Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 177

@Buckshot06

• 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), 1st (UK) Division, History of the British 1st Division during the world wars, List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division, List of commanders of the British 1st Division

I no longer have the time to engage in my little hobby. The above pages were pretty much the final ones that I was really working on. As I am sure anyone can find, looking through my contributions, there has been extensive back and forth discussion about these pages. I happened to log-in today and saw that Buckshot basically waited me out before editing them again (they had previously adhered to a 'gentlemen's agreement' to leave them alone). Throughout the prior discussions, Buckshot admitted that they have no sources to support their opinion (that some sort of new division was formed in the 1970s or whatever). The same argument was made about the 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) and 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) several years prior, during their reviews, and that position was shot down by other editors. Looking at their edits, it looks like no new sources have been brought to light. I'm not interested in rehashing the same discussion, or asking in vain for Buckshot to cough up a source (or their inevitable counterargument about how they disagree with every source on the subject and their goalpost shifting - I believe the last one was that every published source should be ignored and we should email the army for them to chime in; quick edit to note that the the army's website is still claiming that the 1st UK Div was formed in 1809 and fought in the Gulf War etc., which specifically goes counter to Buckshot's claim), so could either the pages be protected or someone engage and resolve this once and for all. It should also be noted that their edits extend to a bunch of other articles, such British Army of the Rhine redirecting users to the wrong articles etc. Thank you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protection is not a good tool for dispute resolution. What we need here is editors familiar with UK unit lineage, rather than page protection. Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Buckshot06, EnigmaMcmxc, and Hog Farm: Although Hog Farm is correct, for other information on dispute resolution see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Note in conclusion, as shown on that page, arbitration is the last resort for serious cases in which a resolution cannot be reached by other methods. It is used mostly in cases involving uncivil user conduct such as harassment and personal attacks, generally also in a range of articles. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc it's good that you've returned, though it's unfortunate that you do not appear to have seen the file I have linked here next to this text, which I inserted in List of commanders of the British 1st Division, which you reverted from that article, seemingly without noticing it:

File:List of commanders of the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), 1939-44 and 1978-92.jpgList of commanders of the 1st Armoured Division from Page 64 of Wilson, Peter Liddell (1993). The First Division 1809-1993: A Short Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Herford, Germany: 1st Division. OCLC 29635235.

This is the divisional history that neither of us were able to find when we were acrimoniously debating the issue several years ago. The way the successive authors have treated the subject, updating every so often the same text, the book would be better titled "The First Divisions." I found it in the Staff College Library, and it's pretty unequivocal: there are separate sections for "1st Division" and "1st Armoured Division" in a number of places from 1945. The cincher is this divisional commanders list, which clearly separates the two divisions. I had no idea that you were ever going to come back, and I was sorry, because I wanted to make you aware of this, now discovered, most reliable source. I think the most reliable source that you put forward was Lord & Watson, the Sigs history, which was not focused on the Division, and this source, from the Division itself, is clearly more reliable that Lord and Watson.

I will thank you to stop reverting when you have not reviewed newly available information.

Should you wish to see the whole Wilson First Division 1809-1993 book, I found that in addition, it's in the British Library in London (legal deposit requirements) and if you wish to come to the Staff College to see it there, I can link you up to the librarians, probably escort you onsite. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

This will probably be my final edit, so sorry its a little long. Yes, I nipped back to hope there had been additional information. Look, I am really glad that that source has finally been accessed. I try to edit in good faith, and yes I missed that particular citation in the midst of the various edits that looked like a resumption of the prior dispute. As such, I have renamed this section. I would also note for the community, that I pushed back the current version of the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article to what was the prior stable version, so that everyone can easily see the prior status quo to the recently proposed version that has been disputed.

That one page (the screenshot linked above) raises additional questions that I would hope that the rest of the work would answer. But, it also brings us to the position that as a community, 'we' need to come up with a plan on how to best display that information in conjunction with the totality of other sources, that presents a clear picture of the formations history for readers without fragmenting them if inappropriate (which, in my opinion, your edits do). As the sources already in use show, as well as the screenshot, there is a more complicated situation than the recent edits suggested. As noted above, the British Army website (even the title chosen by the division for their own book, which the screenshot comes from) states the 1st Division was formed in 1809, still exists, and that formation fought in the First World War and the Gulf War for some examples. Presumably the prior page shows a list of Second World War 1st Division (aka 1st Infantry Division) GCOs, which would overlap with the list displayed for the 1st Armoured Division (as both formations were active at the same time)? How does the book reconcile that? Without having had the opportunity to read that book but based on the totality of other sources, I would speculate that the 1st Division - in the late 1970s but at the very latest by 1983 - adopted/assumed/incorporated the history of the Second World War-era 1st Armoured Division into their own (you seem to agree on that point). It would certainly explain the 1983 insignia update, which merged the existing division's insignia with that of the Second World War-era armoured divisions one. If that is the case, that does seem a much more interesting and complicated thing that needs to be explained than is currently being attempted (old version of the articles, or the recently reverted versions). Hence the need for community input to ensure accuracy towards the totality of sources.

My personal opinion, as noted above I will not be editing again so take it for what is worth, the totality of sources show this: the 1st Division, the UK's oldest and still active division, has gone through numerous name changes without changing identity (i.e. no need for the edits that you are suggesting, even in light of the screenshot splitting the GOC list by formation title). All of the sources indicate that this division went from an infantry formation, to an armoured one, and more recently to a light infantry force. Throughout its entire existence, the British Army has not moved from the position that they are one and the same formation with a linked history (a lot of sources in the 1st (UK) Division article and the current (and prior versions) of the British Army website highlight this. There was also a separate formation, which became known as the 1st Armoured Division that was active at the same time as the 1st Division during the 1930s and 1940s. Once the 1st Division was renamed as the 1st Armoured Division in the 1970s (all sources still seem to suggest they are one and the same), it eventually absorbed the lineage/identity/heritage of the Second World War formation of the same name. The easiest way to reconcile all the sources and to clearly explain this to the reader would be to: explain all this on the 1st (UK) Division page, which should cover the entire history (1809 to present). This basically boils down to an argument for the status quo, but with additional information to highlight what the divisional history explains about a relation with the 1st Armoured Division of the Second World War; a detailed paragraph entered into an appropriate section of the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) to explain how, why and when their identity become merged/entangled with that of the modern 1st Division (as the screenshot seems to indicate) or if it now is considered to be one and the same as the 1st Division (almost like a fractured personality).

Furthermore, both the List of commanders of the British 1st Division and the List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division would need some detailed explanation added about all this. I can see the temptation to remove 1970s-1990s GOCs from the former to the latter, it would clearly align with the screenshot. But, it would also be going against all the other sources that indicate that these men were the GOC of the 1st Division - a formation dating back to 1809 and not one dating back to 1938 (without having had the opportunity to read the book and can only see the screenshot, I can only presume, but it does not seem that is what is being claimed despite them splitting the list of GOCs. It is entitled The First Division 1809-1993 after all.). Presumably the page prior to the one in the screenshot shows Harold Alexander as the 1st Division GOC during 1939, while the page in the screenshot shows that Roger Evans was GOC of the 1st Armoured Division in 1939. We need to be able to explain to the reader, in a clear and concise manner, what exactly the sources are saying. Are they both active GOCs of what is now considered the same formation? Again, I feel the simple solution is almost an argument for the status quo, but with some additional information entered such as 'the List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division are now (based on the screenshot) also considered to have been GOCs of the List of commanders of the British 1st Division' etc.

At any rate, I look forward to stumbling upon whatever community decision has been reached, at some point in the future.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The book writes about two separate divisions after the creation of the 1st Armoured Division alongside the 1st Infantry Division (and, also, a third "1st," the 1st Cavalry Division).

It show the commanders of the "1st Division" up until 1977, and, in a separate section, the commanders of the 1st Armoured Division during the Second World War and from 1977. You can see in the photograph the list of commanders of the 1st Division up until 1977 immediately above the list of 1AD commanders. As a book published by the British Army and the 1st (Armoured at the time of writing, 1993) Division itself, it is clearly the most reliable source. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

To see this source, and see for yourself that it separates an infantry and an armoured division after the late 1930s, you can go to the British Library, or come here to the Staff College. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor reported a new source at The Teahouse, which I have noted here: Talk:Charles Macpherson Dobell#Medal auction and biography, should anyone wish to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Since when is u-boat.net considered user generated? I know that there have been discussions about its reliability before, but I've never seen it concluded that it is user generated.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

See the about page where they are advertising for contributors. They list some of the contributors here. I see no indication that the contributors are recognized as established experts, and no mention of editorial control of contributions. It sure looks like a user-generated site to me, just as Wikipedia is a user-generated site. Donald Albury 22:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look any of that is actually done yet. It's taken major steps forward in referencing sources for warship movements, etc. in the last few years. It got a very favorable mention as a exemplary website in the Northern Mariner a couple of years ago. So I believe it to be RS; this new content that they're soliciting contributors for will have to be evaluated on its own merits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

U-boat.net is very extensively cited in professionally published works, including some by very well regarded historians, so is a reliable source. The snippets in Google books include some high praise from various historians - Robin Prior, for instance, states that "this invaluable resource has technical details of the different kinds of U-boat models built, the career of every U-boat, sinkings, U-boats lost and much more." Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There are still significant errors on the site, such as here, so double check the information against more reliable sources. Llammakey (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I wrote an article on that website using RS citing, before I joined Wikipedia. I have not been back on that site for years. The best advice is to double check RS cites given and against other RS sources on a subject matter. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an article about a three star general of the Indian Army, Pushpendra Pal Singh (general). The person has attended various institutions for higher education, and those institutions have an existing article. I've tried adding those under Alma mater in the infobox, but an user (@HunterdeltaX15) keeps removing them.
Having respect to WP:OWN, I'd like opinions of fellow wikipedians on it. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The field probably should be completely removed - editors should not try to cram the entire article into the infobox - the man is notable for his military career, not where he was educated. The article also needs serious attention with regard to non-encyclopedic, non-neutral language - it shouldn't contain wording like "distinguished career" or "vivid terrians" (whatever the latter actually means).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree to your first point, about removing the alma mater section. A person might be in the military, but at the same time he attained several institutions for higher education.. It should be added as it marks his excellence. At least in terms of countries like India/Bangladesh/Pakistan, it is necessary to add. The section is filled is most of the military biography articles of military personnel of these three countries, whether it be Asim Munir, Shafiuddin Ahmed or Om Prakash Malhotra. There are hundreds of other example about it.
Again, infobox is the short description of the person, so adding the alma mater wont hurt much, as a non-wikipedian person who doesn't know much can easily learn about him. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr, Nigel Ish, and HunterdeltaX15: I agree with Nigel Ish that more often than not an alma mater is not used in the infobox for a military person. Education can be covered in the text of the article. In fact, since inclusion of alma mater has a limited scope, many of the courses and institutions that you wish to include do not qualify for inclusion.

Precisely stated, the current guideline is that an alma mater section is permissible, though optional, in the infobox of a military person. However, if used, the use is limited to institutions from which the person received degrees. So HunterdeltaX15 is correct that "Staff Course and higher Command course aren't some degree like PhD, Undergraduate courses" and should not be added to infobox. Importantly, see Template:Infobox military person where the following is found: "alma_mater – optional – educational institutions the subject graduated from and degree received, in parentheses". This is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes where this is written "The |alma mater= parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) the |education= parameter, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates" (it mentions an exception was made for Bill Gates for some reason but that is unusual).

HunterdeltaX15 and Nigel Ish are correct that the article has serious problems with not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Keep in mind that Indian military history, as part of South Asia military history generally, is a contentious topic, about which you have in fact received previous notice: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia. It has been the subject of a very recent arbitration decision. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history. There are some pending requests for clarification of certain specifics of the final decision. It is a topic for which neutral wording must be maintained. Violations and disputes (especially if uncivil) can lead to sanctions.

If there is still disagreement after my comments, you can pursue further discussion at an option at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or see also Wikipedia:Noticeboards (if a topic could be taken to several noticeboards, it can only be taken to one noticeboard at one time). It appears to me that this matter should not be one that should need to be taken up by an administrator or brought to an administrator noticeboard. I think my comments should provide enough guidance. Administrator involvement should be a last resort but an administrator will certainly look at the infobox rules in providing an answer and decision. An administrator might need to get involved if NPOV is not maintained, however. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"Marking his excellence" is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of infoboxes, which are to summarize only the most important facts of an article. Nigel Ish is correct in suggesting it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr, Nigel Ish, HunterdeltaX15, and Swatjester: Thanks to Swatjester for adding another supporting comment from an experienced user. I also should have added that the fact that there are other articles (other stuff exists) that also do not follow the guidelines and policies is not a good argument for keeping yet another one, or part of one, that does not. They too should be corrected. See the essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. The nutshell caption "Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." This is one that is violation of them. Donner60 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish, @Donner60, @Swatjester: Thanks to all three of you for valuable inputs HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The only source is AOL. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I suspect a copy of Vajda, Ferenc A.; Dancey, Peter (1998). German Aircraft Industry and Production, 1933-1945. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-85310-864-8. might be useful, the Google Books preview is limited to the pre-war years - Dumelow (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've looked at a copy since it came out, but I was a bit disappointed, IIRC. I think that there's something more recently published, although the title escapes right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, Battlefield commanderBattlefield commander now redirects to Battle command, an article describing a discipline. This does not seem to be a proper destination for the redirect. Not every leader on the battlefield is trained in the discipline; especially before the disciple was established, or from irregular forces. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. A discussion, and input from anyone more familiar with the specific point than I am now, appears to be appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed portal bars being added to several articles. I had thought they were a thing of the past. And that they shouldn't be added to an article without consensus. Or did I imagine that? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything about prohibiting their addition without an affirmative consensus, but in my view portals rarely fulfill the relevance criteria at MOS:SEEALSO. E.g. the now-deleted Portal:Battleships never added any useful content for readers in Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That sounds familiar but I can't place where, and it might have been more limited than what I'm remembering (or Mandela effecting, if so). It does look like there are still 500+ portals in action right now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, The ed17, and Swatjester: There was a much debated Rfc and proposal in 2018 to delete portals. The consensus was not to delete after hundreds of comments both for and against. (It is a waste of the time to read all of this, even in passing, since the gist and outcome is soon obvious.} The result was no consensus to delete them all and a consensus to establish Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, which exists and appears to have the most current information. Wikiproject:War and Wikproject:Tanks have been deleted. Military history in general appears to be part of the history portal Portal:History. Debate can still be found on a few talk pages about the usefulness and maintenance of portals and about "stealth deletion of portals". Swatjester is correct about the number of active portals, as shown on the wikiproject portals page exceeds 500. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, a brand new user has started making bold edits and arbitrarily rewriting the outcome of the battle. They are engaging in an edit war and denying the Soviet participation in the battle. He admitted his personal nationalist motivation, that "the battle is heroic Romanian achievement" that is why he want ignore the Soviet participation. Detailed modern academic military history sources was provided in the talk, despite the brand new user denies the Soviet participation. Talk:Battle of Păuliș What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that User:Welcometothejungle007 has brought a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User conduct concern: OrionNimrod (Battle of Păuliș/Romania article and talk pages). You may have logged off before seeing the notice on your talk page. You need to respond to that complaint promptly. Also, an administrator might be willing to resolve the content conflict and edit warring charges there as well. In most cases, one or more of the procedures shown at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard should be used to resolve disputes over content before bringing it to an administrator. In this case, you need to deal with the complaint, set out your position there and see if the administrator will resolve the issue or refer you to the dispute resolution procedure and even possibly to the edit war noticeboard. There is a separate administrator noticeboard for edit warring. I suspect administrators would prefer, or require, that this only be used if the conclusion on the incidents noticeboard does not settle that matter or advise that it should go to dispute resolution.

