a long time; only in the past 20 or so years does the Lost Cause seem to have come called so utterly into question by the historical establishment (the earliest questions raised about the Lost Cause I've found come from the 60s/70s). That said, it's not our place to try and run out ahead of scholarship. Right now, use of "Union" seems somewhat mixed. I think it's perfectly valid to say "federal government" or "United States government" instead, but we shouldn't go about purging the term until a better consensus in historiography is reached. "North vs South" seems more anachronistic than "Union". -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree that we shouldn't be running ahead of scholarship here. I'm not as familiar with social-focused scholarship of the period, but military-focused scholarship of the last 20-25 years is still very much using Union, and there's no real consensus on what the best alternate term is ("Federals"? "United States"?) Until things change more, we shouldn't be discouraging use of Union. Hog FarmTalk23:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Hog Farm was definitely NOT classifying the US Army as leftist. Wow. This is like my daughter slapping me for using the word "oriental" (which happened). I'm glad we have actual subject matter experts to keep us posted of the latest revisionism. I am one of those who grew up as a military brat with my family all over southeast Asia during the Vietnam War (during which we never called a war, btw). Part of my connection to history is through the many books and games of American Heritage I read and played in childhood. Bruce Catton and T. Harry Williams are my heroes. Wow. This may take me a moment to wrap my head around. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
My interest in the conflict started with an old copy of Catton's American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War that my stepdad had ... Hog FarmTalk00:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
In a way that's the beauty of editing Wikipedia, isn't it? Learning so much and seeing how knowledge progresses as we contribute our grain of sand here and there until we realize the stuff we grew up learning maybe wasn't so accurate after all. And that feeling not being a bad one either, making you almost excited for the new knowledge that'll come up in the future :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!00:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I was definitely told things as a child about the Civil War that ranged from overly romantic to flat out wrong—I only learned in a college history course just how many people in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee were opposed to the war to begin with, on the grounds that it was a war for rich people in the flatlands to keep their slaves. Wikipedia has largely opened my eyes to things that were never spoken about in school or just never heard of, like the Kirk–Holden war, Wilmington insurrection of 1898, Third North Carolina Regiment (1898–1899), and East Hargett Street (Raleigh, North Carolina). Shame or guilt has no part in it for me, I'm just happy to learn. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, moment over. First, thank you Hawkeye7 for raising this unasked question. If US Army historians themselves are mostly moving away from such framings, we must pay attention and plan a route towards modernizing our usages as the broader academic community does so. I'll choose to move past the myths created in my youth towards what reliable sources will decide. This re-languaging itself may make an interesting article someday. FTR I went to my trusty, well-worn general index to the OR. This "newfangled" idea of not referring to Federal troops as "Union" starts in the OR (page 983 in my edition). When the entry "Union Troops" appears, a brief list of topics follows including, where such are "mentioned" a redirect to United States Marines, United States Regulars, United States Veteran Reserve Corps, United States Volunteers is given. It looks like I might be forced to take responsibility for helping to unmake the myths I cherished as a child. It's a lot to take in, is all I'm saying. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know if I am quite getting this. The proposition appears to be that we should not use "Union" to refer to the "North" (for want of a better term) but we should use some other term. If I have this right, we should use "US" or more fully, "United States" instead of "Union"? But isn't the "Union" synonymous with the "United States" which is a union of states? Doesn't Union (American Civil War)#Etymology pretty much say this? I'm not quite getting what the "real" distinction is? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Ty Seidule, the former head of the department of history, professor emeritus at USMA (America's professional army school), and perhaps America's most qualified military historian ever, says maybe we should be moving away from this usage in our contemporary MOSs. This page's first applied citation includes statements very similar. Hog Farm makes the reasonable argument Wikipedia always follows the sources and must repeat those usages so far as practical. Other editors make sage comments and generally seem to agree this is an issue worth (at the very least) awareness. Questions are raised that I was somewhat brainwashed by the literature produced after the re-reconstruction. I looked at the sky and got a bit dizzy. Somewhere or other a cat joke was made. Then you asked your reasonable question and now it's now. BusterD (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
