Archive 170

←

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

I have been encountering articles that I feel have been prematurely promoted to B-class. Many are Hero of the Soviet Union articles. Examples: Kadi Abakarov and Akhsarbek Abaev. It could be that there is just not much to go on but that seems dubious. Pavle Abramidze is somewhat of an improvement but I suspect there is more that could be written. Hero of the Soviet Union articles are a noble thing but if that is the only thing a person has done then the notability might be questionable. At least the article should contain more content and a better lead before being promoted to B-class. Others are military deserters like Larry Allen Abshier with an unsourced section. Articles like Roy Chung, with the one sentence lead, and enough content to possibly fill the criteria for Start-class. Another is Agus_Suhartono. I did not dig into any specifics, because I have been under the weather, I just thought I should mention this. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

B class is the minimum acceptable standard for Wikipedia articles. The B-Class criteria requires that "it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." Larry Allen Abshier was assessed back in 2008, when criteria were less strict that they are today. Today it would be rated C class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, what about a large amount of material possibly copy/pasted from the London Gazette such as in the Thomas Alderson article? -- Otr500 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It is out of copyright, hence PD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Still needs to be attributed, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• In the Thomas Alderson article, the text before the quoted paragraph in the "Second World War" section lists The Gazette as the source. There are no other Gazette references used there (uninvolved user comment). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Hello to everyone. I have just created Draft:FNSS ZAHA MAV, however my article needs review before it moved into article namespace. I would be thankful to who reviews it. I would be open to any suggestions for improving my article. MaxentiusNero (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The article 126th Armed Police Mobile Division (People's Republic of China)(currently it is known as the 2nd mobile contingent of the PAP so I added a redirect) is completely out of date(simply by switching to the chinese wikipedia article there is much more info lol) and is lacking in tonnes of information that other articles have sources on; heck even the People's Armed Police section on it has more information than the article itself.

Prior to me editing it and adding that it is currently the 2nd mobile contingent, the page was lacking anything about what happened to if after 1950, with it literally saying "As Of 1970-1980, it is currently a PAP unit" when tonnes of info can be found to update it

Another issue is that the Snow Leopard commando Unit article claims it is part of the beijing contingent when almost all sources(including but not limited to chinese wikipedia) i can find online claim it is part of the 2nd mobile contingent. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I finished fixing it already Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czech98006: Request scrutiny of an editor changing the Infobox despite dialogue and pointers to Template:Infobox military conflict Thanks ####

Neither of you are referring to sources in the talk page discussion. Quoting the relevant sources (and considering the balance of sources in cases where there isn't a consensus, as might be the case here) is always a good way to resolve these types of debates. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please join the RM discussion. Talk:John Alexander (VC)#Requested move 14 January 2025. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am currently making a wikipedia page for William of Orange's invasion of England and such a list would be valuable. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

DavidDijkgraaf, I found a comparison of Dutch, British and French warship strength by decade from 1650-1700 at Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600-1714 (p. 33), if that helps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A more comprehensive table is at Talking about Naval History: A Collection of Essays (p. 54). Alansplodge (talk) Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

And another that includes Spain and Russia, at The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime (p. 66). Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I like Rodger's appendix II in The Command of the Ocean: Ships of the line and cruisers for the six main European maritime powers every five years from 1650 to 1815. I can't find an on line version, but would be happy to photo and email it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you guys. Luckily I found Rodger's book on the internet archive DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been working on Draft:List of attacks on the United States for several weeks, and I have a lot of summaries already written, but still a lot to write. The lead is still incomplete, but it is on the docket to do at the very end (to help clearly define the scope and such). The scope will eventually be any attack or overall campaign (like the Gettysburg campaign) which is against the U.S.. Large scope, I know, but my vision for the article will make it extremely good and extremely useful.

Anyway, if anyone wants to help me write some summaries (1942 to 2025) or do some accuracy and grammatical checks on the already written summaries (1776 to 1941), feel free to help out. I started it in November 2024, so probably only a couple more months of work to do on it to get it ready for mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16278919.html

This source from the chinese MOD uses the CNS prefix for Nanchang(101), meaning that it is official that the chinese navy uses the CNS prefix. Chinese navy ship articles should not use names like "Chinese destroyer Nanchang" but be replaced with CNS Nanchang per norm(e.g. USS, HMS).

More reliable sources(some third party) uses CNS:

https://news.usni.org/2024/09/18/chinas-liaoning-carrier-strike-group-deploys-to-philippine-sea - US naval institute

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202407/12/WS6690f94ea31095c51c50dd2d.html - Chinadaily, with ties with chinese goverment Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

PRC MOD is republishing something from the China Daily, which is not quite the same as PRC MOD using it themselves. China Daily is also, at best, inconsistent in its application of "CNS". Take a browse through the first couple pages of results in:

• https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=frigate
• https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=destroyer

Most references to Chinese warships are not using CNS; foreign ships, on the other hand, typically have their prefixes. Interestingly, "CNS" (https://newssearch.chinadaily.com.cn/en/search?query=CNS) seems to be applied by CD to the aircraft carriers than anything else.

PRC MOD also republishes articles from China Military Online (http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/OverseasOperations/EscortMissions/index.html). Here, too, there's a distinct lack of usage of CNS.

Overall, the form <ship type/function> <ship name> predominates in the above. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And the important question is why would China officialy use the English term Chinese Navy Ship for a prefix? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In chinese there is no prefix but in english I mostly see CNS or no prefix instead

Might be inconsistent overall(maybe translation problems?) but I think since the Chinese MOD used it(even though it was a republished article people have reviewed it and decided not to remove the prefix), and it is one of the more common prefixes used for the PLAN(other than PLANS, which is used on wikimedia commons however not much anywhere else) so i think if we get any more official sources we should move chinese navy articles to start using CNS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As for the inconsistency, I have a theory for this

Articles with CNS were written originally with english(which is why they added the prefix), articles without CNS were translated from chinese; there is no prefix in Chinese which is why the translated version has no prefix Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Very long-standing practice is to only use prefixes when the navy in question officially uses them. The top source linked is a republished article from China Daily, not an official government publication, so there is no evidence that the PLAN uses prefixes (and it's highly unlikely that they do, given that prefixes are more or less a Western thing that don't exactly make sense in non-alphabet languages). As far as I can tell, "CNS" falls squarely into the category of invented prefixes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Even though it is republished, the fact still stands it is on the Chinese MOD website which means they had no problems with publishing an article with that prefix; However on the chinese MOD website seems that most articles do not use a prefix, as they seem to be direct translations from Chinese Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because they "have no problems" with the prefix doesn't mean they use it internally. That is the bar you need to meet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I know, however in Chinese prefixes are never used; in the end CNS is the closest thing we have to an official prefix for the Chinese navy(the link I put, and the fact that many external sources, though likely made up, also use it), so until any more sources come out, articles using CNS should only be redirects

However this still is a huge leap in the search for more official prefixes to use. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Parsecboy - it's an invented prefix and we should never use it. Similar to multi national agencies using ITS, FS, ESPNS, FGS etc Lyndaship (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note there is an ongoing discussion about including countries other than the United States. I'd appreciate input from other editors. Thanks. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 22:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to fix the table at the above location? It's currently showing zero pages in most non-article categories. Looks to be the result of a recent move of these categories eg from Category:Disambig-Class military history articles to Category:Disambig-Class military history pages - Dumelow (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. Recently the infobox to Angolan Civil War has been amended to include a long list of the various nationalities that served as foreign mercenaries or volunteers during that conflict. This results in the respective nations essentially being listed under the "combatants" heading of the infobox. I think this is highly unusual, and most of the other conflict-related articles I've read or revised do not have this feature, even those in which foreign fighters took part, whether as mercenaries or otherwise. As is it seems to make the infobox rather bloated, and I'm in favor of restricting the use of the "combatants" section solely to national governments which participated directly in hostilities. Thoughts? Katangais (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. "From that country" =/= "That country was a combatant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd:: Please explain why the listing of different nationalities of mercenaries is necessary in the combatants section of the infobox. I've yet to see this in any other conflict-related article, so I'm genuinely puzzled at its inclusion at Angolan Civil War. --Katangais (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Look at the Iran–Iraq War article for example. You can see under volunteers. We could either:

• • • A. Place the mercenaries under the “units involved” section since the infobox had a Units section
    • B. Keep it as it was SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Iran–Iraq War lists general foreign fighters as combatants (ie "Shia volunteers" and "Arab volunteers"). The equivalent would be adding "foreign mercenaries" to the combatants list for Angolan Civil War. There's no need to list the individual nationalities of all the mercenaries as separate combatants in the infobox, especially alongside state actors. --Katangais (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

We could still list the indiviual nationalities under "units involved" section. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Nationalities are not units. That’s the type of information that would be useful in the body of the article, but too granular for the infobox. --Katangais (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Mercenaries do not represent their country of origin and should not be presented in a way that suggests they do. They are not state players or a faction in a civil war so they do not belong under "belligerents" in the infobox. They are not a "unit" unless they are organised into a specific unit. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. An extensive list of units would be inappropriate. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have no substance unless the other stuff represents best practice - ie two wrongs don't make a right. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621)#RFC: How should the war be characterized in the infobox? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is orig-year being replaced by orig-date? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

|orig-date= is the canonical form and |orig-year= is the alias.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, as far as I know, 1925 is a year not a date, hence orig-year or am I under a misapprehension? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As 23 January 1925 is a date, so too is 1925; both |orig-date=23 January 1925 and |orig-date=1925 are semantically correct. The reverse is not true: 1925 is a year date, but 23 January 1925 is not a year date. |orig-date= became the canonical and preferred form because editors complained about the dissonance of |orig-year=23 January 1925.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not both? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that question.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. Please, rescue it or go to WP:AfD. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Another military article unsourced 15 years. Time for us to decide what to do: add sources or discuss deleting it. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United States could use some attention from experience editors. Despite the accessibility concerns and lack of sources...there seems to be a little criteria for the list. Not sure how something like Operation Ocean Shield is a war. Seems to be confusion between military assistance, military interventions and military deployments etc. Moxy🍁 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I'll do it anyway. The reason for this is because in reality it's meant to be a list of armed conflicts, not just specifically wars. Every "List of wars involving" page does it this way. Obviously the title doesn't exactly correlate to the topic, but at this point I feel like you either just have to deal with it (either way they are very simple and recognisable titles) or go out of your way to try and rename hundreds of pages like this. Setergh (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Setergh: @Moxy: Why do not move these articles to lists such as List of armed conflicts involving the United States? Eurohunter (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Up to you, but once again, you'd be forced to do this to hundreds of pages. You might as well just leave it, it's quite a recognisable title anyway and gets the point across. Setergh (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Many articles (narrowly artillery, but we also do this for aircraft engines) include a list under their 'See also' section for a list of Howitzers of similar caliber, role, era, and capability, i.e. 155mm towed artillery of the '70s. Is this redudant [sic] ?