I have not looked into this in detail but if your citations show that reliable, verifiable sources include Soviet participation, even it it is modest by comparison to other participation, it should be included, and given due weight, with an overall neutral point of view. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Donner60, yes I see he made ANI report only after 40! edit count, two of my "sins" in the report that I used this talk for ask opinion from military task force users, and that I quoted a reliable modern academic military historian source regarding the battle in the talk WP:ATT and asked him don't make WP:NOR (he claim my sources are "off topic wall of text" and I "lost" the debate...) I suppose he is an old sockpuppet and I provided evidences in the ANI report. Regarding the battle, a very detailed RS modern military historian source clearly say: "The main reason for this was that Romanian defenses were already being reinforced in some areas by arriving Soviet units." + "Soviet assault infantry, arriving on tanks, climbed the heights of Ópálos, while the armored units, bypassing Arad, continued their advance northwest." + "Around 5 p.m., the Germans reported 40 Soviet tanks" OrionNimrod (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you have responded. I also see you have asked for an SPI. After a quick glance, that appears to me to be justified. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm considering to make Singapore in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and would like input on whether it's notable enough to warrant its own article. I'm aware that the Konfrontasi wasn't that big in Singapore compared to Malaysia but based on this, this, and this, there are some sources that specifically discuss the Konfrontasi in Singapore. Icepinner 07:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would be notable. There's an official memorial to this conflict in central Singapore, near Dhoby Ghaut station. There's some material on this topic in the official history of the Royal Australian Navy in the Southeast Asian conflicts of this period as well. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks Nick-D, appreciate it! Icepinner 09:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Some photos of the memorial are available on Commons here. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the photos. Icepinner 07:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new article, I'd suggest expanding the article on MacDonald House bombing, as it is the most significant Konfrontasi-related event in Singapore and already has historical context that could be expanded to cover related incidents and the overall impact of the confrontation in Singapore. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm already expanding MacDonald House bombing. To be honest, you may be right. The Konfrontasi in Singapore just consisted of minor bombings, with the most significant being the one on MacDonald House. Best not to create it. Icepinner 08:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all!

I started editing the Border reivers article about nine months because it was poor (that's being kind). Since then I have expanded massively and added countless trusted sources - yet it is still rated as 'B' Class. It's been giving an A by general Wiki editors and I am hoping to get it GA rating soon.

Can someone kindly take a review it? And, if it's good enough, upgrade the B class giving to it - or else suggest improvements.

All the best, Lategreatanddead (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You have done great work on improving the work and making it more comprehensive. I have changed the b2 assessment to yes and the project assessment to C. The article still does not satisfy the b1 criteria for this project. Every paragraph, even those of one sentence, must end in a citation for a military history project rating of B class. This holds true for any sort of list, which must have a citation in the caption for the whole list or end in a citation. When those are added, the article should meet B class criteria.

Requests for assessment by this project up to B class should be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Coordinators and experienced assessors are more likely to respond promptly to requests made on that page. (A bot also rates military history articles daily and uses the same criteria; coordinators see this list on the coordinator talk page at the end every month and occasionally change the ratings. The bot is very good, but judgment calls are sometimes required, especially as to whether an article is actually within the scope of the project.) General information about assessments is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class.

You have asked for peer review, which is the proper place to ask for a review of articles that have reached B class. I add that peer review requests are sometimes made and acted upon even before they reach B class. It seems to me that this is much less frequently done for articles that have not reached B class, but are not improper. In fact, since your article is well developed, it does not seem to me to be premature. A reviewer might ask that citations be provided as part of a review. Depending on the reviewer, they may give other comments or wait until the citations are provided.

I can add citation needed tags at the places where citations are needed in the article if that would be helpful. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Donner60Thanks so much for your kind words!

I will pursue those references. I hope one day to get it to the front page of Wikipedia!

All the best, Lategreatanddead (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, There are a number of edits being performed on battle articles, which pertain to the War of 1812. The editor is breaking down the high numbers into more granular subtotals. Furthermore, these subtotals are not sourced, either.

My take on numbers is that they should be high level. There is scope to go into further detail within the article as an OOB subsection, or even a separate TO&E article. (I'm thinking of Gallipoli & Walker's Field that have these.)

I am seeking guidance here, as I think the content should be high level. If the editor has a POV, which is shared by RS, then they can add to the article, but what I am seeing is apologistic nationalism for battles where the result was not a victory for their country, which is the rationale behind bloating the infoboxes.

Surely, the goal is to summarize, and the bloat is counterproductive.

Template:Infobox_national_military

Thanks for reading. Keith H99 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This level of specificity is ok for an infobox for an article covering an entire war and even a big battle - if it is reliably sourced in the infobox itself or in the text. See Template:Infobox military conflict. A battle is the example given with the template but click over to the Thirty Years' War, of which the example battle was a part, to see the infobox for a war.

In line with your other point about NPOV, the talk page of War of 1812 shows that it has been the subject of considerable contentious discussion and includes "Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims. Per the principle of neutral point of view and due and undue weight, the article can only claim a side's victory if there is a verifiable general agreement." Although I have not looked into it further, considering the article history, it is entirely possible that the editor who has apparently been trying to push a POV has not complied with these principles and warnings. I hope someone else here, with a little more time, can look into this and comment about it and what should be done about it, whether or not they have specific comments. Perhaps a previous involved administrator might be interested as well.

I should have noted earlier at Talk:Vicente Sebastián Pintado that you and User:Carlstak discovered how an unqualified user can throw up hundreds of articles that are poor in several respects and probably not just improperly sourced but with questionable sources - and stay beneath the radar, especially if they stay civil. Every one of the articles by this user was below B class - except the one that you fixed and almost all of them are below C class. Without another problem, such as uncivil behavior, these may not come to the attention of administrators who can look into the problem or coordinators who can look into the assessments and maybe report the user for further action if someone else does not bring it to the attention of an administrator. (Unless requests are made or problems pointed out, coordinators only see B class articles that are put up for assessment or are assessed by the bot, not lower level assessments absent requests or notice.) The user may be in good faith and not intending to put up bad articles, but that does not mean that user should be authoring or editing such articles. As Carlstak noted, it would be an enormous task to try to fix all of these articles - and they almost certainly need to be fixed or deleted. I may get around to reporting the user, probably by bringing it to the attention of one of the administrators I have dealt with rather than the usual noticeboard posting. Feel free to do that if you think it important to get that under way and I let it slide.

Thanks for your diligence with respect to the War of 1812 article and with respect to the problematic user. Donner60 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately some editors will treat the infobox as if it is exempt from verification (usually from the body of the article) or edit the infobox without editing the article such that the infobox is not a summary of the article (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). As a maxim, the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. So in general, your views are consistent with the guidance. Unfortunately, we have too many examples of bloated infoboxes which new editors in particular see as being the accepted expectation to emulate. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for being a sounding board. I have posted on the talk page of the new user, to ask that they familiarize themselves with the principles around wikipedia. One of their first edits was to change the result on a GA-rated article, and that flag-waving amendment has not been challenged as of yet. Their edits appear to be solely changes to infoboxes on battles of the War of 1812, and a pseudo-battle, which I have nominated for deletion.Keith H99 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If the user still persists, like they were 12 hours ago, I will report them for being disruptive. I can understand good faith edits being done, but to pay no heed to the principles and to continue with an agenda is not on.Keith H99 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Something different: User:Mr.Nostalgic does a lot of uploads from archives in the Netherlands to Commons, including recently the drawings for HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën (1909) (a.o.). Could Commons:Category:De Zeven Provinciën (later Soerabaia) 1910-1942 be linked more noticeable in the article than the standard commons-link? Are there any examples how to handle such material on Wikipedia? Alexpl (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just spotted HMS Phoebe (43) which has been revised to be primarily based on ADM files (i.e. Admiralty; Board of Admiralty (1799–2008). "Admiralty, and Ministry of Defence, Navy Department: Ships' Logs" (Document). Kew, London: British National Archives. ADM 53. and Admiralty; Board of Admiralty (1922–1968). "Admiralty: War History Cases and Papers, Second World War" (Document). Kew, London: British National Archives. ADM 199.) Are these sources appropriate to use as references? Should we be basing so much of an article on primary sources (and primary sources which are very difficult to verify - verification may need someone going physically to the National archives at Kew)? Nigel Ish (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it, apart from sparing use if there are no secondary sources and only for a small part of an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I also wonder how listing a file with a 200+ year date range and over 100,000 pages as a reference is helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is that the primary source has to be "reputedly published", so that rules out anything from The National Archives. The editor has bastardised the catalogue records by putting them in the sfn template, so, for example, "ADM 53, p. 116455" should be rendered as "ADM 53/116455". —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the right interpretation there. Reputably published in that context would be The National Archives verifying that the ship logs are authentic. Still, this is a pretty patently obvious misuse of primary sources. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've read a couple of dozen ship's logs that were digitized as a part of the Old Weather project like this one: . They're pretty bare bones and generally concern factual data only like location, speeds, etc., i.e. stuff that's not even able to be biased, which is the main concern of WP:PRIMARY. Now I don't know what's exactly in the files being (in)completely and badly cited on uboat.net, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that it's not uboat.net that is the problem (if uboat.net were using the ADm files as a source, then uboat.net would be our reliable? secondary source, just as it would be if a book was citing the files)- its that an editor is citing the ADM files (badly and in a difficult to verify way). With unverifiable (unlike the logs on uboat.net) primary sources, there is always the risk of another OberRanks (not that I am accusing the particular editor in question of that degree of problematical editing}.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor seems to be interpreting the ADM files quite badly, quite apart from poorly referencing them. Take this quote, which accounts for most of the primary sources in the article: "After temporary repairs, on 2 December 1942, Phoebe made for New York for complete repairs, sailing 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km) with a hole (60 by 30 feet (18.3 m × 9.1 m)) in her hull.[30][31] On 12 January 1943, Phoebe arrived at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for repairs,[32] which were not completed until 16 June 1943.[33]" According to the war diary on naval-history.net the Phoebe actually sailed from Pointe Noire on 1 December. If she sailed for New York for "complete repairs", did she ever go there or sail directly to Boston instead? Is the size of the hole and the distance sailed recorded in the war diary entry (no dates given) in note 31? At least with the log entries you can guess what day they're referring to. —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I am very wary of using the WW2 info on naval-history.net for anything as I've found multiple errors there and cannot regard it as trustworthy. I will usually replace any cites to it in an article that I'm working on with cites from more credible sources or just delete the info if I cannot find such sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, I'm looking into this for a different reason, prompted by their hundreds of unexplained edits at German designations of foreign firearms in World War II--but it makes me question whether that article has encyclopedic value in the first place: it's basically a catalog lacking any secondary sources that can attest to this as a notable topic. This is Wikia material. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that there is a place for a more general article about Nazi German use of captured weapons - Germany did seem to make and the Kennblätter Fremdengerät that listed foreign equipment and assigned the designation (whether the equipment was captured by/in use by the Germans or not), but I'm less convinced there is benefit in these list articles - if German use is significant, the Fremdengerät number can go in the article for the equipment (assuming it can be reliably sourced).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we'd need a secondary source (ideally more) that holistically covers Germany's use of enemy equipment. There's plenty of isolated info out there on individual pieces—I learned just the other day that the Germans were at one point planning to deploy captured Soviet heavy tanks in amphibious landings on Malta(!)—but without a wider perspective on the topic I'm not so sure we'd satisfy SIGCOV. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've always added Fremdgerät numbers when working on weapon articles, but I see no need for this article as currently constructed; specifically the part listing each weapon, with caliber, etc. should be deleted as unencyclopedic with excessive detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the editor in question continues to make mass edits to articles, with no edit summaries and often questionable sourcing - for example see Finnish Maxim machine guns - I struggle to see that any of the references there are reliable. They have also been warned about copyvio additions on Maxim gun ( and MG 08 (, while continuing to edit on these articles without any response or explanation of how they are going to avoid copyvio in the future.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have a book that claims a Henry Harrison Mitchell (half great uncle of Joan Mitchell) was the first U.S. casualty of the Civil War. Is this a valid claim.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The Google books copy of Joan Mitchell: Lady Painter which I assume is the source you're looking at says he was his county's first Civil War casualty. Which is a much less extraordinary claim. Hog Farm _Talk 15:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A county as in List of counties in Missouri or whatever state Mitchell was from. See County (United States). A government subdivision lower than that of a state; there are over 100 counties in my state alone, each of which would have had its own first Civil War casualty. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I missed the r. count(r)y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

{{sclass2|British T|submarine}} Does anyone know how to blank the British bit? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

{{sclass2}} uses the content of the first positional parameter, British T, to construct a wikilink to the article British T-class submarine. There is no provision in the template to use some other text in the rendered link. If you must have the wikilink display different text, you must do it manually: [[British T-class submarine|T-class]] [[submarine]].

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's a pity, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have sources for the diversionary convoy Operation ES (other than Woodman and OH RN II)? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on an expanded table version of the List of US WW2 Aircraft, but it's taking a pretty significant time to do alone. How can I advertise projects such as this within this WP to get other editors involved?
I completed the USMC section of the list, but work on the Navy section slowed when I hit senior year of high school and now I'm in college so.. Anyways, the sandbox is here if anyone wants to take a look. Tylermack999 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've had a sneaky-beaky and think you've done well to get as far as you have. If you're a student now, shouldn't you be drunk in a ditch? ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Keith-264, Tylermack999, Lineagegeek, L293D, and ZLEA: This is the right place to start with the invitation. I will add this to the top of the page for more exposure. It probably could be simply moved there but this seems to be in an in-between category (which I just made up). If there were a way to directly notify the large number of members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force, that might help. I should know if there is a way to do that, but I don't. Some may not be very active or may even be retired. Some might not be interested in this area. I have added to this post the names of a few regular editors who are in that group and might be interested in looking at this. Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A reason to keep this in both places is that the requests above are rather routine and under usual circumstances are archived after only seven days. Keeping this here as well is likely to give the request a little longer exposure. Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated Donner, I'm glad to see this potentially completed instead of a mothballed sandbox for months on end. Tylermack999 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I was prompted by the following comment

you and User:Carlstak discovered how an unqualified user can throw up hundreds of articles that are poor in several respects and probably not just improperly sourced but with questionable sources - and stay beneath the radar, especially if they stay civil. Every one of the articles by this user was below B class - except the one that you fixed and almost all of them are below C class. Without another problem, such as uncivil behavior, these may not come to the attention of administrators who can look into the problem or coordinators who can look into the assessments and maybe report the user for further action if someone else does not bring it to the attention of an administrator.

This was how I felt about the bogus attributions

To be facetious, what I have seen is akin to the fact that Abraham Lincoln was not only a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but one of the first men to walk on the moon, too. The first reaction is to scoff. The second is to see that an inline citation is in place, and to wonder why the author wrote this. I then check out "Betty Crocker's Picture Cook Book" and discover that this was never stated in the book.

I just wanted to follow up on an experience from four years ago.

There was a user who was banned on April 18, 2014. For some of the articles he started, he would plagiarize websites, and earlier this month, I encountered an article that was pure plagiarization, and had sat undetected as such for fourteen years. I have rewritten USS Louisiana so this has been remedied, albeit somewhat late in the day.

He did not undertake copyright theft in the situations where he made up stories and posted them on wikipedia. The outcome of the Battle of Lake Borgne was an insult to his nationalism, so he created a version of the battle where the US Navy triumphed the day before. It sat there for ten years. Neither the supposed engagement, nor the identity of the sailor with superhuman hearing who won the battle, are documented anywhere else.

His activities get a mention here

User_talk:Keith_H99#The_Borge_belt_-_Az81964444_is_$1LENCE_D00600D

I have nominated two of his falsehoods for deletion this month. One has become a redirection. The other article is about a formation that never existed, else it would have been widely documented in the way that genuine naval formations are.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Orleans_Squadron

On the positive side, it did prompt me to bolster one or two articles on genuine ships, which were notable, and to add extra sources, so it did result in a revamp to some existing articles.Keith H99 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. There is likely more cleanup needed than even those (relatively few, I think) good and steady contributors who are familiar with problem knew. Also, those familiar with the problems and willing to work on fixing problems right now may have difficulty or not enough time to fix everything. Consider the large number of stub, start and possibly higher assessed articles on minor events that few look at or even know exist. From what I have seen lately, they can fly beneath the radar for a long time. Certainly uncovering the bad ones, and the users who often put up many numbers of such articles each, is a good first step. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

In his New York Times obit, George Lincoln is said to be known as "the man who drew the 38th parallel." According to a 2017 article by lt gen Edward Rowny (who was born in 1917): , Lincoln favored the 38th because of the work of Nicholas Spykman who “had written a book stating that 90% of the world’s best literature and inventions were created and most of the world’s great leaders were born north of the 38th Parallel.” This is not stated in the article for the Division of Korea, which currently makes not one mention of Lincoln's role. It sounds quite preposterous to me. Thriley (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from How 2 Colonels and a National Geographic Map Divided Korea by Sebastien Roblin in The National Interest March 3, 2018. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-2-colonels-national-geographic-map-divided-korea-24734

"On the evening of August 10, 1945 two colonels convened in an office in the Pentagon to consider an extraordinary assignment. Imperial Japan was then only days away from surrender, and the fate of its subjugated Korean colony was in question. If the State Department did not clarify who would administrate which parts of Korea, then the entire peninsula would fall under the control of advancing Soviet troops.