To answer your question Cinderella, the historian Landis argues at length I suggest that we drop the word “Union” when describing the United States side of the conflagration, as in “Union troops” versus “Confederate troops.” Instead of “Union,” we should say “United States.” The employment of “Union” instead of “United States,” implicitly supports the Confederate view of secession wherein the nation of the United States collapsed, having been built on a “sandy foundation,” as Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, put it in his “Cornerstone Speech.” In reality, however, the United States never ceased to exist. The Constitution continued to operate normally; elections were held; Congress, the presidency, and the courts functioned; diplomacy was conducted; taxes were collected; crimes were punished. Yes, there was a massive, murderous rebellion in at least a dozen states, but that did not mean that the United States disappeared. The dichotomy of “Union v. Confederacy” lends credibility to the Confederate experiment and undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a political entity. One can argue this is historical revisionism for the sake of satisfying modern political trends, but the Lost Cause attitude on the Civil War which dominated historiography for a very long time was also for the sake of satisfying political trends (Jim Crow and Solid South, particularly). In the opinion of Landis and the Army University Press, to use "Union" makes an other out of the people who fought against the secession. This is because it's easier for a Confederate sympathizer in modern times to villainize "the Union", "the North", or "the Yanks" (I'll use the last one for funzies to mock the New Yorker transplants who have never eaten at the almighty Cook Out (restaurant)); it's much harder to complain about the "U.S. Army" or "America" as a modern day unreconstructed Southerner without looking like a traitor or a dick. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it is because I am an outsider, but I don't see a distinction between "the Union" and "the United States". The succession of states did not dissolve the Union (the United States) just as the admission of new states did not create a new country. So, from my perspective, it appears to be a matter of pedantic semantics. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Us Americans have our own relationship with historical sentimentality, particularly in the South. While "Union" refers to our country in a sort of anachronistic sense (and is mentioned in our constitution), to say a person "hated the Union" would come across very differently today than saying a person "hated the United States", even in the context of a discussion about the events of the 1860s. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, that makes some better sense. My comment would be that we tend to give greater weight to recent scholarship but it is still "weighed". Scholarship in the arts will inherently have some degree of POV, since it is generally about proposing and supporting a thesis. Reliable sources are not necessarily NPOV (and generally aren't). We would balance a POV against a "consensus" in sources and in this case, a consensus in recent academic sources. WP is not an agent for social change. It does not lead but follows at a discrete distance. Ty Seidule and the Army University Press are taking a social lead. We should certainly be reporting such opinion now in articles that deal with the historiography of the war, as opposed to the history - including Union (American Civil War). However, unless I missed something, we are not nearly at the point where this could be described as a consensus in the sources? Certainly, we should keep a close watch on where this heads and be prepared to act. We should even plan to act. Do we start by suggesting how new articles should be written? As I have said, personally the terms and the distinctions being made have little meaning to me. However, WP policy is fairly conservative when it comes to pushing wagons and righting great wrongs. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
But our policies don't follow the cutting edge, for the same reason we haven't moved our article on the nation of Turkey to the country's new preferred name yet. Seidule and AUP may be using one thing, but they are still decidedly a minority of sources - see for instance Donald L. Miller's work on Vicksburg from only a couple years ago. We just need to wait this out - if other sources begin to reject Union, then that'll be a stronger case to abandon usage of the term, but our naming policies don't follow the cutting edge for a reason. Hog FarmTalk14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the above discussion, perhaps an article along the lines of Naming of parties to the American Civil War (preferably something less stilted) could be created, assuming naturally that it's currently possible without straying to OR. As a non-English example of a similar thing, there's a not-insignificant fi.wp article on Names of the Finnish Civil War which discusses how the various names used emphasize different aspects and represent different views of the conflict. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Similarly, there is Names of the American Civil War. I heard "War Between the States" a fair bit growing up in rural southwest Missouri. Somewhat interestingly, with the table of battles, I would know 9 by the Union name (1st Bull Run, Wilson's Creek, Balls Bluff, Pea Ridge, Chantilly, South Mountain, Crampton's Gap, Antietam, and Stones River), I would know 9 by the Confederate name (Shiloh, Seven Pines, Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, 2nd Manassas, Perryville, Olustee, Mansfield, and Winchester), and I'd refer to Mill Springs/Logan's Cross Roads as "Fishing Creek". Full disclosure: I'm descended from a Confederate Lt. Col. executed as a bushwhacker. Hog FarmTalk15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I personally like the sentiment of the OP and prefer to think that way. But I think that it would be a bad idea to make the switch. A few reasons;
To make the distinction....for clarity / avoiding confusion. When talking about areas, the South is a part of the current US. So saying just the US when referring to only the North would be confusing.