I reverted this, prompting a comment here. But then realised that they'd blanked a whole bunch of them too: Special:Contributions/Eurohunter (20 Jan 2025). I would support restoring the lot. It's a useful section for a comparison and pointer to related articles. Very far from "there is no point in doing this."

Thoughts? @Eurohunter: Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Me and other people already removed similar redundant lists from articles about tanks. This is just a list of other howitizers unrelated to this one. The whole point of see also is to add links to articles which haven't been mentioned yet in the article, so once they are mentioned in the article you remove them from see also - in this case there are just unrelated articles which will never be described in the text as it has nothing to do unless you have sources for some kind of comparison. Eurohunter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you ought to read WP:SEEALSO, which does not support your argument, Eurohunter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Are you sure? "A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web". Eurohunter (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What are other, similar howitzers of the same period if not "comparable articles"? Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: How it makes it comparable? There should be direct source which clearly indicate comparison in some way - some kind of professional review, opinion from forces etc. Eurohunter (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what the the word "comparable" means? There are no sources required to identify articles that meet that basic definition. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Now you're just shifting goalposts in the hope that something will stick. You first claimed that these comparisons were redundant. Now you're claiming they're so significant that they must be easily sourceable. Which is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, "See also" exists for a reason, and it's not the reason Eurohunter apparently thinks it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I don't know for what or I'm not sure what do you want to say by "Now you're" - so simpy the answer is both answers are correct. These lists (SPAM) were redundant to these articles, as there was no any criteria to add them - they were just random - why do not add 3, 4 or 15 more yet? There is no reason to cancel edits and they should be restored. If they are comparable then they shoud be mentioned in text with sources - this is far connection to these articles, so if you add them to section see also without any description it's very not clear why they are there. For this reason I didn't removed some see also as there was reason provided why they are there. Eurohunter (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The see also section is expressly for similar or related articles that do not warrant being included in the prose. You need to revert your edits to the affected articles, as they are entirely without merit or basis in policy, procedure, or precedent. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: "The see also section is expressly for similar or related articles that do not warrant being included in the prose" - yes but it's not reason to add whole lists of unrelated articles (SPAM). There is no any description after link. Eurohunter (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that they are related based on weapon type, caliber, and function. You would have a case if someone added a 20mm antiaircraft gun to the 155mm howitzer article being discussed, but the weapons in the list presented are all similar in caliber, type, and function. These lists are quite helpful if a reader wants to see what other kinds of howitzers were used during the time period in question. Calling them SPAM is ridiculous. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: There was no any description after link. Anyway, I could understand if these would be previous or next models of this same manufacturer, just not mentioned yet in the text or artilerry of other manufacturers but with something especially relted to be written in the articke in the future. Article should explain all related articlery, not see also sction. In this way we could focus on making see also lists than writting articles. If 100 countries would have comparable own artillery, would you add all of them? There are lists such as List of artillery by country or more lists at List of artillery by type. Why not just them? Eurohunter (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it makes more sense to deal with this as is being done now. Your argument is not persuasive. Intothatdarkness 02:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Has ru, pl and bg interwikis at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4154317 - but I was surprised to find nothing on en or in most other languages. Seems like a basic and notable military topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly covered by articles on such topics as Proving ground, Bombing range and perhaps various types of test and training facilities? Donner60 (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Donner60 Related topics, but missing the red linked parent article, no? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be easier for some readers to find under the weapons range title with links to the other articles for further information. Perhaps a redirect to proving ground might not be comprehensive enough to cover it all. I didn't further scrutinize it, however. Donner60 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Rey_(1059)# Kartal1071 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You are more likely to get a review of a draft article (especially as you are a relatively new user) at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Since this is a new request, I suggest that this request not be removed for several days, at least, to see if any experienced editor who regularly reads this page nonetheless is willing to review it. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Kartal1071 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I moved punctuation before the references per Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other spacing/formatting fixes. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Over at this aircrash article talkpage, there is a (trio? I think it's a trio...) of editors who already labelled one of the army helo pilots as "racist" because of where he went to school as a kid. They're just itching to get all three helo crew id's (literally screaming for them, like a newsroom editor in a drama flick), so they can post this in the article. And why? Becuase apparently we're competing with Trump, and this will somehow counter his comments about DEI...? (can't make this stuff up).

They literally just died hours ago, in uniform in service to their country, and now their families, friends, and service colleagues are to see this; the latest from WP's new tabloid division. Is there an admin here that can go there and bring a little sanity to article and tp? Thank you - \\'cLf 01:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to report conduct issues. See AN, ANI, etc, as appropriate. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see Template Talk:Army Center of Military History#Dead links. --Altenmann >talk 02:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Shenzhen(167) is the only member of the type 051B class, and other single-ship classes(e.g. Soviet destroyer Opytny and USS Enterprise (CVN-65)) only have one article for the ship class and the ship itself. Can someone please merge these two articles together?(i'm not the most familiar with merge protocol even though i have been here for some time already) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The article has been expanded and in my opinion it's not a stub anymore VidarVN (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi VidarVN. Neat! I suggest that you submit it here for a reassessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

How should we classify lists of lists, such as Lists of massacres in Palestine or List of equipment of the United States Marine Corps. I had previously thought these were closest to Wikipedia:Set index articles, however, after reading that page I am left more confused about what SIAs but it seems not to cover this. It seems a bit strange to classify lists of lists alongside regular lists when they won't (and probably shouldn't) expand beyond basic bullet points and won't ever meet b-class criteria? - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we even need a list of lists for military equipment? It could easily be moved into the appropriate template or into the see also section of the individual lists. Gavbadger (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

May I ask for topics like coast guards and gendarmerie(e.g. stuff like coast guard ships, people's armed police/russian national guard units) are they primarily under the scope of Wikiproject law enforcement or wikiproject military history? On the talk page wikiproject banner I usually put in both but if I have queries/need help on one of these topics do I find help on wikiproject law enforcement, wikiproject military history or a completely different wikiproject(e.g. wikiproject ships, wikiproject china/russia etc) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinions for the discussion at Talk:Third_Anglo-Afghan_War#Changing_the_results. It concerns the result parameter of this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A couple of experienced editors might resolve this otherwise it will probably go to an RfC. Be warned, it is a wall of text but the issues aren't all that hard to pick out. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Third_Anglo-Afghan_War#RfC on result in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's see how many more harmless eloctrons we can murder trying to resolve this. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have noticed an issue similar to the one pointed out by Headbomb re: WPMH articles which have Harv/Sfn errors. I wanted to help out with WP:WPSHORTDESC and added short descriptions to 16 WPMH articles in no time. I thought there could be a search query to automate the identification of WPMH articles which do not have short descriptions. The search query is "-hastemplate" "deepcat:battles", and the link for running this query is [1]. This query returns ~3,300 results. Of these, about 5-8% might be false positives, but there are still 3,000 articles which need short descriptions. I think we might be able to help out here significantly, since adding short descriptions is much easier than locating missing sources which cause Harv/Sfn errors.

The SHORTDESC WikiProject says there are around 781,429 articles without short descriptions. There might be more WPMH articles in this total, since I've only searched for articles which have the Battles category, but there are surely many from other categories like MILHIST biographies, weaponry etc. I think we could help reduce 4 - 10% of this absurdly large number, which would be very helpful for the project. I'm also thinking of launching an effort for WPMH articles which are orphans (those which don't have links from any other articles). Please let me know if anyone could help come up with a search query for this effort, or for finding all WPMH articles without short descriptions. Matarisvan (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, for the Military History WikiProject, (clean up list here) and (Orphaned list here) Gavbadger (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be helpful for the project. It seems like a waste of time. They could be automatically added from Wikidata. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, Wikidata usually has inadequate short descriptions, and therefore they have to be refined anyways, which defeats the purpose of automating the process. Also, I don't know if this will be true for everyone, but it has helped me discover many new WPMH articles I could contribute to. Matarisvan (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of short descriptions? They are invisible except in the edit space, which seems pointless to me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

In the mobile phone version of Wikipedia, you have related topics for each article at the bottom of the page. It shows the infobox picture, name of the article and the short description. Also in the mobile version it shows the same information when you use the search function. Gavbadger (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Aah, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: (though anyone helping out is fine, I just hope the coordinators are aware of this) Here is a list of articles/pages related to the chinese military which need to be improved/created(along with how difficult it likely will be and overall importance)