"But where should the dividing line be drawn?

"Chris “Tick” Bonesteel and Dean Rusk were not lightweights by any means. Both were Rhodes Scholars, and Rusk would later serve as Secretary of State under presidents Kennedy and Johnson. But neither knew much about Korea.

"In his biography As I Saw It, Rusk recalled:

“Bonesteel and I retired to an adjacent room late at night and studied intently a map of the Korean peninsula. Working in haste and under great pressure, we had a formidable task: to pick a zone for the American occupation. Neither Tic nor I was a Korea expert, but it seemed to us that Seoul, the capital, should be in the American sector.”

"Using a National Geographic map of “Asia and Adjacent Areas” that lacked provincial borders, the two mid-ranking officers struggled to find a “convenient” boundary—so they settled upon a line at the thirty-eighth parallel north latitude. Rusk conceded that it “made no sense economically or geographically,” but the line fell thirty miles north of the Korean capital of Seoul. Though some officers argued that they should move the line further north to the thirty-ninth parallel, the two officers thought they’d be lucky if the Soviets agreed to the thirty-eighth."

This attribution of the line to then Colonels Rusk and Bonesteel is given in other sources as well. So Rusk said he and Bonesteel picked the 38th parallel even though some officers wanted the line to be the 39th parallel. This is contrary to Rowny's statement that Rusk wanted to pick the 39th parallel as the dividing line. So did Lincoln, Marshall's deputy as planner and Rusk and Bonesteel's superior officer, actually overrule the two colonels for a most absurd sounding reason and despite the fact that Rusk claimed he and Bonesteel settled on the 38th parallel as the best they were likely to get?

Rowny also seems to confuse or merge the two lines by linking the occupation line at the 38th parallel as the DMZ line, supposedly chosen by Lincoln at the end of the Korean War, as I read what he wrote. But the DMZ line was the cease fire line at the end of the war. It is near the 38th parallel, but crosses it and is both south and north of it (east to west). Did Lincoln have any role in establishing the DMZ? If he did, did he have any choice but to agree to the line being where the armies were located when the fighting stopped, coincidentally near the 38th parallel?

Whether some of the confusion is due to Rowny's memory, or his writing style, 64 years after the event, is hard for us to say, I suppose. Further research (which I don't have time to do right now) might shed further light on whether Lincoln had a role in either line and what it was.

As it is, I have doubts about the accuracy of Rowny's statement and the bizarre basis upon which he says Lincoln made the decision. Maybe someone else can look into whether there is a more clear, definitive story. In the meantime, I would favor putting some reference in the Lincoln article about there being differing accounts; in a text footnote with at least one source if nothing else. I let this trigger my interest but I have probably spent more time than I should have on it just now. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please add reliable sources to this stub? I'm not familiar enough with the term to do it justice. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I know there once was a List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest but it got taken down for reasons i don't understand.... but there's a second category of British quasi-military ships in the region, namely those being used by the Hudson's Bay Company, e.g. the Beaver. But I'm wondering about the Dryad, whose seizure by Russian ships Orel (Oryol?) and Chichagof in 1833 led to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1839. For details see "Simpson's voyage to Sitka" and related articles at , a very deep and interesting blog written by the great-grand-daughter of explorer Alexander Caulfield Anderson using the various journals of the Columbia Department's many fur forts. - AOC 2604:3D08:5776:7900:0:0:0:689F (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

There is an edit war going on on this article. Battle of Yultong. If some knowledgeable editors could review the infobox information, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

When I have time, I may have or can find sources that can straighten this out. On the Philippine Army site, I see mention of other Allied units in the area. This could be a situation where the Chinese forces attacked Allied forces that included the Filipinos, but not only them at first. The total Allied force might have been outnumbered and in a perilous situation. So the various other national forces may have pulled back, leaving the Philippine forces to face the entire Chinese force until they could also pull back. That might mean that initially, the Philippine force faced a large number of attackers, but more like the lower figures given. Then, before they withdrew, they might have been confronted and in danger of being surrounded by the whole Chinese force - at least briefly. This is just a suggestion based on the little information that I have already seen about the battle, mainly from the Philippine Army site. It will take some more research to try to verify exactly what happened. Maybe someone knowledge about this or who can investigate in sooner will come forward. @Brigade Piron: Is this something you may be interested in and can help research? Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a battle in the Korean War in which the US (at a minimum) was not involved in some capacity. I do not have any special expertise in this area but an obvious source is The History of the United Nations Forces in the Korean War (vol 6) which may be available online. Also tagging @Jim101: in case any interest.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, a FAC of mine (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser/archive1) will likely be archived if there aren't more reviews in the next few days, so if you have a minute, I'd appreciate it if you could swing by and review the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Are a certain number of reviewers required? I'll certainly help out, although I don't have experience with the FAC process yet. GGOTCC 21:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but the article only had two reviews posted in about a month and a half, which is not enough (hence the notice from one of the FAC coordinators there). If you're interested in reviewing the article, there's the FA criteria, which gives a high level idea of what to look for. In my experience, looking at other reviews to see what people look for was helpful for me. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I have an article at FAC too - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NASA Astronaut Group 3/archive1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright! I'll review both as I procrastinate study tomorrow. GGOTCC 00:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of slow edit war on the List of aces of aces page about entries associated with the Russia-Ukraine war, with tempers fraying in edit summaries [. It needs more attention from independent eyes (and perhaps some admin attention).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making this talk. Page should be protected so random IPs can't vandalize it. Too many try to use wiki as a propaganda page. Also balloons and 30 cms self destructing drones shouldn't be counted as "kills". TransilvanPolyglot (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Protecting the page temporarily, blocking the repeated violators of WP:GSRUSUKR. We can all move on with our lives. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the current state of this article: 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident? Note the last comment on the talk page from SIX years ago by S.Rich. I think this article may need a FAR done on it. Thanks. MisawaSakura (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

currently at DYK we have Aerial combat of 5 October 1914, where the proposed hook would be "... that the first "dogfight" of World War I took place on 5 October 1914 in France?" does anyone know of a WWI dogfight prior to this? thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of a dogfight. Serb Miodrag Tomić and an Austro-Hungarian aviator were shooting at each other with pistols earlier in the war on 15 August, according to this Forces News article, but looks like both survived. As far as I can tell Russian pilot Pyotr Nesterov has the first aerial "kill" of the war; he took out an Austrian aircraft (and his own) by ramming on 8 September, but that doesn't involve firearms. In my view Tomić and his opponent have a good claim to "first dogfight" and perhaps the 5 October as the first "dogfight ending in a kill" - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that our List of firsts in aviation#Practical flight 1914–1938 article has the Nesterov action of 8 Sep as First aircraft intentionally downed by another aircraft and the Frantz/Quénault action of 5 Oct as First aircraft to shoot down another aircraft. This seems sensible, given the somewhat nebulous definition of "dogfight". Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I created the article Feeding Britain in World War II. Editor DuncanHill has insisted that the article be titled "Feeding Britain in the Second World War" and has reverted my original title.

This seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the primary name of the war that needs resolution by the military project. I have no objection to the term "Second World War" as an alternate name for World War II -- but in cases of dispute, the primary name of the event is World War II. I note that the umbrella Wiki article is titled World War II, not "the Second World War." World War II is the more common name for the event and that title is more concise and precise than "the Second World War."

I don't believe that arguing with User:DuncanHill will result in a resolution of this issue, so I seek additional opinions. Please join the discussion at Talk:Feeding Britain in World War II. Smallchief (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if you were more open about the actual history. The article was moved to Feeding Britain in the Second World War by @S Marshall: on 4 October 2024, with the edit summary "per talk" - in response to your comment "Anybody who wishes may change my American English into British English. You have my concurrence." It stayed there until you moved it on the 25th August this year. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

As something of a tangential comment, the "AmEng uses WWII, BrEng uses SWW" orthodoxy is a wee bit overboard. Both terms are used in both varieties of English, and while one is somewhat more common than the other, using the less common one isn't going to surprise anybody. And yet we treat it as "American topics must use WWII and only WWII", and the reverse for BrEng. It's nonsensical. Surely we have better things to do with our time than argue over stuff like this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"Second World War"" is the official name in the UK; "World War II" is official in the US. Originally, the First World War was called the "Great War" in the UK right from when it started. The Germans called it the "World War", and the US adopted the German name. The British adopted the name "Second World War" during that conflict, at Winston Churchill's suggestion, and the Great War then became the First World War retrospectively. Thus, the naming is indeed orthodoxy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#ENGVAR and gaol / jail ? seems to indicate that some people have do not' have better things to do with their time Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I have always tried to use FWW/SWW for British subjects and WWI/WWII for American but generally am more ambivalent on the latter. On Google Ngrams you can see that FWW is 2.5 more prevalent that WWI in British English in sources published in 2022 and this has always been the case; the situation is almost exactly reversed in American English sources. The split on SWW/WWII is a little less distinct (British & American) but SWW has always been the slight favourite in British English sources (2022=1.2x) and WWII the clear preference in American ones (2022=4.7x)- Dumelow (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the SWW/WWII aspect is "feeding Britain" the right title? "Feeding" comes across as a bit informal. I note we have Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany and Food in the Occupation of Japan as comparable article titles - Dumelow (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's about the food supply to the British Isles (the archipelago), which then (as now) had a population of nearly double what its farmland could feed, and consequently relied heavily on imports, enabling the Axis to try to starve Britain by attacking the import ships with u-boats. Neutral Ireland was also affected although not quite in the same way. We need a form of words that succinctly captures the military, economic and political aspects of this.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

"Food and agriculture in Britain during the Second World War". The topic is quite substantial, and I could imagine separate subarticles on Food and Agriculture. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

For all my years and large library on this subject, I never realized there was a controversy as to the formal, official name of the event in question. So, I changed the title of the article to that "official" name -- and learned that Brits prefer another name for said event. So be it. Two countries divided by a common language. The suggestions for a name change to "Food and agriculture" rather than "Feeding" is perhaps a good one -- although "Feeding" is more evocative. Smallchief (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Second World War it is then. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm more focused on "Feeding Britain" than on the various names of the war. Feeding is more than agriculture -- "feeding" in its natural meaning would include the Battle of the Atlantic and rationing, whereas "agriculture" would exclude them. "Britain" is probably meant as shorthand for the British Isles although the article doesn't cover Ireland. Personally I'm blessed if I can think of a better way of phrasing it than "Feeding Britain" -- the drier, more precise article titles that Wikipedia generally prefers would get very long in this instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Persuasive. "Feeding", it is then (in my humble opinion). Smallchief (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If Ireland isn't involved then presumably it should be United Kingdom and not Britain? It's not Rationing in Britain after all. —Simon Harley (Talk). 11:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The difficulty is that at the time, "the United Kingdom" held dominions, crown colonies, and protectorates including for example India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa that aren't within the logical scope of this article. I think the article should be about a certain archipelago in the North Sea that our Irish friends wish we didn't call the British Isles, but I suspect that Smallchief's sources might not give much attention to Ireland.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Unlike some other countries (eg France), the United Kingdom has never included its Dominions and crown colonies as an integral part of its polity. Even the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point.

I wonder if it's better to call it "Feeding the UK in the Second World War" or whether it's better to expand this article to include Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II and make it about the British Isles.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate input on a point of prose style. My practice is to avoid repeatedly using formulaic expressions such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" when narrating military engagements in prolonged conflicts, such as wars or the crusades. I find the surrounding text makes it clear to readers whether an event was a battle or a siege. For example, I would write: "the crusaders and their Byzantine allies compelled Nicaea’s garrison to surrender to Alexios in June 1097", rather than: "The crusaders and their Byzantine allies defeated the Seljuks at the Siege of Nicaea, surrendering to Alexios in June 1097". Dr. Grampinator has expressed the opposite view, suggesting in an edit summary that my approach "is not consistent with an encyclopedia article" and that "it is weird not to show the names of important battles" (). I fully agree that battles and sieges should be linked in the text, but I believe it is preferable to avoid overusing terms that add little to comprehension and risk making the prose cumbersome. I welcome further thoughts on which approach best serves clarity and readability. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The rewrite that you did does not explicitly reference (i.e., by formal name as represented in seperate Wikipedia articles) any battles or sieges of the First Crusade. Readers trying to learn of the Crusades would not find it cumberson to learn that there was a Siege of Jerusalem or a Battle of Ascalon. I totally disagree that it adds little to comprehension and makes the prose cumbersome. It is just the opposite. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that military engagements should never be referred to by their formal names—a formal mention can certainly enrich the text in places. My concern is that the constant repetition of 'battle' and 'siege' is counterproductive from a stylistic perspective. Academic works also tend to use such formal titles rarely, most often confining them to the index. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing that "it is weird not to show the names of important battles". And the MoS would suggest that a link is not an adequate replacement for including all of the information in line - MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." Gog the Mild (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced that MOS:NOFORCELINK applies here: a sentence describing a battle is clear enough without a link to the article on that event. For example, if we read "King X was routed by Sultan Y at A", it is immediately understood that this was a battle between X and Y at A—the Battle of A. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not wish to get into a to and fro, nor be gratuitously awkward, but while these things may be clear to you, "King X was routed by Sultan Y at A" does not convey to me that there was a battle. And your attempt to defend not telling the reader that there was has me scratching my head. And in the example you initially gave it was similarly not clear to me - who I would have thought more alert to this sort of nuance than the average reader - that you were talking about a siege, until you used the word "siege". Gog the Mild (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Roma locuta, causa finita. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me to be unnecessarily vague to avoid an 'official' title. Why not start with it and then use a few synonyms ('the battle', 'the siege', 'the campaign') and put the official name in again every now and then? I don't like the idea of allowing editors to use their imaginations for obvious reasons. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Grampinator, Gog the Mild and Keith-264. My view is that Wikipedia is written for the average or casual reader looking for basic information, not just for sophisticated PhDs. The mentioned commenters seem to have that reader in mind with their comments. Donner60 (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, as long as the title is 'battle' or 'siege' or some such, we do not have to labour the point. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As long as the proper name is in the lead and the body of the article inside links and gets a mention in the analysis, synonyms will do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Structure of the British Army was moved to its current title on 26 April 2021. Was there a previous, old, article with that title? If so, could users with the appropriate permissions find the previous article? Many thanks and kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a single deleted edit from the 2021 pagemove, which indicates the original page at that title was moved to Units of the British Army in August 2019. That was redirected back to Structure in October 2021 - looking at the history I think there must have been a (partial?) merge, but it's not explicitly labelled as such. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear all, as a result of certain events beginning after January this year, it appears our articles on some Antarctic military activities may need revision. See and several similar pieces of evidence. Possibly significant Cold-weather warfare forces. @Nick-D, you wrote half the original article, might you be interested in taking a look? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It fair sends a chill through your heart doesn't it? Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. Bringing another AfC draft for your consideration. Draft:Louis Aubert du Petit Thouars. Doesn't meet notability in my opinion. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

i'm planning on rewriting the article for the US Battle Dress Uniform, which is currently in disrepair with unsourced material, original research, and general disorganization. if anyone wants to help work on the article with me, it would be a massive help. i'm relatively new to MILHIST, so if anyone could give me pointers for uniform articles that would also be vital. Waning Star (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• This 1979 journal has some details about the initial proposal for the BDU.
• 1979 article
• This 1981 House committee report describes early problems with shrinkage.
• Digital Human Modeling discusses men's amd women's sizing for the BDU.
• This newsletter briefly discusses the introduction of BDU into the USAF.
• an award for the guy who designed the cammo pattern
• Time magazine article 1984 criticism of BDU.
• US Navy Uniform Regulations 1981 may be of use.

That's all I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much for these sources! Waning Star (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You might want to try coordinating with SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk · contribs) who has done a ton of work on US uniform and camo patterns and individual equipment. They're probably one of the most familiar editors I'm ware of on the topic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

good to know. i'll drop by their talk page and let them know. Waning Star (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi South of the Tongass,

The BDU article definitely needs a rework. I’m happy to help improve it, at least as much as is possible. (The article's content may be limited in scope and detail, mainly by the amount of sources that are available.)

To initiate efforts, I'm breaking out the article – in a Google doc – as current issues and how they can be fixed. (I will share this doc on the BDU talk page when it's ready.) Poorly worded passages will be reworded, found sources will be compiled, and etc.