The succession was not legally legitimate under US law, and so arguably the South was still a part of the US, making using the "US" to refer only to the north arguably technically wrong
It's overwhelmingly one of the two commonly used names, the other being "the North". IMHO it will almost certainly remain that way due to the above reasons.
But "United States government" and "federal government" to refer to Lincoln administration, which Seidule is proposing, are not ambiguous at all. (t · c) buidhe01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: You have it round the wrong way. The Union was not the non-succeeding states; it was always the whole country, including the South, which was part of the US then, as it is now. This is the very confusion that we want to avoid. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Yes, you are both logically correct and I also agree with you in spirit. Much of your post is in essence repeating what I said. But my point was that substituting "the US" for "Union" would cause lots of problems and make the wiki articles very confusing. So, IMO a bad idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Advice on unit naming re US Spanish–American War regiments
Anyone want to have an opinion on the recent move of Bofors 40 mm gun to a set index and renaming of the content that is about the WWII weapon used by Allies on land and sea?
I think this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and doing a disservice to our readers. I am sure that the L60 is the primary topic. Should be reverted. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this reorganisation is sensible 'Bofors gun' tends to be applied to any model of this long serving weapon, so it makes sense to present readers with a choice upfront. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
And the L70 article has exactly one incoming link, while the dab page now has thousands, almost all (I’d wager 99%) are intended for the L60. That’s a strong indicator that it’s the primary topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that while there will undoubtedly be many more links to the L/60 gun (partly as a result of the gun's use during WW2), there will still be a lot of links to the L/70 gun - which is a major post-war anti aircraft weapon, still being built and in large scale use - it still warrants a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the L/70 article - just that the L/60 article should be at the generic Bofors 40 mm gun page it had been at for years, and that the current dab page should be at Bofors 40 mm gun (disambiguation). In a nutshell, my argument is that if somebody says "Bofors gun", "Bofors 40 mm", etc., they're talking about the L/60. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
So you are saying that sources like Jane's Fighting Ships are deliberately lying when they refer to what are clearly L/70 guns (in mounts like the DARDO) as just Bofors 40 mm guns? That is rediculous and does not reflect sourcesNigel Ish (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added some brief descriptions to save clicking through the articles to find the right one. Feel free to edit if I've got it wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I have just noticed this thread, I agree the L/60 version is the primary topic whilst the later L/70 version was historically far less significant. Cavalryman (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
I stopped counting at over 4000 links to the dab page. So I'm being bold and have redirected Bofors 40 mm to the L/60 as primary topic as the closest to a return to the status quo. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion raises some other issues with the 120mm and 57mm gun families. An L designation represents the barrel length, while an M (or m) designation (as used by Bofors) represents a year/model. In the case of the 120mm guns, it appears that the L designations used in the titles might actually be M designations? The Bofors reference that would claim to source the L designation is not web available. The L/50 is clearly at least also an M/50. Whether this is an error or a coincidence should be resolved. The L/46 is actually an L/46 but whether this is either the official or common name is another issue. For the 57mm family, Bofors 57 mm gun lists Bofors 57 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/60 but this is a piped link to Bofors 57 mm m/54 anti-aircraft gun and that article doesn't actually make any reference at all to the