1. Chinese landing helicopter dock Guangxi - Difficulty: Easy; Importance: Mid-High; Issue: Article needs creation. Guangxi commissioned in 2021 and after 4 years it still has no article; it's not that it ain't notable either, it is a literal LHD and has received tonnes of media attention from both within and outside china(you can find tonnes of articles on it, such as this, this and this). Luckily wikimedia commons already has a photo of the ship, and the ship badge can be found here(Website is Guangxi province department of veteran's affairs, which is an official goverment site). I am planning to personally go in a make this article when I have time(aka next time i have holiday in april) but it will be really appreciated if somebody makes it first.
2. Type 051B destroyer and Chinese destroyer Shenzhen - Difficulty: Mid; Importance: Low-Mid; Issue: Merge needed. The type 051B is a single ship class, which means there is only one article needed. Info is overlapping even though Shenzhen has more citations. I would suggest merging Shenzhen into the type 051B article first and then renaming the Type 051B article, as the type 051B article has more links to other languages.
3. Somali Naval Escort Operation of the People's Liberation Army - Difficulty: Easy; Importance: High; Issue: Grammar, article is piratically orphaned, article also needs more links and also lacks good citations for such a discussed topic. The article itself reeks of google translate; The naming of the navy ships is also completely ridiculous(luckily I have tried to help out and fixed the ones at the top); However the good news is it is easy to see which navy ship the article is referring to, for example 998 Kunlunshan means Chinese landing ship kunlunshan(as it has the pennant number 998) and Ma'anshan class frigate 525 refers to Chinese frigate Ma'anshan.
4. Articles related to China Coast Guard. - Difficulty: Easy-Hard; Importance:Mid; Issue: Incorrect ship names. Many sources incorrectly call chinese coast guard ships CCG - (number), when in reality they are called Haijing(chinese for coast guard or marine police) (number), as with the case with Chinese cutter Haijing 5901. This can be solved by just simply replacing CCG with Haijing. Additionally chinese wikipedia has a long list of chinese coast guard cutters with their actual names, which we can cross reference with English wikipedia's
5. Articles related to the former China Marine Surveillance - Difficulty: Mid-Hard; Importance:Low-Mid; Issue: Many articles are outdated. Many ship articles of the CMS are outdated(by approx 12 years, as the CMS was merged into the CCG in 2013) and are missing the fact that all CMS ships were transferred to the CCG and their new CCG names. The biggest problem for this is the fact that sources stating what CMS ships were renamed to often are self published sources(though reliable sources also exsist). Additionally the names of the North China Sea Bureau, State Oceanic Administration [zh](自然资源部北海局), East China Sea Bureau, State Oceanic Administration(自然资源部东海局) and the South China Sea Bureau, State Oceanic Administration [zh](自然资源部南海局) are often mistakenly called the "North china sea branch", "east china sea branch" and the "south china sea branch" which is a mistranslation(局 translates to bureau, not branch). Additionally the wrong name "CCG" is also often present.
6. QBZ-03 - Difficulty: Mid; Importance: Low; Issue: Sources needed. Many sources, though mostly unusable, point to use of the QBZ-03 in the PLANMC and PLAAF Airborne Corps, if possible we should find more reliable sources that point to these claims.
7. Type 056 corvette - Difficulty: Very high; Importance: Low-mid; Issue: Lack of info on coast guard transfer. In 2021, all type 056 corvettes(only including the original version, does not include Type 056A corvettes) were handed over to the Chinese coast guard. The english article has no info on the new pennant numbers(while the chinese article shows all the new numbers). There are also photos online of coast guard type 056 corvettes with the new pennant numbers, just that there are a lack of usable sources to confirm which corvettes were renamed to what(though not completely non-existent, as many sources say so though they are not usable on wikipedia). Additionally there are claims that the former type 056 corvette Qinzhou(597; 钦州) was renamed to Qingzhou(青州; number 21611), however what we do know is that a coast guard type 056 corvette from the guangdong coast guard bureau due to it's bust of smuggled tobacco. Could somebody help confirm the new pennant numbers from chinese wikipedia by finding reliable sources? Additionally should we consider splitting the article for the original type 056 and the type 056A corvettes, as chinese wikipedia has already done so
8. Category:Military installations of China - Difficulty: Easy-Mid; Importance: Low; Issue: Needs some tidying up. We should also separate the installations by military branch and there is also a notable lack of bases belonging to the People's Liberation army aerospace force, which, we should not forget, is part of the PLA which means their bases count as military installations.

Tips:

• If you know chinese, try using Chinese sources instead; they tend to be more reliable than english sources which are often outdated or mistranslated; however make sure they are not self published sources first.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac, you can add these articles to the Chinese MILHIST taskforce, under the heading articles which need to be created. Matarisvan (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Already did so for some of them Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I had a query that I thought someone on this taskforce might be able to answer. I have taken this picture of the tomb of A. Smith, while died in March 1918, and was stationed on HMS President. I was wondering if anyone had a means of ascertaining whether this relates to HMS President (1918) or HMS President (shore establishment). McPhail (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the ship didn't become HMS President until 1922, so will be the shore establishment. Gavbadger (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think President was used as a catchall for men between assignments so he might not have actually served at that particular location. If you were interested in finding more you can download Alexander Smith's service record from the National Archives for £3.50 - Dumelow (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can download the service record for free. It says he was at President from 27 April 1916. I can't read the handwriting in the document too well. Gavbadger (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Plausibly a victim of the first wave of the Spanish flu pandemic; young men sleeping in confined spaces were particularly vulnerable. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@McPhail: Using the document linked by Dumelow, Smith died in the Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, from "malignant disease of glands of neck". He had previously been serving at a depot as an instructor to mechanic candidates. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a small correction: he was appointed for instructing candidates for Mechanician, a Chief Petty Officer rating. Since he was borne on the books of President I'm wondering if the depot referred to is the Crystal Palace, but in that case there was no Commander-in-Chief connected, and how on earth did he end up in a Glasgow hospital? —Simon Harley (Talk). 05:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone - that is all really helpful. I will update the image info. McPhail (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that the below Telegraphist J. A. Smith of HMS C25 was his son. He is otherwise listed on the Chatham Naval Memorial, having been washed overboard from the submarine. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

The Battle of Bamber Bridge article refers to the "US Army Code of Conduct", which is a redlink. However, this cannot be the Code of the United States Fighting Force, which came much later; could it be the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Or something else, like specific uniform regulations? — The Anome (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I am no expert but as far as I can see the wearing of uniform by US forces in the Second World War was enforced under section 125 of the National Defense Act of 1920. This is referred to in the Army Regulations 600-40 booklet issued to troops periodically throughout the war to specify what should be worn and when (you can see a 1941 example here, page 13 includes the reference to enforcement under the NDA by fine or imprisonment). You can read the relevant part of the NDA including later amendments in this 1942 book - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

So there was a 1955 Code of Conduct --see this reference particularly page 21 (of the original, not the pdf) -- the doc quotes the text, and includes citations and explanatory commentary. AR 350-30 is the original. I'm not aware of whether there was a 1943-era version that predates this, but if I were to hear "US Army Code of Conduct" without other qualification, this is what I'd assume it's referring to. Not sure if that helps clarify anything as the 1955 CoC is mostly about POWs. Perhaps someone was confused about the "responsible for my actions" portion of the 1955 doc and retroactively tried to apply it to 1943? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And I should have probably checked before writing that, but what I'm referring to is what you posted above as the Code of the United States Fighting Force (not sure that's the correct common name -- every document I've ever seen calls it the Code of Conduct, hence the confusion).⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

See the text of the United States Articles of War at [[2]]. This was the predecessor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and was applicable in 1943. None of the "punitive provisions" appear to cover being out of uniform in public during wartime but one or two of the more general provisions relating to conduct might apply. Mutiny is covered specifically. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm kinda new here in Wikipedia and I've been exploring a bit relating to World War II articles. But I have a little concern. The redirecting link which is Fascist Italy was used in infoboxes in World War II battles where Italy is involved in instead using the Kingdom of Italy which was the official Italian state despite under Fascist rule, which Fascist Italy was only used as a common term to describe the Kingdom of Italy under Fascist regime. While other infoboxes, like the Kingdom of Romania used this as a redirecting link instead of the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism during its period which you can see it's quite odd. Thank you for anyone who can respond this. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page for Fascist Italy, it seems there were a few requested moves on whether it should be Kingdom of Italy under Fascism or not. You can see them linked in the banners at the top of the talk page and you can look at the arguments made for why it was kept. Of course you can create a new requested move yourself if you desire. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I'm talking about the usage of Fascist Italy instead of the Kingdom of Italy in the infobox (Template:Infobox military conflict) as a redirecting link in World War II battles where Italy is involved in. For example, the Greco-Italian War or the Battle of Gazala. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I have no idea why there's that little bit of inconsistency. If you can't find any reasons why its like that, then WP:BEBOLD. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm worried some editors might revert my edit, I already got reverted in my recent edits for the categories of battles involving Italy. Don't you think this needs be on the consensus first? The person who reverted me told me that this needs to be on consensus first before editing an litany of entire pages. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a new section on 'Selected anniversaries' in military history/historiography. My thinking, such as it is, is that history articles by their nature contain pertinent anniversaries, but there is limited space on the MP. OTD is the only section where anniversaries for in nicely, but of course our material can't be emphasised at the expense of non-MH dates. TFAs are often chosen on account of being anniversarial, but again we don't have a monopoly. Maybe a heading... Did you know that on this day... would look like poaching  :) but you get the drift. Each entry to have a blurb longer than DYK but shorter than FAC. With an image where possible. So for instance this month could have been something like:

Abridged example
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This month in history... Date Blurb Image in 47 BC, the Battle of the Nile was fought between the combined Roman–Egyptian armies of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII against those of Queen Arsinoe IV and King Ptolemy XIII, resulting in defeat for the latter and clearing the way for Cleopatra to ascend the Egyptian throne.+ enhanced blurb 1 February in 1411, the First Peace of Thorn was signed, ending the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War.+ enhanced blurb 1 February in 1662, after a nine-month siege, Fort Zeelandia was captured by Ming loyalists, bringing an end Dutch East India Company rule in Taiwan.+ enhanced blurb 6 February in 1694, warrior queen Dandara, leader of the runaway slaves in Quilombo dos Palmares, Brazil, is captured and commits suicide rather than be returned to a life of slavery.+ enhanced blurb [No image; should an image be mandatory?] 20 February in 1813, Manuel Belgrano defeats the royalist army of Pío de Tristán during the Battle of Salta .+ enhanced blurb 6 February in 1862, Ulysses S. Grant and Andrew H. Foote give the Union its first victory of the war, capturing Fort Henry, Tennessee.+ enhanced blurb 2 February in 1943, the Battle of Stalingrad ends after six months with the Red Army accepting the surrender of the last organized German troops in the city.+ enhanced blurb 20 February in 1950, during the Chinese Civil War, the Battle of Tianquan ends in a victory for the communist People's Republic of China against the forces of the Republic of China with minimal losses to the victors.+ enhanced blurb [No image; should an image be mandatory?]