I'm using a Google doc for this since it autosaves, unlike Wikipedia. Autosaving allows for more relaxed editing and more frequent editing, which invites more thinking and analysis, resulting in a (hopefully) better article. Any new edits made in the Wikipedia BDU article will be reflected in the Google doc, as well.

I appreciate your effort, since military equipment and uniforms are harder to learn about than they ought to be. SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thread: Talk:Operation Sonnenblume#Recent edits. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

As some may have been following, Military.com recently went bankrupt and is under new ownership. According to the Military.com News Guild, which is the website's union/collective bargaining unit, the new ownership are "moving away from hard news", and "has begun to publish articles by freelancers who have little-to-no journalism experience". A quick and dirty search shows at least 1700 article-space references, so this is not a source that gets insignificant usage. Just putting it out there that we should be actively monitoring the quality and reliability of the Military.com network's content and consider whether an RFC about a change to the general reliability for content from around July 2025 onwards, may be warranted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, that statement alone from the news guild seems to me to be enough to go start an RfC on WP:RSN to set a "No longer reliable after said date" note onto the perennial sources list. Silverseren^C 04:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start one, thanks. actually, going to hold off for a moment given that this may be worth a broader discussion of all Valnet sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It's probably worth waiting until the effects of the ownership change are seen in journalism before we change the status of the source- after all the Union/collective bargaining unit are not really an independent source, and may not be neutral in the matter. It is worth watching them closely to see if standards do change.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Would we be able to tell that all their articles are from non-journalist freelancers? Especially if they end up not including a byline? Silverseren^C 19:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even put two and two together before that the new owners are Valnet. Given the number of other unreliable-by-consensus Valnet sources [(examples)], I doubt the union is incorrect here. There's already one other Valnet publication up for an RFC right now (Simple Flying). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly feels like we just need to have a generalized RfC about Valnet itself at this point to have all of their own properties be considered unreliable for the point after their purchase. Silverseren^C 20:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It probably goes without saying that it would not be the first source that is or group of sources that are categorized as unreliable after a certain date. Donner60 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

What a shame... But yes, we are probably going to have to put a date on reliability at some point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

We have 17(!) current nominations for A-Class status open, which is great news. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2025/Op-ed and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2025/Op-ed for some recent thoughts on the state of ACR, which had been faltering in the last couple of years. But what we also need is reviewers, particularly reviewers with a range of topic specialties. We've got a conflict from the 1st century AD, Age of Sail warships, a feudal Japanese emperor, WWII logistics, a Bosnian War aircraft shootdown, German armored cruisers, a Central American coup, an American Civil War cavalry action, and several other topics. I think it's safe to say that no single editor is going to be knowledgeable about all of these topics, and it's hard to do a source review or a very in-depth review on a topic that you don't know well. So if you see a topic show up there that's something you're familiar with or think is interesting, don't be afraid to leave a review. This is a process that works better the wider range of reviewers we have. Hog Farm _Talk 23:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks HF. I'm back reviewing now after an extended hiatus, just looked at Tailhook and now working through Op Matterhorn. Will work my way through from oldest to youngest over the next little bit. Hopefully that will help move things along. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2025. Five candidates are standing this year. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at the Fortifications of Alderney and other articles, and realized that there’s quite a lot missing about the actual forts of the Atlantic Wall. I mean, look at Category:Atlantic Wall. 42 pages. Only. There were more than 42 forts. Anyone seeking to help, please join Wikipedia:ATWA. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 22:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If anyone comfortable with ship-naming conventions and page moves has a free moment, can someone complete the move from SS Ultonia to RMS Ultonia - raised it instead of a WP:BOLD move as sometimes Royal Mail contract prefix suitability is debated, but no opposition has arisen so it can be closed and moved under WP:RMNOMIN. Thanks! Tobin Dax (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This has now been closed by User:Left guide and can be ignored - thanks - Tobin Dax (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My father was a U.S. Army doctor who served in Vietnam. He died a few years ago, and recently while going through some of his papers I found a list of abbreviations from the war. Most of them are already in Wikipedia or were easily resolved. Here are the remaining, perhaps more challenging ones. Many of these link to disambiguation pages that do not appear to have a corresponding topic, or are otherwise blue links, but not related to their Vietnam-era military purpose. My notes on these are in italics.

• A1A A type of propeller driven fighter plane (current link is to the highway; disambiguation page contains no airplanes)
• BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters
• EMT Emergency Medical Tag
• GS Government Service; also the rank attached
• HU1D A medium-sized helicopter with a wide variety of uses (probably Bell UH-1 Iroquois variants#UH-1D — were these ever called "HU-"?) Yes, was originally the HU-1 Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• RTO Radio Transmitter and Receiver Operator
• PIO Public Information Office
• S-1 Principal staff officer whose function is personnel actions (a stub at Principal Staff Officer was previously deleted)
• SGO Surgeon General's Office (is this the same as Office of the Surgeon General?)

Cheers! BD2412 T 00:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

In its very early days the Huey was referred to as the HU (Helicopter Utility), but it didn't last. The A1A is the A-1 Skyraider. GS was the designation used for draftees (volunteers were RA for Regular Army). S-1 also refers to a particular level of military organization (the battalion): the letter changes as you move up in scale. BOQ refers to on-post housing restricted to unmarried officers. Intothatdarkness 11:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that the relevant page for S-1 (or related positions) is Staff (military), described under the Continental system. So for S-1, S indicates the battalion-level staff, and the 1" (sometimes called the "1-shop") handles personnel matters.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, RTO is not quite correct, it stands for Radiotelephone operator. PIO is short for Public information officer, which currently redirects to Spokesperson. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: As noted, the UH-1 "Huey" was originally, in the short-lived U.S. Army designation system One day I may get around to finishing that..., HU-1. However "HU-1D" was actually never used; the HU-1 (and XH-40) had been redesignated UH-1 before it came to be, although in colloquial Army use "HU-" may well have remained well after the official designation was changed. A1A as a propeller-driven fighter plane is, as mentioned, clearly the Douglas A-1 Skyraider; this is a slightly more curious case as there was never an "A-1A". The A-1's original designation in the U.S. Navy system was AD; "A-1A" would have been the AD-1, which was long out of service by the time the designations were changed in 1962. A-1E, F, G, H, and J were valid designations, although which specifically (if any) he was referring to is unlikely to be determined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the designations may have been, my father was in the thick of it and typed up this list, and unless he misheard things, people there were referring to some kind of medium-sized utility helicopter as an "HU1D", specifically. BD2412 T 00:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes sense that "HU-1D" would have been a colloquialism for the UH-1D. Based on past variants' designations, and rolls off the tongue easier, along with all UH-1s being "Hueys" due to having been originally HU-1! Interesting bit of history there for sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It also depends on when he was there and where he was stationed. As for the Spad...there's no guarantee the Army knew the actual designation and simply called it the A-1 and assumed or presumed the A instead of the correct variant (or possibly some operated by RVNAF). Intothatdarkness 11:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have those details. My father was a doctor, and I do know that he was a major in the First Cavalry Division. BD2412 T 15:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Has the military history project discussed the MOS:COLOUR guideline, and how it impacts military maps that use color to indicate important information (e.g Red = Axis; Blue = Allies)? I encountered the issue when working on the James Cook article (and had to create some new maps); and it has also come up in the FA nomination of Battle of Jackson. I looked thru the archives of Military History Talk page, and could not find a discussion, but maybe I'm overlooking it. (Courtesy pings to User:Hog Farm and User:Nikkimaria). Noleander (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it has been discussed here before, although it has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 9#Image:TelfordMap.jpg and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#About Image Mapping and Captions. I don't believe that there is any issue with the map in Battle of Jackson, as colour blind people can usually distinguish red and blue but have trouble with red and green. As with all images, we do our best effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but if the consensus is "If multiple colors must be used, then red and blue is the only acceptable pair of colors" then that should be added to MOS:COLOUR. The WP:MOS page says: "New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue.". I've encountered this issue twice in the past two weeks, so it seems that it may be a common issue. Maybe this is better discussed in the MOS Talk page? Noleander (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Wherever this ends up being discussed, I don't think "red and blue is the only acceptable pair of colors" is a good outcome. Red-green colour blindness is the most common type, but not the only one; achromatopsia, for example, results in little to no colour perception at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question is - at what point do we draw the line for compliance? I think red-green we should be making accessible. But if we go all the way, then we can't really use color at all in any map in a FA, which I don't think is a feasible outcome either. Hog Farm _Talk 01:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It is also possible to use patterns especially for lines. I notice that at least one of the maps in Battle of Jackson use red dotted for Confederate and blue solid for Union (though it doesn't show dotted/solid in the map legend, just the colors and it isn't fully consistent, I saw one solid red line). Erp (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Erp, the dotted lines are showing retreats and the solid lines advances. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a new discussion related to colors in maps has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Should_MOS:COLOR_be_updated_to_clarify_if_and_when_color_hues_may_be_used_to_convey_information_in_maps? Noleander (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It may be worth involving WP:WikiProject Maps. (Hohum ^@) 01:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I posted a note in the WP:WikiProject Maps Talk page referencing this discussion here.

I'm getting the impression that the vast majority of editors would agree that there are maps where multiple colors are essential to conveying information, and in those limited situations it is okay for WP images to use colors. It seems like the discussion should focus on how to tailor that exception to be as specific (and narrow?) as possible. Perhaps that would lead to a new sentence added to MOS:COLOUR? I propose to shift this discussion to the MOS:Accessibility page, rather than here ... because keeping it here might lead editors to think it is limited to military maps; and also it would have a narrower participation. Also: this same issue applies to subway, rail, and transit maps, so it is much broader than simply military maps. Does anyone object to me creating a new topic at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility and continuing the discussion there? Noleander (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Map man from Maps here. Before I dig into reading this I'm going to type the following: "As much as I hate to say it, the state of cartography on Wikipedia is beyond bad. We have essentially no consistency, quality control, or MOS that is applied evenly. It is to the point that misinformation is published so widely on the site that trying to point it out results in consensus resting on the side of misinformation (yes, I have sources and examples, no one cares). The average person making maps for Wikipedia is not qualified."

Okay, with that out of the way, when it comes to color in maps the gold standard is the work of Cynthia Brewer. A fun quote from her:

When choosing map colors, you should not be overly concerned about which colors your audience likes. Everyone has an opinion about color aesthetics, and members of your audience undoubtedly have differing opinions based on their own preferences. There has been a substantial amount of loosely structured research on color preferences. Regardless of context, it seems that most people like blue and do not like yellow, but that is an overly simplistic guideline for multicolor contexts. People also like maps with many colors, so focus your attention on presenting your data clearly and not worry about whether you have picked everyone's favorite colors.

— Cynthia Brewer

When we (professional cartographers, not Wikipedia editors) look at choosing colors for maps, generally we default to the ones in her ColorBrewer. In her publication (Cited below) on map color and color-vision impairments, a take away I can point to is describing Sequential/polychrom. With these, "Hue variations are used to allow more contrast between categories, but lightness should still be the pri-mary differentiating characteristic." Essentially, in map making you have hue and tone to work with. You can have different colors, and by varying the tone between those different colors, still have the symbols distinguishable for those with vision impairment.

-Olson, Judy M.; Brewer, Cynthia A. (2004). "An Evaluation of Color Selections to Accommodate Map Users with Color-Vision Impairments". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00043.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage Thanks for the input ... very informative. Do you have any objection to moving this discussion to the MOS talk page? Noleander (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my proposal to move this discussion to MOS Talk page: I created this Topic earlier today with a very limited purpose: to discover if the Military History project had established a consensus on how to deal with MOS:COLOUR. User Hawkeye7 replied above identifying a couple of discussions from 2008 and 2011, but they did not establish a definitive policy. So, my question has been answered: No, Military History project does not have a consensus policy established regarding MOS:COLOUR. So, I think we should move this disucssion to WP:MOS talk page and open a discussion asking if MOS:COLOUR should be updated to include some permissive language to support maps where colors are essential. It seems that hundreds, maybe thousands, of maps in WP are using colors, and perhaps must use colors. If that is inevitable, then MOS:COLOUR should reflect that reality.

So, again, I ask: Does anyone object to me creating a new topic at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility and continuing the discussion there? Noleander (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Military History project does not have a consensus policy established regarding MOS:COLOUR. Good summary, yes.

So, I think we should move this disucssion to WP:MOS talk page and open a discussion asking if MOS:COLOUR should be updated to include some permissive language to support maps where colors are essential. We should.

If that is inevitable, then MOS:COLOUR should reflect that reality. It should. It doesn't. I don't see that changing. Even if we get rules in place, people won't follow them. That said, there is no possibility of it changing unless the work is put in. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No objection. It should be done. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

[Moved my comment to WT:MOS § Should MOS:COLOR be updated ...]. –jacobolus (t) 18:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a new discussion related to colors in maps has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Should_MOS:COLOR_be_updated_to_clarify_if_and_when_color_hues_may_be_used_to_convey_information_in_maps? Noleander (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I boldly merged seven Stryker variant articles (M1127 reconnaissance vehicle, M1130 commander's vehicle, M1131 fire support vehicle, M1132 engineer squad vehicle, M1133 medical evacuation vehicle, M1134 anti-tank guided missile vehicle, M1129 mortar carrier, M1135 nuclear, biological, and chemical reconnaissance vehicle) to a new article: Variants of the Stryker. I did not do anything with M1126 infantry carrier vehicle, M1128 mobile gun system or M1296 Dragoon. To me there is not enough information to justify having 11 articles about some of the main variants of the Stryker. One editor, however, suggested that redirecting the merged articles might be undesirable. Seeking other opinions. Schierbecker (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think some of the variants are more "mergeable" than others -- notably the recce, command, medevac, and CBRN variants (which are all relatively minor variants of the ICV). The others probably could merit a separate article (due to significant difference in either weapon system, optics, employment, or acquisition history): the FSV is structurally similar to the ICV but has significantly different electronics and comms systems while the ESV has the blade and other route-clearance/demolition equipment and is employed doctrinally differently than the ICV. The ATGM, mortar carriers, MGS and Dragoon variants are all notably physically different systems intended more for direct-fire (or indirect-fire) engagement); while the ICV is the "OG" version and also merits separate coverage IMO. So I'd just merge in the minor variants and keep the others separate. There is a wealth of information about each variant that we could tap into from the relevant ATPs, TMs, TCs, and other relevant documentation beyond just media sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Just an observation that the WikiProject Ships assessment process asks editors seeking assessment to blank the article assessment as standard procedure for that project (which then puts it on a 'needs assessment' list) - I noticed when seeking assessment from that project that the User:MilHistBot isn't happy with the assessment being blank and auto-populates it. I'm pretty new to project working so I'm not sure if there's a standard way of working when it comes to articles under the scope of multiple projects with different levels of relevance.

It's totally possible that I'm just being dumb and I'm missing some instruction about how to deal with this situation. If this isn't just me, though, I notice both projects list one another as related projects so might just need some coordination. Thoughts? Tobin Dax (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure of what you mean. Have you got an example? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:RMS Franconia (1910) - 5 Sep, removed classification as per WikiProject Ships instructions, 6 Sep, MilHisBot assesses as C automatically based on the B-checklist in MilHist box, 6 Sep, I attempt to reset this, 7 Sep, it reverts, 7 Sep, I submit the article for MilHist assessment instead of Ships, 8 Sep, Assessed by MilHist and Ships member User:Sturmvogel 66. In this case it's a nearly newly built ocean liner that served and sank in WWI, but there'll be a few (e.g. RMS Saxonia (1899) that spent very little of their lives in military service, so I'm just checking to make sure we don't end up in a scenario where a MilHist assessor (especially one not also in Ships) assesses something largely not in the scope of MilHist, although I'm also just checking whether we actually think it matters or not given the criteria aren't project-specific... Tobin Dax (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I will give the short answer first. RMS Saxonia (1899) comes within the scope of this project due to its service as a troopship. The milhistbot would assess the article for this project even if a human assessor did not get to it. The human assessor does not necessarily need to agree with the ships project assessor and can keep a different rating - though this is likely not to happen often.

In my experience, which may or may not be representative, this type of article is much more often specifically assessed by this project's members, at least at B class - or by the bot at any class up to B, and not by ships project assessors for that project, much less for other projects. I rarely see a separate assessment in this area by a ships project assessor who is not also a military history project assessor. I have frequently done assessments for both, or all listed, projects in the past few years. Many projects do not even have active assessors or even cite the general criteria on the project pages.