L/60 designation. That is confusing. The article refers to it being based on the Bofors 57 mm m/50 naval artillery gun. This is a redirect to the Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60. The Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60 makes no reference to the m/50 designation in the lead but does in the body. I am starting two headings for each of these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems i totally missed my ping. As an avid Bofors fan and someone who regularly deals with the 40 mm L/60 and L/70 in conversation i can easily say that the L/70 is about as common if not more common than the L/60 depening on the subject, especially considering combat post the vietnam war. The point that "Bofors 40 mm gun" refers to the L/60 more often than the L/70 is from my point of view mainly a modern internet phenomenon, widely fueld by the previous Wikipedia article name and name usage. Historically however, both guns have been referred to generically as the 40 mm Bofors gun. This in turn has to some degree downplayed the usage of the 40/70 over the 40/60, as the 40/70 at times have been confused for the same weapon as the 40/60. To avoid this for future generations it is important in my opinion to indicate that "Bofors 40 mm gun" can refer to either the 40/60 or the 40/70.
Cinderella157 Bofors rarely uses model/year in their product names, and when they do it is represented by an X, followed by a space, followed by a double-digit number for the year (X 62), not to mention iv'e only seen it for abbreviation names in Swedish: here are two example snippets from the Swedish archive. The most common model/year names found across the internet are either Swedish military designations, or un-formal names. And no, the L numbers are not model/year numbers. Some just happens to coincidentally have the same barrel length caliber numbers as the Swedish military m/ designation. Here are some snippets of the classic Bofors namich scheme from some Bofors publications i have. The first one is a 1936 publication in German, the second one is a 1958 publication in English. When it comes to the Bofors 57 mm m/54 anti-aircraft gun article, i intend to rename it eventually once i have gone over more historical names for it. The current name is a weird english hodge-podge translation of the Swedish military designation '57 mm luftvärnsautomatkanon m/54' (57 mm anti-air autocannon m/54). The Bofors designation for it differs, especially since there is a naval version of that gun as well, but at its absolute core its name is simply Bofors 57 mm Automatic Gun L/60, while the Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60 is the Bofors 57 mm Automatic Twin Gun L/60. However the 57/60 single gun is historically more known as the 57 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/60, so thats the name i would propose for it. I'm against using the Swedish service name as that gun was initially requested and purchased by the Belgians, and potentially also exported to Spain.
All in all, tons of renovation is needed for current Bofors articles. I have most information at hand but not enough time to update the articles quickly.--Blockhaj (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that post WWII usage of the 40mm Bofors L/70 is relatively small compared to WWII use of the L/60; and hence the majority of warship and land warfare articles were pointing to the correct article and now aren't. Which is why I put the redirect onto the L/60 (now reverted by you) The existing article discussion was in favour of splitting but there was no consensus there on final article names or any thought in how it would affect primary topic. I think this is BRD territory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Its better if we go through and correct armament for each article linking to Bofors 40 mm gun instead. It will take some time but its better than picking favorites of which gun is more deserving of the super generic confusing and problematic name of 40 mm Bofors gun. Blockhaj (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not generally how Wikipedia operates, however. If one subject is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that should have the primary location. The point is to provide readers with the article they're looking for, not make them jump through hoops to find the correct one. In other words, if 95% of the people who type in "Bofors 40 mm gun" are looking for the L/60, we should deliver that up front, not make them click through a dab page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a sweeping assumption that 95% of users will be looking for the L/60 - according to Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 1992–93, 51 countries used the L/70 gun in army or navy configurations in 1988, and that doesn't count users like the British Army which has stopped using the L/70 Bofors.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