Issues for consideration might be inclusion criteria—what chronological and geographical spread? Images—would be good but many old events don't have them available. Perhaps use related images such as people? Inclusion based on class—I'd rather not, because FA/GA already get their spot on the MP, but I also accept that there are a million articles for us to choose from. Hey ho. All the best, Serial (speculates here) 13:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have a version of this set up already, so it would be easy to implement. See User:Hawkeye7 for an example. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: That sounds positive, although that section of your page does currently seem to be empty, unless I'm missing something? Serial (speculates here) 15:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Am all in favour of new Bugle content. Pinging Ian Rose and Nick-D as the true arbiters of change! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this, but to be viable someone/some people need to contribute time each month to write the article ;) @Serial Number 54129 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe: can I please check whether are you volunteering to do this? Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I think P-C and Hawkeye would make excellent Généraux des Anniversaires... "I'm just a grunt"  :) Serial (speculates here) 15:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I will do it. Here's an example. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That looks great, thank you Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve mocked up in a sandbox what a sidebar dedicated to Greek military dictator Georgios Papadopoulos might look like. I considered posting this to WikiProject Greece, but decided Military history would be better. We have such for other dictators, both communist like Papadopoulos’ enemies (Stalin, Lenin, Zedong) and fascistic/nationalistic like Papadopoulos (Hitler and Goebbels too, Mussolini, Amin) as well as other Greek prime ministers so I thought he’d be a good sidebar to have. Is this the right idea? Is there a better place for this? Should this be brought up at all? Star Manatee (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

There's probably a larger discussion to be had around signatures, coats of arms, seals, etc. in these sorts of templates, but I'd encourage you to drop them per MOS:DECOR. To the larger question, I'm not so sure Papadopoulos needs a sidebar. None of those articles are specifically about him (e.g. something like Georgios Papadopoulos and the 1967 Greek coup d'état), and readers might be better served by just reading the table of contents. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and started that discussion over at Template talk:Sidebar person#Signatures and seals vs. MOS:DECOR. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That’s true. I agree that it’s probably unnecessary, and, on having time to think about it, it’s probably redundant with the Greek junta navigation box - there are only one or two pages in the hypothetical sidebar not in the navbox. Star Manatee (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Stumbled upon some sources which have PLAN navy ship emblems; for navy ship insignia, may I ask if I need to go through any special procedures when uploading them as I plan to upload them when I have holiday(it would be really appreciated if you upload them for me)

1: http://gjw.gxzf.gov.cn/xwdt/gzdt/t12660000.shtml - Website is Guangxi provincial office of veteran affairs(so official government source); has photo of the type 075 LHD Chinese landing helicopter dock Guangxi's emblem(which article i am planning to make in april).

2: https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html - Website is Anhui provincial office of national defense education(or something like that, the name is pretty hard to translate, it's a goverment agency though and cites the Chinese military account on weixin); Has a whopping total of 19 PLAN ship emblems, which from top to bottom are(if you still need help, just message me or use google translate):

1. Type 956EM destroyer Ningbo(the one with Russian on it, also the first one)
2. Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong(whose emblem we have already, no need to upload)
3. Type 054A frigate Xianning(has ship motto)
4. Type 056 corvette Bengbu(Already decommissioned and handed to china coast guard; also it has the pennant number FFG-582 on the emblem; additionally has ship motto, which is in chinese cursive which I can't read)
5. Type 055 destroyer Dalian(105)(Emblem shows use of PLANS prefix; also has ship motto)
6. Type 052B destroyer Guangzhou(168)
7. Type 052D destroyer Xiamen(in the emblem it has the pennant number of DDG-154, similar to US system; also shows ship motto)
8. Type 054A frigate Xuzhou
9. Type 054A frigate Yantai(shows ship motto)
10. Type 054A frigate Binzhou(shows ship motto and has pennant number of FFG-515)
11. Type 056A corvette Zhuzhou(shows ship motto; funnily enough it uses the pennant number 594 on the emblem, which allegedly(according to english/chinese wikipedia) has changed it's pennant number from 594 to 639 so it may be possible the emblem is outdated even though the source where i found these emblems were published on 2023, and the english wikipedia sources were from 2016 meaning the english wikipedia sources may be wrong)
12. Type 071 landing platform dock Yimeng Shan(uses pennant number of LPD-988, also has motto which is too small to read)
13. Type 072A landing ship Tianmu Shan(On the emblem AND english wikipedia it has the pennant number 916, however on chinese wikipedia it says it's number was switched to 976 though i could not find much reliable sources on this)
14. Type 072A landing ship Taihang Shan
15. Type 072A landing ship Wutai Shan(just like tianmu shan, the emblem AND english wikipedia claim it has the pennant number 917 but chinese wikipedia claims it was switched to 977, could not find reliable sources on this)
16. Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning(shows motto; funnily enough the emblem was uploaded previously but was removed)
17. Chinese aircraft carrier Fujian(also shows motto; just like liaoning the emblem was previously removed)
18. Type 075 LHD Hainan(shows motto; emblem was previously removed like liaoning and fujian)
19. Type 075 LHD Guangxi(1st source already has the emblem so just upload the 1st one)

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, i will add the mottos of the ships to their respective articles. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of these emblems? CMD (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

They are from government websites but i'm not entirely sure

However we have the one for Shandong, which is from the same website as the one for guangxi(both are from the guangxi office for veteran affairs website), so I assume they should be ok, however I will only upload them when I have time and are aware of all the special procedures relating to military insignias and ship emblems Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The Shandong one claims it is public domain under Chinese law, which seems a tenuous claim. I would suggest than unless they are 50 years old, uploading them to Commons would be a copyright violation. This appears to be why the Liaoning one was removed. You might be able to upload here, but it would have to be low resolution and make an WP:NFC claim. Alternatively, you could just link to each one in the External links of relevant pages. CMD (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Can't {{Insignia}} be used in this instance?

Additionally the Liaoning, Fujian and Hainan ones were removed because they were from a media site(which was copyrighted); As for WP:NFC, how does it work?

The guangxi one is seperate from the others so is the copyright different for it? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Insignia is not about copyright, but about additional restrictions in use. The site the images are obtained from is not relevant, assuming these are all created by the navy, copyright presumably lies with a particular government body. CMD (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok. If they are all from the navy I presume there are no problems then, as I see that most websites only need to cite they are from the navy Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not how copyright works. The copyright holder retains copyright in China for 50 years after publishing. CMD (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I see no broad exemption for government works (like the US government does, for example) here. Only a fairly narrow one in Ch. 1, Article 6, which would not apply to these images. Unless there’s something else in another chapter that I missed, you can’t upload these images to Commons (and would have to justify NFCC here, which I think would be difficult). Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for explaining;

So instead we should just add an "external media" template and put the emblem Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Linking to them externally avoids any uploading issues yes. CMD (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

However the current status is unknown but presumably unusable right? So if i find anything that indicates i am allowed to use it we can use them Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

In the end, regardless of whether the ship emblems will be uploaded(if there are no copyright issues I will upload them when i have holiday), I believe that this is still significant for several reasons

1. The Dalian emblem has the prefix PLANS(@RovingPersonalityConstruct, you may want to see this); whether this is just an abbreviation for People's Liberation Army Navy Ship or PLA navy ship(just like on the other emblems which write PLA navy ship or people's liberation army navy ship) OR them genuinely using PLANS as a prefix I don't know, and the Chinese MOD has an article which uses the CNS prefix(though it was republished from china daily, which is associated with the chinese goverment) instead so i would not suggest changing article names yet
2. It shows that the pennant numbers also use abbreviations similar to the US navy such as FFG, LPD, DDG for the Xiamen, Bengbu and Yimengshan emblems.
3. We now have access to a huge number of PLA Navy ship mottos(the one for Xianning i already added)

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As for the prefix, i would suggest we not add them prior to having more evidence; for the pennant number abbreviations, I will wait till there is community consensus(Either we only add them for ones where it is confirmed they are used or we add them for all chinese ships) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I called the hull classification symbol a "abbreviation" by accident, if you are reading this just know that by abbreviation i mean hull classification symbol Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've seen those displays which basically look like what's over the left shirt pocket on many articles about military people. Could someone familiar with that clean up Eugene R. Sullivan#Military career – honors and awards. Several of the civilian awards above could also go in there I think. I know there's a right way to do that, but I don't know it. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Currently, this project has about ~673 42 articles in need of some reference clean-up. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of clean-up, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper clean-up). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

To do

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 595 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 554 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 489 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 385 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 337 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 307 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 221 articles remain. Boo Boo (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 210 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 133 articles remain. Gavbadger (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 84 articles remain. Gavbadger (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 102 articles remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

42 articles remain Boo Boo (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated list, 76 articles remain. Gavbadger (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW my experience with these has been that they tend to be the following issues with the following solutions:

• Sfn was copypasted from somewhere else, has no original cite. Solution: replace with either a new reference or {{cn}} tags.
• Sfn has a typo in the name and doesn't match the cite. Solution: Fix the typo.
• Sfn has an incorrect year and doesn't match the cite. Solution: Fix the typo if it's an error, add a new reference or {{cn}} tags if the Sfn is to a work missing an original cite. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, about 20-25% of the time, the short footnote is copied from another, related article, without the full citation being brought over. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Could you have a look at Margaret Thatcher? It is on the list but I cannot see anything amiss. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. Maybe @Trappist the monk: can help here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

New Scientist 1983 (permalink)

New Scientist 1983 (permalink)