While the criteria are the same in general, differences obviously might arise. These can and should be reconciled in most cases. The reconciliation for articles in the scope this project can be started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Otherwise, it may not come to notice quickly, or at all, to the usual assessors here. A coordinator or experienced assessor for the project might reassess if asked, or if the assessor takes notice, without a request, although it is less likely.

I am drafting a reply to the RMS Franconia (1910) question. It includes an analysis of the changes you attempted to make and the reason why the bot would not allow them to the assessment for this project and in the banner shell. I hope to post this presently. I need to finish it up and review it to be sure it is accurate as well as it including a few points that may not be otherwise apparent or may only come up occasionally. The RMS Franconia (1910) article falls within that outlier category. Donner60 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tobin Dax and Hawkeye7: Milhistbot would return to assess an article, as it did for the RMS Franconia (1910) article, when a military history project assessment and banner shell assessment are "blanked". If the banner shell adjustment were blanked, cewbot might well have reverse or change that when an assessment was entered. Cewbot works on articles assessed by more than one project. I think the ships project instruction is imprecise, not necessarily complete, and subject to misapplication in a few cases such as this. I think it almost certain that a better word would be "change", not "blank" and this should only be applied to the ships project assessment, not those of other projects or in the banner shell. The assessor might be sure that the application of the criteria would be the same and specifically change those assessments, not just remove or blank them. Note that under this project's guidelines an author or contributor to an upgrade should not assess above C class. A B class assessment or reconciliation of assessments should be sought at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, as noted in my previous reply. The bot would not revisit the article and make the change to the ships project assessment. In a few cases, at least, the differing assessments may be understandable and need to be left in place - until reconciled between project members.

The criteria are the same and exceptions should be few, if any, for each assessment rating, including especially B class as here. The bot has been edited recently but perhaps may still miss a few nuances that would prevent automatic reconciliation. Citations needed to bullet point list has been a sticking point for the bot, though not necessarily to human assessors. I am not sure if it is still a problem.

Every paragraph, even a single sentence paragraph, needs to end in a citation to meet B class criteria. The bot has assessed each point in a bullet point list as a separate paragraph that requires a citation. I am sure that the absence of such citations is the reason it assessed RMS Franconia (1910) as C class. After that assessment, former coordinator and experienced assessor Sturmvogel 66 changed the overall assessment and military history project assessment to B class. The overall assessment from the banner shell is now also B. The reason he changed this is because experienced human assessors for this project accept a citation in the caption or at the end of the list as covering each point, assuming it is clear that those citations are comprehensive. Sometimes that requires a question to the editor who added the list. I change the bot assessments several times each month, although these instances mainly are downgrades to C from B or removal of an assessment for the project since the article is judged as not being within the project's scope. B assessments by the bot are reported on the coordinator page monthly though lower level assessments can only come to notice by requests for assessment (or, rarely, by a talk page question as here).

Sturmvogel 66 noticed the conflict and made the changes almost certainly because he is interested in ships. In most cases a request needs to be made to get the attention of a human assessor to change a bot rating in the few instances when the human assessor would disagree with the bot assessment.

There are articles, perhaps many articles, that show different assessments for different projects. One assessment may be outdated and need to be changed specifically for that project. An assessor for one project may have a different interpretation for a criterion, or at least in this project, a bot may initially apply the criteria differently. Usually, but perhaps not always, the differences can be reconciled between assessors or coordinators for the various projects, at least active ones. Otherwise, the most recent active project assessor can and should make the change, as I see it. Cewbot will usually give the overall rating from the majority rating for all projects listed. I think (but am not entirely sure) it gives the military history project rating if there is a tie. But a different rating would still show for the project that has given the different rating.

The bottom line is that these differences can be reconciled by assessors for each project in all (almost all?) cases. That should be tried first.

Even though I have been a coordinator for two years, I stand to be corrected or supplemented by Hawkeye7 or other coordinators or former coordinators when I give an explanation or response to an infrequent or complicated question. This applies to a case such as this where I think several points need to be considered or kept in mind and I might not have stated them clearly and concisely enough. Otherwise, I think this reply is complete and correct. If it is not, please ask another specific question. Donner60 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much Doner60, that is, to say the least, a very comprehensive answer and makes perfect sense. So it does seem like the guidance and process on Ships is, shall we say, a bit lighter in substance than the much more scalable process on MilHist and the greater availability of, and visibility to human assessors with the MilHist process makes it more of a reliable way to firstly make sure a page is assessed at all, and that a page is assessed correctly if the bot trips up on an edge case.

In conclusion, then, we think the benefits of a fuller assessment process on MilHist likely outweighs any nuance that would come from an assessment by an editor who is solely a member of only the most relevant project, partly because the assessment process isn't that content specific, and secondly because it's actually unlikely in practice that an assessor wouldn't also be a member of the most relevant project alongside MilHist.

The guidance and process on Ships might benefit from being improved, and I've opened a discussion at that project discussion page.

Thanks again for the great response, I'm a lot clearer now. Tobin Dax (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that from previous experience, there is no appetite for developing any sort of consistency or guidelines within WikiProject Ships. I have tried. It's like pushing a boulder up a hill when it's raining. Just leave the WPSHIPS rating blank. If there is a Milhist tag, let the bot do the rating. If not, the tag is just there so that if an article ever gets nominated for deletion, they need to notify the wikiproject so that experienced eyes can decipher if the ship passes GNG (because really, that's the only thing that matters unless you want to bring the article up to GA/FA status). Llammakey (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_to_revise_Army_Recognition_entry_–_defamatory_&_unsourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You can see an example of what I'm talking about here. The statistic "820,320 (2022 est.), age 16–49" is so big as to be very misleading but also not about the Slovenian armed forces since 95%+ of the people counted in that number will never have seen the inside of a Slovenian army barracks. It is in fact just a statistic about Slovenian demographics, a count of Slovenian men between two ages. The useful statistic is the army manpower and reserve strength (which notably will include women service members). The same statistic is included in almost every Wikipedia army infobox.

That this figure is misleading can be demonstrated by a simple reference to discussion online about military strength of various countries where this figure is regularly cited as a count of military strength for a given country rather than the actual relevant figure (i.e., the actual active strength and trained reserve strength). It would only be even tangentially relevant for a country with conscription (although no country conscripts every man between 16 and 49!), which most countries don't have - if it's going to be included at all, it should only be included for these.

All of this information come from the CIA World Factbook, but I don't think any other database thinks this is a useful figure. For example the IISS World Balance report only includes active and reserve personnel. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree and I think the CIA manpower number parameters should have been removed long ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like the CIA stopped including those stats in their World Factbook entries (at least looking at the entries for a number of countries - e.g., Egypt doesn't have it, Slovenia doesn't have it, Canada doesn't have it), so we'll be stuck using the increasingly out-of-date archived 2022 statistics if we don't remove this field.

Probably understandable if they removed it in 2022, because I recall a lot of "analysts" thinking that this number showed the relative strengths of Ukraine and Russia that year, which of course it does not. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

FOARP, others this is about mass warfare, and we're not in a mass warfare period anymore. Unless I get significant pushback, I will amend the template parameters in about 48 hours from now. Please feel free to disagree, violently :) Buckshot06 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've put a notice up on the template talk page about this. so if any disagree they can raise this here. I think the CIA no longer using this stat is pretty decisive though. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Since no-one has raised any objections, I've gone through the European militaries first. A lot of them already didn't list this statistic. Many of the ones that did carried stats that were unsourced, or 15-20 years out of date. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I've now done the whole the Americas. The only one I left up was the "available" statistic for US selective service, though I think this should be specified as explicitly those liable for selective service. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've done done all of the Asian articles. It seems that use of CIA stats has resulted in the military age for some countries being marked as "18-49" which is of course wrong, this is just the ages between which the CIA counts this statistic. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

And finally Africa done, as well as the template itself. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The disambiguation page Reef points has:
The midshipman handbook of the United States Naval Academy
The target article makes no mention of "Reef points" and I cannot immediately find anything that supports this meaning. Does anyone disagree with me deleting the midshipman handbook element and changing this disambiguation page into a redirect to Reefing?

If there is a handbook that has the name "Reef points" (informal or otherwise), the better home for this isolated fact might be as an alternative definition in Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z) at reef points (with a reference) and delete the disambiguation/redirect page Reef points. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Near the top on Google Books after searching "Reef Points" and USNA gives us Encyclopedia of Military Science (2013), p. 1531: "Plebes study a handbook, titled Reef Points, that covers the Naval Academy's history, organization, culture, traditions, and honor concept." There appear to be quite a few references to it in print. —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That leaves the question of whether a disambiguation page should direct the reader to an article that does not mention the term. Should this point to a new entry in the Glossary of Nautical Terms (which has a large number of US Navy terms in it)? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

does wikipedia have any rules about self-consistency or anything? this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Pommern) states SMS Pommern was "the fastest pre-dreadnought battleship in the world" and describes its speed as 19 knots but this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Regina_Margherita) states the Regina Margherita had a speed of 20 knots. It's so glaringly obvious that 20 knots is faster than 19 knots that I'm tempted to edit it, but I really want to be careful because I'm new to Wikipedia. I was directed here by my “Wikipedia mentor” User talk:Reconrabbit#c-Reconrabbit-20250919172400-Anthonymrainey-20250919144300 Anthonymrainey (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see the "fastest pre-dreadnought battleship in the world" line, but I did see Pommern referred to as the fastest ship of its class (the Deutschland battleships). Intothatdarkness 17:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the “Service History” section of the article reads “ She was commissioned for sea trials on 6 August; during her speed run, she reached 19.26 knots (35.67 km/h; 22.16 mph), which made her the fastest pre-dreadnought battleship in the world” Anthonymrainey (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the statement is sourced, you'd want to check the source if possible to see what it actually says. That's always the first step with things like this. If you don't have access, you can ask someone who does to check for you. I agree it's an odd claim, but if it's sourced it needs to be verified. Intothatdarkness 18:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's sourced to the 1993 edition of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz's Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien - the equivalent entry in the 1982 edition, which is available on the internet archive says ..."womit Pommern zu jener Zeit das schnellste Linienschiff der Flotte war." (vol. 5, p. 51) which according to Google translate says "making Pommern the fastest ship of the line in the fleet at that time." which makes more sense.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Parsecboy on this. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Pommern article's Design section is lacking in-line sources for each definitive claim, which is problematic here. Either the claim of making 18 knots which "she significantly exceeded that speed on trials, being the fastest member of the class" is unsourced; or alternatively suggests it's being sourced at the end of the paragraph to Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945. Vol. I: Major Surface Vessels. If the former is the case, that's pretty bad as it'd mean that it's speed is unsourced both in the body and infobox; (contrast with the Regina Margherita claim which is sourced to Conway's All The World's Fighting Ship's). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of that paragraph can directly be sourced to Gröner (although not all on p. 21, some bits are on 20 or 22) - the exception is Pommern was the fastest of class - of the "max" (not trial) speeds quoted by Gröner, Schleswig-Holstein is faster at 19.1 kn compared to Pommern's 18.7 kn max, although as Schleswig-Holstein was completed later than Pommern, it doesn't undermine the statement in Hildebrand et al, as Pommern was the fasted ship when she completed trials.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

According to R. A. Burt HMS Swiftsure made over 20 knots in March 1904, HMS Cornwallis 19.6 in March 1903, and HMS Russell 19.4 at some point, all faster than the 19.26 knot record apparently held by Pommern. —Simon Harley (Talk). 22:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Except the source seems to be saying it was the fastest ship in the fleet (as in the German Imperial Fleet) at that time. That seems to have been mangled or changed when it was added to the article. Intothatdarkness 22:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The "fastest pre-dreadnought in the world" comment seems to come from Staff's German Battleships: 1914–1918. Vol. 1, which says "With a speed of 18.7 knots, Pommern was the fastest pre-dreadnought battleship in the world at this time" (p 12) - the article was changed in 2017 to use the higher speed and the ref changed to Hildebrand et al, but the comment about fastest dreadnought in the world wasn't changed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

So, can I delete the bit about it being the fastest pre-dreadnought? Anthonymrainey (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Should infoboxes of Ukrainian cities occupied by Russia say they are "de facto" part of Russia?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To what regiment does Colonel Lewis Morgan, in The Aftermath (2019 film), belong? [It's currently on BBC iPlayer.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm always a little surprised we don't have a cap badge gallery page to use for this sort of question, but looking at the iplayer title card, I think maybe the East Lancashire Regiment? Could also be South Wales Borderers, but East Lancs has the rose below and I think you can make that out in the pictures. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's the East Lancs, he wears the "East Lancashire" shoulder title eg. at 39.53 in the BBC iPlayer video. He also wears the formation badge of the 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division which our article says would be correct if he served with the 1st Battalion. I don't know much about WWII uniforms but I thought you ceased to wear regimental uniform when reaching the rank of colonel in the British Army? - Dumelow (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought he would be wearing the control commission formation badge, rather than his divisional one. Also odd that he's not wearing gorget patches or a red cap band either, but perhaps he was an temporary or acting colonel or uniform modification was required to not make obvious targets for Werwolf snipers? Or perhaps their military advisor on the film wasn't much chop? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been reconstructed at a cost of 27 million pounds. I visited ir recently and took some photos, but I'm not terrible good with ading them.. f anyone here can and is willing, that would be great, or if you could pont me elsewhere. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Adam Cuerden is the photo expert. Perhaps he can help with this. Donner60 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging him. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I have an article that claims that the artillery tactics of the Sich Riflemen (1917-1919) were novel and significant but I don't possess the expertise to gauge whether this is accurate. The unit's tactics involved loading the artilley pieces onto a train such that they were manoeuvrable and could get out of the way of the enemy's response. They cut holes through the walls of the carriage/carriages and divets were cut into the floors so there would be resistance to the kickback.

I know that armoured trains existed though as I understand not for the purpose of artillery and also that the benefits of manoeuvre warfare weren't necessarily popularly recognised. Is this academic accurate in their claim that this is significant/ a contribution to European artillery tactics?