So? That doesn't mean we should deliberately point to the wrong article, which is what we are doing if we force all the links where the original editor didn't know what gun was meant, or just put an link to the only article available at the time to point to the L/60 gun. We should help readers not mislead them.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Those articles already were pointing to the L/60 article before Blockhaj moved it. In any event, your point is entirely irrelevant to whether there's a primary topic here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel Ish for the good point. We cannot assume that the L/60 is more common than the L/70 without data to back it up. Remember that the 40/70 is still actively being used and sold by lots of nations today. Finland recently bought 40/70 Mk4 naval systems for example. The 40/70 is also seing a bit of interest as an ifv gun, being fitted to the Indian Abhay IFV, Korean K21 IFV and ofc the Swedish Strf 9040. Poland among some others has also shown interest in using the 40/70 as an ifv gun. With that said, a lot of links i can find about the Adhay and K21 just says 40 mm Bofors or similar for their armament, showing that the 40/70 also commonly goes under the generic name Bofors 40 mm. Here is an exaple: https://tanknutdave.com/the-indian-abhay-infantry-fighting-vehicle/ In general i doubt most people can even tell the 40/60 and 40/70 apart from eachother.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Also note that there are cases when it may not be clear which is the correct gun - for example the Army of North Macedonia is listed as using an unspeficed version of the Bofors gun - which presumably are ex-Yugoslav, with the Yugoslavs using both the L/60 and L/70 guns.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Nearly every WWII RN, USN, RAN, RCN and RNZN warship article (both individual ship and class articles), a dozen WWII AFV articles, various WWII land unit articles and no doubt multiple biographies of Commonwealth and American WWII veterans would link to the L/60, whilst the L/70 saw relatively widespread service after the war it was not nearly as significant as the original. Cavalryman (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
There might be more articles referring to the L/60 on wikipedia, but that goes for anything WWII really. Historically however the L/70 has arguably been just as important for piece time as the L/60 has been for war time. The L/60 really faded away from stardom after the Korean War as the L/70 entered the market. It saw some resurgence during the Vietnam war but at that time it was more or less relegated to an anti-infantry role. The L/70 on the other hand was arguably the most common western intermediate anti-aircraft gun throughout the Cold War, especially for naval applications. The L/70 is also very notable in technology history, being the first 40 mm gun to fire proximity fuze ammunition, and probably the first 40 mm gun to fire programmable ammunition. There is tons of significance to the 40/70, its just coming from a different direction than the L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation issue with essentially two alternatives (noting that the L43 is a subsection of the L60). It is ultimately about how many hoops a reader needs to jump through to get where they want to be. With two targets we select one as the primary topic and use a hat direct to the other alternative. That is what we have done here in the past and what we should continue to do. The best indicator of primary topic is page views. I tried looking at that but the result seemed screwy, as both pages were only reporting hits for a small recent period. Has this moving stuffed up the data? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Pageviews won't be of much assistance because the L/70 article was recently split from the L/60 one. I agree, given there is only two articles there is no need for a DAB page and I remain convinced that the L/60 is the primary topic. Cavalryman (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC).