At this long-form reference (permalink), replace:

| author={{text|New Scientist}} |author-mask=[{{italics correction|''New Scientist''}}]

with:

|ref={{sfnref|''New Scientist''|1983}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Strange that the error wasn't shown by the script. Then again, the anchor worked, so this was a false positive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For some reasons Perseus (spy) keeps being re-added or unstruck, despite not having any errors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Trappist the monk took care of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb:, how did you search the Harv and Sfn no-target errors category to find only military history articles? Gavbadger (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I used WP:AWB's List Comparer (Tools > List Comparer) to get the articles within Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors (List 1, Source:Category, 'Harv and Sfn no-target errors'), then those within Category:Military history articles by quality subcategories (List 2, Source:Category (recurse 1 level), 'Military history articles by quality'). Then once those lists were compiled, converted the second list to their non-talk version (right click on the list, then 'convert from talk pages'), and then used the 'compare' option to get the intersection of both list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have come across a warning similar to this Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAbu-Manga2009. It is caused by a citation not being cited (a reference not used). I went through Template: Cite and the help pages searching on no link and, after a fair bit of searching found that it is resolved by adding ref=none. My question is, how do we make this easier to find? I am thinking something needs to be added at Help:CS1 errors since this is where the error message directs you? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• I believe that generally means a footnote that is supposed to point to a main source, such as a book or periodical that is missing from the article. This could happen when text and footnote is copied from another article and the main source is omitted. (Help:CS1 errors covers lower grade errors also.) -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Not so (or at least in this instance), It occurs when the Template: Cite is located in a reference section and there is no inline citation in the body of the text using that reference (any more). Help:CS1 errors does not appear to give help on this particular error (that I can see). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't get "|image_upright=" to work on infobox military conflict. This may well be me being a bit slow. Is there an issue? If not, could somewhat walk me through how to resize infobox images? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Have you tried "|image_size=XXX"? A wild guess, maybe a documentation error in {{Infobox military conflict}} ? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That works but is depreciated and is definitely not allowed at FAC. One is supposed to use upright, which is fine for normal images, but I can't get to work for the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Does Wikipedia:Help_desk#Image_size help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sadly not, but I shall repost my query there. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Try using |image_upright= with {{Infobox military conflict/sandbox}}; I made a change to Module:Infobox military conflict/sandbox to support this. If it is acceptable, I can push it into production. I don't understand why image_size is not allowed at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye, I'll try it. Re your query, MOS:IMGSIZE: "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified, because it ignores the user's base width setting. Thus upright=scaling factor is preferred when it is desired to present an image at other than the default width." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, nope, I can't get that to work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have an example on the right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that works. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the change to production. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. It now seems to be working for military conflict infoboxes generally. Thanks Hawkeye. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Just clicked on a few coordinates and got pages like [3], is something wrong? Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That link seems to work for me, but I've also had a few issues with them lately. Seems to be an intermittent problem. CMD (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I wondered if the problem was at my end, the laptop being somewhat dilapidated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey everybody,

Turns out People's Armed Police provincial units are called "corps" and not "contingents"(which for the 1st and 2nd mobile contingents is correct, just not for provincial units). If you see any article with text such as "People's Armed Police (province name) contingent" please change it to "People's Armed Police (province name) corps". I have posted this on wikiproject china and will also post this on wikiproject law enforcement Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I recently made major changes to the Squire article. There had been complaints about the lack of sources going back years. I added sources and some new information, as well as removed some off topic information. I would appreciate it if someone could look over it. It needs work regarding how the information is organized and possible more information could be added from the sources I used. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. DrGlef (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@DrGlef: I have added citation needed tags for the two terminology origin sentences. I have added another for a sentence at the end of a paragraph that has no citation in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ b1. The first "in literature" section in the unrevised version seems similar to other popular culture or in literature sections in other articles. I think it might be appropriate to add Esquire to the See also list. Donner60 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Esquire is linked in the article's Terminology section, so it shouldn't appear in the See also list per WP:NOTSEEALSO. BilCat (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• The link was removed from the See also section. Thanks to whomever did that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @DrGlef, BilCat, and Fnlayson: My mistake. For some reason the link did not register with me. (Possibly because the entire section about Esquires was removed and I did not look back? In any event, it was blue in the text and I should have noticed it.) Thanks for the correction. Donner60 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• No worries. The article is much better now. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, many of the articles on RAF squadrons have long lists of individuals who have commanded the squadron, usually going all the way back to when they were formed often over 100 years ago. Many are only partial lists or unsourced and most names on the lists do not link to an article on the individual, as presumably they aren't notable enough to have one. Examples can be found at No. 1 Squadron RAF; No. 2 Squadron RAF; No. 16 Squadron RAF; and No. 31 Squadron RAF.

Having had a looked some of the project's featured articles on military units, some do include a list of commanders, but this is where units were fairly short-lived, so the number of commanders is reasonable and most of those listed are notable enough to have their own article. For example 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian); 15th Tank Corps; or 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom). In contrast, the lists in the RAF squadron articles are getting longer and longer as squadron commanders are typically only in post for two years. I tend to think that such lists do not align with Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, as much of the list content is only there as it has verifiable existence, rather than being encyclopedic.

Would welcome thoughts on removing such lists and perhaps as an alternative have a section on squadron members who achieved anything notable whilst at the squadron like at No. 23 Squadron RAF, or integrating notable individuals/events into the main body of article.

Thanks Thx811 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, at squadron level, ie with a wing commander (lieutenant colonel equivalent) as squadron commander, some will go on to meet the notability threshold, and others won't. Corps and divisional commanders who have commanded in combat are pretty likely to be notable in terms of coverage, peacetime-only ones not necessarily. I would convert those sections into "Notable commanders" and include only those who are notable, not every commander. For squadrons with an ongoing existence or that are re-raised the list of notable commanders will need to be monitored because some previously non-notable commanders will reach the point where they become notable. For example, Chris Nickols most likely was not notable in 1996 when he relinquished command of No. 2 Sqn RAF, but he certainly was by the time he became Chief of Defence Intelligence in 2009. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that notable commanders should be included, even if they only became notable after they'd left the squadron. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree that lists which include non notables should be removed and notables mentioned in the prose. Something worded similar to WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS Lyndaship (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Broadly agree with this idea, and probably long overdue at that.

1. I hope I'm stating the obvious when I say that the existing list should be vetted, to see if any non-notables have gained an article in recent years. A real PIA for some of the longer lists. Feel free to ping me and I'll contribute where I can.
2. Rather than simply delete the surplus names, park them somewhere where they are still visible to future editors, but not casual readers.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Following my own suggestion, I just checked out one of the lists that you mentioned - No. 31 Squadron RAF

Starting with some of the more recent candidates; a search for Wg Cdr Richard Yates OBE threw up two spanners straight away;

1. Major Richard Yates Henderson KCVO, Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran. Notable, but not our man.
2. Wg Cdr Richard Sydney Yates, MC & MM ("Double gallantry"). Entered military service as a boy soldier and retired as a Wing Commander. So we have a potentially notable Wing Cdr, but still not the right one! This guy was in charge of Balloons at RAF Cardington around 1937, not Tonkas at Marham in 2012.

Meanwhile two of the other recent Wing Commanders, who had already made Group Captain, are now Air Commodores, and could yet be promoted further. I would be tempted to put them on a 'pending' list. (FYI - Yates & Bressani)

This is not going to be easy! WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

We could use some help getting reorganized over at WikiProject Christianity. Things we could use help with are:

1. Setting up the newsletter delivery system/figuring out how it works.
2. Setting up templates/updating templates
3. Setting up the organization of coordinators and such.

The reason I am reaching out to you guys is you have been a very successful project. I am hoping you have someone who knows how to work project systems and templates as I sure don't and I am not sure if anyone else in our project does. I will warn you though that they may have to be redone as the systems are quite old now, most things seem to have shut down 4-8 years ago. It would be helpful if you guys could train a few of us how to run the systems and set them up so that we don't have to keep coming back to you. Thanks. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We could use some help see above. Awaiting your response. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 19:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I know how our project systems and templates work. We have documented them too - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok I hope they are similar then, these two projects from what I know were made at about the same time. Will take a look. Thanks! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Contact me on my talk page for further help. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok will do. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 21:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Does the project have anything against flags in infoboxes about weapons and thereof? I was told to ask here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes Blockhaj (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pls see MOS:MILFLAGS Moxy🍁 21:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

So no answer to my question. Can we come up with a standard for weapon infoboxes and thereof? Blockhaj (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read the link? The MoS says "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" and "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended but ... it may be appropriate to use flags when summarizing military conflicts in an infobox." (Emphasis added.) Ie don't use flags in the infoboxes of articles about weapons. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, flags and other icons are not supposed to be added solely for decorative purposes, per MOS:DECORATION. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

A "moderator" requested citation for addition to the 1st Cavalry Division page. After calmly providing multiple citations and official sources, he decided that a platoon was "far too granular and non-notable for Wikipedia to cover", deleted the addition, restructured the existing information to be an inaccurate mess of confusion, made it "protected content" and had another mod block the IP Address. (The additional mod has provided little content, but brags about delivering over 100K blocks and extending them for 2 years) Furthermore, the initial mod cites the unit that I've been trying to add, as insignificant (flag-bearing unit, first of it's kind, 4 battle stars, 1 arrowhead, and multiple KIA during WW2), yet wouldn't remove a smaller unit that numbered a fraction of personnel and had no KIA. The MP platoon is also shown in the later TO&E, which he wouldn't recognize. Can anyone help with correction of the information and the stopping of "bullying" by a rogue mod? Official Citation: https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/12474 2601:6C1:4000:82E0:1556:3D12:514:8989 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am seeing no major removals from 1st Cavalry Division (United States) I do see this [[4]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the last one. His previous responses have been deleted, but he feels the information shouldn't be included, despite it even being shown in the existing TO&E. I'm not sure what makes him an "expert" and why he is so insistent, even after providing an official citation after he requested it. I also don't understand why the mod continues to include a smaller unit, (818th CIC Detachment) which defies his own self-proclaimed criteria. The information should just be correct and better organized, which is what my intention was. 2601:6C1:4000:82E0:1556:3D12:514:8989 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