This is the article (the link is safe and it's in English): http://eehb.dspu.edu.ua/article/view/269524 NotebookLM may be useful if you happen to want to check it for details. Joko2468 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the other questions, if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this is there somewhere anyone can point me to? Joko2468 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at general works on armoured trains and railway guns to see how experts place this tactic in a broader context. There were much more sophisticated types of armoured trains than this at the time, but this tactic may well be considered a noteworthy innovation given that armoured trains tended to be equipped with relatively small calibre weapons. Railroad artillery was mainly limited to extremely large guns, with them usually being fired from static positions. Sources I've seen tend to stress that the way in which railways were used in the Russian Civil War and related conflicts were frequently unique to that conflict, so there were a lot of innovations. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Great thank you, much appreciated. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:50CE:C512:8289:95F5 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You are in the right place. The tactics were neither new nor significant. Artillery on railway carriages was quite common during World War I, although usually of larger calibres that were hard to move about. Railway guns had appeared before the war. Manoeuvre warfare using field artillery had been practised for centuries and was of course very well appreciated by the combatants during World War I, although it was found that in the conditions on the Western Front, the medium artillery could be just as mobile. The response in Ukraine would have been nothing approaching the counter-battery fire of the Western Front, where sound ranging was in use. In sum, as the article points out, the real novelty was the creation of a Ukrainian force and the appeal to Ukrainian nationalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Excellent thank you. Is the adhoc nature of these customisations/ the resourceful nature of this specific application notable in your opinion? Would they bear mentioning in the article? Or is this all fairly standard? As I understand the Russian Civil War featured a lot of esoteric resourcefulness. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:50CE:C512:8289:95F5 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I recently started a split discussion in Talk:Erwin Rommel, Please check it out. Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I invite editors active in the MILHIST topic area to share their perspectives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#https://militaryland.net/ regarding https://militaryland.net/, a website which hosts a database of Ukrainian military units. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

As raised at WT:SHIPS#Duplicate articles, the USS Sierra (ID-1634) and SS Sierra (1900) articles cover the same ship. The steamship article needs to be merged into the USS article, then the USS article needs to be moved to the steamship title. Merging is not my forte, although I can take care of the move after the merge has been done. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I could help with the merger. I'll get on it right now. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Implemented. SS Sierra is the main page now. Should USS Sierra be converted to a redirect, or something else? Thank you for raising the issue. Regards, Professor Penguino (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino: thank you. Looks like the USS title has been turned into a redirect, which is good. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for input at a discussion taking place regarding a content dispute of Hyderabad massacres at Talk:Hyderabad massacres#POV and citation check. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• No. 637 Volunteer Gliding School RAF
• No. 637 Volunteer Gliding School
• No. 637 Volunteer Gliding Squadron RAF

all lead to different places. Perhaps this should point to the same location or become a unit disambiguation page ? Perhaps using No. 637 Gliding School RAF , another redirect but missing the "Volunteer" -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Gavbadger (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The Kiev-class aircraft carrier article is missing a subclass, the Vikramaditya-class aircraft carrier derived from the Baku. ; it would make the article akin to the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier article that covers both the subclasses Typo 001 and Type 002 -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Copied this to Ships project talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abyei border conflict (2022–present)#Requested move 12 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Could others help sort this? Regarding the number of troops deployed, cited in the Deployment section of the article, both the New York Times and The Guardian say 4,500 sailors AND 2,200 Marines. But other sources say about 4,000 total. (Reuters Time Navy Times/AP) And our article previously said the 4,500 INCLUDED the 2,200 Marines. That's a big difference. Any other review of military detail in that article would be helpful (current event scheduled for DYK). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And I just found this from Task and Purpose, which reports 1,900 plus 2,200 = 4,100 ... which source to trust ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Separately, I'm wondering about scope. Marines are part of the Navy, and the Task and Purpose source says that ... On Thursday, F-35s from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225 arrived in Puerto Rico ... so are any of the aircraft involved in the deployment part of the Air Force, or is it so far only a Navy operation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Should Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group be an article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so. It's mentioned in the USS Iwo Jima page already and isn't a standing, numbered formation in the way carrier groups tend to be. It could also link to Amphibious ready group. Intothatdarkness 17:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Have done that ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Saw this edit summary Format "See also" section using FormatSeeAlso.js show SDs to help readers understand significance (my bold) and wondered why anyone couldn't understand "see also", especially given the banality of the glosses. Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The AS Val and VSS Vintorez should be split into their own individual page/article, AS Val and VSS Vintorez. Any thoughts on this? 103.105.214.1 (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to split them; they're effectively the same rifle with different configurations, and the article is not so long as to warrant splitting (unlike, for example, M16 rifle, M4 carbine, and Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle; as a contrary example, SA80 covers all of the variants, including the basic rifle, the L86 light machine gun, and the carbine variants). Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. On that note, is it preferable for the article to focus on one primary topic? Per say the VSS, since the AS Val was designed a few years after the VSS, effectively making it a variant of the VSS. We could add the AS Val under a separate section, along with other variants.

Moving the article name to VSS Vintorez and listing the AS Val on its variants section would be the standard structure as per WP:Firearms, under Variants.

Side note: I also haven't found any firearm articles on Wikipedia that use a joint name. Typically, they focus on the parent firearm and list the different variations and models under a “Variants” section. 103.105.214.1 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the title is suboptimal, to say the least. And it makes sense to treat the Vintorez as the primary rifle, since it was developed first. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Will you be able to help move the article to VSS Vintorez? If consensus will lean towards keeping it under one article.103.105.214.1 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree that the "X and Y" format is untenable. I think we probably *could* wrangle up enough content to justify splitting into two articles, but I don't think it's strictly necessary in the short-term (where just combining under VSS Vintorez would work). However I would expect that in the mid/long-term over the next several years, particularly if Russia remains at war, the likelihood is that we're going to grow the article sufficiently to require a split anyway. So while my preference would be just getting ahead of it and splitting anyways as a proactive measure, I'd be fine w/ combining under a single article which seems to be the growing consensus.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I would personally lean towards a split. You made a very good point about the long-term factor. Having them split would also align with how other related firearms are formatted on Wikipedia. For example:

• The 9A-91 and VSK-94, they are on the “same boat” as the AS Val and VSS Vintorez, yet they have their own dedicated pages.
• Same goes for the AK-12 and AK-19.

If consensus (for now) is to keep it under one article, I wouldn’t go against it. It just needs to focus on the parent firearm, which is the VSS Vintorez.

If other editors with more knowledge of merging and splitting articles can assist, the help is greatly appreciated. 103.105.214.1 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

If consensus can be made to do a split, would you be able to help perform that? 103.105.214.1 (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that those pages ought to be merged as well, since they're all very short, so they don't warrant being split out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

The firearms space has, for a very long time, been fairly poorly governed (WP:FIREARMS has been moribund for some time now), and it's an area that attracts a lot of hobbyists (who are likely not versed in Wikipedia's rules and general procedures). As a result, there tends to be a proliferation of articles on every variant of a particular gun, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to create. I'll beat up on myself for a minute here: way back when I was still relatively new to Wikipedia, I created the page Kimber Custom TLE II. Did we need an article on that particular manufacturer's variant on a particular type of pistol? No. Did I know better at the time? No. But if you click the link, it was long since merged into Kimber Custom, along with several other variants. Parsecboy (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

According to research done by @Loafiewa the last time this came up, Jane's (whose credibility needs no introduction in the military world) combines the two rifle names. I think "AS Val/VSS Vintorez" is better than "AS Val and VSS Vintorez" as a title, while still reflecting how intertwined the development of the two rifles was.

The current explanation is that both started development at the same time, the sniper rifle's requirements were finished first, but then reworked to accommodate the requirements of the assault rifle, before both designs were completed. I would be in favour of moving the AS Val and VSS Vintorez article to VSS Vintorez only if two credible, independent sources say that the VSS Vintorez finished development first and then the AS Val development started, but I haven't seen a source that isn't a blog saying that. I oppose a split since the resulting two articles would be very short with duplicate info given their shared development.

Whatever is decided, a move notice should be created on the talk page notifying users that discussion is taking place here, and only after consensus for a move is achieved should one be done. TROPtastic (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable in Russian look over the Mongol invasions of Durdzuketi? It relies extensively on Russian-language sources. The article to me reads unbalanced, and at least on of the claims quite farfetched. But I can't check the sources because I don't know Russian.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 18:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Try contacting User:Brandmeister and User:Daniel Case directly. Brandmeister, in particular, is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. You might get a reply from someone else as well if you post the request on the talk page for that project. As far as I know, however, none of the other members of that task force hold themselves out as translators. The few other translators from Russian to English that on are on the general list of available translators (which may or may not be up to date) seem to be active only sporadically and don't appear to have direct connection with this project. You might get another response on this page, but I think it would only be from someone who is a member of the task force or, even less likely, by someone who is not listed on pages that I am familiar with as a translator from Russian to English. Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at those sources, it's going to be tough to verify them as few are available online. The best/most we can do is properly format them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, thank you for that. Yeah, it looks like few are even online. My thought is that anything that looks questionable or slanted should get flagged or removed if the adding editor(s) can't provide quotes. And certainly English sources would be preferred where possible. What do you think? 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just added a section to GI Bill for notable beneficiaries because a bio I just wrote was for someone who went to college on the GI Bill. I feel like this could be a huge list. Would it be useful to create List of beneficiaries of the GI Bill, or make a category? Valereee (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A list would be a mess, and almost impossible to maintain since pretty much anyone who served in the post-World War II era was eligible for the GI Bill. Also, as I recall the post-911 GI Bill can be shifted to spouses and/or children. Even a category could quickly bloat beyond all recognition. Intothatdarkness 19:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but one does not need to actively be receiving their GI Bill benefits to technically be a GI Bill beneficiary. So we'd be talking a list that substantively includes every veteran, potentially their spouses and children, but would be nigh-impossible to verify. Category or otherwise, I don't see the encyclopedic value. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone researching 'importance of the GI Bill' could find it very useful. I don't think it would be difficult to limit it only to direct recipents of benefits. Valereee (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be far easier to track how much was spent each year on GI Bill benefits to determine its importance. And as @Swatjester pointed out, verification would be very difficult. I don't see any value here, either. Intothatdarkness 22:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that you can measure results by tracking spending. Basically on anything. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As @Swatjester pointed out, one can be classed as a beneficiary without using the benefit, so you're going to have a huge issue with verification. And not everyone who uses it completes college successfully. But given Wikiepdia's fetish for over-categorizing everything I'm sure this will happen. All I can say is good luck with it. Intothatdarkness 14:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

By coincidence, I just created one myself. Although the number of people who went to college on the GI Bill is large, the list/category should be restricted to notable persons. We have plenty of other categories that are potentially (or actually!) very large. The key criterion is WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. I believe that people who went to college on the GI Bill qualifies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I didn't create a category because I couldn't immediately figure out what the parent category should be. Any thoughts? Valereee (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest Category:American military personnel of World War II Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm...but as others have pointed out, the GI Bill is still in effect, so probably Category:American military personnel? Valereee (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel like even with a notable persons restriction (ie, people with articles) it'd be overwhelmingly large for a list. We have ~16k articles on Americans who served in WWII; we know about half of WWII veterans used education benefits, so even allowing for some who were too old or died in service, you're looking at several thousand already notable people with articles that would probably qualify under the "educational benefits from the original bill" definition. Once you start getting to broader definitions (other financial benefits, post-WWII education benefits) the numbers continue to increase. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. And since the GI Bill continues to this day under that name, the list will expand exponentially. Intothatdarkness 22:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it the same bill, if so, why does it have a seperate article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, interesting! I had no idea. So Roshara Sanders did not have her 2010-2014 education funded by the actual GI Bill but by the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. I'll go change that link, thanks! Valereee (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

They're all referred to as the GI Bill. Actual legislative titles may vary. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the article is about a specific bill that ran out in the 50's. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Which also means that anyone who did not serve before 1960 cannot have been a beneficiary of that bill. Which takes us back to the issue of verification.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The program is referred to within the armed forces as the GI Bill regardless of the legislative program title, and has been for decades. That's going to be one of the biggest issues with this proposed category aside from verification. Most sources I've seen aside from regulations or very specialist stuff do not distinguish between the World War II-era GI Bill, the one that existed during Vietnam, the Cold War version, or the Post-911 version. It's all the "GI Bill" to them. As I mentioned above, I suspect this categorization will happen in any case, but I remain convinced it's a bad idea. Intothatdarkness 15:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Then we need to rewrite the article so it is not just about the WW2 era bill, and remove the ones about the latter legislation, or have an overview article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all — there are two simple COI edit requests on Talk:Gerald Edward Galloway Jr. that need an uninvolved editor to implement if appropriate.

• Image: add a freely licensed portrait to the infobox (I took and uploaded it to Commons). → Section: Talk:Gerald Edward Galloway Jr.#Edit request — add image → File page: File:GerarId E. Galloway Jr. (2025).jpg

• Personal life: append one sourced sentence noting marriage to Diane Messinger (with two Newspapers.com citations). → Section: Talk:Gerald Edward Galloway Jr.#Edit Request - Personal Life

I have a declared COI (

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Jgalloway24 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

) and am not making the changes directly. If someone here could take a look and implement (or advise) per policy, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks! Jgalloway24 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The article history shows that the changes were added to the article a few minutes after this message was posted. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to a '1940 Battle of South Shanxi', but there is the highly notable '1941 Battle of South Shanxi'. Wondering if this newly created article is WP:OR and/or a non-notable encounter? Would be great if WP MH can take a look at it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You may wish to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Chinese military history task force to see if any members list themselves as concentrating on articles during the Sino-Japanese War and contacting them directly if you note that they are active. Some may be active sporadically or inactive recently. You might also post your question on the talk pages for those projects. Someone may answer here also. I note that all the sources are shown as foreign language but that does not mean other sources would not be available. I have four books which might have some mention of this action but it will be a few days, at least, before I have time to pull them out and look through them to see if they have anything about the existence, details and notability of this battle if they do. I suppose it would provide some indirect indication of notability of they do not as well as confirming the existence of the battle.

Because of the foreign language sources (Chinese?), a translator who is interested, if there is one who is a member of the task force or who is generally available, perhaps someone who can translate sources - assuming they can be found online, I suppose - might be needed as well. User:Toadspike is the only active member that says that they can translate from Chinese and is interested in this period, as near as I can tell. User:Romanov loyalist is active in editing articles from that period. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that and will do ! appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Donner60 Thanks for the ping. I haven't had the time to do the necessary source analysis yet. @Cent58, who wrote the content in question, has provided a detailed explanation below. I find it very helpful. Since the topic is interesting I would still like to do some reading of the sources, but I'm hoping this assuages @Aszx5000's concerns to some extent. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds great and thanks @Toadspike. I will leave it to you guys to discuss on the article talk page. I said to @Cent58 to try and ensure that the discussion happens there so that there is a record for future editors? thanks again all ! Aszx5000 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the experts, User:Toadspike and User:Cent58, are handling this, I will move on to other tasks. Thanks to them for working on this and to you for pointing out the possible need for clarification. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And obviously, one specific concern is clarifying whether the 1940 conflict also had a commonname of "Battle of South Shanxi" (per the 1941 notable conflict) as well, or whether it was something else. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The 1940 battle was described in the military histories of both the Chinese and Japanese armies, the ‘History of the Anti-Japanese War’ (抗日戰史) and ‘Senshi Sōsho’ (戦史叢書). The ‘History of the Anti-Japanese War’ is a compiled and published series by the History and Political Compilation Department of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China which comprehensively chronicles the National Revolutionary Army’s engagements with the Japanese Army from 1931 until 1945. ‘Senshi Sōsho’ is a series of war history compiled by the National Institute for Defense Studies of Japan’s Ministry of Defense detailing Japan's involvement in the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II.

From volume 18 (Part 1 of the Security War in North China) of Senshi Sōsho, page 297 :

(山西省南部における粛正作戦

主要な粛正作戦は次のとおりである。

春季晉南作戦(四月十七日~五月八日)

鄉寧作戦(五月十日~五月二十日)

晉南反撃作戦(五月十五日~六月二十日))

Translation :

(Mopping-up Operations at the south of Shanxi Province

The major operations were as follows.

Spring Operation in South Shanxi (April 17 – May 8)

Xiangning Operation (May 10 – May 20)

Counterattack Operation in South Shanxi (May 15 – June 20))

Pages 297 until page 301 detailed the background that led to the offensive and each of the three phases from the Japanese perspective.

The ‘History of the Anti-Japanese War: Shanxi-Suiyuan Guerilla Warfare’, divided the battle into two phases in page 151 and 161. The first is the ‘Enemy's Campaign to Open Up Transportation Routes between Shanxi and Henan’ (對敵軍打通晋豫交通之作戰) which itself had two sections : ‘Enemy's Battle to Open Up Transportation Routes between Shanxi and Henan’ (19 April until 1 May of the twenty-ninth year of the Republic of China (1940)) (對敵軍打通晉豫間交通之戰鬥(民國二十九年四月十九日至五月一日)) and’ Defensive Deployment in the West Shanxi Front’ (晉西方面之防守部署). The second phase is called the ‘Operation to Attack the Enemy’s Districts’ (對敵軍分區攻擊之作戰) corresponding to a part of the ’Xiangning Operation’ and the ‘Spring Counterattack in South Shanxi’ from Senshi Sōsho. The background battle history is described from page 151 until page 167 though lack the involvement of Hu Zongnan’s troops in Xiangning.