I dont see the problem of having a two article DAB. I see it as a problem of picking sides for the generic name "Bofors 40 mm gun" which commonly is used for both guns.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A potential solution to the issue is for Bofors 40 mm gun to be written so as to be a parent article for both the L/60 and L/70. It would also become the effective repository for the L/43. It is interesting that the article is silent on the L/56. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Cinderella157: The L/43 might be unique enough to get its own article in the end. While its basically just an L/60 with shorter barrels and less hot cartridges, it does have its own distinct history and performance. As for the L/56 i can explain, the L/60 is in fact an L/56 in terms of barrel lenght (L/56.25 to be specific). The reason its called an L/60 is because Bofors at the time (and at times today because logic) also counted the breach to the overall barrel length, making it an L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I am already sufficiently aware of these things. Wouldn't that be a solution though? Your explanation of the L/60 - L/56 designations is incorrect though. 3.75 x 40 = 150 mm The breech (or perhaps chamber), if defined by the length of the cartridge case would be 311 mm for the 40 x 311mmR cartridge. I think you will find that the difference is the unrifled section of the barrel which I understand forms part of the chamber. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
So i checked specifics in my archive. L/60 is the overall length from muzzle to the end of the weapon box according to the Swedish army (end plane to end plane). With the flash hider it is an L/62 according to the Swedish navy. However that document also states that the flash hider is 250 mm long. Anyway, it all comes down to weird measurement systems and not different barrel lenghts.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It is just a case of having used different reference points for taking the measurement. The usual measurement is the rifled section of the barrel which is L/56.25. It is fairly clear that the additional L/3.75 (150 mm) is the forward part of the chamber which has the same nominal diameter as the rifled section of the barrel. If one or more sources erroneously suggest (use a poor or ambiguous description) that the full length of the chamber is 150 mm, then at the very least we should be circumspect in how we explain the difference. I would note that the "weapon box" is not a standard term that would certainly need clarification. As for the flash hider, that is likely a similar issue. The simple (and accurate) explanation is that L/56.25 measures the rifled section of barrel (as usual) and that L/60 uses different points of reference for the measurement. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"Weapon box" is just me being lazy instead of being formal. The correct term would either be reciever, breech casing or mantle depending on which nomenclature u wanna use. Bofors said mantle. Accoridng to this film the US said breech casing. But to the point, its important for the future to properly explain the reason the gun is called L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Concrete? proposals
I feel it is time to see what the feeling is for specific actions.
I'm using current article names. I'm not convinced either meets Wikipedia naming policy but the issue so far has been around WP:Primary Topic and Disambiguation not article naming. The submarine gun variant is not even a paragraph at moment and definitely not a contender for Primary topic
I would like to see an overview type article as well, with the pages on the L/60 and L/70 going into more detail. They are different weapon systems, but there's enough in common to justify a common article covering them both more broadly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Im starting to like the idea of an overview type article as well. It could be a good way of explaining the Bofors action used in the majority of their automatic guns, which was invented and introduced with the 40/60. It consists of (in their own words) a QF-cannon and autoloader fitted into a common reciever. This action is commonly referred to as falling block but that name is already taken up and its neither a good name for the system overall.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes im aware that it uses a falling breech block but the system as a whole (autoloader and all) is commonly just called falling block in Sweden (fallande kil). This term is flawed and confusing if u are not aware of what its actually referring to as a whole. Here is an animation of the 40/60 action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnDwlqbAEmQ --Blockhaj (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You will note the differences in the lead. I have written the lead with the intent that Bofors 40 mm gun also become the primary target for the L/43. Material would then be stripped from the L/60 article. It is also the initial target for the L/56 (which is actually a US designation for the L/60). I would disagree with the expansion of the lead. I would also disagree with the description of the gun mechanism, particularly: The core system is simply just an ordinary quick-firing gun (QF-gun) employing a vertical sliding breechblock. [italics added] I think there is a misunderstanding of what a QF gun is - in that it is just a gun that fires a cartridge. QF guns can have a variety of breechblock configurations and not just a (vertical) sliding breechblock. QF guns do not intrinsically perform an unload function, though some may.
If we strip the L/60 article of the L/43, were should its history and data go? I have lots of Swedish manuals with data for it which would be nice to have on Wikipedia.--Blockhaj (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I also think that the full L/60 article should be the primary article for the L/56, as its just a different name for the same gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Since i wrote the QF-gun part i should explain my wording. In most sources describing the action it is described as a QF-gun. The oldschool European definition of a QF-gun differs from the modern article on the subject. A QF-gun is basically just a single shoot breech gun that automatically closes the breech upon loading and ejects the cartridge after firing. Some historical variants had a mode were the gun would fire the cartridge upon closing of the breech as well, meaning the fire rate could be increased at the cost of accuracy. If a magazine was added to the action, like the 1-inch Nordenfelt gun, the gun became a machine gun on most nomenclatures (French, Swedish, etc). This was prior to the Maxim gun, which was called an "automatic machine gun" initially.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that you will find the the "common usage" of QF and the QF designation is simply that a gun fires a cartridge rather than a separate projectile and propellant bags. Guns that automatically unload are more often referred to as "rapid firing". Regardless, QF does not have the meaning that you intend. That is my point.