First off two wrongs do not make a right, them making a mistake does not give you the right to do so. Secondly, different formations have different histories, so I would, need to see why the 818th is included. Thirdly your edit seems to just add a random platoon, the 818th is a named unit (see my second point). Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. The mod wanted proof. I provided it. (See included citation). I tried asking for guidance from him (or her) directly, but got a hostile response and contriditory guidance. The platoon was an addition to the Headquarters Troop, and the ONLY cavalry division to do so. (Thus making it very unique and notable.) As far as the 818th; It's included because of a previous citation. By the "experts" logic and response, it should not be included as it was small and also under HQ Troop. It should be one or the other: Include the MP platoon or delete the 818th CIC. (It can't be both.) I simply wanted to make a comprehensive list of the division units and organize them into their respective order. I'm not sure of the "two wrongs" as the demands of the mod were met and was given the opportunity to correct it. They even went as far as "correcting" me, using information covered in my responses. (That means they didn't even bother to read them, and had no interest in making any corrections.) 2601:6C1:4000:82E0:1556:3D12:514:8989 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the "moderator" -- and it would have been polite for you to have notified me of this discussion, rather than attempting to forum shopping for your preferred outcome. I certainly have never bragged about delivering 100k blocks, given that I've made nowhere near that many edits on this project either, nor have I given you "hostile" responses or positioned myself as an "expert" so I'll ask you one time, and one time only: cease the casting of aspersions and making personal attacks. This is not acceptable. As to the substance of your complaint, I removed your edits because you repeatedly failed to provide sourcing identifying the MP platoon as part of that command structure and failed to explain why a non-notable platoon merits inclusion on an order-of-battle list with no indication of independence of its parent company. Had you actually attempted to discuss that with me in a reasonable manner, or listened to the feedback you were getting at the time, you'd have been well aware of this. Instead, you chose to make false accusations and forum shop to get your way once you thought everyone had forgotten about it. We don't operate like that on this project. This is highly disappointing behavior, IP. You need to do better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to add -- trying to gaslight me on my user talk page isn't going to get you anywhere. The IP is claiming now that they attempted "several talk" discussions, something that is transparently untrue with a simple look at the page history showing no substantive discussion in years.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've posted some comments at Talk:Commandant General Royal Marines about when we should consider this position beginning. Would appreciate any input from those with access to better sources than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS:MILINFOBOX does not provide a definitive guide to inclusion;

Bertrand Clauzel

Is an article I have put some time into, thus far I have only listed battles where he was in overall command on the field at some point in the battle

Other pages of contemporary figures eg Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr seem to mostly use battles in which they were in direct command or the commander of a major element of the force. Other pages have no list at all. Is there a consensus on what should be included in the list and when such a list is appropriate.

Cheers LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally an infobox should look to encapsulate all the battles a military person fought in. For the busier individuals, this becomes impossible because the infobox would become unwieldly long. See for example Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, where the battles parameter has been used to summarise the wars they fought in, leaving the battles to be expanded on in main text. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hegseth just ordered Ft. Moore renamed back to Fort Benning; much like w/ Ft. Liberty/Bragg, it's to a different "Benning" than the original namesake. This will likely touch a fairly large number of articles. Please keep an eye out for any cleanup that needs to happen here as well as any vandalism or drama prior to the change taking effect, particularly around attempts to move or update the name until the actual renaming has been executed by the Army (likely in a few days); or mistaken attempts to change the name that do not account for whether the reference is within the appropriate time period. 21:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is why I opposed the renaming in articles in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hear, hear - \\'cԼF 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to bring this article to your attention which I came across while reviewing new articles. Now I don't generally assess military articles beyond the obviously notable AfC submission, but I thought I'd run this one by you to advance my subject knowledge! It is my view that his rank and lack of substantial contributions to warfare would make him non-notable in this case, and the fact that just a single source has been provided only emphasizes this point. Would you agree? Thanks for your help. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, his rank, decorations and service do not mark him as notable in any way. Nominated for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is of minor signifance, but I noticed an overuse/misuse of "tier one" and "tier two" for non-American special operations units. Some of the most egregious examples were the WW2 Belgian SAS, Rhodesian SAS, and Vietnam-era Khmer special forces. I went on a quick tangent and corrected any I saw, but there were more than I would have thought, so I figured I'd let you folks know. Spagooder (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Context question. What is meant by tier one, tier two, presumably etc.? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

US military terms for their SOF organizational structure.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/confused-all-us-special-forces-heres-guide-192216

This has come to be associated with their "eliteness" and are used as buzzwords. Tier one is synonymous with special mission unit. It's rarely been officially applied outside the USA. The Australian SAS adopted it and Canadian JTF2 is often referred to as tier 1 because they were integrated into JSOC. I think Italy may use the terms in some capacity but that would require more research. Otherwise, most countries lack the size, scope, or resources to even have "tiers". Spagooder (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the "tier" terminology is formally used by the Australian Defence Force. The SASR and the commando regiments have different roles. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. I think the misuse en masse got to me. Just another example of Americanization. Spagooder (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I try to remove references to "elite" and non-USSOCOM "tiers" of SOF wherever I see them, but yes it's a pervasive common misconception that has unfortunately infected enough sources that it makes its way onto our project from time to time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The whole "tier" thing is also very time-specific. It didn't really exist prior to USSOCOM as you point out. Intothatdarkness 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Good grief, the Jet fighter generations nonsense is spreading. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project is taking place at Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)#class type?. - \\'cԼF 11:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Surrender of Japan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

An RfC is taking place at Talk:Algerian War#RfC on result in Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

As part of our ongoing efforts to maintain accurate and up-to-date content, we are considering marking the Syrian Civil War as concluded, following the recent nationwide ceasefire, integration, and political agreements established on March 10, 2025. Given the significance of this event, we invite members of WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Politics to join the fairly new discussion and share their insights regarding this topic. Your insight and perspectives are invaluable in ensuring that our coverage of this topic is comprehensive and accurate. The date of conclusion is proposed to be: 10 March 2025.

Please join the conversation on the Talk:Syrian Civil War page. Best regards, Kaliper1 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{langx|de|Westfeldzug}} and {{lang|de|Westfeldzug}} Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Experimenting is good:

• {{langx|de|Westfeldzug}} → German: Westfeldzug
• {{lang|de|Westfeldzug}} → Westfeldzug

And, see the template documentation for {{lang}} and {{langx}} for more differences.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't find them, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

FYI Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Related to the RFC at Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip:

• Could someone, either as a separate article or as a redirect to a relevant section, create bomb tonnage and explain whether "70,000 tons" means the gross weight vs TNT equivalent?
• Could someone create a List of bombs by tonnage ("Grand Slam (bomb): 5 tons." [Or maybe is 6.5, because I don't know which is the right number in the infobox])? I assume this would be more of a "top 10" list than a list of every single bomb ever.
• Could someone create a List of bombings by tonnage that would say things like "* Vietnam war: US dropped 4.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam from 1965 to 1970 [5] * WWII: Allies dropped a total of 7K tons of bombs on Dresden [6]" or whatever would be useful?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Cheers for posting honestly I am not sure such a list would be a good idea I've followed the link for the 70k claim and its an estimate from a human rights organisation!? That probably explains why its so confusing - they dont give a methodology and they clearly have their own bias.

Might I suggest satellite observation of Gaza and estimates of %homes / structures damaged / destroyed etc might be a better metric that would have less confusion but still convey somewhat of the scale of destruction. But would do so in a way that cant be confused and isnt based on "back of the menu" calculations from people not specialised in military technical matters. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved the discussion here to the main talk page as I feel like there might be some project members who want to engage with this. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh man, good luck with this. It's going to be a mess of overlapping terminology, as typically individual bombs are referred to by their overall gross weight (e.g. a 500-lb bomb like the Mark 82 bomb weighs slightly over 500lb in gross, but only contains a bit under 200lb of explosive filler by weight -- most unguided iron bombs have slightly under 50% filler ratios) whereas cruise missiles are much more frequently classified by the weight of filler (e.g. Storm Shadow is considered a 500kg/1000lb-class weapon based on the warhead, not the overall weight of the missile which is over 1300kg; conventional Tomahawks are typically classified as 1000-lb class weapons due to their warhead, rather than their roughly 3000lb of gross weight). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing I don't know, and was hoping someone here would know. Does it need a table with columns like gross weight/explosive weight/TNT equivalent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Part of the challenge is that you're going to have different statistics available and data holes for some events if you try to include all the potential columns. For instance, TNT equivalent isn't a particularly useful comparison for most conventional high explosives, may be situationally useful as a point of comparison for some times of fuel/air explosives; and yield is the similar but separate metric you're looking for with nuclear bombs, which is often reported in TNT equivalent but can vary depending on the bomb or warhead's performance, unlike TNT and most other conventional explosives. Finding enough good, non-OR data for this without relying on unstated assumptions is going to be incredibly difficult and outright impossible in some cases. For well-studied areas like WWII and events like Dresden, sourcing to show all these different things will be easier than for more obscure entries, or those with data still classified or never publicized in the first place. My personal take is that Wikipedia isn't the right place for this -- a reliable external source is, at which point we can report their work and not have it be OR. And there's just nobody that covers the full package of this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, nuclear weapons use TNT equivalent, which is a unit of energy, not weight. A ton of TNT equivalent is defined by convention to be 4.184 gigajoules (1 gigacalorie). The relationship to actual TNT, though, is kind of complicated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 81#Notability of a group of articles about Category:Military comparisons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The article Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries is currently being discussed for deletion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I have marked type 051B destroyer and chinese destroyer Shenzhen for merging as they are pratically the same thing. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it does indeed look like those should be merged. I started a discussion at WT:SHIPS#Ship classes with only one ship to confirm which title the article should be located at. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: It sounds like the content in these articles should be merged into Chinese destroyer Shenzhen. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I sort of agree; as for wikidata this would be much more complex Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, we have the ship article, not the class (for example, SMS Von der Tann, not Von der Tann-class battlecruiser; HMS Vanguard (23), not Vanguard-class battleship). Wikidata should not be a concern about how we structure articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I understand

So i suggest maybe merging chinese destroyer shenzhen to type 051B destroyer and then renaming type 051B destroyer to chinese destroyer shenzhen Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the WP for this (WP:not isn't it) can anyone help? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

How about WP:RS Lyndaship (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Already tried but I'll have another look. Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:UGC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Keith-264:

  However, as with all tertiary reference works, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.