The other Chinese books sourced in the article also described parts or the whole campaign, mostly from the Chinese perspective. Page 24 of the ‘Shanxi-Suiyuan War of Resistance’ (晋绥抗战) and pages 277 to 279 of the Military History of the Nationalist Army: Battle Histories of Army-Level Units (Part 1) (國軍軍史: 軍級單位戰史（一）) described the Zhongtiao Mountains front of the ‘Spring Operation in South Shanxi’. Page 358 of volume 36 of the ‘General History of Shanxi’ (山西通志) and pages 1613-1614 of the Jincheng City Chronicles (晋城市志) also have descriptions for the whole operation. Secondary sources from the Japanese Army’s perspective are unfortunately lacking. Cent58 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Units, formations, and bases (5th paragraph): "In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).", yet somehow some numbered Ukrainian brigades are not being disambiguated. E.g. 36th Marine Brigade could be any nation (it is the only Ukrainian marine brigade not disambiguated with "(Ukraine)"). All other brigades numbered 36th are either properly disambiguated (36th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), 36th Engineer Brigade (United States)) or carry the name of their nation in their title (36 Canadian Brigade Group, 36th Indian Brigade, 36th Indian Infantry Brigade). The Ukrainian 57th Motorized Brigade was moved from 57th Motorized Brigade (Ukraine), even though there are a 57th Brigade (United Kingdom) and 57th Indian Brigade. Same issue with the 60th Mechanized Brigade, which was moved from 60th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) making it the only Ukrainian mechanized brigade not disambiguated with "(Ukraine)". The brigades with the same number of other nations are properly disambiguated 60th Brigade (United Kingdom) and 60th Motorized Infantry Brigade (People's Republic of China) or carry their nation in the name 60th Indian Infantry Brigade. Would it be possible to establish a rule for the naming of Ukrainian brigades? Because most of them were properly disambiguated upon creation and then a handful were moved to other names, which has led to inconsistent naming. (Ground forces, air assault forces, and marine forces are still 97% or more disambiguated properly with "(Ukraine)", while the territorial defence forces are completely inconsistent: Category:Territorial defense Brigades of Ukraine. Would it be possible to agree on a naming scheme for Ukrainian brigades and then apply it universally to the Ukrainian Armed Forces brigade articles? Thank you, noclador (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Changes seem to have been made by @Jlwoodwa and Qwerfjkl: so before we rush into anything I'd like to hear them out, they may have a reasonable answer for why those changes were made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I based my move on the first sentence of MOS:MILUNITNAME (An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name" or if "Name" is ambiguous at "Name (disambiguating term)".) and did not notice the exception to this guideline several paragraphs below it. I don't object to this practice, but it should be better documented. (Also, I find it strange that a naming convention is in a MOS subpage rather than in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions.) jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've made a quick attempt to mention the exception where it's more likely to be noticed. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

So, if there's no objection, should we start standardizing these articles with disambiguators? Professor Penguino (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I found the article from User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/55 (#Military units may be of interest to editors here); I have no particular opinion on this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the categories of Ukrainian brigades and regiments. The following three categories contain each only one unit that is not disambiguated with "(Ukraine)"):

• Category:Marine brigades of Ukraine — 36th Marine Brigade
• Category:Motorized brigades of Ukraine — 57th Motorized Brigade
• Category:Mechanized brigades of Ukraine — 60th Mechanized Brigade
• Category:Mountain assault brigades of Ukraine — contains two brigades and one, the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade, was originally created with the disambiguator "(Ukraine)" and then moved six times back and forth and is now without a disambiguator.

The following categories contain more than one brigade without the disambiguation "(Ukraine)"):

• Category:Assault brigades of Ukraine — all four brigades in this category were originally created with the disambiguator "(Ukraine)" and then moved. Now none of them is disambiguated with "(Ukraine)".
• Category:Territorial defense Brigades of Ukraine — all 24 territorial defense brigades in this category were created with "(Ukraine)" in the name and then six of the brigades were moved to a title without the disambiguator.
• Category:Heavy mechanized brigades of Ukraine — these 10 brigades were formed by reorganizing existing tank, mechanized and territorial defense brigades. All of the original brigades were disambiguated with "(Ukraine)". Last month I moved the two remaining of these brigades to a disambiguator-less title to bring them in line with the other 8. However I believe all 10 should be disambiguated with "(Ukraine)"). (Especially the lower numbered of these brigades need to be disambiguated as e.g. there are more than 50 1st Brigades.
• Category:Engineer brigades of Ukraine — 48th Engineering Brigade and 49th Assault Engineering Brigade — maybe also move them to "Engineer Brigade" as with all other English wiki engineer units.
• Category:Air force brigades of Ukraine — As my focus is to keep Ukrainian ground forces, marine forces, and air assault forces up to date, I do not have a preference here on the Ukrainian air force brigades. I include this category here for completeness: 9 brigades are disambiguated and 9 aren't.

There are also some units from other Ukrainian forces, which might require a disambiguator. I will list them here below:

• Armed Forces of Ukraine: Separate Presidential Brigade — I would favor to move it to Presidential Brigade (Ukraine)
• National Guard of Ukraine: 25th Public Security Protection Brigade, Special Honor Guard Battalion, 13th National Guard Battalion, 17th Poltava Brigade. The last unit is the only National Guard brigade with a name that does not also use the disambiguator "Ukraine", as e.g. 18th Sloviansk Brigade (Ukraine).

For completeness:

• in these categories all units are disambiguated with "(Ukraine)"): Category:Brigades of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces, Category:Jaeger brigades of Ukraine, Category:Artillery brigades of Ukraine, Category:Support brigades of Ukraine, Category:Surface-to-air missile brigades of the Ukraine, Category:Army aviation brigades of Ukraine, Category:Air force regiments of Ukraine

Best regards, noclador (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork on that, I think along with disambiguating we might also consider trimming truly unique ones like 18th Sloviansk Brigade down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I agree - units with a unique name should be without the disambiguator. If I am not mistaken those units are exclusively State Border Guard, Police, and National Guard brigades. After a quick check there is one Police brigade (Khyzhak Brigade (Ukraine) out of two Category:Brigades of the National Police of Ukraine), and no State Border Guard brigade that needs to be moved (Category:Brigades of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine). But I am unsure about the National Guard brigades, because I went to the Ukrainian wiki to check on a few. E.g. the 17th Poltava Brigade is on the Ukrainian wiki as 17th NG Brigade, but then its says in the infobox the name of the brigade is 17th Brigade "Raid", while the intro text says the name is 17th Poltava Brigade "Raid". The 18th Sloviansk Brigade is on the Ukrainian wiki as 18th NG Brigade and the intro text says the name is 18th Slovyansk Brigade. I am unsure what the proper names of these units are as also the website of the Ukrainian National Guard doesn't list them. The blog militaryland lists the operational brigades only by their name (Spartan Brigade, Rubizh Brigade, Khartia Brigade, Slovyansk Brigade, Bureviy Brigade, Azov Brigade, Chervona Kalyna Brigade, Kara-Dag Brigade, Lyubart Brigade; with the exception is the 17th Brigade, which only recently became an operational unit). Meanwhile militaryland lists National Guard brigades tasked with guarding rear areas only by their numbers (2nd Brigade, 5th Brigade, 11th Brigade, 19th Brigade, 27th Brigade... with the exception of the 31st Dnipro Brigade). As I do not want us to err in this regard, I left a note at the Ukrainian Military History Project page and asked if any of the Ukrainian editors wish to weigh in. noclador (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: That seems like a reasonable consideration, but I should note that regarding the exception you raised, there have been several separatist and Russian formations which have used the name of the same city, most notably the 1st Slavyansk Brigade. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 09:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I discovered this discussion from the talk page of the 60th Mechanized Brigade. I'm in favour of consistency within individual brigade types in Ukraine, but consistency with other country name conventions may be hard to achieve due to some military guidelines conflicting with Wikipedia policies as mentioned.

For the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Brigade articles, it is highly unlikely that readers searching for a "10X Territorial Defense Brigade" are expecting to find any other article, since in a quick internet search I was only able to find references to the Polish TDF (no other countries seemingly use this force design), and none of the Polish brigades have 3 digit numbers.

With this in mind, and the fact that the Polish TD brigades all have place names in them, I'm leaning in favour of removing the parentheses from all the Ukrainian TD brigade articles. Possible (unlikely) confusion between the 1st Podlaska Territorial Defence Brigade and the 1st Separate Territorial Defense Brigade (currently located at the old brigade name) could be addressed with a hat note disambiguation per an idea from @Mdewman6, especially once the latter page is renamed to its current, full name as I've typed.

Courtesy ping to @Pppery. TROPtastic (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I object to any situation in which "X" redirects to "X (Y)" (unless the subject's actual name is "X (Y)"), regardless of the topic area - by setting things up that way you're essentially simultaneously claiming that the title is and isn't the primary topic, which is absurd. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I share your views, which is why I can't see a reason for the Ukrainian TDF brigades to have (Ukraine) in their article names. There simply aren't enough similar sounding articles for disambiguation pages to exist, nevermind straight redirects when there aren't similar articles at all. TROPtastic (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I am against setting up an exception for just one category of brigades. The naming rule should be applied uniformly: "in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated". noclador (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the naming guideline should be applied uniformly. Unless the unit name is truly unique. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem that I've not seen anyone address is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history is (obviously) part of the Manual of Style, which, while important, does not trump Wikipedia:Article titles, which is policy. Specifically, WP:PRECISION stipulates that we don't preemptively disambiguate, particularly if the existing title is the likely sole intended meaning. If the MoS and policy are at odds, the MoS needs to be changed.

Preemptive disambiguation for MOS:MILUNITNAME made sense in 2007, when there were still very significant gaps in our coverage. It also mainly makes sense for normal, numbered divisions and above (but even then, there are exceptions; why on earth are we disambiguating 17th Airborne Division (United States)? There is not another one). For smaller units, especially specialized ones, disambiguation becomes less likely to be needed. Is there another 36th Marine Brigade, for example? As far as I can tell, there is not, so why are we clarifying that it's the Ukrainian one? Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Per Parsecboy. No need for preemptive disambiguation. Disambiguation should only happen when it needs to. Create a redirect with the (Ukraine) tag if you must. Llammakey (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION does allow for exceptions: Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. No opinion on whether this is one of those exceptions. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does, as should just about all policies, since general rules cannot foresee every possible scenario. But exceptions to policy generally need to have a good justification, not just "we don't like inconsistent titling". Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I thought that was the justification for all the naming conventions. E.g. what's the justification for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)? — Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Proper naming conventions are an extension of WP:AT and should be treated the same; but like I said, we're talking about a project-specific section of the MoS, which is not the same thing.

This discussion probably needs to be spun off into a proper RfC on whether or not we ought to still be preemptively disambiguating unit names. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the current guidance at MOS:MILUNITNAME that encourages preemptive disambiguation, as it encourages either a single-item disambiguation page, which is not allowed and makes little sense, or a WP:MISPLACED scenario as Pppery describes above. A case in which there is a disambiguation page for the base name (unqualified title) to redirect to is potentially acceptable, though. To take the example of Talk:60th_Mechanized_Brigade, it could potentially make sense to include the (Ukraine) qualifier and redirect the base name 60th Mechanized Brigade to the disambiguation page 60th Brigade, because it could potentially be confused with 60th Motorized Infantry Brigade (People's Republic of China) or some other 60th Brigade listed at the dab page. But I would argue that WP:SMALLDETAILS, again part of WP:AT policy, applies, i.e. that "Mechanized" and "Motorized" are different, and therefore the correct disambiguation technique is hatnotes instead of parenthetical disambiguation. Indeed, there is no 60th Motorized Brigade or 60th Motorized Infantry Brigade, so it makes little sense to me, given how Wikipedia is setup to handle titles and disambiguation, for the title to include the "(People's Repbublic of China)" in the title, even though most readers don't know whose military the unit belongs to without the qualifier, because the title without still meets all 5 WP:CRITERIA for titles. So, overall, in general I believe all numbered units should exist at their base names unless there are two or more units with the exact same WP:COMMONNAME that create a conflict that would require disambiguation included in their titles, or there is a primary redirect situation. In all other cases, hatnotes with links to general disambiguation pages like 60th Brigade is the way to go. And I agree we should strive to be consistent as much as possible. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#RfC: Proposal_to_remove_call_for_preemptive_disambiguation_from_MOS:MILUNITNAME. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This infobox takes up something like 75% of the article's total width on desktop/Vector 2022, which is the default for readers. It's also enormously complicated, which I get is a reflection of the topic but also defeats the purpose of an infobox ("a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject"). Any thoughts on how to narrow it? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Just had a look, far too fat, tried to slim it by removing nowraps but it made no difference. Good luck with it. Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Purge it like Stalin PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 01:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Could use some help tracking down better sourcing around the NATO reporting name for the PL-10. The article, as well as List of NATO reporting names for air-to-air missiles has been recently edited to claim that the NATO reporting name for the missile is "CH-AA-9 Azrael". The CH-AA-9 part is not particularly in dispute, but the "Azrael" brevity code is. There are apparently only two reliable sources using this reporting name, neither of which provide any indication or explanation as to where they source it from. One is an unfootnoted/uncited single offhand reference in an IISS research paper; the other is a similar situation in a dubious Key Aero Q&A with the Pakistani Air Force; both are paywalled sources and both appear to be at best WP:PRIMARY while the Key Aero source was written after the "Azrael" claim was added to the article and seems likely to be a case of citogenesis. Is anyone aware of any official NATO or NATO member nation sources that could verify this claim? If not, what are folks thoughts on removing the reporting name from the lede (on the PL-10 article) and giving it attributed mention in the body (on both articles, though one is just list format), until an actual NATO source using it can be identified? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is another case where the bogus "NATO" makes things difficult. THey are not "NATO reporting names" and should not be at that entry, but I have fought this battle without success before. Go look for the official data, if any available, for the Five Eyes Air Force Interoperability Council, the successor to ASIC, who started this whole system. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- do you know if they published it as an AIRSTD or an INFOPUB? I don't see anything relevant available on their list of current publications. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You will note I said "if any available." I've never seen, in 35+ years of following this stuff, an officially promulgated codename list from ASIC and/or its successors. Only in the popular press. I have slightly cleaned up the drive-by damage to the AFIC article. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, based on this, I'm going to remove this from the lede of PL-10 and from the list of reporting names. There do not appear to be multiple high-quality reliable sources supporting the claim of "Azrael" for the reporting name. IISS does not cite their reasoning or source, and reliability is always assessed on a case-by-case basis for sources. In this case, their reporting does not appear to be based on any reliable evidence. An exhaustive search of NATO, USAF, and AFIC's websites and documentation reveal zero results designating this as a reporting name; for a claim like this, especially in the lede and stated in Wikivoice, it is insufficient to rely on a single unsubstantiated assertion. All other sources found either fail RS (numerous), or appear to be derived from IISS, or are citogenesis risks (i.e. Key Aero) published *after* the inclusion of this claim into the article, or a combination of multiple of these issues (i.e. the Rafale interview). None of them cite through to an original source. Additionally, sourcing aside, including this claim in the lede sentence fails WP:LEDE and MOS:LEDEALT -- the former because the claim is never established in the body text (where it could at least be attributed); and the latter because only *significant* alternative names are used in the article; the complete lack of widespread reliable source usage indicates a lack of significance. I'll indicate in the edit summary for editors who wish to offer alternative views to join this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just want to add a comment that the Air Force Monthly article was the published before for the Wiki edit. The brevity code existed before the Wikipedia article. The online version of the article was published in September 2025; however, the printed version is slated for the November 2025 issue, which is why the citation noted the November date. It's not a case of citogenesis. AFIC basically no longer updates any of its list, so it's been increasingly difficult to validate reporting names. I suggest you also check PL-15 and PL-12's reporting names and see if they are on any databases, because their original edit was sourced solely from the IISS. Another case is the J-20's reporting name, Fagin. which comes from TRADOC ODIN (which is a NATO source, but it has the habit of copying Wikipedia), I don't know the validity of Fagin name because till this day I see no military publications other than ODIN cite this code. -Loned (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey. There is a large, extensive discussion about the content of that article on the talk page Talk:Military–industrial complex. Perhaps the editors here could be interested in contributing as things on this project and that article are related. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

He may be notable as a poet, but he sure isn't as a military figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Concur, for what it's worth. Intothatdarkness 13:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything that asserted his notability that met WP:BASIC or WP:POET so I've given it a WP:PROD - Dumelow (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried looking for one but couldn't find it, only a coordinator topicon. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that is the only topicon related to this project. I don't remember seeing another one over the course of many years editing Wikipedia. I don't find one in a search but it brings up 568 results. After the first two results, I don't see any that appear relevant in the next few dozen results, so I think it is safe assume that there is no other pertinent result and not worth the time to look through the rest of them. I conclude that is the reason that you and I cannot find one - because there are not any.

I can't think of another reason for other topicons for this project. There are quite a few user boxes for membership in the project, for various task force memberships and for various interests. I think that topicons are mostly for more limited purposes but I will admit I am not absolutely certain about that. In any case the userboxes appear to be sufficient for most purposes for which a Wikipedia contributor or editor would wish to post the membership or other notice on their talk page. That is a likely a good reason why there is no topicon for the same memberships, accomplishments, milestones or interests in addition to userboxes for those items.