Any data for the L/43 can be added to this article in the appropriate section. The infobox will work. The L/43 is not a varient of the L/60, it is the predecessor.
You misunderstand what I have said about the L/56? At present, there is no easy way to search for the L/56. Actually, there is no way. My intent is that this article becomes a redirect for L/56. It gives readers some initial detail to inform them that it is just an American L/60. They can then go to the L/60 article. The L/60 article doesn't even mention the L/56. Bofors 40 mm therefore becomes the "initial" target. If you want to fix the L/60 article, then go ahead but in the interim, this isn't a bad fix (IMO). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this useful? The subcategories seem to be a whole hodge-podge of various connections, and I suspect that this is WP:NOTDEFINING anyway. For instance, looking through Category:United States Navy Missouri-related ships, we've got ships named after Missouri, ships named after places in Missouri, and ships named after people from Missouri. I really don't think that this would be defining at all for say USS Meyerkord, and I doubt that these are helpful or defining categories at all. I'm considering a bulk CFD, but thought I'd post here for thoughts beforehand. Hog FarmTalk05:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Might be barking up the wrong wiki project. It's possible WP:SHIPS has had something significant to say about categorization to date. Don't get me started on Category:Ships of the US Navy (which clearly ought to be containerized and might better be moved to Vessels and craft of...). A cursory look, some ships so classified might be sorted subjectively or counted more than once: ex: does the USS Lincoln fall under KY, IN, IL, or DC cat? Why is USS Frank E. Evans listed as an Hawaii-related ship? Why is USS Glacier Alaska-related? To my eyes the parent category ("Ships of the United States Navy by namesake", which I think inevitable from ship-related perspective) ought to have a sub-category People/Person-related ships. It is possible this entire category tree needs some pruning and training. But SHIPS would want some say in any such discussion. Am I going to have to hand-move large quantities of units again? BusterD (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
No takers there yet. So I did the obvious read of category creators and it turns out we can attribute this particular branch of the category tree to a User:71Demon who created and worked with many of these cats back in 2006 and 2007. I see there was CfD in November 2011 to rename some of this. It appears this is not a particularly well-attended issue. Almost everyone who participated in the CfD is still around, btw (several admins and a steward!). At least one admin in that discussion has largely the same response as Hog Farm. Let's gather some consensus and more this forward, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to do a mass-CFD after I get off of work. I suspect that may be the best way to get a final decision on these things - part of the concerns in the CFD seem to be that the container categories were nominated, rather than the categorization scheme itself. And from my (minimal) experience with CFD over the last year or two, WP:NOTDEFINING seems to be more strictly enforced than it was in the past. Hog FarmTalk17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a feeling there's some version of this categorization that makes sense, but the current system is confusing and unclear. For instance, we could have a cat for "ships named after U.S. States" and another for "ships named after U.S. cities". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping SHIPS was interested but it turns out not so much. IMHO, this is non-standard branch of the cat tree, proposed and supported by a single editor 15 years ago. The previous CfD clearly was unprepared to deal with the consequences of removing the container cats. This process should propose to completely resolve this confusion. Good eyes, Hog Farm. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The only mention in English sources I can find is in this 1935 book which places him as a liaison officer with the French forces on the Macedonian front. If you search his name in Russian there are more results, such as this one which appears to be from a Moscow museum, that appear to confirm his notability as a Russian WWI general and after the war as a leading White émigré figure in France. Could use a Russian speaker to look at the Russian Google results and advise if any are RS - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right in having him as a divisional commander. I got an electronic copy of the book I linked and it makes it clear - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've expanded the draft with info from this source and the museum site, which looks to be reliable. Would welcome a check by a Russian speaker that Google Translate hasn't made some errors, though - Dumelow (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