  — WP:RESEARCH

  Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia.

  — WP:CITEWIKI

  --89.113.127.2 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  There's no policy that tertiary works are not reliable. See WP:TERTIARY. Wikipedia isn't reliable because it's user generated. See the policy link I posted below. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• WP:CIRCULAR is the specific policy on it. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Check out WP:RSP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• "WP:UGC "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are ... and Wikipedia". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Just telling you'all, I am requesting that the Line of duty deaths section of the People's Armed Police be split into a new article considering how long it is and that there have been similar lists such as List of Malaysian police officers killed in the line of duty. I have informed WikiProject law enforcement on this already, and since People's Armed Police also falls under the scope of Wikiproject military history(due to it's paramilitary nature), I have also posted it here.

Speaking of the PAP, I have also made an idea for a possible task force for Coast Guards, Gendarmeries, Border guards and so on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History#Task force ideas. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Good idea on the article split.

I think the task force idea makes sense. Many articles would probably fit into that category. Other than setting it up and giving notice of its existence, we would just need to see if any project members are interested in participating. Also, it would be helpful if a few experienced users and other coordinatorss would comment. Perhaps they could think of other pros and cons. I can't think of another task force that would appropriately cover the topic, but perhaps others might differ and consider it as largely duplicative, for example.

A consideration for the immediate future might be whether anyone has the time and energy to set up the task force. I have no guess as to how much time and skill it would take to do it accurately and send out a mass mailing (by a coordinator who has that flag). I am reasonably sure that between other Wikipedia tasks and real life, I am not in a position to try to set it up in the near future. On the other hand, I assume a few others are around who have done such set ups and might be willing to do the work if they think it is a good idea and have the time. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

For the task force, I may set it up when i have summer holiday(june-august) since I currently am pretty busy(and even on wikipedia, I have other priorities and articles to create). For discussion, I would suggest discussing on the original post, but due to the topics i will also announce this on wikiproject law enforcement to find more contributors when I do set it up. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: May I ask what is the scope of the Fortifications task force? Do modern military bases(e.g. Shenxianwan or Naval Base San Diego(If yes, is it only the bases of ground forces that count or do naval bases/missile bases/) or fortified weapons(e.g. 130 mm/50 B13 Pattern 1936, 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun) also come under the scope of the Fortifications task force?

The scope section of the task force is, frankly, overly vague, and if modern non-bunker military bases do not fall under the scope, a suggest that the fortifications task force change it's name to the "Military Installations" task force because solely focusing on castles and bunkers is overly specific. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I see no issues with including modern military installations into this task force. As to the weapons - I would say use common sense. There's a difference between including weapons designed for an primarily used as, say, fortress guns in the project and including guns that happen to have stray documented use in fortifications because that's what was available. Hog Farm _talk 01:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks; Would suggest changing the scope or renaming it to Military Installations in that case. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Military Installations and Fortifications would be more comprehensive of the scope? Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; Considering it is weird calling Tung Chung Fort or Corfe Castle "military installations"(even though they technically are military installations) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could someone review the photo in Talk:USS Camel (IX-113)? If it is correct I will add the picture to the article and possibly the Armadillo-class tanker article.

Thanks!  →bertux 19:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be a bit skeptical, as it lacks a pennant number. however it could be on the other side Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: Would you say it is an Armadillo-class tanker?  →bertux 06:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea how it looks like, just noticed the lack of a pennatn number Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to lean on the side of this not being Camel. Comparing it with this image of Raccoon, the bow is a very different shape, as are the funnel and oiling equipment. The image is also dated to 8 November 1947, while Camel had been decommissioned in 1946, returning to her previous role as William H. Carruth. If we want any other points for this, the identification number on the hull is different, being 20 rather than 113. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will mention this discussion on the ship talk page  →bertux 16:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to make a provisional group yet but i think we may need task forces for these

1. Special Operations Unit task force - for spec ops units in militaries or militarized agencies(like the GIGN or SLCU)
2. I don't know how to phrase this, but a task force relating to gendarmeries, coast guards, military police and everything in between.(e.g. USNG, People's armed police, french gendarme, China Marine Surveillance, USCG, FSB Border Service of Russia, US army military police corps) This sort of falls between Wikiproject law enforcement and wikiproject military history, and considering wikiproject law enforcement is semi-active, wikiproject military history has the most "jurisdiction" over these articles.
3. Space forces and space warfare, e.g. People's Liberation Army Aerospace Force

Hope someone will consider these ideas for task forces and make them, as these aspects lack task forces governing them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's important to note that Wikiprojects, per policy, don't "govern" or have "jurisdiction" over anything. They're interest groups working together toward a common goal, but cannot replace our broader policies around consensus.

  I'd certainly be willing to be part of a SOF and SOF-unit related task force, but I'm not big on the necessity of task forces in the first place. Basically I see most work as falling into three categories: Content, Processes, or Maintenance. Task forces work best when they've got editors who are knowledgeable about the subject matter area (Content) and have solid direction about what specific improvements, standards, or other purposes the Task Force is tasked with (Processes). They are often unnecessary overhead for some subject matter areas, and especially so if the purpose of the TF is more counter-vandalism, cleanup, or administrative in nature (Maintenance). A TF that tries to do everything needs to have sufficient critical mass of membership to achieve this, and in my experience within this subject matter field on Wikipedia that critical mass isn't there, so we'd need to have a more limited scope IMO.

  With regard to paramilitary law enforcement, I think that should definitely be an area of collaboration between Wikiprojects, but I'm even more skeptical about having sufficient interest and membership there. I don't think it necessitates a specific TF though just because it's an interest area subset within our Wikiproject. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  I understand that wikiprojects are only a interest group, I am simply using the terms "govern" and "jurisdiction" simply because i could not find anything else (most pages fall under the scope of multiple wikiprojects, however usually for relevant issues there is 1 or 2 wikiprojects which have more expertise in that area)

  On a potential SOF task force, I agree this would have sufficient membership, however I also believe there are also tonnes of SOF articles that need cleanup (e.g. Peacock terms are extremely common in terms of these articles, and the "roles" section of the military unit infobox is often sort of overused).

  For the TF for units like the PAP, USCG, Border guards, Gendarmes and military police, I am considering that if I have time to create it, (however I am busy irl, and even if on wikipedia there are other things to work on) I will also try to invite editors on Wikiproject law enforcement and I will also try to find users who are interested in the USCG, PAP or gendarmes. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• G'day Thehistorianisaac. We regularly have suggestions about new task forces, but rather than being a means to concentrate effort, they have ended up being more of a way of categorising subjects within the WikiProject. Few editors actively participate in "task force" work per se. For the areas of interest you have mentioned, I recommend you establish if there are several other active editors who are interested in working on the identified subject area and once you have them, consider a special project. There have been several within MilHist over the years, the most successful being WP:OMT, although I think even it is a pretty lonely place these days (participating editors might disagree). I have run a MilHist-focussed special project at Wikiproject:Yugoslavia called WP:BORA for years which has been pretty successful, and several editors still contribute. I suppose all I'm saying is that you are almost better off creating a worklist for yourself and collaborating with a couple of others on the article work than putting all the effort into creating a new TF. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the references listed in the initial creation of Capture of Kufra (Special:Diff/164975042#References) from 16 October 2007? The author of the Wikipedia article is known for massive copyright infringement (background on the investigation page). As far as I can tell, they have never written a substantial article that is not a copyright problem, and this is one of their largest "original" creations.

Please tag me in your reply, thank you. Renerpho (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it: The same applies to the single source listed at Pillbox affair, in their page creation from 2007 (Special:Diff/160487627#References). I don't have access to that 1972 book, but I suspect that the article was copied from it ad verbatim. They retain less than 10% authorship of the present day article, but much of its early history may need to be revdel'ed. Renerpho (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The stripe in the lower left. Is that part of the uniform or damage? It looks oddly cracked to me, and there's nothing on the other sleeve. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That might be a hat or gloves that he's holding with his right hand. I thought it might be a cuff but there's not one on his left wrist/forearm area. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like it might be either damage to the photo or a development artifact? Notice how the vertical black scratches interleave relatively seamlessly with the white part, which leads me to believe it may not be part of the underlying uniform.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Think I'm going with damage, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

For background, WP:FARGIVEN is a running list of featured articles that have been listed as possibly needing featured article review. I know FAR can be a bit of a nuisance when it comes out of the blue, especially if the article doesn't actually need featured article review. I've been trying to prune down the listing this month, and have removed several entries that are in good enough shape, and have sent a weather article to FAR that did need it. I know this is a bit of an ask, but if we could get some eyes on the MILHIST ones on the listing proactively, that would be useful. The initial concerns that led to the listing are linked to on FARGIVEN; any further discussion resulting from that can be found on the article talk page, although some of the older ones on high-volume talk pages have probably been archived by now. If a consensus forms that the article's OK, we can mark it as satisfactory for WP:URFA/2020 and remove it from the danger listing. If FAR is necessary, these can be sent there by interest editors as needed (keeping in mind that we shouldn't flood FAR so that people actually have a chance to work on these one by one if desired). Yes, that initiative is still alive and well, although it had a down year in '24, partly because I was too burned out and jaded to help with it. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I know we're all busy, especially with our own article-writing projects and the recent return of the WP:GAR process with a vengeance, but I do think there is value in this, while admitting that my own personal attention to FAR has dropped greatly in the last year and a half due to being very busy and discovering Panzer Campaigns and its cousin Civil War Battles. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash and Falaise pocket and I don't see anything major wrong with them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thule looks good enough (one source supporting half a sentence [Global Security] is not RS). Falaise Pocket has some lead issues with details like dates found in the lead but not in the rest of the article; but that is fixable and I may make an attempt to rewrite the lead myself. Hog Farm _Talk 18:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Battleship is in a rough state, but I’m planning on beating it into halfway decent shape as soon as I finish my current writing project. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

After a fair bit of work, Battleship should be in good enough condition to keep its star. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Parsecboy! I'll try to give it a quick look sometime but I have suddenly become as busy with work as I have been in months. Surrender of Japan has been taken to FAR by another editor. The Thule crash, Falaise pocket, and History of Lithuania articles have been removed from the listing by various editors. Hog Farm _talk 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good - Sturm took a first pass this morning and tidied a few things up as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with Douglas MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The notice for that one is not very specific - just a hand-wave at length. Likewise Władysław II Jagiełło and David I of Scotland appear to be minor issues. Battle of Corydon does have some more sizable issues though - source-text integrity problems which are fixable, but I also have concerns about the quality of foundational sources (Horwitz, Conway, Funk). I do own Conway and Horwitz, but if those sources aren't high-quality RS I don't know how motivated I am to rewrite the thing. Hog Farm _talk 03:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear all, a departed user has written a really pretty good (English understatement) article about the history of the US DOD space program since 1947 or so. It covers the early interservice bickering, DARPA, the expansion of satellites & ICBMs, then into the 1980s, "Star Wars," "Desert Storm as the first space war," then also covers the first three years, 2019-2022, of the new U.S. Space Force. I am doing some referencing tidying up but otherwise it is pretty good.