Perhaps this question will have further answers over the next few days but perhaps other readers of the item will think my answer is sufficient. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have, however, noticed that many other WikiProjects have topicons. Perhaps one could be made for this WikiProject? The userboxes are good to show membership but many users also like to have topicons. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I've never used them but they are reasonably popular for displaying FAs etc. I can't see any harm in one being made and maybe a few people will click through to the project from them. They can be generated with the Template:Top icon and consist of a small (20x20) image and a link (which would presumably go to the main project page). The project logo at this scale is a bit indistinct but perhaps recognisable enough? - Dumelow (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making one. Even with reasonably good eyesight it's hard to make out what the icon is, perhaps we could choose a simpler design? From commons:Category:History icons I found commons:File:P history.svg, which seems like a simpler design and is already widely used (640,000+ usages). Could it work instead? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That one's already in use for Portal:History and a similar cavalry figure is used for Wikipedia:WikiProject History so might cause confusion. This cannon might work, but I would welcome wider thoughts as to what is representative of the project - Dumelow (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realise that. The cannon could perhaps work. I'll see what other editors think. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

One approach to this would be to gamify membership in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Administrative service awards and Wikipedia:Service_awards, which makes sense given that our Coordinator topicon already uses rank insignia (and rank insignia shouldn't conflict with, but rather complement, the existing service awards which are ribbon/medal format). So instead of just a single membership topicon, you'd have one for each "rank". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Tried to create Template:Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII by splitting it from template: Arctic naval operations of WWII but it wasn't as straightforward as I'd expected. Does anyone mind having a look and suggesting how to sort it out? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It was the |battles= parameter. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks babe. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've simplified {{Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII}} but I gotta wonder if that template is really needed. At the bottom of Arctic convoys of World War II there is a navbox {{Arctic convoys}} that appears to list the same article links with additional detail. Redundant stuff is redundant; is {{Campaignbox Arctic convoys of WWII}} really needed?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, I got a sinking feeling when I looked at [Category:World War II campaignboxes]. I'm content to return to the status quo. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

"Sinking feeling." Arctic convoys of WWII. Good one! Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Eythenkew! ;O) how do I revert the lot, do I just blank the pages? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for Speedy deletion PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, used criterion A10.Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, found that the template had appeared on the article, when I thought that I put it on the template I created in error....Keith-264 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, when a template has a deletion tag on it, it puts a thing on the template in the articles the template is in as well. I can kinda see why, but it makes thing screwy with the "turn links to things nominated for deletion pink" script... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Convoy QP 10 found no adequate map of Hvalfjörður so used the infobox from the Hvalfjörður page. Is there a better way to do it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hvalfjörður

You can do this with template:Location map per right - Dumelow (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Aah, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The page [[Non-international armed conflict]] redirects to Civil_war. The concepts are related, but different. Civil wars are sometimes called internal armed conflicts but, of course, there are also non-internal (non-international) armed conflicts, which makes the redirect overly broad. While the redirect might have been a laudable temporary measure, I think it's time to change things. First, here are the five articles that currently link to the redirect page, each with one such link:

• (1) List of non-international armed conflicts

The following is a list of non-international armed conflicts, fought between territorial and/or intervening state forces and non-state armed groups or between non-state armed groups within the same state or country.

• (2) List of countries by intentional homicide rate

Killings caused by a non-international armed conflict may or may not be included, depending on the intensity of hostilities and whether it is classified as 'civil unrest' or a clash between organized armed groups.

• (3) List of countries by intentional death rate

(Same as previous)

• (4) Foreign fighter

A foreign fighter is someone who travels abroad to participate in a non-international armed conflict or fight for a country of which he or she is not a national.

• (5) Starvation (crime)

In 2018, Switzerland proposed extending this provision to non-international armed conflict (NIAC).

By my reckoning, all of the above links refer to [[non-international armed conflict]]s in general, rather than referring to the stricter sense of civil war only. Because of this, I propose:

• (a) that the links above, pertaining to non-international armed conflict link, be de-linkified;
• (b) that the redirect at [[Non-international armed conflict]] be deleted;
• (c) that an appropriately-scoped article on [[Non-international armed conflict]] be written (preferably by a military and/or legal expert), which would of course link to Civil war, but also explain the difference in meaning between the two terms;
• (d) that, after (c), the above links to [[Non-international armed conflict]] be restored.

Thoughts? Thanks! Dotyoyo (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, my initial thought is that the definition in use for Foreign fighter seems wildly incorrect in specifying "non-international", as exemplified by linking on the very same page to Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War which is.... an international conflict. I'd be very surprised if that article's claim (which is substantively the entire article given that it's only one sentence long followed by a See Also section that's roughly 3-4 times as large as the entire body text) accurately summarizes the sources involved in their complete context; and would suggest culling the See Also section with a chainsaw. The other links seem appropriate, but that one isn't. The rest of the approach seems fine, though I think only step (c) is actually necessary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester: Thanks. I've just edited the Foreign fighter article to remove the qualifier that the armed conflict needs to be "non-international". There certainly are lots of See Also links, but they all seem appropriate, so I didn't remove any. Dotyoyo (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone (@Swatjester:?) is interested, I've written an initial draft of content here to replace the redirect at [[Non-international armed conflict]] that currently redirects the user to Civil war. I propose to replace the link in a week or so. Feel free to provide feedback in this section. Thanks! Dotyoyo (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good starting place to build from, for sure. I would start with building out next the portion addressing specifically distinctions from full-scale civil war (which would link to that article for further detail), and then an examples section with notable instances of NIAC. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI - I've made some further modifications to the draft. I'd say it's ready to become a bouncing baby stub! Dotyoyo (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. I've pushed the content from my draft page to the article at Non-international armed conflict. Dotyoyo (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any sort of convention that determines which side gets put in the left or right of a {{Infobox military conflict}} box? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

In Bulgaria up until 2000 the Major general was the first general rank i.e. general with 1 star. In 2000 was introduced Brigadier general (1st general rank i.e. with 1 star). Major generals were renamed to Brigadier generals, Lieutenant generals to Major generals i.e. the new Major general become with 2 stars. This brings some confusion. Do you have any experience here or on your local Wikipedia in solving this issue? For example have a category "Major generals of the Republic of Bulgaria" and it has both 1 star and 2 star generals. Also we have list of ranks in which we have: * Major general (1990), * Major general (2000), which is also confusing. It's not a "major" issue, but I would like to hear your opinion on that. --StanProg (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the specific problem needs to be clarified a bit more -- e.g. is this a problem with categorization, infoboxes, article text, etc? Because it's hard to give just general categorical advice here. For instance, if an individual held the rank of Major General, regardless of the grade that was at the time, it would be correct for us to categorize them under the "Major Generals of Bulgaria" category, as that category is only contingent on whether one *is* a MG, not what grade MG was at the time. If you're talking about article body text, presumably we can explain the discrepancy in a footnote or in-line. In an infobox, we could simply note the rank with the appropriate visual number of stars that they held, and deal with it that way. I'm sure there's some edge cases that could be handled on a case by case basis. But I don't think it's clear specifically what the application of the problem you're facing is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an unified way to represent that case in the categorization (your proposal to leave it as it is seams reasonable), and for or all other cases - promotions in the text, infoboxes (we use just the rank there from Wikidata as a text, so it will be tricky as we don't know in Wikidata if it's 1 star or 2 stars), and sections with the list of the promotions. What I noticed today is that in some places editors have named Major general with 2 stars as Lieutenant general (and they were never promoted to that rank), I saw some links with the text Major general that lead to Brigadier general, etc, so I decided first to see if this problem was solved in some other Wikipedia, before I start standardizing it. We have just few dozens of people that are affected by this change in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but I need to find a solution and make a proposal for a local policy. StanProg (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion at hand is: Talk:World War I#Revisiting the "Commanders and Leaders" Section. Your contributions to that discussion are requested. The Banner talk 11:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Although the article primarily focuses on the institutional, social, and ideological aspects of the movement that emerged from the First Crusade, it also highlights the military dimension of crusading. I therefore believe that comments from members of this WikiProject could make a valuable contribution to improving the article before its FAC. Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. The peer review can be found here. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

As part of 1st (UK) Division:

• 4th Light Brigade Combat Team is now the 4th Light Brigade — 4th Light Brigade website
• 7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team is now the 7th Light Mechanised Brigade — 7th Light Mechanised Brigade website
• 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team is now the 16 Air Assault Brigade — 16th Air Assault Brigade website
• 19th Brigade is now the 19th Light Brigade — 19th Light Brigade website

As part of 3rd (UK) Division:

• 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade Combat Team is now the 3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade — 3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade website
• 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom) is now the 12th Armoured Brigade — 12th Armoured Brigade website
• 20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom) is now the 20th Armoured Brigade — 20th Armoured Brigade website

The British Army hasn't yet completely updated all of their webpages, but the "Brigade Combat Team" naming has been dropped, and the 3rd (UK) Division's 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade has been renamed 3rd Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade to make way for the formation of the 1st (UK) Division's 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade. I moved four of the brigades (3rd, 4th, 7th, 19th) to their current and correct names, but for the 16 Air Assault Brigade, 12th Armoured Brigade and 20th Armoured Brigade I could not move them, as the the correct names are also the units traditional names. If an administrator of the project could please move these three brigades to their correct names; thank you. noclador (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't any of thee people speak English? I'm paying for this. Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Montewarrigal Could this be another iteration of our perennial Italian chauvinist?Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, saw his edits too and find them unhelpful and disruptive. I didn't revert, because I wanted to look at more of his edits first, but as far as I can tell he keeps adding nothing of encyclopaedic value. noclador (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This editor keeps adding extremely long quotes from dubious sources that add nothing of value to the articles. I believe we have to radically revert this nonsense and set the articles back before all these quotes were added. noclador (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone remember the procedure for block evasions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for by-the-book. You could use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) to limit the damage while SPI does its thing if it's a really obvious case.

In the past, for some frequent obvious cases involving IP-hopping evaders I've been advised to handle things via AIV to save everyone time and effort. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and editor talk page.... Is this editor our resident impostor who tries to make it look like the Italians won the Western Desert campaign? The edits seem biased, often relying on wartime Time articles and other sources beyond the fringe. You might want to comment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Opened a sockpuppet investigations as its definitely him again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala. noclador (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

See several evolving proposals as the situation has escalated. More eyes are needed to form consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations to all of our hardworking featured pictures contributors. We have smashed through our previous target of 575 featured pictures and now have 680 within the project's scope. The co-ordinators have set a new target of 750 pictures, which would be a great milestone.

The files promoted in the last month are below (apologies if I have missed any). Thank you to all of the nominators involved and also to User:Matarisvan who does the important work of keeping our featured picture showcase up to date.

For anyone interested in getting involved, information on the featured picture criteria can be found here and on the nomination procedure here - Dumelow (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• 
  War photographer Eddie Adams photographed by Bernard Gotfryd. Nominated by User:JJARichardson
• 
  Aftermath of the Battle of Taku Forts (1860) photographed by Felice Beato. Nominated by User:Yann
• 
  Aftermath of the My Lai massacre photographed by Ronald L. Haeberle. Nominated by User:10ploopy10
• 
  Major General Chris Donahue, the last American soldier to withdraw from Afghanistan. Nominated by User:JJARichardson
• 
  Victor Jorgensen's photograph of a US Navy sailor kissing a female passing by on Victory over Japan Day at Times Square. Nominated by User:Yann
• 
  Valley of the Shadow of Death, a photograph taken by Roger Fenton during the Crimean War. Nominated by User:Yann

Theres a article called Siege of Nishapur (1221) and it got nominated for deletion and i need help to expand it from you guys so it doesn’t get deleted im trying my best Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It got turned to a redirect now the only hope is Draft:Siege of Nishapur (1221) Shadow. 547 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just saying but if you guy’s didnt know recently it got accepted Siege of Nishapur (1221) Shadow. 547 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I've posted a short note at Talk:Kathleen Hicks asking whether a paragraph about her 2023 televised exchange with Jon Stewart belongs in her biography, or if it may be more appropriate for Stewart's article instead. Because I have a COI (I work with the Hicks family), I’m not editing directly, but would appreciate input from editors familiar with defense topics. Thanks very much for any thoughts. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@WWB Too: what does "I work with the Hicks family" mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My firm, Beutler Ink, was hired by the Hicks family to seek updates to the Kathleen Hicks article while following WP:COI and WP:PAID. See also the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the Talk page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@WWB Too: So you work for, not with, the Hicks family? Or are the Hicks family also editing wikipedia alongside you? Given that we seem to have to clarify simple english can you also clarify whether "my firm" means employment or ownership of Beutler Ink? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Sure thing. Beutler Ink is a consultancy that I own and operate; you can find more about that on my user page. The Hicks family has retained us on a contract basis to improve the quality of the article; you can see my prior efforts on the article's Talk page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so "with" was an euphemism? Why not just directly say that you are paid? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, a current FAC I have running (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Fürst Bismarck/archive1) is short of reviewers, and will likely be archived if I can't attract any interest. If you have time to take a look at the article, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Count me in. I'll work on one today. GGOTCC 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I just removed 7k text from Allied invasion of Sicily and 6k from Operation Fustian, which was all inside references and had been added by socks of the disruptive editor TimSala / Paulioetc / Generalmesse. I will continue to look for such lengthy texts in references, which always cite fringe sources and remove them. There is also an open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala for the newest rounds of socks. noclador (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Most grateful for your diligence. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked all Royal Italian Army WWII divisions and also all Western Desert Campaign articles. Every time I found long text in refs I removed it, because it was always inserted by the same sock circus. If other editors spot similar edits / text in refs let me know and I will check and if a case of TimSala etc remove the text. noclador (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Article titles about German military operations are inconsistent what to translate into English. With Fall, handling is inconsistent between leaving it German or translate totally: Fall Weiss, Fall Rot vs. Case Blue, Case Brown. As of Unternehmen - this seems to be consistently translated into operation, but then it is inconsistent whether the name is translated or not: Operation Sea Lion, Operation Solstice, Operation Northwind, Operation Silver Fox... vs. Operation Bodenplatte, Operation Elster, Operation Lehrgang, Operation Rösselsprung... does this follow a logic? --KnightMove (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to things such as Sea Lion vs Bodenplatte, it is because that name is most common among English speakers. I assume this applies for all the examples, but this is a good question. GGOTCC 17:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes see Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Some of it may stem from how they're translated (or not) in the RS used in each article. Some authors translate every military operation name, while others do not. Intothatdarkness 18:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Should we try to make this more consistent, and if yes, how exactly? --KnightMove (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's not try to fit different shaped pegs into a hole of consistency. The article title should just follow what the preponderance of reliable sources (published in English) use when referring to that specific campaign or operation. This is basically what WP:AT says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." Note that we only go to the principles (including the idea that it should resemble titles for similar articles) when the common name offers multiple possibilities. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I am currently trying to figuring out how a template for Cold War-era Swedish Ships should work. Normally, it seems that the convention is to use a template such as Template:Post1945DutchShips to avoid repeats of WW2-era ships. However, we already have Template:ActiveSwedishNavyClasses. Should I merge the active ships template to avoid duplication of modern vessels, or is there an existing template style for ships between 1945 and 1991?

Thanks! GGOTCC 17:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not a ships expert but by way of summarising current practice in this area. It appears in most cases a template is used to link ship classes rather than individual ships (though some of these classes only contain one ship):

• Template:Post1945DutchShips
• Template:Post1945DanishShips
• Template:Soviet and Russian ships after 1945
• Template:Post1945DanishShips
• Template:Post1945PortugueseShips
• Template:Italian destroyers, frigates and corvettes post-1945

The only exception I found was Template:Post1945IrishShips, which is understandable given the small number of ships involved. Perhaps that can be your distinction, keep the active ships template for individual vessels in the current fleet and use the post-1945 template to link together all post-1945 ship classes? - Dumelow (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Lua error in mw.text.lua at line 25: bad argument #1 to 'match' (string expected, got boolean). Does anyone know how to cure this? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Operation Sonnenblume as well. Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Appears to come from Module:Infobox mapframe. Editors Joy and Hike395 were the last editors to touch that module.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, bad test case. I just fixed it, will have to figure out the original bug separately. --Joy (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you two....;O) Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting. AFAICT the bug had spread to about 167 articles before the revert. --Joy (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B12389146 CHD 00911. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

All !votes are very much appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Need some help dealing with a vandal on the Juno Beach article. Just started changing stuff without discussion, eliminating cited information, on the basis of a YouTube video. Some more eyes would be helpful. Llammakey (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly not what's happened. You just don't like the edits. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow...just wow. Llammakey (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting for other users on the talk page that Llammakey and Ranger Steve are the two involved in the dispute. GGOTCC 18:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Started the 96th Division (Israel) article with the some of the data on the Hebrew wiki. Lots of text + sources there, however as non-Hebrew speaker I do not feel competent to bring in more of the Hebrew text. If any Hebrew-speaking editor wants to have a look - please feel free to add more context from the Hebrew wki article. noclador (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)