An English-language source which might possibly mention him, or at least the actions of his regiment/division (don't have access to it, so can't confirm) would be the British OH of the Macedonian front (Military operations: Macedonia (Volume I: From the Outbreak of War to the Spring of 1917), Cyril Falls, 1933). I've scrolled rapidly through the Austro-Hungarian OH but see no mention of the Russians on the Macedonian front. Otherwise Russian sources would seem to be the go-to. Kersnovsky's multi-volume История русской армии (The History of the Russian Army) [cited, for ex., on Aleksei Brusilov.] seems (from a quick search) like a decent guess for where one could find this kind of information. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Thriley: I've just got the British volume via inter-library loan, I'll take a look at it later today when I have more time and I'll see if there's any mention of Taranvskiy or his troops (unlikely, but it's the best I can find unless there's someone here who speaks Russian) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Thriley: No luck. Cpt. Falls and Maj. Becke (for the meager sum of 12 shillings 6 pence - alas, the book's long out of print so I'm afraid the reprints are nowadays a bit more expensive if it's not available from your library, darned inflation) give some cursory detail about the two Russian brigades in operation on the front, but the most detail they give is that of the brigade commander's names (Dietrichs commanding the first, Leontiev the second [p. 343]); and a summary order of battle, identifying the brigades as the 2nd and the 4th, "each of 6 battalions, but without artillery" [Appendix I, p. 364]. Russian Expeditionary Force in France doesn't give more detail nor sources. I'll look up the French OH (available online), but don't expect a miracle there either (although the French are for more wordy and one would expect complete in their volumes, so there is some faint hope I'll be able to find something). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Annexe no. 2392, "Dissolution de la division russe de l'A[rméé] [d']O[rient]" [Dissolution of the Russian division of the A.O.] mentions 'général Tarnowski'. I have also a quite complete OOB for the Russian division, pieced from that particular document and some others:
Russian division (at dissolution, January 1918)
2nd I.B.
3rd I.R. (3 bns)
4th I.R. (3 bns)
4th Infantry Brigade
7th I.R. (3 bns)
8th I.R. (3 bns)
Divisional artillery (3 btys) and related support troops
Engineer bn
2nd march bn
4th march bn
Training bn
@Thriley: However, that's about the only mention of Taranovsky/Tarnowski I've found, no significant action done by him or the like (although there is quite a detailed account of all the preparations taken to prevent the Russians "fraternising with the Bulgarians" [by shooting artillery at the Bulgarians], and to prepare and effect their relief from the front - something which, due to necessity of maintaining some semblance of order, and then triaging the Russians according to their willingness to take part in further actions, apparently stretched the meager reserves of the French in the sector). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion here about this page has not had any effect. Attempts to get the attention of the two major (and ongoing) contributors to the page, by pinging them on the article's Talk page, have also failed. Some active help is needed please, don't just comment here and do nothing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings I don't think the problem is the existence of the page, it's just the pair of currently very active contributors that are repeatedly adding the cruft that should not be there - such as government agencies and others that are not actually companies. Also the refusal/failure of the editors concerned to engage with others about the issues. I simply cannot go on constantly fixing their mess - a few more page watchers who would help out is what's needed at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Wesley Clark 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) 16:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that User:The ed17 made a suggestion to add Jane's to The Wikipedia Library. There is a poll here if you would like to upvote ed17's comment, or maybe suggest your own proposed additions to the library.
That's an excellent suggestion. I'd also recommend signing up to Taylor and Francis via the Wikipedia Library: this gives you access to The Military Balance and a large selection of journals which cover military history. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Additional citations not none. But it does need work. If you tried to fit the description of the Big Wing and the back-and-forth between the commanders and the post war analysis of it in the BoB article you'd then find you'd need to split it out again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
of the year 2021