The only issue is that the article is called History of the United States Space Force, which it is patently not. Only the last three to five years of the article cover the debate on, and then the creation of, the Space Force. Organizationally most of the article focuses on Air Force Systems Command.

I will probably retitle it to something like "History of the DOD space program;" but I thought since it is a really good article, and this user put a lot of work into it, that I should hold back from being too WP:BOLD and seek thoughts before I do so. Any comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This is gonna sound really really bad, but maybe "History of the United States Space Force and predecessors" may work

Alternatively, "History of Space Warfare in the United States" would also work Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"The militarization of space by the United States". - \\'cԼF 03:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That sounds a bit too biased tbh Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I don't see the issue with the current title. The Space Force has only been around for the last couple of years, but its history goes back further. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Same here; I understand it is slightly misleading, but the article is discussing is the predecessors of the USSF. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think keeping the current title is correct as well. I wouldn't oppose "and predecessors" either but I think it's unnecessary to qualify that as it's inherently understood that "History of" includes predecessors. But that doesn't mean that much of that information couldn't be excerpted or repurposed for other articles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I like "History of the US military space program". The actual Space Force stuff can be split off into its own article, if desired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The use of images of rank insignia and articles about them is currently being discussed at the village pump. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I started a draft article on the Kursk front of the Russo-Ukrainian war and I'd like some help with it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I created a stub at U.S. Air Raids in Yemen because the red link appeared on the Main Page, but feel free to help expand and move to a more appropriate page title. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Was redirected to March 2025 United States attacks in Yemen. No prob, glad the red link is resolved. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RFA Mollusc whether or not the Historical RFA's website is a reliable source. This website has pages on many ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the home page states that it is supported by the RFA Association. My gut feeling is that it is reliable, given the amount of coverage of even minor vessels, such as RFA Mollusc. Further opinions welcome. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone know where I can find the bibliographic details for this book? Tillisi, Kalifa (1972). Mu'jam Ma'arik al Jihad fi Libia [A Dictionary for Italian Colonial Battles on the Libyan Soil 1911–31] (in Arabic). Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No idea if the date is wrong or if it's a different imprint but it's cited as "Kalifa Tillisi, “Mu’jam Ma’arik Al Jihad fi Libia1911-1931”, Dar Ath Thaqafa, Beirut, Lebanon, 1973" here: File:Pacification of northern Cyrenaica.jpg - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Have a look at Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam. I hope I am at the right place. The result section is not much convincing as only few weeks back, it had a different victor, and now a different one. The current version is supported by a source, from which the quote doesn't seem to establish the tyrant. Otherwise, bunch of other sources found that claims the Mughals got the capital of the Ahoms captured leading to the signing of a treaty, where the latter became a Suzerain of the former. This doesn't satisfy the result section? Somethings odd. Have a look if anyone's interested.JunkBorax (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There has been a discussion: Template talk:Infobox military conflict#What should the "belligerent" field link to? with few comments. Hoping interested parties here will speak up there. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

At least three articles: 135th Airlift Group, 175th Wing, and Maryland Air National Guard use The Maryland Air National Guard: An Operational and Organizational History, 1921-2021 as a reference. The articles link to this Etsy site: https://www.etsy.com/listing/1855370944/the-maryland-air-national-guard-an. The ISBN given in the references for this book, 979-8-9912059-0-0, is not a valid ISBN and does not refer to any actual book (see https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9798991205900 and https://ataraxic.net/isbn-tool/) Neither Google Books nor Amazon includes a listing for this book. A Google search on the title returns only the Etsy site.

Perhaps members of this project could review the articles and decide if this book meets the criteria for a reliable source. 176.108.139.1 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this it?

https://www.amazon.com/Maryland-Air-National-Guard-Commemorative/dp/B001GB6Z56/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37QQQ51PFNNPB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.glg_W_YDNorHclHAoiWtLw.WHuLOSi_O_uBRdf1ILijky3UlaGMNKPUK5_BLvZnFLA&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Maryland+Air+National+Guard%3B+A+Commemorative+History+1921-2000&qid=1742594852&sprefix=the+maryland+air+national+guard+a+commemorative+history+1921-2000%2Caps%2C113&sr=8-1

The title is off and there is no ISBN. Read the one review. It looks like a private publication.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Picture Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep - that's it 176.108.139.1 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that it probably falls short of the reliability requirement by not being "independent of the subject", as it was published by the MDANG. However, it may well have had editorial oversight due to the publisher being the MDANG and they most likely would have had someone reliable keeping an eye on the work, but the lack of independence is of concern for anything controversial or positive. Having said that, like all sources, it depends on what it is being used for, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For some matters, this might be one of the most reliable sources available because of its close focus on the subject at hand, on others, on other matters definitely not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This was promoted in October of last year. Would other experienced editor mind having a look to see what you think. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

G'day all. As quite rightly pointed out to me recently, there are a lot of MILHIST FAs that have not run on the main page. Perhaps the project should make an effort to clear some of the backlog, and at least list a few on WP:TFARP? The articles are listed here: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Warfare. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated two MILHIST articles to run in May. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As one of the TFA coordinators I am always happy to see nominations for TFA for MilHist FAs which have not yet been on the main page, whether they were promoted last week or a decade ago. The place to nominate them is here. For older ones, requesting that they run on a relevant anniversary sometimes helps. Sometimes too many is too much, so we are not likely to, for example, run a battleship every month for a year. I imagine I speak for my coordinator colleagues in all of this, but they can let me know if not. @TFA coordinators

I am currently scheduling May and have just finalised the draft schedule, which can be found here. Note that this does not mean that any of these articles are nailed on to run as TFAs, but from this point I expect few if any changes. As Hawkeye notes, he nominated two of "his" FAs and both are scheduled - a campaign history from a logistics POV and a biography. As are a war, a jet aircraft and a radar system. One of these has yet to be promoted from FAC, but should be by May. (No pressure then, eh, Borsoka?) I note that April, which I am not scheduling has four MilHist FAs scheduled to run as TFAs. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your pinging. I addressed all issues mentioned during the FAC process. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I should have clarified that I am thinking in the medium term (say beyond the next few months, thanks for the info on the next couple of months, Gog) to identify current FAs that have not been TFA and look at appropriate dates they can be nominated for. Our project has by far the most un-run TFAs, with sport and music some way behind. Some probably have draft TFA blurbs already. One area where we have a large backlog is ships, but battles and bios also have quite a few. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps if we identified a ship, a biography and a battle for each month (June to December of this year and January to June of next year), maybe not every one would end up running, but we might start working through the backlog in a systematic way? There are already a few listed at WP:TFARP. For example, in June there is already David Evans (RAAF officer) (bio), American logistics in the Northern France campaign (battle/operation), but no ship. In July, TFARP has Siege of Breteuil (battle), and Battle of Warsaw (1705) (battle), but no ship or bio. And in August there is a battle Battle of Preston (1648) and a ship Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 but no bio. Perhaps we could identify a ship for June, a ship and a bio for July and a bio for August? This might give the FAC coords preferred options, even if they didn't run them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions, with a focus on identifying an interesting hook for the TFA blurb:

June

• SMS Westfalen German WWI dreadnought battleship fought at the Battle of Jutland 31 May-1 June 1916 (Parsecboy)
  • I’ve now nominated this for 1 June per Nate’s comment about the Battle of Jutland; or
• CSS General Earl Van Dorn burned to avoid capture 26 June 1862 (Hog Farm)

July

• Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) completed 15 July 1884, not many Chilean ships are FAs (The ed17) or
• USS Saratoga (CV-3) US carrier used in the Operation Crossroads nuclear tests in July 1946 Sturmvogel 66
• Dick Cresswell Australian air force pilot and commander with many firsts, born 27 July 1920 (Ian Rose) or
• Lesley J. McNair US Army general, killed in action 25 July 1944 (Billmckern)

August

• John Bullock Clark Confederate general and politician wounded at the Battle of Wilson's Creek on 10 August 1861 (Hog Farm) or
• Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732) died 16 August 1732, also fought at the Battle of Málaga (1704) on 24 August 1704 (Pickersgill-Cunliffe)

Thoughts on the above? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have Clark at WP:TFARP for the 140th anniversary of his death in October. Hardy would work for August; Ellis Wackett (Ian Rose) is another option. Hog Farm _talk 02:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

On SMS Westfalen for June - most of my older FAs need to be revamped with Hildebrand, but I had coincidentally decided that updating them would be my next project. I can prioritize that one, though June is plenty of time. Incidentally, the ship's heaviest fighting at Jutland took place after midnight on 1 June, in which Westfalen sank 3 British destroyers, which should make for a good hook. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll trawl through mine and see what's coming up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)